XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

On 9/26/2020 1:32 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt- understand-her-job/?utm_source=recirc- desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top- stories&utm_term=first

Welcome to “The Tuesday,” a weekly newsletter about politics, language, culture, and things that are so obvious that only a very expensively
educated person could fail to understand them. If you would like to
subscribe to “The Tuesday,” you can do so right here. I would be grateful
if you would.

Justice in Drag

Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in
her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t an associate justice of
the Supreme Court — not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag.

You need not take my word on this: Ask her admirers. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg
had a vision for America,” Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post.
What was her vision? “To make America fairer, to make justice bigger.”
That is not a job for a judge — that is a job for a legislator. The job of making law properly belongs to — some people find this part hard to handle
— lawmakers. Making law is not the job of the judge. The job of the judge
is to see that the law is followed and applied in a given case.

Bullshit. The Judge is supposed to know the Law, is a separate and equal branch
of power from the Legislature, Who is no more the author of the law, than the Judge!


It does

not matter if the law is unfair or if the law is unjust — that is not the judge’s concern.

Double Bullshit! If the law shocks the conscience of the court, the Court is obliged to throw it out, even if it can't immediately explain why!


If you have a vision for America, and desire to make the

law more fair or more just, then there is a place for you: Congress.

And there is another place for you, the moral courts!


That

is where the laws are made.

Wrong! The laws are made by the dictates of logic and reason, and the Spirit of
Truth above all things!

This distinction is an important one. As you may have noticed over the
course of the summer, Americans do not agree on everything. Some of us
have ideas about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary that are radically different from the ideas other Americans have about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary. Democracy is not good for very much, but
democratic institutions are how we settle those disagreements.

This is a Republic, not a Democracy, learn the difference!

Democracy is no more the author of the law, than it is of Mathematics!


Even the

antidemocratic elements of U.S. government, such as the Bill of Rights,
which put certain questions beyond the reach of mere temporary majorities, came out of democratic institutions and were implemented through a
democratic process.

Why would you be with Democracy, and not the Spirit of Truth in you?!

Why do you not advocate and stick by the righteousness you seek!

Do you doubt yourself, and hope the Government will lead you?

Worship God! But for him you must seek!

Do you doubt your morality, and hope the "Democracy" will lead you?

Worship Intelligence and Moral Truth! But for it you must seek!


It is from that that they derive their legitimacy.

Democracy has its shortcomings — mostly rooted in the fact that human
beings are universally fallen and in the majority savage — but the alternative is bonking each other over the head over every disagreement.

Put another way, the alternative is might makes right — which is exactly
the kind of “jurisprudence” Justice Ginsburg and others of her kind have
long practiced. There isn’t a goddamned word about abortion or gay rights
in the Constitution,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people." - U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment.

Likewise the absence of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage these rights retained by the people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -
U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment.

<snip>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

On 9/26/2020 1:32 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt- understand-her-job/?utm_source=recirc- desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top- stories&utm_term=first

Welcome to “The Tuesday,” a weekly newsletter about politics, language, culture, and things that are so obvious that only a very expensively educated person could fail to understand them. If you would like to subscribe to “The Tuesday,” you can do so right here. I would be grateful
if you would.

Justice in Drag

Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t an associate justice of
the Supreme Court — not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag.

You need not take my word on this: Ask her admirers. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a vision for America,” Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post. What was her vision? “To make America fairer, to make justice bigger.”
That is not a job for a judge — that is a job for a legislator. The job of making law properly belongs to — some people find this part hard to handle
— lawmakers. Making law is not the job of the judge. The job of the judge
is to see that the law is followed and applied in a given case. It does
not matter if the law is unfair or if the law is unjust — that is not the judge’s concern. If you have a vision for America, and desire to make the law more fair or more just, then there is a place for you: Congress. That
is where the laws are made.

This distinction is an important one. As you may have noticed over the course of the summer, Americans do not agree on everything. Some of us
have ideas about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary that are radically different from the ideas other Americans have about what is good, decent, fair, just, wise, intelligent, prudent, and necessary. Democracy is not good for very much, but
democratic institutions are how we settle those disagreements. Even the antidemocratic elements of U.S. government, such as the Bill of Rights, which put certain questions beyond the reach of mere temporary majorities, came out of democratic institutions and were implemented through a democratic process. It is from that that they derive their legitimacy. Democracy has its shortcomings — mostly rooted in the fact that human
beings are universally fallen and in the majority savage — but the alternative is bonking each other over the head over every disagreement.

