The video displayed in the tweet is a Tik Tok of two adult women teaching what appears to be a female toddler to twerk while onlookers recorded and encouraged the behavior in the middle of New York City.

The video has what sounds like a robotic voice overlaying the footage, which says, “We all need this confidence in life.”

There are no circumstances in which this behavior would ever be acceptable, and it sickens me that I even have to write about this topic. However, I feel a moral obligation to expose the sexualization and exploitation of children. I have a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who would exploit some of the most vulnerable people in society. Anyone who thinks that teaching a child to dance in a sexual manner is acceptable behavior is a depraved person who should be locked away where they can’t hurt anyone.

Standing against child exploitation shouldn’t be an unpopular opinion, and it should be universally accepted that it is neither morally nor culturally accepted to exploit kids sexually. I am all for personal liberty and each individual living in whatever way they see fit, but that doesn’t include taking advantage of a toddler and calling it “sexual freedom” or “cultural pluralism.”

I am not the only person outraged by this dumpster fire some try to pass off as dancing. Many Twitter users were quick to express their disgust with the video.

Freedom means living how you choose as long as it is not at the expense of another individual’s right to do the same. We cannot expect to remain a free society if we do not remain a virtuous people. I do not believe that a person necessarily has to be a Christian to live a moral life; however, I do feel that having faith certainly helps to cement someone’s moral compass.

Daniel Webster, an early American Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and author of the famed Webster’s Dictionary, articulated the importance Christianity plays in establishing the bedrock of a civil society when he said,” The Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.” He further established this idea when he said, “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.”
It is not a theocracy I advocate for, but instead a rebirth of the basic principles of Christianity, which allowed  the moral conditions which birthed our nation. In this sort of environment, the sexualization of children would be unthinkable. In fact, it is because our nation has forgotten what true love is that this sort of behavior is tolerated.

True love doesn’t take advantage of children who do not understand what they are doing. A proper understanding of love would motivate us to call out evil for what is and to protect those who can’t defend themselves. However, this behavior doesn’t surprise me when we live in an age where films like “Cuties” are celebrated.

Some who read this article may criticize me as a religious zealot, but one doesn’t have to have faith to think that teaching children to dance provocatively degrades the moral condition of America. Behavior such as this has no place in any civilized nation in our modern world and should be condemned. I hope that these women who took advantage of this girl would be identified and locked away so that they can no longer exploit children and that we would return to a place where actions such as these wouldn’t even make the news cycle.

The post Child Exploitation Publicly Celebrated in NYC in Viral Tik-Tok appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In a statement, Netflix put these rumors to rest by assuring audiences that no animals were harmed during the making of Cuties.

“Cuties is a children’s movie that won a Sundance Film Festival Award. Sundance is a prestigious Film Festival co-founded by Sterling Van Wagenen, producer of the Academy Award winning film ‘A Trip To Bountiful’ and a one-time convicted child sex offender. Absolutely no animals were harmed during the making of this film.”

The libertarian-leaning publication Reason Magazine, which had previously encouraged their audiences to watch the film, suddenly retracted their previous statements urging people to see it.

Reason Magazine’s Nick Gillespie stated, “Since no animal abuse actually occured in the film, we cannot have a real conversation about why animal abuse is wrong.”

Reason Magazine is the only libertarian publication whose writers are unanimously in favor of the death penalty, as they state that capital punishment is necessary in order to have a conversation about why killing people is wrong.

Consider the Right Wing outrage regarding the film Cuties to be officially extinguished.

The post NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED DURING THE MAKING OF “CUTIES” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Amy, the film’s main character, gets involved with a group of girls at her school who compete as hip-hop style dancers to comfort herself as she deals with her father’s decision to take a second wife. The dance group initially bullies Amy until she gains their favor by attempting to take a picture of a teenage boy’s penis.

As the story continues, the movie gets progressively more vulgar. Amy eventually takes the lead of the group’s dance routine as she learns moves from hip hop videos on the phone she stole from an older boy. By the end of the film, the girls’ dance routine resembles foreplay more than dancing.

