reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 argues the goal is to reduce crime, but the other is 'talking about legalizing sex slurs' and questions 'what religion supports prostitution.' He asserts that 'sex trafficking is very much part of prostitution' and that 'No one should be on our streets selling their bodies.' He notes 'there are legal people who do sex work, and they're not all being forced to' and insists 'This is not a gender thing.' He says 'I know what sex trafficking is looks like' and the abuse. He adds, 'It's legal in some places, and they do it of their own possession.' He calls it 'a public health issue. It's a public safety issue, and it's a moral issue,' and 'for me, it is a fake issue.' He questions, 'I don't know where in his Quran does it state it's okay for a woman to be on the street selling their body.'

Survivors of brutal attacks pushed for addressing the buyer situation, but committee amendments were forced onto the bill, which the speaker rejected as weakening its impact. The amendments sought to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds from the bill's provisions.

There is a perception among young people that there is a group of untouchable elites involved in sex trafficking. Examples like Jeffrey Epstein and Robert Kraft support this belief. The question is whether we can prioritize these powerful individuals and actually hold them accountable. Speaker 1 believes that these elites hide in plain sight, and although people were aware of Epstein's actions, no legal action was taken due to fear. However, someone finally stood up and said enough is enough. The house of cards is starting to crumble, and these individuals will be caught and made examples of. Speaker 1 expresses disappointment in Epstein for not facing the consequences of his actions.

I'm feeling discouraged about our discussions at the Capitol regarding child exploitation. We proposed a bill to impose minimum sentences on those who buy children for sex, but faced strong opposition from Democrats who argued that these buyers are victims themselves. Their unanimous vote against the bill, which aimed to hold pedophiles accountable, is disheartening. It’s frustrating to see morality dismissed in such a way. We know we are fighting against dark forces, and I urge you to pray for our efforts. If you can, please come and testify on these important issues. Your voice matters and can amplify our impact, even as a minority.

The speaker claims the bill pays "lip service" to 16 and 17-year-old victims of sex crimes by watering down penalties. They assert the Democratic caucus is on the "wrong side" of the issue, influenced by an "extremist wing" that normalizes sex with minors. The speaker alleges SB 145 (2020) allows predators to molest children as young as 14 without mandatory sex offender registration and that SB 357 legalized loitering for sex trafficking under the guise of LGBT rights. As a "gay Republican," the speaker finds it offensive to use the gay community as "window dressing for sex trafficking." The speaker argues the bill removes prosecutors' ability to punish those who purchase sex from 16 and 17-year-olds and accuses the bill's supporters of trying to deceive California voters. The speaker also objects to the amendment that removes a legislator's name from the bill. They believe the bill will fail to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from sexual violence and vows to work against it.

I refuse to protect those who buy and abuse children. We must stop men from buying girls. We need to take a stand against this abuse. It's not okay to let offenders off lightly. We must prioritize the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. It's time to draw a line and say "enough." I urge you to vote accordingly.

The speakers question why anyone would vote for Democrats, citing open borders, gender-affirming care, and lenient stances on child trafficking as reasons. One speaker claims Democrats in California don't prioritize punishing child traffickers. Another speaker asserts that California is attempting to lower the age of consent to 14 and is decriminalizing the sale of sex. They believe a 16 or 17-year-old should not have to prove force, fraud, or coercion in sex trafficking cases for perpetrators to be jailed. They describe this as a "slippery slope" and question how anyone can still vote for the Democratic party.

California assembly member Bill Isale tried to end sanctuary state protections for convicted illegal immigrant pedophiles, but his microphone was cut off. The move was seen as an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. Isale believes that by silencing him, the issue was actually brought to the forefront.

Trafficking is allegedly worse today than ever before, described as modern-day slavery in the U.S. Human trafficking and drugs have reportedly tripled or quadrupled. The speaker claims that prior efforts had achieved record positive numbers, but these were allegedly abandoned.

