Previous Post
Next Post

(courtesy came out with some gobsmackingly nauseating web content on Monday, the likes of which haven’t been seen since Toronto politician Rob Ford’s last drunken stupor . . .

First, staff writer Simon Maloy wrote an article critical of GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s recent position paper on firearms policy. There really isn’t much to be said about the piece; it’s a fairly boilerplate critique. What’s new in it isn’t good, and what’s good in it…well there really isn’t anything good there.

Maloy hilariously implies that the idea that “guns are necessary to prevent the government from taking away your rights” as something that “migrated” from “militia movements” and “fringe groups” to the mainstream GOP – missing the point that the idea originally migrated from the framers of the Constitution.

On the same day, published a first-person apologia for pedophiles: I’m a pedophile, but not a monster.

Actually, it’s more than that. The author calls himself a “law-abiding pedophile,” admits that he joined two pro-pedophile (a.k.a., “pro-contacter”) groups and places part of the blame for pedophilia on society: “The bile has only multiplied since then, and I believe all that hatred just serves to reinforce pedophilia in youngsters predisposed to it.”

While pedophilia shouldn’t be swept under the proverbial carpet, I find myself in agreement with a sentiment written by another writer who asks: “Was there any consideration, at all, for the issues surrounding this story, beyond its capacity to be amazing clickbait?” It’s ironic that Maloy tries to tar advocates of right to keep and bear arms with a guilt-by-association argument about “right-wing fringe groups” on the same day his employers let a member of a reviled fringe group make his accusatory case for compassion.

[Hat tip: Alex J.] [ED: the cartoon at the top of this post was not published by]

DISCLAIMER: The above is an opinion piece; it is not legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship in any sense. If you need legal advice in any matter, you are strongly urged to hire and consult your own counsel. This post is entirely my own, and does not represent the positions, opinions, or strategies of my firm or clients.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • P.S. – guns aren’t for when any Prez ‘calls up the militia’ they are for when the militia calls out the Prez. [and assorted evil blue house of liberal (D)bag minions].

      Either way, I stand with Gun-nutz (as well). Yet to meet the one caricatured, but Salon’s so broke-di<k it's a wonder they're entrusted with a crayon.

      • Well, strictly speaking, it’s Congress which is empowered by the Constitution “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions…”

        The president is then the commander in chief of those called up militiamen. So the article skipped a step in this regard, and left out other purposes of the militia, but overall they’re not as far off base as you suggest.

        • When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

          Your “clarification” presupposes that the President and Congress are acting within the confines of the Constitution. In a Post-Constitutional Republic – see above.

        • Exactly. Congress can pound sand, they’re the bulk share of the problem, after all. We the People choose when to ‘reset.’

        • DJ and Wood?

          Yes yes yes, we’re all familiar with the Declaration of Independence, a document written by revolutionaries (since they win) or criminals, terrorists and treasonists (had they lost.) At least, that’s how history judges such things

          Nevertheless, the Declaration has no force of law upon the United States since ratification of the Constitution. It informed the Framers and ratifiers’ views to some extent, as did the Federalist Papers, Paine’s pamphlets, and Cato’s Letters (not to be confused with Letters to Cleo.) However, not every Framer agreed with it and not every Founder even became a Framer. Framers win here because they wrote the Constitution, which is the law of the land.

          Even those Founders who became Framers didn’t necessarily agree with every element if the Declaration. See that there is no provision for departing the Union. The proof? Glad you asked! Look at the results of various rebellions and insurrections of the era.

          Shay’s Rebellion? Well, Tommy J. looked on it fondly, from the safety of France, and because he thought it not too serious. George Washington saw it precisely as it was: evidence for a STRONGER governing document than that flimsy Articles of Confederation. Shay’s Rebellion, basically an anti-tax rebellion, was put down by a called-up militia.

