Backpage.com Continues to Enable Teen Sex Trafficking

August 3, 2012 By 1 Comment

MINNEAPOLIS WOMAN PROSTITUTED TWO TEEN-AGE GIRLS ON BACKPAGE.COM.

Meranda Warborg was arrested this week. The 29-year-old Minneapolis woman was charged with prostituting two young girls, 15 and 17 years of age, who ran away from their homes in Eau Claire, Wiscconsin.

The girls told police that Warborg kept them drugged up with, variously, cocaine, crystal meth, heroin and ecstasy. She also assigned them a bedroom where they provided sex for pay to dirty old men.

Police tracked down Warborg through a cell phone number accompanying an online advertisement she posted on Backpage.com – but of course – featuring her under-aged lingerie-clad call girls in suggestive poses.

Against that backdrop, the Minneapolis City Council yesterday approved a unanimous resolution demanding that Village Voice Media, owner of Backpage.com, stop accepting classified ads for “adult services,” which enable pimps (as well as online madams like Warborg) to traffic in under-age girls.

Breaking Free, a Twin Cities organization that helps victims of the sex trade, said that more than 80 girls under 18 years of age have sought the group’s help over the past year. And 40 percent of those poor young girls had been sold on Backpage.com.

The outrage is that Village Voice Media defends its complicity in juvenile sex trafficking by hiding behind the First Amendment, insisting that it has the right to publish any and every kind of advertising it sees fit.

“These ads may be distasteful,” said Liz McDougall, the company’s general counsel, but the adult services offered “are legal.”

Village Voice Media CEO Jim Larkin goes so far as to say that its advertising approach, with respect to Backpage.com, “is very libertarian.”

Well, I know more than a few libertarians. And some maintain that prostitution should be legal, as it amounts to a contract of sorts between consenting adults (a point of view with which this Christian disagrees).

But not even the most rock-robbed libertarians I know believe that juvenile prostitution should be legal; the kind of under-age sex trafficking that Backpage.com enables.

McDougall claims that her bosses at Village Voice Media, CEO Larkin and Executive Editor Michael Lacey, are “family men” who “want to stop the exploitation of children.”

Well, let them prove it. Get rid of the “adult services” section on Backpage.com and the dirty money that goes with it.

Filed Under: SEX CRIME, YOUTH Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Atheists Bash Prayer For Grieving Colorado Families

July 21, 2012 By 4 Comments

THE NATION’S FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A PRESIDENTIAL PRAYER.

Have the atheists no decency, even in a time of national mourning?

No sooner had President Obama offered sympathy to the families of those killed or injured in yesterday’s murderous rampage at a suburban Denver movie theater – “May the Lord bring them comfort and healing in the hard days to come,” he said – before he found himself under attack by an atheist group.

By invoking the Lord, asserted Tom Flynn, director of an outfit that calls itself the Center for Secular Humanism, the president sent “a message of exclusion to other religions who don’t call their god ‘Lord’ and to non-religious Americans.”

Of course, Flynn couldn’t care less if religious folk who are neither Christians nor Jews were offended that Obama mentioned the Lord. He and his fellow “secular humanists” simply doesn’t want the president to acknowledge either God or the Son of God in his public pronouncements.

It doesn’t matter to Flynn and his fellow atheists that 92 percent of Americans believe in God, according to a 2011 Gallup Poll. It doesn’t matter to the godless wretches that 75 percent of Americans are Christians.

I’m sure most of that 92 percent had no problem with the president offering a prayer for the grieving families in Colorado. And I’m sure most of that 75 percent was untroubled that the president referenced the Lord.

Yet, atheists like Flynn insist that any public prayer under any circumstances is a constitutional violation of the First Amendment’s so-called “Separation Clause.”

And that any mention of the Lord, which is commonly associated with Christianity and Judaism, is a constitutional violation of the First Amendment’s so-called “Establishment Clause.”

Flynn’s argument is based on the modernist misreading of the First Amendment; a revisionist take on the original intent of this nation’s founders, almost all of whom happen to be Christians.

While they forbade the establishment of a national religion, to which every American would be expected to adhere, they never intended to evict religion from the public square.

They would have no problem with the president praying for the families who lost a loved one in yesterday’s massacre in Colorado.

And, having enacted a Constitution that refers to “the Year of our Lord,” they almost certainly wouldn’t object to his invocation of the Lord.

Filed Under: CHURCH & STATE Tagged With: , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: