Sexual Abuse of Children

Sexual abuse of children is rampant.   It isn’t confined to Priests and Dioceses. The very charities that are called to protect children are in fact repeatedly found to perpetrate sexual abuse and prostitution. The organizations that are called to oversee these NGO’s are also complicit.  

In Canada, Bill 89 was recently passed that was endorsed and lobbied for by the charity, Save The Children. The Bill was quite controversial as it added a provision in which Social Services may legally take possession of children from their parents if the parent is deemed to not embrace ‘gender identity’.   This could constitute child abuse.

In one account, a Canadian couple were banned from fostering, their foster children taken away, because they refused to tell the children the Easter Bunny was real.

The rules within Social Services are ambiguous. Case workers have been criticized as too aggressive and too lenient. But “Child Protection Services” has taken on morality as a tool to claim abuse.

Many charities and NGO’s have been infiltrated and mobilized to effectively take control of our children and submit them to the ‘state’.   In Cuba, a couple received a 2 year jail sentence and fine for homeschooling their children. In Germany the same law exists and is radically enforced. The reasoning?   The state wants full control of child indoctrination. That’s called ‘communism’.

Save The Children has been mired in various scandals including sexual abuse and internal harassment. It’s International Chairman resigned last year claiming the allegations are so prevalent, he could no longer have his name attached.   Oxfam has been implicated in Haiti prostitution.   British Red Cross has admitted to a number of harassment cases.   Restless Development is facing internal charges of rape. The United Nations ‘peacekeepers’ have allegations dating back decades, most – conveniently dismissed. And yet, Charity Navigator does not take these situations into account when rating a charity – instead it is all financially evaluated.

In California, if the state determines that a child is uncontrollable, the state courts have ruled that the child becomes the property of the state.

CPS can immediately take children from their families without a court order if:

  • There is a present and immediate threat of physical or sexual abuse.
  • Leaving the children in the home is not safe or best for the children’s welfare.
  • CPS made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the children from the home.

The obvious open ended statement being “leaving the children in the home is not safe or best for he children’s welfare”.   What does that mean?

The US currently has roughly 400,000 to 450,000 children in foster care. In Germany the number is roughly 120,000. California ranks first with number of children in foster care – 60,000, Texas is second with about 30,000 and Florida is third with 23,000.   Substance abuse has been identified as the most common factor in the continued rise of US children in foster care.

But a ranking of drugs as the biggest problem by state put Florida at 30, Texas at 37 and California at 41. When it came to drug addiction ranking – DC held the title for number 1.

So the equation of drug use to foster care would not seem to be the most prevalent cause.

There are in fact huge discrepancies in these states with regard to ethnicity. In California, 53% of foster care children are Hispanic and 20% are black.   In Texas, 44% are Hispanic and 21% are black. And in Florida 31% are black and 16% are Hispanic. According to Child Trends, the number one cause for entry into Foster Care in California is “neglect” at 75%, whereas substance abuse accounts for only 10%.

According to California Law, the following are defined as ‘neglect’:

  • Clothes are ill-fitting, filthy, or inappropriate for the weather.
  • Hygiene is consistently bad (unbathed, matted and unwashed hair, noticeable body odor).
  • Untreated illnesses and physical injuries.
  • Is frequently unsupervised or left alone or allowed to play in unsafe situations and environments.
  • Is frequently late or missing from school.

There is so much legal ambiguity and corruption within the system that too often the stories of Child Protection acting more like Nazi Protection is perpetrated resulting in over the top cases wherein parents are illegally jailed, children are taken without proper cause, and just irrational judgment.

In one story a toddler fell out of his crib, was taken from his parents even though the CPS investigator reported he was healthy and happy at home.

The problem is not a US problem, it is a universal problem:   In Norway, a three-week-old child was taken away from his mother in 2008 based on doubts about her ‘parenting abilities.’ The child was placed in foster care and the mother was allowed only twelve hours of contact per year with her son. Ultimately, all visitation rights were denied, the mother’s parental rights were removed, and the child was put up for adoption.”

