Showing posts with label statutory rape. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statutory rape. Show all posts

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Child Marriage is Legal in Ten States, Due to Their Failure to Set Minimum Age of Consent Requirements

 


Click to enlarge




Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States#States




Created and Published on September 17th, 2020



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 28, 2020

Thirty-Five Forms of Child Abuse and Trafficking That Are Legal or Supported by Government (Incomplete)

Table of Contents

     1. The groping of children by T.S.A. agents
     2. The use of zero-tolerance drug policies to excuse the arrest and detention of children
     3. The use of the fact that students disrobe in locker rooms to excuse strip searches of minor students
     4. The police use of "bait trucks" to lure teenagers and poor people into stealing, to excuse their arrest
     5. The sale of teenage delinquents to for-profit prisons by American judges
     6. The use of "trash TV" shows, and federal law, in the 1990s, to promote boot camps as supposedly less abusive alternatives to prison
     7. The legal abduction of migrant children by I.C.E. agents at the border
     8. The legalized hitting of children due to lax standards set by C.P.S.
     9. Schools instructing bullying victims to hug their tormenters     10. Schools' deprivations of parents' rights and students' privacy during field trips
     11. The calculation of states' disbursements to public schools based on attendance turns schools into prisons
     12. The genocidal separation of children from parents, which is called "compulsory education"
     13. The molestation of children in public schools
     14. The taxpayer funding of legal defense expenses for teachers accused of molestation
     15. Teachers' access to students, and students' access to contraceptives
     16. Government attempts to refuse to grant diplomas to students unless they get hired, continue their education, or enlist in the military
     17. The recruitment of young adults into the military where they can't sue for rape
     18. The Violence Against Women Act functions as a rape and domestic abuse insurance program
     19. The refusal of courts to remove children from the custody of abusive parents simply because they are actively trying to remain a part of the children's lives
     20. The subjugation of American children to debt slavery through the Social Security System
     21. The splitting-up of families by the child support system (Social Security Title IV-D)
     22. The splitting-up of families by family law courts
     23. The abuse of adoption laws to justify taking biological children into custody
     24. The occasional refusal to remove a molested child from a home, or sentence child molesters to prison, on the grounds that the abuser is the biological parent of the child, is the child's caregiver and supports the child financially, has gone through treatment, and/or "wouldn't fare well in prison"
     25. The death of children following placement in foster care by family services departments
     26. The normalization of kidnapping, through phony "kidnappings" of high school students, by other students, as part of birthday celebrations
     27. The lack of an 18-year age of consent law
     28. The legalized use of the "I thought she was older" defense in statutory rape cases
     29. The decriminalized interstate trafficking of 12-to-16-year-olds by people less than 4 years older
     30. The invalidation of twenty states' age of consent laws, as the result of Quintana-Esquivel v. Sessions
     31. The legality of marrying minors, with the consent of a judge and/or a parent, in ten states
     32. The refusal to give serious sentences to police officers accused of statutory rape and child molestation
     33. The continued service, in Congress, of lawmakers whom have been charged with "underage prostitution" or child sex trafficking scandals, or have been caught on tape molesting children
     34. The use of the monetary system and financial pressure to coerce adults into accepting putting their children to work
     35. The possibility that the BAR Association (attorneys' union) is a syndicate of homosexual rapists and child molesters whom are covering-up each other's sex crimes.




Content



     1. The groping of children by T.S.A. agents

     The Transportation Security Administration agents give no presumption of innocence to passengers. This is “guilty until proven innocent” and it subverts the idea of maintaining the rule of law in order to create a just and civil society. In presuming guilt, executing unwarranted searches, and assuming consent, the T.S.A. ignores passengers' due process rights recognized by the 4th and 5th Amendments; namely the rights to be secure in one's person and papers (etc.) except upon presentation of a specific warrant, and to be free from undue searches and seizures.
     Children flying on planes in America are not immune from the T.S.A.'s choice of “porn or grope” (as Judge Andrew Napolitano put it). “Porn or grope” gives airline customers a “choice” between a privacy-invading body scanner that shows an image of your child naked to a government employee and could also give them cancer, versus a physically invasive pat-down.
     Were it not for their supposed legality, these pat-downs would be considered clear-cut examples of mass grooming of children (i.e., mass coaxing of children into accepting unwanted touching). The argument against ending this practice is the notion that terrorists will start strapping bombs to children because they know their children will not be searched, but those fears are unjustified because such a thing has never happened once in American history. The purpose of patting-down adults and children alike, is not just to instill in us a sense of safety; it is to lure us into a false sense of security. We know from tests that the T.S.A. fails to intercept 95% of bombs, so we can only conclude that sexual humiliation and submission are the goals of these procedures. Subjecting our children to them serves to inculcate whole generations of children into accepting unwanted touching near their groins from the day they begin using airplanes to travel.





     2. The use of zero-tolerance drug policies to excuse the arrest and detention of children

- Banning of getting drugs planted, touching drugs even if you say no after, and banning markers due to sniffing, as excuses to arrest kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyPe3_boqgE



     3. The use of the fact that students disrobe in locker rooms to excuse strip searches of minor students
- 58:04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyPe3_boqgE : changing clothes in gym is excuse to allow strip searches of children (by Breyer)






     4. The police use of "bait trucks" to lure teenagers and poor people into stealing, to excuse their arrest



- Norfolk Southern:https://www.vox.com/2018/8/10/17676818/norfolk-southern-apologizes-for-bait-truck-in-poor-chicago-neighborhood-englewood
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661240/video-chicago-police-bait-truck-nike-norfolk-southern-apology-englewood-black-neighborhoodhttp://www.instagram.com/p/B9kVHiCJ5Gv/?igshid=1gyw7l32306br




     5. The sale of teenage delinquents to for-profit prisons by American judges



Pennsylvania judge convicted of selling teen delinquents to for-profit prisons
- school to prison pipeline



     6. The use of "trash TV" shows, and federal law, in the 1990s, to promote boot camps as supposedly less abusive alternatives to prison




Joe Biden's, and 1990s trash TV show hosts', efforts to promote boot camps as solution to teen delinquency, including as a supposedly less abusive alternative to prison (see WWASPS; boot camps are often no less abusive than prisons, and often more abusive)





     7. The legal abduction of migrant children by I.C.E. agents at the border

     Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) officials have snatched children from their mothers' arms, an act which would be considered kidnapping if it were not being done in order to further the goals of law enforcement.
     I.C.E. abducts these children on the premise that they can't be sure that the children are related to the adults accompanying them, as opposed to the children being victims of trafficking. This is false more often than it is true, as even when the child is not related to the accompanying adult, the child may have been adopted by the adult before or during their journey to America.
     This is the modern equivalent of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels's claim, from the 1934 Nuremberg rally, that, during World War I, the enemies of Germany accused Germany of doing what they themselves were doing. Another justification for this practice is that the threat of taking children away is thought to deter people from making the journey to America.
     During the administration of Donald Trump, migrant parents were told by I.C.E. officials that they were taking their children away from them in order to give them baths, only to discover that their children weren't going to be returned to them. This is remarkably similar to the manner in which the Nazis used the promise of showers to lure Jewish prisoners into gas chambers.