Speaker 0 asserts that states are taking children and giving them to others for money from the federal government, describing it as a nationwide, government-subsidized child trafficking ring—the largest and most pervasive in history by money and numbers. Speaker 1 adds that children are seized unnecessarily from their families due to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997 by Bill and Hillary Clinton, which, according to the speakers, “literally steals money from the Social Security Fund and gives this money to the states in order to incentivize them to kidnap babies.” Speaker 0 elaborates that in order to receive adoption incentives or bonuses, local CPS must have more children, i.e., more “merchandise to sell.” Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together claim that each child, when totaled, is worth approximately $1,000,000 to the state, challenging the official figure of $60-80 billion per year as the size of the industry and claiming that the federal government takes about $80,000,000,000 annually and distributes it to all 50 states to “kidnap children.” Speaker 1 states that parents are victimized by a system that profits from holding children longer and offering bonuses for not returning children to their parents. Speaker 0 cites statistics alleging that eighty-three percent of all children taken by CPS are for unsubstantiated allegations, implying that many removals should not have happened in the first place. Speaker 1 notes that case workers and social workers are often guilty of fraud, with allegations that they withhold and destroy evidence.

We passed a bill to criminalize the mutilation of minors undergoing sex change operations by rogue physicians. Testimony from adults who went through this as minors was heartbreaking. Last year, we banned it administratively, revoking licenses of doctors who performed such procedures. But we felt more needed to be done. We included a provision in the bill allowing victims to sue these physicians for irreversible damage caused by violating the Hippocratic Oath. Putting ideology before evidence-based medicine is fundamentally wrong in Florida.

I, as a progressive member of this body, am done with protecting those who buy and abuse children. We must stop allowing men who buy girls to go unpunished. It's time to take a stand and say enough is enough. We have a moral obligation to protect those who have been hurt by abuse. Let's focus on what truly matters and make a change. I urge you to watch the documentary on human trafficking in Sacramento. It's time to draw a line and take action. Thank you.

- Speaker 0 states that trafficking is one of the worst evils worldwide and is happening globally and in the US, with somewhere between 300,000 to a million people trafficked in the US this year, many of whom are minors. He distinguishes exploitation from trafficking: trafficking is primarily for profit; exploitation is primarily for pleasure, and exploitation often occurs on the Internet via peer-to-peer networks sharing child videos and images. - He shares a visual example: red dots representing unique IP addresses in New York State downloading and sharing child images and videos in the last thirty days; blue dots represent those being investigated. He notes that many people ask why enforcement isn’t doing more, and explains that law enforcement is undermanned and lacks the best technology. - Speaker 0 argues that increasing funding is necessary, not defunding, and supports escalating hires, especially in victim identification, to keep boys and girls safe. He mentions a bill in Congress, the Renewed Hope Act, aiming to hire more victim identification specialists to identify victims and safeguard them. - He observes that this issue is not unanimously supported or spoken about; it seems uncomfortable for people, and is framed as not about politics but about people, especially those suffering. He asserts that trafficking occurs “down the hall,” highlighting that the number one offender for this exploitation is biological fathers. - Speaker 1 asks whether FBI arrests are being made, and whether blue dots indicate investigations. Speaker 0 clarifies that blue dots are those being investigated, while a confirmed IP address sharing this content would be indicated differently. - Speaker 0 claims the issue is not just overseas but also in the US; he asserts that the US is the number one buyer of videos of boys and girls around the world, including paying for the rape of children in the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, and Thailand. He adds that the US is third worst in the world for peer-to-peer sharing of this information, with China, Russia, the US, and Italy (Italy being fourth). - He emphasizes that this is one of the worst evils in the world and argues that people think the problem is “over there” while it is happening domestically, requiring attention and action. - Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss law enforcement burnout, noting heroes working daily to combat this crime but lacking access to better technology. They describe the burnout rate for officers exposed to such content, with an example of a month-old or nine-month-old victim, and mention that burnout is a major issue, with training time taking a year and subsequent burnout necessitating new hires.

Lillian Koller, former head of the Department of Human Services (DHS) in Hawaii, discusses the issue of child trafficking in South Carolina. She highlights that 70% of the 100,000 minors trafficked annually in the US have some connection to the Department of Social Services (DSS) or foster care. The South Carolina DSS is under scrutiny for failing to investigate cases and allowing children to be placed in dangerous situations. Governor Nikki Haley and the DSS have agreed to take action to protect children, but critics argue that the governor has covered up the extent of the problem. Human trafficking is a growing issue in South Carolina, with victims often being recruited by their own families.