In addition to this, Amy also posts a picture of her vagina online in an attempt to become more popular with people around her school. She then tries to have sex with the older boy from whom she stole the cellphone to try to convince him to let her keep it.

That a writer at The New Yorker (or anyone) would defend this steaming pile of dog crap as raising awareness of the sexualization of children and call individuals criticizing it’ content “radical right-wingers,” further illustrates that some people will stop at nothing to politicize everything—even if it means trying to sweep the very issue in the spotlight under the rug.

“I doubt that the scandal-mongers (who include some well-known figures of the far-right) have actually seen “Cuties,” but some elements of the film that weren’t presented in the advertising would surely prove irritating to them: it’s the story of a girl’s outrage at, and defiance of, a patriarchal order”, writes Richard Brody of The New Yorker.

What those who defend “Cuties” fail to see is that someone can’t claim to be exposing the sexualization of children and then in the same breath have 11-year-olds hump the ground and expose their breasts, and not expect to be called out for it. Am I the only one that sees this as the pot calling the kettle black?

There’s absolutely nothing libertarian about the sexual exploitation of children. Those of us who believe in individual liberty must speak out against those who would take advantage of the most vulnerable individuals in society. If we want the role of government to be strictly limited in our society, we must be men and women of high moral standards. Denouncing pedophilia and child exploitation would undoubtedly fall under the responsibilities of a moral society. As John Adams so boldly stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The only antidote to the sickness that has infected our world is the restoration of moral values. This will come not from an act of Congress, but a cultural revolution. “Cuties” is not an example of too much personal freedom, but rather a lack of the teaching of moral values. Condemning children being sexualized is not a Left vs Right issue, but a struggle of good vs evil. We must not allow those who wish to normalize child sexualization to divide us, but rather stand together against an evil that has no place in a free society.

This is no laughing matter. There’s nothing cute about the sexualization of children.

The post Opinion: There’s Nothing “Cute” About Netflix’s Sexual Exploitation of Children appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

If you use Facebook to agree upon a a legal firearms transaction that would still be taking place through an FFL, Facebook is on top of that too.

Yet, Facebook allows a child pornography ring to continue to operate on Facebook. They aren’t necessarily distributing the images on the Facebook platform, but they are communicating and finding buyers. The profiles are easily identifiable.

Facebook has not only a legal, but more importantly, a moral obligation to remove this from their platform. Yet, they do not.

In fact, Facebook has been historically sympathetic to protecting pedophiles.

Enough pedophile activity has traditionally occured on the platform for the Facebook algorithm to autofill certain search queries with pedophilia suggestions.

The enormous size of the web uncovered left me in despair.

It all began with a single photo shared by a Facebook friend urging their friends to report it; The profile picture of a pedophile account. The profile picture was of a young child provocatively clothed and posed.

The comments were horrendous. Pedophiles making disgusting sticker comments. As well as comments offering money and another account requesting for the photos to be sent off Facebook on an app called WhatsApp.

Ironically, WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.

Many of us reported the photo, selecting the option for Child Exploitation in the reporting options. Yet, we all received the same reply back, usually within minutes. That this did not violate Facebook’s Community Standards.

And yet, this account was not unique. It was not an anomaly or a misnomer. All of the accounts that either reacted to the photo or commented on the photo, were similar. They posted photos of children as well. People who interacted with those photos… were also the same. 

It’s an exponential web of child pornography facilitation that Facebook allows to continue. Buyers and sellers alike with seemingly endless connections.

Facebook did not return a request for comment.

The post Facebook Allows Child Porn To Roam And It’s Worse Than You Think appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

No party offers a silver bullet to address every problem. But on this very important one, The Libertarian Party doesn’t even have their guns loaded.

On January 19th, Podcaster Tyler Bluntman (Tyler Breen) posted a video to his Facebook page stating the consumption and proliferation of child pornography should not be a crime, so long as you were not the original content creator. Breen stated that watching a video does not create a victim.