8. The legalized hitting of children due to lax standards set by C.P.S.
     According to Child Protective Services, hitting a child will not be considered maltreatment unless it causes bruises or other physical symptoms which persist for longer than 24 hours. This is tantamount to enforcing a law that says it is acceptable to hit a child as long as you don't leave any physical evidence.
     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3805039/ (see footnote #50 and search for “bruise”)












10. Schools' deprivations of parents' rights and students' privacy during field trips

     Some time between 2005 and 2010, a public school in Florida organized a field trip, and declined to notify how they would be keeping track of the students during the trip. The school failed to notify parents that the school would be taking pictures of their eyes; that is, retinal scans.
     This may seem innocuous and innocent enough, to the untrained (ahem) eye. But there are several religious traditions whose members have moral objections to being photographed. Native Americans, for example, and the Amish, among others. Some Orthodox Jewish people have a particular distaste for allowing their children to be photographed.
     The potential religious objections aside, collecting the biometric information of school students - especially without their parents' knowledge or consent - should be especially frightening to anyone who knows a lick about American history. The education system is heavily influenced by the Ford Foundation, founded by American automobile entrepreneur Henry Ford, who was known to have Nazi sympathies. Moreover, the collection of personal information, which was done to Jews in Germany in order to round them up and kill them, was made possible only by the technology utilized by I.B.M. (International Business Machines). That is why the collection of children's personal biometric information - whether it's scans of their retinas, or information about what kind of earlobes they have (because Nazis cared about that for some reason) - should never be done without both parental notification, and parental education about the history of Nazi influence on American education.
     No adult ought to know what a child's eyes look like, better than the child's own parents do. Retinal scanning of children, and other invasive forms of documenting their personal attributes for the sake of keeping track of them and "keeping them safe", only stands to accustom school children to being photographed by adults whom they don't know well, and accustom them to being tracked by strangers who are resorting to extremely unnecessary, and invasive, levels of security, in order to keep track of children during field trips.
     Whatever happened to "the buddy system"? At least when children are kept track of by other children, there's no possibility for adult-child sexual activity.



11. The calculation of states' disbursements to public schools based on attendance turns schools into prisons

     In nearly half of U.S. states, schools allocate funding to schools based on either Average Daily Attendance (A.D.A.) or Average Daily Membership (A.D.M.). "Membership" is the official term for enrollment. State-provided funds are divided by the number of students enrolled in public schools statewide. Those funds are then divided among the state's school districts, based on each district's projection of the number of students who will actually attend classes.
     Recently, this practice prompted one user of social media, who attends school in California, to create what has since become a "text meme". This high school student explained that a member of his school's staff "joked" that students should come to school as often as they can, even when they are sick. The official said that sick students should show up, be counted in attendance, and then go home to recuperate.
     This practice risks exposing sick children to unnecessary travel, exposing healthy students to communicable diseases, and reducing schools to the level of prisons which get paid according to their head count. The more states that choose to determine school funding based on A.D.A. and A.D.M., the more complete the transformation of schools into prisons - overcrowded, disease-ridden prisons - will be.
http://www.quora.com/Are-all-U-S-public-schools-funded-based-on-attendance-as-is-the-case-in-California-schools
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/jun/27/chronically-absent-students-cost-county-schools-mi/
http://www.quora.com/Do-schools-get-money-based-on-attendance





12. The genocidal separation of children from parents, which is called "compulsory education"
     According to Article 26 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted in 1948), "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. [emphasis mine] Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

     "Everyone has the right to education" sounds great, doesn't it? And "education shall be free" sounds even better (as long as nobody's forced to pay for it). But "Elementary education shall be compulsory"?
     "Elementary education" is the only thing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says should be "compulsory". In fact, Article 20 of the same document says that "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Well excuse me, but isn't a public school an association? Isn't it compelling children to belong to public school associations, to describe their elementary education as "compulsory"?
     As if it weren't obvious enough yet that compulsory education is a scam designed to traffic children into the hands of government employees, public officials such as Kamala Harris have threatened to jail the parents of truant students. That is forcible transfer of children from their parents to the schools.
     Moreover, in the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted in 1948, the same year as the Human Rights Declaration), genocide is defined as any one of many acts; not just deliberate attempts to mass-exterminate people. Genocide, as defined by the U.N., includes (but is not limited to) "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" (where "the" denotes "a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group").
     What this means is that the same year that the United Nations declared compulsory education to be a universal human right, it also arguably declared compulsory education to be a form of genocide. Which implies that the U.N. believes that all peoples and groups are entitled to genocide. The United Nations are effectively saying that all peoples and groups the world over, have a universal human right to be forcibly taxed, in order to fund the transfer of their children to government employees with the threat of jail time if they refuse to comply (but it's OK because the forcible taxation allows elementary education to be free at the point of sale).
     The U.N. has thus shown that it has no business whatsoever determining what is and is not a universal human right.
     http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
     http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf


13. The molestation of children in public schools

     Twenty-four American public school students are molested every school day in America (assuming 175 school days per year). This figure includes all reported molestation, sexual abuse, and sexual assault, by teachers and fellow students combined, from the years 2011 through 2015.
     According to an estimate by Hofstra University scholar Charol Shakeshaft, 290,000 students had experienced some form of sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000 (which works out to 184 molestations per school day, assuming 175 school days per year).
     One American public school student per school day suffers injury or death at the hands of a gunman. If the argument “If it will save the life of even one child, it will be worth it”, can convince people that gun control is necessary to prevent gun violence and protect children, then a similar argument ought to work for convincing parents to withdraw their children from public schools. Every day that students organize nationwide to skip a whole day of school, is another day that 24 kids won't get molested at school. And that goes whether they are skipping school to protest the climate, or to protest what they should really be protesting instead, which is their own mass enslavement by our corrupt government.


     14. The taxpayer funding of legal defense expenses for teachers accused of molestation

     The legal fees of public school teachers charged with molesting students, are always paid for by taxpayer money one way or another. This is because all of public school teachers' money comes from taxpayer money, and the only common alternative to those teachers hiring private attorneys, is accepting representation from their teachers' union. Those unions are funded by employee contributions, and those employees' money comes from the government. The taxpayers will thus not be free from preventing their money from being used to defend teachers charged with molesting students, until they find legislators and lobbyists who will lobby for an end to taxing people who do not consent that their money be used for such purposes.


