Sex Trafficking

Covenant House Spreads Lies About Sex Trafficking

Leftist political mag Mother Jones is serving as a mouthpiece for sex-trafficking propaganda from religious nonprofit Covenant House.

|

Covenant House International/Facebook

Left-leaning political mag Mother Jones is serving as a mouthpiece for sex-trafficking propaganda from the religious nonprofit Covenant House. In a sponsored message sent to Mother Jones readers today, Covenant House claimed in large banner text that "85% of sex trafficking victims are U.S. citizens—mostly runaway children." 

Eighty-five percent of sex trafficking victims where? The group doesn't say, leaving it open to the interpretation that the majority of sex trafficking victims worldwide are American citizens. That's a conclusion that may defy common sense, but a lot of people's only information on sex-trafficking comes via scaremongering legislators, local news, and activist groups. Covenant House's choice to leave this statement vague allows them plausible deniability ("of course we meant in the United States!") while knowing full well some will read it otherwise. 

Even assuming everyone realizes we're talking U.S. victims, there are still problems with Covenant House's statement. For one thing, we don't know the citizenship makeup of sex trafficking victims because it's an underground economy; even estimates based on arrest records are inherently biased because they're skewed toward those law enforcement treats as trafficking victims. In the U.S., this includes any minor engaged in prostitution. Which brings us to the last misleading header claim: that the majority of sex trafficking victims are runaway children. 

Covenant House

To a lot of people, this statement surely conjures bad guys snatching up 10-year-olds or cajoling in vulnerable young girls only to hold them in captivity and force them into prostitution. But the runaway children claim is only true insofar a large number of teens engaged in prostitution or "survival sex" (trading sex for shelter and food) are indeed runaway and/or homeless youth. Multiple recent studies have shown, however, that the majority of these teens—and note, we are talking almost exclusively about teens when we talk about runaways going into prostitution—do not have pimps, and are not being forced into selling sex.

Yet under federal law, anyone under age 18 that exchanges sex for something of value (including a place to stay) is a sex-trafficking victim, even if they're acting entirely of their own accord. So yes, technically, U.S. sex trafficking victims may be "mostly runaway children," but only because we've legally defined any vulnerable young person who has sex as a sex trafficking victim (and only if you accept that 16- and 17-year-olds are "children").

The Covenant House email goes on to state that "over 100,000 American children are forced into prostitution every year," a claim that has been debunked again and again (look, here's someone doing it in 2011! Here's someone doing it in 2014Here's Washington Post doing it last MayHere's me doing it last week!).

Boilerplate language at the bottom of the email notes that Mother Jones "does not endorse any political candidate (or) organization… and the views expressed in this communication do not constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Mother Jones." And yet the publication allowed Covenant House to directly use Mother Jones' name and progressive reputation in its marketing. Directly following the 100,000 children propaganda, Covenant House states:

as a reader of Mother Jones, I know you agree we cannot ignore the insidious practice of selling kids for sex.

Later, it adds that "we need the support of compassionate, progressive people like you to urge action."

Covenant House's aim is getting people to sign a petition in support of 12 new anti-sex trafficking bills in the U.S. Senate. Neither the email nor the petition bother explaining what any of these 12 bills contain. Nor do they even say which 12 bills we're talking about—there are currently more than 12 open, human-trafficking-related bills in the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, Covenant House assures "compassionate, progressive people" that if they just sign their name, it "will deliver a major blow to the vile sex trafficking industry pervading our country."

NEXT: Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. And now I look crazy. Thanks a lot.

        1. Regular crazy, not fun crazy.

      1. Ha, sorry, yes and thank you. Name now added

        1. I’d sexually traffic that ass.

          1. This is why there are no…

            1. …sexual trafficking victims among Reason’s staff?

    2. Yeah, it’s hypocritical for her to criticize MJ for spreading sponsored lies, when she spreads sponsored links from Gawker.

      (Kidding.)

      1. This whole post is actually a ploy to drive traffic to Mother Jones

        1. We already knew, it’s all there in the hyperlink. YOU’RE BUSTED

          1. She really thought she could get away with it!!

            1. Quick! Bring Dorothy a bucket of water!

        2. The whole problem I had with that theory is it implies that people who click on the article not only read it but then proceed to follow the links. Which if the comments indicate anything, is quite a stretch.

          1. That and the accusation on it’s face was retarded.

              1. I could never forget. She is a secret Gawker/SJW plant and I am glad she has finally been outed.

                You can’t get past us, Brown!

