« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

So Ron Johnson would deny child RAPE victims a day in Court?….

By: JadedByPolitics (Diary)  |  June 23rd, 2010 at 08:36 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Sexual abuse of children is the MOST heinous of crimes in a civil society.  Children like animals are filled with the pure joy of innocence and loving without condition those whose care they are placed in.  It is a damnable indictment of a person in power of a child to RIP the very soul of that child out through the unspeakable horror of sexual abuse.  These sweet and innocent children are then no longer innocent.  They are trapped in the horror of their experience for the rest of their lives, for all intents and purposes they are DEAD.  Their beautiful souls are destroyed and trust is forever broken.  It is no secret (anymore) that pedophilia Priests have created immense damage over the decades to many, many children and it is no secret they would like it all to be swept under the carpet and to not have to accept both blame and responsibility.  I believe if they truly were ashamed of these acts they would condemn in no uncertain terms the abuse.  They have chosen in many instances to just “settle” out of Court instead of having to speak the horrors in public.  I believe that public proclamation of wrong doings is the ONLY acceptable end to this long and tiring nightmare.

While there is not much known about the candidate for Senate on the Republican side in WI, Ron Johnson, there is ONE very shameful and disgusting thing that rises to the top of contemptible behavior for this Conservative.  Ron Johnson in his gig as a part of the Green Bay Diocese’s Finance Council <WHY? lobbied the legislature to stop a bill that would have allowed the length of time for a victim of sexual abuse to sue the Church and as well opened a three year window for older abuse cases.  I am sure that WE would all not want a free for all against the Church especially with people who would scam the situation however I for one believe that each child victim should have their day in Court.  There are too many children who NEVER want to speak the horror that has consumed their lives and they should have a chance to be heard when they break free.  I believe quite like murder that child sexual abuse should have NO STATUE OF LIMITATIONS.  If you don’t believe those children have been killed well you just are not being honest.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • namaste

    Good thing he was endorsed before we found out who he was, hah? Besides this topic, I’m finding out other things about Johnson that just aren’t sitting well.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      You and I are both on the record that this endorsement was a rush to favorable judgement.

      • pilgrim

        You remind me of an old time pol, Abner Mikva, who moved from Wisconsin to Chicago. He saw a Chicago Precinct Chairman was holding a meeting, and he walked in to offer himself in support of Adlai Stevenson.
        The chairman asked him who sent you? Abner said nobody, and then the chairman told him we don’t want nobody that nobody sent.
        So while the Wisconsin GOP convention may have rushed to judge, I don’t want them to be like Chicago\ either.

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    Not from the church, but evil is evil……..

    A Sydney disc jockey has denied he is the man depicted sexually abusing children in 21 DVDs.

    Who ya gonna believe…… Him or your lyin’ eyes ?

    If he’s guilty, I say we extradite him here – to the Gulf – plug the hole.

  • stigmo

    First and foremost, I’m a Westlake man, but there are some egregious omissions here.

    Yes it is true that this bill would have removed the statute of limitations. But it was carefully designed to bankrupt churches. In addition to removing the statute of limitations, this bill allowed victims to sue the organization with which a perpetrator was associated–meaning that churches, daycare centers, schools, camps, etc. could be bankrupted by lawsuits because of crimes committed by an employee 50 years ago.

    There’s a reason why virtually every socially conservative lawmaker and interest group opposed this bill.

  • SIConservative

    Yes, there were sex crimes committed and those responsible should pay the penalty. That said, people coming out decades later to hop on the bandwagon either for the opportunity to smear the Church or to get in on settlements are taken at their word almost automatically. Their accusations make front page news for a week or more, and in the cases in which priests are exonerated and lies are exposed, almost no attention is paid. Accusations are equated with convictions, so it is useless for the Church to defend herself against those which are false. That is, among others, a major reason that the Church has settled so many cases.

    Statutes of limitations exist precisely to prevent such baseless accusations. While we can debate how long those statutes of limitations should be, there is no reason to take someone who makes a three decades old allegation seriously. The severity of the crime doesn’t change the reasons for the limited time. Investigation of such incidents is extremely difficult if not impossible. Reasonable questions exist as to why the accusations weren’t made sooner and what ulterior motives the accusers may have. Rather than choose to address the reasons for statutes of limitations, you ignore them so as to smear Johnson. I’d expect that from a lefty attacking a Republican for wanting to cut government programs because we can’t afford them, speaking only of the good the program does rather than whether we can afford it or whether it’s constitutional, but not from a diarist here.