          Look also to the Paper Money Riot of New Hampshire. Basically, indebted farmers wanted an unaccommodating NH to issue currency, inflating the money supply, and allowing them to pay off their debts. That didn’t happen, so the farmers armed and rebelled. The NH governor called up the militia to shut it down and succeeded. Both insurgent events hastened the pursuit of that Constitution, which does not look fondly on impromptu and unilateral rebellions; in part specifically to put down such rebellions in the future. Proof of that? Gladly.

          Look as well to the Whiskey Insurrection. Western frontier farmers, many of them Revolutionary War veterans, routinely distilled crops into whiskey; so much so that it was a store of value, a currency of sorts. These people lived in territories, not states, but the government imposed a tax on whisky. “No taxation without representation!” Hmm……….where’ve I read that before? Hmm? Ahh yes, the Declaration of Independence! Well, The original President George W. invoked the Militia Act of 1792, raised a force of over 10,000 militiamen from several states, then personally led them to put down that insurrection.

          Then there was the Home Tax Rebellion. Congress imposed a $2 million tax to fund a military build-up. Part of the tax was apportioned on the basis of how many windows one’s house had! People didn’t want to pay. Yada yada yada……..another armed rebellion, another armed rebellion put down by…..wait for it……..a raised militia.
          Need I even mention the events of 1860-1865? The Dec. of Ind. is great. I love it, too, but you’re mistaken to believe that it grants anyone and everyone legal carte blanch, in 2015 America, to wage revolution. If you do, you better hope to Hell you win that revolution.

        • We all know the winners write the history the way they want. The great thing about the Declaration of Independence is that it is timeless. It can be reissued without revision to the current tyranny. The People have not lost the right, nor been relieved of the duty, to overthrow tyranny and start over. One way or another it’s a given. This country will not stand. None ever have.

        • Jonathan – Houston,

          The right to revolution, of which the Declaration speaks, is not a right to secede from the union according to Constitutional procedures. It is a right of the people to “alter or abolish” the current government, in favor of whatever “shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

          The point being, it’s silly to go looking for the part of a national constitution that allows for revolution. Why would you expect to find that? It’s no proof that the Framers no longer believed in revolution. You can establish a regime, yet still believe the people have a right to throw off said regime by extra-legal means. (And extra-legal means it won’t be found in any constitution.)

        • Actually, SM, the Dec. starts out declaring “….it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS which have CONNECTED them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the SEPARATE AND EQUAL station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” [Emphasis added]

          Soooo…..dissolving bands……..that means seceding from what was before and what remains a separate and equal entity in coexistence with the new entity. The Dec. of Ind. is NOT primarily about revolution, as you claim. I’m not even immediately convinced its about revolution, at all. After all, nowhere in it do they write of sailing for England and casting out the Crown. They’re declaring independence, via rebellion and secession, from England, not claiming a right to rule England themselves. In other words, the words of the Declaration, what’s being altered or abolished, is that government’s right to rule over them, not their right to revolt and assume control of that government. Big difference.

          As for seeking or not justification for rebellion within in the Constitution, well, that was somebody else’s point, not mine. My point was exactly the opposite in refutation of theirs, that both the Constitution and the history of the exercise of power prior to and under its adoption declaim against a right to rebel. If the “right to rebel” sounds silly, then take it up with the responders to my post who made and seconded that point, not me.

          Although, you’d be hard pressed to make a stronger counterpoint to theirs than I already have. After all, you couldn’t even adequately follow the progression of points thus far, let alone their content. Your surpassing their substance surely surpasses you.

        • The president would be commander in chief to those who RESPOND to congress’ appeal. As of today, I would not be one, I suspect there would be few who subjected themselves to command by that jackwad.

        • Right to revolution is not the same thing as a right to insurrection. Insurrections are a danger to the republic, and the government is right to call out the militia to stop them. They are not just started by the people of the nation, but could be by groups such as fascists, communists, radical Muslims, etc…the militia is to protect against such acts of insurrection, along with resistance to a tyranny or a foreign invasion.

      • Was not shooting for Constitutionally accurate, but yes, I stand corrected.