Put another way, the alternative is might makes right — which is exactly
the kind of “jurisprudence” Justice Ginsburg and others of her kind have long practiced. There isn’t a goddamned word about abortion or gay rights
in the Constitution,

Freedom is right, murder is wrong. Freedom is legal, doing something against someone else's will is illegal. Is it so hard to understand this? Do you give a
flip what the Constitution says, if it is, as apparently according to you, written
by Nazi Scum? But my interpretation would be quite very different:

"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its
protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." - General of the Armies, Commander George Washington, First President of the United States of America, 1776

<re-snip>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

For instance, we don't want tan lines. We want to be able to lay out naked and not get tan lines. No, I'm not gay. And if somebody else is offended, that's their fucking problem, just like if they're offended by an interracial relationship, that's their fucking problem.
Nudity is *not* sexual harassment, such as flashing - if it matters.

Sexuality is not a crime!


Freedom is not a crime!

Freedom is a right!

Nudity is a form of Freedom!

You have a right to freedom!

Down with the oppression of the United States!

Down with the United States criminal justice system!

Down with the nuts!

Restore the justice of freedom and liberty, which has been promised since 1776*!


"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,
and do not become entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; ...through love serve one another.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

- Paul the Apostle, Galatians 5:1,13,14, Holy Bible, New Testament


"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing
the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according
to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” But the righteousness of faith speaks in this
way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near
you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)"
- Paul The Apostle, Romans 9:30-10:8, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV


We are under law towards Truth. Yet we are not under law towards condemnation.

Imposing your subjective values onto others is objectively wrong and immoral.

Democracy is not the author of the law, or morality, any more than of mathematics.

Sex is a positive holy religious activity which shouldn't be condemned,
yet unsafe sex is immoral.

Everyone should use two or three disparate types of birth control, concurrently,
and abort unplanned pregnancies in the first trimester/14 weeks/three months, before there is a brain or ghost in the fetus. Unplanned childbirth is the scourge of nations.

If Paul condemned sexuality, I do not corroborate him there,
yet he said many fine things which prove he's a Saint.

Sex makes people happy, and sex is relationships from the bottom up,
and sex is part of many valid holy religions such as Taoism, Tantra, Echankar, and
my personal interpretation of any religion.

Really sex is energy, you can give one another energy orgasms without touching one
another through your clothes. Research "energy orgasms," if you want to see.

Sex is an activity like any sport or activity, and it is no one, and not Paul's right, to judge it, nor condemn it, but to lead others, rather in their personal
ministry without denigration.

For,
"Satan accuses our brethren before our God, day and night" Revelations 12:10

"there is therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ," - Romans 8:1

But,
"if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" - 2 Corinthians 5:17

"For He made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us;
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." - 2 Corinthians 5:21


"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves
punishment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 4:18, Holy Bible, New Testament

"God is love."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 4:8, 4:16, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV

And,
"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you:
that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 1:5, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV


"What then, shall we sin, for we are not under law, but under grace?

Certainly not!"

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law
of sin and death."


Like our bodies aren't supposed to be beautiful and glorious as the sunrise?

We don't want tan lines!

FREEDOM NOW!


*"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its
protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." - General of the Armies, Commander George Washington, First President of the United States of America, 1776

TO BIGOTRY NO SANCTION, TO PERSECUTION NO ASSISTANCE!


"and yes, I did cut down my father's cherry tree, and cannot tell a lie."


https://www.biblegateway.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

If your feet don't belong there, your ass doesn't belong there, so you might want
to wear an ass cape, but there's no reason we should have to cover the groin per se.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

I don't want to think it's something to see, more than a man with his shirt off.

Men don't lay their eggs in women, and women don't allow men to lay their eggs in
them, unless they want a baby.

