This baseless smear has been debunked over and over again.

Back to the drawing board.

Is there a good reason why you aren't quoting the exact "praise" that you claim Jennings had for Harry Hay?

I for one would like to see exactly what he said. Wouldn't you?

None of the links you have show the "praise" either.

Why aren't you showing readers exactly what Jennings said about Hay?

Stevie, even George STephonopolis admits he did praise Hay. I am curious? Do people feed and cloth you? Are you that inadequate to do things yourself? Again, you have proved how udderly juvenile. Don't talk about the substance, just the delivery system. You putz.

This guy has some explaining to do. Unless the liberals are for child rape. Are you STeve? ww

If you followed the links and watched the video you already know that one issue is the book Jennings edited, a book on gay history for high school students. In the 17 chapter book, only two chapters were devoted to individuals. One of those was about Hay. You know this already if you watched the video.

Jennings' book features references to a book in which Hay and his NAMBLA association is given sympathetic treatment. In other words, if it is not already clear, Jennings' book pointed high school students to a book in which Hay was shown as a sympathetic figure. Jennings does not mention the NAMBLA association but the book pointed to does. I don't think anyone writing/editing high school textbooks should be pointing high school kids to see anyone who associated with NAMBLA as a hero. If Jennings did not mean to set Hay up as a positive leader then he should have given those reading the book the entire scoop on Hay and his NAMBLA connection.

That evidently doesn't bother some people, but it does me. The other issue is a speech in which Jennings says he admired Hay. Even Media Matters who regularly lies to their readers (as I showed here) admitted that Jennings said he admired Hay. They just argue that since Jennings did not mention NAMBLA that it doesn't matter if Hay had a connection to them.

Someone (I think at Media Matters) compared it to someone who could admire George Washington even though he had slaves. I would argue that most students are told about Washington and slavery in their textbooks, but Jennings didn't feel the need to disclose the whole truth on Hay.

Whether you think Jennings' admiration for Hay is an issue or not, Hamer's undercover work is fascinating and worth checking out.

"Whether you think Jennings' admiration for Hay is an issue or not..."

You haven't shown that Jennings has an admiration for Hay. You claimed he praised Hay - but you can actually show that was the case - you can't even paraphrase what was said much less quote it -and yet this "issue" is the crux of your article.

Jennings' book features references to a book in which Hay and his NAMBLA association is given sympathetic treatment."

Let me get this straight -

1. Jennings referenced a book.

2. The book referenced by Jennings gives sympathetic treatment to Hay.

3. Therefore Jennings praised Hay.

You're kidding, right?

No wonder you can't quote Jennings "praise of Harry Hay" - it never happened. It's a mistruth - a false claim. A lie.

If my research is correct I now understand why you are refusing to quote Jennings exact words.

As near as I can tell, what Jennings said is that Hay is "a pioneer in the gay rights movement". That's a statement of fact, and hardly praise.

I can say Hitler was a pioneer in the fascist movement -that doesn't mean Im praising him.

Tell me I'm wrong - tell me Jennings actually did say something else in praise.

If I am lying for saying Jennings said he admired Hay then go tell Media Matters and all the lefties who are admitting he said that in a 1997 speech that they are engaging in a "mistruth - a false claim. A lie," too. You can do a simple Google search and find it. Or you can just call me a liar, but when you do that, everyone else who does bother to take the 15 seconds to find it or who have already seen and read it elsewhere know that you are willfully ignorant.

Oh, heck, you won't take one second to find it, much less 15 so I'll make it easy for you. I'll post the link and quote in the post as an update.

I'll post the link and quote in the post as an update."

Great -A link to the quote where Jennings "praised" Hay is appreciated. The only quote I'm finding is where Jennings called Hay a pioneer.

Linking to someone else who uses that same quote - that Hay is a pioneer - does not constitute "praise."

Sorry it took me a while to post it, but I had to make sure Wizards of Waverly Place was set to record on DVR for my girls. I posted the part from the speech where Jennings praises Hay and says he inspired him. If you read that paragraph and don't consider it praise then you and I have a different definition.

