You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘sex should be private’ category.
In last Sunday’s debate: “You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?” Cooper asked. Trump insisted that wasn’t the case. Cooper asked three times whether Trump denied that he had ever done such a thing. Finally, Trump replied, “No, I have not,” and quickly changed the subject.
Five women have come forward to say that Trump sexually assaulted them..
1) Jessica Leeds told the paper that watching the debate made her want to punch Trump. She said that she was seated next to him during a flight three decades ago, when he began touching her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” she said. “His hands were everywhere. It was an assault.”
2) Rachel Crooks introduced herself to Trump at an office in 2002; her company did business with his. She shook his hand, but then he didn’t let go, and then, she said, forcibly kissed her on the mouth. “It was so inappropriate,” she said. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.”
3) Mindy McGillivray told The Palm Beach Post that Trump had groped her while she was assisting a photographer friend at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in January 2003.
4) A Miss USA contestant from Washington state reportedly posted on Facebook that Trump had groped her.
5) Natasha Stoynoff, a former People reporter, wrote for that magazine about an assault that she says occurred while she was writing a story on the first anniversary of Trump’s wedding to Melania Knauss in 2005.
Already we have discovered one more molestee of Trump than he could sit at a table (4) to intimidate Bill Clinton’s wife… So are those stories really so horrible that happened in the 1970’s, and Trumps then must be much worse, OR, if he dismisses his stories as just fun in the sun or feeling friskey a few times, how can he hold much lesser incidents that happened to Hillary’s husband, as something sinister and morally repugnant?
So either all 5 of these stories are not true….. OR… someone lied to the American people BIG TIME in the 2nd debate…
It’s Bill Cosby…. all over again….. The dam is crumbling as we speak… this article may be out of date when you wake up tomorrow….
So…. guess who supports both lying to the American people and sex offending?
Charlie Copeland
Colin Bonini
Hans Reigle
La Mar T. Gunn
State Senate Candidates
- Cathy Cloutier: District 5
- Anthony Delcollo: District 7
- Carl Pace: District 14
- David Lawson: District 15
- Brian Pettyjohn: District 19
- Gerald Hocker: District 20
State House Candidates
Kevin Hensley: District 9
Judith Travis: District 10
Jeff Spiegleman: District 11
Debbie Hudson: District 12
James Louis DeMartino: District 14
James R. Startzman, Jr: District 19
Stephan Smyk: District 20
Mike Ramone: District 21
Joesph E. Miro: District 22
Timothy Conrad: District 24
Michael Nagorski: District 25
Janice Gallagher: District 29
William Outten: District 30
Jean Dowding: District 31
Patricia Foltz: District 32
Charles Postles: District 33
Lyndon Yearick: District 34
David Wilson: District 35
Harvey Kenton, Jr: District 36
Ruth Briggs King: District 37
Ronald Gray: District 38
Daniel Short: District 39
Timothy Dale Dukes: District 40
Richard Collins: District 41
——–
Perhaps some of you would like to click on some of their links and ask them to respond to you why they still support someone who brazenly lied and is an unregistered sex offender who has the highest position in their party?
By now, you really must begin to wonder what is wrong with them and whether any of them are really fit, or have the moral fiber necessary to represent real people in the people’s government……
For thousands of years, long before America was ever founded. transgendered persons have been using the bathrooms of their choice.
They have been doing so for years under even the moralistic 70’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s and up to now…
Everyone else thought they were in their right restroom, based of course on all outward appearances.
The only reason our media is trying to make mincemeat now, is to divert us from how they were totally the forces responsible for elevating Trump as the Republican nominee.
Obviously, and it makes sense, that some people care if an obvious man is in the female rest room; this is something new to them, and like anything new, it is unsettling. Likewise, having a female stroll into the mens room is equally provocative to some….
But unbeknownest to you, they have been doing it for years. You simply thought they were a man or woman depending in which rest room you were in; you never raised an eyebrow...