        It is not safe to constantly throw around such terms in jest, for fear someone might take them as doctrine rather than dicta.

        • You’re right, Joe. When the government becomes intolerably lawless, a period now likely to be compressed by modernity’s acceleration of ambitions, communications, and consequences of actions, founding documents and their earlier influences may well reclaim their precedence over legal documents like the Constitution.

    • Yep. Many Progressives fight to murder our unborn children and those children that do survive the womb, many want them to be used as sexual objects.

      The only thing many progressives want “for the children” is dead or as sex toys.

    • Did you actually read the article on pedophilia? The writer points out that there are pedophiles out there who 1) are well aware that it is a bad thing, and 2) are open about it [to the extent it is possible in our society] and keep themselves in check.

  1. Just proves a point — That Criminals hate Guns and are in favor of lots of gun control so that a child’s father or mother doesn’t shoot his Pedophile A$$
    And most criminals would jump for joy if guns were taken away so that they could commit crimes more easily without fear of being shot .

    • That’s why the criminals in government want us to not have guns, just as the criminals in the street desire the same.

      Predators always want their prey to be defenseless.

      • Apparently, muslims in general are predisposed to pedophilia and gang rape, often at the same time, as a cultural thing for a thousand years. Maybe 10,000, if it is Arab rather than muslim, who knows, but this is not news to much of anyone. The way to straighten them up is to force them to accept Catholicism or kill them, right? Worked so well in Vietnam, forcing our mores on strangers, whose laws are none of our business. Better we say “sorry, due to your stone age attitudes, you are on your own in fighting those looney tunes, we are outta here!” Then do NOT accept “refugees”!

      • There was a time when people could be imprisoned for homosexuality. That’s incompatible with a free society, and needed to end (though it still occurs in other parts of the world, but I digress). But. like most originally legit movements, this has been hijacked to be used as a weapon against Western society (I would imagine that most gay Americans are horrified at what is being done to Christians in their name, for example). Not to insinuate that gay people are anything like pedophiles, but it was inevitable that the leftists would push on past legitimate rights issues to push genuine depravity.

  2. I read the article yesterday, albeit quickly, and it sounded like the author had renounced NAMBLA and the like. If he hasn’t ever molested anyone then he may indeed not be a monster but rather just a tragically flawed guy. Of course, we can’t really know what the case is.
    Simon Maloy, on the other hand, is certainly a dick.

    • Regardless of the intent of the author of the pedophilia article, what does it say about your publication that it makes space for a sympathetic portrayal of those people, while it devotes plenty of other space toward savaging people who simply want access to the means to defend themselves as guaranteed by our Constitution, and otherwise wish to be left alone?

      • I agree that Maloy’s article was built on non-sequitor and hyperbole and was quite unethical. For some reason I don’t link the publishing of the two articles though.

      • Frankly, that article made me sick. It is shameful to print something like that. What’s next? – A call for compassion for the Nazi’s and blaming society for the victims of the Holocaust? This crap is corrosive to our society.

        • In what way is it comparable to Nazis? The author, if we take him on his word, have never actually abused or molested anyone. What problems he has, exist solely in his head, and he acknowledges them as such, is open about them, and is willing to control himself. What more, he points out that he himself was abused as a child, likely leading to his condition.

          So yes, he is a mentally ill person and a victim. Why is it shameful to point that out?

  3. “No comments allowed, of course.”

    Hrmm – I went to the article earlier in the day and they had plenty of comments, some derogatory, some supportive of the author.

    Just went back again after reading here and looks like all the comments have been taken down. So much for free discourse at…

  4. Another reason to be armed. The irrational hatred from emotionally immature adults like those at Salon, Slate, PuffPo, and the like is real and it will manifest itself in actual violence eventually. Hell, most these groups are already openly calling for violence against those with an opposing view point.

  5. A pedophile is a cull. Do you know what a cull is? A cull is a specimen that is so worthless that you have to cut him out of the herd. Now if all the people in the world were put in one herd, this pedophile is the one I would throw a rope at.