And you know if you had followed the link to Noisy Room you could have found the same link to the ZombieTime post that I did. I did the work for you, Lazybones. You're welcome.

Now for some family time. Ghost Whisperer, Monk and Psych then Wizards on DVR. This is my kids' favorite tv night.

More research - You claim Media Matters backs you up on tis, but that appears to be another mistruth.

Media Matters refers to this as a smear, and doesn't support you on this in the least.

Truth: Jennings Admired Harry Hay For Founding The First Gay Rights Group... That's It...

During A Conference In 1997, Jennings Praised Harry Hay For Founding America's First Gay Rights Organization. According to the anti-gay "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, while speaking at a conference in 1997 GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings said: "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual "rights" group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before."

Glad to hear you have a quote coming where Jennings actually praises Hay, rather than just refers to him as a pioneer for founding "the Mattachine Society".

Maybe you can find a connection to Jennings praising Hay in the NAMBLA context in which this smear is directed?

Maybe not.

I see the update - and it's just as I said.

Obviously you cannot connect Jennings to NAMBLA - or show anywhere that Jennings admired Hay in the context of his support or NAMBLA.

Nice try though - for a Friday drive-by smear.

Hey Stevie,

stevies comment #2: where's the quote?

Lories update #2: "Quote"

stevies comment #10: hastily moves the goalposts.

So little stevie, this is why no one here takes you seriously. Maybe some day you'll grow up and have an honest discussion. No go sit in the corner and think about it.

rascist stevie has transformed into pedo stevie.

You don't have the goods on this one. Sorry. Any idea on who the next 2-minutes-of-hate target will be?

"You don't have the goods on this one"

ever notice when Stevie disappears, jp2 arrives?

Ha!!! Hilarious. I don't even think Steve realizes how desperate he sounds when he calls me a liar for saying Jennings admired or praised Hay. Then when I prove it, with Jennings' own words, he lies and claims I said something I never said. What a lame-o commenter. I sure hope this is not one of those Eric Holder is paying with taxpayer dollars.

Hey Steve, I never said "Jennings admired Hay in the context of his support or NAMBLA." (I assume that was supposed to be "for" not "or.")

I said he admired and praised Hay and that his book quoted and directed high school kids to read a book about Hay that prominently included mention of his NAMBLA connection. But you know that and you know that I provided evidence of both. Don't you realize that when you refuse to acknowledge something everyone else in the world who can read can plainly see that it makes you look either too stupid to comprehend or too out of touch with reality to accept? Maybe you hope others reading will be too lazy or stupid to check and will believe you. Maybe they are that stupid at Media Matters or DU or Kos, but not here. That's why they don't allow comments from conservatives on their sites. They can't handle the truth.

Funny how these people seem to defend the indefensible. Steve, are you a member in good standing of NAMBLA? Or are you a victim in denial?

Lorie, do you teach your children to call people stupid? Would they approve of that language?

jp2, don't you have a douchebagger protest to go to somewhere?

I'd say Steve Greenys jp2 got spanked pretty harsh.

s green - "No wonder you can't quote Jennings "praise of Harry Hay" - it never happened. It's a mistruth - a false claim. A lie."

How appropriate, you call someone out as a liar, and promptly get your ass handed to you on a platter.

Do you not possess the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity to search for the quotes you "demanded" prior to calling someone a liar?

ore blather from s green - "As near as I can tell, what Jennings said is that Hay is "a pioneer in the gay rights movement". That's a statement of fact, and hardly praise."

Been hanging around media matters haven't you?

They are very proud of that "debunking," even more so in noting no obituaries listing Hay's death noted NAMBLA.

Well gee, what self-respecting paper would note an organization that promotes gay sex with minors.

sg, if not mentioned before but, you're a nitwit.

Actually, I suspect it's a term he's heard many times before, if not his entire life. Same thing for Adrienne, jp2, SAUD and the other flagellants that squat here.

This shameful, baseless, weird, moldy, anachronistic, smear exposed:

mediamatters.org/research/200910050018

It's happened before:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/04/01/cnn-reporter-michael-ware-heck.php

Lorrie,

We have seen some people here defend a man giving drugs, and alcohol
to a 13 year old girl (hey but he did not give her a cigarette ) he then proceeded to rape and sodomize her against her will.
Therefore they would never see any thing wrong with Jennings.

