Just when you thought that I would never use this kind of title again for any of my Hive-Blog articles, here you are once again reading an article of mine and wondering why in the world did I come up with this title for my article. No, herein I’m not trying to suggest a sequel to the movie titled Are All Men Pedophiles? by the Dutch movie producer Jan Willem-Breure, although that would be something interesting if it were ever to happen. If you are tuning in to my Hive-Blog channel for the first time, it will become no mystery to you as you read through this same article of mine that I wanted to keep the attention of my readers as I lay down the foundation for all my talking points herein. If you are a loyal follower of mine, then you probably have already guessed by now that I am allowing for my anger regarding certain topics and issues to fuel my determination to get my points across to as many people whom I can enlighten with this article of mine as I can. If you are a boy in middle school or high school who is about to become a father and you are tuning in to my Hive-Blog channel for the very first time, I am not pointing my finger exclusively at you with the question that gets set forth in the title of this same article. However, there are many things that you need to know about how I and many other people feel about you and why I don’t believe that you should have it way easier than men over 21 years old who may be trying to remain in the lives of their pregnant teenage girlfriends or wives and have to contend with a ridiculous number of odds in doing so because of upside down sex laws throughout the United States of America. There are now even extremists among all these self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts who are seeking to redefine 18- and 19-year-old women as potential victims of pedophilia and child molestation, which is demonstrative that our nation is in serious trouble because of these fanatics.
A short while back I was reading this one post on Reddit in which a mother was complaining that her 13-year-old daughter had announced to her that she was pregnant. The mother stated therein that her family was barely scraping by financially, and the 16-year-old father of the unborn baby wanted nothing more to do with the situation. She discussed with her 13-year-old daughter the options of either getting an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption, but the 13-year-old daughter was insistent about wanting to keep the baby. The mother further stated that she subsequently contacted the police to find out if there was a way that she could have the young boy arrested for statutory rape. However, the authorities told her that he had to be no less than three years older than her 13-year-old daughter because of the Romeo-and-Juliet provisions in the statutory-age-of-consent laws in their particular state jurisdiction, and he had been born less than three years before the 13-year-old daughter had been born.
Now, even though I have made it well known throughout my Hive-Blog articles that I have never been any big fan of the statutory-rape laws in their present form here in the United States of America, I can still understand this same mother’s frustration and desperation. What her 13-year-old daughter’s 16-year-old baby daddy did was unconscionable, because he changed that 13-year-old girl’s life forever and he had no intentions of stepping up to the plate as the baby’s father once it was born. I would not favor the state jurisdictions throughout our nation taking the statutory-rape laws back to the old days before Romeo-and-Juliet provisions existed, but I do agree with this mother that the 16-year-old boy who got her 13-year-old daughter pregnant should not be able to walk away from the situation scot-free.
Some of you may believe that doing away with the Romeo-and-Juliet provisions in statutory-rape laws across our nation is the solution in punishing high-school and middle-school boys for getting underage girls pregnant. However, one of the major problems that I have with that course of action would be that the juvenile justice system in our nation tends to go soft on underage adolescent boys for any transgression or even any criminal offense of theirs that involves sexual intercourse or sexual conduct of any kind. If all we take a look back in time at the Spur Posse ordeal that took place in Lakewood, California in the 1990s, it becomes no mystery that law-enforcement officials, prosecutors and judges all share this same bizarre school of thought that if they start throwing underage adolescent boys in jail and prison for having sex with middle-school and high-school girls, they’re going to be throwing their own teenage sons in jail and prison for doing the same. In the situation involving the Spur Posse back in the 1990s, the sex-related charges that were brought against all the middle-school and high-school boys who participated in the Spur Posse’s sexual shenanigans were all dropped with the exception of one criminal rap against a 17-year-old member of the Spur Posse who was arrested for having sexual intercourse with a 10-year-old girl whom he had believed to be 15 years old at the time. The authorities knew that they had this teenage boy behind the eight ball, because his crimes constituted a clear case of child molestation. That is, at least in their eyes it did despite that he had thought that the girl was close to him in age difference.
