proudblackconservative asked:

Somebody just told me that being pro-life was anti-constitutional because making someone go through labor was equal to torture and therefore a violation of the 8th amendment, and also "reproductive slavery", a violation of the 13th amendment. How do people get this clueless? Do you think it hurts?

Pro-choicers spin facts more than a DJ spins records.

FBI admits ZERO major terror cases have been cracked with Patriot Act snooping

This has long been a talking point from those of us who strongly advocate that the Patriot Act and the NSA’s various domestic spying programs are an ineffective menace against the 4th Amendment rights of Americans, but it’s pretty amazing that the FBI is now admitting it. 

from Washington Times:

FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked thanks to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act, the Justice Department’s inspector general said in a report Thursday that could complicate efforts to keep key parts of the law operating.

Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said that between 2004 and 2009, the FBI tripled its use of bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows government agents to compel businesses to turn over records and documents, and increasingly scooped up records of Americans who had no ties to official terrorism investigations.

The FBI did finally come up with procedures to try to minimize the information it was gathering on nontargets, but it took far too long, Mr. Horowitz said in the 77-page report, which comes just as Congress is trying to decide whether to extend, rewrite or entirely nix Section 215.

Backers say the Patriot Act powers are critical and must be kept intact, particularly with the spread of the threat from terrorists. But opponents have doubted the efficacy of Section 215, particularly when it’s used to justify bulk data collection such as in the case of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program, revealed in leaks from former government contractor Edward Snowden.

The new report adds ammunition to those opponents, with the inspector general concluding that no major cases have been broken by use of the Patriot Act’s records-snooping provisions.

“The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders,” the inspector general concluded — though he said agents did view the material they gathered as “valuable” in developing other leads or corroborating information.

read the rest

It’s time to abolish the Patriot Act completely and restore the privacy rights of Americans.  Mass domestic spying does not keep us safe, it only violates the rights of ordinary hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens.

youtube

Former USSR Citizen Schools a Trotskyist History Student on Capitalism 

Lord, if this little idiot isn’t the typical Tumblr commie, I don’t know what is.

Nobody is allowed to read the trade bill the GOP is pushing with Obama

This kind of garbage makes me furious.  For all the GOP’s crowing about “read the bill” and their pledge to make every bill public before voting on it, Mitch McConnell is pushing for the Senate to pass Obama’s trade bill, and nobody seems to know what’s in it.

from Breitbart:

Democrat Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(MA) went to the Senate floor to push for immediate consideration of a bill that would make the Obamatrade text public — right now Congress has to go to a secured room to review the text and can’t take notes out or discuss what is in it with the public. That motion failed when Sen. Orrin Hatch objected, since it required unanimous consent.

The two Democrats even praised President George W. Bush, who released his free trade text in 2001. Today, President Obama, who promised to have the most transparent administration in history, is not releasing his deal.

“We’re just asking for some transparency before we have this crucial vote,” said Warren.

She said people have heard a lot about the trade bill, but haven’t seen it. The press hasn’t seen it, neither have economists or legal experts because the Administration making it impossible any of those people to read it.

“We should keep the deal secret because if the details were made public now, the public would oppose it,” mocked Warren. “Well, that’s not how our democracy is supposed to work.

read the rest

What’s worse is that further down in the Breitbart article, Orrin Hatch admits that he doesn’t know what’s in the bill either.  He opposed Warren’s read the bill motion because he was been a good foot-soldier and following orders.

I can’t believe that I’m saying this: Elizabeth Warren is right about this one.  I have no clue what’s in this bill, and she’s 100% justified in demanding time for the public to read the bill and evaluate its contents. 

Even if the contents of this bill are completely benign, I can’t support it because I’m not allowed to read it.  There is no excuse for this kind of secrecy, and it’s completely justifiable to suspect something malicious is going on behind the scenes. 

Seriously, I don’t think there is something this guy can do to make me hate him more. Really, Ted? YOU WON a case against a guy, who wanted an unconstitutional monument removed? GLORY, GLORY, you pig-faced ass-hat.
I hope you enjoyed it. It will be your greatest accomplishment.

