California Wiener Bill Reduces Penalties for Perverts Who Sodomize Children

California Wiener Bill Reduces Penalties for Perverts Who Sodomize Children Sep 3, 2020 RUSH: I have a Breitbart story that there’s a part of me that says this has to be a really well-executed bunch of satire or parody. Let me read the headline to you. And I want to warn you, if you’re listening to the program today with your crumb crunchers and if they are particularly young and are prone to asking you questions about things they don’t understand, you might want to think twice about hearing this. And maybe I could be all wet. Maybe this isn’t any big deal to people anymore. Heck, I don’t know. So I’ll give you five seconds to decide whether or not you’re gonna listen. If you don’t have kids with you, doesn’t matter. But if your crumb crunchers are sitting out there, you got a bunch of Rush Babies with you, you might want to turn the dial down and come back to this later during the replay if you get the podcast of the program after it’s over. See, if I go through the countdown and then you’re still there and hear this, you can’t complain, ’cause you’ve been warned. We’re not doing this to shock anybody. OK, ready? “California Legislature Passes Bill Reducing Penalties for Oral, Anal Sex with Willing Children — California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing minor child if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim.” California lawmakers passed a bill Monday that would reduce penalties — it wouldn’t totally eliminate ’em — but it would reduce penalties for adults who have oral or anal sex with a willing minor child if the pervert is within 10 years of the age of the victim. So which city — is this Sodom or Gomorrah? What is California becoming? “The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom ,” for his signature. “According to SB 145, the legislation ‘would exempt from mandatory registration’ as a sex offender ‘a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register,'” and if permission is granted from the kid. So if you want to have this kind of sex with a 15-year-old, you can up to age 25, or a 10-year-old and you’re 19, whatever, yeah, as long as you get permission. An 8-year-old, as long as you’re 18. (interruption) How did it become a legislative priority? You mean in the midst of COVID-19 and the presidential campaign — how does it become a legislative… (interruption) Well, what do you think, answers the question. The presidential election is not a priority in California. It’s a done deal there. The Democrats are gonna win California. They always do. I’m not through with the details on this. “The measure would allow a judge to decide if an adult who engages in oral or anal sex with a child must register as a sex offender if that person is within ten years of the age of the victim. “In January 2019, the San Francisco Examiner reported on the introduction of the bill by –” are you ready for this? State Sen. Scott Wiener. The author of the bill’s name is Wiener. He’s a Democrat. “He claimed the current law, which states oral and anal sex between an adult within ten years of the age of a willing minor requires the adult to be registered as a sex offender, discriminates against LGBT individuals.” This guy is opposed to making them register as sex offenders ’cause that’s discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. So you want to know what the origins of the bill are? Right there they are. A specific community wants to be able to have sex with minors with impunity. (interruption) You have a look of curiosity on your face. (interruption) I know you can’t believe it. I had trouble believing it, I’m looking at this, “Rush, this has got to be a parody, don’t fall for this.” And I said, “Well, it’s Breitbart, and in the sense that California’s California, it makes perfect sense.” And then when you find out that what really has the original support of the bill upset is the reporting as a sex offender ’cause, no, no, no, we don’t want to do that, no, no, no, no, I’m not gonna pay that price. Nobody gets reported as a sex offender here, not if there’s permission. How do you get permission from an 8-year-old? How do you get permission from a 10-year-old? How is permission from a 10- or 12-year-old even valid? And, by the way, once this gets signed into law, that 10 years is gonna become 15 down the road, because, see, the way left operates, nothing is ever solved when they do legislation. It’s just the beginning of the descent into even worse circumstance. So right now you have to be within 10 years of the age of your victim — uh, your willing minor partner. But that’s gonna be found to be too limiting. You see, the practical the application of the law, they’re gonna be people, “We need it to be 15, maybe even 20 years.” And it will. Just give them time. This is how they patiently get what they need. “The bill would put an end to ‘blatant discrimination against young LGBT people engaged in consensual activity.'” An 18-year-old engaged in willing anal or oral sex with an 8-year-old, we must take the stigma of that away. It is discrimination, blatant discrimination against the 18-year-old LGBTQ person. Here’s a statement from one of the supporters. “This bill is about treating everyone equally under the law. Discrimination against LGBT people is simply not the California way. These laws were put in place during a more conservative and anti-LGBT time in California’s history. They have ruined people’s lives and made it harder for them to get jobs, secure housing, and live productive lives. It is time we update these laws and treat everyone equally.” You