Fake news? California did not just legalize child prostitution.

December 30, 2016

Send help.

“Fake news” has been all the rage in recent weeks as Clintonistas and progressives more generally search for any reason why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump other than she was a horrible candidate.

The charge is, of course, horse manure for any number of reasons, but I’m going to level it here at a mendacious, tendentious article published in The Washington Examiner and written by Travis Allen, a California Republican Assemblyman. To wit:

No, California did not just legalize child prostitution.

If you’re like me and did a “WTF?” head-shake at the very idea that buying sex from a minor is now just groovy here, here’s a graphic of the headline, in case The Examiner changes it:

examiner

And here’s a quote from the article:

Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

This is, to put it kindly (and remembering this is a family show), ninety-five percent wrong and just right enough to mislead a lot of people.

Let’s do some digging, shall we? First, here is an excerpt of a press release (1) from Senator Holly Mitchell (D), the author of the bill:

The Governor has signed into law legislation that deems persons under the age of 18 who might previously have been charged with criminal prostitution as victims of sex trafficking, eligible for treatment rather than prosecution.

The law is supposed to protect vulnerable children from adult abuse, yet we brand kids enmeshed in sex-for-pay with a scarlet ‘P’ and leave them subject to shame and prosecution,” said State Senator Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), who introduced SB 1322. “This is our opportunity to do what we say is right in cases of sex trafficking: stop the exploiters and help the exploited.”

When it comes to the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), the victims are criminalized under California law, often sent to juvenile hall and tagged with a rap sheet for prostitution.

So, Mitchell claims the bill treats child prostitutes as victims, rather than criminals. Regardless of Mr. Allen’s claims, this is not the same as legalizing child prostitution.

But a press release can be just as misleading as a news article, so let’s look at the bill’s actual text. Senate Bill 1322 (SB 1322) amends Section 647 of the California Penal Code. The relevant paragraphs are 647 (a) and 647 (b)(1) and (b)(2). I quote them here in full:

SECTION 1. Section 647 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

647. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view.

(b) (1) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution. A person agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, he or she manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution. No agreement to engage in an act of prostitution shall constitute a violation of this subdivision unless some act, in addition to the agreement, is done within this state in furtherance of the commission of an act of prostitution by the person agreeing to engage in that act. As used in this subdivision, “prostitution” includes any lewd act between persons for money or other consideration.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child under this paragraph may be adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and may be taken into temporary custody pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 305 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met.

Read it carefully:

  • Paragraph (a) discusses anyone who in a public place tries to get another to have sex, including for pay. In other words, it includes a potential John making an offer.
  • Paragraph (b)(1) criminalizes the person the person who offers sex in return for money – the prostitute.
  • Paragraph (b)(2) removes the criminal penalties for prostitutes under 18, but makes them a dependent of the courts so that they can get help to escape that life, not a juvenile record. They can be taken into custody. They are not let off to do it again, they are not “free to have sex in exchange for money.”

What SB 1322 emphatically does not do is decriminalize perverts offering to pay for sex with a minor –paragraph (a)– or the prostitutes’ pimps. It does not decriminalize statutory rape, which is what sex with a minor prostitute would constitute. Those are still crimes in California. To state it plainly:

Child prostitution is still a crime in California.

One can debate whether Mitchell’s approach is the right one and whether the bill is prudent, but to say it legalizes something as horrible as child prostitution is “fake news” that defames Senator Mitchell and Governor Brown, and is insulting to California and its people. The Washington Examiner should at a minimum change the headline or, preferably, retract the article. Assemblyman Allen owes his colleague in the state senate an apology for insulting her and to the people of his district for embarrassing them.

There’s a lot wrong with my home state, but legalizing child sex is not one of them.

PS: To say 2016 has been a weird year is by now a cliche. Whether in politics or pop culture, this year has seen many saddening, maddening, and just plain weird occurrences.

But, here we go again. I’m defending California Democrats, the people running this state into the ground, Governor Jerry Brown, and my state senator, Holly Mitchell, a down-the-line progressive whom I’d never vote for. And I’m criticizing a California Republican.

Like I said, 2016 has been weird, man.

Relevant Link: The Blaze also states the truth.

UPDATE: Linked at Red State.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, the headline for the press release says there is “no such thing as a child prostitute.” This is as much bunkum as Allen’s article. Selling sex in return for consideration makes one a prostitute, whether willing or not and whether adult or minor. This kind of avoidance of the truth helps no one.

Advertisements

You’ll be shocked to learn Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) may be corrupt.

October 24, 2016
No way!!

No way!!

Call me “crazy,” “paranoid,” or even late for dinner, but, somehow, it seems just a wee bit suspicious that Governor McAuliffe, a close Clinton retainer known to play fast and loose with the rules (1), saw to it that that over $600,000 was donated to the state senate campaign of the wife of the FBI Agent who was investigating… Hillary Clinton.

What. A. Coincidence.

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

Mr. McAuliffe and other state party leaders recruited Dr. McCabe to run, according to party officials. She lost the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black.