If you are in your 40’s and you use a public restroom 3 times a day, then your yearly pee or poop total hits close to 1095. So by age 45 and if we don’t count your visits from age 0 to age 5, you have had 40 years of public toilets….
Which means you have publicly peed or pooped 43,830 times….
Sometimes in public rest rooms I’m the only one there… Other times especially on the New Jersey or JFK turnpike, there have been at least 50 people. So I’ll average it out at five (but we all know this is still a totally randomly selected number.)
Using 5 other people per rest room visit (5 X 43,830), I can say I have now peed and pooped publicly with 219,150 people….. Maybe you were there! :O (Yo! You still got that toilet paper stuck to your pants?)
The best estimate which again is probably pulled out of someone’s (male or female) ass, is that transgenders make up 0.3% of our population…
Today at an estimated American population of 325 million, there would be, if this estimate is correct, 975, 000 active transgenders….
So the probability that any of those you found in your public restroom over your past life was secretly a transgendered person who you naively assumed was of your sex, is 0.3% of those people you shared a public restroom with….
(219,150 X 0.003) = 657.3 people….
Across your life, age 5 to 45, unbeknownest to you… you have peed or pooped with 657 transgenders in close proximity….
Were you raped? Were you propositioned? Were you uncomfortable that while pooping in your stall someone came in whose feet were gender similar to yours, and competed with you for making the worst smell in a stall?
No. You weren’t. You are only upset now, because someone is jerking your nose ring with a twenty foot chain made of galvanized steel.
If you are upset now and think transgendering is an outrage, you should probably take the necessary steps and simply put yourself out of your misery…(Tequila is good for that.) For already by statistics, you’ve experienced it 657 times already….
Now not all of you are 45… So if you want your age appropriate figure to cast around to show Rick Jensen just how smart you are…. take the number 657, divide by 40 years, and then multiply your years post age 5, ..by 16 ……
There you go…
If you really want to do some good in this world… boycott any corporate publication or electronic media, who makes a big deal out of transgenders in bathrooms….Hit their advertisers…
Locally that would mean you should boycott the Boulden Brothers, Horizon, and P. J. Fitzpatrick, then use any another vendor for your HVAC needs… (Those three are Rick Jensen’s biggest advertisers.)
But most likely you won’t care at all… Just like you didn’t the other 657 times you shared a bathroom with a transgender person and didn’t know it…….
In a very horrifying case involving student data, parents of children who were forced to give private information to an outside private entity in order to comply with Common Core, now find, their data is up for sale,… to the highest bidder whomever that might be….
It appears that calm assurances of total privacy made by governors and Secretaries of Education, don’t stand up in bankruptcy court. There,… assets are assets, and must be sold. Student information, it appears is very valuable……
ConnectEDU filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, listing between $10 million and $50 million in liabilities against less than $10 million in assets, according to its petition. Last July, the company was awarded a grant worth nearly $500,000 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to build an innovative technology platform that would empower students to master Common Core standards
Over 20 million student records are at stake. Although the bankrupt company ConnectEDU made assurances that its data would be destroyed in the event of a corporate takeover, it’s new owner does not agree… North Atlantic Capital, a Portland, Me.-based venture capital fund, is arguing that as in all bankruptcy sales, previous agreements are null and void…. The data is an asset and should now belong to the new owners…
The FTC is weighing in on the side of protecting the children… It is arguing that every parent receive a letter and that if the parent checks deleting the data, the new owners will delete the data…. The new owners don’t want to do this…. Just think of 20 million stamps being licked in Boston.
Here is where it stands…
The current law, which has been in effect since Alexander Hamilton, says the data now goes to the new owner who can do with it, whatever he wishes….
The FTC is trying to use moral tactics bullying the investors into doing the right thing…
It could go either way.
All I’m saying here…. is we told you so… Once the genie gets out of the box…. there is no putting her back….. Once your child’s data goes on to the internet, there is no getting it back.
(Red Clay and Wilmington Charter Schools paid $10,550 this year to ConnectEDU…. and $10,060 the previous year) Those children’s data is now up for sale.
We told you so….
As you all know, there are several Supreme Court decisions due this term regarding the ability of corporations or personal businesses to express their religiosity in defiance of the law of the land. One is Hobby Lobby which thinks it should not be required to practice something that is against their religion. The second is today’s “stay” on whether Catholic Organizations have to dispense something their religion completely disavows; birth control.
On one hand we will hear the drums of how religion is being imposed upon by the government. On the other hand we will hear how those employed by these employers, have the right to choice just as do their bosses….
Let us look at the first plank: how religion is being imposed upon by the government. As is been oft repeated, the Constitution as originally written said rather little about the right to religion. However, it IS in the Bill of Rights, which because they were a necessary addition added to get the Constitution garnering enough votes, one can loosely say, the original Constitution deals with religion…
And as is oft repeated with every controversy, the First Amendment states as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot say: “This year’s official religion will be Pentecostal. All other religions are hereby abolished”. This may sound far fetched to us, but was a real factor in the daily lives of the colonists before the nation was forged. Quakers were ostracized by Episcopalians. Catholics were beset with punitive laws except in Maryland. If you needed to go before the state or county courthouse, you had to be of that area’s official religion, before you could get heard… True, dat.
The second part, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; is where the argument will be directed. Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, both have similar arguments which are as follows.
“WE don’t believe sex should be had for enjoyment. Our religion is anti-sex. If we have to dispense or are required to pay for people to commit sex without the consequence of pregnancy or a viral AIDS infection, we are having our free exercise of religion being prohibited….”
More clearly put: our religion demands that we prohibit sex for enjoyment wherever it “pops” up. If you stop us from prohibiting enjoyable sex, you are interfering with our religion.
In the matter of text, they have a point. If their religion does indeed demand that they stop everyone from having enjoyable sex, then the government in stepping in to stop them from stopping some amazing sex, is depriving them of their religious rights. So we should conceive that they have a textual point….. Before the Obamacare, religion was not impinged. Now it is.
The next step is to see if that point is relevant with the norms of today’s society. As an extreme case, allowing a quirky religious sect to burn their babies alive because “it is called for by their religion” would be a case where the harm done to a citizen of the United States of America against their will, would outweigh in society’s eyes the harm being done to the religiosity of those practicing such a barbarity. Burning witches at a stake would suffice as an example as well.
There is obvious a gray area then where government must trample on religion and religion finds it must interfere with government.
We can use the extreme case above of burning witches. One could say that happened in Delaware in 2010. (lol. Our witch got burned bad.) Here we have a case where one religion (the witch burning one) interferes with the other religion (the witch one). When you have two opposite religions, the government has to look at other laws other than religion to determine policy. In this case, murder. Correct?
So the correct assessment is that since both religious issues cancel each other out, then the factor of murder by default becomes the deciding one. The witch-burning religion is in the wrong by existing laws on the books (murder) and therefore it must stop its practice. Was it’s bizarre form of religion impinged upon by government? Absolutely. And for good reason; it was murder.
So we now have precedence of government making necessary impositions upon any religious practices that harm society. Yet there is still no imposition upon ones beliefs. You can still “believe” that burning witches is your goal in life, but you just can’t carry it out. It hurts other people.
So the defense of the law by the government must not focus on the rights of these religious petitioners. but should solely focus on that harm which if allowed to go forward, that religion will impinge upon all those millions of people who are not in either sect, and who will suffer at the hands of any court decision favoring either sect’s quixotic religious preferences.
They have First Amendment rights too…. such as in having our Government abridging the freedom of speech…
The courts have long upheld that “expression” was the founding father’s meaning of “speech”. Porn doesn’t move it’s lips but is a form of expression protected by the Supreme Court. Just like that Pat Robertson of the 700 Club doesn’t move his lips, but is also considered a form of expression protected by the Supreme Court. Art is expression. Music is expression. Love is expression…
Likewise there are reasonable limits to the right to expression, again, determined by society’s norms. Going nude in a public school is not good. There are reasons that is against the law. Playing music too loud on Newark’s Main Street is not good. There are reasons that is against the law. Graffiti in the Bank of America building, not good. There are reasons that would be against the law.