Use two disparate types of birth control concurrently, and abort in the first trimester/14 weeks, before there is a brain or a ghost in the fetus. Sex is always a positive, holy, religious activity which should not be condemned, but unsafe sex is immoral and unplanned childbirth is the scourge of nations.


Sex is just another way of hugging. Like french kissing.

Sex is nothing wrong, unplanned childbirth is wrong, yet we do not condemn a mother after the fact.

Everyone has a crotch. And I don't want to think it's something to see, more than
a man with his shirt off: https://web.archive.org/web/20200731071819if_/https://contenta.glam0ur.com/twistys.com/8320/10.jpg


It should not be something that the groin is uncovered.


They're saying the naked groin is any more naked than the naked knee.


Just because I would wear shoes, just because I would wear a shirt, doesn't mean
there's something to it, if I didn't.

Naked sports prove my point.

It's just as the naked mouth.

It wouldn't seem naked if it weren't covered all the time. It's just like the knee. You wouldn't look at it or notice it, maybe the tits, but tits are 100% legal to have uncovered in ALL of New York State; any city cop notwithstanding. You'd look at the face. A female in jeans is sexually attractive enough to give a
man a boner. I really think the item of attraction would be the legs, if the crotch were uncovered. The crotch is only interesting and mysterious because it's
unduly _covered_.

Even so, if your feet don't belong their, your crotch doesn't belong there. So you might want to wear an ass cape so you can assuredly sit down anywhere.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

On 9/19/2020 10:08 PM, Bow Wow Harris wrote:

Two people have appeared in court accused of playing a role in a
"dark web" child sex ring.

<snip>

Alfonzo, who gave her nationality as Venezuelan, appeared via
video link.

She faces a separate charge of allowing sexual penetration by a
living animal, namely a dog.

So... these supposedly moral legal lawyers who write legislation and judge have NOOOOOO legal intelligence at all.

While animal cruelty certainly cannot be allowed to stand, would you abuse a human
who abused an animal? And yet, under the herein quoted notion, someone who has sex with a _willful_ animal is insulted, offended, assaulted, violently attacked,
assailed, criticized, what you call it.

This is criminal insanity, and those who practice are hired killers, lead by crazy
people. They are obviously to be condemned and damned as murderers, by all intelligence and holy thought.

So while two wrongs, don't make a right. And two errors, don't make a right. This
woman, on this point, did no wrong.

The notion, that you can be murdered, for something that's right, is the real big
deal here.

Like stoning people for working on the Sabbath day, this is unholy doctrine, and
false religion. This sort of disease infects Christian Countries and Muslim Countries, alike, as there is female genital mutilation in some stone-age African
Christian Countries. And it is perpetrated as religion.

As there was no place for the Jew, in the American Colonies. If you denied Christ
three times, they put you to death. Yet who denied Christ three times, Peter the
first Pope. They're so stupid, they don't read their own religion. These politicians are 100% incompetent to kill us. Christ raised the dead. Believe!


"I raised the dead by knowing that life is an eternal attribute of everything that
the living God created.
I understand that miracles are natural, because they are expressions of love." - Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 4, Section 4 (5pdf)

"The emptiness engendered by fear must be replaced by forgiveness. That is what
the Bible means by "There is no death," and why I could demonstrate that death does not exist. I came to fulfill the law by reinterpreting it. The law itself,
if properly understood, offers only protection. It is those who have not yet changed their minds who brought the "hell-fire" concept into it.
I assure you that I will witness for anyone who lets me, and to whatever extent he
permits it. Your witnessing demonstrates your belief, and thus strengthens it. Those who witness, for me, are expressing, through their miracles, that they have
abandoned the belief in deprivation in favor of the abundance they have learned belongs to them."
- Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 1, Section 4


https://tinyurl.com/A-Course-In-Miracles-pdf
https://www.biblegateway.com/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-accused-having-sex-
dog-21159164

Matt 12
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples
were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”

3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to
you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” Healing on the Sabbath

9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is
it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him.

11 Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it
falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good
on the Sabbath.” 13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. 14 Then the Pharisees
went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.


Mark 2
23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests
to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”


Mark 3
Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched
him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with
the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.


Luke 14
Now it happened, as He went into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees
to eat bread on the Sabbath, that they watched Him closely. 2 And behold, there was a certain man before Him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus, answering, spoke to the
lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

4 But they kept silent. And He took him and healed him, and let him go. 5 Then He
answered them, saying, “Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” 6 And they could not answer Him regarding these things.


Ref, also, Luke 6:1-10, Luke 13:10-17



Deuteronomy 5:, Old Testament
12 ‘Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor
your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates,
that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought
you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord
your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

Numbers 15, Old Testament
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks
brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under
guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.

35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him
with stones, and he died.


before Jesus, the 613 Commandments of Moses were already reduced but to one: "the
just shall live by faith."

"Now the just shall live by faith;
But if anyone draws back,
My soul has no pleasure in him.”
Hebrews 10:38

"But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the
just shall live by faith.” Galatians 3:11

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For
in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written,
“The just shall live by faith.”
- Paul the Apostle, Romans 1:16-17, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV

“Behold the proud,
His soul is not upright in him;
But the just shall live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:4, Old Testament


"For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6, Old Testament

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

One can't rightly have sex with an unwillful prisoner, nor a mentally incompetent
toddler. And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving, without their knowledge, but it's really the kid's personal choice.

A child's right to sexuality is as sacrosanct as a child's right to Church. It would more, at most be, that one couldn't hang out with them anymore, as far as this warden-ward Parental tyranny is allowed to persist.

Pedophilia is less deviant than gay or beast. Pedophilia is akin to interracial.
When you prohibit something you give someone a complex.

People who harm the weakest among us incite the most outrage. If you were going
to take vengeance, you would start with those who torture puppies and children. But it wouldn't undo the evil done. Yet at the same time, much of the persecution
of pedophiles is reminiscent of the persecution of homosexuals, and even interracial sexuality. There are still people to this day, who say that homosexuals are psychopaths, and have a mental disorder. They make the same claims about pedophiles. That some homosexuals are psychos in fact, that some pedophiles have murdered children, that some adult heterosexual men, want to have
sex with dead girls, is no acceptable stereotype of 90%-99%+ of the rest of the population. Whatever percent that is. For the rest of the people who have no such interest, and it is certainly far above 90%. Most people respect human rights, yet not those who persecute pedophiles, homosexuals, and black men who just 50 years ago, they hung from a tree for having sex with a white woman.

For the record we fully condemn child abuse. And in the strongest terms possible.
In case anyone is wondering.

But there is nothing more criminal about having or distributing pictures and videos of children having sex, than there is about having or distributing nonsexual pictures and videos of children abused, which they distribute on the nightly news and on Youtube both, as evidence of a crime.

Rather child porn laws are suppressing just such evidence of a crime. I have heard from law enforcement, that in addition to happy consent child sex videos, there are toddler rape videos. Toddlers screaming for their mothers, evidence of
a crime hidden from the public eye. This is the greatest atrocity, an abominable
offense to suppress activity that ought to see the light of day, as all evidence
of crime ought not be shrouded in darkness.

You don't have to be pedo, or homo, or have sex with other races. You're just not
against people who do; so long as no one is victimized. We're not guilty by doctrine. But those persecuting others by doctrine, are guilty, by fact. Actually
two wrongs don't make a right, any more than three do. But truth and error exist
as scientific moral facts.

On the other hand, according to all just and right legal theory, you don't have to
be interage prejudice either. It's like someone saying you can't have sex with someone from Canada, and threatening to kill you if you do. Then you say people
who have sex with Canadians have a mental disorder. It's not like every interracial couple is a fetish couple. Prejudice is abhorrent.

But the right points of criticism against pedophiles, are: 1) You can't have sex
with an unwillful prisoner, any more than a police officer can tell someone to have sex with them, and do so, and 2) You can't have sex with a mentally incompetent toddler.

And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
it's really the kid's personal choice.

---------------------
So I was trying to figure out, if like the person said "yes" to the prison guard,
would the prison guard still be in jeopardy if the person later said, they just said "yes" cause they were afraid. Yet the law, "de jure," does not even admit the possibility of consent, which is a fact, but says the act is criminal "per se," which makes the law criminal.

Saying children can't consent *is* a lie.

I'm not a pedophile. I just don't like to see my innocent countrymen murdered.