Anyhow, getting back to the above-described post on Reddit, if the mother of the 13-year-old girl were to have the ability to get a criminal indictment against the 16-year-old boy who got her daughter pregnant, I am not saying that the boy would not deserve whatever the criminal justice system could throw his way. However, I somehow do not believe that a judge in a juvenile court would give this 16-year-old boy any kind of significant sentence that would deter him from committing the same act again against some other gullible, young girl. He is your typical deadbeat teenage father, and his kind never learn. I can fully understand the mother’s anger that this 16-year-old boy can walk away from this situation with impunity and go on with his life as before, free to get some other 13- or 14-year-old girl pregnant and behave in such a reprehensible way as though he wants to become the next Levi Johnston. A juvenile court judge would likely give this same 16-year-old boy a slap on the wrist and tell him never to do it again, but that 16-year-old boy would not clean up his act accordingly. The judge probably would not even send him to a juvenile detention facility.
At the end of the day, way too many teenage boys are getting away with not only getting underage girls pregnant and then turning into absolute creeps on them afterwards, but they also seem to get away with committing serious sex crimes against both young girls under 18 years of age and adult women, because somehow both society and the criminal justice system in our nation don’t take anything involving sexual intercourse and sexual misconduct by teenage boys seriously so long as they are legally too young to vote in the presidential elections. The best course of action and the only course of action to make deadbeat teenage fathers pay for their transgressions against underage girls is to draft them into the military when they reach 18 years of age. If our Federal government were to apply this practice throughout our nation, more parents of these sexually promiscuous teenage boys would finally start taking the problem of teenage pregnancy seriously and they would assert their authority against their teenage sons to prevent them from ruining another underage girl’s life with an unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, the sex laws throughout our nation appear to put more emphasis on whether a young man is over the age of majority and how much of an age difference there is between him and the underage girl he has gotten pregnant than on his actions against her themselves. The sex laws throughout our nation are more about furthering a Puritanical agenda in an effort to turn our culture into some kind of age-appropriate Utopia and less about protecting the public safety.
The other day I was listening to this one oldie by The Delfonics titled “Seventeen (And In Love).” This same controversial song was originally released back in 1974. Listen to the lyrics of the song.
The Song Titled “Seventeen (And In Love)” By The Delfonics
Somehow I don’t think that any band could ever remake this song today without receiving hate from all the self-proclaimed child advocates and self-appointed pedo-experts who would tear the lyrics apart for describing a relationship between a high-school girl and a married man who is obviously an adult. I would never encourage the scenario described in the song, but I don’t believe that there was anything wrong with The Delfonics recording this same song and releasing it back when they did. Music is supposed to describe the trials and tribulations of everyday people. Unfortunately, nowadays certain people get easily offended whenever they hear or see anything that doesn’t meet up to their standards of a wholesome society that promotes age-appropriate perfection.
Speaking of age-appropriate perfection, there is this one 18-year-old YouTuber named Elissa Victoria who made a video of herself modeling swimwear. No crime was being committed in her doing so, and no crime was being committed in anyone watching her video. She had live-streamed this same video on YouTube not too long ago, and the chat log for it appeared to the right of her video.
Anyhow, a YouTuber named DELTA 23 had the audacity to post the following comment in the chat log:
You are very pretty in your own way, but trying to get attention in the form that you do is most likely attracting creeps in there 40's and up.