think this isn’t gonna ruin people’s lives? An 8-year-old is somehow going to be said to be a willing participant with a 17 or 18-year-old in anal or oral sex? “Currently in California judges may decide whether adults -” I didn’t pre-read this, so I just stopped here again and I’m warning about whether or not your little crumb crunchers are nearby, still valid here. “Currently in California, judges may decide whether adults who have ‘penile-vaginal intercourse’ with minors close to their age must register as a sex offender.” That’s what we want to wipe out. We don’t want anybody to have to register as a sex offender here. Adults who have penile-vaginal intercourse, as though that’s somehow abnormal. You think they know what that means in Rio Linda? (interruption) I’m guessing they do. Yeah. “Wiener said the current law targets LGBT individuals because they do not engage in penile-vaginal intercourse. ‘This is such horrific homophobia,’ Wiener said, ‘It’s irrational, and it ruins people’s lives.'” So we got it all here. We got the reason that you can’t have sex with an 8-year-old or a 10-year-old is because you’re a homophobe. So we gotta eliminate that. We gotta get rid of homophobia. We’re gonna eliminate any of this sex offender stuff so there’s no stigma attached to you when you have willing sex with a minor if you’re 10 years close to them in age. The bill was passed Monday. All we’re waiting on now is the signature of the governor, Gavin Newsom. Folks, this is the kind of thing that I know a lot of you, “Rush, what’s this got to do with the presidential election? I mean, the presidential election is really, really important, it’s really, really -” I understand, folks. This is who we’re up against. This is why it doesn’t matter what Trump tweets. This is why it doesn’t matter how Trump talks. This is why all of that surface stuff is irrelevant, given what awaits us on the other side of a defeat. All that stuff that’s been constructed to be negative about Trump in the big scheme of things is irrelevant. This is just one state where it will spread beyond the borders and boundaries of California at some point if it’s not stopped. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: This is Raychelle from Lakewood, California. Great to have you. You’re up first today on the EIB Network. Hi. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Just love you. Mega dittos and mega prayers for you. RUSH: Thank you. Thank you very much. CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to give you a quick call and let you know that I have been paying a lot of attention to this SB-145 in California, and you have most of the details correct. What they did was they’re giving a judge — it used to be where they would just automatically have to be registered as a sex offender, and now what they’re doing is they are lowering the age — it used to be 15 to 25 — they’re lowering it to 14 to 25 and they’re giving the judge discretion whether or not they want to force them to register as a sex offender — RUSH: Wait a minute. Are you saying — CALLER: Yes? RUSH: — this makes it okay? CALLER: Oh, no, I’m not. It’s disgusting. It’s disgusting on every level. RUSH: I was gonna say, because pointing out that — CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: — capping the age at 14 doesn’t change it. CALLER: Yeah. Exactly. RUSH: And besides, it’s not gonna stay 14 very long. You know that as well as I do. CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: This is just the opener. This is just to get the bill signed into law, then here come the amendments down the road. CALLER: Yeah. I don’t even know how a parent can live here anymore and send their kid to school. It’s so bad. RUSH: Well, I understand that. I gotta tell you — is your name pronounced Raychelle, have I got that name right, or is a Raychelle? CALLER: It’s Raychelle. RUSH: Raychelle. I have been asking myself that question about a lot of things going on in California. Not just things like this, or this specifically. But taxes, what’s being done with illegal immigration and how it’s destroyed the hospital system and any number of other things. I’ve got a lot of friends, a lot of really good friends in California. I love California. When I lived in Sacramento 1984 to 1987, I loved it. And after going to New York in 1988, I started by virtue of necessity having to go to Los Angeles and San Francisco. I love those places. One of my favorite places in all the country to go is old Fort Point down by the South Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge. You can’t go there anymore. Well, I don’t know if they shut it down after 9/11, made it real tough to get down there, but I can’t go even if I — there are people, if they think I’m in town, they’ll go there because they know it’s one of my favorite places. I’ve never hidden it. One of the greatest shots in all of moviedom was shot there by Alfred Hitchcock in the move Vertigo. Kim, what’s her name, Kim Novak plunged into the bay, and Jimmy Stewart went in after her to save her life. It was all a setup and a trick. The shot of the South Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge, is one of the greatest pictures of anything American I’ve ever seen. I met a lot of people there I liked, then Los Angeles, played at all the charity golf tournaments down to Palm Springs and all throughout Pebble Beach. It’s just gorgeous. We toyed with the idea of living there partly — just could not pull the trigger because, you know, once you go on the tax rolls, it’s like New York, they never forget you. They follow you no matter what you do. And I said just having had