The left continually tries to parse words and distract. They do not possess or have even tried to be intellectually honest. The whole time the lefty's don't even know they are actually defending a man that is very much for mature men raping your boys. That is how far their ideological hate goes. ww

*BIZARRE AND SHAMEFUL SMEAR ALERT*

The former student at the center of the Fox News/freerepublic fueled Jennings controversy has provided the following statement:

'Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine. However, since the Republican noise machine is so concerned about my "well-being" and that of America's students, they'll be relieved to know that I was not "inducted" into homosexuality, assaulted, raped, or sold into sexual slavery.

In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence. I find it regrettable that the people who have the compassion and integrity to protect our nation's students are themselves in need of protection from homophobic smear attacks. Were it not for Mr. Jennings' courage and concern for my well-being at that time in my life, I doubt I'd be the proud gay man that I am today.'

The commenter giving "Brewster's" comment about Jennings, tells us only one thing - he didn't pick up a man in a bus station bathroom. It was Jennings himself who gave that "impression," although specifically not stated as such. It was Jennings who said Brewster was 15, and Jennings who continued to talk about Brewster.

Jennings, as you point out in your post, Lorie, said he was "inspired" by Hay - and that inspiration was due to Hay's tenancity about protecting the gay community, and his promoting of it.

Hay was the pioneer. Jennings had to know about Hay's background because he knew that Hay had been relentless - it inspired Jennings. Jennings knew that Hay marched, and it is naive to think he did not know that Hay marched on behalf of NAMBLA.

Jennings compared the mission of GLSEN to Harry Hay's.

"Praise," "admiration" and "inspiration" are much the same thing unless someone is "inspired" by someone to do exactly the opposite, due to the the other person's action.

That's nice Adrian. So now that you've veered off into what the student in question has said, which I won't even argue, please explain to us why Jennings repeatedly referred to the student as a fifteen year-old and that the only concern he had was whether the kid used a condom.

Either Jennings deliberately lied about the student's age and thought his audience would be favorably receptive to that information or he truthfully thought the student was fifteen, and NOT of the age of consent and was okay with it.

Either scenario is not to his credit.

Byrd: "Hey Steve, I never said "Jennings admired Hay in the context of his support or NAMBLA."

Your use of quotes is disingenuous because I never said you wrote those exact words. It's strawman - you claim you never said something that I never said you said...

What you did attempt to do was link Jennings to NAMBLA.

For example, the headline:

The Safe School Czar, Harry Hay and NAMBLA

There is absolutely no link between Jennings and NAMBLA, but your headline states there is.

You repeated this attempt to smear Jennings with NAMBLA again at the end of paragraph 1:

Here is an excerpt of what Bob had to say about Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay and NAMBLA:

Paragraph 4:

See more about Kevin Jennings, Harry Hay and NAMBLA in a video from Scott Baker.

You repeatedly attempt to create a context that ties Jennings to NAMBLA. Surely you're not going to lie and claim that wasn't your intent - you're just relying on the illiteracy of most of your readers to not see this for what it is - a transparent smear attempt.

And the question remains whether you are honest enough to admit that there is no ties whatsoever between Jennings and NAMBLA.

Signs point to "No".

The Mattachine Society was a group of people formed in 1950 to explore why homosexuals are treated like second class citizens. In 2009, an imaginary connection to this group is used (apparently without embarrassment) to treat someone like a second class citizen.

Fun fact:

One of the scariest members of The Mattachine Society: Will Geer (better known as Grampa Walton).

Byrd appears to be in lockstep with the right wing liars who are actively promoting a smear campaign against Jennings by falsely attempting to link him with NAMBLA, as

I can't understand why an organization of that type isn't an illegal enterprise. It encourages serious felony criminal conduct.

I'd prefer to have the Neo-cons in charge of things rather than the Nambla-libs.

What about you, Mr. and Mrs. average American voter?

ab - "'Since I was of legal consent at the time, the fifteen-minute conversation I had with Mr. Jennings twenty-one years ago is of nobody's concern but his and mine."