    • JadedByPolitics

      the HORROR until later in their life is the exact reason why their should NOT be a statue of limitations. You come from the area of they are “liars” and I come from the area that they damn well DESERVE their day in Court in front of a group of PEERS, that is what America is ALL ABOUT!

      I could smear this stick in the mud loser of a candidate all day long and btw that is what primaries are for. You like your guy? then do a diary on how wonderful he is and do NOT attack my on point, FACTUAL diary!

      That bill had BI-PARTISAN support btw, you can say what you like but you can not dispute FACTS, that is what the left does!

      • Martin Knight

        This is obviously an emotional issue for you (and everyone) because it involves innocent children … that’s precisely the reason why liberals like to use “for the children” to push their programs. And that is precisely why such issues need to be examined dispassionately.

        I’ve seen and heard of too many cases where innocent people have been destroyed by accusations of abuse from so many years back that all that is left is a he-said/she-said situation, not to mention false charges. This is not to diminish the odiousness of the crime of child sexual abuse but it was obvious the bill was horribly flawed and weighted in favor of the accuser to the detriment of the accused getting a fair trial.

        Worse, it opened the door to have organizations put in the dock for crimes they’re completely in the dark about until years later. To my mind, as a member of a church’s finance council his position (which was shared by most of WI’s conservatives) is a reasonable one.

        The CAPS notwithstanding, your implication that Ron Johnson is happy for abusers of children to go scot-free is unworthy of you and is *not* FACTUAL. First of all, unless you have the power to read minds, why has it not occurred to you that his objection was based entirely on the provision allowing affiliated organizations to be sued and thereby opening the door to a “free for all against the Church especially with people who would scam the situation“?

        Second, it is entirely possible for you to boost Westlake without in effect calling Johnson a pedophile apologist.

        • JadedByPolitics

          I am FIRM that ANYONE who would stop a bill to allow NO statue of limitation on child sex abuse is a BAD ACTOR! I will NEVER stop fighting for these children and take no prisoners on this legislation!

          The bottom line is there will ALWAYS be hucksters but to deny a child the RIGHT to be heard in a Court of law when they have broke through their shame of the their abuse no MATTER the timeline is SHAMEFUL! To me there is NO PRICE that cannot be paid to settle the soul of a victim of child sexual abuse!

          • Martin Knight

            To me there is NO PRICE that cannot be paid to settle the soul of a victim of child sexual abuse!

            Are you trying to tell me that if I attach a 50% tax hike to a bill removing the statute of limitations on child abuse, that’ll be okay with you?

            That’ll be me playing dirty pool – if you vote against the bill because of the tax hike, I get to go around saying you are against child victims of abuse having their day in court.

            In WI, it was entirely possible for the Democrat Legislature to deliver a bill to the Governor’s desk without including a clear sop to the trial lawyer lobby and open ticket for them to loot and plunder. They didn’t.

            Blame them, not Ron Johnson (and the overwhelming majority of WI conservatives who came out against the people) who was not even in the Legislature to begin with.

      • SIConservative

        You completely ignored all of the points I made, especially the reason that statutes of limitations exist at all. You know what? Lots of crimes are horrible, attempted murder, assault, rape (even if the victim is of age), arson, etc. The severity of the crime is entirely independent of the reasons that statutes of limitations exist. You clearly don’t understand those reasons, nor do you care to try to do so. As such, you ignore the fact that they exist and type in caps as though that somehow means you must be correct. Following your logic, maybe I should just write a diary in caps repeating Ron Johnson Ron Johnson Ron Johnson. I just need to use a bigger font because that must make me right.

        • JadedByPolitics

          I type in CAPS ALL THE TIME….it is how I type don’t like it don’t read it.

          The FACT is that Johnson worked for the Dioceses to CRUSH this legislation to help the Church NOT have to pay VICTIMS of their secrecy. If you don’t like the FACT that he did it too bad and if you don’t like the FACT that I did a diary on it too bad. I said it before and I will say it again Ron Johnson helped to kill a bill that would DENY child rape victims their day in Court!

          • SIConservative

            Just don’t be surprised when nobody’s listening because they perceive you to be a jackass who types in caps to avoid responding to the arguments made against his point.

          • nessa

            Every comment and diary by Jaded looks exactly the same. Its passion, not shouting.

            This is undoubtedly a contentious issue, I can see your point. This legislation was opening the Church up to the same destructive forces we all advocated cutting off from the Healthcare system. Ambulance chasing lawyers.

            But I can see Jaded’s side as well. Accepting weak apologies and allowing the Church to sweep these cases under the carpet and go on is allowing them to go on with business as usual. There needs to be a stern price exacted, painful enough to ensure this behavior is never allowed and a blind eye is never turned to it again.