Okay, YouTuber DELTA 23? How do you know that any of these men over 40 years old watching YouTuber Elissa Victoria’s video are creeps, and what gives you the right to assume that they are creeps based solely upon the fact that they are over 40 years old? What difference does any of it make to you, YouTuber DELTA 23? You obviously do not understand how the male mind works, and you obviously do not care. Either you like to hate on Generation-Xer men or you simply are looking to push your femi-Nazi way of thinking on others. Have you ever heard of the Czech model Paulina Porizkova? At 18 years old, in 1984, she became the first woman from Central Europe to be on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Shortly thereafter, she began dating a rock musician named Ric Ocasek. He was from the rock-and-roll group called the Cars. He was in his forties and Ms. Porizkova was still in her teens when they became an item back then. He may not have looked like Brad Pitt or Ricky Martin by a long shot, but he knew how to treat Ms. Porizkova like a lady; and, yes, he was sexually attracted to her from the first time that he had met her. However, what makes him different from any other man, young or old? Their love flourished eventually into a marriage by 1989.
YouTuber DELTA 23? Perhaps Ric Ocasek and Paulina Porizkova may not have been your ideal of an age-appropriate couple, but they had a relationship and a marriage that was more successful than many same-age marriages that come about right after two youngsters graduate from high school. YouTuber DELTA 23? Your spelling and grammar are both atrocious, and you need to go back to school to read and write. Also, while you’re at it, you may just want to take a course on male sexuality so that you won’t be so judgmental about men’s desires and love interests after they reach a certain age and so that you won’t get on this narrow-minded fixation of yours of believing that every man should be a clone of the actor Tony Danza and have followed his unrealistic schedule of finding romance by a certain age and getting married to a woman the same age as him before a deadline. Fortunately, everybody on this planet does not think like you, YouTuber DELTA 23, and it would be a pity if they did. No man will ever meet your ideal of age-appropriate perfection, but, fortunately, it is not any man’s obligation to do so inasmuch as you do not represent the popular majority.
YouTuber DELTA 23? YouTuber Elissa Victoria is the same age now as Paulina Porizkova was back when she became well known as a magazine model in 1984 and became involved with then-40-something-year-old Ric Ocasek. YouTuber Elissa Victoria is above the legal age of majority. So what difference does it make if any man over 40 years of age takes notice of her womanly beauty? It does not make him a creep, but it does make you a femi-Nazi hag for calling him a creep, YouTuber DELTA 23. Needless pervert-shaming seems to be a favorite pastime of femi-Nazi hags like you who flood our social media and the Internet. Did you give yourself the username of DELTA 23 on YouTube inasmuch as the following song below describes your particular characteristics?
The Song Titled “Delta Dawn” By Helen Ready
YouTuber DELTA 23? Somehow you come across to me as another one of those people whose sorry, pathetic life proves that misery loves company. It is bad enough that some of the small minds of our society chastise men over forty years of age for taking notice of women who are of collegiate age. However, when those same small minds of our society unjustly pervert-shame men in their early twenties for noticing girls on any level of the entire adolescent age pole, then this judgmental practice of theirs dives from the ridiculous into the extreme absurd.
A. Fortunately, Femi-Nazi Extremists And Societal Fundamentalists Are Not Unopposed In Their Crusade To Eliminate Underage Adolescent Marriage
Recently I came across this one suspiciously slanted online article titled “Campaign to end child marriage in the U.S. runs into some surprising opposition” by Elaisha Stokes, and it looks as though Fraidy Reiss of Unchained At Last and Jeanne Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center are both up to no good again. I describe this same article as being suspiciously slanted, because Elaisha Stokes was not completely impartial in her article inasmuch as she gave the proponents of laws against underage adolescent marriage more voice than the opponents of such laws. The article showcases in both its contents and in a group of videos many of the activists who are furthering the fundamentalist agenda of both Unchained At Last and the Tahirih Justice Center, and they all provide each of their sob stories that people have heard for the one millionth time after having read enough articles about them and having seen enough news clips and videos about them. I am first going to respond to the contents of the videos in this same article.