Via Jim Geraghty, who points out in his Morning Jolt newsletter that there may really be nothing there, but it sure looks bad when the spouse of a law enforcement officer takes money from a known supporter of the woman her husband happens to be investigating. Even if there’s no fire beneath the smoke, in our cynical age the suspicion of a corrupt quid pro quo is unavoidable and only helps deepen the sense of citizens that the system is rotten and rigged to protect the powerful.

For what it’s worth, given what we already know of the whitewash of the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal by the FBI Director and the Department of Justice, not only do I think there’s fire under the smoke, but it’s a five-alarm fire. Congress and the DoJ’s inspector general need to look into this right now.

Footnote:
(1) And that’s giving McAuliffe every benefit of the doubt that’s left in the world. For all time.


FBI won’t recommend charges against @HillaryClinton. R.I.P. Rule of Law

July 5, 2016
Above the rules.

Guilty as sin, free as a bird.

This is a very depressing moment:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against anyone involved with Hillary Clinton’s private email network, even after finding that Clinton’s team was “extremely careless” in handling classified emails.

“We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” he told reporters in Washington. Comey added that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges.

Still, he said Clinton sent or received dozens of emails that were classified at the time they were sent and noted the former secretary of state did not turn over thousands of work-related emails to the State Department.

Comey said 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent, including eight emails that were top secret. That finding marked a direct contradiction to Clinton’s previous statements, in which she said she never sent any information that was classified at the time it was sent.

Comey said the investigation focused on whether Clinton violated federal statutes prohibiting the removal of classified information from secure areas, which is a crime whether that is done intentionally or inadvertently.

I have to agree with attorney Gabriel Malor:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is the statute in question:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

How, I ask, is Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server, which was in her mansion in Chappaqua, in any way, shape or form a “proper place of custody?” And how in God’s name do any of her actions while in charge of national secrets as Secretary of State constitute anything other than “gross negligence?” General Petraeus was prosecuted for less. The information that passed through her servers is likely in the hands of the Russians and Chinese — and who know who else? Clandestine human and technical sources were almost certainly compromised by her “gross negligence.” Intent is immaterial: the existence of the unauthorized server itself is the smoking gun here.

Mere words aren’t enough to convey my disgust.

The Rule of Law may not be dead in this country, but it is gut-shot and bleeding.

RELATED: One small smidgen of good news. While declining to prosecute, Director Comey’s statement point by point demolished all Hillary’s claims of innocence. Not that anyone seems to care that she’s a congenital liar.

 


Orlando massacre: Was the FBI waiting for the killer to send them an invitation?

June 17, 2016

Warning after warning sign that Omar Mateen was a threat. Such as:

Then a few weeks ago, the gun store called the FBI.

“Mateen then called someone on the phone and began speaking in Arabic. Robert Abell says that’s when the salesman became suspicious.

“He just made the mistake of asking for an armor that wasn’t normal,” he said. “And then on the phone conversation was another key that you might need to step back and look at this. Our guy made the right decision at the time. I’m not selling him anything.

“As soon as we said we didn’t have the bulk ammo he walked out the door.”

Abell says they denied the sale, which they have the right to do. But before they could get his name and information, Mateen left the store.

The gun shop owner says they immediately alerted the FBI about the suspicious man who wanted to purchase body armor. But the feds never followed up and visited the store.

They failed to connect the dots on a lot of other red flags, too — read the whole thing.

Nobody in their right mind expects we can mount a perfect defense against terrorism, whether organized from abroad like 9-11, or conducted by a native-born citizen acting largely on his own — such as Omar Mateen. Every defense has its weakness, its point of vulnerability and failure.

But it’s laughable for FBI Director Comey to stand there, in the face of a long track record of warning signals, and say “I don’t see anything in reviewing our work that our agents should have done differently.”

Let me buy you some glasses so you can see those red flags more clearly, Mr. Comey.


(Video) Are 1 in 5 women raped in college?

April 11, 2016

The “1 in 5” statistic has been used by the feminist left and pandering politicians to promote the idea that there is a “rape culture” crisis on our college campuses. This, of course, has lead to new laws in some states (1) that set an “affirmative consent” standard — minutely regulating the sexual interactions of college students, a progressive’s dream.

But is this statistic correct?

For Prager University, Caroline Kitchens of the American Enterprise Institute says the answer is “no” and shows what a hollow foundation that “1 in 5” figure rests on:

This false statistic has harmful real-world consequences, as universities assume guilt-upon-accusation and deny males accused of sexual assault even the most basic protections of due process, acting like a Star Chamber. This is the real “crisis” on campuses. Journalist Ashe Schow has written extensively about it and you can learn a lot from her archives.

Footnote:
(1) Such as California. Sigh.

 


I was right. Obama wants an election year fight over the Supreme Court.

February 14, 2016
"And you're surprised?"

“And you’re surprised?”

Do I know my community-organizer presidents, or what?

Responding to the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama declared that he will nominate a successor, breaking a nearly 100-year tradition. Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican presidential candidates have encouraged him to wait for the next president, who will be elected this November.

