David "The Diaper" Vitter at it again! Adds another anti-registrant amendment to another spending bill

Earlier this year, David Vitter sought to ban registrants from the Food Stamp program through a farm bill amendment. Now, Vitter is injecting his self-loathing into HUD. I know that registrants with a lifetime reporting requirement is already banned from HUD, but apparently Vitter wants that rule extended to all registered citizens.

Now, I don't think registrants CAN even get housing assistance from HUD. But I wonder why he feels the need to do this? Does his diaper need changing again?

eAdvocate pointed out that Vitter moved to avoid having the bill read. Why is he embarassed to have the amendment read?

http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2013/07/alert-update-sen-vitter-requests-that.html

SA 1744. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1243, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Sec. __X. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be used to provide housing assistance benefits for an individual who is convicted of aggravated sexual abuse under section 2241 of title 18, United States Code, murder under section 1111 of title 18, United States Code, an offense under chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal or State offense involving sexual assault, as defined in 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925(a))

Ken Cuccinelli exploits Predator Panic (tm) to revive defeated anti-sodomy laws

Ken Cuccinelli is doing all he can to bring back sodomy laws. What better way to do so than by telling people if you don't brink back these laws, you'll release 90 sexual predators from prison? I wonder if Virginia will buy it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/18/ken_cuccinelli_the_republican_candidate_for_governor_in_virginia_wants_to.html

Ken Cuccinelli Really Wants to Ban Oral Sex

By Amanda Marcotte

 | 

Posted Thursday, July 18, 2013, at 11:49 AM

YIKES

Screen grab from www.vachildpredators.com

Ken Cuccinelli wants to keep kids safe from sexual predators by banning oral and anal sex—between consenting adults. On a website his campaign just launched, Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, paints himself as the only real protector of children, because of his efforts as Virginia attorney general to reinstate a law banning all naked fun-time acts besides vaginal intercourse. 

Cuccinelli's claim is that only by reinstating the Crimes Against Nature law, which Cuccinelli dishonestly calls the "Anti-Child Predators Law," can the state of Virginia prosecute people who rape children. Never mind that rape is already illegal, child molestation is already illegal, and statutory rape is already illegal. His website says that a full 90 sexual predators may come off the sex offenders registry (the site is vague on how) if oral and anal sex isn't banned outright for everyone, a claim that hopefully will remind voters that enforcing such a law would mean that adults having consensual sex in their bedrooms could become "sex offenders" if they're caught. 

Like his peers, Cuccinelli knows that you're supposed to come up with a reason these anti-sex measures aren't really about sex, but never has a man been so bad at maintaining a cover story. He swears that the law won't be enforced as written to prosecute consensual sex between adults, even though the Supreme Court ruling that made this type of ban unconstitutional, Lawrence v. Texas, was in fact about arresting a couple having consensual sex in private. Cuccinelli's "just trust me" argument is especially hollow in light of his past behavior, as reported by Think Progress:

In 2004, a bipartisan group in the Virginia General Assembly backed a bill that would have brought the law in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling. They proposed to eliminate the Crimes Against Nature law’s provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults. Cuccinelli opposed the bill in committee and helped kill it on the Senate floor.

Oral sex is almost universal among sexually active adults. The Centers for Disease Control finds that nearly 82 percent of men and 80 percent of women ages 15-44 admit to having had it. The Kinsey Institute's research shows that nearly everyone who is having vaginal intercourse also admits to having oral sex. The very few who don't cop to this no doubt want to keep their jobs working for the Cuccinelli campaign.

Rachel Jeantel on Piers Morgan: Zimmerman "Might be a Rapist"

The entire Trayvon Martin case has been a train wreck, but otherwise irrelevant to this blog, until now. The controversial "star witness," Rachel Jeantel, has not helped her cause with her racist comments, but of all her comments, this one takes the cake.

After hearing Rachel on the "Piers Morgan" show, her "creepy ass cracker" comment seems tame by comparison:

"PIERS MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it? 

RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely, after I say ‘may be a rapist,’ for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? … 

And people need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."

Only part of the interview is online:

Well, Joe Arpaio must have FINALLY done something wrong, because NOW he wants to harass registrants with a "volunteer posse"

It is hard to believe that America's DUMBEST sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has never been featured in the long history of the Shiitake Awards. And we all know that politicians tend to focus on sex offender issues only as a last resort, if they are in a scandal, or if that person needs to look like he's working. Well, we know Sheriff JOKE isn't a stranger to the scandals, nor has he needed attention. Thus, one can only wonder what his motivation is behind his "volunteer posse" to check on registered citizens. Did Joe FINALLY cross the line and is in danger of getting in trouble?

http://www.kpho.com/story/22833522/sex-offenders-are-they-obeying-the-law

Sex Offenders: Are they obeying the law?
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 5:48 PM EDT
Posted by Ceasar Hernandez 

Approximately 20 teams made up of deputies and volunteer posse will be checking on the compliance level of 81 level two and level three sex offenders currently residing in the Sheriff's jurisdiction.

The Sheriff's mission is to verify that these more serious sex offenders are obeying the law by truly living at the addresses they have on record with the criminal courts. Per Sheriff Arpaio's policy, these verifications must be conducted every six months.