Therein Fraidy Reiss whined both on camera and in the written contents of Ms. Stokes’s article about how she believed that because of the marriage laws in our nation that allow for teenage minors to wed, we Americans were making a mockery out of the statutory-rape laws throughout our state jurisdictions. However, in contrary to what she stated, it is really the other way around. That is, the statutory-rape laws throughout our nation are making a mockery out of us Americans inasmuch as our nation has the highest statutory ages of consent and the most Draconian statutory-rape laws in the world, and, for that reason, the marriage laws still allowing for teenage minors to wed without unfair limitations need to remain undisturbed. For example, in the state of New York, a minor is automatically tried as an adult upon turning 16 years old if he or she is charged with a crime, and nobody can get married before the age of seventeen under any circumstances in that same state jurisdiction, thanks to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s lack of backbone against femi-Nazi extremists like Ms. Reiss and Ms. Smoot. Therefore, if a 16-year-old girl refuses to testify as a “victim” witness for the prosecution against her 23-year-old boyfriend in a frivolous and malicious statutory-rape case against him, the prosecuting attorney can have her indicted for contempt of court and try her as an adult for it. In other words, these laws impose a double standard in that state jurisdiction.
Ms. Reiss and Ms. Smoot? I may not be religious. However, I pray and hope that a 15-year-old boy never forcibly rapes either one of you, because if he does, his parents will likely press statutory-rape charges against you to make their son look innocent of his crimes and make you look as though you victimized him. The austere and faulty statutory-rape laws across our nation have made our country a disgrace in the eyes of the world. Statutory rape is merely a legal construct rather than an actual act of sexual brutality despite anything that Ms. Reiss or her supporters may say to the contrary. Hence, underage adolescent marriage is not a loophole but rather an equitable escape path for a couple in which both parties may happen to be on opposite sides of the legal age line in that it allows for them to keep the criminal justice system out of their lives when it does not have their best interest at heart. And, no, Ms. Reiss! An adult man over eighteen years of age marrying an adolescent girl younger than 18 years of age does not give him the ability to legally rape her as you claimed in one of your interviews on camera in Ms. Stokes’s article, because he is still obligated to abide by the same anti-spousal rape laws in his state jurisdiction that men who are married to adult women must do.
In my Hive-Blog article titled “Underage Marriage Is Not A Loophole,” I mentioned that I was experiencing a difficult time in finding a picture of Sherry Johnson anywhere on the Internet, who claimed that an adult man raped her when she still had her baby teeth and when she was not even in middle school yet and that her mother had forced her to marry him. Nicholas Kristof had written an article about her two years ago in The New York Times, but he did not include any photographs of her therein. Therein he stated that Ms. Johnson’s marriage at 11 years old was legal, when reality has it that the judge who authorized it violated the English Common Law. Mr. Kristof’s article was replete with inaccuracies and misleading information regarding underage adolescent marriage here in our nation. Moreover, Ms. Johnson was not even yet an adolescent when she got married. Therefore, he should not have lumped her situation in with those of youngsters who have wedded in their teens.
I finally did locate videos on the Internet in which Sherry Johnson appeared, and I listened to her story firsthand. Ms. Stokes’s article shows a video with her in it, and I know what some of you are going to say about her case. However, her case is a very extreme and rare one, and it should not be used or even brought up in American legislators’ decisions on whether or not to tighten the marriage laws throughout our nation. The Florida judge who granted judicial approval for her marriage back in the early 1970s should have been removed from the bench, because he violated the English Common Law that dictated that any girl under the age of twelve was too young to wed under any circumstances. Her marriage did not even come close to resembling a Loretta-Lynn-style marriage, because she was never in love with the man whom she married; and he had raped her when he was in his early twenties and she was only eight years old. Her mother forced her to marry this rapist before she was even in middle school, and he allegedly got her pregnant when she was 9 years old; and she gave birth to her oldest daughter at the age of ten. It was a very unusual and tragic situation; but it does not warrant our nation making the marriageable age 18 years old with no exceptions in every state jurisdiction, because the judge who granted judicial approval for Ms. Johnson to be married when she was 11 years old would have done so even if Florida had changed its marriageable age to a solid 18 years old with no exceptions.