                We are winning! #gamergate!

          2. The whole problem I had with that theory is it implies that people who click on the article not only read it but then proceed to follow the links.

            How else would they find articles to torture the rest of us with on the PM links?

            “How Gun Control Saved Me from the Patriarchy” or what have you

          1. This might be a good time to point out that Augustus Sol Invictus, Esq., has multiple affected accents which appear to do battle with one another whenever he deigns to speak to his inferiors.

            1. Are you saying that ENB is working together with Augustus Sol Invictus, Esq, to conspire against mra’s, #gamergate, and the legalization of hallucinogens?

              1. My guess? Pirate truther is the puppet-master, pulling the sjw strings.

                1. ARR! IT’S ABOUT ETHICS IN SHIP CONSTRUCTION JOURNALISM!

                  1. AVAST YE MERRY WENCH! LINK TO GAWKER TO HORNSWAGGLE THE MEN! ARR!

                    1. Thank you, HM, for reminding me to cue up Assassin Creed IV soundtrack as a cure for shitty day!

                      All shanties and tavern songs in a convenient package.

                  2. YARR SHIVER ME LOAD-BEARING TIMBERS MATEY

              2. It should be obvious!

            2. I could only stomach a minute of that yesterday and so only heard one accent but now that you mention it, yeah it seemed totally fake. Like Amish meets Arkham.

              1. I took lots of film courses in college (wanted to write for screen) and one teacher was head of the drama dept., had performed Shakespeare in London for years… He had a thick missippi accent which would flow smoothly into Lawrence Olivier elocution completely at random, mid sentence. It was disturbing…

                ..in the case of Sol, its just more evidence that he’s more persona than person.

              2. ” Like Amish meets Arkham.”

                Or Andrew Ryan meets Nathan Bedford Forrest

    3. Do you mean the photo? There is some likeness.

    4. Thanks to the feminist and religious nut jobs, all sex between two adults, will soon be labeled human sex trafficking, and subject people to decades in prison for nothing. What a bunch of assholes on the left and right of the political spectrum.

  1. OT – I’ll post this on a sex thread where it might get some attention:

    This seems to be the latest meme of the gun controllers:

    ?”Combat Vets Destroy the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

    “The last thing a chaotic crime scene needs is more untrained civilians carrying guns.”

    1. Yeah, that’s been making the derpbook rounds (get it?) this morning. And of course the illustration is of someone with a BSG sporting a very large magazine. But this is not new. They’ve always had their credentialed trained seals playing the expertism card on this.

      But having said all that, the heroic gunslinger isn’t very tenable. The right to self defense is, and leave it at that.

    2. I like how those vets prove this to be true, but the fact that the actual sheriff felt differently (you know – the guy in law enforcement, as opposed to a vet who isn’t in law enforcement) is not only ignored, but used as evidence that he is unfit.

      1. Confirmation bias.

    3. I like how, at least in this particular article, the NRA serves as their Goldstein, though much of the gun-rights movement has left the NRA behind by now.

    4. What a ridiculous load of nonsense. If you polled most veterans, they would be strongly in support of gun rights. The left has been using this nonsense argument for a while now claiming that veterans support ‘background checks’ and other ‘common sense’ gun laws like they do. At least those were based on polls. Where did these veterans interviewed come from? Doesn’t say, just:

      “? Everyone interviewed for this article agreed that the key distinction isn’t between “good guys” and “bad guys,””

      Yea, all two veterans! And then the brilliant argument that the Secret Service has never fired back against an assassin as proof that shooting back isn’t the way to respond in an emergency.

      Left wing, right wing…its just awful journalism.

      1. And then the brilliant argument that the Secret Service has never fired back against an assassin…

        They actually wrote that? Haven’t they heard of the time two guys tried to kill Truman? Basically, two Puerto Rican schmucks with handguns came very close to killing Truman while he was staying at the Blair House, and the Secret Service, with White House and Capital P.Ds helping, killed them both. The guy who wrote the Bob Lee Swagger novels, Stephen Hunter, wrote a pretty good nonfiction book about the gunfight.

        As to how useful CHLs are in an active shooter situation, a couple of points: As has been already noted here, there are multiple occasions which could have been mass shootings, had the shooter not run into armed resistance before they were able to kill their victims. In fact, the pattern in the States seems to be that if the shooter runs into armed resistance, they usually run from it (Columbine) or kill themselves very soon after. Not always true (Trolley Square), but most of the time. The armed resistance doesn’t have to come from the cops, BTW. (Clackamas Mall) The shooter is there to kill the unresisting, not to get into a running gunfight. So, AIUI, current doctrine is to close with the shooter ASAP, resist, and get him to kill himself.

        1. Of course, this is a lot easier with buddies, body armor emblazoned with POLICE on them, rifles, radios, and a bunch of other shit your run of the mill CHL holder isn’t likely to have on them. Moreover, it’s possible any non-cop trying to help may get blasted when the police do show up. Much safer to shelter and protect those around you. But every second that can be cut off the spree killing might be the difference between say, ‘9 dead, 10 wounded,’ and ‘2 dead, 5 wounded.’ Tough to say what to do though unless you’re there.

          Also, consider that CHL holders are a tiny percentage of the population, and of those, not a lot of them are actually armed at the time. Especially if the place where the shooting occurs prohibits firearms possession on its property, as UCC did. Oregon does have a law that says CHL holders may carry on a college campus, despite signs, but I don’t know if the college can still use that as an excuse to expel them from classes. In any event, those signs can chill people from carrying who otherwise would have.

          OT: As Biden might be hitting up Warren to join the race as Biden’s VP, which seems a little early for that kind of announcement, but w/e, I read elsewhere of someone’s perfect headline for that news: ‘Tard and Feathered.

          1. “it’s possible any non-cop trying to help may get blasted when the police do show up.”

            Cops randomly shooting uninvolved individuals is not a problem that gun-control is going to solve.

            “Much safer to shelter and protect those around you.”

            Wrong. That just is not try. People trying to “shelter in place” get killed all the time. Much safer to fight back.

    5. ? “When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance,” Noboa said. “I think they would absolutely panic.”

      The freeze up part I accept. But drawing and shooting wildly? I doubt it.

      1. He’s obviously thinking about cops, who do have a habit of whipping out their guns and firing whenever they hear a gunshot.

        1. whenever they hear a gunshot.

          Or a car backfiring.

          1. Or, really, anything at all.

      2. Some TV show recently staged a situation where an utterly untrained person was given a gun and a few minutes later, a “gunman” burst into the room and started “shooting”. They ran the experiment three times with three different bystanders.

        One time, the bystander froze up.

        One time, the bystander tried to draw the weapon but it got caught on some clothing.

        One time, the bystander drew the weapon and shot the “gunman”.

        Remember, this is worst-case scenario. The bystander had never handled the weapon before and had zero warning. There was no concealed weapons training, no range time, no “shots heard down the corridor”, just five seconds to react and 1 out of 3 succeeded, and it was almost 2 out of 3.

        The TV show, of course, hailed their experiment as demonstrating “most people” freeze up.

    6. The first version of this stupid argument contains its own refutation.

      Armed vet destroys gun nuts’ argument on mass shooters by explaining why he didn’t attack Oregon killer

      The presumed argument is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.

      They seem to think that because he didn’t run from his current position and confront the killer, that constitutes a “debunking” of the claim that having a gun provides necessary defense.

      Its absurd.

      The article points out =

      “Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack

      The fact that he did not leave the room out of concern that police might mistake him for the killer does not in any way invalidate the protection he provided the people that were with him.

      Nor does it in any way change the reality that if he HAD been in the same building with the killer, that it might have saved people’s lives.

      Of course, no one points this out at RawStory, because they will delete the comment and ban you.

  2. “The group doesn’t say, leaving it open to the interpretation that the majority of sex trafficking victims worldwide are American citizens. That’s a conclusion that may defy common sense.”

    It makes sense if you think about it.

    WHITE SLAVERY!

    Also, I have proof that more than 85% of rape victims are men.

    http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/CIM.html

  3. So yes, technically, U.S. sex trafficking victims may be “mostly runaway children,” but only because we’ve legally defined any vulnerable young person who has sex as a sex trafficking victim (and only if you accept that 16- and 17-year-olds are “children”).

    Given the fact that they’re trafficking themselves, it’s only the themselves as victims that are the innocent children, the themselves as traffickers are old enough to be tried as adults once they’re arrested. And what sort of depraved monster would traffic innocent children as sex slaves? Lock ’em up and throw away the key, I say!

    1. Now you’re thinking like a prosecutor!

  4. If you weren’t already puking your guts out over this, here is something guaranteed to get you there:

    In February 1990, Covenant House founder and President Father Ritter was forced to step down in the wake of allegations of sexual and financial misconduct, beginning with the accusations of Kevin Kite. Soon after, more accusations surfaced, as four more men came forward claiming to have been sexually involved with Father Ritter. Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, began looking into possible financial improprieties or the use of false documentation by Covenant House officials.[2] The Manhattan District Attorney’s office announced that it was ending its investigation of Father Ritter’s alleged financial misconduct and would not file criminal charges, on the day after his resignation.[3]

    So, mendacious lefties carrying water for an organization run by a pedo. The Catholic church is well-known for blaming its pedo scandals on homosexuals. And one of the leading reasons that youth are kicked out (whether actually or constructively) by their families is religious families rejecting their LGTB children. This is the perfect shitshow.

    1. At this point, if I see an organization that has an inexplicably big hardon for a particular issue, especially one involving 1) children, 2) sex, 3) drugs, or 4) homosexuality, I just assume that the head/higher ups in the organization have an unhealthy or even dangerous obsession with the subject matter their organization cares so much about.

      And man, I’m getting tired of being right.

      1. And man, I’m getting tired of being right.

        So now you understand how Trump feels about all the winning.

    2. Reading that link, do we know it was pedophilia or could it have been consensual gay sex considered ‘improper’ because he was with a religious organization?

      1. He was accused of molesting them “while they were under his care.” Which means they were minors.

        Ritter was allowed to retire and walk away to a nice retirement upstate.

        1. Thanks, Sug.

          1. Atonement for link-jacking downthread.

        2. Sex with a minor is not necessarily pedophilia as “minor” covers an age range that at the top end is older than what counts as pedophilia. That is a 17 year d is a minor but would not be considered a victim of pedophilia.

      2. Reference [2] is from an NYT article, which states:

        The church inquiry focuses on allegations by Darryl J. Bassile, 31, of Ithaca, N.Y.. He told an investigator that when he was at Covenant House about 15 years ago, Father Ritter drew him into a sexual relationship.

        31 (Bassile’s age at the time of the article) – 15 (years prior to the article at which the events occurred) = 16. So not an actual pedo, but having sex with a teenage runaway boy in one’s care is at the very minimum an abuse of power. And that’s just the first allegation.

        1. Here’s a barfy NYT obit.

          Includes this lovely sentiment:

          ”Maybe he did the things he’s accused of,” said Dori Perrucci, who before the scandal served as an editor to Father Ritter in New York City, working on a book of his legendary fund-raising letters. ”Thousands of kids are alive because of him. Many people’s lives changed and went into a whole new direction.”

          “I mean, sure some of them got fucked and fingered and maybe even spooged on, but he helped so many others that we don’t know for a fact he stained with cum.”

          1. I love you, Sug. In a totally manly, non-homo way, of course.

            1. All I ask in return is that you do not shelter Episiarch when I finally begin to hunt him down.

              [clinks bottles together]

              1. You and what army?!?

                1. CAN YOU DIG IT?!?

                  1. There are hundreds of people on this board that have been subjected to your vile nature. You made the army that will help me end you.

                    1. “You takin’ enlistments, Colonel SugarFree?”

                      *resumes whittling*

                    2. $125 American dollars to the first 20 stout and true men that sign up.

          2. Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let’s not bicker and argue over who raped who.

            1. One rape is a tragedy, hundreds of rapes are a statistic.

              1. And, apparently, can be netted out if you run a soup kitchen, or something.

                1. Every 14 gallons of soup wipes one gag and gape off the celestial books, RCD. Everyone knows that.

              2. STEVE SMITH NOT DEAL IN STATISTIC. MAKE EACH RAPE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT – ARTISAN RAPE!

      3. It was teenagers, some of whom were under 18. He tried to get himself reassigned to the state of Karela, in India but that attempt was frustrated after it became publicized.

        He had been, at that time (mid-to-late ’80s) one of the country’s most outspoken anti-pedophilia campaigners and did much to publicize child prostitution as a ubiquitous and exploding industry involving vast numbers of kids.

        So it was quite rich when he, himself, had his cover blown.

        1. Thanks for that background info.

        2. I have heard it called a lot of things, but never “cover”.

    3. And in all fairness those events happened 25 years ago. But that doesn’t preclude there having been other rotten apples.

    4. Such crimes – and their cover-ups – are worse when a priest or bishop does them than when Mr. Perv the teacher, or dirty Uncle Bob, or their enablers, do them, not because priests do it more often than, say, teachers, but because such crimes by priests involve the extra horror of being sacrilegious – “these boys and girls had been entrusted to the priestly charism in order to be brought to God.”

