Saturday, 31 December 2016

On Making Assumptions

from ‘’California Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution’ - December 31  (orig. posted at - Chelsea Schilling - December 29

Teens ‘free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution’

(WND) – Beginning on Jan. 1, child prostitution will be legal in the streets of California.

In fact, police officers in the state will be banned from arresting any person under the age of 18 for soliciting or loitering with intent, according to Senate Bill 1322. California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill on Sept. 26, and it will go into effect Sunday…

But Travis Allen, a Republican lawmaker representing the 72nd Assembly District in the California Legislature, warned of the fallout from what he called a “terribly destructive legislation [that] was written and passed by the progressive Democrats who control California’s state government.”

“[T]eenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution,” Allen wrote in a column published by the Washington Examiner.

Allen acknowledged that Democrats sincerely believe the law will help child sex victims, but he issued a dire warning about the “immoral” consequences of decriminalizing child prostitution.

“Unfortunately, the reality is that the legalization of underage prostitution suffers from the fatal defect endemic to progressive-left policymaking: it ignores experience, common sense and most of all human nature — especially its darker side,” Allen explained.

“The unintended but predictable consequence of how the real villains — pimps and other traffickers in human misery — will respond to this new law isn’t difficult to foresee. Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution — which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.”…


I spent 17 years in California before 1992 and I never thought it would become a State of government condoned immorality, but it has. May the God of Nature help those righteous souls in the State to oppose the perverseness of the laws that are being passed by the California legislature to implement measures that will promote danger to children.

Like -  4 · Dec 30, 2016 5:48am

Have you read the law? It doesn't legalize child prostitution as claimed. What it does is remove such children from the criminal system and move them to the child welfare system. The police officer doesn't arrest them but is supposed to take them into custody and turn them over to the child welfare "experts".

The complaint is that that was possible before this law. 

After a child was arrested, they'd be sent to child welfare and after being treated and completing needed programs ther criminal records would be expunged and they'd be released. What's immoral about such a plan?

So it seems what the liberals were so upset about was the supposed stigma of an arrest, even though it'd be cleared from the records. It's part of the liberal mantra that children (those under the age of 30? hee hee) shouldn't be considered criminals for committing criminal acts.

 Reply · Dec 30, 2016 

So a child engaging in sex is no longer to be charged with engaging in a criminal act.

‘Right.  It is to keep them from having -  ‘

I understand your presenting motive.  But let me continue with my train of thought.   

So the fact of a child engaging in sex with anybody - say, an adult - is no longer to be considered a criminal act.

‘That’s not what the law says.  It merely - ‘

I know what the law says.  And I know what you are doing.  You are taking away from pedophilia the stigma of a crime having been committed.  However you parse it.  As a first step in a two-step dance.  Isn’t that correct?

‘…You are making an assumption.’

I sure am.  A very educated assumption.  Especially in the current climate in this country, of overthrow of The Old, and installation of The New - of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," as your Dear Leader announced at the beginning of his illegal occupancy of the Oval Office.  This whole ball of wax, to be 'transformed,' according to leftist dictates.  For example; and seeing as how we have just come off the same sort of dance engaged in by you lot regarding the taking away of free speech in the country:  

Step 1: Outlaw foreign 'Disinformation and Propaganda'.  Step 2: Label alternative media sites as being purveyors of 'fake news,'  and under 'foreign influence',  like your designated villain in the piece, Russia.  Step 3 - in that particular dance (as just signed into law, by the Usurper, late on the Friday night leading into the Christmas weekend; sweet touch, that one): Outlaw 'Disinformation and Propaganda' itself.  The issue to be decided by either a panel of your own people, or a person of your choice.  And Hey Presto: the elimination of your communications competition, with the elimination of the so-called 'fake news' of the alternative media - or anything that runs counter to the party line. 

And just who is this 'party'??

The denizens of the Dark side.  

Who have reached the zenith of their takeover attempt.  And

the Light side will take over now.  Because

it is The Law.

And you are certainly interested in 'the law'. 

As in, overthrowing it.  By devious means.  Or by any means whatsoever.   

Aren't you.

And you have just made another step in that direction.  In California.

Seeing as how it has just gone January 1. in this state.

This state, that is 'in play' in so many ways.

But more on that, another time.

In the New Time that we are in.


No comments: