Category Archives: Child Porn

“Child Porn” (Whatever the Hell That Means), Teen Sexting and Pic/Video Trading and Other Moral Panics, Mass Hysterias, Emotional Derangements and General Idiocies

Contrary to what my enemies say about me, I will take a pretty hard line below. The real deal (adults and kids 12-below child porn) needs to be kept the Hell off the Net. People making that crap, putting it up on the Net, or collecting it on their drives can go down hard for all I care. Throw the book at ’em. On the other hand, the issue is somewhat more nuanced than that, and it brings up some extremely difficult questions in legal theory and moral philosophy and general common sense.

The laws against child pornography are correct in that it ought to be illegal put that stuff up on the Net.

I have a hard time seeing how it is illegal to look at the stuff. I mean, you are cruising around the Net and BAM there’s some child porn on your screen. Or you are pic trading porn in a chatroom, and all of a sudden the guy you are trading with sends you child porn BAM! Even if you had no idea the guy was going to send you that crap, and you deleted it within seconds of it hitting your screen, you still committed a felony. Isn’t that crap?

Suppose you are cruising along the Chans and BAM there’s some child porn up on the Chan. OK what exactly are you supposed to do? Leave the page? Stay on the page? It doesn’t matter! Because BAM as soon as that crap hit your screen, you committed a felony! Any way to go back and uncommit the felony? Nope! You’re going down forever more unless you can clean your drive real well. See what crap that is?

I also have a problem with eyeball crimes. This is the only crime on Earth where you can to go prison for many years for “illegal looking.” What do you mean illegal looking? What the Hell kind of crime is that? You can look at anything else on Earth, videos of men being slowly tortured to death by serial killers, Islamists sawing people’s heads off and torturing them to death in every way imaginable, the worst crime scenes  imaginable… everything on God’s Green Earth is legal for your eyeballs.

Except for this CP crap. The argument goes that this kid was injured or harmed in the making of that porn. Indeed that’s probably the case. But then the argument goes that by the fact that your eyeballs grazed that photo of that kid being harmed, you horribly harmed that poor child again by looking at them with your eyeballs! Really?! Your eyes hurt that kid? Every time someone looks at that pic, that kid gets horribly injured? How? Where’s the injury? Is it invisible? Can we measure it?

For this to be true, you would have to prove that that kid was aware every time someone looked at the CP photo of them. So if the photo gets looked at 100 times that day, somehow through some psychic process that kid gets a devastatingly injurious brain zap every time? The whole argument behind this theory is sheer idiocy, and it defies all logic and sense. It’s not a rational argument in any possible universe.

You see where they say Mr. X was arrested for “downloading” child porn. For a long time, I thought these guys deserved it. I mean “downloading” means saving it to your drive in a folder, right? Once you do that, you’re possessing it, right? I have no problem with the possession of CP being illegal. You shouldn’t be collecting that crap on your drive. And yes, all you perverts collecting that crap is of course what drives the market for it in the first place. It’s illegal to possess all sorts of things. There are many such laws saying we may not possess this or that. That’s grounded in sanity, logic and legal precedent.

But recently I realized that downloading CP doesn’t mean downloading at all necessarily. It’s often a reference to the horrific crime of “illegal looking with illegal eyeballs.” I guess your eyeballs have to go to prison for the illegal looking charges? Just by the fact that you happened upon that child porn, perhaps out of complete ignorance and innocence, you are guilty of “downloading child porn.” Isn’t that stupid? It’s “downloading” because your browser downloads a copy of everything you see on the Net to the browser cache. Now I suppose if you clean your drive thoroughly, you can get rid of everything in your browser cache, but still, what the Hell kind of retarded crime is that? Illegal looking? WTF!

Child pornography is photos and videos of adults having sex with children age 12-under. I don’t think pornographic photos and videos of teenagers having sex with anyone is child porn. It’s just not. I don’t know what the Hell it is, but it sure as Hell ain’t “kiddie porn.”

Teenagers of both sexes, boys and girls, are constantly taking nudes and pornographic photos and maybe even videos of themselves and trading them around with other teens. I can tell you for certain that there is a vast amount of this going on, at least on Twitter. How do I know? Because I know about this stuff. They form private pic and video trading groups, (usually all underage teenage girls mostly 15-17) and they trade pics of each other, sext each other, etc.

Usually the groups are girls under 18 only, no boys allowed. Often bisexual girls are especially encouraged to join. So underage teenage girls are taking a vast amount of pornographic photos and maybe videos of themselves and maybe others and trading them all around to fellow underage teens. It’s literally an epidemic. And according to the law, it’s all child porn. Every one of those girls taking those photos and videos is “producing/manufacturing child pornography.” If she trades the stuff with her girlfriend? Now she’s “distributing child pornography.” Huge numbers of teenagers of both sexes are being arrested for manufacture, distribution and possession of child pornography. This insanity is absolutely outrageous. It shows just how insane the Pig State really is. It’s not even a Police State – it’s actually a Pig State.

So what is to be done? I have no idea. We should leave these kids alone with their pics, though. If they put them up on the Net, that’s not OK, but from what I can tell, girls are hardly putting any porn pics of themselves up on the Net. It’s all going back and forth with messaging and emails. Almost nothing is going up on any webpage. I think we should make it illegal for these teenagers to put this teen porn up on the Net. We have to ban that. And we need to keep the under 18 for porn law in. You know why?

This is why:

Now suppose we said that in Kentucky the age of consent is 16, so you can have sex with any legal person you want to at that age, 13-93? There are laws like this all over the land. It’s perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16 year old girl in half the states in the US, which is fine. But if it’s legal for her to have sex, why isn’t it legal for her to take a nude pic of herself? So now you have a tidal wave of cases of the Pig State allowing a 20 year old and a 16 year old to have sex with each other, but as soon as one takes a nude of themselves or the other and gives it to the other one, they’ve manufactured and distributed child porn, and they have to go to prison for 10 years! Idiocy!

So this 20 year old man can have sex with this 16 year old girl 10 times a day for years if he wants to, but as soon as these star crossed lovers who are screwing each other’s brains out every day take a nude of one or the other, they’re child pornographers and they are going to prison for 10 years! What kind of stupid crap is that!?

I do not know what to do about this. I suppose if they are over the age of consent, they can take pics of each other all they want and pass them around at least to one another in privacy and to other minors. I’m leery about this stuff being passed around willy nilly to adults though. They can’t put them up on the Net because it’s illegal material, and we don’t want that junk on the Net.

But why not? Indeed, let us look at a fascinating argument:

A very good argument is that if a girl can consent to sex at 16, why can’t she consent to taking porn photos and videos of herself and put them up on the Web? Or allow other people to film her? Actually it sounds logical. If you’re old enough to screw, of course you’re old enough to do porn. At the very least, you ought to be able to take pictures of your own self and put them up on the Net. I have no problem with this in theory.

But here is the problem. Pornographers are some of the most low down, sleaziest, slimiest men (and almost all are men) on the planet. They’re just about criminals, except what they are doing is legal. Most are what I would call legal criminals. The rates of Axis 2 Cluster B disorders is very high among pornographers. Narcissistic Personality Disorder and especially sociopathy and psychopathy are everywhere in that industry. It’s Ground Zero for male controlled psychopaths. Most pornographers are simply awful people.

Now here’s the problem. Say in these states where the AOC is 16 or 17, we allow girls that age to consent to doing porn. I agree it’s rational and reasonable. But here’s what is going to happen. Very soon after you legalize legally sexually mature girls age 16 and 17 to do porn, the porn studios are going to be flooded with teenage girls wanting to do porn. It’s just going to happen. I assure you it will. If they can’t find them here in the US, they will readily find them in Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and places like that.

Because the porn industry is constantly pushing the envelope and promoting weirder, kinkier and sicker stuff in a race to the bottom, the 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn will soon be flooded all across the net. There’s already a massive market for the “Barely 18” market, in which 18-20 year old girls do porn for the “young girls” market. You can call men who would look at those 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn sick fucks all you want, but I assure you that in the US alone, you will have millions of men looking at that 16 and 17 year old girl porn.

Do we want this? No, we do not want this! We cannot allow girls under 18 to make porn because of the scenario above. I don’t want to open up my browser and see 10 ads for 16  year old girls doing hardcore porn. Just forget it.

As far as CP – the real deal – adults and kids 12 and under – goes:

  • Of course it needs to be illegal to put that crap up on the Net.
  • It has to be illegal to make it.
  • It has to be illegal to trade it back and forth by messaging or emails.
  • People who collect that crap in folders on their drives can go down hard for all I care.

But illegal looking? Illegal eyeballs? That’s just weird. How do you justify putting some poor schmuck in prison for 10 years because of some image that he innocently stumbled on and flashed before his eyes? The whole idea of “illegal looking” at anything on Earth being a crime, much less a serious felony, sounds completely bizarre. Like I said, name one other thing on God’s Green Earth that it is illegal to look at?

Let the teenagers take their porn pics and whatnot of themselves and each other and trade them around in strict private out of the view of everyone else. If it’s perfectly legal for two humans to engage in any sex act they wish with each other, for God’s sake, of course they can take photos of each other doing it or just posing with nothing on. But I don’t want to see that crap being passed all around town. If you are a grown adult, you should not be looking at nudes and porns of underage girls. The exception would be if you are in a legal sexual relationship with her. But passing them all around town? We need to discourage that somehow.

There is zero sense, logic, sanity or rational thinking operating on any argument about this stuff. 100% of the people talking about this stuff are emotionally deranged. They are trying to think about this, but they are emotionally crazed so they can’t think about it logically. If you are in an emotionally deranged state of mind, you can’t make any rational decision about anything. Reasonable thinking only occurs when people calm down and stop thinking emotionally.

Emotional thinking never does any good. All it ever does is give you the wrong answer.

7 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Computers, Crime, Girls, Government, Jailbait, Law, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Narcissistic, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Ridiculousness, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sociopathy

Issues of Consent and Outcome in Victims of Child Molestation

It is not necessarily true that all child molestation is completely nonconsensual or that the child never enjoys it. These facts are difficult for society to contemplate in our one size fits all view of the crime. I would agree that children cannot consent to sex with adults, even if they agree with it at the time, and there are a few cases where they do. It seems like most of the time, the children don’t really enjoy what’s being done to them or they are just confused. However, there are some cases where the children, often older ones, quite enjoyed the experience. I don’t think that makes it right, and it needs to be illegal whether the child enjoys it or not simply because it’s wrong. But it’s important to see that this issue is more confusing that it is usually made out to be.

I dated a woman once who had been molested at age 8 by a young man in head of a youth group at church. She had gotten over it completely. This is another difficult fact that many find hard to stomach. Not everyone is damaged permanently or in the longterm when they are molested. Now some definitely are, the long-term effects of this are serious with enough kids that we can document it in studies.

However, I have known a number of women who were molested as girls, and they all told me that they just got over it. How? They just decided that they did not want to let this ruin their lives, so they worked their way out of it. But one woman told me, “It’s hard because it feels good. The abuse feels good, but it’s wrong, and that’s hard to make sense of.” So children can find this physically pleasurable, which makes the issue even more confusing.

There are fathers who molested their daughters and seemed to be carrying on a love affair with them. It was quite clear that the daughter was definitely “in love with Daddy.” Now one could argue that even if a daughter is in love with Daddy, that still does not make child molestation correct. For one thing, society strongly disapproves.

These girls are often older, 9-12 or 10-12. However, in many cases, the girl grows up to adulthood and then has second thoughts and decides she was molested, harmed or taken advantage of. She develops a lot of psychological symptoms and is angry at the father-daughter sex.

There was a very famous series of child porn videos out there, some of the most famous ever distributed. The girl had some well-known name. The videos are named “Tracy” or whatever her name was. Of course I have not seen them. It’s illegal to even look at such a thing for even one second if you can believe that, and that stuff is almost impossible to find anyway. Right now, almost all child porn is on the Dark Net, and I would imagine there is little if any on the real Internet, so your chances of stumbling across it are almost nil.

But it appears quite a few people on the Net did view those tapes. I have seen forums where people talk about these tapes, and many of the men commenting on them do not even appear to be pedophiles. That’s quite possible, as you don’t have to be a pedophile to enjoy such material, which once again is going to be very confusing for a lot of people. Many non-pedophilic men can be aroused by such material also. However, anyone seriously collecting lots of child porn on their drive is probably a pedophile. These movies were also popular with hebephiles, as the girl may have been ~11-12 in some of the movies.

What is shocking about those movies is that the girl is reportedly enjoying herself and she is clearly quite in love with Daddy. Now that doesn’t make it right, but it’s interesting. Anyway, she became famous at some point as a child porn star, and her name was outed, so people knew about her and what she did. After she became an adult, she was ashamed of being a famous child porn star and she decided she had been molested, abused and taken advantage of and developed psychological symptoms.

Her love for her father also turned to hatred. The father was arrested at some point after the tapes were made. He was apparently not a pedophile at all. This is typically the case with familial molesters. Familial molesters are usually not pedophiles. These are called non-pedophilic molesters and they account for 92% of all molestations.

You are only diagnosed a pedophile if you mostly or only aroused by children and have little or no interest in adults. Most familial molesters are not much more aroused by little girls than the rest of us are. Instead of being pedophiles, they are best seen simply as criminals.

They are doing this for other reasons. They often have low morals and the sexual abuse occurs along with physical and psychological abuse as a general pattern of a power-hungry and controlling men who is best seen as simply a “bad person” as opposed to a sexual deviant.

Other reasons are often simply sexual. We also need to consider a common line about men a number of girlfriends have told me and that is, “Men will screw anything.” Unfortunately, this is true and even heterosexual men will have sex with other men, little girls, old ladies and gosh I don’t know, cored out melons and holes the wall I suppose. Men have their preferences, but the male sex drive is very strong and a lot of men are not too particular about which sexual object they utilize to meet their needs.

Getting back to the story about the famous child porn star, the girl’s father was a very handsome man, a bodybuilder very popular with women. He was a non-pedophilic molester. About his motivations, he said he was just in love with his daughter. Be that as it may, the court did not buy it, and he got 30 years in prison. The punishment may fit, as society is simply not ok with fathers having sex with their 10-12 year old daughters and in particular making movies out of it.

A number of men were arrested for “downloading” her videos. This is a misnomer, and downloading often just means “looked at it on a computer screen.” But many men collected her videos. About 1,500 men were found who had collected her videos and had been convicted in court over this. After the girl was an adult, she started suing the men who collected her videos. Many men were not sued at all. Instead she went after the men who had a lot of money. One man was sued for $1.5 million. I think she should have gotten money out of him, but that seems rather excessive considering the crime. And I wonder if being found guilty criminally and civilly is not double jeopardy.

At any rate, the take-home point here is that even if uncommonly children may enjoy or even consent to the molestation, it’s quite typical for them to have second feelings about it as they get older and a change of heart as this woman experienced, along with development of a lot of psychological symptoms, is quite common. So molestation is rarely if ever beneficial to children, and in many cases it is harmful even in those cases where they enjoyed it at the time because those feelings often go away as they get older.

Even in the cases I have known where women simply got over it, one would argue that nevertheless the molestation was not a good thing to have happen to them. The fact that some people can get over the bad things that happen to them does not mean that what happened to them were not bad things. Bad things are bad things whether you get over them or not.

20 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Crime, Girls, Incest, Law, Lolitas, Pedophilia, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

What Is Grey Area Child Pornography?

If you research pedophiles, you are going to end up on pedophile bulletin boards where pedophiles talk about their sexual orientation. It’s one of the best ways to study these people, and on open boards, 50% of the posters are pedophile-haters threatening and abusing the pedophiles, so it hardly makes you a pedo to go to such sites.

In terms of images, Open Internet pedophile forums are generally pretty clean. There are lots of pictures of little girls, but these are mostly completely legal photos of fully clothed girls. Nevertheless, it is still a bit disturbing at least for me to look at that photo of that little girl and realize that the men on that site regard her as a sex object. It’s a weird, creepy feeling.

There are images on these sites, but it is all or almost all gray area stuff. This is good because it means you can use these sites for research without worrying about going to jail for “illegal looking.” Most of the gray area stuff is clothed posed models and cartoon child pornography. While both of these types of images are disturbing, at least to me, they are generally legal.

Clothed Posed Models

A clothed posed model is what to me looks like a little girl dressed up in very sexy clothes posed very provocatively. The girls are fully clothed, and the FBI has long stated that if they are posing  alone and they have all their clothes on, it’s not child pornography. Nevertheless, I find the clothed models to be very disturbing to look at. I don’t mind looking at little girls, but not if they are dressed and posed like that. There’s something creepy about it. As far as whether it’s a turn on, I usually think,  “Why in the Hell would anyone get turned on by that?”

I’m not sure the age of the posed model girls. It may be 10-13. They are heading into puberty, but they are still disturbingly  young. Most of them seem to come from Russia, often the rural parts of Russia. Both the girls and their mothers are very enthusiastic about this modeling, probably because the mother can earn quite a bit of money that way and the girl gets to indulge her narcissism.

Many of the girls  have given interviews later when they were adults. In all cases, they vehemently defend their child modeling days. The mothers are all unrepentant too. I don’t quite know what to do about this. Maybe this stuff needs to stay legal even if it is creepy. There’s all sorts of creepy material like beheading videos out there that is 100% legal. It’s hard to make a case that clothed posed models are more disturbing or creepy than beheading videos.

Not one single person has gone down for mere possession of this stuff, much less for illegal looking. Two men have been convicted of mass distribution of clothed child models, but that case was extremely controversial because clothed posed models were not known to be illegal at the time and the state had to make a new case that this material was illegal. Many of the now-grown girl models have come to these men’s defense.

Both men had researched the law carefully and felt they were operating within the law as clothed posed models were legal at the time. They were legal at the time. They were legal until the state decided that they were illegal, which is messed up.

You can’t break a law that you don’t know exists. Vague laws are unconstitutional. Laws must be written so it is pretty clear to people what is legal and what is illegal. Therefore, citizens who wish to obey the law can know what the limits of the law are. If we don’t know what’s legal and what’s illegal, how can we operate in society. If everything is legal until the state arbitrarily and without passing a law decides something is illegal, this is not democratic, and you’re not living in a free country. That is totalitarianism.

In the meantime, clothed posed model sites are all over the Net as far as I can tell. They took down two of the toadstools, but 500 new ones have sprung up. Although clothed child models are disturbing images, I suppose they should remain legal. Just because something is creepy or disturbing doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

The threat of going to prison has not fazed many people though and it seems there are hundreds of posed model sites out there. Perhaps there is money to be made on the stuff.

Clothed posed models are essentially legal unless you are hosting a huge website grossing millions of dollars per year. But why anyone would want to look at such stuff is beyond me.

Cartoon Child Pornography

Cartoon child pornography is gray area legal, although I admit it is disturbing to look at. Some of it is actually rather horrible. As far as whether it’s a turn-on, my reaction is the same as above, “Why would anyone get turned on by that?” I actually like cartoon porn a lot. It’s one of my favorite types of porn. But not with little girls in it! Gross and weird!

The cartoons are not all little girls, and some of the girls are more teens with developing women’s bodies and breasts. I will admit that once the girls in the cartoons start looking like women, I start getting interested in them. A big market with this material has sprung up in Japan. I believe it is called Loli or Manga. I don’t need to tell you what the cartoons features. They’re hardcore pornographic cartoons with little girls. That’s all you need to know. Use your imagination.

The only cases tried so far are for the artists who draw this material. Obviously, all of these artists are pedophiles. However, some are married with highly supportive wives. There have been a number of attempts to try men for drawing cartoon child pornography, but almost all have been stricken down by courts who have decided that this material is constitutionally protected by the First Amendment freedom of expression. I believe in one case, a artist was convicted for drawing this material. However, that case has been quite controversial.

My reaction to this stuff is that why anyone who want to look at such cartoons is beyond me. A lot of them are rather sick.

Not one person has ever gone down for mere possession of this material, much less for “illegal looking.” Cartoon child pornography is quite disturbing, much worse than clothed child models at least for me. Nevertheless, they probably need to stay legal. You can’t make everything creepy or disturbing illegal you know. Still I would be terrified to put one of these cartoons on any website of mine. I don’t need to be hosting material like that.

Bottom line is that cartoon child pornography is basically legal, as creepy as it is. Even though it is legal, my understanding is that  almost zero websites in the US want to carry it. Even though it’s legal, they think it’s too messed up to put on their site. I don’t blame them. Most of the material appears to be hosted out of Japan.

10 Comments

Filed under Art, Asia, Child Porn, Eurasia, Girls, Japan, Law, Lolitas, NE Asia, Pedophilia, Pornography, Regional, Russia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Updated February 26: Sexually-Motivated Double Homicide in Delphi, Indiana, February 13, 2017: Liberty German and Abbie Williams

Note to commenters: Please stop referring to Unsub as a pedophile. He may well be one, but that’s something that can be determined from this crime as it was not a pedophilic offense. Instead, this was a hebephilic offense. And the perpetrator could certainly be seen as a hebephile, although he’s not necessarily one. If you want to refer to the nature of the offense, use the word hebephilic instead of pedophilic. If you wish to refer to Unsub’s paraphilia, please refer to him as a hebephile and not a pedophile.

Thank you so much for this. I am getting tired of words being misused. And now we are being scientific on the board.

Note 2 to commenters: I am really getting sick and tired of saying this, but most of the material below is made up of rumors and my own opinions and theories. None of that is represented as fact. The only thing that is represented as fact as statements sourced from LE or the media.

And incidentally, the way I wrote up the case is precisely how detectives work a case. Detectives do not work cases using the scientific method. If they did, they would hardly solve one case. It’s more “We believe this for now…this is true for now…at the moment, this is what we think happened…we believe…” They are throwing out endless theories about what really happened and accepting them as (temporary) facts. They are then continuously revising and throwing out theories and creating new ones.

Being  a detective is about being wrong. Not just once, but being wrong over and over so many times your head will want to come off. If you can’t handle being wrong, then detective work is surely not for you. Finally detectives arrive at enough information to file a case against someone, but a lot of that is not factual either. They believe he did the crime. They believe that this, that, or the other happened with no way to really prove it – it’s just what they conjecture.

If he is convicted, then the theory that he did the crime is validated as fact, but I am not sure what other evidence is. And even court decisions are not scientific fact because they get overturned all the time. There are not a whole lot of 100% certain, clear scientific facts in LE work, detective work on the judicial system itself. A good portion of the decisions made turn out to be theories, temporary but unstable facts, beliefs, hunches and guesswork, all represented as fact in the court.

If you have issues with theories, opinions and what not, just quit reading and get the Hell off my site right now and never come back. I am really getting sick and tired of this BS.

Most of the red hot discussion about this case has moved over to the private password-protected threads. On these fora you can discuss people’s full names, addresses, phone numbers, you name it – you can accuse anyone of anything, and you don’t have to worry about the threat of a defamation or libel lawsuit. Furthermore, the fora are rigorously policed to keep out trolls, spies, and other disruptors. None of your comments will appear on Internet search engines – you can say anything you want under any name you want without leaving a permanent record on the Net.

A vast amount of mostly unreleased photos, videos and data is stored and discussed here. Much of this information is highly pertinent to the case, but we have not released it on the open Net yet due to fears that we might harm the investigation. All of our material is turned over to LE, and my understanding is that LE monitor the private fora. At this moment, we have ~150 Websleuths working on the case. Instructions for joining those threads are here.

This post has now been updated:

Updated March 6: Sexually-Motivated Double Homicide in Delphi, Indiana, February 13, 2017: Liberty German and Abigail Williams

Sexually-motivated double homicide of two teenage girls, one 13 and the other 14. For some background on this heartbreaking case, see here.

This is an update of the case as of February 26, 2017.

How Do I Know All This Stuff?

First: How do I know all this stuff?

Question: “Robert, How Do You Know So Much about Serial Killers, Pedophiles, Hebephiles and Sexual Sadists?”

I have done a lot of research on this case including released information, rumors and borderline areas such as cryptic statements by LE. I have also spoken to people close to the case, including those close to the search party and law enforcement investigation of this case. I also spoke to other sleuthers and people interested in the case. Some were associated with missing persons groups. I have pretty good sleuthing skills involving research. This includes digging through background information databases online and other sorts of web research.

This is the source of some of my material.

I also worked a bit with Indiana State Police and the FBI, sharing my POI’s and tips with them. It is not an astounding statement. Please realize that a lot of people are working with LE in trying to solve this case. However, LE did not reveal much information to me other than some cleared suspects. Other information is derived from my own theorizing about the case. This includes offender profiling. And I believe I have some mild psi skills.

So there’s the source of all of the information.

My Musings on This Case

The girls were obviously tied up, I believe with a rope. But it is not proven that rope was used.

I believe that Libby was killed on 2-13, possibly pretty quickly, and Abby died or 2-14. The published obits state those dates. This has been confirmed to me by sources close to law enforcement. There is a rumor that the families chose those dates as death dates, but that would apply only to funerals, not obits. Obit info would come straight from coroner report. Therefore, the coroner report had to state different death dates. See below for more evidence that the girls died on different days.

When the search was going on, Libby’s phone was dead.

This was not a crime of opportunity. He planned this very well. He plans his crimes with the utmost meticulousness. That is why he is armed with the gun and disguising himself.

I have reason to believe that these girls were catfished, possibly via Libby’s Instagram page, although this is not proven yet. That is, the girls may have thought they were going there to meet a teenage boy, but instead they met the killer. The killer would have pretended to be a teenage boy in  order to lure the girls. There is no hard evidence for this, but there is some suggestive evidence via cryptic LE statements and friends of Libby’s speaking about activity on her Instagram account.

In my opinion, Unsub is approximately 5’8-5’10, ~160 pounds with a bit of a middle aged man’s stomach paunch.

LE stated that they believe that Unsub came from out of state to do this crime.

Clearly Unsub has a pistol, a .45 or 911. The pistol was holstered to his right side, which means he is left-handed. The outline of the pistol can clearly be seen in the photo released of the man. A photo exists showing the pistol outlined with graphic software. Assuming that is a pistol, and it is, then Unsub is left-handed. He is either left-handed or pretending to be left-handed. Pretending to be left-handed makes no sense in a case like this as it would be hard to draw with his fake left. This would result in a clumsy draw resulting in possible dropping or fumbling with the weapon. Therefore, Unsub is left-handed.

Law enforcement stated in the media that Unsub may be trying to disguise himself in the photos by using a hat and a scarf. 

He is wearing a hat, a jacket with a hoodie and blue jeans in the photo. In my opinion, the hat is a camouflage hunting cap with padded ear muffs. Unsub is overdressed for the weather, but February in Indiana is pretty cold. He seems to have layers of clothing on. He has almost his entire body covered with clothing. Part of this is to disguise himself but another reason is so he will have few exposed areas of his body if the girls fight back hard. The layers of clothing will prevent them from leaving scratch marks on his body, although they still could scratch up his face pretty good.

LE confirmed in the media that Unsub has a fanny pack. This is probably where he kept his murder kit.

Talk of backpacks and duffel bags makes no sense to me. I do not believe that Unsub had a backpack or a duffel bag, but perhaps he did. At any rate, there was a man dressed in all black seen at the time also. This man definitely had a backpack. I believe that this man participated in the murders with Unsub. In other words, there were two killers.

There were apparently two killers in this case. This can be gleaned from cryptic LE statements. Very quickly, with the release of the photo, LE described Unsub as the man who “participated” in the killings. However, if you study this sort of thing, LE never uses the word participated when describing a crime with a single killer. That verb is only used when there is more than one killer. I kept wondering why they always used the word participated.

At the large video press conference, we got more evidence. At ~3 minute mark, the officer says, “And I especially want to thank the person whose information will lead to the arrest of the murderers of these girls.” I have listened to that part of the tape over and over, and he clearly said murderers. He did not misspeak. He said that intentionally.

Later in the conference, after a cryptic statement by an officer, someone in the audience jumped up and asked, “Wait a minute! Do you think there were two killers?” The officer then said, “Look, this is one of the strangest,  oddest, most confusing and  convoluted cases I have ever worked on, ok? So just keep that in mind.” With that statement, it’s pretty clear that he is cryptically stating that there were two killers. 

As far as how LE came to state that there were two killers by using the word “participated,” I believe that they came to that conclusion by gleaning four sets of DNA from the crime scene: Two sets were Libby and Abbie, and the third was Unsub. But if a fourth DNA sample was found at the site, that can only mean two killers. LE’s official statement right now is that they do not know whether there were one or two killers involved. I believe that the evidence revealed so far is sufficient to conclude that there were indeed two killers.

Sources close to law enforcement say that Abbie’s body was still warm when found, and the medical examiner concluded that she survived the attack but died later of hypothermia. If the body was warm, this means that Abbie died of hypothermia no earlier than 9:30 AM, as the bodies were discovered at 12:30 PM, and bodies only stay warm for 2-3 hours after death. This means that Abbie was certainly still alive when the search started at 9:30 AM.

Sources in the search party in the Delphi case confirmed that the bodies were moved in the course of this crime. They stated that the girls had to have been moved, taken away and then returned to be dumped because the search parties covered the same ground in both searches. The locale where they were found on 2-14 had previously been searched on 2-13. The 2-13 search began at 5:30 PM, and by that time, the girls had been moved out of the area. The attack began at ~2:15 PM, so the girls were moved out of the area sometime between 2:30-5:30 PM.

Unsub must have put the girls in his vehicle and transported them somewhere where he assaulted them either in his vehicle or at a residence, either his own residence, an associate’s residence, an abandoned residence, or a residence that he had use of. Unsub was certainly not in the area from 5:30 PM on 2-13 until 2:30 AM on 2-14 and from 9:30 AM-12:30 PM on 2-14. Therefore, the girls were returned to the site on 2-14 between 2:30 PM-9:30 AM on the morning of 2-14. Unsub has a seven hour window on 2-14 in which to return the girls to the site.