“I plan to fulfill one of my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor, in due time,” Obama declared in a statement Saturday evening. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.” Obama emphasized, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously and so should everyone— they are bigger than any one party, they are about our democracy.”

No lame duck president has nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year for eighty years, a fact which both Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz mentioned in the Republican presidential debate Saturday evening.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) said that “it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

And there’s good reason for that: the Supreme Court, which, since the New Deal, has effectively served as a 2nd, unelected legislature, makes decisions crucial to the  daily lives of Americans on highly controversial matters. Whether the next president is a conservative Republican, a crooked cronyist progressive Democrat, or a Socialist running as a Democrat, it’s been the tradition to not make appointments during a presidential election year because there are so many issues are at stake that people feel passionately about. It behooves us to wait until the election gauges the national mood to see which direction the people, through their choice of president and senators, want the Court to go. It also avoids adding yet another inevitably politicized argument to an already contentious election.

Some writers looked at this tradition and speculated that Obama would honor it and let the Court operate with eight justices until the new president could make a choice. I’m not sure why they would think that, since Barack Obama —mentored by a Stalinist in Hawaii as a boy, a committed Marxist-Leninist as an undergraduate, and a devotee of Saul Alinsky as a community organizer– has never show any understanding or respect for American traditions.

On the contrary, I speculated yesterday that Obama would use this opportunity to pick a fight:

…and…

…followed by…

While we don’t know Obama’s choice yet (1), his statement makes me think I’m more likely right than not. Consider:

Obama’s first job out of college was as a community organizer, the profession invented by Saul Alinsky, the Socialist whose main motivation was the taking of power and who developed the tactics used by community organizers to this day — including Obama. Consider Alinsky’s Rule 12:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The community organizer wins by dividing groups, setting them against each other so that his side is ready to take action while the other is reeling. Compromise, other than a faux-compromise that gives the Alinskyist what he wants, becomes impossible because the community organizer does not want a compromise.

He wants power.

It is my belief that President Obama will choose someone wholly unacceptable to the Senate majority, but around whom he can rally his side and polarize the issue, painting the Republicans as obstructionists and even racists or sexists (or both). Someone such as California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, a very left-leaning Asian-American jurist who’s already been rejected for the federal bench by the Senate. Or Tom Perez, the Hispanic Secretary of Labor who, as an Assistant Attorney General under Eric Holder, helped push the Civil Rights Division far to the left.

The Senate would rightfully reject either man (2), and then Obama would exploit this to rally his side in the November election, with the media as his willing flacks. The news articles and network broadcasts and campaign commercials (but I repeat myself) write themselves. It wouldn’t be about judicial philosophy or the nominee’s record; instead, Obama and his allies would strongly imply that the Republicans are derelict in their duty, keeping the Court from doing it’s job, probably from racist motives.

It would be horse manure, but it would still do damage to the Republicans, who’ve shown themselves to be utterly inept at fighting back.

Obama wants this fight. He’s picked his target (Senate Republicans); he’ll freeze them, trapping them with their own words about “up or down votes;” he’ll personalize it (“They’re doing this because I’m Black.”); and he will polarize the issue to get his side fired up for the election. Getting his choice for Justice would be gravy.

Get ready for a wild ride.

Footnote:
1) Can you say “Mr. Justice Eric Holder?”
2) I’m not convinced Obama would be all that unhappy to see his choice lose, for reasons I explain above.


Canada: train jihadists sentenced to life in prison

September 23, 2015

flag_canadian_maple_leaf

Closure on something I wrote about two years ago, then almost forgot: Raed Jaser and Chiheb Esseghaier were convicted of attempting to murder dozens, if not hundreds, in a train derailment plot. For their efforts, they got life in prison:

Raed Jaser and Chiheb Esseghaier, the men convicted earlier this year on terrorism charges for plotting to derail a Via passenger train, were both sentenced to life in prison today in a Toronto courtroom.

In passing sentence, Superior Court of Justice Judge Michael Code said the unusual gravity of terrorism offences means he had to send a strong enough message to deter others considering carrying out similar crimes. He said there was little evidence presented that mitigates the presumptive sentence of life in prison.

“These are the most serious of terrorism offences, designed to result in indiscriminate killings of innocent human beings,” he said.

“I am satisfied that life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence,” the judge added, noting that the men would receive credit for time already spent in custody.

He said both men have not renounced their violent, jihadist ideology and have shown no remorse.

In March, both men were found guilty of conspiring to commit murder for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group.

I’m afraid Judge Code is naive if he thinks this sentence will deter Muslims dedicated to jihad fi sabil Allah, “war for the sake of Allah.” As Esseghaier said in court:

“The life sentence doesn’t have any meaning for me,” Esseghaier told the judge after his sentence was delivered, adding God was his “master.”

Indeed. What’s life in prison, when you’ve been promised eternal pleasures in Paradise?

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment. –Qur’an 9:111

This is a religious war, folks, whether we choose to admit or even understand it.

via Jihad Watch