    Courtesy to Mr. McClintock.

  6. When did hatred become a LIberal value? I’m not sure exactly, but it has certainly crept into the Liberal mindset in the last decade or two.

    • The sort of rage towards gun owners we see in this comic is not the sort of rage that can be turned off like a lightswitch or a mass gun turnin/confiscation.

    • You’re behind the curve, Doc–no one is more hateful than a dedicated liberal, and that has been the case for a lot more than a couple of decades. The elites hate the hoi polloi that dare to believe in personal responsibility in any of various forms, and the rank-and-file hate anyone who is better off than they are in any of several ways. Liberals are like the proverbial Russian peasant whose neighbor manages to buy a cow, starts selling the milk, and becomes relatively prosperous. When a genie appears to the peasant and gives him a wish, instead of wishing for his own ticket to prosperity he asks the genie to “kill Ivan’s cow’.

      • ” Liberals are like the proverbial Russian peasant whose neighbor manages to buy a cow, starts selling the milk, and becomes relatively prosperous. When a genie appears to the peasant and gives him a wish, instead of wishing for his own ticket to prosperity he asks the genie to “kill Ivan’s cow’.”


        I’m passing that one along…

    • No. The fight is definitely on. But the alternative is for Institutions (Yes, I mean the Catholic Church) to systematically allow the rape and abuse of children by those who are sworn to serve God and their fellow man. I’d rather it be all out in the open so we know where the evil really is and can deal with it appropriately.

      • Well yes, the Catholic Church did lose a great deal of moral authority over that, but the Pope is not the grand arbiter of morality. Normalizing behavior that was previously considered deviant leads to sympathy for the abusers and light sentences so they can get back out on the streets to continue their crimes. I’m fine with the normalization of homosexuality. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, just as my opinions of sexual perversion are none of theirs. However the same people who are most fervent about taking away your guns are the same people pushing for the elimination of morals in our society. They stand in judgement against me for crimes I’ve never committed while sympathizing with pedophiles.

  7. If all the pedos were to suddenly drop dead, Washington DC would be a ghost town and Saloon would have no writers. And, may I add, the fact that pedos have not dropped dead en masse is a fine reason to carry.

  8. Wow. Just, wow. Replace “pedo” with “gun nut” in that rationalizing monster’s screed and I believe you have the agenda, right there.

  9. These are the same folks that will defend killing fetuses to their last breath, but will openly call for the death of legal hunters in Africa who harvest non-endangered species such as Elephants and Giraffes in countries that have overpopulations of them.

    Go figure. Every day is backwards day, huh?

    • Can we spare the elephants, please? They’re highly intelligent, and mourn their dead. And that puts them several orders of being above the slimebag. author.

  10. If you go back to the link, they’re now allowing comments. So with this platform up and open, there are now several other sickkos coming out of the closet. Matter of fact, they’re not just regular Joe Sickkos either….they’re the moderators of different pedophilia related forums. I feel the need to throw up now…

  11. Yuck…nothing lower than a child molester. And woe to you who call good evil and evil good. OH yeah +1000000 Gov….”lifestyle choice”.

  12. I hate to day, but I doubt many commenters here have actually read the article. The author is very clear about being a “pedophile” not a “child molester”. He also says he has never actually harmed a child’. If we are to take him at face value, then there is a disturbing conflation between that concept–having an ability you do not take advantage of because it is wrong–and the left’s claim that all gun owners are simply waiting for the opportunity to kill people, except for maybe their self restraint. Everybody’s free to hate, but we operate in a world where thought is at least free. If the man has taken no action toward fulfilling his urges, he should not be hung in the court of public opinion. No pre-crime here, guys. It is only after people lose control of yhemselves and cause harm that the problems start.

    • “If we are to take him at face value,”

      That’s pretty funny considering it was published at salon. Do you really want to take anything published there at face value?

    • “No pre-crime here, guys. It is only after people lose control of yhemselves and cause harm that the problems start.”