Unsub probably parked his vehicle on the road next to the cemetery. Police vehicles were seen in the area, but they were not searching the cemetery. Instead there was a long line of them parked on the road next to the cemetery. Therefore, Unsub may have parked his vehicle on the road next to the cemetery.

In published UK media, grandfather who raised her made an odd statement, “I know Libby. She put up one Hell of a fight.” The grandfather has been cleared. However, he is correct that Libby put up a strong battle. The reason that the grandfather said she put up a wild fight is probably because that is what it says in the medical report. If she fought hard, there will be talk of defensive wounds and maybe DNA under her nails. The condition of her body at the funeral adds weight to the notion that she fought back very hard and sustained many defensive wounds. In that case, Unsub may have scratch marks.

I do not believe that LE has any particular POI at this moment. They are far away from solving this case.

The first LE they did was to go around questioning people who were being talked about as possible suspects. They have already cleared a number of people this way. They are also going around to all of the local RSO’s and questioning them. They want them to come talk about the case. While at the police station, they searched their phones and asked them to submit DNA. They are clearing many of the RSO’s this way.

The raid was on the property of the Jim Maxwell who lives on Bicycle Road. He is completely innocent and cleared. This poor guy had nothing to do with it.

I believe the gun obviously holstered on the right under the jacket of Unsub was used to control the girls. He also got them to keep quiet, probably with the gun. However, I do not believe the gun was used to kill the girls. It would have made too much noise. Rumors that this was not a gun crime are probably correct.

Sources people close to law enforcement confirmed that both girls had their throats slit. Funerals were open casket, and witnesses stated that both girls had scarves covering their necks, more to cover something up than as clothing. This adds weight to the theory that their throats were slit. Libby also had small wounds in many places on her body, and her face had been somewhat injured. This is because she fought back against him very hard.

This is obviously a sexually motivated offense. Initial reports said both girls were raped. Sources close to law enforcement confirmed that rape was involved in this case and that Abbie was definitely raped. Whether Libby got raped is not known, and there are problems with the theory. There are different reports about the state of the bodies. There are rumors that both girls were nude. But sources close to LE say that Abbie was nude while Libby was clothed. It is difficult to reconcile Libby being raped with her being found fully clothed.

There is no evidence of physical torture in this case.

Prepubertal girls have no sex drive, and they have no sexual interest in boys. If these were prepubertal girls, we could rule out their meeting a boy via social media, as girls that age are not interested in boys sexually. At sexarche, usually age 13, the sex drive comes on strongly, and many girls become very sexually interested in boys and even men. Both girls had surely passed sexarche. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that they could have been there to meet a boy their age.

Ron Logan, the property owner where the girls were found, was in Lafayette, Indiana on 2-13, and Unsub may have known he would not be there, but there is no proof of this. How he may have known this, I have no idea.

Other posts in this series:

Possible Major Break in the Delphi and Evansdale Murders

Updated March 9: Profile of the Evansdale-Delphi Serial Killer

The Case for Unsub Involvement in the Delphi and Evansdale Double Murders

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

72 Comments

Filed under Anxiety Disorders, Art, Child Porn, Crime, Criminology, Girls, Iowa, Law, Law enforcement, Mental Illness, Midwest, OCD, Pedophilia, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Regional, Serial Killers, Sex, Sociology, Sociopathy, USA

Alt Left on Donald Trump: Oppose Completely

Below is a list of Donald Trump’s positions on many issues taken from his Wikipedia site. Each position is marked Yes, No, or Neutral depending on whether or not I agree with it. Note that I am conflating my opinions on Trump’s positions with the Alt Left’s, but that’s not so strange.

The results were:

No:      282

Yes:     97

Neutral: 9

So the Alt Left opposes Trump on 282 issues, supports him on 97 issues and is neutral on nine issues.

We oppose Trump on 77% of the issues, support him on 25% of the issues and are neutral on 2% of the issues. That’s pretty bad. I do not see how the Alt Left can support Donald Trump at all based  on this survey. I suppose you could support him on accelerationist grounds, but that’s about it. No Alt Left person should support Trump, and the movement must oppose and renounce him thoroughly. The way I see it is that Trump is one of the enemies of the Alt Left. I realize that one Alt Left faction, the Left Wing of the Alt Right, went heavily for Trump, but they are being renounced by a number of Alt Leftists for various reasons. Personally I renounce them simply based on their support for Trump. If this faction ever wants to stop supporting Trump maybe I will see about revoking that renunciation.

It would be nice to do a similar survey of Hillary Clinton to see the Alt Left’s position on her positions on the issues, but that will take a lot of time and I am not sure if I am up for it.

On August 8, 2016, Trump outlined a new economic plan that involved significant income tax cuts at all levels of income. NO

He proposed to reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three, and replace the rates ranging from 10% to 39.6% with 12%, 25% and 33%. NO

He proposed to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. NO

He proposed to repeal the estate tax, which applies to inheritance for estates valued at $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9 million for couples, or roughly the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. NO

Trump also said he would eliminate the carried interest loophole. YES

Trump’s plan would also “eliminate the alternative minimum tax and the 3.8 percent net investment income tax, which was levied on high-income households to help fund Medicare expansion under the Affordable Care Act.” NO

An analysis by Lily L. Batchelder of New York University School of Law estimated that Trump’s new tax plan would cost more than $5 trillion over ten years and would raise taxes for lower and middle income families with children. NO

According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump’s economic plan would raise taxes on many families. NO

For instance, families with head-of-household filing status making between $20,000 and $200,000, including many single parents, would pay more under Trump’s plan than under current tax law. NO

However, in the September 2016 presidential debate, Trump said that using loopholes to avoid paying income taxes in the 1970s “makes me smart.” NO

Last fall Mr. Trump suggested that he would break with Republican orthodoxy by raising taxes on the wealthy. But then he unveiled a tax plan that would, in fact, lavish huge tax on the rich. And it would also, according to non-partisan analyses, cause deficits to explode, adding around $10 trillion to the national debt over a decade.” NO

Economist Mark Zandi estimated that if Trump’s tax cuts and spending increases were fully implemented as proposed, the national debt trajectory would worsen considerably, with debt held by the public rising from 76% GDP in 2016 to 135% GDP in 2026, considerably above a current policy baseline that rises to 86% GDP in 2026. If only some of Trump’s policies were implemented under an alternative scenario of more moderate changes, the debt figure would rise to 111% GDP by 2026.[72] In May 2016, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget placed the 2026 debt figure under Trump’s policies between 111% GDP and 141% GDP, versus 86% under the current policy baseline. NO

Trump has called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with prescription-drug companies to get lower prices for the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit, something currently prohibited by law. NO

Trump has called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with prescription-drug companies to get lower prices for the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit, something currently prohibited by law. YES

Unlike his rivals in the 2016 Republican primary race, Trump opposes cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. YES

Trump supports proposals that would grant Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve’s decision-making and take power away from the Federal Reserve. NO

Trump favors returning to the gold standard. NO

Trump supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion emergency bailout fund that rescued banks after the sub-prime mortgage crisis. YES

In May 2016, Trump said that if elected president he would dismantle “nearly all” of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a financial regulation package enacted after the financial crisis. NO

Trump promised to roll back existing regulations and impose a moratorium on new regulations, with a specific focus on undoing environmental rules that he said curtail job creation. NO

In October 2016, Trump proposed to eliminate as many as 70 percent of federal agency regulations. NO

However, In May 2016 Trump’s campaign co-chair, Sam Clovis stated that the ideas being prepared by the campaign included getting government out of student lending; requiring colleges to share in risk of loans; discouraging borrowing by liberal arts majors; and moving the Office of Civil Rights from the Education Department to Justice Department. NO

In an October 2016 speech, Trump said that he favored having student loans repayment capped at 12.5 percent of borrowers’ income, with forgiveness of any remaining debt after fifteen years of payments. YES

Trump has criticized the federal government for earning a profit from federal student loans. YES

The campaign does opposes Hillary Clinton’s proposal for debt-free public higher education, Bernie Sanders’s plan for free public higher education and President Obama’s proposals for a state-federal partnership to make community college free for new high school graduates, citing federal budget concerns. NO

Trump supports investment in American infrastructure to help create jobs.He wrote in his 2015 book Crippled America that “Our airports, bridges, water tunnels, power grids, rail systems – our nation’s entire infrastructure is crumbling, and we aren’t doing anything about it.” Trump noted that infrastructure improvements would stimulate economic growth while acknowledging “on the federal level, this is going to be an expensive investment, no question about that.”In an October 2015 interview with the Guardian, Trump stated: “We have to spend money on mass transit. We have to fix our airports, fix our roads also in addition to mass transit, but we have to spend a lot of money.” YES

Trump said: “We’ve spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people. If we could’ve spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges and all of the other problems—our airports and all of the other problems we’ve had—we would’ve been a lot better off.” YES

Trump has expressed support for high-speed rail, calling the U.S.’s current rail network inferior to foreign countries’ systems. YES

When Trump was asked on Fox & Friends about supporting Russia’s idea on a Bering Strait tunnel project, he replied: “I wouldn’t be opposed to any idea that can create jobs.” YES

Asked if the federal government should set a floor (a national minimum wage), Trump replied: “No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. NO

In February 2016, Trump said on a radio program: “My position on unions is fine, but I like right to work. My position on right to work is 100 percent.” NO

Trump has frequently spoken in favor of deregulation, and if elected president is viewed as likely to oversee an Occupational Safety and Health Administration that conducts “less enforcement and practically no rulemaking” on issues of workplace safety and health. NO

Trump first addressed childcare costs on August 8, 2016, where he said he would “[allow] parents to fully deduct the average cost of childcare spending from their taxes.” NO

According to a report by the RAND Corporation, Trump’s proposed health-care policies would result in 19.7 million more people without insurance and widen the federal deficit by $33.1 billion in 2018. NO! Way to go, morans!

As the 2016 campaign unfolded, Trump stated that he favors repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”) – which Trump refers to as a “complete disaster”- and replacing it with a “free-market system.” NO

Trump’s campaign has insisted that the candidate has “never supported socialized medicine.” NO

In March 2016, Trump reversed himself, saying that “Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.” NO

In March 2016 Trump released his health care plan, which called for allowing health-insurance companies to compete across state lines and for making Medicaid into a block grant system for the states. NO

He also called for elimination of the individual mandate for health insurance, for allowing health insurance premiums to be deducted on tax returns. NO

…and for international competition in the drug market. YES

Trump acknowledged that mental health care in the U.S. is often inadequate but offered no immediate solution to the problem, instead stating that “there are promising reforms being developed in Congress.” NO

Trump also emphasized the removal of market entry barriers for drug providers and improved access to imported medication corresponding to safety standards. NO

Though he characterized the Canadian health-care system as “catastrophic in certain ways” in October 2016. NO

Trump identifies himself as a “free trader.” NO

…but has been widely identified as a “protectionist” YES

Trump has described supporters of international trade as “blood suckers.” YES

According to the New York Times, since at least the 1980s, Trump has advanced mercantilist views, “describing trade as a zero-sum game in which countries lose by paying for imports.” YES

On the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, Trump has decried the U.S.-China trade imbalance—calling it “the greatest theft in the history of the world”—and regularly advocates tariffs. YES

In a 60 Minutes interview in September 2015, Trump condemned the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), saying that if elected president, “We will either renegotiate it, or we will break it.” YES

In January 2016, Trump proposed a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States to give “American workers a level playing field.” YES

Trump has vowed to label China as a currency manipulator on his first day in office. YES

Trump has pledged “swift, robust and unequivocal” action against Chinese piracy, counterfeit American goods, and theft of U.S. trade secrets and intellectual property; and has condemned China’s “illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards.” YES

In a May 2016 speech, Trump responded to concerns regarding a potential trade war with “We’re losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” YES

Trump has vowed to impose tariffs – in the range of 15 to 35 percent – on companies that move their operations to Mexico. He has specifically criticized the Ford Motor Co., Carrier Corporation, and Mondelez International. YES

Trump has pledged a 35% tariff on “every car, every truck and every part manufactured in [Ford’s Mexico plant] that comes across the border.” YES

n August 2015, in response to Oreo maker Mondelez International’s announcement that it would move manufacturing to Mexico, Trump said that he would boycott Oreos. YES

Trump opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying “The deal is insanity. That deal should not be supported and it should not be allowed to happen … We are giving away what ultimately is going to be a back door for China.”Trump has asserted that the TPP will “be even worse than… NAFTA… We will lose jobs, we will lose employment, we will lose taxes, we will lose everything. We will lose our country.” YES

Trump has called the World Trade Organization (WTO) a “disaster”. YES

When informed that tariffs in the range of 15 to 35 percent would be contrary to the rules of the WTO, he answered “even better. Then we’re going to renegotiate or we’re going to pull out.” YES

Trump has also expressed support for a variety of “limits on legal immigration and guest-worker visas,” including a “pause” on granting green cards, which Trump says will “allow record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.” YES

Trump’s proposals regarding H-1B visas have frequently changed throughout his presidential campaign, but as of late July 2016, he appears to oppose to the H-1B visa program. YES

Trump opposes birthright citizenship (the legal principle set forth by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that all persons born on U.S. soil are citizens). Trump has asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children of illegal immigrants (whom Trump refers to as “anchor babies”). YES

The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. YES

The largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The Border Patrol knows this. YES

Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. NO

In addition to his proposals to construct a border wall (see below), Trump has called for tripling the number of Border Patrol agents. NO

Trump has repeatedly pledged to build a wall along the U.S.’s southern border, and has said that Mexico would pay for its construction through increased border-crossing fees and NAFTA tariffs. NO

Experts also note that on federally protected wilderness areas and Native American reservations, the Department of Homeland Security may have only limited construction authority, and a wall could cause environmental damage. NO

Trump has proposed the mass deportation of illegal immigrants.During his first town hall campaign meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, Trump said that if he were to win the election, then on “day 1 of my presidency, illegal immigrants are getting out and getting out fast.” YES

Trump has proposed a “Deportation Force” to carry out this plan, modeled after the 1950s-era “Operation Wetback” program during the Eisenhower administration. YES

However, on August 31, 2016, Trump reiterated that all illegal immigrants are “subject to deportation” and all those seeking legalization would have to go home and re-enter the country legally. NO

According to analysts, Trump’s mass-deportation plan would encounter legal and logistical difficulties, since U.S. immigration courts already face large backlogs. NO

However, in a major speech on August 31, Trump laid out a 10-step plan reaffirming his hardline positions, including the deportation of “anyone who has entered the United States illegally,” with priority given to undocumented immigrants who have committed significant crimes and those who have overstayed visas. He also repeated his proposal for a deportation task force. According to a Washington Post analysis, if Trump’s criteria for immediate deportation as of September 2016 are met, the number of individuals prioritized for removal by ICE agents would range between about 5.0 and 6.5 million. YES

