Sunday, March 23, 2008

A Hungry Wolf

Disney's 20/20 television show on the Age of Consent, describes Jan Kruska's website as:

A website that compares the registries to a hungry wolf that eats the innocent people like her


Let's break that down a little shall we?

First of all, someone is hardly "innocent" if at the age of 22 they have sex with 15 year old boy's who they're supposed to be looking after. In regards to the content of Jan's website, here are some things you'll find on it, you can judge for yourself whether they just illustrate how the "registry has affected Jan's life" or something more sinister:

http://www.operationawareness.com/whats_new_18.html

...and then there is the KENT STATE UNIVERSITY STUDY which reveals some startling discoveries


Women would pay a fortune for the skin, sparkling eyes and body of a 10-year-old. This is not an effort to undermine women - shapely women will always be attractive to men. It is those with slim girl-like figures however, that receive many times more attention.


Startling indeed, Jan Kruska copy and pastes a misinterpreted version of the Hall study, what's even more startling is where she got it, Pedophile Pen Power.

Or how about these, which Jan Kruska copied and pasted from an article on the IPCE, a website which describes itself as:

Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.


http://www.operationawareness.com/index_7.html

The protection of the sexual purity of children is one of our few unquestioned moral principles. Sex education for the young focuses on the dangers of sex, and preaches abstinence...


Before the Rind report almost all scholarship in this area explicitly or implicitly endorsed the idea that children are badly hurt by sex and aren't ready for it.[6] Sexual activity involving children is routinely described with negative terms like ``abuse'' and children's purity of heart is usually assumed...


Cultural censorship in this area is strong and scholarship is closely monitored.[8] For example, I wrote an article defending child pornography as a form of speech, arguing that there was no constitutional justification for separating child and adult pornography...


An image of youth as passive in the sexual area, open to adult manipulation and unable to resist, grew up alongside of the image of the rebellious youth who would not obey adult authority in other areas. Definitions always cast the child as a victim even if s/he was a hustler or prostitute...


Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

On another article on her website, Jan Kruska titled "Murdered Children's Parents Profiled," Jan suggests that people such as John Walsh and Mark Lunsford are responsible for their children being murdered and sexually abused:

http://www.operationawareness.com/index_4.html

The common thread with all of these cases is that the parents were living less than, shall we say, good moral lifestyles.


Is this what you would describe as:

A website that compares the registries to a hungry wolf that eats the innocent people like her


Why is a company like Walt Disney, which makes children's toys and movies, defending a website which claims kids forced into child prostitution aren't victims? Let's put an end to 20/20's lies, join the boycott on Walt Disney, 20/20 and their sponsors!

Show your support, put a boycott banner on your blog/website today:






Cross-posted from Disney 20/20 Pro-Pedophillia Bias