     15. Teachers' access to students, and students' access to contraceptives
     Many people who support both public education and the legality of abortion, want high school students to have easy access to condoms, morning-after pills, and other forms of contraceptives and abortificants.
     Granted, any high school student who decides to become sexually active, should have access to such things. But the only kind of high schooler who can make such a "decision" to become sexually active, is someone whom is capable of making an informed decision; of giving informed consent. Only the oldest and most mature high schoolers are capable of deciding to become sexually active, because only the oldest and most mature high schoolers know about all the potential consequences - negative and positive - of sex.
     If mature upperclassmen have access to contraception at high schools, then that is all well and good. But perhaps younger teens who seek contraceptives, and abortions, should have their parents notified (except, of course, in cases in which their father or stepfather is the one who knocked them up, which would only turn a parental notification requirement into a danger to the child).
     Don't get me wrong; there are sex-positive people who support our public schools, and support easy access to contraceptives in schools, because they want women (women being the operative word) to be able to control their bodies. However, teenage girls, of the underclassmen ages in high school, are not women, and cannot consent to sex (nor can teenage boys of the same age).
     Moreover, there are other kinds of people who want contraceptives readily available in schools, besides pro-choicers who love teachers. Male teachers who want to have sex with teenage girl students have plenty of incentive to make sure that the school nurse's office is stocked with everything his "girlfriend" needs to "get rid of our little problem". Male teachers who molest teen girls and risk impregnating them, have every reason to make sure that the tools necessary to "cover up the evidence" are close by, and to make sure that the girl is independent enough to obtain them without any other adult finding out.
     Legal promises that public high schools will be stocked with easily accessible contraception - even for students not yet mature enough to handle sex, or understand when their relationship with an adult has become inappropriate - are, thus, a federally created insurance fraud program that subsidizes the molestation and impregnation of teenage girls by male teachers at public high schools.
     Easy access to contraceptives at high schools, does not teach students to have sex responsibly. It's not that teaching chastity or "abstinence-based" education is superior to teaching sex positivity and teaching about contraceptives; both abstinence and contraception need to be taught, and students need to be aware of the effectiveness of each. Abstinence does have a 100% effectiveness rate; but only if it's actually practiced consistently. Having sex is not a "failure" of abstinence education; to have sex is to stop practicing abstinence. Thus, no pregnancy can be blamed on abstinence, nor on its failure, since abstinence does not cause pregnancy. Abstinence-only sex education is what has been linked to increases in teen pregnancies; not education about abstinence alongside other methods of contraception. If adults can't accept these facts, then what chance do our teenagers have of ever learning this information in school?
     Easy access to contraception gives teachers the tools they need to help convince, or even intimidate, girls they molested into getting morning-after pills or abortions. Federally funded contraceptives in high schools, for all students who want them, is therefore federal student-raping insurance.




16. Government attempts to refuse to grant diplomas to students unless they get hired, continue their education, or enlist in the military

- Rahm Emanuel



     17. The recruitment of young adults into the military where they can't sue for rape
Military recruiters and supporters of drafting women, lure 18-year-old women into the military, where they can't sue the military for rape due to long and frequently changing contracts and also due to sovereign immunity

also the draft itself





18. The Violence Against Women Act functions as a rape and domestic abuse insurance program
     Consider the fact that the 1994 Brady Bill took guns away from Americans; including America's single mothers. Later in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act was passed, as part of the Clinton omnibus crime bill. The Violence Against Women Act promised that federal funds would be made available to women who became victims of domestic abuse. This is a perfect example of government "breaking your leg and then giving you crutches"; the same federal government that disarmed single mothers against their abusive husbands, also promised that some prosecutors would get paid every time an abusive man goes back to his ex-wife and mops the floor with her.
     The Violence Against Women Act is aptly named, because it does precisely that: it removes the barriers which prevent violence against women (by confiscating guns), and it promises more violence to women, through repeated abuses, by essentially promising to compensate the woman for the takings of her guns, by creating a federal insurance fraud program that subsidizes rape and wife-beating.
     Until the Brady Act and other federal gun control legislation is repealed, the Violence Against Women Act will function as nothing more than federal rape and wife-beating insurance.



19. The refusal of courts to remove children from the custody of abusive parents simply because they are actively trying to remain a part of the children's lives
     About half of U.S. states lack laws which make it difficult for parents who have abused their children, to retain custody. According to a March 2018 article from Pacific Standard, "family court may not consider the history of abuse relevant when awarding custody. It's common practice for family courts to preach that both parents should be in the picture for the [']best interest of the child.[']" The article also explains that abusive parents use custody battles to manipulate their ex-spouses - often traumatizing their children in the process - to a remarkable 70% success rate.
    http://psmag.com/social-justice/abuse-survivors-custody-battl




 20. The subjugation of American children to debt slavery through the Social Security System
     Social Security, and privatization schemes thereof, are used to securitize the debt of ourselves and our children.
     This is done in order to make that debt saleable on the international markets; that is, the markets for the purchase and refinancing of debt, and the markets for debt collateralization and government loans. Our unbalanced budgets, and lack of monetary and fiscal solvency and responsibility, have caused us and our children to become debt slaves.
     Because the government promises to repay its creditors, it intends to tax enough wealth from the next generation to make those payments. Unless and until we balance budgets (and then pass numerous surplus budgets), switch from fractional-reserve to full-reserve banking, and find something to tax which will be more efficient and less detrimental to productivity, our futures and our children's futures will be owned by private European bankers and/or Chinese investors whom our families will never meet.
     To learn more about this topic, research the sale of MuniBonds to European banks (this occurred some time between 2007 and 2011).



21. The splitting-up of families by the child support system (Social Security Title IV-D)

      Social Security Title IV-D pays states to go after fathers for child support money. Every time the state forces a "deadbeat dad", or an unfairly charged father contesting his loss of custody, the state receives federal funding. The State of Illinois receives federal funds for requiring child support payments, at a rate which is approximately 50% higher than the rates of the other states in the union.
     This turns the states - and especially the State of Illinois - into tools, to enforce federal laws on the federal government's behalf. These laws should not exist because they are not constitutional, as there is no specific enumerated authority for Congress to legislate on matters pertaining to child custody, nor retirement.
     The fact that the states get paid every time they successfully prosecute and incarcerate someone - whether they are guilty or not - adds to this mess (and also might help explain those high criminal recidivism rates).
     The states' avarice, and lack of concern for the freedom and custody retention of unfairly charged fathers, have resulted in a situation in which the states, in effect, routinely blackmail fathers, and charge them money for both the endless piles of legal documents they will have to file during custody hearings, as well as money for the very right to see their own biological children.
22. The splitting-up of families by family law courts

     In several states, including Illinois, family law courts have been known to unduly intervene in custody arrangements. Oftentimes they unfairly assume that the father is the person at fault, even when neither parent is really at fault, no serious child abuse can be proven and 50%-50% custody is the most desirable outcome for all parties involved.
     When 50%-50% equal custody is not presumed as the standard (when no child abuse is alleged), parents unduly deprived of custody become subject to needlessly-imposed difficulties in justifying retaining custody of their children. It is ridiculous to claim that you have the means and the time to take care of your own biological children, when all of your time and money is consumed in hiring attorneys, filing motions, and showing up for court appearances.
     The courts know this and they don't care. They want your children.
23. The abuse of adoption laws to justify taking biological children into custody

     In 2018, video emerged of a family court proceeding in California, in which an Asian-American female attorney found herself in an argument with a judge, after attempting to cite custody law which pertained to foster children, in order to excuse the State of California's taking of children away from their biological parents.
     Fortunately, the judge pointed out the attorney's error, and did not allow her argument to stand. However, in California as well as in other states, we should always be concerned that this line of reasoning could begin to be taken seriously in family court rooms.