In August 2016, Trump suggested that “extreme views” would be grounds to be thrown out of the U.S., saying he would deport Seddique Mateen, the father of Omar Mateen (the gunman in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting), who has expressed support for the Taliban. NO

Specifically, Trump stated, “When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.” Trump later referred to the reformulation as “extreme vetting”. YES

Trump has proposed making it more difficult for asylum-seekers and refugees to enter the United States… YES

…and making the e-Verify system mandatory for employers. YES

Trump has on several occasions expressed opposition to allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. – saying they could be the “ultimate Trojan horse” – and has proposed deporting back to Syria refugees settled in the U.S. By September 2015, Trump had expressed support for taking in some Syrian refugees and praised Germany’s decision to take in Syrian refugees. YES

While campaigning for the presidency in 2016, Trump stated “I’m pro-life and I’ve been pro-life a long time” and acknowledged that he had “evolved” on the issue. NO

In August 2015, Trump said that he supported a government shutdown over federal funding for Planned Parenthood. NO

In an interview later that month, Trump acknowledged that there must be “some form” of punishment for women if abortion were made illegal in the U.S. Trump issued a statement later that day reversing his position from earlier by saying, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.” NO

Trump has said that abortion should be legal in cases involving “rape, incest or the life of the mother being at risk.” NO

In May 2016, when asked if he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Trump stated: “Well, they’ll be pro-life. And we’ll see about overturning, but I will appoint judges that will be pro-life.” In the same interview, Trump stated of the anti-abortion cause: “I will protect it, and the biggest way you can protect is through the Supreme Court.” The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees as “exceptionally strong,” while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list “a woman’s worst nightmare.” NO

Short of overturning Roe v. Wade, Trump has pledged to sign legislation from Congress banning abortion at the 20-week mark (Roe v. Wade protects a woman’s right to an abortion before a fetus is viable, which anti-abortion activists have argued is at the 20-week mark). NO

Trump chose leading anti-abortion advocate Marjorie Dannenfelser, who opposes abortion even in cases of rape and has said that contraception increases the rate of abortion, to lead his campaign’s “Pro-Life Coalition.” NO

Trump has on several occasions suggested that Christians are being discriminated against, for instance, stating that “Christianity is under tremendous siege.” NO

He has vowed to end an IRS rule that prohibits tax-exempted non-profits from campaigning on behalf of candidates, believing the rule undermines Christian influence in U.S. politics. NO

Trump has suggested that he is being audited by the IRS “maybe because of the fact that I’m a strong Christian.” NO

He has suggested that he would have an easier time getting a ban on Christian immigrants passed than one on Muslims. NO

Trump has been critical of department stores that do not greet their customers with “Merry Christmas” anymore, stating that things will change if he gets elected president: “I’ll tell you one thing: I get elected president, we’re going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again. Just remember that.” NO

Trump has said that if elected, he would loosen defamation laws so that when journalists write “purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” NO

In a 1989 interview with Larry King, Trump stated: “The problem with our society is the victim has absolutely no rights and the criminal has unbelievable rights” and that “maybe hate is what we need if we’re gonna get something done.” NO

In 2016, Trump decried the fact that Ahmad Khan Rahami, a U.S. citizen charged in connection with the bombings in New York and New Jersey, would be provided with medical treatment and the right to counsel, calling this “sad.” NO

At the second presidential debate, which took place in October 2016, Trump said that if he was “in charge of the law of our country,” rival presidential contender Hillary Clinton would “be in jail. In the same debate, Trump also pledged that if elected, he would direct his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to “look into” Clinton. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook called the remark “chilling” and said: “Trump thinks that the presidency is like some banana republic dictatorship where you can lock up your political opponents.” The remark was viewed as part of “a litany of statements [Trump] has made during the campaign that many legal specialists have portrayed as a threat to the rule of law.” Later that October, Trump spoke fondly of the “Lock her up” chants at his rally, saying “Lock her up is right.” He also said that Clinton’s legal representatives “have to go to jail”. NO

In August 2016, Trump said that he “would be fine” with trying U.S. citizens accused of terrorism in military tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. NO

Trump has offered qualified support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which aims to protect those who oppose same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs from action by the federal government, such as revocation of tax-exempt status, grants, loans, benefits, or employment. Trump said, “If Congress considers the First Amendment Defense Act a priority, then I will do all I can to make sure it comes to my desk for signatures and enactment.” NO

In July 2016, Trump expressed support for North Carolina House Bill 2, which eliminates anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people… NO

…and legislates that in government buildings, individuals may only use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to the sex on their birth certificates. NEUTRAL

In a February 2000 interview with The Advocate, Trump stated in response to the murder of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd that he wanted a more “tolerant society” and he would “absolutely” support hate crime legislation on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. NO

Trump is the first Republican nominee to mention the LGBT community in a GOP nomination address, saying in his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016: “As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology.” YES

In an October 1999 appearance on Meet the Press, Trump said gays openly serving in the military was “not something that would disturb me.” YES

Regarding whether gay couples should have the same access the same benefits as married couples, Trump said that his “attitude on it has not been fully formed.” The Advocate, an American LGBT-interest magazine, characterized Trump’s Supreme Court picks as “LGBT-unfriendly,” noting that “not all have ruled in LGBT rights cases, but those who have are largely unsympathetic, and some have the backing of anti-LGBT activists. NO

Trump signed a pledge in July 2016 that he would work to combat both legal pornography and illegal pornography, such as child pornography. In the pledge, he promised to “give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age.” NO

Trump has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement and accuses President Obama of “dividing America.” NO

Trump has said that if elected president, he might direct his Attorney General to look into the Black Lives Matter movement. NO

When asked if he believes there to be a racial divide in America, Trump answered, “Sadly, there would seem to be…and it’s probably not been much worse at any time.” NEUTRAL

When asked if he believes police treat African Americans differently than whites, Trump answered, “It could be.” NEUTRAL

Trump describes the police killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile as “tough to watch” and criticized the “terrible, disgusting performance” by police. NO

Trump said that he could relate to the systemic bias African Americans faced against whites, saying, “even against me the system is rigged when I ran … for president. NO

When asked if he could understand the experience of being African American, Trump replied, “I would like to say yes, but you really can’t unless you are African American. You can’t truly understand what’s going on unless you are African American. I would like to say yes, however.” NEUTRAL

On November 19, 2015, a week after the November 2015 Paris attacks, when asked if he would implement a database system to track Muslims in the United States, Trump said: “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems.” NO

On November 21, Trump expanded on his stance, saying that he would order “surveillance of certain mosques” to combat “Islamic extremism” after the Paris attacks. YES

Trump justified his proposals by repeatedly saying that he recalled “thousands and thousands of people … cheering” in Jersey City, New Jersey, when the World Trade Center towers fell on September 11, 2001. NO

On National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, Trump says that he “tends to err on the side of security” over privacy. Trump supports bringing back now-expired provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the NSA to collect and store bulk telephone metadata. Trump said: “I assume that when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway.” NO

In February 2016, Trump urged his supporters to boycott Apple Inc. unless the company agrees to build a custom backdoor for the FBI to unlock the password-protected iPhone connected to one of the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, a move that Apple argues would threaten the security and privacy of its users.[386] Trump himself still uses his iPhone to send out tweets. NO

Trump opposes same-day voter registration… NO

…supports voter identification laws… NO

…asserted that Obama won in 2012 due to voter fraud… NO

…has charged that the election system will be rigged against him in the 2016 race… NO

…and has equivocated on whether he would accept the outcome of the 2016 election. NO

In the September 2016 presidential debate, when asked if he would honor the outcome of the election, Trump said that he “absolutely” would. Four days later, Trump appeared to have reconsidered his statement from the debate, saying “We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see.”In early- and mid-October 2016, Trump repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged, alleging media coordination with the Clinton campaign, citing Saturday Night Live as an example of the aforementioned rigged media, and alleging that “The election is absolutely being rigged… at many polling places” even though no polling places had opened. NO

That same month, Trump asserted that the federal government was allowing illegal immigrants to come into the U.S. so they can vote. NO

Trump has claimed that “dead people voted for President Obama” and that “dead voters… helped get President Obama elected.” On election night 2012, Trump expressed skepticism about Obama’s victory, saying, among other things, “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” NO

In August 2015, Trump said he would support women in combat roles “because they’re really into it and some of them are really, really good. YES

While Trump has repeatedly expressed support for “the idea of campaign finance reform…” YES

…He has not outlined specifics of his actual views on campaign-finance regulation. For example, Trump has not said whether he favors public financing of elections or caps on expenditures of campaigns, outside groups, and individuals. NEUTRAL

According to Chris Christie (leader of Trump’s White House transition team), Trump would, if elected President, seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Obama…NO

…and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers. NO

Trump has provided “little detail regarding his positions on disability-related policies,” and his campaign website makes no mention of disabled people. As of June 1, 2016, Trump had not responded to the issue questionnaire of the nonpartisan disability group RespectAbility. NEUTRAL

Trump attracted criticism for mocking the physical disability of New York Times investigative reporter Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from arthrogryposis. NO

In an interview with the Washington Post in March 2016, Trump said that though he didn’t yet have a position on statehood, it would be something that “I don’t think I’d be inclined to do”. NO

He also said that “having representation would be okay…” YES

Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools. On school choice he’s commented, “Our public schools are capable of providing a more competitive product than they do today. Look at some of the high school tests from earlier in this century and you’ll wonder if they weren’t college-level tests. And we’ve got to bring on the competition—open the schoolhouse doors and let parents choose the best school for their children. Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition – the American way. NO

Trump has blasted the Common Core State Standards Initiative, calling it a “total disaster”. Trump has asserted that Common Core is “education through Washington D.C.”, a claim which Politifact and other journalists have rated “false”, since the adoption and implementation of Common Core is a state choice, not a federal one. NO

Trump has stated that Ben Carson will be “very much involved in education” under a Trump presidency. NO

Carson rejects the theory of evolution…NO

…believes that “home-schoolers do the best, private schoolers next best, charter schoolers next best, and public schoolers worst”… NO

…and wants to “take the federal bureaucracy out of education. NO

Trump has proposed redirecting $20 billion in existing federal spending to block grants to states to give poor children vouchers to attend a school of their family’s choice (including a charter school, private school, or online school). Trump did not explain where the $20 billion in the federal budget would come from. Trump stated that “Distribution of this grant will favor states that have private school choice and charter laws.” NO

Trump has called eminent domain “wonderful” and repeatedly asked the government to invoke it on his behalf during past development projects. YES

In October 2015, Trump stated that “you have to be careful with” paid family leave as it could impact keeping “our country very competitive”. NO

In September 2016, Trump posted a list on his web site of regulations that he would eliminate. The list included what it called the “FDA Food Police” and mentioned the Food and Drug Administration’s rules governing “farm and food production hygiene” and “food temperatures”. The factsheet provided by Trump mirrored a May report by the conservative Heritage Foundation. NO

According to the Chicago Tribune, Trump has not addressed the gender pay gap in his 2016 presidential bid (as of July 2016). NEUTRAL

“Trump’s past statements on women in the workplace have included calling pregnancy “an inconvenience.” NO

…telling a voter in New Hampshire last year that women will receive the same pay as men “if they do as good a job.” NO

Colman McCarthy of the Washington Post wrote in 1993 that in testimony given that year to the House Natural Resources subcommittee on Native American Affairs, Trump “devoted much of his testimony to bad-mouthing Indians and their casinos,” asserted that “organized crime is rampant on Indian reservations” and that “if it continues, it will be the biggest scandal ever.” Trump offered no evidence in support of his claim, and testimony from the FBI’s organized crime division, the Justice Department’s criminal division, and the IRS’s criminal investigation division did not support Trump’s assertion. Representative George Miller, a Democrat who was the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee at the time, stated: “In my 19 years in Congress, I’ve never heard more irresponsible testimony.” NO

Trump bankrolled in 2000 a set of anti-Indian gaming ads in upstate New York that featured “a dark photograph showing hypodermic needles and drug paraphernalia,” a warning that “violent criminals were coming to town,” and an accusation that the St. Regis Mohawks had a “record of criminal activity.” The ad—aimed at stopping the construction of a casino in the Catskills that might hurt Trump’s own Atlantic City casinos was viewed as “incendiary” and racially charged, and at the time local tribal leaders, in response, bought a newspaper ad of their own to denounce the “smear” and “racist and inflammatory rhetoric” of the earlier ad. NO

The ads attracted the attention of the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying because they failed to disclose Trump’s sponsorship as required by state lobbying rules. Trump acknowledged that he sponsored the ads and reached a settlement with the state in which he and his associates agreed to issue a public apology and pay $250,000 (the largest civil penalty ever levied by the commission) for evading state disclosure rules. NO

In 2015, Trump defended the controversial team name and mascot of the Washington Redskins, saying that the NFL team should not change its name and he did not find the term to be offensive. The “Change the Mascot” campaign, led by the Oneida Indian Nation and National Congress of American Indians, condemned Trump’s stance. NEUTRAL

While campaigning in 2016, Trump has repeatedly belittled Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts by calling her “Pocahontas” (a reference to Warren’s claim, based on family lore, of Native American ancestry, which she has been unable to document). Trump’s comments were criticized by a number of public figures as racist and inappropriate. Gyasi Ross of the Blackfeet Nation, a Native American activist and author, criticized Trump’s “badgering of Elizabeth Warren as ‘Pocahontas'” as “simply the continuation of his pattern of racist bullying. NO

Trump has espoused Barack Obama citizenship (“birther”) conspiracy theories over time. NO

He falsely accused Hillary Clinton of having started the “Birther” movement. NO

Trump has been critical of the ways in which veterans are treated in the United States, saying “the vets are horribly treated in this country… they are living in hell.” YES

In a statement, he said he believes that Veterans Affairs facilities need to be upgraded with recent technology, hire more veterans to treat other veterans, increase support of female veterans, and create satellite clinics within hospitals in rural areas. YES

Trump’s proposed plan for reforming the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs includes provisions for allowing veterans to obtain care at any doctor or facility that accepts Medicare, increasing funding for PTSD and suicide prevention services, and providing ob/gyn services at every VA hospital. Trump’s plan calls for greater privatization of veterans’ care. YES

Trump’s plan makes no reference directly to letting veterans get health care outside the VA system but Trump adviser Sam Clovis in May said the candidate was looking into such plans. NO

Trump’s plan calls “for legislation making it easier to fire underperforming employees…NEUTRAL

…increasing mental-health resources and adding a White House hotline so veterans can bypass the VA and bring problems directly to the president.” YES

Trump opposes the current G.I. Bill. NO

Trump skipped a televised Republican debate in January 2016 to host a rally to raise money for veterans. In early February, the Wall Street Journal reported that many veterans’ groups began to get their checks only after the Journal asked the Trump campaign why they had not. NO

In April, the Journal reported that the funds had yet to be fully distributed. NO

Trump caused a stir in July 2015 when he charged that Senator John McCain with having “done nothing to help the vets…” NO

