Thursday, October 28, 2010

Watch This

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

To be fair, I don't think Mark Kirk actually identifies with the Tea Party...Although he is trying to keep black people in Chicago from voting in this election so there is that.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Republican Stormtrooper Thug Squads at it Again

This just only a few feet from Ru Paul himself and only a couple weeks after a reporter in Alaska was handcuffed and illegally detained for asking another Teabagger, Joe Wilson a question. Isn't that what they do in Iran? With the assault rifles and everything else this is starting to make the Bush years and his war of terror look like Disney Land. And these are the guys worried about the powers of a big government?? Imagine how they will operate when they are the government!!

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

This is Gold

Wow, if she looked like Chris Coons, no one would have ever heard of Christine O'donnell. But, since she gives red state men boners and reminds them of the good ol days of bimbo house wives, we have people like her and Palin providing such great political comedy.

But I have to admit, I get where she is trying to go with this; it doesn't specifically say "The church and state are always separate" in the First Amendment. And in asking where this clause is found, I would tell her it was right next to the word "hand gun and machine gun" clause in the Second Amendment and the words "God" and "Christian" in any other part of the Constitution.

Not every issue in the modern world is addressed in the Constitution. Internet porn for instance is never mentioned in the Constitution and it is legal nor is the idea that Corporations are people and that they have the same rights, just not the same responsibilities as people even though all the people within that corporation already have their individual rights to contribute to and support any candidate of their choosing. So, I never read any where in the Constitution that says owners of corporations get to have their say twice as much as people who do not have a corporation but the activist judges in the Supreme Court have looked at the Constitution and interpreted it as such to where they believe these rights should apply to corporations just as many wiser Justices in the past have looked at the Constitution, studied it, studied the writings of the authors of the Constitution, studied what they were trying to get away from in Europe, and determined that their intentions, as stated in Thomas Jefferson's writings, were to create a country where the church and state remain separate. Not only that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", is pretty clear that the United States cannot endorse a religion or religious beliefs and principals and further more, that no one can be judged on or by religious principles and in Article 6 of the Constitution they even drive this point home further by adding this clause: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" which essentially states that no religion has any authority over the federal government.

Ironically, her being a tea bagger and all, what is also in the Constitution is the 16th Amendment which gives Congress the power to levy an income tax. So not only do many Tea Baggers and conservatives want to get rid of taxes, they apparently want to scrap the entire Constitution as well. They want to rewrite, the 1st Amendment, the 16th Amendment, Article 6 and now even the 14th Amendment. So, why is it ok for them to actually want to change all these components of the Constitution but when someone says that perhaps the founding fathers didn't intend on 16 year olds being able to walk into a K-Mart and walk out with military style hand guns which can fire 1200 armor piercing bullets per minute and take it to school, they flip their shit and pretend they are staunch Constitutionalists and go on about the founding fathers, blah, blah, blah??

The next time some conservative Tea Bagger talks about being a Constitutionalist, give them a good ole fashioned cock punching.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Legalize It!

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results
Street drug related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

By Brian Vastag April 7, 2009 89

DRUG PLAN: Portugal decriminalized the use and possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illicit street drugs in an attempt to cut down on related deaths and infections.

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.

"Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination."

Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. .

A spokesperson for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office's new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also declined to comment on the report.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Just In Case You Thought This Had Something to Do With Obama

How ironic, with all the shit Bush did in his Constitution shredding days, the title of this is "Impeach Obama Now", as if he has anything to do with it and if he did, I am sure some slut on Faux News or the idiot who posted this knows more about the law than someone with a JD from Harvard Law and who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

A. This has nothing to do with Obama

B. Faux News blames the weather on Obama. Faux News isn’t real news; just because some blonde bimbo (plagiarist, radio talk show host who by the way was an assistant to the crook, Richard Nixon) who doesn’t know anything says Obama is “waging war” against a state, doesn’t make it so.

C. I like how they have a problem with the violation of “American sovereignty” but have no problem with the violation of American’s or anyone else’s civil rights.

D. No, this has nothing to do with legal vs. Illegal, it has everything to do with giving more power to the government and law enforcement to pull over anyone they want, without probable cause. I thought these idiots were supposed to be anti-government??

E. No one is at war with anyone, besides Arizona being at war against Mexicans and brown people like they always have.

F. Ironically, the Chief Judge of the 9th circuit court of appeals is Alex Kozinski, appointed by Mr. Amnesty himself, Ronald Reagan…Again, nothing to do with Obama.

Spare me the phony outrage.