      For those who don’t believe *that,* then it’s just another nasty institutional sex scandal like the one in the public schools – where the leaders also have an obsession with gay issues, but on the “right” side.

  5. If ‘kids’ who take nude photos of themselves can be prosecuted for child pornography, why aren’t kids who traffic themselves charged with pimping a child? Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the next step.

    1. Quiet! They might hear you!

  6. “That’s a conclusion that may defy common sense, but a lot of people’s only information on sex-trafficking comes via scaremongering legislators, local news, and activist groups. ”

    All of my information on sex trafficking comes from the movie Taken, and Liam Neeson has never steered me wrong.

  7. The Covenant House/Mother Jones email goes on to state that “over 100,000 American children are forced into prostitution every year,”

    That’s nothing compared to how many are forced into government schools every day.

    1. WHERE MY RECESS GONE?

  8. Terrible things happen in black markets. So let’s get rid of the black markets. Legalize prostitution.

    1. Even if we were to legalize/decriminalize prostitution in the U.S.—and I’m for that—are we saying that minors would also have the right to participate in that market? Or that a legalized market would be better than the current legal regime at excluding the underage from participating?

      Or is ENB saying that it’s fine if a 14-18 year old wants to whore themselves out and that we should take their expressed wish to do so at face value?

      I think you’re still going to have a black market for sex, even after an Dutch-style prostitution legalization framework simply because many of the trafficked participants are in the country illegally. Moreover, can the prices in a fully legal, regulated sex market compete with the prices in a black market, one that doesn’t have to comply with those regulations?

      1. 18 is an adult. If they’re old enough to enter into contracts and join the military they’re certainly old enough for all the other benefits and obligations of adulthood.

        1. Which is why I wrote “minors” in the paragraph above the ’14-18 year old’ line. Fine, make it ’18 years old, minus 1 day.’ I didn’t precisely convey what I meant in my initial post.

          The point is, I thought ENB or commenters might have been advocating for the right for minors to legally prostitute themselves, and I wanted to be sure of just what it was we were arguing about.

          I agree with you on the rights and responsibilities of an 18 year old. That they can’t legally drink (or buy a handgun) is ridiculous.

      2. What kind of regul’ns do you envision that complying w would be expensive?

        1. Taxes, SSI/FICA, health care, eVerify: basically, all of the ones that help justify the utterly ridiculous rates a legal Nevada brothel can charge for their services vs the local streetwalker.

          Even if you assume, as I do, that legal sex worker rates would fall dramatically with competition, I still don’t think an independent sex worker, operating in a legal, regulated market, is going to be able to compete with the bottom end of the market, a streetwalker offering, e.g., a blow job for 20 bucks. The upper end of the market—strippers on “dates”, escorts doing hotel outcall—probably would though.

          Problem is, IMHO, the crime, public perception, and beef that Joe Public has with prostitution is coming largely from the bottom end of the market. Decriminalization should still be done, but don’t get your hopes up that much will change.

          Aside, I wonder how areas where prostitution is legal handle the sex crimes angle: i.e., how they prevent sex workers from being abused, in what is going to be a he said/she said situation? Confining prostitution to a fixed location with ready security?

  9. Why should any of this surprise you? It strikes me that most feminists only oppose prostitution laws to the extent that women get prosecuted. If you can reclassify the prostitutes as victims and their male customers as criminals, I have yet to see one minor inkling that the bulk of feminists would do anything other than applaud and become prostitution laws’ biggest defenders.

    These guys just found the best way to structure the pitch.

    1. It’s called the “Swedish Model”. It’s disastrous for sex workers, and it’s a big favorite among American feminists. Purports to decriminalize selling sex while criminalizing buying it.

      1. Real men don’t pay for sex. They lie to, manipulate, and trick women into giving them sex for free. Much more civilized…

      2. I know. And that’s why I’m surprised by Ms. Nolan-Brown’s surprise over this. She’s commented on the Swedish model before. Nothing here should be in the least bit surprising to her. Modern feminism not only tolerates, it whole-heartedly supports, the Swedish model. If that’s the case, it only stands to reason that a progressive magazine would be happy to promote the notion of sex workers as victims and their customers as “traffickers” (criminals).

    2. But what if the prostitutes are 11-year-olds on welfare and the “customers” are hundreds of 40-year-old Pakistani men? Then the feminist impulse to protect women and the feminist impulse to protect the most misogynistic culture on earth in the name of Marxist intersectionality will cancel out (sort of like when the impulse to protect women runs into the impulse to protect a sexual predator who happens to be an up-and-coming Democratic politician).