Funny thing is – we don’t see the outrage or the advocacy or the compassion extended to these injustices by our liberal, Democrat and Hollywooders. Although they are spiked about juveniles in detention at the border…  Odd.

Illegal Immigrants and Sanctuary Cities – The Hypocritical Oath

The proposal to release illegal immigrants from detention centers at the border into sanctuary cities is making the Democrats crazy!   Why?   Because they don’t want the immigrants in their cities, they just want everyone to think they do because it is political posturing. Whether Trump releases them in the cities or not was likely not the point, the reaction is likely the point.  All one need do is watch Sarah Sanders smile!  Every Democrat has vocally disputed the idea claiming such an action would put people at risk… And therein they have cremated their entire agenda that illegals present – no risk.

More often than not Trump has taken the position of taunting the media and Democrats into revealing their faces without makeup.  And the sight ain’t pretty.

There are currently 560 sanctuary cities across the US.   California is the only state that has legislation establishing statewide sanction. The concept of sanctuary is stating that all immigrants including undocumented and illegal – are welcome.   The caveat?  Unless they are imported by Trump.   Same people, different outcome.  These cities have also refused to cooperate with ICE for the purposes of detention and deportation.

Various studies have shown that sanctuary cities actually lower crime rate when taking in illegal immigrants. These studies were conducted by three journals: Urban Affairs Review, Justice Quarterly and Center For American Progress. Justice Quarterly has an ‘impact factor’ of 3 which means it has little to no relative value in the academic world.   For comparison, in 2014, an average rating was 41. Urban Affairs has an ‘impact factor’ of 1.8, is owned by Sage Publications which was embroiled in controversy for publishing a completely hoaxed article.   And the Center For American Progress? It is John Podesta’s ‘think tank’, run by a former aide to Obama and Hillary.  Say no more…

Of course if these studies are true, then Sanctuary cities would be desperate for more illegal immigrants so as to lower all crime throughout their city.   But the bluff was called and suddenly the wolves find themselves acting like sheep.

What are some of the actual statistics? San Francisco has a violent crime rate 59% higher than the California average, and 87% higher than the national average. Property crime is 147% higher than the state average and 161% higher than the national average.   The cities with the largest population of unauthorized migrants include: Seattle, Boston, LA, New York City, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.   All of which have relatively high crime rates.   Does this correspond to illegal status? There is no definable report that can say either yes or no.

Part of the statistical issue is that illegals are not convicted of a crime because they are deported. Therefore the statistics are skewed and can not accurately detail a comparison.

During Obama’s presidency, he deported 2.9 million illegal immigrants. Bush – 2 million.

The two largest gangs in Central America are MS-13 and Barrio-18.   They come from the Northern Triangle which includes Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and are said to have the highest murder rate in the world!   It is estimated that upwards of 50,000 Barrio-18 members ‘relocated’ to the US, and about 10,000 MS-13 members. In 2007 it was estimated that there were roughly 800,000 gang members across the US. By 2011, that number had increased to 1.4 million.   Despite their relative statistical numbers, as of 2011 gangs accounted for 13% of all homicides and 50% of all shootings in NYC. In an effort to not profile, given the statistics showed race and ethnicity, many states have since purged all data related to gangs.  Hence today, getting actual information is impossible.  In addition, cities, including LA, have been cited for ‘under-reporting’ of crime in order to reflect a better statistic.  Despite the ‘under-reporting’, gang related crimes increased 63% and then 33% between 2014 and 2016.  Somewhat like – Germany.

It is estimated that 60% of all gang members are illegal immigrants – protected from ICE by Sanctuary cities.

LA, Orange County and Santa Clara County have the highest rate of releasing gang members from possible ICE detention. Five counties in California have the highest number of illegal immigrants, LA, San Jose (Santa Clara County), Riverside, San Diego and San Francisco. They account for roughly 25% of the entire illegal population in the US.