If deputies/posse determine that the offender is not at the proper address, a detailed report will be given to the Sheriff's Sex crimes unit to follow up for potential criminal charges.

Failing to properly register is a class four felony.

While the Sheriff's Office does not believe that a high volume of sex offenders are out of compliance, this operation is to ensure total compliance, as the Sheriff has requested.

Poor Nicholas Elizondo just can't catch a break: Bakersfield Barney Fife arrests him for finding one bullet

I thought I had crappy luck, but Nicholas Elizondo makes me look like a lottery winner by comparison. First, the guy served time for a crime he most assuredly didn't commit after being prosecuted by one of the chief proponents of the Satanic Ritual Abuse panic in Bakersfield. Then, the guy has been ridiculed for winning custody of his child after the mother was proven to be an unfit parent. Then, just a few days ago, this very site added a nomination to a woman who suggested the unfit mother kidnap the child because this man is on the registry. 

Now, the guy was arrested, and his child taken away, because cops say they found a single bullet in his car. A bullet. Poor guy just can't catch a break!

http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Registered-sex-offender-has-daughter-taken-away-after-bullet-arrest-214789391.html

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — A convicted sex offender has temporarily lost custody of his 6-year-old daughter after he was arrested at a traffic stop.

Nicholas Elizondo was arrested Sunday after a Bakersfield police officer found a bullet in his truck while conducting a traffic stop.

Elizondo said Monday that the bullet belonged to his 20-year-old son.

"I think the fact that I was convicted of a sex crime and my daughter was with me,” said Elizondo, “I think that played into law enforcement's decision to make a big thing out of an old rusty bullet in the back of my truck."

His daughter was with him at the time of the arrest and was taken to the A. Miriam Jamison Children's Center, where she will remain until an investigation is completed. 

Elizondo said he believes it was unnecessary for police to take his daughter into protective custody.

“I had somebody who was available to take care of her," said Elizondo, referring to his son and 24-year-old stepdaughter. “There was no reason to take her into custody. She was not in danger” 

The custody case of the 6-year-old girl generated public attention after the girl's mother contacted media. An Oklahoma judge awarded custody to Elizondo, who was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 in 1995.  

Elizondo said the charges against him were false, and that the girl was coached by her mother, Elizondo’s first wife. 

The child from the 1995 incident indeed testified at a 2012 child custody hearing for the current 6-year-old girl that she fabricated the accusations, but Elizondo remains a registered sex offender.

“I just hope they give her back, so I can move on with my life,” said Elizondo. “If not, I’ll probably hire an attorney.”

The Department of Health Services inspected Elizondo’s home on Monday and has yet to determine whether to return custody.

Jeanne Sager blatantly misquotes her own source on the Cafe Mom website

I generally leave the nominations for "Worst News Mutt" to real journalists or at least the more respected websites. I'm not really sure I'd put CafeMom up there as one of the better sites, but the blatant stupidity from Jeanne Sager at CafeMom is the reason this award was created.

The gist is this- a man who was very likely falsely accused (convicted during the time of the SRA witch hunts despite his accuser stating she was not molested) on the registry wins custody of his daughter because the mother is a psycho. Yet this reporter ignores her source material and writes the psycho mother should kidnap the kid.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/157765/mom_who_lost_custody_of

Mom Who Lost Custody of Daughter to Sex Offender Should Just Kidnap Her
by Jeanne Sager 6 hours ago

Under normal circumstances, divorced parents should have to share custody with one another. It's what's best for the kids. But when a judge awards sole custody of a 6-year-old girl to a convicted sex offender, a man who went to prison for molesting a (different) 6-year-old girl, all bets are off.

I think I'd run far, far, far away (with my child, of course).

I wouldn't blame Lisa Knight, a mom whose ex-husband (and registered sex offender), Nicholas Elizondo, just took her to court over visitation with their 6-year-old daughter, if she did the same.

Elizondo, who lives in California, challenged Knight in an Oklahoma court recently, claiming she wasn't granting him his visits with the girl. The judge took his side.

And I'm not talking about forcing the visitation. The Oklahoma City judge (Knight and the little girl have resided in Oklahoma since the couple divorced in 2008 when she was pregnant) gave Elizondo full custody, despite the fact that a quick search of the California sex offender registry pulls up his name and lists a conviction for "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age," despite the fact that Elizondo was convicted of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old stepdaughter back in the '90s.

FULL custody!

Of a child.

To a convicted pedophile!

Yeah, yeah, Dad served his time and he is the 6-year-old's biological father. But whose rights are more important here? Dad's or the little girl's?

Isn't that the point of custody hearings? To decide what is in a child's best interest?

It can't be "what's good for a child" to let a sex offender who is known to have hurt children take them home. That's the point of registries of these creeps; to let us know who shouldn't be around our kids so we can keep them apart.

Even putting a guy like this alone in the room with a 6-year-old girl is risking that child's well-being. If you were a mother who hired a sex offender to babysit your kid, you'd likely be looking at child endangerment charges (or worse).

So what's a mom to do when a sex offender gets custody?

Again, I'll admit it. I'd run. I'd take my child, and I'd skip town and never, ever come back.

I'd do anything to keep my child from a sex offender, even if that sex offender is her own father.

Because my child's right to be protected is more important than his to be a father.

What would you do if you were this mother? Would you follow the court's orders?