      24. The occasional refusal to remove a molested child from a home, or sentence child molesters to prison, on the grounds that the abuser is the biological parent of the child, is the child's caregiver and supports the child financially, has gone through treatment, and/or "wouldn't fare well in prison"

     Sometimes, judges allow parents who have molested their children, to retain custody, and/or avoid prison time, because of absurd lines of logic such as those listed above.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not have his children taken away from him, because he is the child's biological parent, is to suggest that parenting a child allows you to rape them. It is to suggest that a child's duty to obey his parents extends to allowing them to molest or even rape them.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not have his children taken away from him, because he provides financial support and care for the child, is to suggest that a parent need only pay for the privilege of raping or molesting his child; whether it's through money and gifts, or whether it's through a legal settlement.
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not go to prison, because he has gone through treatment, is to suggest that all a parent need to do in order to get away with raping or molesting his child, is read some pamphlets and maybe lie to a therapist a few times. It is to suggest that people who have actually raped children already, could be helped just as much by therapy, as could people who possess child pornography and haven't yet physically harmed any children (a class of offenders which is normally thought to be much more likely to benefit from treatment than people who have already committed direct sexual acts upon children).
     To accept the argument that a parent who molests his children, should not go to prison, because he "wouldn't fare well in prison" is to suggest that all a parent need to do, in order to avoid the harsh prison sentence which he deserves, is pretend to be, and act like, "a nice guy" who's polite, meek, timid, or submissive, or makes himself small, or ingratiates himself to everyone during the legal proceedings. It is to let narcissistic, sociopathic child molesters do what narcissists do best: put on the face of a nice, polite person, in order to get away with committing the emotional and psychological equivalent of murder, against children and their innocence.

     http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/03/du-pont-heir-gets-probation-for-raping-3-year-old-daughter


25. The death of children following placement in foster care by family services departments

      In 2015, Tammi diStefano reported that 570 children had died after being placed in foster care by the California Department of Children and Family Services (D.C.F.S.). Although diStefano made an error in reporting the dates during which these deaths took place, and neglected to mention that nearly half of the children who died had no previous connection to D.C.F.S. and merely had their deaths reported to that agency, it is true that 268 children died after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care by D.C.F.S., over the eighteen-month period of June 2010 to December 2011. That works out to one child, every other day, dying after being removed from their homes and placed in foster care, in the State of California.

     http://hoax-alert.leadstories.com/3470949-fake-news-570-children-taken-from-parents-and-placed-in-foster-care-in-los-angeles-not-murdered-in-2013.html







26. The normalization of kidnapping, through phony "kidnappings" of high school students, by other students, as part of birthday celebrations
     From 2001 to 2005, I attended Lake Forest High School in Lake Forest, Illinois. During the last few years of high school, I discovered that some students at my school had begun celebrating each other's birthdays by "kidnapping" them from their homes around sunrise, as a prank. The birthday boy's friends would get approval from the boy's mother, go into the boy's room while he slept, and then snatch him from his bed by surprise, and take him out for breakfast or whatever they decided to do together.
     Despite the fact that this "kidnapping" was done with the consent of the parents, this is not a socially nor emotionally healthy practice in which children should be engaging. That's because this phony "kidnapping" risks normalizing actual kidnapping. By de-stigmatizing kidnapping in this way, this phony "kidnapping" pastime risks desensitizing us towards kidnapping.
     Real kidnapping typically involves child rape, and often murder as well. No decent parent ought to allow his children to participate in anything which is referred to as kidnapping. The more you let people "kidnap" you for fun, the harder it's going to be to tell the difference between when someone uses the word "kidnap" in jest, or whether they're serious. If you get too used to getting "kidnapped", then the next person who does it might actually kidnap you.




     27. The lack of an 18-year age of consent law
     Contrary to popular belief, "the age of consent" is not 18. That is to say that the federal or national minimum age of consent to sex is not 18. States set that age at either 16, 17, or 18. The most common state age of consent is 16; as 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have chosen 16 as the age of sexual consent.
     There is no 18-year federal age of consent, but there is such a thing as a "generic age of consent" at the national level, which is set at 16 years old. That generic 16-year age of consent is set up in 18 U.S. Code Section 2243. That law was written in 2011 and passed in 2012, more than a decade after Hawaii became the last state to increase its age of consent to 16.



     28. The legalized use of the "I thought she was older" defense in statutory rape cases

     The section of federal law which deals with "Sexual abuse of a minor or ward" is 18 U.S. Code Section 2243. Within that section, subsection (c) lists the defenses acceptable for pleading not guilty to that crime.
     According to subsection (c): "(1) In a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the other person had attained the age of 16 years."
     Subsection (a) refers to the crime of sexual abuse of a minor, where under federal jurisdiction, by a person who "knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who- (1) has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years; and (2) is at least four years younger than the person so engaging; or attempts to do so...".
     What this means is essentially that it has been codified into law that "I thought she was 16" is an acceptable defense for sexually abusing or even raping a child; that is, as long as the child is at least twelve years old, and as long as the accused person can prove he "reasonably" believed the victim to have been over 16 years old at the time.
     The federal law concerning sexual abuse of a minor or ward, teaches rapists that it's OK to rape 12-year-olds as long as they maintain that they thought the child was over 16, and as long as they keep talking about and focusing on whatever details may have led them to believe that the child was of age. The effect of this law is that rapists are allowed to get away with raping children, by focusing on how it was really the child who was at fault, because she lied about her age. This law turns child victims into criminals, and helps rapists portray themselves as victims of fraud.





     29. The decriminalized interstate trafficking of 12-to-16-year-olds by people less than 4 years older,
   and

     30. The invalidation of twenty states' age of consent laws, as the result of Quintana-Esquivel v. Sessions



- 20 state age of consent laws invalidated by Quintana



- Trafficking of 12 to 16 year old by person less than four years older: Federal government won't punish because of age of consent law, and it's out of states' hands because it's interstate trafficking.



      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243
     http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12
     http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-54






     31. The legality of marrying minors, with the consent of a judge and/or a parent, in ten states

 - in Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions

- due to state laws (see folder)

- 10 states still allow people to marry minors with judges' and/or parents' consent; also TX child marriage epidemic

      http://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-unanimously-overrules-statutory-rape_b_592edaede4b017b267edff12

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-54








     32. The refusal to give serious sentences to police officers accused of statutory rape and child molestation


Cops get away with dating teenagers, see large document and use as link
http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1755&context=nlj

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/elburn-police-officer-charged-21-counts-sexual-assault-child-payroll/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/18/police-officer-among-16-men-charged-with-child-sexual-abuse-in-halifax

http://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/11/20/cop-stalls-his-child-sex-abuse-trial-claiming-dying/2574771001/

http://newsmaven.io/pinacnews/cops-in-cuffs/nypd-cop-convicted-of-raping-13-year-old-girl-KQJjqs6uWkyOKmE0R65-tg

http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-city-cop-spending-263-years-prison-rape/story?id=38517467

http://texaspolicenews.com/default.aspx?act=Newsletter.aspx&category=News+1-2&newsletterid=67176&menugroup=Home

http://blackmainstreet.net/school-cop-received-oral-sex-child-wont-register-sex-offender/