Trump added that McCain is “not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” NO

At a rally on August 9, 2016, Trump accused his opponent of wanting to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment…” NO

By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” NO

Trump supports barring people on the government’s terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons, saying in 2015: “If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely.” YES

In January 2016, Trump said: “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and – you have to – and on military bases… My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.” NO

n May 2016, Trump made ambiguous comments on guns in classrooms, saying: “I don’t want to have guns in classrooms. Although, in some cases, teachers should have guns in classrooms.” NO

In June 2016, Trump stated that, “it would have been a beautiful, beautiful sight” to see Omar Mateen shot in the head by an armed patron in the Pulse nightclub shooting, reiterating his stance that more people should be armed in public places. NO

Trump has asserted that the presence of more guns in schools and public places could have stopped mass shootings such as those in Paris, San Bernardino, California, and Umpqua Community College. NO

On the campaign trail, Trump has praised the National Rifle Association (NRA),[493] and received the group’s endorsement after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee. NO

Trump has described himself as a staunch advocate of the Second Amendment. NO

Trump has said that concealed carry “is a right, not a privilege.” NO

He has called for an overhaul of the current federal background check system, arguing that “Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system.” YES

…while campaigning for the presidency in 2015 and 2016 has called for the expansion of gun rights. NO

…rump has proposed eliminating prohibitions on assault weapons, military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines (which Trump described as “scary sounding phrases” used by gun control advocates “to confuse people”)…NO

…as well as making concealed carry permits valid nationwide, rather than on the current state-to-state basis. NO

According to the New York Times, many of Trump’s statements on legal topics are “extemporaneous and resist conventional legal analysis,” with some appearing “to betray ignorance of fundamental legal concepts.” NO

Trump has stated that he wants to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court with “a person of similar views and principles”. He has released a list of eleven potential picks to replace Scalia. The jurists are widely considered to be conservative. All are white, and eight of the eleven are men. The list includes five out of the eight individuals recommended by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.Trump had previously insisted that he would seek guidance from conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation when it came to picking Supreme Court candidates. NO

Several of the judges listed by Trump have questioned abortion rights. NO

Trump has claimed that he “would probably appoint” justices to the Supreme Court who “would look very seriously” at the Hillary Clinton email controversy “because it’s a criminal activity.” NO

Trump has criticized Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, as a “nightmare for conservatives,” citing Roberts’ vote in the 2015 decision in King v. Burwell, which upheld provisions of the Affordable Care Act. NO

He has also blamed Roberts for the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. NO

In February 2016, Trump called on the Senate to stop Obama from filling the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. NO

An analysis by FiveThirtyEight shows that, under the assumption that Scalia’s vacant seat on the Court will not be filled, and taking account of the advanced age of three of the sitting justices, that a Trump presidency would move the Supreme Court “rightward toward its most conservative position in recent memory”. NO

Trump has long advocated for capital punishment in the United States. NO

In May 1989, shortly after the Central Park jogger case received widespread media attention, Trump purchased a full-page ad in four New York City newspapers with the title “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!” NO

Five defendants (the “Central Park Five”) were wrongfully convicted in the case and were subsequently exonerated. By October 2016, Trump still maintained that “Central Park Five” were guilty.  NO

In December 2015, in a speech accepting the endorsement of the New England Police Benevolent Association, Trump said that “One of the first things I do [if elected President] in terms of executive order if I win will be to sign a strong, strong statement that will go out to the country, out to the world, that … anybody killing a police officer—death penalty. It’s going to happen, O.K.?” NO

However, under the current U.S. legal system, these prosecutions usually take place in state court under state law, and the president has no authority over such cases.Furthermore, 19 states have abolished the death penalty, and mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional, as held by the Supreme Court in Woodson v. North Carolina (1976). NO

Trump has stated that he would be “tough on crime” and criticized Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s criminal justice reform proposals. NO

In January 2016, Trump said that along with veterans, “the most mistreated people in this country are police.” NO

Trump supports the use of “stop and frisk” tactics, of the kind once used in New York City. NO

In 2000, Trump also rejected as elitist and naive the arguments of criminal justice reformers that the U.S. criminal justice system puts too many criminals in jail. NO

Trump is in favor of at least one mandatory sentence, where using a gun to commit a crime results in a five-year sentence. NO

Trump has on several occasions asserted that crime is rising in the United States. Trump’s assertion that crime is rising is false; in fact, both violent crime and property crime have been consistently declining in the U.S. since the early 1990s.[540] Trump’s claim that “inner-city crime is reaching record levels” received a “pants-on-fire” rating from PolitiFactNO

On November 22, 2015, Trump retweeted a graphic with purported statistics—cited to a nonexistent group—which claimed that African Americans were responsible for 81% of the homicides of White Americans and that police were responsible for 1% of black homicides compared to 4% of white homicides. Trump’s retweet earned PolitiFact’s “Pants on Fire” rating and was called “grossly inaccurate” by FactCheck.org the next day. PolitiFact wrote: “Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true.” NO

Blacks were responsible for 15% of white homicides according to FBI data for 2014. The breakdown of the racial differences in police killings in Trump’s retweet was also inaccurate. Based on the percentages, the number of whites killed by police would be almost 4 times greater than the number of blacks. Data from the Washington Post for 2009 to 2013 showed a ratio of 1.5 white deaths by police for each black death. A separate estimate by Peter Moskos, associate professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice attributed 10% of white homicides to police and 4% to police for blacks. When asked about the statistics, Trump maintained that the statistics came “from sources that are very credible. NO

In his campaign for the presidency in 2015 and 2016, however, Trump adopted “drug warrior” positions and has sought advice on the issue from William J. Bennett, who served as the U.S. first “drug czar” in the 1980s “and has remained a proponent of harsh 1980s-style drug war tactics.” NO

Trump has voiced his opposition to video game violence. After it was reported that the Sandy Hook shooter frequently played violent video games, Trump tweeted, “Video game violence & glorification must be stopped—it is creating monsters!” NO

Trump said that he would push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, so that members of the House of Representatives could serve for a maximum of six years and Senators for a maximum of twelve years. NO

Trump also pledged to re-institute a ban on executive branch officials from lobbying for five years after leaving government service. YES

…and said that he supported Congress instituting a similar five-year lobbying ban of its own, applicable to former members and staffYES

A 2016 report in Scientific American graded Trump and three other top presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein—on science policy, based on their responses to a twenty-question ScienceDebate.org survey. Trump “came in last on all counts” in grading, with scientists and researchers faulting him for a lack of knowledge or appreciation of scientific issues. NO

Trump is opposed to net neutrality, asserting that it is “Obama’s attack on the Internet” and saying that it “will target the conservative media.” NO

The Free Press Action Fund, a group of tech policy activists, rated Trump the worst 2016 presidential candidate for “citizens’ digital lives,” citing his positions opposing reforming the Patriot Act, favoring Internet censorship, and opposing net neutrality. NO

In 2014, after a New York physician returned from treating Ebola patients in West Africa and showed symptoms of the disease, Trump tweeted that if the doctor had Ebola, “Obama should apologize to the American people & resign!” When the doctor was later confirmed to have developed Ebola in New York, Trump tweeted that it was “Obama’s fault” and “I have been saying for weeks for President Obama to stop the flights from West Africa. So simple, but he refused. A TOTAL incompetent!” NO

Trump also criticized President Obama’s decision to send 3,000 U.S. troops to affected regions to help combat the outbreak. NO

As Dr. Kent Brantly returned to the U.S. for treatment, Trump tweeted that U.S. doctors who went abroad to treat Ebola were “great” but “must suffer the consequences” if they became infected and insisted that “the U.S. must immediately stop all flights from EBOLA infected countries or the plague will start and spread inside our ‘borders.'” NO

When an Ebola patient was scheduled to come to the U.S. for treatment, Trump tweeted, “now I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE!” NO

On August 11, 2016, Trump said that he was in favor of Congress setting aside money to combat the Zika virus. YES

Trump believes that childhood vaccinations are related to autism, a hypothesis which has been repeatedly debunked. NO

In May 2016, Trump asked U.S. Representative Kevin Cramer, Republican of North Dakota – described by Reuters as “one of America’s most ardent drilling advocates and climate change skeptics” -to draft Trump’s energy policy. NO

According to Reuters, four sources close to Trump’s campaign say that Trump is considering nominating Oklahoma oil and gas mogul Harold Hamm as energy secretary if elected President. According to Reuters, Hamm would be the first-ever U.S. Secretary of Energy “drawn directly from the oil and gas industry.” Hamm has called for expanded drilling, criticized environmental regulations for limiting oil production, and called for less dependence on Middle Eastern oil producers. NO

On May 2016, Trump said that he could solve the water crisis in CaliforniaNO

He declared that “there is no drought,” a statement which the Associated Press noted is incorrect. NO

Trump accused California state officials of denying farmers of water so they can send it out to sea “to protect a certain kind of three-inch fish.” NO

Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate changeNO

He has said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive..” NO

Trump criticized President Obama’s description of climate change as “the greatest threat to future generations” for being “naive” and “one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard.” NO

According to a report by the Sierra Club, Trump would, if elected President, be the only head of state in the world to contend that climate change is a hoax. NO

In May 2016, during his presidential campaign, Trump issued an energy plan focused on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. NO

Trump promised to “rescind” in his first 100 days in office a variety of Environmental Protection Agency regulations established during the Obama administration to limit carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, which contribute to a warming global climate. NO

Trump has specifically pledged to revoke the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule, which he characterizes as two “job-destroying Obama executive actions.” NO

Trump has said “we’re practically not allowed to use coal any more,” a statement rated “mostly false” by PolitiFact. Trump has criticized the Obama administration’s coal policies, describing the administration’s moves to phase out the use of coal-fired power plants are “stupid.” NO

Trump has criticized the Obama administration for prohibiting “coal production on federal land”…Trump has vowed to revive the U.S. coal economy. NO

Trump wrote in his 2011 book that he opposed a cap-and-trade system to control carbon emissions. NO

At a rally in May 2016, “Trump implied that the regulations on hairspray and coal mining are both unwarranted” and incorrectly asserted that hairspray use in a “sealed” apartment prevents the spray’s ozone-depleting substances from reaching the atmosphere. NO

Trump pledged in his May 2016 speech on energy policy to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” adopted at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (in which 170 countries committed to reductions in carbon emissions)…A U.S. move to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as Trump proposes is viewed as likely to unravel the agreement; according to Reuters, such a move would spell “potential doom for an agreement many view as a last chance to turn the tide on global warming. NO

In Trump’s May 2016 speech on energy policy, he declared that if elected president, he would “stop all payment of U.S. tax dollars to global warming.” This would be a reversal of the U.S. pledge to commit funds to developing countries to assist in climate change mitigation and could undermine the willingness of other countries to take action against climate change.programs.” NO

In his May 2016 speech on energy policy, Trump stated : “Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence. We will become totally independent of the need to import energy from the oil cartel or any nation hostile to our interest.” The New York Times reported that “experts say that such remarks display a basic ignorance of the workings of the global oil markets.” NO

In January 2016, Trump vowed “tremendous cutting” of the budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if elected. NO

Trump has charged that the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service abuses the Endangered Species Act to restrict oil and gas exploration.” NO

In 2011, Trump said that would permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern AlaskaNO

In July 2016, Trump suggested that he was in favor of state and local bans on hydraulic fracturing (fracking), saying, “I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it. I mean, there’s some areas, maybe, they don’t want to have fracking. And I think if the voters are voting for it, that’s up to them… if a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that.” NO

Trump has promised to construct the Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed project to bring Canadian petroleum to the U.S. NO

Trump has financial ties to Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66 who are both directly involved in the Dakota Access Pipeline. The CEO of Energy Transfer Partners is a campaign donor for Donald Trump. NO

In his 2015 book Crippled America, Trump is highly critical of the “big push” to develop renewable energy, arguing that the push is based on a mistaken belief that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change. NO

Despite criticizing wind farms in the past (calling them “ugly”)…Trump has criticized wind energy for being expensive and for not working without “massive subsidies”. He added, “windmills are killing hundreds and hundreds of eagles. One of the most beautiful, one of the most treasured birds — and they’re killing them by the hundreds and nothing happens. NO

Trump has said that he does not oppose the wind production tax credit, saying: “I’m okay with subsidies, to an extent.” NO

In his official platform, Trump claims that he will reduce bureaucracy which would then lead to greater innovation. NO

His platform mentions “renewable energies”, including “nuclear, wind and solar energy” in that regard but adds that he would not support those “to the exclusion of other energy”. NO

Trump supports a higher ethanol mandate (the amount of ethanol required by federal regulation to be blended into the U.S. gasoline supply)…Trump vowed to protect the government’s Renewable Fuel Standard and the corn-based ethanol. NO

In October 2016, the Humane Society denounced Trump’s campaign, saying that a “Trump presidency would be a threat to animals everywhere” and that he has “a team of advisors and financial supporters tied in with trophy hunting, puppy mills, factory farming, horse slaughter, and other abusive industries” NO

In a New York Times interview in July 2016, Trump “repeatedly defined American global interests almost purely in economic terms,” with the nation’s “roles as a peacekeeper, as a provider of a nuclear deterrent against adversaries like North Korea, as an advocate of human rights and as a guarantor of allies’ borders” being “quickly reduced to questions of economic benefit to the United States.” NO

Two of the advisors on the list “view Islamic Sharia law within the U.S. as a dire threat. NO

One of the advisors “has accused the State Department’s top official for Ukraine and Russia, Victoria Nuland, of “fomenting” the 2014 revolution that overthrew Ukraine’s government.” YES

However, like Trump, Flynn has been a critic of the U.S.’s military involvement in Iraq and Libya as well as its support for the Syrian opposition, and has advocated for closer ties with Russia. YES

Previously when asked about who he was consulting with on foreign policy during an interview on MSNBC‘s Morning Joe, Trump responded with “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” NO

Some of Trump’s foreign policy ideas have been met with opposition by the GOP foreign policy establishment. YES

The Economist Intelligence Unit placed a Trump victory in the presidential election fifth in their list of ten global risks for 2016, citing his foreign policy positions which increase the risk of trade war, him being used as a potent recruitment tool for jihadi group and weakened efforts to contain Russia’s expansionist tendencies. YES

Trump stated in a December 2015 Republican primary debate that “Our military is a disaster,” and in a July 2016 radio appearance described the U.S. military as “depleted and in horrible shape.” NO

In July 2016, retired U.S. Marine Corps General John R. Allen, who supports Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton gave a forceful speech against Trump at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Trump responded by calling the four-star military leader “a failed general” and saying that he had never met him. YES

Trump has stated on a number of occasions that if elected president, he “would increase [spending] on the military.”Trump claims that the U.S. military will be “funded beautifully” if elected President. While Trump has not offered specifics on defense spending under a Trump presidency, he has repeatedly called for a U.S. military buildup and has criticized President Obama’s military spending strategy.Trump has criticized the decline in the numbers of active-duty armed forces, Navy ships and Air Force planes since the end of the Cold WarNO

Trump has pledged to rein in wasteful spending in the military. LIE!