Nice try dickwad, now find me a quote by jennings where he claims the kid was at or over the age of consent.

Fact is jennings thought and believed the kid was 15 a year below the age of consent.

Marc,

What does it matter how old Mr. Jennings thought that the kid was? The boy had sex with no one at that time AND he WAS of legal age if he had wanted to . . . but there was no sex involved.

Sorry, but there just aren't any panties here for you to sniff.

I'll check back for Lorie Byrd's forthcoming apology to Mr. Jennings.

For those who did not follow the links, Media Matters does not dispute that Jennings said he admired Hay, but just say that the NAMBLA connection is not fair. It is not hard to find, but evidently some had trouble and accused me of making that up.

Stupid is not a nice word, but it is also not nice to accuse me repeatedly of lying, especially when I have repeatedly provided proof that what I said was true. When the proof is there for all to see, it just seems stupid to me to deny something that is in front of everyone's faces. Just my two cents.

ab - "What does it matter how old Mr. Jennings thought that the kid was? The boy had sex with no one at that time AND he WAS of legal age if he had wanted to"

Well that confirms my suspicions, you are dumb as a box of corn flakes.

This asshole jennings, yes I called him an asshole, thought for all the world the kid was 15 and not of legal age, yet the dimbulb did NOTHING.

AB,
It matters what Jennings said. The version of events that said a 15 year old met an older man in a public restroom, was sodomized and advised to use a condom by Jennings entered the public debate because Jennings is the one that told us this. This means that Jennings is either a liar, an idiot, delusional or some combination of all three. No matter how you divide that pie (no black cherry jokes, please) Jennings still saw nothing wrong with a 15 year old boy hooking up with an adult in a public restroom.

Maggie: "Jennings had to know about Hay's background because he
knew that Hay had been relentless - it inspired Jennings. Jennings knew
that Hay marched, and it is naive to think he did not know that Hay marched
on behalf of NAMBLA."

I may have already pointed this out, but another reason Jennings should have known about the NAMBLA connection is that the book he worked on pointed students to read the Hays biography that included the info about NAMBLA. If he had not read that Hays biography he should not have been pointing high school students to it.

Re the question about why NAMBLA is not considered a criminal enterprise, you really should read Bob's book. That is an interesting point he addresses in it. In short, NAMBLA is very careful with their words especially in any material that is accessible to the public.

Steve Green,
My original career path, before I found my calling in the utility industry, was as an english teacher. Yes, repeat readers, mock my typing skills and lazy grammar at will!

Let me help you understand:
The Safe School Czar(1), Harry Hay(2) and NAMBLA(3)

1 is linked to 2. 2 is linked to 3.
And if you read the post and the linked pages, you would know that 1 knew that 2 was linked to 3.

So you are deflecting why? Reflex for your team? And if so, which team (pedophiles or socialist democrats)? Or just ignorance and the need to be contrary?

Who else will OBAMA have in his cabnet DR ZINN,MEGATRON,COBRA COMMANDER,DESTRO,THE BARRONESS,DICK DASARDLY & MUTLEY?

Somebody please close the closet door! Im having a hard enough time keepin track of the pretty lookin women!!

"What does it matter how old Mr. Jennings thought that the kid was? The boy had sex with no one at that time AND he WAS of legal age if he had wanted to . . . but there was no sex involved."

It matters because it's JENNINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. Your attempt to obfuscate by changing the focus is patently obvious.

And let me spell it out more clearly for you:

1. Jennings either lied about sex occurring or believed the boy had sex with an older man because his response was that HE HOPED A CONDOM WAS BEING USED.

2. Jennings either lied that the boy was 15 or he believed the boy was 15. Either way, age 15 IS UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT.

It's not even about what really occurred, although it sure made things a bit more interesting to find that Jennings has been lying all this time. It's about what Jennings was promoting.

"I'll check back for Lorie Byrd's forthcoming apology to Mr. Jennings."

And we look forward to your apology for be purposefully obtuse.

I saw a tv show last week about this. It wasn't as exciting as your writing.