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/prosecutors-louisiana-cop-forced-7-year-old-girl-to-perform/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-louisiana-deputy-forced-mother-perform-oral-sex-infant-son-20190608-3cuvo33yvngejertfb246f63ia-story.html

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-cop-convicted-of-raping-child-after-super-bowl-party-1.591495

http://www.wbrz.com/news/breaking-news-one-year-old-raped-iberville-deputy-accused-of-filming-it/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Holtzclaw




     33. The continued service, in Congress, of lawmakers whom have been charged with "underage prostitution" or child sex trafficking scandals, or have been caught on tape molesting children


Biden pinched nipple of 8-year-old girl on C-SPAN

Menendez, New Jersey Senator, “underage prostitute” in Colombia


Epstein sex scandal unresolved; includes business people (Wexner, Gates, etc.) but also politicos: Trump, Clintons, Bloomberg, Richardson, A Acosta, George Mitchell, Sandy Berger. And fact that both Clintons involved with Epstein probably means Podesta guilty of child sexual assault as charged; Podesta worked with both Clintons
     34. The use of the monetary system and financial pressure to coerce adults into accepting putting their children to work

- dollar (lure into prostitution)
Money / artificial poverty; manipulating and controlling people into needing money (include capuchin study in links)
normalization of prostitution in high schools in UK (Dennis Parsons)





     35. The possibility that the BAR Association (attorneys' union) is a syndicate of homosexual rapists and child molesters whom are covering-up each other's sex crimes

Alex Jones: BAR Association criminal sex crime coverup syndicate / cover for each other, GALs










Originally Published (incomplete) on February 28th, 2020

Edited and Expanded Between February 28th and March 7th, 2020

Edited and Expanded between March 10th and 13th, 2020
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 19, 2018

Remove Arvin Vohra from the Libertarian Party

     Arvin Vohra, the vice chair of the Libertarian Party (L.P.) of the United States, is currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maryland, potentially facing Chelsea Manning if she wins the Democratic Party's nomination. Several statements and social media posts by Libertarian Party (L.P.) vice chair Arvin Vohra have been received as troubling and even disturbing by many L.P. members, on topics related to the military, the poor, and statutory rape.
     These statements have generated much controversy, prompting demands that the party's leaders relieve him of his post. Several state chairs have already sent letters to the Libertarian Party National Committee (L.N.C.) stating their support for Vohra's resignation or removal. Vohra, currently a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maryland, potentially faces Chelsea Manning in that race, if she receives the Democratic Party's nomination.

     In 2017, in a document entitled “An Open Letter to Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military”, Vohra made remarks which seemed to cast all military veterans as nothing more than hired killers. Given the significant proportions of military veterans in the party, and the fact about 95% of U.S. military enlistees ever see direct combat, this statement caused quite a bit of backlash.
     While it is fair to criticize American intervention in foreign countries without congressional approval, and even to call the country imperialistic, or recommend significantly changing our alliances (or ending them all for formal purposes), many party members felt that Vohra's remarks disparaged the military community. It's possible that Vohra doesn't understand the economic pressures people are under; some people don't have the privilege of being born near major employment hubs, and for them, the military is “the only option” (so to speak).
     Additionally, Vohra once suggested that he agreed with the founders of the nation that people who don't own property and pay taxes should not be allowed to vote. According to Vohra, this set of people includes welfare recipients.
     It must have escaped Vohra's attention that in almost all states, even welfare recipients pay sales taxes on nearly every item they purchase. You can argue all day that people can avoid buying things, but it would be difficult to do without saying that poor people who are in need of work should either sell what little they have, freeload off of others, or else go try to homestead or forage.
     The sentiment Vohra expressed in that statement could easily be used to suggest that private owners should be free to collude with one another to keep people poor, so that they have no property to protect or tax, forcing them to obey the government, despite contributing nothing to it, while enjoying no voting rights. The sentiment could just as easily defend taxing low-income earners, and even the unemployed and homeless, the most, because they supposedly receive the most from government. Which is not true, because of the trillions spent on bailouts for big banks and mortgage lenders.

     It's clear that Vohra is out of touch, and doesn't know when to stop. But as if that all weren't enough, on January 16th, 2018, 71Republic.com published an article written by Vohra entitled “Questioning Age of Consent Laws in America”.
     In the article, Vohra casts doubt on the effectiveness and desirability of state laws which prohibit legal recognition of consent to sexual activity below certain ages. Many in the L.P. feel that their party's vice chair went too far in this article, which seems to focus entirely too much on the idea that age of consent laws are both undesirable and antithetical to human liberty.
     Many in the L.P. feel that Vohra's age of consent article is “the straw that broke the camel's back”. Disparaging military recipients and welfare recipients tested party members' patience well enough. But this article is the last straw; it excuses and rationalizes child molestation, by attempting to theorize contrived scenarios in which sexual activity between adults and children could be acceptable and not harmful (or even beneficial) simply because it's not the worst thing that could have happened.
     Vohra does make some sound points in the article. Many members of the L.P. believe that age of consent laws are arbitrary in a sense, because calendar age and maturity don't always line up perfectly, and state laws are questionable because crossing a state border doesn't magically make you ready for sex. Vohra argued that point well, without controversy. So too do most of us agree that teenagers who have sex with each other, or share or possess nude photographs of themselves, should not have their lives ruined because of it by being required to register as a sex offender. Some feel that more states should have “Romeo and Juliet laws”, in which the state refrains from prosecuting teens for sexual activity with people very close to them in age. Unfortunately, this seems to be the extent of Vohra's agreement with most of the party on this issue.
     Based on where we left off, most of us might start talking about, say, the need for some states to raise the marriage age from 13 or 14 to at least 16. Or maybe a constitutional amendment formally establishing states' rights to set the age of consent to between 16 and 18, as they do right now without such an amendment. Perhaps we would be wondering aloud why 20-year-olds and 80-year-olds are free to marry each other, but first cousins of similar age may not. Maybe some of us think the federal age of consent to sex should be higher than 12 years old, or wonder why we're sending 14-year-olds to school with 18-year-olds who are legal adults. Proposals that respect adults' rights to sex, but also ensure protection of children. Things like that.
     However, Vohra goes the opposite direction, defending the idea that all age of consent laws and statutory rape laws are inherent limitations upon human freedom. For libertarians, this carries with it the implication that all limitations on human freedom are coercive, aggressive, and violent, and even that they resemble slavery. Whether the law is popular, whether it's administered at the state level like it's supposed to, whether it succeeds at protecting children from sexual abuse; none of these factors seem to matter to many such opponents of statutory rape laws. For them, either sex has absolutely no limitations, or we're enslaved to tyrants. This is an irrational approach to argumentation which in no way conforms to ethical norms of civil discourse; it's all-or-nothing, “my way or the highway” thinking, it's disingenuous, and it's manipulative towards the reader.