If you are a Sanctuary city, your agenda is to welcome all – therefore to suddenly state that ‘Trump’s proposal’ is fear mongering is stating that illegals are something to fear, not welcome, given the gang statistics and crime rates. Still, the hypocrisy is lost somewhere along the Porky Pig stutter.

The UK provides sanctuary to asylum seekers and per national policy disperses the immigrants to different towns and cities so as to not create a burden to a handful of cities. Essentially, this is the same proposal Trump has asserted.

Of course the obvious terminology that sanctuary cities don’t seem to recognize is ‘illegal’.   As in breaking the Law. By advocating breaking the law, it begs for a discussion as to what other laws are breakable without consequence?

And that’s when Porky Pig makes another entry.

Cohen: Murder By Suicide

Trump’s former disgraced attorney, Michael Cohen has been granted an additional six weeks spree before he testifies.   While the previous excuse for prolonging testimony was due to “Cohen’s health”, there is no explanation currently offered to justify the further delay. However, Cohen’s attorney, Lanny Davis, has given a glimpse to MSM regarding the damaging campaign that will be made public once testimony is actually levied: Davis has claimed that Cohen will speak to Trump’s “character” over the last ten years as witnessed by him in which the American people will learn firsthand of Trump’s moral compass when in the Trump Tower Boardroom.

Although all testimony would appear to be according to Cohen’s ‘memory’, and no evidence is available to support anything he says, the hope is that the media will portray this as evidence to support a Democrat run for 2020.

While Meuller’s Russia collusion investigation costing over $40 million and 2 ½ years forward produced absolutely nothing, the Liberals hope that this testimony will be damaging enough to sway voters away from the brassy Trump.

The obvious smear has been devised in private and would appear to provide simple testimony without any backing.   Whether that is true is a long guess.   But given that attorney, Lanny Davis, is a Clintonite, a regular CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post contributor, who lobbied For Pakistan, was co-counsel for Stormy Daniels against Trump, who, advocated for both Hillary and Obama, and according to Glenn Greenwald, represented clients who he asserted were dictatorships, it is a fair guess, that his politics will rule his legal assertions.

The fact that Davis was hired by the Clintonites to represent Cohen should make one shudder. Not because of his convictions, but because of his ‘convictions’.

So how did Cohen infiltrate Trump in the first place? An interesting background.

Cohen married Ukrainian born Laura Shusterman in 1994. They supposedly amassed their ‘fortune’ through NYC taxi medallions, Chicago medallions and Trump properties but failed to pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes.   Ultimately, it is this lack of payment that resulted in the charges that landed Cohen to serve 3 years in jail, which would likely result in actually 1.5 years served.   It was Shusterman’s father who introduced Cohen to Trump.

Despite Laura and her father being in partnership with Trump, neither of them have been charged with the tax evasion crimes levied against Michael Cohen.

In essence, this all siphons back to Clinton.

And that ain’t good.   Because the Clintons love to spin and create and siphon and conjure until the mainstream has absolutely no idea what the freakin truth is.   And the agenda becomes all important, with lives, liberties, and family the toxic graffiti of blackmail.

In the end, the picture might reveal the truth behind Mueller, the eyes revealing his own fear, his own determination – backed by a threat, a possible blackmail of his own making.   What else could drive his obsession?

Most, within the Clinton frenzie seem to be fighting for their lives, and perhaps the lives of their family. And so, when we try and find a reasoning for some of the more adamant progenitors of fakery, it makes sense to assume their own vain attempt to protect – despite the truth – despite the demise of others. Their own weakness and fear ruling their lies and transgressions.

In some respect, we can feel sorry for them.   Who can say what we would do, given such a choice… what if your children were the threatened choice.   What would you do?   What if your wife was threatened with a horrifically painful torture, what would you choose?

And so, sometimes, when we look at the Meullers, the Cohens, the Stones, the Flynns… the bigger picture is what we don’t know, the threats that advocate harm to children and wives, girlfriends and acquaintances.   Should they not adhere to the Clinton dictum.

What would you do?

Would you sacrifice your family?

Murder By Suicide.