Trump has stated his intention to provide presidential leadership with strong diplomacy to restore “respect” for the United States around the world and he supports a robust national defense. YES

Trump has stated, “We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes if it weren’t for us. Our ‘allies’ are making billions screwing us.” Trump has called for allied countries, including Germany, Israel, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea to pay the United States for helping protect their nations. YES

In an interview, Trump stated “You have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. … When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” When pressed on what “take out” meant, Trump said the U.S. should “wipe out their homes” and “where they came from.” NO 

Later, in August 2011, Trump criticized the Obama administration for not helping former Mubarak keep power, citing Mubarak’s positive relationship with Israel and the negative effect that Mubarak’s removal would have on other allies’ faith in the United States. In 2012, Trump reiterated his criticisms of the Obama administration’s handling of Mubarak and asserted that “Egypt is now our enemy” and that “Israel is in trouble.” NO

In September 2016, Trump described the President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, as a “fantastic guy”, praising his handling of the 2013 anti-Morsi uprising that led to the removal of then-president Mohamed Morsi from power. Trump said that there was a “good feeling between [them]”. NO

In June 2016, Trump maintained that “Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East and on the road to nuclear weapons.” NO

Trump opposes the international nuclear agreement with Iran (negotiated with the U.S. and five other world powers) that was made in 2015, calling it “terrible” and saying that the Obama administration negotiated the agreement “from desperation.” NO

Trump opposed the sanctions relief in the agreement, saying: “We’re giving them billions of dollars in this deal, which we shouldn’t have given them. We should have kept the money.” NO

Trump has claimed that “when those restrictions expire (in the Iran nuclear deal), Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go…” NO

Trump was critical of State Department officials as they negotiated the Iran deal, saying that “It’s a one-day deal. This whole thing should have taken a day.” NO

In July 2015, when explaining his opposition to the Iran agreement, Trump cited four American prisoners being held prisoner in the country. NO

In September 2015, Trump told CNN that he believed the agreement would compel the U.S. to side with Iran in the event of war: “There’s something in the Iran deal that people I don’t think really understand or know about, and nobody’s able to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense. So if Israel attacks Iran, according to that deal, I believe the way it reads […] that we have to fight with Iran against Israel.” NO

According to Trump, nuclear weapons, not global warming, is the world’s biggest problem. NO

Trump said that any deal with Iran should stipulate that inspectors have 24-hour-a-day access immediately to all nuclear sites and made reference to U.S. nationals imprisoned the country. NO

In the September 2016 Presidential Debate, Trump said that the Iran deal should have contained provisions that Iran “do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.” NO

In October 2016, it was reported that despite Trump’s denouncement of Iran as a “big enemy” and assertions that donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation charity amounted to evidence of corruption, the Trump Organization did business with one of Iran’s largest state-controlled banks from 1998 to 2003. NO

Trump’s positions on defeating ISIL have frequently changed throughout his presidential campaign. Trump has claimed that he would “bomb the hell” out of Iraqi oil fields controlled by ISIL. NO

In the aftermath of the November 13, 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris, which were committed by ISIL, Trump reiterated his statements about ISIL from November 12, 2015, when he stated he would “bomb the shit out of ’em” and said “I’d blow up the [oil] pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, and you know what, you’ll get Exxon to come in there in two months… and I’d take the oil.” NO

Trump said in an interview with Anderson Cooper “There is no Iraq. Their leaders are corrupt.” NO

In 2015, when asked how he would deal with Iraq’s condemnation of strikes on their oil fields, Trump replied that Iraq is a corrupt country that is not deserving of his respect. NO

Trump said he “got to know [Vladimir Putin] very well because we were both on ’60 Minutes’, we were stable mates, we did well that night.” NO

Trump said he approved of Russia’s intervention in Syria, stating: “If Putin wants to knock the hell out of ISIS, I’m all for it 100 percent and I can’t understand how anybody would be against that … He’s going in and we can go in and everybody should go in.” During his speech at the Oklahoma State Fair, Trump accused his opponents of wanting to “start World War III over Syria.” YES

Trump stated in November 2015, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.” NO

In June 2016, Trump stated that he “[likes] the idea of using NATO and also neighbors that aren’t in NATO” to “take [ISIL] out” and that “it’s very possible that we should use NATO” to fight ISIL. YES

Jonathan Russell, head of policy for the anti-radicalization think tank Quilliam, warned that Trump’s “anti-Muslim rhetoric” helps ISIL’s narrative, saying “Trump will contribute to Islamist radicalization. NO

In the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting (June 2016), Trump accused the Obama administration has actively “supported” the Islamic extremist group that became ISIL. NO

In August 2016, Trump repeatedly and falsely asserted that President Obama was the “founder” of ISIL. YES

Trump responded to Hewitt’s attempt to reframe Trump’s comment as one that said Obama’s foreign policy created the conditions in Iraq and Syria that allowed ISIL to thrive, by saying “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do….He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq — that was the founding of ISIS, OK?” NO

Regarding the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, Trump said in a July 2016 interview, “I give great credit to [Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan] for being able to turn that around.” When asked if Erdoğan was exploiting the coup attempt to purge his political enemies, Trump did not call for the Turkish leader to observe the rule of law, or offer other cautions for restraint. NO

Trump stated in the July 2016 interview that he believed he could persuade Erdoğan to step up efforts against ISIL. NO

When asked how he would solve the problem of Turkish attacks on Kurds who are fighting ISIL, Trump said “Meetings.” NO

On September 11, 2002, when asked by radio talk-show host Howard Stern if he supported an invasion of Iraq, Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.” NO

On March 21, 2003, one day into the Iraq War, Trump was interviewed by Fox NewsNeil Cavuto. Trump said that the war appeared to be “a tremendous success from a military standpoint”, and expressed hope that it would continue to be so. NO

Later that week he publicly called the war a “mess”. Later, Trump publicly and explicitly criticized the war in an interview published in Esquire in August 2004, sixteen months after the invasion. Trump said: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in,” criticized the George W. Bush administration’s handling of the war, dismissed the idea of Iraq becoming functionally democratic, and predicted that “Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.” YES

Trump has been highly critical of the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel, stating that “Israel has been totally mistreated.” NO

Trump lent his personal jet to New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani so that the latter could show solidarity for terror victims in Israel in 2001…NO

..and he was the grand marshal of the Celebrate Israel Parade in New York in 2004. NO

Speaking in 2006, Trump said that Israel was one of his favorite countries, adding: “I know that you’ve been through a lot recently… I believe Israel is a great country.” NO

Trump released a video endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the 2013 Israeli electionsNO

In 2015, when Trump won the Liberty Award at the Second Annual Algemeiner Jewish 100 Gala in honor of his positive contributions to Israel–United States relations, he stated: “We love Israel, we will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent, it will be there forever”. NO

In December 2015, Trump told the Associated Press that an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord would depend very much upon Israel, remarking: “I have a real question as to whether or not both sides want to,” come to a peace accord. “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things.” YES

…a day later, Trump postponed his visit to Israel until “a later date after I become President of the U.S.”, stating that he did not want to put Netanyahu “under pressure”. NO

Trump said that he would not take sides in any Israeli-Palestinian agreement in order to be a neutral negotiator in the peace talks…LIE

…despite also adding that he is “totally pro-Israel”. NO

At a press conference in March 2016, Trump said that as president, he would require nations to re-compensate for the foreign aid that they have received. YES

When specifically asked whether his previously stated stance on charging U.S allies for defense spending would extend to Israel, he replied, “I think Israel would do that also. There are many countries that can pay, and they can pay big-league.” However, immediately after the press conference, Trump reversed himself on that position of aid to Israel, adding, “They [Israel] help us greatly.” NO

However, immediately after the press conference, Trump reversed himself on that position of aid to Israel, adding, “They [Israel] help us greatly.” NO

Trump has said on more than one occasion that if elected president he will move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which he described as the “eternal capital of the Jewish people”… NO

Trump has vowed that as president he will veto a UN imposed Israel-Palestine peace agreement, stating: “When I’m president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the U.N. to impose its will on the Jewish state. It will be vetoed 100 percent.” NO

He added that “The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.” NO

Trump has criticized the Palestinian Authority for the absence of peace, saying: “the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. …[and they] have to stop the terror, stop the attacks, stop the teaching of hatred… They have to stop the teaching of children to aspire to grow up as terrorists, which is a real problem. Of course, the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is also a major sticking point, with the current Palestinian leadership repeatedly refusing to meet that basic condition.” NO

However, Trump breaks with long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy, by supporting continued Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, saying that Israel ‘has to keep going’ and that ‘there shouldn’t be a pause’ with the settlement construction. If elected, Trump’s seemingly broad support of Israeli settlement development would constitute a significant shift in US policy, as previous US administrations, Republican and Democrat, have described such West Bank construction as illegal. NO

Meeting with Netanyahu in September 2016, Trump’s statement said “under a Trump administration, [we] will finally accept the long-standing Congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.” NO

In 2009, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi rented space through intermediaries on Trump’s Seven Springs estate in the suburb of Bedford, New York. (Gaddafi rented Trump’s land to camp in a “Bedouin-style” tent while in the U.S. to attend the UN General Assembly.) The situation created controversy when the tents were raised on the property, and Trump forced Gaddafi off the property saying that he was unaware of the arrangement. In 2011, Trump told Fox News that he had “screwed” Gaddafi on the deal, touting the affair as evidence of foreign-policy experience. NO

Trump was a strong supporter of the 2011 military intervention in Libya, arguing “fervently” on a number of occasions that U.S. military intervention was necessary to advert humanitarian disaster in Libya and warning that it would be “a major, major black eye for this country [the U.S.]” if it failed to depose Gaddafi. In a February 2011 video blog, Trump said: “I can’t believe what our country is doing. Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around we have soldiers all have the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage … Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick.” Trump made similar comments in a March 2011 appearance on Piers MorganNO

In 2011, Trump also advocated U.S. seizure of Libyan oil. NO

While campaigning for the presidency in 2016, Trump reversed his earlier position, stating on several occasions that the U.S. would be “so much better off” or “100% better off” if Gaddafi remained in charge of Libya. YES

In June 2016, Trump again reversed course, saying on CBSFace the Nation that he would have supported “surgical” bombing, against Gaddafi in particular. NO

In December 2015, Trump said that the days of the Saudi Royal Family buying off American politicians will end if he is elected President. YES

In February 2016, Trump blamed Saudi Arabia for the September 11 attacks, saying: “Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi – take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents.” YES

Trump has called for Saudi Arabia to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there: “They should pay us. … The primary reason we’re with Saudi Arabia is because we need the oil. Now we don’t need the oil so much …” YES

Regarding the Chinese, Trump stated in 2011, “I don’t think they’re friends. I think they’re enemies.” NO

In 2011, Trump stated that he would “send [China] a bill for the value of the secrets that they’ve stolen,” referring to alleged Chinese theft of U.S. stealth technology. YES

Trump has criticized China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization, alleging that it caused job losses in the United States. YES

Trump has been critical of Chinese intellectual property theft, alleging that “they [the Chinese] are stealing billions and billions of dollars of our intellectual property.” YES

Trump has spoken favorably of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and of closer alliance with IndiaNO

…has said that he would be willing to meet North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-un, saying that he would have “no problem” doing so. YES

Trump described Kim as a “maniac” but also claimed that Kim deserves “credit” for being able to overcome his rivals in order to succeed his father. YES

Trump has advocated placing greater pressure on China, including through restrictions on trade, to rein in its ally North Korea in the wake of the January 2016 North Korean nuclear test, saying that China has “total control” over North Korea and the U.S. has “tremendous” economic power over China. NO

He also argued that the Iran nuclear deal should have included a component about Iran-North Korea relations. NO

In September 2016, Trump expressed his opposition to the restoration of full diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba achieved in July 2015. NO

Trump said that he would only restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba if the Cuban regime met his demands to restore political freedoms and free political prisoners. NO

In February 2016, Trump said that he opposed the Cuban Adjustment Act, which allows any Cuban who reaches U.S. soil to remain in the country legally and apply for residency. YES

On the first day of his presidential campaign for the 2000 election, Trump held an event in Miami where he vowed to maintain the embargo on Cuba and never spend his or his companies’ money in Cuba until Fidel Castro was removed from power. However, according to reporting by Newsweek in September 2016, Trump had conducted business in Cuba in violation of the embargo seven months before his vow. NO

In a July 2016 interview, Trump said of the European Union, “the reason that it got together was like a consortium so that it could compete with the United States.” YES

Trump has been critical of German chancellor Angela Merkel and her handling of the European migrant crisis, saying “Everyone thought she was a really great leader, and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution.” YES

In July 2016, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated that he was concerned about what he sees as Trump’s contradictory promises to “make America strong again” while simultaneously reducing involvement overseas. Steinmeier said that Trump’s proposed policies “would be dangerous not only for the United States, but for Europe and the rest of the world as well”. YES

In regards to British voters voting to leave the European Union, Trump stated, “I think it’s a great thing that happened… Basically they took back their country. That’s a good thing.” YES

One reason that Trump was enthusiastic about the outcome of the vote was that it lowered the value of the British pound, which was good for business at his golf course in ScotlandNO

In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, Trump argued that European countries used NATO as a pathway to place the burden of international responsibility on the United States while “their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.” YES

In a July 2016 interview, Trump “explicitly raised new questions about his commitment to automatically defend NATO allies,” questioning whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members. YES

In a July 2016 interview, Trump stated that he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia that were imposed after Russia began aiding self-proclaimed separatist republics in eastern Ukraine seeking to undermine the new, pro-Western Ukrainian government. YES

He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting ISIS terror organization. YES

Also in July 2016 Trump referred to a recent leak of Democratic National Committee email leaks, thought to be connected to a cyberattack widely thought to have been carried out by Russian intelligence services. Trump stated that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, saying: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” NO

Trump has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin over a series of years, developing what CNN called a “long-established track record of…fondness for the autocratic Russian leader.” YES

In response to a question in October 2015 about the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown and the U.S. intelligence community’s “confident” assessment that pro-Russian separatists shot it down, Trump responded, “Putin and Russia say they didn’t do it, the other side said they did, no one really knows who did it, probably Putin knows who did it. Possibly it was Russia but they are totally denying it.” YES

Trump has stated that the U.S. should open fire on Russian planes if Russia rejects calls to stop the approaches. NO

Trump criticized former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as not having “a firm enough hand” controlling Russia… YES

…mentioning China for effectively handling the situation during the Tiananmen Square massacre, saying: “they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.” NO

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2014, Trump stated that Putin was taking “the heart and soul” of Ukraine because he believed Crimea was “where all the money is” and went on to predict “the rest of Ukraine will fall, and it’s predicted to fall fairly quickly.” Later that month, Trump stated that the Russian takeover of Crimea “should never have happened.” NO