     In “Questioning Age of Consent Laws in America”, Arvin Vohra writes that if a 15-year-old boy worked, and saved up until he could afford his own place to live, and he became fully financially independent, then it would be acceptable for him to have sex with a 25-year-old woman, because they are supposedly equals as far as financial independence is concerned.
     Vohra fails to explain why financial independence automatically gives one the emotional and psychological maturity – much less the physical maturity - to handle sexual activity at a young age. If your calendar age, and what state you are in, do not “magically” affect how ready you are for sex, then how can being financially independent do the same? Does having a place to have sex, automatically make one ready for sex? Vohra seems to be defending the idea that it does, and that a person who lives on their own may have sex with someone of any age. His article certainly leaves room open for that; although in his clarifications, Vohra has stated unequivocally that it would not be permissible to have sex with a three-year-old.
     To support Vohra's idea that would be permissible for an independent 15-year-old boy to have sex with a 25-year-old woman, Vohra suggests an alternative: the 15-year-old boy having sex with someone his own age. As I explained, many party members hope to decriminalize that sort of behavior, because both people involved would be at similar levels of emotional and physical maturity. This idea seems to have escaped Vohra, who for some reason is arguing that same-age sexual activity is less acceptable than sex between two people born ten years apart.
     In his article, Vohra sets up a make-believe scenario, and presents a false choice – an ultimatum – essentially arguing that it is better for a teenager to be molested by someone in their mid-20's, because it would be worse if the teenager went and had sex with another teenager. This basically amounts to thoughtless trolling, and is no way for the second-in-command of our party to speak. Vohra might as well have tried to argue that it's fine for a 40-year-old to rape a 12-year-old, simply because if an 80-year-old had done it, it would be worse.
     In defense of his article, Vohra wrote, “If a 14 year old has a kid, I would prefer the other person to be an adult, with a job”, ending the short post with “#EndWelfare”. Given his anti-welfare stance, it's likely that Vohra means this. But his scenario begs the question: Why a 15-year-old boy and a 25-year-old woman, in particular? I suspect that, in the name of gender equality, Vohra would say this applies to people regardless of biological sex. I can say with near absolute certainly that Vohra also believes that if a 15-year-old girl becomes financially independent and gets her own place, then it's acceptable for a 25-year-old man to molest her.
     In fact, while defending his article on Facebook, Vohra did make that argument. He posted a comment which read, “Pick one”, followed by two statements: 1) “It's totally natural for two men to have sex”, and 2) “It's an abomination for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old women” [sic]. Not everyone would use the word “abomination” to describe that behavior, and not everyone would describe homosexuality as “totally natural”. Vohra knows this, and he knows his audience; he is using hyperbole to coerce the reader into considering the possibility that homosexuality is as harmful as child sexual abuse. In my opinion, this borders on the mentality that homosexuality is a “slippery slope” to pedophilia; if he had made this suggestion overtly, I would suspect that he is attempting to disparage the LGBTQ+ community.
     In choosing the first scenario for the article, Vohra seems to be deliberately obscuring the implications of his idea. This forces the reader to deal directly with his example; a woman and a boy together, while relegating the discussion of men raping young girls to a message board buried somewhere on the internet. It's possible that Vohra wants to see his readers pressured into making a judgment call about him, without having all the information necessary to make an informed decision.
     It seems likely that Vohra chose the scenario he did, rather than deal with the opposite possibility in a more open fashion, because in some people's eyes, a boy having sex with a woman is less offensive than a man having sex with a girl (due to the potential of pregnancy and vaginal tearing). But even if one behavior is less accepted than the other, that doesn't mean that neither of them are bad. If a teenage boy has sex with a female teacher – even if he brags about it, and believes that he consented to it - then the teacher still abused her position of trust, and violated her employment contract.
     Additionally, when the boy becomes truly mature enough for sex, he may begin to rightfully suspect that the teacher took advantage of him. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that increasing the duration of statutes of limitations on reporting sex crimes is the solution, rather than decreasing that duration, or repealing those limits altogether. The purpose of the government is certainly not to make it more difficult for us to bring lawsuits against people; the U.S. Code shows that its purpose is quite the opposite.

     As members of the third largest party in the country, any party members who agree with Vohra ought to understand that Vohra is acting like the Democrats and Republicans: presenting us with two bad options, and forcing us to choose. Arvin Vohra seems to have fallen into the very same trap as Jake McCauley, another Maryland resident who identifies as a libertarian; the assumption that financial independence makes a person ready for sex. It's clear that some self-described libertarians have a fixation on making room for legalized sex between adults and children, including for pay.
     Jake McCauley is a presence on several libertarian and anarcho-capitalist Facebook groups. Using his own name, the pseudonym Charles Stratton, and using the account of his girlfriend Ashleigh Hines, he makes frequent posts defending child rape and promoting child prostitution, and has even published an article about his views on the matter on Steemit (entitled "Why I Am Against the Age of Consent"). Aside from posts on this topic, McCauley has trolled his own friends on social media by making them appear to approve of being incest victims, and once boasted about supposedly coming up with a solid defense for raping a woman. But I'll return to Vohra and McCauley shortly.

     While it's not out-of-line to question whether federal child labor laws are constitutional (in the strict legal sense of being an enumerated power), some libertarians take this idea to the extreme, and rationalize children selling their hands for money. Similarly, while there are some reasonable arguments against the continued criminalization of prostitution, some libertarians rationalize even the prostitution which occurs under conditions of economic pressure, and even fear for the safety of the prostitute.
     Apparently blind to the welfare of children and victims of the sex trade, many people who espouse both these views jump to the conclusion that in a voluntary, stateless society, the prostitution of children would be normalized. If not that, then the conclusion that under a limited government, child prostitution would be legal, regulated, taxed, licensed, and maybe even unionized. This line of logic may have caught the reader off-guard, but to the pedophilia apologist attempting to cloak his perversions with libertarianism, the flow of one idea into the other is just second nature.
     Some libertarians take their rightful opposition to unconstitutional federal child labor laws to a more extreme conclusion, almost as if to say that if a law is unconstitutional, then whatever it prohibits must be good, because the state is always wrong. Children being put to work, or expected to do hard work, is a problem, and voluntary association and mutual aid are better ways to solve the problem than the state. But people who want to say child labor laws are bad are rarely prepared to give any suggestions as to how that might occur.
     It's fair to argue that legal minors ought to have a little more freedom to work - or even start a business - as long as they're fairly compensated, and don't do work that's physically exhausting or puts them in danger. However, I would caution my readers to be wary of any self-described libertarian who criticizes child labor laws too vehemently, might be searching for a legal or ethical rationale for sex between children and adults. So their twisted logic goes, if prostitution is a victimless crime, and some minors can consent to sex, then it should be legal or acceptable for a 16-year-old to become a prostitute.
     Despite Vohra's underhanded suggestion that to use homosexuality and child molestation in the same example is to compare apples to apples, this issue is much more full of “slippery slopes” than the legalization of same-sex marriage. Last year, Dennis Parsons, an official with the Liberal Democratic Party of the United Kingdom, resigned after telling a group of teenage students that school career officers should be allowed to suggest prostitution to students as a legitimate career. What's next; high school field trips to legal brothels? As former L.P. presidential candidate John McAfee (and prostitution client, or “john”) said in a 2016 debate, prostitution is not a victimless crime; the victim is the prostitute. That is, the prostitute often becomes a victim (of a pimp or a john), and often starts prostituting out of poverty and desperation.
     While it's fair to applaud the State of California for ending its practice of jailing underage prostitutes (less well known by what they actually are; that is, sex-trafficked children), that does not mean that nothing coercive occurred in the course of the actions the prostitute undertook. Someone has just raped a child, and someone has just profited off of offering a child up to be raped. Child victims of the sex trade should not go to jail for being prostituted; if they should be sent anywhere, it should probably be the hospital. These are the kinds of ideas the party should be entertaining about statutory rape laws; not the idea that people who pimp children, and people who pay to rape children, should go unpunished.