Bigot Republican Opposing LGBTQ Youth Conference Doesn’t Even Know What 'LGBTQ' Means (VIDEO)

Bigot Republican Opposing LGBTQ Youth Conference Doesn’t Even Know What ‘LGBTQ’ Means (VIDEO)

Earlier this week, Iowa lawmaker Greg Heartsill ® opposed students’ attendance at the Annual Iowa Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth – and it backfired tremendously when a Democrat called him out for not even knowing what the acronym “LGBTQ” stood for. To protect children from attending this “obscene” LGBTQ Youth Conference, Heartsill offered an amendment that required Iowa students’ parents…

View On WordPress

youtube

Ted Cruz Owns a Reporter in Beaumont, TX on a Gay Gotcha Question

This is how every conservative should respond to these asinine biased media questions.  I hope this reporter feels like the fool that he is after this.

youtube

Health Care: Sanders vs Paul

thehappyambivert asked:

(I coudln't reply to your comment on my post on ISIS so I post my answer here hehe) It is the political correctness and the stupidtiy of the people in my country. Because they would never go out and protest about this publicly. They never complain about anything this country (which is absurd considering the fact hat we are paying + 30% in income tax and our government is going to raise our taxes again). I envy you Americans for raising your voices when you are unhappy.

This cartoon truly depicts accurately too many government officials attitude towards ISIS. It’s so important to speak your mind to anyone who will listen. I just reblogged a really empowering quote, What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people.  

Based off of your blog and how well-spoken you are, I think it would be an absolute shame for you to not share your ideas of freedom with even the most palace-guarding loyalist. (Where are you from again? I feel badly asking since we’ve been mutuals for so long) Reagan once said “I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things.” Who knows?! you could start Thehappyambivert revolution ;) Countries restrict people from talking about such a “radical” idea as freedom. Whether it’s by way of brute force or political correctness, it requires cooperation to fulfill its tyrannical purposes. In many ways, political correctness is more dangerous than brute force because it falsely leads people to believe that its sole purpose is to protect the emotions of others.  

Like Andrew Jackson once said; “One man with courage makes a majority.” 

Keep fighting the good fight 

Meanwhile, at the sociologist’s home institution, a “scientific misconduct” inquiry prompted by a hostile non-scholarly ideologue is undertaken, and the sociologist is cleared completely after a thorough review of his methods and even his correspondence. His double vindication, however—by the journal that published his work and the university where he works—makes little headway against the howling media denunciation of his “debunked” research. (This is a world where “we hate your results” means the same thing as “they’re invalid.”)

Two and a half years later, the same social science journal that published the original study publishes a “re-analysis” of the very same data set (that’s right, no new data collection, just reinterpretation of the admittedly valid stuff). The original study’s creator does one of the peer reviews of the re-analysis and generously green-lights its publication. The new article’s authors claim the original scholar committed “classification errors” because some of the same-sex relationships were very brief, even evanescent affairs, and so what he should have done is what they proceed to do: toss out data until they get a handful of same-sex households where a couple stayed together at least several years. Many of the bad outcomes are washed out in this data-laundering exercise. But, as the original author notes, this is controlling for the pathways, striving to depict as normal something that is almost nonexistent in any meaningful statistical sense: stable, faithful, long-term same-sex couples heading households with children in them and rearing them from early childhood to adulthood.

Still, the media are all over this “re-analysis” as, yes, finally, the “debunking” of the original study that they’ve told us twenty times has already occurred. Of course it is no such thing, and neither were all the previous alleged debunkings, which is why they have to keep seeking do-overs. When the dust clears, what we still know is that kids raised by their own married moms and dads have, on average, the best start in life. But your great-grandma knew that. Hurrah for social science.

A general observation...

Complaining about race in America to liberals: “If you don’t like it, then do something about it to make a change!” 

Complaining about race in America to conservatives: “If you don’t like it, then get out!”