I’m not making light of Ms. Johnson’s ordeal during her childhood and my heart goes out to her, but she simply is not weighing the consequences of state legislatures outlawing underage adolescent marriage against allowing for teenage minors to get married when the situation so warrants and even necessitates. Like her, I’m against any girl being forced into getting married at 9, 10 or 11 years old as in the case of what happened to her. However, I do not see how her particular tragedy has anything to do with a 14-, 15- or 16-year-old girl marrying her 19-, 20- or 21-year-old boyfriend to make their relationship completely legal inasmuch as the criminal justice system is not going to treat them fairly in the event that a disgruntled ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend decides to get the authorities needlessly involved in their private matter.
Like in other similar articles on the Internet in which both femi-Nazi extremists have been interviewed, in both the written contents of Ms. Stokes’s article and its videos, it becomes clear that Fraidy Reiss and Jeanne Smoot dug to the bottom of the barrel to find a case in which an adult/adolescent marriage had soured and had left the underage adolescent wife determined to “change the system,” so to speak. Genevieve Meyer is the name of their star sob story. It would be just like Ms. Reiss and Ms. Smoot to dig up a case in which a 42-year-old man had married a woman when she was 15 years old, because they don’t want anyone reading about a situation in which a 22-year-old man attempted to marry his pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend to do the honorable thing and was shipped off to lockup before the girl’s parents could okay the marriage proceedings, especially if that man was subsequently gang-raped and infected with the AIDS virus during his incarceration. Moreover, marriages between men in their forties and 15-year-old girls are so rare in our country that the example of Ms. Meyer is a needle in a haystack. In my Hive-Blog article titled “Chelsea Clinton Doesn’t Truly Care About 13-Year-Old Brides,” I provide examples in which girls that young or even younger have wedded men over the age of forty and have lived happily ever after with them. In the videos of Ms. Stokes’s article, Ms. Reiss and Ms. Smoot dug up from the bottom of the barrel a grocery list of Loretta-Lynn-style marriages that went wrong or never had a chance in the first place but do not necessarily represent the majority of such marriages. Many of these women were the same faces that have followed them throughout the nation in their fundamentalist crusade.
One ally of Ms. Reiss and Ms. Smoot whom I find particularly annoying is Donna Pollard, and she appeared in one of the videos of Ms. Stokes’s article. Ms. Pollard is another societal fundamentalist who has misused her life’s tragedies to impose her agenda on others. She is the founder of Survivor’s Corner in Kentucky, which has an identical agenda to that of Unchained At Last and the Tahirih Justice Center. When she was 16 years old, she married a 31-year-old man; and the marriage did not go the way she had wanted it. Now, I can understand her complaint about all the legal barriers that she went up against while she was married to her ex-husband and she was trying to get out of that marriage. However, it would make more sense for lawmakers to eliminate those legal barriers for minors when they are trying to get out of such a marriage rather than imposing a solid marriageable age of 18 years old that prohibits all underage adolescent marriage. I once posted a reply in the comments section in one of Ms. Pollard’s articles on the Internet in an effort to reach out to her, and she deleted it, which shows precisely how stubborn and hotheaded she is about listening to anyone who disagrees with her.