     This is not the first time the Libertarian Party has faced controversy over matters related to pedophilia. In 2008, a former biomedical researcher named Mary Ruwart ran for the party's presidential nomination, losing to Bob Barr.
     In April 2008, Libertarians began to criticize comments which Ruwart had made in her 1998 book Short Answers to the Tough Questions. In her book, Ruwart wrote that “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentive for parents to use children against their will.”
     Many in the L.P. felt that Ruwart's statements excused, or even promoted, pedophilia and child pornography, but in an April 2008 article entitled “Ruwart on Children's Rights”, libertarian philosopher Roderick Tracy Long defended Ruwart, saying that she was “clearly not” “defending pedophilia and child pornography”. Long pointed out that Ruwart was attempting to describe the effects of state intervention on child prostitution and child pornography, insomuch as there is market demand for them.
     This is not to say, however, that we are talking about legitimate market activities, however; anarcho-capitalists and market-anarchists view these as a “red market” activities (actions which are immoral regardless of whether the state approves of them, such as rape of adults, kidnapping, and murder-for-hire). Ruwart was pointing out that if you look at these activities solely in terms of supply and demand, a government ban on child prostitution and child pornography causes a decrease in “supply”, thus leading to increases in the prices paid for them, which, as Ruwart said, increases “the incentive for parents to use children against their will.”
     It would take a big leap of faith to expect anyone - outside of a handful of libertarians, and maybe a few conservatives - to understand how the analysis of government effects on markets could have anything to do with such a horrendous set of behaviors. That's why it was unfortunate, but predictable, that Ruwart would fail to sufficiently explain and clarify her statement. Failing to explain with whom it is acceptable for “children” to engage in sexual activity, was certainly a misstep.
     During a 2016 debate for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president, candidate Darryl Perry asked the moderator whether he was referring to children in the medical definition or the legal definition. In her book, Ruwart uses the word “children” without clarifying whether she means pre-pubescent, pre-teen children, or whether she meant to refer to all people who are legally classified as adults (meaning, more or less, everyone under the age of 18).
     Given her medical background, it's not clear which definition of “child” Ruwart was using. But if she meant it in the legal sense, then she would not have been saying something too controversial, as it is legal for 17-year-olds to participate in sexual activity in more than 30 states, and legal for 16-year-olds to do the same in a handful of states, despite the fact that they are perceived as children (especially by people living in states in which the age of consent is 18). Although Ruwart's 1998 statement is unclear, her explanation of that statement today is that when she used the word "children", she was using the word in its legal sense.
     Ruwart seems concerned that government laws prohibiting child pornography and child prostitution aren't working, and that the way they're being enforced is making things worse. She seems to have said what she said out of a healthy suspicion that the state usually fails to protect children when it tries to do so; out of the need to point out the problem and draw attention to the fact that we might need a back-up plan in case the government fails or refuses to do its job.
     In my opinion, Ruwart's statement is much more problematic than Vohra's, as Ruwart's statement comes nowhere near promoting or excusing sex between children and adults, while Vohra's does. Her statements reflected nothing more than a desire to protect children from rapists, and to do something to lower parents' incentives to prostitute their children or force them to appear in child pornography. In fact, in her book, immediately before saying children have the right to engage in sex, Ruwart said, “Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can and should prosecute their oppressors.”

     The approach of Dr. Mary Ruwart and Roderick T. Long is very different from the tortured lines of logic which Arvin Vohra and Jake McCauley pursue. While most libertarians don't want to see teenagers' lives ruined for having sex with each other, Vohra and McCauley seem to latch onto that idea, and use it to argue that because a person is ready for sex, it must mean that they're ready for sex with anybody, and of any age. Their failures to address inconsistencies and gaps like these, or to otherwise account for them, are every bit as irresponsible as the original statements which implied them.
     While Vohra and McCauley agree that it's acceptable for a child to have sex as long as the child is self-supporting and independent, Vohra's argument is “better”. But that doesn't mean it's good. Vohra's argument is only less disgusting than McCauley's because Vohra appeals to the libertarian's sense of financial responsibility, while McCauley sloppily reasons that sex with a child is consensual as long as the child gets paid.
     McCauley has even defended the idea that children who are starving in the third world should consider performing sexual favors for billionaires in order to get by. In McCauley's mind, why they are poor in the first place, doesn't have much to do with anything, and any talk of exploitation is paranoid. McCauley additionally believes that it is unacceptable to use “violence” in defending a child from a rapist, or in stopping a child from joining a cult, as long as the child believes that they want to do what they're doing. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about suggesting that a child would have to be manipulated or threatened in order to assent to doing those things. Giving consent – truly informed consent, being of sound mind and body - is not the same thing as ceasing to struggle against someone who's raping you.
     It should generate no controversy to wonder whether an emancipated 16-year-old might be more likely to be able to give truly informed consent than a 18-year old college student; especially if the older teenager is inebriated and/or sexually inexperienced. But to point out scenarios like these, and moreover to devote time to making them up, is to point out a lot of exceptions to the rule. Yes, a sexually active sober emancipated minor is probably able to handle sexual activity, but that doesn't mean all sexual activity with 16-year-olds is acceptable; especially not if they're drinking or on drugs.
     Another issue that creates doubt would be if the person is not emancipated, and is still legal minor. But the idea that someone isn't an adult just because the state says they're an adult, is yet another point that seems to escape the libertarian pedophilia apologist. Some of these people even go so far as to claim that children can be ready for sexual activity if they are especially intelligent. Many of them stretch this logic, in order to conclude that if an adult is at the intellectual level of a child (rather than the child being as intelligent as an adult), then sexual activity between them is “on the same level”. Of course, this is to suggest that it's perfectly fine for a grown adult to rape a child as long as the adult is mentally retarded or under the influence of drugs. This is utter nonsense.