While Breen labels himself as a Constitutional Conservative, he is largely followed by Libertarians. This video resulted in a debate exclusively within Libertarian circles.

Joe Burnes, of the Texas Libertarian State Committee, wrote in defense of this assessment:

“Off the cuff, possession of ANY video is a victimless crime.  The crime happened when the producer created the video. Forest for the trees.  This is like going after everybody that smokes pot but leaving alone the distributors.  Sure, it’s disgusting that anyone would own child porn, but jailing them for it won’t stop a damn thing.  Up the penalties for creating child porn and there won’t be any around to be able to be owned.”

There are several things this particular viewpoint completely ignores.

First, the pornographic media content was the intentional final product. The consumer creates the demand. It was produced specifically for distribution and consumption amongst pedophiles. It absolutely has a victim, and continued consumption and distribution continues to perpetuate that child’s victimhood.

Second, this is erroneously likened to marijuana consumption in Burnes’ statement. It’s not a valid comparison because throughout that entire transaction of purchasing marijuana, there is no victim.

And this is where relying on the Free Market to fix every ailment in the world falls horribly flat.

“Prohibition leads to Black Markets. That doesn’t solve anything!”

This line works great for actual Victimless Crimes, such as the failure of the alcohol prohibition, personal drug use, and voluntary sex work. Removing prohibition from these activities is to make them tolerable or acceptable to society, as they don’t cause harm to other parties. The Libertarian Party is, and always has been ahead of their time on that front.

This is not, and should not ever be the case where a real victim is being exploited. Especially a child who does not have the ability to consent. That’s where Libertarians are far behind the curve, and have yet to leave for the boat that they’ve already missed.

The Libertarian Party appears to have a difficult enough time as it is holding members accountable to their NAP Pledge, let alone entrusting that experiment to an entire society who never bought in to begin with.

As laws are punitive, they have effectively and will continue to punish people who engage in this activity. Libertarianism doesn’t have an answer to match this.

Imagine if you will, that you took your child to some daycare, or a dentist, and that person you trusted took pornographic photos of your 5 year old.

The person who did this goes to jail. Great.

But the photos they took are fair game. They get passed around the dark web, and now on the regular internet; now that distributing child porn is no longer a crime as long as you were not the individual who took the pictures.

Imagine that following your child around for the rest of their lives. Imagine people recognizing your child in the grocery store, now that the possession of child porn is acceptable, so long as a few select virtue signaling Libertarians get to hide behind “BuT i DiDnT sAy i CoNdOnE iT!”

This isn’t simply an appeal to emotion. This is actually the future some Libertarians want.

But even the ones who don’t proactively want this future still appear to settle for it. Because while Libertarianism is great on the Victimless Crime front, they are not equipped to handle crimes that involve a victim. Not just child exploitation, but any crime with a victim.

Libertarianism is an ideology reliant on compliance, but is absent a means of enforcement. An absence of enforcement makes consequences optional. I’ve never seen a realistic blueprint for Libertarian enforcement where victims are concerned. I’ve never met someone who would pay an optional fine, or do optional jail time.

Personally I believe a number of bad actors flock to Libertarianism not because they’re Pro Liberty, but rather because they’re Anti-Consequence. A number of people in the Libertarian Party would be the first to become pirates under a Libertarian society. They see the party’s sole reliance on good faith as a way out.

“But the free market would find a way” is not an answer. It’s not a plan. It’s not a way of addressing the allure of action without consequence. It does nothing in regards to normalizing the perpetuation of a crime with a victim. That’s a problem.

If decriminalization worked not only with victimless crimes, but also with crimes involving victims, then I’m sorry to say we fought a bloody Civil War over absolutely nothing. The North simply could have legalized slavery like the South did, and everything would have magically worked out. The South wouldn’t have needed to attempt Secession. The union could have been unified in their goal of normalizing slavery to somehow end it. 

If that sounds stupid, that’s because it is.

The post Libertarianism Is Not Equipped To Address Child Exploitation appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.