There are no taboos in America except sex with children. A nationwide operation rescued over 200 sex trafficking victims. One rescued child performed 60,000 sex acts. The US government has become the middle man in a child trafficking operation, and has lost 450,000 children who are then sexually destroyed, raped to death, and have their organs harvested. Sponsors taking in migrant children only see them as dollar signs. The Biden administration puts children in homes with sponsors, with no follow-up. To stop child trafficking, the border must be shut down. After Joe Biden took office, arrests went from 500 to over 5,000 in one day. 65% or more of the kids are from Guatemala. 41% of victims were recruited online. Texas' Fort Bliss army base is a filthy prison. The United States of America government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history.

SB 1414 is criticized for harsh penalties that may disproportionately affect marginalized communities, like LGBTQ individuals. Opponents argue for community-based solutions and support for survivors of trafficking. They believe punitive measures do not effectively prevent crime and perpetuate cycles of incarceration. They urge against the bill and advocate for investing in services to address underlying issues. Various organizations express respectful opposition to SB 1414.

This is my third or fourth attempt at addressing the sex offender database due to families expressing that it feels like a lifelong sentence. The latest proposal, Senate Bill 155, aims to change certain offenses from requiring lifetime registration to a ten-year registration. Offenses affected include human trafficking for sexual exploitation, sexual abuse of a child, and possession or viewing of child pornography. The bill will not remove anyone from the database but will allow individuals who believe they have turned their lives around to petition for a review of their case. As the proposal progresses, adjustments may be made.

The police are unable to bring in suspects for prosecution because the district attorney in California is not willing to prosecute pedophiles. Despite the efforts of law enforcement, the DAs are not supporting their actions. It is important to continue shedding light on this issue.

Speaker 0 notes that the people are not accusing him of rape or selling anyone; they are facing charges including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit. Speaker 1 describes OnlyFans as “the best hustle in the world.” He explains the alleged methods: using the “lover boy method,” coercing by being nice, and not mentioning webcam until after sex. He says mentioning webcam on dates “just doesn’t work” and claims he would never do that, arguing the technique is to proceed normally and introduce webcam later. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 discuss a program called PhD on corporatetake.com: “PhD is a pimp and hose degree.” He claims it teaches how he met girls, how he got girls to like him, how he got girls to fall in love with him to work on webcam, and how to have them spend more time with him. He describes inviting a prospective recruit to a meeting and bringing a girl who works for “Your bottom bitch” to explain the selling. The process emphasizes a “first girl” as pivotal, with girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can observe and imitate. Speaker 4 recounts specific experiences: being bought wine and becoming nervous about webcam work; the narrator describes wealth from webcam operations and retaining girls; he mentions four locations and 75 girls, with roughly half of the money going to the workers, claiming a 50% split and suggesting taxes explain the disparity. Another worker, paid a flat £15 per hour, notes large sums from clients who believed they would meet the girl. Speaker 1 describes a pattern where men fell in love with his models and sent large amounts of money, including people selling houses and life savings. He states: “I used sex as a tool to make women love me so they'd obey me and live in my house to make me money. That’s what I wanted. So I was a pimp in that sense.” He discusses the emotional manipulation that led clients to believe they would meet the girl. Speaker 5 remains skeptical, labeling the operation “pimpy.” Speaker 1 argues about the Me Too era, saying he is not a rapist in a way that would be labeled, yet he admits he likes the freedom to do what he wants. Speaker 6 challenges Speaker 1 by quoting his own statements: that his job was to meet a girl, sleep with her, get her to fall in love, and then get her on webcam to become rich together. Speaker 1 denies that exact quote, but Speaker 6 insists it matches what was said on the website. Speaker 0 reiterates that the belief is he was charged with human trafficking, and Speaker 1 clarifies that “human trafficking” is framed as forcing a girl to work for financial gain, noting TikTok accounts from some girls as part of the justification. He reiterates the PhD as a pimp and hose degree he claims to be pleasant about.

I'm done protecting those who exploit our children. I don't want to send more people to prison, but we must stop the buying of girls. As a mental health professional, I've seen the deep wounds caused by abuse, often from those meant to protect them. We have a moral responsibility to say enough is enough. Men who buy and sell girls receive minimal consequences, and this cycle must end. We need to focus on the core issues affecting vulnerable children, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Democratic Party should not condone this behavior. I urge everyone to draw a line and take a stand against this exploitation. Let's prioritize the safety and well-being of our children.