People saying minors can't consent, are making the same mistake as people saying
minors have to consent; and people saying minors have to consent, are making the
same mistake, as people saying minors can't consent. Both persuasions are abhorrent. Both parties need to be corrected. Because someone had sex in the past, doesn't mean they wish to repeat it today. Minors are liable to be slut shamed and pressured into blaming their partners, and slut shaming is wrong. This
doesn't excuse actual tyrannical influence of a warden-ward relationship. And obviously mentally incompetent toddlers cannot consent.

And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
it's really the kid's personal choice, and sacrosanct right, as it is the kid's sacrosanct right to go to Church. Many teens meet the other kid's dad before taking their sexual/romantic interests out on a date. But at the moment, apparently the law wouldn't care if pedos had their young friend's parent's blessings. Again, warden-ward tyranny aside. Kids in child porn deserve their pay as much as movies stars and kids in underwear commercials.

No, I'm not making child porn. No, I'm not a pedo. In fact, I've never even seen
it, and have just heard reports from law enforcement, about toddlers screaming for
their mothers while being raped.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

PEOPLE WHO WOULD PERSECUTE POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORN ARE CRIMINALLY
INSANE. PICTURES OF BATTERED CHILDREN ARE DISTRIBUTED ON THE NIGHTLY NEWS.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A PICTURE. THERE *IS* SOMETHING WRONG WITH MURDERING
SOMEONE FOR A PICTURE. MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW *IS* MURDER. A PICTURE IS NOTHING. MURDER *IS* WRONG.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

1. Beastiality
2. In Public
3. Interage
4. Prostitution
- though prostitution is a service like being a maid, and produces no equity
(you could be a maid, for a house before sale, or hotel or apartment before
renting).
Porn produces equity.
5. Incest

that's it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

In addition to what's said above, going right for the crotch, on a minor, or the
mouth, is the same as doing that, to a grown man or woman.

Two ways to sex, are talking, and touching. With a minor, talking is probably the
better way. This is not an advocation (which is totally legal, by the way, under
the Brandenburg test), just saying. With a grown man or woman, one can touch, arm, back, leg; and see if they hug back, and then go for the lip kiss, or french.
But who knows how intelligent an individual minor is, on sexuality.

...


People who are under 8, don't know they're missing out on things. People who are
8 and over want all kinds of things. That doesn't mean any individual wants sex
more or less than you or I.

Mental competence must start sometime between 2 or 3, or later, in most people, and they no longer need to be spoon fed.

After they're 3+, they can choose whether they want to play with dollies, blocks,
or your genitals. Though they may tire of your crazy genital games quickly. I don't speak from experience.


If sex is imposed on a minor, it could turn them transgender or gay. How is this?
Why?


No, I have no intent nor interest in sex with a child, nor have I ever.


"Now I'm singing all my songs, to the girl who won my heart; she is only three years old, it's a real fine way to start,"
- Robert Plant, "The Ocean," Led Zeppelin

"You were put in this world, to make others happy." - Someone

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

PEOPLE WHO WOULD PERSECUTE POSSESSION OF CHILD PORN ARE CRIMINALLY INSANE

PEOPLE WHO WOULD PERSECUTE POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORN ARE CRIMINALLY
INSANE. PICTURES OF BATTERED CHILDREN ARE DISTRIBUTED ON THE NIGHTLY NEWS.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A PICTURE. THERE *IS* SOMETHING WRONG WITH MURDERING
SOMEONE FOR A PICTURE. MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW *IS* MURDER. A PICTURE IS NOTHING. MURDER *IS* WRONG.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

Pedophilia is Legal - Just Saying

One can't rightly have sex with an unwillful prisoner, nor a mentally incompetent
toddler. And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving, without their knowledge, but it's really the kid's personal choice.

A child's right to sexuality is as sacrosanct as a child's right to Church. It would more, at most be, that one couldn't hang out with them anymore, as far as this warden-ward Parental tyranny is allowed to persist.

Pedophilia is less deviant than gay or beast. Pedophilia is akin to interracial.
When you prohibit something you give someone a complex.

