Are these homicidal authoritarians still pretending to be, explicitly claiming to be "pro-life"?
Or have they at least, at long last admitted to being what they have been from the start, anti-choice?
HEADLINES: 2026
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Or have they at least, at long last admitted to being what they have been from the start, anti-choice?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If they really are pro-life why aren't they worried about guns in schools. making sure that school children have lunches, providing pre (and post) natal medical care, and .....
Shiftless2
Well-known member
This Kentucky Supreme Court ruling isn’t just about charter schools.
It’s about stopping lawmakers from using taxpayer money to eventually fund private religious schools while pretending they’re "public."
Church/state separation still matters.
www.friendlyatheist.com
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/k...qdsPnLbgBU2ysUcXON_aem__I6f8vKFPJ_VP6cG0rim8Q
It’s about stopping lawmakers from using taxpayer money to eventually fund private religious schools while pretending they’re "public."
Church/state separation still matters.
Kentucky Supreme Court crushes charter school scheme to drain public education funding
The unanimous ruling affirmed taxpayer dollars must fund accountable public schools, not privatized alternatives backed by conservatives
www.friendlyatheist.com
Indeed."This Kentucky Supreme Court ruling isn’t just about charter schools.
It’s about stopping lawmakers from using taxpayer money to eventually fund private religious schools while pretending they’re "public."
Church/state separation still matters." S2 #83
So the separation of Church and State is a principle worth defending, UNLESS
it's the bigot's own prejudice that's being proselytized.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
The perils of messing with someone who is smarter than they are ....
BREAKING: As Hillary Clinton heads into a closed-door deposition related to the Epstein investigation, she released a pointed opening statement, making clear she knew nothing about Epstein and slamming the Republicans for not allowing her to testify in public.
Below is her full, unedited statement:
SECRETARY CLINTON'S OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee... as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before .....
MORE including comments
BREAKING: As Hillary Clinton heads into a closed-door deposition related to the Epstein investigation, she released a pointed opening statement, making clear she knew nothing about Epstein and slamming the Republicans for not allowing her to testify in public.
Below is her full, unedited statement:
SECRETARY CLINTON'S OPENING STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee... as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.
As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.
The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.
As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.
Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.
Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before .....
MORE including comments
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Imagine that ...
Former North Dakota state senator Ray Holmberg, a Republican who served 45 years in the state legislature, has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison following a child exploitation case tied to international travel. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Holmberg engaged in criminal conduct involving minors during trips overseas and pleaded guilty in August 2024 to one federal count related to traveling for illicit purposes.
The sentencing took place on March 26, 2025. Federal prosecutors stated that the court imposed a 10 year sentence, exceeding the recommended guideline range due to the severity of the conduct. The case was prosecuted under Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative focused on combating child exploitation and abuse.
Holmberg’s decades long political career ended with a federal conviction and prison sentence.
Former North Dakota state senator Ray Holmberg, a Republican who served 45 years in the state legislature, has been sentenced to 10 years in federal prison following a child exploitation case tied to international travel. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Holmberg engaged in criminal conduct involving minors during trips overseas and pleaded guilty in August 2024 to one federal count related to traveling for illicit purposes.
The sentencing took place on March 26, 2025. Federal prosecutors stated that the court imposed a 10 year sentence, exceeding the recommended guideline range due to the severity of the conduct. The case was prosecuted under Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative focused on combating child exploitation and abuse.
Holmberg’s decades long political career ended with a federal conviction and prison sentence.
I think this is going too far.
US jurisdiction does not extend to what people do in other countries.
To secure a conviction in a sexual abuse case, it has to be prosecuted by the country where it happened, not the US.
The US likely has its values skewed by its puritanical religious origins, like the Quakers and Pilgrims.
The big question is whether what he did was illegal in the country it happened in?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Under U.S. federal law, it is a felony for citizens or residents to travel abroad to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423), punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Registered sex offenders must notify authorities 21 days before international travel, and their passports are specially marked.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (.gov) +3
Key Aspects of U.S. Law on International Sex Crimes:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (.gov) +3Key Aspects of U.S. Law on International Sex Crimes:
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The U.S. can prosecute citizens for sexual exploitation of children (under 18) in foreign countries, even if the act is not illegal there.
- International Megan’s Law (IML): Enacted in 2016, this law allows the U.S. Marshals Service and the Angel Watch Center to notify foreign governments when a registered sex offender travels to their country.
- Passport Marking: Passports for covered sex offenders (convicted of crimes against minors) must contain a unique identifier stating the bearer is a covered sex offender, which may lead to denied entry in foreign countries.
- Travel Notification Requirement: Registered sex offenders must notify their local registration jurisdiction of any international travel 21 days in advance. Failure to do so is a federal offense.
- Prohibited Activities: It is illegal to use mail, internet, or other communications to solicit a minor for sex, including in foreign countries.
Department of State Travel (.gov) +6
Under U.S. federal law, it is a felony for citizens or residents to travel abroad to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423), punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Registered sex offenders must notify authorities 21 days before international travel, and their passports are specially marked.
View attachment 4228U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (.gov) +3
Key Aspects of U.S. Law on International Sex Crimes:
Foreign governments set their own entry standards, and many will deny entry to registered sex offenders, particularly for crimes involving children.
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The U.S. can prosecute citizens for sexual exploitation of children (under 18) in foreign countries, even if the act is not illegal there.
- International Megan’s Law (IML): Enacted in 2016, this law allows the U.S. Marshals Service and the Angel Watch Center to notify foreign governments when a registered sex offender travels to their country.
- Passport Marking: Passports for covered sex offenders (convicted of crimes against minors) must contain a unique identifier stating the bearer is a covered sex offender, which may lead to denied entry in foreign countries.