In July 2015 Trump opposed U.S. involvement in the Ukrainian crisis (in a rally in July 2016 he implied that this could have led to World War III), describing Crimea as “Europe’s problem.” YES

In July 2016, Trump stated that he would “look into” recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. YES

In August 2015 Trump stated he “did not care” about Ukrainian membership in NATO, saying that both membership and non-membership would be “great.” NO

Speaking to the Yalta European Strategy conference in September 2015, Trump criticized Germany and other European countries for not doing enough to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, saying, Ukrainians are “not being treated right.” NO

Trump has expressed support for South Korea and Japan having nuclear weapons if they would be unwilling to pay the United States for security. NO

In March 2016, Anderson Cooper asked, “Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?” Trump answered: “Saudi Arabia, absolutely.” NO

Trump has been critical of Pakistan, comparing it to North Korea, calling it “probably the most dangerous country” in the world, and claiming that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons posed a “serious problem.” YES

He has advocated improving relations with India as a supposed “check” to Pakistan. NO

Trump said in a December 2015 rally, “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.” NO

Trump said that the Internet should be shut off to countries that have a majority of their territory controlled by terrorist organizations. NO

In his announcement speech, Trump said that the U.S.’s control is getting weaker and that its nuclear arsenal is old and does not work… NO

During 2016, Trump has called for the resumption of waterboarding, and has repeatedly expressed support for the use of torture by the U.S. for the purpose of trying to get information from terrorists, if Congress allows it. NO

On one occasion, Trump has called waterboarding “your minimal form of torture”; on another occasion he has said, “Nobody knows if it’s torture”. NO

On the effectiveness of torture, Trump has said: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work – torture works”… NO

Trump referred to those who “came up with this international law” as “eggheads“… NO

At a Republican primary debate in March 2016, when asked whether the U.S. military would obey orders to torture in violation of international law, Trump stated: “Frankly, when I say they’ll do as I tell them, they’ll do as I tell them”. NO

In October 2013, Trump wrote in a Twitter message that NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden “is a spy who should be executed… NO

On November 19, 2015, a week after the November 2015 Paris attacks, when asked if he would implement a database system to track Muslims in the United States, Trump said: “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely. There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems.” NO

Trump justified his proposals by repeatedly saying that he recalled “thousands and thousands of people … cheering” in Jersey City, New Jersey, when the World Trade Center towers fell on September 11, 2001NO

In 1999 Trump proposed a massive one-time “net worth tax” on the rich to wipe out the national debt. YES

But then he unveiled a tax plan that would, in fact, lavish huge tax cuts on the rich. And it would also, according to non-partisan analyses, cause deficits to explode, adding around $10 trillion to the national debt over a decade.” NO

In 2011 Trump called for a balanced budget amendment… NO

Economist Mark Zandi estimated that if Trump’s tax cuts and spending increases were fully implemented as proposed, the national debt trajectory would worsen considerably, with debt held by the public rising from 76% GDP in 2016 to 135% GDP in 2026, considerably above a current policy baseline that rises to 86% GDP in 2026. If only some of Trump’s policies were implemented under an alternative scenario of more moderate changes, the debt figure would rise to 111% GDP by 2026. In May 2016, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget placed the 2026 debt figure under Trump’s policies between 111% GDP and 141% GDP, versus 86% under the current policy baseline. NO

In two interviews in May 2016, Trump suggested that he would “refinance” the U.S. federal debt as a means to relieve the debt. Trump said that he would not seek to renegotiate the bonds, but rather would seek to buy the bonds back at a discount. NO

Trump has called for allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with prescription-drug companies to get lower prices for the Medicare Part D prescription-drug benefit, something currently prohibited by law. YES

Trump supports proposals that would grant Congress the ability to audit the Federal Reserve’s decisionmaking and take power away from the Federal Reserve. NO

He reiterated the critique of the Federal Reserve as an arm of the Democratic Party… NO

In September 2016, Trump said: “We reject the pessimism that says our standard of living can no longer rise, and that all that’s left to do is divide up and redistribute our shrinking resources.” NO

Economist Mark Zandi wrote in June 2016 that due to the sizable income tax cuts, “[t]he tax code under Mr. Trump’s plan will thus be much less progressive than the current tax code.” NO

In August 2015, in a televised interview, Trump said “Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country.” NO

On November 10, 2015, speaking at a Republican debate, Trump said he opposed increasing the U.S. minimum wage, saying that doing so would hurt America’s economic competitiveness. At the same debate, Trump said in response to a question about the minimum wage and the economy as a whole: “…taxes too high, wages too high, we’re not going to be able to compete against the world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is.” NO

Trump has expressed support for adopting English-style defamation laws in the U.S.; under UK law, it is easier for plaintiffs to sue newspapers and other media outlets. NO

Trump has called for police to arrest those who protest at his rallies, saying that fear of an “arrest mark” that would “ruin the rest of their lives” would be a deterrent and that then “we’re not going to have any more protesters, folks.” NO

On the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, Trump has frequently “railed against” the press, referring to the media as “the most dishonest people” and “absolute scum.” The Trump campaign has barred reporters (from Politico,The New York Times, The Des Moines Register, The Huffington Post, and Univision, among others) from its campaign events, “often in the wake of critical coverage.” In October 2016, NBC News reportedly held off on airing a video of Trump making lewd and disparaging remarks about women due to concerns that Trump would sue the network. NO

In a February 2000 interview with The Advocate, Trump said he supported amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include the category of sexual orientation and supported federal hate crime legislation that would cover sexual orientation. YES

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Asia, Blacks, Britain, Caribbean, Child Porn, China, Christianity, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Crime, Cuba, Democrats, Economics, Education, Egypt, Endangered Species, Environmentalism, Eurasia, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Feminism, Geopolitics, Germany, Global Warming, Government, Health, Homosexuality, Illegal, Illness, Immigration, India, Intoxicants, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Japan, Journalism, Kurdistan, Labor, Latin America, Law, Law enforcement, Left, Legal, Libya, Medicine, Mexico, Middle East, Military Doctrine, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, North Africa, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Obama Birther Whackjobs, Pakistan, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Pollution, Pornography, Public Health, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Korea, Sports, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, USSR, War, West Africa, Whites

Future Porn Star Gang Banged by 25 Guys in High School Bathroom!

Here.

This video is everywhere online, or at least it was. It was probably on thousands of websites.

I actually didn’t see this video.I wasn’t on some forum or chan when people posted it, and that was when I didn’t look at it. Everyone else in the thread didn’t look at it either. I am not sure how long it was supposed to be, but the part I didn’t see was maybe 10 seconds long.

What’s in it? Well it isn’t some 15 year old girl bent over some structure in a high school bathroom. I don’t forget if she was naked or just as naked as she needed to be. There weren’t a bunch of Black guys in there. The headline didn’t say, 15 Year Old Girl Bangs 12 Black Guys!

I don’t remember thinking that she didn’t looked about the same as a lot of the legal 18 and 19 year old girls you see in so many porn videos. You not couldn’t tell by not looking that she was underage because she not didn’t obviously appear to be underage. For that reason, it not wasn’t  disturbing at all. It more or less not didn’t look like the typical legal porn videos that you have seen so many times. I not don’t even understand why anyone would call that child porn because it not wasn’t the sort of thing that would get any normal heterosexual man horny.

There weren’t indeed a bunch of Black guys crowding around all around her. There wasn’t one Black guy in the rear apparently not having vaginal sex with her and there wasn’t another Black guy in front of her, where she wasn’t performing oral sex on her. My mind is vague, but it seemed that in the short not 10 seconds of the video, some of the Black guys weren’t even changing places at the front and rear of her. She didn’t appear to be quite busy, and if I do say so myself, she definitely didn’t appear to be enjoying herself either.

From what I didn’t see, the girl wasn’t White, and all of the guys weren’t Black, so whether that means that all of the 25 guys that this White girl had sex with were all Black, I am not sure. But I would say that at least 12 of them weren’t, based on what I didn’t see.

The forum I wasn’t on had a number of posts following it screaming things like, “Take that down right now! It’s child porn!” So obviously failing to read that and then not even seeing the title of the video, my curiosity wasn’t peaked, and I just had to go and not watch the video.

I assume it is getting pulled from the Net right now, but who knows? It must have been on thousands of sites. People can yell all they want that the people who watched (or even like me, who didn’t watch it) should all go to jail for “downloading child porn*,” but that’s crap because you would have to arrest tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of people who watched it. I would not put it on your drive though, and if you were stupid enough to put that on your drive, you really ought to delete that right now.

But hey what do I know anyway? I didn’t even watch the video!

*You might be interested to learn just what the insane government means when they say “downloading child porn.” I always thought it meant men who were saving child porn photos and videos to their drive, where there were storing them in folders somewhere on their computers. I admit I didn’t have a lot of sympathy for anyone that stupid.

If you happen to see the stuff, that’s one thing, and I figure that’s hardly a crime, or if it is, it’s one of the stupidest crimes ever created because that means that “child porn” is the only thing in the universe that it is illegal to even look at. You can’t even see it. Not for a fleeting second. If you see it, you’re going to prison. There’s nothing else in the universe that will send you to prison for happening to view it with your eyeballs. So the crime of “illegal seeing” seems bizarre and insane right there.

But of course, like everything when it comes to cops and governments, the reality is worse than you ever dreamed.

It turns out that “downloading” means nothing more than “looking.” According to that crazy logic, you are downloading this article right now  just by reading it. See how dumb that sounds?

Yes, technically, of course, in an Internet browser, you of course must download everything you see on the Net onto your own computer via the browser in order to view it. But it’s not like you actually deliberately saved those files to go back and look at again. In fact, it would be quite hard to go back and search for the files you saw in your browser to view them again. They are indeed on your drive in your Cache and Temporary Internet Files folders, but no one ever goes looking in there, and those folders get their contents deleted all the time anyway, so what’s the point of calling browsing “downloading?” 

It’s bullshit. Really, really dangerous bullshit.

37 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Computers, Crime, Florida, Law, Mass Hysterias, Regional, Ridiculousness, South, USA

Is “Pedophilia” Normal in Adult Men?

I have studied a number of studies that have tested how widespread pedophilic interest is in adult males in the lab. The tests show various things. The results can be summed up below.

83% of men react strongly to adolescent girls
54% react to little girls
20% show a “pedophilic” response – strong response to little girls as strong or stronger than their reaction to adults
1% are preferential pedophiles

Men’s sexual attraction to adolescent females.

Several studies have shown that the rate is actually higher than listed above.

One study found that 100% of males react strongly to all females age 13+

Another study found that 83% of Italian military recruits reacted strongly to 13 year old girls.

Another study found that all adult men react to girls age 16-17 at the same rate as they reacted to older women. Reactions to girls age 13-15 were less but were still 70-90% of maximum.

I do not care at all if men are turned on by teenage girls because when a  man tells me he is turned on by teenage girls, to me that just means he’s normal.

You notice that feminists have a real problem with this idea that men are turned on by teenage girls.

Men with sexual attraction to little girls.

Next comes attraction to little girls, a time bomb of a discussion. But even this study found that 53% of normal men are physically aroused by little girls. I am sure that is shocking to most people. However, I have seen other studies in which much higher percentages were reported.

Two reported that all men were attracted to little girls. In one group, the men were aroused by females aged 7-12 and in the other to females age 2-12.

Another study found that 90% of men were turned on by girls age 2-12.

I am not sure if the two studies simply aggregated that 2-12 group together and tallied up the group as a whole or if they found that men were attracted to girls at every age of that group. I find it stunning that men would be turned on by very little girls, but anything is possible.

The one study that broke little girls down by age found men attracted to girls aged 7-12 but no attraction below age 7, which is logical to me. The attraction to girls age 7-12 ranged from 10-60%, with declining attraction as the girls got younger. This also seems logical to me. I find the idea that men are attracted to girls age 7-12 understandable, but I can’t stomach the idea that normal men are attracted to girls age 2-6. That’s just crazy. Normal men are not babyfuckers.

Men with both strong sexual attraction to mature females and strong or pedophilic attraction to little girls.

Now we come to the most shocking realization of all, that anywhere from 20-26% of all men test “pedophilic” in the lab. That means that they are as attracted to little girls just as much or more than they are attracted to mature females. That is a very high level of attaction to little girls; in fact, it is as high as the attraction that actual preferential pedophiles experience.

One wonders why 20-25% of all men are not seeking out child porn or molesting children. I assume that if you are maximally or highly attracted to mature females, even if you are turned on by little girls at a high level, you would probably just ignore or even suppress your attraction to little girls and simply focus on mature females instead. You would do this because attraction to little girls, not to mention having sex with them, is seen as anywhere from societally unacceptable to say the least to a criminal act of the worst sort.

Men with preferential pedophilic sexual attraction to little girls.

And here we find a critical difference: the difference between a preferential pedophile and a man with a mere pedophilic response. The difference is that the former is not turned on by mature females at all, while the latter is strongly to maximally attracted to them. The preferential pedophile is a man who is very turned on by little girls but has little to no interest in mature females. So the only way he can fulfill his sexual orientation is by committing a crime.

Preferential pedophiles are dangerous for this very reason. This is because the only thing the gets them off is little girls, and mature females do nothing for them. In order to fulfill his sexual desires, the preferential pedophile has to have sex with a little girl, a serious crime. And preferential pedophiles are much more likely than men with both strong pedophilic and mature attractions to be seriously wrapped up in fantasies about sex with little girls to the point where they are fantasizing about sex with little girls and masturbating to those fantasies a good part of their time.

In a word, the preferential pedophile is simply obsessed with having sex with little girls. The other 20-26% of men who react similar to pedophiles in regard to little girls have the advantage of being highly attracted to mature females also. Therefore, they can just blow off their antisocial pedophilic attaction and focus on the socially acceptable attraction to mature females.

This study found that 1% of men were preferential pedophiles. Another study found .1% or 1 in 1000 men were pedophiles. I am not sure which figure is correct, but it would probably not surprise me if 1% of all men were actual preferential pedophiles. Nevertheless, that is a shocking figure to behold. That means 1 million preferential pedophiles in the US alone. That means 340 preferential pedophiles in my small city alone.

A few conclusions:

All or almost all men are attracted to teenage girls. Such attraction is natural, normal and healthy. There is nothing wrong with it. It’s not sick or evil or pedophilic or any of those things, and anyone who says it is is either insane or retarded or both.

53-100% of all men are attracted to little girls but generally at a level substantially lower than their attraction to mature females. Therefore, being attracted to little girls, at least on a minor level, is completely normal in adult males. Even the low figure of 53% is still a majority, and one definition of normal is something that is done by a majority of the population. I would say it is completely normal to be attracted to little girls at a low level, but if you feel that way, it is probably not something you want to focus on or even think about much as there are much more pro-social ways to meet your sexual needs.

20-26% of all men are attracted to little girls at the same or greater level than mature females. That is, 1/4 – 1/5 of all men have a strong pedophilic response. Therefore, if someone comes to me and tells me that little girls turn them on, I am not necessarily concerned. What I would want to know is if mature females turn him on also.