  10. Who would have thought the White Slavery moral panic would return? Maybe it’s time for a Charlie Chan remake.

    1. That was Mickey Rooney’s character in Breakfast at Tiffany’s right? I could tell by the beaver teeth that he was up to no good.

      1. He was Japanese, you racist fuck.

        1. Sorry, geez. I could tell by his Japanese beaver teeth that he was up to no good. Better?

          1. Sort of. I expect you to work on it.

  11. Also, here’s a shocker:

    In February 1990, Covenant House founder and President Father Ritter was forced to step down in the wake of allegations of sexual and financial misconduct, beginning with the accusations of Kevin Kite. Soon after, more accusations surfaced, as four more men came forward claiming to have been sexually involved with Father Ritter. Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, began looking into possible financial improprieties or the use of false documentation by Covenant House officials.[2] The Manhattan District Attorney’s office announced that it was ending its investigation of Father Ritter’s alleged financial misconduct and would not file criminal charges, on the day after his resignation.[3]

    1. Shit. Sorry, Tonio. I missed that. Derp.

      1. The one time you don’t NutraSweet the link. The one time.

      2. Sug: No problem.

        Epi: 😛

  12. The group doesn’t say, leaving it open to the interpretation that the majority of sex trafficking victims worldwide are American citizens.

    If you’re an idiot. Non-idiots can pretty much tell they meant in the US.

  13. One of those anti-sex trafficking bills is the International Megan’s Law bill which will effectively prevent (i.e. further prevent, many of its elements are already in force) anyone on the sex offender registry from travel outside of the U.S., no matter how distant in the past their supposed crime.

    This is already having disastrous consequences for individuals and families.

  14. Yeah, it’s like Mother jones it full of shit or something.

    Weird!

  15. “Left-leaning political mag Mother Jones…”

    Left-leaning? Seriously? “How about communist mouthpiece mag Mother Jones”. At least be accurate and not so intellectually lazy.

  16. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.Com

    1. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home… as a child prostitute!

  17. So, are you pro sex-trafficking, or just anti-Christian?

  18. FINALLY! Finally people are noticing this! When people started commenting that Polaris was IGNORING Children of the Night – who was the first program opened in 1979 FOR SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS UNDER 18 EXCLUSIVELY – what did they do?

    They started including Covenant House. Covenant House who had been housing runaways – while excluding prostitutes. I know that for a FACT because I would get the phone calls from the teen prostitutes being excluded from their shelters.

    When I would call their counselors as to why – I’d hear “well their pimps show up with guns and we’re not equipped for that”. Well how about GETTING EQUIPPED for that – or referring them to CON or even our program instead of just blocking them from entering their shelters?

  19. Part 2 – When Samoly Mam was exposed – Nicholas Kristof and PBS went straight to Covenant House to film “A Path Appears” – total complete sheer propaganda. If you look at every fake story – from Samoly Mam, to Bill Hilliar, to this stuff with Covenant House, Chong Kim, etc – you will two groups EXCLUDED – Children of the Night and Sex Workers Anonymous.

    Why? The TVRA of 2003 for one – which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional last year. If you don’t understand what that all means – come talk to me. But even the author of the Trafficking Act of 2000 has stated in interviews the movement I FOUNDED has been hijacked. If you want proof I’m the founder – go check clippings at http://www.hightechmadam.com A movement which was created because we were being sold and when we would call the police to help – they’d hang up because no one believed this was real.

  20. Part 3 – Which by the way is another reason the movement got hijacked – the traffickers are trying to convince you that prostitution is trafficking. It’s not the same. If it was – then Gordon Ramsey is a human trafficking victim because the restaurant and hospitality industry uses human trafficking victims sometimes. That’s their logic. A logic that now has federal money set aside to help victims going straight to the police and the church – NOT to help sex trafficking victims.

    If it was – I wouldn’t have spent the last two years trying to get help for one in Pasadena who was carted out of her home by two police officers when she told her traffickers she wanted to quit to no avail. http://sanitytodayonline.blogs…..adena.html I have knocked on the door of every single agency and politician who says they’re “trying to fight trafficking” and not one will even speak to me about her case. Jody http://www.sexworkersanonymous.com

  21. Part 4 – this is the new “war on drugs”- I remember when the CRASH unit used to photograph the gang tattoos in the same manner – http://traffickingandprostitut…..tarts.html

  22. Reason Magazine is my go-to for sensible commentary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.