          • JadedByPolitics

            You see my EGO does not require that I worry whether people listen to me or not. I diary and participate in politics at MY PLEASURE, obviously you do it for……well who the hell knows and really who the hell cares.

            I have been here a long time and I have I have typed that way from day one and you? oh yeah I don’t care, move along little doggie….

          • urbanpioneer

            Sorry Jade; I’m beginning to see where some of the Anti-Johnson energy might be coming from. I suspect it might be a little Anti-Catholic! As a member of the Conservative right I am often shocked to find those Fundamentalists and other groups who still hold such anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon sentiments. The Days of the WASP’s holding all the power in the country are long gone. Fact is the Catholic teachings are much closer to those of the Right than the Left, and More Catholics are reverting to the Ideals we generally support. Second Fact: Catholics make up the largest single religious group in the country, and it continues to grow. Whilst there may be foibles in the Catholic past, some level of limitations must be acceptable. Should we still hold them responsible for the Inquisition, Bloody Mary, the Crusades? I do not support child sexual abuse, but nor do I support phoney claims against the church for the purpose of wringing cash out, or to degrade the church for nefarious reasons. To answer your likely question; No I am NOT a practicing Catholic.

            I suggest we embrace that which we have in common..like the ideals of beating Russ Feingold this fall with Ron Johnson who actually has a shot at it vs. Dave Westlake who 90% of the people I talk to have never even heard of. Dave spent a year meeting and greeting and I think he struck out when he changed his fund-raising philosophy with T-Shirt Sales. Sorry Dave that mis-step cost you your shot. Tommy’s fiddling around didn’t help either, but that was out of your control.

            One Poster who made the point that support of the legislation when attached to some other uber-Lefty bill, Like huge tax increases or setting aside the 1st amendment is silly, of course..but the point is valid and is often used in making legislation. putting in a “Poison pill” for one reason or another so you can hold it against the other side at election time. If Ron Johnson was financially responsible for the Diocese at the time in question..It would’ve been irresponsible to support legislation that would ruin the organization.

            This is my first contribution to this site. I suspect Jade and I will be on the same side most topics. Looking forward to the conversation.

          • cactusjack

            if such anti-this or anti-that religion sentiments do exist, and affect even a fraction of percentage of the conservative vote, it could well cost us the presidential election in 2012 even if our adversary is by then a very battered Obama. And don’t think the Dems won’t try to exploit this any way they can. From their perspective igniting a religious scrap over on the right is all upside and no downside. One would think our goal is to eject O politically, not hash out religious doctrine in the wrong forum.

  • Shadx

    This is a repulsive, dishonest diary – verging on slander – by someone who is usually a positive contributor to RedState.

    There is no basis in fact for the claims it makes – or rather, for the innuendo it insinuates as there’s no substance here beyond the repetition of the candidate’s name and such odious phrases as “child rape” and “sexual abuse of children.”

    This diary doesn’t make Ron Johnson look bad, Jaded; but it makes you and the 1-month wonders cheering you on look absolutely terrible.

    • stigmo

      Claiming that Ron Johnson’s goal is to deny child rape victims a day in court is like claiming opposition to the health care bill is rooted in a desire to deny medicine to the uninsured.

      The fact of the matter is that this was a Democrat bill designed to take the Catholic Church out of play. As such the Bishops in unison with Wisconsin Family Action (a primarily Protestant statewide legislative group) came out against this bill.

      Like Shadx, I’ve always had (and continue to have) respect for Jaded’s work. But it is disingenuous to focus on one part of the bill while ignoring the poison bill–that it’s designed to bankrupt churches.

      Like Martin Knight suggested, surely there are some poison pills that make an otherwise good bill unworthy of support. This is one of those cases.

  • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

    Also, I don’t see how this piece is in any way honest with regards to Johnson’s intentions regarding victims of assault. He’s not trying to hush anything up–he’s trying to maintain reasonable standards with regards to these suits.

    • http://amymillervrwc.wordpress.com/ Amy Miller

      I don’t know a whole lot about the law surrounding rape/sexual assault cases, but I do know that one of the reasons that they do have a statute of limitations is because evidence disappears. I think that even if they did open it up, you’d never win a case because it would be extremely hard to prove anything.

      I realize that it’s heartbreaking to see victims not be able to confront and punish their attackers, but you also have to understand that the rules exist for a reason. Legally speaking, allowing a rape victim to come forward 20 years later is neither practical nor in the interests of substantial justice. I know it’s hard because it’s kids we’re talking about here, but to call this man a bad actor because he opposes irresponsible and impractical legislation is definitely not fair play.