People who harm the weakest among us incite the most outrage. If you were going
to take vengeance, you would start with those who torture puppies and children. But it wouldn't undo the evil done. Yet at the same time, much of the persecution
of pedophiles is reminiscent of the persecution of homosexuals, and even interracial sexuality. There are still people to this day, who say that homosexuals are psychopaths, and have a mental disorder. They make the same claims about pedophiles. That some homosexuals are psychos in fact, that some pedophiles have murdered children, that some adult heterosexual men, want to have
sex with dead girls, is no acceptable stereotype of 90%-99%+ of the rest of the population. Whatever percent that is. For the rest of the people who have no such interest, and it is certainly far above 90%. Most people respect human rights, yet not those who persecute pedophiles, homosexuals, and black men who just 50 years ago, they hung from a tree for having sex with a white woman.

For the record we fully condemn child abuse. And in the strongest terms possible.
In case anyone is wondering.

But there is nothing more criminal about having or distributing pictures and videos of children having sex, than there is about having or distributing nonsexual pictures and videos of children abused, which they distribute on the nightly news and on Youtube both, as evidence of a crime.

Rather child porn laws are suppressing just such evidence of a crime. I have heard from law enforcement, that in addition to happy consent child sex videos, there are toddler rape videos. Toddlers screaming for their mothers, evidence of
a crime hidden from the public eye. This is the greatest atrocity, an abominable
offense to suppress activity that ought to see the light of day, as all evidence
of crime ought not be shrouded in darkness.

You don't have to be pedo, or homo, or have sex with other races. You're just not
against people who do; so long as no one is victimized. We're not guilty by doctrine. But those persecuting others by doctrine, are guilty, by fact. Actually
two wrongs don't make a right, any more than three do. But truth and error exist
as scientific moral facts.

On the other hand, according to all just and right legal theory, you don't have to
be interage prejudice either. It's like someone saying you can't have sex with someone from Canada, and threatening to kill you if you do. Then you say people
who have sex with Canadians have a mental disorder. It's not like every interracial couple is a fetish couple. Prejudice is abhorrent.

But the right points of criticism against pedophiles, are: 1) You can't have sex
with an unwillful prisoner, any more than a police officer can tell someone to have sex with them, and do so, and 2) You can't have sex with a mentally incompetent toddler.

And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
it's really the kid's personal choice.

---------------------
So I was trying to figure out, if like the person said "yes" to the prison guard,
would the prison guard still be in jeopardy if the person later said, they just said "yes" cause they were afraid. Yet the law, "de jure," does not even admit the possibility of consent, which is a fact, but says the act is criminal "per se," which makes the law criminal.

Saying children can't consent *is* a lie.

I'm not a pedophile. I just don't like to see my innocent countrymen murdered.

People saying minors can't consent, are making the same mistake as people saying
minors have to consent; and people saying minors have to consent, are making the
same mistake, as people saying minors can't consent. Both persuasions are abhorrent. Both parties need to be corrected. Because someone had sex in the past, doesn't mean they wish to repeat it today. Minors are liable to be slut shamed and pressured into blaming their partners, and slut shaming is wrong. This
doesn't excuse actual tyrannical influence of a warden-ward relationship. And obviously mentally incompetent toddlers cannot consent.

And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
it's really the kid's personal choice, and sacrosanct right, as it is the kid's sacrosanct right to go to Church. Many teens meet the other kid's dad before taking their sexual/romantic interests out on a date. But at the moment, apparently the law wouldn't care if pedos had their young friend's parent's blessings. Again, warden-ward tyranny aside. Kids in child porn deserve their pay as much as movies stars and kids in underwear commercials.

No, I'm not making child porn. No, I'm not a pedo. In fact, I've never even seen
it, and have just heard reports from law enforcement, about toddlers screaming for
their mothers while being raped.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

Types Of Sexuality Persecuted Through The Government

1. Beastiality
2. In Public
3. Interage
4. Prostitution
- though prostitution is a service like being a maid, and produces no equity
(you could be a maid, for a house before sale, or hotel or apartment before
renting).
Porn produces equity.
5. Incest

that's it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

Child Sexual *Assault* Is A Crime

In addition to what's said above, going right for the crotch, on a minor, or the
mouth, is the same as doing that, to a grown man or woman.