I’ve seen Ms. Pollard in videos of other appearances she has made on camera all over YouTube and the Internet, and she is not someone who always appears to care about the facts if she finds herself being pulled out of her comfort zone. For example, in one such video, she told her audience that she believed that any adult man who took a non-Platonic or extra-Platonic interest in an adolescent girl younger than 18 years old was a pedophile. Oh, Ms. Pollard, don’t slander other people you don’t know solely because you hate your ex-husband and want to belittle him every way you can. I get it that he did you wrong, and you have every right to feel the way you do about him; but don’t generalize about others and play the role of the self-appointed pedo-expert who can simply wave her imaginary magic wand and turn anyone into a pedophile at her convenience. Ms. Pollard? The fact alone that you are promoting mendacious pedophile-panic propaganda demonstrates that you don’t care about those whom your agenda is going to harm so long as you get your way. Even your closest ally in your fundamentalist crusade against underage adolescent marriage, Nicholas L. Syrett, once stressed in an article of his he co-wrote with Rachel Hope Cleves that adult men who were attracted to pubescent and adolescent girls were not pedophiles. He was even bold enough to go as far as stating that even though Roy Moore was no poster boy for good behavior, he was not a pedophile for taking an interest in teenage girls. I take no shame in mentioning Mr. Syrett’s name herein, because he even appears in an interview on camera in one of the videos in Ms. Stokes’s article. At one point in her above-described interview, Ms. Pollard referred to her ex-husband as her rapist. Really? When did he rape you, Ms. Pollard? You did not provide any details in your above-described interview about your ex-husband ever having forced himself on you. Therefore, you are only firing off your mouth and providing no concrete evidence of any such wrongdoing on his part other than what you described about him in detail.
Ms. Pollard is a living example exactly like Ms. Reiss that misery loves company, and she is living up to that saying by forcing her agenda down the throats of others without first assessing the widespread consequences that her actions are going to have. One of the dumbest statements that she made in her above-described interview was that she was glad that Kentucky put a 4-year age-differential limit on 17-year-olds getting married. That is, a 17-year-old girl cannot marry someone any older than 21 years of age in Kentucky. How does such a law make sense? In Austria, a minor cannot marry another minor but can marry an adult, because only an adult can support a minor financially in a marriage; and the older the adult is, the more favorable their law system will be about allowing the marriage inasmuch as the minor getting married will have more financial security with an older spouse than he or she will with someone close to their own age. However, Ms. Pollard believes that letting a 17-year-old girl marry anyone 22 years old or older is going to cause a significant power imbalance. If that 17-year-old girl ends up living in squalor and poverty with a man less than four years her senior, I don’t think that she is going to be concerned about having confronted any power imbalance if she had picked an older husband over the one she has. Moreover, power imbalances don’t necessarily mean that the spouse who occupies the higher ground is going to exploit or manipulate the one that occupies the lower ground. It is like someone saying that every muscle-bound man is going to beat up on his wife and subsequently terrify her out of telling anyone about it, because he knows he can get away with it. Ms. Pollard’s rhetoric is a load of pedophile-panic propaganda.
In one of the videos in Ms. Stokes’s article, this one New York University law professor named Melissa Murray mentioned about the Federal government possibly being able to pass a nationwide law that would prohibit people from getting around the Draconian marriage laws in their state jurisdiction by going to another state jurisdiction to get married if one of the parties to wed was a teenage minor. However, my concern is that the Federal government passing laws to forbid people from crossing state lines to achieve this same objective would violate the principle of comity. I will be describing how the principle of comity works in American law further on herein.
In reviewing Ms. Stokes’s article and watching the videos therein, I had to suffer through a whole boatload of nonsense to reach the point in one of the videos in which one of the people who were opposed to raising the minimum marriageable age to a solid 18 years old with no exceptions anywhere in our nation had their chance to speak. I am not a big fan of abortion nor will I ever become one. However, there is this one group known as NARAL Pro-choice Maryland (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League) who have opposed marriage bills presented to the Maryland state legislature for the past four years that would set 18 years old as the solid marriageable age with no exceptions. Diana Philip spoke on behalf of that same organization, and she explained how a teenage minor’s right to marry fell within the same realms as a reproductive health rights and justice issue. Everything she said made a great amount of sense. She also brought up the points about teenage minor girls needing to have access to the health insurance and the military benefits of the father of their baby, and teenage minors who wedded would also want to have access to married housing in colleges and universities alongside their spouses. I will be publishing an article about the Maryland state legislature’s pushback to this fundamentalist crusade against underage adolescent marriage here on Hive Blog sometime in the future.