The transcript captures a street-style interview focused on Assembly Bill 26-24, referred to by the interviewer as the Stop Nick Shirley Act. The interviewer repeatedly asks lawmakers and coauthors about the bill’s provisions, its alleged impact on free speech, and potential conflicts of interest involving Mia Bonta (wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta). Key points raised by the interviewer: - The interviewer asserts that AB 26-24 would be “an attack on free speech” and would “criminalize publication of images recorded in public,” and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. - The interviewer claims the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly in immigrant-based services, and would make it harder to disclose money from organizations receiving taxpayer funds. - The bill is described as shielding immigrant nonprofit workers from public-record disclosure, criminalizing publishing images and videos of covered workers even if taken in public, and granting covered organizations the power to demand video takedowns. It is said to impose a $4,000 civil fine, a $10,000 criminal fine, and a $50,000 felony fine per violation, with applicability to taxpayer-funded organizations. - The interviewer asserts that Mia Bonta, whose husband is the attorney general, is pushing the bill and that this shows a conflict of interest; lawmakers deny this interpretation, with several saying they rely on legislative counsel to evaluate constitutionality and that they do not view the bill as a First Amendment violation. - Several lawmakers are asked if they signed off on AB 26-24 as coauthors, with inconsistent or uncertain responses. One coauthor says they would need to review committee materials to confirm whether they signed on, while another claims the bill has not passed certain committees or times, and some respond that they would have to look up specifics. - The interviewer challenges a few lawmakers directly about why they would support a bill that allegedly reduces transparency for entities receiving taxpayer money. - A separate claim is raised by the interviewer about a different issue: a reference to a bill (SB 14) that would make sex trafficking of a minor a strike-able offense, contrasted with Mia Bonta’s votes on that issue, described as ironic by a third party. Notable participants and interactions: - The interviewer addresses multiple authors and coauthors of AB 26-24, including Sasha, Speaker Rivas, and another individual identified as a coauthor in various segments, pressing them for direct answers about the bill’s provisions and their support. - Mia Bonta is repeatedly cited by the interviewer as influencing or supporting the bill. The interviewer alleges a conflict of interest due to her husband’s role as attorney general. - A participant identified as Scott Wiener is asked for his opinion on AB 26-24; the interviewer responds with a hostile remark, after which the interaction ends with the implication that several coauthors refuse to answer or acknowledge the bill. Overall, the transcript presents the interviewer as pressing legislators and coauthors for direct explanations of AB 26-24 (Stop Nick Shirley Act), while legislators often defer to counsel, deny misinterpretations, or fail to provide clear answers, with ongoing assertions about transparency, accountability, and alleged conflicts of interest.

I'm feeling discouraged about our efforts to pass a bill that would impose minimum jail sentences for those who buy children for sex. Currently, many offenders receive only probation after committing these heinous acts. During discussions, Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that these buyers are victims themselves, which I find deeply troubling. They voted unanimously against holding these offenders accountable. It’s frustrating to see our moral stance dismissed. I urge you to pray for our cause and to participate by voicing your support for legislation that protects children. Your involvement is crucial, as we are in the minority but can become stronger together.

I, as a progressive member of this body for 12 years, am tired of protecting those who buy and abuse children. We must stop allowing men who exploit girls to go unpunished. It's not about filling prisons, but about taking a stand against this abuse. We need to prioritize protecting vulnerable children, especially those who are marginalized. It's time to draw a line and say enough is enough. I urge you to vote accordingly.

As a progressive member of the body for 12 years, I'm done protecting those who buy and abuse children. We can't keep allowing men to buy girls without consequences. It's not about filling prisons, but taking a stand against this abuse. We must protect those who are vulnerable and stop tolerating this behavior. It's time to focus on what truly matters and make a change. Let's draw a line and say enough is enough. I urge you to vote with me on this issue.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the whereabouts of unaccompanied children who crossed the border during President Biden's term. Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact figures but promises to provide them later. Speaker 0 then mentions that these children are being trafficked for sex, with estimates suggesting that at least 30% of young women and children are sexually abused during their journey. Speaker 1 doesn't have specific numbers but emphasizes that even one case is too many. They mention that any flagged cases are referred to appropriate authorities within 24 hours. Speaker 0 concludes by expressing concern about the volume of trafficking and the need to end this process that benefits drug cartels at the expense of child sex trafficking.