Two ways to sex, are talking, and touching. With a minor, talking is probably the
better way. This is not an advocation (which is totally legal, by the way, under
the Brandenburg test), just saying. With a grown man or woman, one can touch, arm, back, leg; and see if they hug back, and then go for the lip kiss, or french.
But who knows how intelligent an individual minor is, on sexuality.

...


People who are under 8, don't know they're missing out on things. People who are
8 and over want all kinds of things. That doesn't mean any individual wants sex
more or less than you or I.

Mental competence must start sometime between 2 or 3, or later, in most people, and they no longer need to be spoon fed.

After they're 3+, they can choose whether they want to play with dollies, blocks,
or your genitals. Though they may tire of your crazy genital games quickly. I don't speak from experience.


If sex is imposed on a minor, it could turn them transgender or gay. How is this?
Why?


No, I have no intent nor interest in sex with a child, nor have I ever.


"Now I'm singing all my songs, to the girl who won my heart; she is only three years old, it's a real fine way to start,"
- Robert Plant, "The Ocean," Led Zeppelin

"You were put in this world, to make others happy." - Someone

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: fl.politics, houston.politics, tx.politics
XPost: az.politics, alt.abortion

We don't want tan lines. We want to be able to lay out naked and not get tan lines. No, I'm not gay. And if somebody else is offended, that's their fucking
problem, just like if they're offended by an interracial relationship, that's their fucking problem.
Nudity is *not* sexual harassment, such as flashing - if it matters.

Sexuality is not a crime!


Freedom is not a crime!

Freedom is a right!

Nudity is a form of Freedom!

You have a right to freedom!

Down with the oppression of the United States!

Down with the United States criminal justice system!

Down with the nuts!

Restore the justice of freedom and liberty, which has been promised since 1776*!


"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,
and do not become entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; ...through love serve one another.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this:

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

- Paul the Apostle, Galatians 5:1,13,14, Holy Bible, New Testament


"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing
the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according
to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.” But the righteousness of faith speaks in this
way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near
you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)"
- Paul The Apostle, Romans 9:30-10:8, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV


We are under law towards Truth. Yet we are not under law towards condemnation.

Imposing your subjective values onto others is objectively wrong and immoral.

Democracy is not the author of the law, or morality, any more than of mathematics.

Sex is a positive holy religious activity which shouldn't be condemned,
yet unsafe sex is immoral.

Everyone should use two or three disparate types of birth control, concurrently,
and abort unplanned pregnancies in the first trimester/14 weeks/three months, before there is a brain or ghost in the fetus. Unplanned childbirth is the scourge of nations.

If Paul condemned sexuality, I do not corroborate him there,
yet he said many fine things which prove he's a Saint.

Sex makes people happy, and sex is relationships from the bottom up,
and sex is part of many valid holy religions such as Taoism, Tantra, Echankar, and
my personal interpretation of any religion.

Really sex is energy, you can give one another energy orgasms without touching one
another through your clothes. Research "energy orgasms," if you want to see.

Sex is an activity like any sport or activity, and it is no one, and not Paul's right, to judge it, nor condemn it, but to lead others, rather in their personal
ministry without denigration.

For,
"Satan accuses our brethren before our God, day and night" Revelations 12:10

"there is therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ," - Romans 8:1

But,
"if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" - 2 Corinthians 5:17

"For He made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us;
that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." - 2 Corinthians 5:21


"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves
punishment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 4:18, Holy Bible, New Testament

"God is love."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 4:8, 4:16, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV

And,
"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you:
that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all."
- St. John the Divine, 1 John 1:5, Holy Bible, New Testament, NKJV


"What then, shall we sin, for we are not under law, but under grace?

Certainly not!"

"For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law
of sin and death."


Like our bodies aren't supposed to be beautiful and glorious as the sunrise?

We don't want tan lines!

FREEDOM NOW!


*"For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its
protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." - General of the Armies, Commander George Washington, First President of the United States of America, 1776

TO BIGOTRY NO SANCTION, TO PERSECUTION NO ASSISTANCE!


"and yes, I did cut down my father's cherry tree, and cannot tell a lie."


https://www.biblegateway.com/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)