- Travel Notification Requirement: Registered sex offenders must notify their local registration jurisdiction of any international travel 21 days in advance. Failure to do so is a federal offense.
- Prohibited Activities: It is illegal to use mail, internet, or other communications to solicit a minor for sex, including in foreign countries.
Department of State Travel (.gov) +6
But the point is that just like Prohibition, many US laws go too far and are dictatorial, based on religious extremism.
Prohibition is an example, as well as laws against prostitution.
The reality is that we all know minors will have sex, so it really just invalidates law when you try to make it illegal.
I agree that age difference is a huge factor in whether or not sex is bad.
But it is not clear US law stays within what it reasonable or ethical.
And US laws prohibiting what one does in another country, is way over the line.
That is totally inherently illegal to make laws like that.
And in fact, there is no legal basis for any federal laws regarding sex, in any way.
The constitution does not provide any basis for that.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
It's not the age difference - it's the age of the younger party.
Using myself as an example: I'm six years older than my wife - no biggie given that we didn't start dating until I was in my early thirties. But she was in grade 8 when I was in second year university - that would have been a big no-no (to say the least).
There of course are many factors, but by "age difference" I think I was intending it to be more like a % than a simple subtraction.
And even % is not good enough.
For example, there is nothing wrong with a sexual couple where one is 30 and the other is 40.
But there could be a problem if one is 15 and the other is 20.
However, I am not sure I see a huge problem with two 14 years olds experimenting?
But I am not sure since there are so many variables?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
That was my point - it's not the absolute value of the age difference (or even the percentage) but rather the age of the younger party.
As for the two 14 year olds, many (but not all) age of consent laws) include "close in age exemptions" (sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet laws") simply so that 15 year old isn't in trouble because he was fooling around with his 14 year old girlfriend. However, those laws generally say that anyone under 12 isn't capable of giving consent.
As for the two 14 year olds, many (but not all) age of consent laws) include "close in age exemptions" (sometimes called "Romeo and Juliet laws") simply so that 15 year old isn't in trouble because he was fooling around with his 14 year old girlfriend. However, those laws generally say that anyone under 12 isn't capable of giving consent.
No argument from me.
Just that I find the US to have a pretty puritanical heritage.
Such as I think prostitution laws may be a bad idea, even if intentions were good.
Let's separate wheat from chaff.
There's more than one reason to oppose sexual promiscuity.
There are moral reasons.
There are legal reasons.
The distinction between the two may not be as clear cut as some may think.
Rather than there being something scientifically deficient about being a bastard, born outside wedlock,
the practicality was: offspring of adults not committed enough to one another to bond their family with matrimony
may have tended to be less meticulous parents.
Thus bastards perhaps more likely to steal a loaf of bread to feed themselves, etc.
These standards against unwed sex were enshrined in law long before modern reliable birth control.
That has changed. BUT !!
Natural sex was during those centuries a vector for transmitting disease, some of which were / are fatal.
That has not changed. What has changed is, we can cure some of those diseases, and effectively treat others.
I think its more complicated than that even.
For example, humans are primates and evolved from other primates, but there are no other monogamous primates.
It seems that to all other primates, sex is for group or tribal unity, and monogamous marriage is common mostly in more solitary predators.
The nuclear family is incredibly inefficient, and most human tribes lived more communally.
I have to wonder if the nuclear family was promoted to make more profits from people than to benefit anyone?
As life forms evolve more sophistication, they have to adapt.
Mold doesn't need K - 12 to feed on soggy bread.
But eagles need to fledge, and learn to eat live animals without themselves being injured in the process.
When advancement reaches the stage humans are at today, we need K - 12 and more.
Wilson helped me better understand.
It was during the tape recorder era I learned of how DNA codes for traits. I got the impression humans used DNA to record their traits the way a recording artist records a cassette tape.
Wilson said no, that's backward.
Wilson said it's the DNA that creates, manufactures competitors, somewhat akin to the way the U.S. manufactures Olympic ice hockey teams.
The U.S. doesn't compete directly. Our Olympic surrogates compete.
So an individual's DNA generates its own individual, and that individual competes to proliferate the DNA.
The family seems to have been an adaptation.
Oscar Wilde said the penalty for bigamy is two wives.
I get your point about how it is the DNA that is replicating and only using us.
But I think you get K-12 better with a communal village than you do with a nuclear family.
Before we had public schools, then it was the whole village that taught skills, did the baby sitting, shared the products of the hunt, cooked large communal meals, etc.
A lot of tribes just built dorms for the 2 genders, and greatly simplified housing needs then.
I suspect so. BUT !
The notion that Mr. & Mrs. Troglodyte scattered the ashes from the previous night's cave-mouth fire, and unleashed Newark, NJ on the primordial landscape is silly.
CERTAINLY family may not be optimal, although it remains the standard for inter-generational inheritance.
And the clan, as a small cluster of families, may have preceded productivity-multiplying agriculture, as distinct from hunter / gatherer subsistence.
Yes. But though there may have been rudimentary division of labor, it probably didn't go much beyond family level.
The clan may have offered a little more specialization, a medicine man for example. But no systems analysts, electrical engineers, or air traffic controllers. They were substantially subsistence cultures.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
And the law lagged reality.
I'm old enough to remember that if you wanted to purchase condoms you had to ask the pharmacist - and they were behind the counter - today there's a major display.
And once upon a time a MARRIED woman needed a signed letter from her husband to purchase any form of birth control.
And it took a Supreme Court decision to make the pill available in every state.
And ....
But remember these primitive clans has to keep the knowledge on how to tan leather, make weapons like bows, arrows, flint or obsidian blades, etc.
At Chaco Canyon pueblo site, there were as many as 6000 people living there, but only around 4 or 5 cooking facilities.