     Sex can only be healthy and enjoyable - and happen without regrets, fear, or pressure – if the parties involved are sexually mature enough to physically handle the sexual activity; emotionally healthy and intelligent enough to psychologically process the experience; and well-informed as to the consequences of sexual activity (such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases).
     While Vohra is correct to point out that financial independence (including, most importantly, the ability to raise a baby if one is conceived) helps take precautions against the potential burdensome negative consequences of sex, financial independence alone should not be the benchmark to determine consent. To say it should is almost like saying that any child who earns a million dollars, or somehow learns to live alone, or gets married, suddenly becomes able to process sexual activity emotionally and psychologically, let alone physically.
     Anyone who is familiar with the Non-Aggression Principle ought to understand why a person who tricks someone into sex, removes their condom during sex, or fails to disclose S.T.D.-positive status, has committed fraud against that person. These are hardly “victimless crimes”; they are “crimes” even in the strict legal meaning of the word. If this makes sense to you, then it shouldn't be difficult to imagine how easily a child could be tricked into sex; or even work, for that matter.
     Even an adult can be tricked into sex. Near the end of his article, Vohra asked: At what age can someone no longer be tricked or pressured into sex? After considering and dismissing 25 as the age of mental maturity, he perhaps sarcastically suggests 60, with little explanation, while failing to consider that some states have laws protecting people over 60 from people exploiting their senility for sex (through punishing taking sexual advantage of the elderly more harshly than raping a younger adult). Vohra seem to have failed to consider that children and the elderly are both vulnerable segments of society.
     That topic aside, only thing that could possibly justify Vohra's and McCauley's rationalization of the exploitation of children for sex, is if money and financial independence are the only objective measurements of human value; the only ways to measure maturity. They only make sense if protecting the safety and innocence of children – weak, vulnerable members of society whom are expected to trust adults – isn't as important as making money.
     Don't get me wrong, money makes it easy to buy things, but only in the sense that Chuck E. Cheese tokens make it easy to get prizes. Money isn't a human need; it doesn't directly doesn't sustain any life process in the same way that food, water, and air do. You don't die from running out of money. If you do, then it's because someone has made it the law that you have to use that money. If someone can make you falsely believe that money is one of your basic needs, then that person can make you do anything in order to get it. According to Arvin Vohra, “anything” means hard work. According to Jake McCauley, “anything” means prostituting yourself and your children.

     The Libertarian Party is the fastest-growing political party in the United States, and the third largest by votes and members. This arguably makes it the most likely party to unseat the political establishment dominated by the two-party duopoly.
     Now, at a time when the American public is more keenly aware of sexual assault by politicians and celebrities than every before, when high-profile officials of both major parties are suspected of sexual harassment (and even a few suspected of child sexual abuse), L.P. vice chair Arvin Vohra's article “Questioning Age of Consent Laws in America” couldn't have come at a worse time. But of course, rationalizing legalized or normalized sex between adults and children can never come at a good time.
     A day or two after the publication of Vohra's article, Alaska state chair Jon Watts wrote a letter to the L.N.C., stating that it it the view the L.P.'s Alaska state board that Vohra be removed from his position. Watts wrote that “On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments, however the topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in discredit to the LP.” Watts continues, “Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers. One role cannot exist at the expense of the other. The LP is not a hermetic association for the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a political organization with the intent to guide and influence our government and citizenry”, adding that Vohra must not understand that.
     Watts is correct; each of our leaders must be an ambassador, as well as a philosopher. I personally see no reason why the Libertarian Party should not study philosophy in an advanced way; that could only help libertarians and non-libertarians understand how free people would solve problems without the state. The state's abuse of children ought to show that as much as we may support the intended effects of statutory rape laws, the state usually makes things worse when it intervenes. Prosecuting youths for breaking vice laws (prostitution included), sending them to for-profit juvenile detention facilities, and coercing them into forced labor or the sex trade after legally kidnapping them into the family law court system, are all examples of these failures.
     In 2016, the two leading U.S. presidential candidates were a pussy-grabber, and a woman who surrounds herself with men who prey on much younger females. The last thing that American voters want to see as their third choice is the leader of a party that appears to promote the normalization of enticing children into the sex trade (among other crimes).

     With this article, I hope I have pointed the discussion of this issue in the right direction. I believe that this issue can be solved, both politically and for the purposes of a voluntary society. But before that can happen - and long before a “deeper” (read: nihilistic) questioning of this issue becomes appropriate - people will have to make great strides towards making the sexual exploitation of children a thing of the past, through peaceful activity that is both mutually beneficial and voluntary.
     Until then, it will suffice to urge my readers to admonish anyone promoting the legalization of prostitution in tandem with child labor, and anyone citing the need to decriminalize sex between teens to defend adults taking advantage of children.
     And finally, that anyone who would like to follow this story, and keep up on news regarding the process of relieving Arvin Vohra of his post as Vice Chair of the national Libertarian Party, should request to join the Facebook group “Remove Arvin Vohra”.
     Late breaking developments related to this story include allegations that the producers of the documentary “I Am Gary Johnson” attempted to pay 14-year-old girls to appear in pornographic videos (which appears to have been either a smear attempt or a simple case of mistaken identity), and the revelation that Vohra may intend to endorse Chelsea Manning for U.S. Senator from Maryland. If true, this could very well be a ploy to sabotage Manning's campaign with an endorsement by a party official who's steeped in controversy, and seems to think that freedom can only be achieved through disparaging our veterans, our children, and the poor.

     Sadly, it appears as though women, and homosexual and transgender individuals, may be next on Vohra's list.


Post-Script, written February 23rd, 2020:

      Sean Windingland is a libertarian who lives in Minnesota and is active on YouTube. In late 2019, Sean Windingland, or a friend of his, posted a video to Facebook which showed Windingland talking to his 6-year-old daughter, coaxing her into saying that she no longer consented to him making her touch his penis. Soon after, the libertarian community on Facebook discovered that Windingland had been a friend of Jake McCauley.
     I personally suspect that Sean Windingland's association with McCauley suggests that Windingland may have learned from McCauley, how to twist libertarian logic to promote pedophilia. McCauley taught Windingland - and, likely, the other of McCauley's other libertarian friends whom are pedophiles - how to convince others that, not only "anything consensual is acceptable", but also that children can consent.
     Windingland likely used this twisted line of logic to both rape his young daughters and pervert the philosophy of liberty to justify endangering children. The probability that McCauley influenced him, ought to serve to demonstrate that the influence of people like McCauley and Vohra on others in the party, should not be underestimated in terms of the hazard it could do to the morality of people in the libertarian movement.



















Jake McCauley's Facebook posts defending pedophilia:


















Click here to read Arvin Vohra's letter to military families:

 http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/arvin-vohra-an-open-letter-to-current-and-former-members-of-the-u-s-military-please-forward-to-any-who-may-be-interested/


 Click here to read Arvin Vohra's article criticizing age of consent laws:

 http://71republic.com/2018/01/15/questioning-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-arvin-vohra/


Click here to read Jake McCauley's article criticizing the age of consent:

 http://steemit.com/anarchy/@jakemccauley/why-i-m-against-age-of-consent

Click here to read about Sean Windingland:

 http://www.twincities.com/2019/09/06/st-paul-man-who-sexually-assaulted-6-year-old-relatives-posted-videos-online-sentenced-to-36-years-in-prison/








Originally Written on January 18th, 2018
Originally Published on January 19th, 2018
Edited on January 23rd, 2018
Edited and Expanded on January 19th, 21st, 25th, and 26th, 2018

Original Images (Memes) Created Between January 21st and 23rd,
and Added on January 23rd, 2018
except Second to Last Meme, Created and Added on July 17th, 2018,
and Final Meme, Created and Added on March 28th, 2019

 Jake McCauley Screenshots Created between 2017 and March 2019;
Screenshots and Photos of McCauley Added on March 22nd and 27th, 2019

 Links Added on March 22nd, 2019

 Post-Script Written and Added on February 23rd, 2020
at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...