So the argument made before the court will be two fold; what is harmful or non harmful to each side, and what society’s norms will dictate, whether one or another is extreme when compared to the norm of society….
Therefore this becomes a moral question, not one of logic. After all, both sides think logic is on their side. And I think all will boil down to something said by the last Pope, Pope Benedict….
He stated something along the lines, “that people have to eat; and to eat, they have to work.” If work is abundant, perhaps one can leave one employer and go to another which they prefer. But if work is scarce, they are bound to hang on to that job no matter what external factors line up to batter them. If there is one job in town, and the boss halves the wages, one has to accept it. If there is one job in town, and the boss demands sexual favors for one to keep it, one has to acquiesce because there is no other alternative.
So for every religious nun or Hobby Lobby business owner who wishes to buck the current law, there are those countless employees working for them who will get hurt if their employer gets any exception to the current law simply because their religion states “it” is against all enjoyable sex.
Those employees working for these bosses, can’t have enjoyable sex because of the religiosity of their employers…. ” I’m sorry Hon, but because I work for Hobby Lobby, we can’t do it for another 15 days… Just hold it inside, will you?”
Their expression, in the privacy of their home, is impinged… While yet…the religious owners expression in the privacy of THEIR homes, is not affected by one bit…
Since one side is negatively affected in private by the consequences of not having contraception reimbursed, and the other side is not, it seems imperative that a thoughtful, logical, non-judgmental court, would decide to protect those who are hurt, at the expense of those who are doing the hurting….
Remember: it is still the insurance companies who are paying for all these sexual items; not the employers themselves; there is no harm to the employers if this policy goes forward. They are not in anyway contributing any harm to themselves. Just like if they burned witches….
Those they are affecting, do get harmed…. Not being allowed to enjoy sex because of your luck at being hired by one employer over another, surely trumps whether that employer feels slightly “miffed” that he is required to insure his employees and that insurance will allow them to enjoy the wonders of sex without getting pregnant or getting viral AIDS.
AIDS kills, like being burned at the stake. Being allowed to stand around the fire going “tsk, tsk” should not become our nation’s definition of what “religion” is all about……
Up until he had this one teacher, he was a good student. For 10 years in the public school system, he and been in the top 5% of his class.
Then, he was put in a tenth grade government with a Tea Party ideologue as the teacher. Being a good student, he challenged her assertions: that climate change was liberal propaganda; that SNAP was a communist program, that Medicare and Medicaid needed to be eliminated, that the markets were the sole determination of character, that we needed to get rid of every environmental law, that blacks were born dumb and no schooling would rectify that, that Mexicans needed to be gassed in concentration camps because it was too expensive to ship them back…
This was the first year of inBloom and every teacher was asked to fill out data on each of their students. There were 400 data fields that needed to be filled out, including grades, attendance records, academic subjects, course levels, disabilities. Administrators can also upload certain details that students or parents may be comfortable sharing with teachers, but not with unknown technology vendors. InBloom’s data elements, for instance, include family relationships (“foster parent” or “father’s significant other” or “mother’s fourth husband”) and reasons for enrollment changes (“withdrawn due to illness” or “leaving school as a victim of a serious violent incident”)
One privacy lawyer, said she was particularly troubled by the disciplinary details that could be uploaded to inBloom because its system included subjective designations like “perpetrator,” “victim” and “principal watch list.”
And that is what happened to our former good student. He is now in prison.
Did you know that solely because of Common Core, that parents no longer control their child’s data if it was gathered electronically? As in the case of this student, they don’t even know what is stored under his name in Amazon’s cloud, and from there, it can spread now far as the eye can see… Future colleges! Future employers! Future Advertisers! Remember all those privacy forms you have to sign? They are only valid for information on paper. When it comes to electronics, they simply “Do Not Apply!”
In Delaware, thank Dave Sokola.