Now allow me to respond to the written contents of Ms. Stokes’s article. First of all, this same article made the cheap attempt to shock its readers by stating that:
“In 87% of child marriages, the minor is a girl; 86% of the time she is marrying a legal adult. . .”
Duhhhh, Ms. Stokes!!!!! As I pointed out further back herein, in Austria, a 16- or 17-year-old minor can legally marry if the proper guidelines are followed. However, they cannot marry another minor under any circumstances, because one party has to be the breadwinner and, therefore, be legally an adult over the age of eighteen. Therefore, why would any intelligent American want a 16-year-old girl to marry a 16-year-old boy if she will only likely be marrying into poverty? If she feels that she definitely wants to get married, she will be better off marrying a 23-year-old stockbroker. Hence, these so-called statistics from these femi-Nazi extremists cited above should not be frowned upon but rather viewed upon with reason. Compare the successful marriage of Loretta Lynn and her husband, Oliver Vanetta “Doolittle” Lynn, with the clown-car marriage of Macauley Culkin and Rachel Miner. Loretta Lynn was 13 years old when she married her husband, who was 21 years old at the time, and their marriage became a living legend. On the other hand, Macauley Culkin and Rachel Miner were both 17 years old when they wedded, and their marriage was doomed from the beginning and only lasted two years (four years on paper) despite that they were both rich at the time.
I prepared myself to vet all of the so-called data and findings that Fraidy Reiss, Jeanne Smoot and their followers and supporters provided in Ms. Stokes’s article, although most of it all was what I had debunked in previous Hive-Blog articles of mine. One statistic of theirs that I found both laughable and suspicious was that they claimed that women who married as minors were 80 percent more likely to get a divorce and were divorced 23 percent of the time by age eighteen, because, on the other hand, they’ve fired off their mouths in interviews throughout their fundamentalist crusade on about how difficult and nearly impossible it was for a woman married before the age of eighteen to get out of an abusive marriage, especially when she was still a minor. Both contentions of theirs cannot be accurate, because they contradict each other. In any event, I decided that I didn’t need to vet any of their so-called data or findings any further inasmuch as there was already an elephant in the room. That is, therein Ms. Smoot stated:
There is a federal law stating that if one party is under age 16, and the parties are four years apart in age, then a sex offense has occurred. "It's not called statutory rape, but that's effectively what it is," explained Jeanne Smoot, senior counsel for policy and strategy at the Tahirih Justice Center. But for the law to be enforced the crime must occur where federal criminal jurisdiction applies, such as in the case of the Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested earlier this year on federal charges for sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York. (Epstein died behind bars in August.)
Oh, Ms. Smoot, you are such a fool for bringing up the late Jeffrey Epstein’s name. You know and I know that he was guilty of human trafficking and all sorts of heinous sex crimes against adolescent girls as young as 13 years old. However, you and Ms. Reiss appear to be joined at the hip, and Chelsea Clinton is one of your closest allies in this fundamentalist crusade of yours to get all underage adolescent marriage outlawed here in the land of milk and honey. Well, I will not allow either of you to forget that Chelsea Clinton has also been bosom buddies with Ghislaine Maxwell for a very long time, and Ms. Maxwell was the late Mr. Epstein’s partner in crime in his human-trafficking and sex ring; and Chelsea Clinton knew all about it. I provide all of the facts in this regard in my Hive-Blog article titled “Chelsea Clinton Doesn’t Truly Care About 13-Year-Old Brides.” So what does it make you, Ms. Smoot? A HYPOCRITE! These facts that I have set forth in my efforts to expose Ms. Smoot, Ms. Reiss and their followers for what they are prove that these same people do not have the best interest of the American people at heart, and we all must take action to put a stop to their efforts to further their agenda.
[Article Continued In Part 2]
This Article Is Copyright-Protected.