      They’re quite happy (and pious about it, to boot) to condemn us for pre-crime for just being a gun owner.

      What’s good for the goose, etc.

  13. Who actually reads this Salon rag ? What is their circulation ? Because it looks like something I would never even think about buying or reading. Do they actually get advertisers to support them ? And if so, who ?

  14. Forget the “pedophilia” con job. This is NOT about a bunch of sickos guys that like their females unlawfully/amorally young. That BS is the song/spin of the sodomy lobby. It’s not about, the even more rare, incident of a female (teacher) with an unlawfully/amorally young boy.

    It’s PEDARASTY. The queer lobby has successfully suppressed even the word. Its NAMBLA, it’s part and parcel of “normalized” mainstream middleastern Islam of a thousand years (as Not just Pakistan. It’s the horrific aggressive homosexual ritual abuse of young boys. Recruiting for the degenerate team, self gratification, or just a degenerate power trip. There is NO place for it in the civilized world.

    Need to stop with the PC dancing around. PEDARASTY. SODOMY That’s the “gay lobby”

  15. Even prison society thinks pedophiles are the lowest of the low,if they put a pedophile in the general population of any prison,they won’t last five minutes,I’m surprised that the liberals don’t have a terrorist organization called #PEDOPHILELIVESMATTER

  16. The author of the article is a pedophile that used to post on a site called A supposed legal site for pedophile support. There they claim that adult and child screwing is just socially bad but not really bad. That it is just our culture and because we tell kids it is bad. Ooooooooooooooooooooookay. Loony enough. He felt that they were wrong after a while and left to a site of pedophiles who feel that acting out their attractions is not possible and essentially they realize they have a real sickness.

    It was actually a good article. The response by that SJW loon was idiotic.

    Salon just is crap in general. Especially where gun rights are concerned. But that pedophile article was very good.

    • Agreed. As long as the marked difference between thinking something but not doing something isn’t crossed…sick as the thoughts may be.

    • He can have the thoughts all he wants, just as long as he doesn’t act on them.

      The problem is though, most pedophiles do eventually act on them in some way. The pornography he would desire would be illegal to possess, and would require the victimization of a child to produce. I find it implausible that he doesn’t have some, since he obviously can’t have the real thing. Thats of course assuming he was telling the truth about never having contact with a child. Of course he’s going to lie if he did, otherwise he’d be in jail.

      The simple solution to people like him is treatment. He has a mental disorder that requires treatment. If it can be accomplished as outpatient, that’s good, and assuming he’s been telling the truth, he could be treated that way. If not, then confinement to a mental hospital would be required to ensure the safety of children.

      • The problem is that treatment requires the society to acknowledge this as a disease and treat it as such, but there’s such a massive stigma associated with it that no pedophile in their sane mind would think of broaching the subject to their doctor (and what’s worse, in some places the doctor is required to report them, and if diagnosis is confirmed they automatically end up on the sex offender or equivalent list, with all that entails).

        So they hide it and let it stew inside, untreated. No surprise so many of them snap.

  17. This is why I personally no longer believe in trying to engage leftists. The same sneering, ill-informed metrosexual who wants to deny your God given rights will in the next breath defend pedophilia, or the ‘courage’ of Bruce Jenner. Universally able to bring you up to speed on any number of Kardashians, they become a doe in the headlights at the mention of a name like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. They have the media and the remains of Hollywood and other than that they’re loud, but there are still more of us.

  18. I love how the neo-liberal intelligentsia always proclaim that only LEOs and military should be armed, until they call for disarmament of cops due to perceived mass killings of minorities, or don’t think servicemembers should be armed to protect themselves on their own time or when doing recruitment duty.

  19. I got the answer, number 3 is the only group where a majority have more than bare minimum training with side arms.

    Or the answer is number 2 if the question is which group is most likely to have subpar long gun skills.

  20. The NAMBLA group marches in homosexual pride parades. Most of these people are anti-liberty, anti-gun civil rights. But they are pro great sex!!!!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here