that experience in New York, I don’t want to go through it again. And a lot of my friends, “Are you really going to let something as silly as taxes determine whether or not you live somewhere?” I said, “Yes, I am. I left New York after 10 years precisely because of it. And you want to know how much money it has saved me?” “Yeah, how much?” I tell ’em, and it blows them away because in the process it tells them how much they’ve wasted. But for other people it’s worth it. They just put up with it. But it’s been deteriorating like this culturally for a long time. But it’s kind of like the old story of the frog in a pot of water on the stove. If the heat gradually increases, the frog doesn’t realize it’s toast until it’s too late. And these changes in California, these evolutionary changes, have happened slowly. So they have found a way to eliminate massive resistance by being patient. That’s one thing that you must know about leftists, communists, Marxists, Democrats, liberals, they are patient. If it takes them 10 years to get where they’re going, they’ll gladly spend the ten years, because to them what you have to do within those 10 years to bring about your desired objective is also very good and productive. Anyway, thanks for the call, Raychelle. I appreciate it. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I want to know, where is the Children’s Defense Fund? You know, it’s an organization Hillary Clinton’s leading the charge on. Marian Wright Edelman. Remember that name? You may not. Hillary’s big bud back in the “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child” days. This would be back during the Clinton administration, the mid-nineties, and Marian Wright Edelman headed up something called the Children’s Defense Fund. All it was, was a front organization for the federal government and day care having more control over your kid and as young as they could get hold of your kid’s education. But they did it under the auspices of protecting the child, protecting the children from the evils generally posed by their own predator fathers in their own homes. So where’s Hillary Clinton on the Senate bill 145 in California? Marian Wright Edelman. I don’t know if she’s still alive or not, but Hillary is. The Children’s Defense Fund. BREAK TRANSCRIPT Sherry, West Chester, Ohio. We got time to squeeze you in. Great to have you. Hi. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call. RUSH: Yes, ma’am. CALLER: I was calling with regards to Senate bill 145 that’s heading over to Newsom. It’s not the LG… Well, it’s not just the LGBTQ community that’s benefiting. They’re saying that they’re trying to help the LGBTQ community because those are their constituents. They’re really just trying to save their big donors like Harvey Weinstein — well, and Bill and Hillary’s own tails, too — for all of the transgressions that they’ve had against minors and (crosstalk). RUSH: Oh, wait a minute. I didn’t know that Weinstein… What is this? Maybe we should rename this thing Jeffrey Epstein 145 bill, then. I mean, if it’s designed to protect these people? The Clintons and Harvey Weinstein were out there with 14-year-olds? I hadn’t heard that. Anyway, I get the point. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here’s Tom in Los Angeles. I’m glad you waited, sir. You’re up next here on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello. CALLER: Good morning, Rush — or good afternoon for you. Mega dittos. Many prayers for you and Kathryn. RUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. CALLER: Really, really quick: Last year my son and I read your first Rush Revere book. That was his project. He was 8 years old at the time. We read every single word of it. First book he ever read. Very proud. Anyway, the reason I’m calling is I used to be a sex prosecutor, I guess you would call it, in California, and I am absolutely against this bill. But I (crosstalk). RUSH: Now, wait. Wait, wait, wait. I didn’t hear. Did you say a sex prosecutor? CALLER: Yes. RUSH: Okay. CALLER: Yes. RUSH: All right. CALLERS: I prosecuted sex crimes in a county in California. RUSH: Okay. CALLER: And I want you to be assured, though, that even certainly the penal code has been degraded over the years and it just keeps getting worse and worse. But I do want you to know that it’s still gonna be the law of the land that any sex crime against a child under 14 is a felony. And that’s three, six, or eight years. And if it was done by force, it’s five, eight, or 10 years. That’s still on the books. What they’re trying to change here — and I don’t want to sound like I’m defending it. I’m not. I’m against it. But I want you to understand that there’s sort of a… The defense attorneys would call it a loophole, where there’s a list of crimes that are mandatory regulation in California. For whatever reason, what they call statutory rape — which is intercourse with a person under 18 — was not on the mandatory list, unless the child was under 14. So I think what they’re trying to do with this bill is address victims between the ages of 14 and 18. What would sometimes happen when I used to handle these types of cases — and they weren’t usually LGBTQ people. It might be an 18-, 19-year-old boyfriend, high school person and then a younger female. And if they engaged in oral sex, it was mandatory that they had to register as a sex offender. But not if it was intercourse. So I think that’s what they’re trying to change here. I’m not for it, but I just want you to understand. RUSH: All right. CALLER: — I think the example you gave of an 18-year-old with an 8-year-old? That’s still gonna be a felony prosecution.