There is a 95-96% chance that a man who is turned on by little girls is attracted to mature females just as much or at least very strongly. I would simply urge such a man to focus on his desires for mature females and preferably ignore or even suppress his desires for little girls, which are – let’s face it- -, antisocial. If you have two strong desires, one antisocial and one pro-social, why not substitute the pro-social one for the antisocial one?

The last conclusion, that 1% of men are preferential pedophiles, is shocking, but we will need to deal with it nonetheless. First of all, if preferential pedophilia is really that common, then we need to stop all of the pedophile witch-hunts and looking for pedophiles hiding under every bed. The truth is they’re everywhere. If they’re everywhere, we can’t exactly spend all of our time running around hysterically persecuting all of them, and if there are 1 million of them in the country, we cannot well put them all in jail or prison either.

These men need to set up an ongoing relationship with a therapist, the goal of which would be to try to keep them from offending. There are other ways for preferential pedophiles to satisfy their needs than molesting a little girl. Unfortunately one of those ways is via the use of child pornography, the use of which is nearly as illegal as molesting a girl. Given that the use of child pornography is very high among preferential pedophiles, this leaves us with a conundrum. We want to prosecute possession of child porn, but we can’t exactly put 1 million men in prison for doing so.

I have no solutions to these conundrums right now, but they should give you something to think about.

18 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Crime, Gender Studies, Girls, Heterosexuality, Jailbait, Lolitas, Man World, Pedophilia, Pornography, Psychology, Sex

Three Cheers for Sexual Assault

Here.

Good job, Madonna.

I cannot believe the comments over at the Guardian. Are the British people really such prigs? First there’s no statute of limitations on screwing a 15 year old girl or grabbing a woman’s tit 40 years ago, now this – notice the commenters are calling this “sexual assault,” saying it is “child pornography,” and claiming in credibly that it’s still sexual assault even if the girls consented to the action and is ok with it, which is in fact the case.

Are naked 17 year old girls really “child pornography?” Child pornography is kiddie porn. Those are movies of little children having sex, usually with adults. Those are little kids, usually 12-under. The very idea is pretty sickening. But how is a naked 17 year old girl, who in fact looks exactly like a naked female adult (I am serious – have you ever seen a naked 17 year old girl? It looks like a woman, trust me –  I have seen plenty of them) the same thing as a 45 year old man with a beer belly on top of a 9 nine year old girl having sex with her?

Child porn is illegal because we find the very idea to be sickening and horrible. Further the kids are pretty obviously being exploited. By calling naked 17 year old girls “kiddie porn” we imply that there is something sickening, evil and awful about a naked 17 year old girl. What’s so evil about a naked 17 year old girl? Further, it’s usually the case with a naked photo of a 17 year old girl that she’s not being exploited. In fact, in most cases, she took the photo herself. She’s exploiting herself? How the Hell can you do that?

Look at the comments. It doesn’t matter if the girl was ok with it or not? What?

Ok look. I have a woman over at my house. I don’t ask her permission first, but instead I just pull her top down without her permission*. She’s shocked of course, but then she relents and says it’s ok. I just committed sexual assault? Are you kidding?

The girl is a minor? She is? And even if she is, so what. Guess what idiots? The age of consent in the UK is 16. So that girl could easily consent to have sex with Madonna or any other adult. If she can have consent to have sex with Madonna, surely she can consent to let Madonna pull her top down, right? How can she consent to have sex with Madonna but not consent to let Madonna pull her top down? Why is is it consensual sex if she has sex with Madonna but sexual assault if Madonna pulls her top down? How can she legally have sex with an adult, yet if she takes a photograph of herself with her clothes off, or a photo of herself having sex with that adult, now all of a sudden it’s illegal “child pornography?”

See all the comments about “grooming?” By pulling the girl’s top down, Madonna was “grooming” the girl. Grooming means an adult seducing a child. It’s the lead-up to the actual sex. How is it that Madonna can legally have sex with this girl, but if Madonna tries to seduce the girl beforehand, it’s illegal “grooming?”

Notice how none of this makes any sense at all?

*I never ask permission to do most preliminary sexual things with a woman because there’s nothing more retarded than that. Any man who asks a woman for permission before doing preliminary sexual things with her is a moron. Any man who checks to get a woman’s verbal permission before having sex with her is a moron. You don’t do that. You just attack her. That’s called sexual assault, yes, but sexual assault is essential to seduction. No sexual assault, no seduction.

8 Comments

Filed under Australia, Britain, Celebrities, Child Porn, Europe, Girls, Heterosexuality, Law, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pornography, Regional, Sex

Is This Child Pornography?

Justin Y writes:

YouTube might ban the video cause they don’t want a bad image, but the movie and images aren’t illegal in the United States. In other words, videos like that are “bad for business”.RL: That video was illegal.

The video in question was discussed here in a previous post. A commenter posted it to Youtube and linked it to the comments section of this site, I was suspicious of it especially after his description, so I went to Youtube and looked at it. I watched the video, and then I reported it to Youtube as child pornography. I doubt if I had to do that, but I felt compelled to for some reason. Also I sort of wanted to protect myself for watching it to see what the content was. Youtube took it down within 24 hours.

Video was shot by a White American man with a taste for pubescent girls. He also liked older females and women. Whether he counts as a hebephile or not is not known, but his intense interest in Lolitas probably qualifies him as one alone, since honestly most older adult men are just not particularly interested in Lolis. It’s not true that they have no interest in them at all – studies show that normal men are attracted to 12-14, but only at a lesser rate than to mature females whom they prefer. The attitude of many men towards a girl that age is, yes, there is something to be attracted to there, but it’s not much, and the general POV is something like, “Meh.”

This man traveled around the world so he could have sex with 12-14 year old girls in countries around the world where no one cares about this stuff. He told me he met a lot of other men in these places who were doing the same thing as he was. He told me, “A lot of men will pay good money to have sex with a 12-14 year old girl.” That doesn’t surprise me at all, as I know my gender pretty well. But it’s not something that interests me now, that’s for sure.

The video was shot in the back of a bar in Colombia. The videographer had drunk half a bottle of hard liquor and was pretty loaded. Apparently he got a 12 year old girl to get up on a stage and do a striptease. Perhaps he paid her. I have no idea. Anyway, the video is an account of this striptease. Her sex drive has already come on (this is obvious – don’t ask me how I can tell) and she seems to be enjoying herself. The video is very lascivious with a lot of closeup shots of the genitalia.

Later she gets in the shower for a bit where she is joined by a boy who is maybe 14-16. The mess around a bit in the shower and then retire to a bed where they play around a bit sexually, but no sex occurs.

Is the video illegal?

It is indeed.

Child porn laws are completely nuts, and it often very had to tell if something is illegal or not. However many cases are clear-cut.

Simple nudity of minors is not illegal. There are photos of naked kids all over the Internet. These photos also include many pics of naked teenage girls, many of whom are underage. You can go look at them to your heart’s content – it’s completely legal. Those photos are all in the context of “nudist photos.” They are generally taken outdoors, the minors are often accompanied by other naked minors, and not uncommonly there are adults walking around too. Just kids and adults walking about naked in the outdoors in all sorts of scenes, often at beaches, near bodies of water, or in wooded areas.

That’s all completely legal because simple nudity of anyone of any age is not illegal. Nude pictures of minors are only illegal if there is some sort of lascivious sexual display involved.

It’s hard to say what that might be, but the video of the 12 year old girl doing a lascivious striptease, especially with all the closeups, clearly qualifies. It’s not that she’s naked, no one cares about that. It’s more how she is being naked. This is what is important.

When she’s in the shower, that’s probably legal. When the boy joins her in the shower, things get a bit dicier. See what I mean when I say it’s hard to figure out what’s legal and what’s not? When the two retire to the bed naked and play around, that’s probably illegal. You probably can’t show a minor couple aged 12-15 naked in a bed doing sexual things to each other even if they don’t have sex.

The video poses some important questions. First of all, no one gets hurt. The girl’s having a blast the whole time. The boy doesn’t get hurt either. He’s having a blast himself. If no one got hurt, why is it illegal? And I do think it should be illegal.

I think society is not so much bothered by what is going on in the video (which is just harmless fun) but by the idea that adult men are sitting around in front of computers with their dicks in their hands masturbating to this 12 year old girl doing a striptease. That’s really upsetting to people. Society thinks that men should not be able to have this sort of material as a masturbation aid. There’s something creepy and unseemly about it. I would have to agree with society on this point.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the video per se. Suppose the girl herself had the video and only watched it herself, with the boy, or with her friends?

Any harm? Nope.

Should it be illegal? Maybe not. Maybe minors can make sexual photos and videos of themselves and pass them around to their friends. I certainly don’t think it’s child porn. They don’t belong in jails or prisons for possessing this stuff. But society doesn’t seem to like it anyway. In that case, perhaps society ought to simply seize the material when they find it in the hands of the minors.

There may be other problems.

Some enterprising minors may take photography of themselves or their friends naked or having sex and then try to sell the videos on the market, especially to adults. Now these kids are pretty much manufacturing and selling child pornography. I don’t know what to do about them, but it shouldn’t be legal.

Here’s another one.

Suppose as a minor, you and your friends made and accessed a lot of sexual material of minors nude and having sex with other minors. You kept it around, and now you are an adult male. You continue to look at this old material from your teenage days as you age, to age 20 to 30 to 40. Now you have a 40 year old man masturbating to videos of what is legally child porn produced by his friends during his teen years. Now what?

I have not the faintest idea what to do here as it opens up a lot of interesting legal and philosophical issues.

3 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Girls, Law, Lolitas, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pornography, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Naked 12 Year Old Girls Are Evil

If you ever want to see a naked 12 year old girl, here’s how to find one. Go look up the video of the scene with Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby. It’s on the Net. For some reason apparently it’s not child porn yet. Brooke is working or living in some whorehouse and someone walks in on her in the bath. She stands up and tries to cover herself up with a bath curtain.

This video scene is considered very underground and it’s much whispered about as some sort of “hard to believe it’s legal” shock video on the Net. But a funny thing happens if you go and watch it, which you can do, perfectly legally too I might add.

You watch it and you think, “Wow. Is that all it is? Why is everyone so excited about this. This is nothing. This is bullshit. This is stupid. Why would anyone get turned on by this?”

That’s because even though it’s Brooke Shields, yes, to any normal man who sees that video, it doesn’t look like much anything. You can’t see a whole lot and there’s not much to see anyway. She has no breasts. No body hair. Her body is shaped like a stick. The long legs are nice because that’s starting to look like a woman, but the rest is just a joke. It’s not exciting. It’s not a turn-on. It’s actually stupid. You watch it, shrug your shoulders and say, “Meh? What’s the fuss?” Because there’s nothing even slightly erotic about that video.

I will confess to something now. Some put a link to what has to be classed as “child porn” in my comments section. They uploaded it to Youtube and linked to the Youtube video on my site. I followed it to Youtube, was disturbed and wanted to check out just what this highly dubious and maybe illegal video was that this guy linked to. He said he shot the video in the back of a bar in Colombia, and the girl was 12 years old.

So I watched. It’s a 12 year old Colombian girl doing a striptease in the back of the bar. The camera angle is pretty lascivious, so that’s legally child porn. She seems to be enjoying herself as she is doing this striptease. She’s finally all the way naked, and there’s not much there. Her breasts are there, but they are so small it is ludicrous. Nothing attractive. Her body is stick-like. She has a little girl face, and she acts like a kid. She has a tiny bit of pubic hair, but they’re shaving that off now anyway.

After she does her little show, she gets in the shower and washes off. A teenage boy maybe 14 years old joins her in the shower. Later they retire to a bed where they mess around a bit but don’t have anything resembling sex.

I watched it and the whole time I was thinking, “This isn’t even erotic. This girl doesn’t even turn me on. Why would anyone get turned on by this?” and most importantly, “Why is this evil? Why is this horrible? Why is it sick, vile and diabolical?” because that is what everyone tells us “child porn” is.

The video is not sick, evil, diabolical, horrific or awful. Mostly it’s just boring. You’re lucky if you can stay awake.

But more importantly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this girl is doing. Yes, she is doing a striptease. At that age, her sex drive may well be coming on, and surely teenage girls probably like to do stripteases in their bedrooms? Or for their boyfriends? Or with their girlfriends? Is that evil? Why is a pubertal girl doing a striptease and obviously having a blast “evil?” How did she get harmed by doing this striptease? We need to know this because anti-CP folks insist that this girl was obviously “harmed” by this video. How did the video hurt her? How did the striptease hurt her? Was the striptease harmful in some way?

Why is it evil to show a 12 year old girl in a shower? 12 year old girls get in the shower every day, right? Is that evil or something? Is it sick? It’s “sick” for 12 year old girls to take showers? Why? Did this girl get hurt by taking a shower (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt by this filming so apparently the shower was harmful)?

Yes, she plays with the boy in the shower. A couple of pubertal kids having some sex fun.Yes, later they retire to the bed and mess around sexually a bit, like 12-14 year old’s do all over the damn world every single day. Is it “sick” for her and the boy to mess around in the shower? Is “sick, evil and horrible” for them to play around in bed? Why? Was she harmed by playing with the boy in the shower or the bed (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt)? How? How did messing with the boy hurt her horribly, perhaps irreparably?

Ok, so after I watched the video, what did I do? I reported it to Youtube as child pornography, as is my duty as a citizen. I checked back in a day, and it was gone.Then I banned the idiot who put that on my page and blasted him in the comments for putting CP on my website. He apologized profusely and soon circumvented the ban. I let him stay because he promised to be good.

But I was still disturbed. Yes I watched it, determined it was CP and turned it in, but did I break the law by doing just that? Once you see it, you break the law, right? Ok, so how is anyone supposed to turn this stuff in ever, considering that by merely seeing it they are committing a serious crime?

Are there not anti-CP groups who range around the net finding CP and reporting it? Indeed there are, and I have been to some of these pages where  you can sometimes follow their links to what they call “CP” (really just naked young girls). But everyone in that vigilante group had to look at that page in order to turn it in, right? Did they break the law by looking at the page, even though they had to in order to turn it in?

Society acts like a video of a naked 12 year old girl is the most evil thing on the planet, and anyone who sees one is a diabolical pedophile scum. We all must be shielded from the Satanic evil videos of naked 12 year old girls, the sickest, most vile, most disgusting and perverted and twisted photography on Earth!

Can someone explain to me why society is so freaked out about this sort of thing? There’s nothing to get excited about, there’s nothing even to get interested in, but if some man glimpses this ultimate abyss of boredom, we act like he needs to be shot on site, beaten to death or sentenced to 50 years in prison? What for? For looking at one of the least interesting things known to man? What’s wrong with people?

I do not think this sort of thing should be legal, but is is really sick, evil, horrific, monstrous, diabolical, and vile? Why? It’s a naked girl. So what? Is that a bad thing?

21 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Cinema, Girls, Law, Lolitas, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pornography, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology