So, you guys have a problem with 🔫 but not 🚬 or 🔪 or 💣 or 💊 or 💉 or 🔨? Seriously, liberal idiots, stop trying to take away our constitutional right to bear arms, even if it’s just an emoji. liberallogic101 your-uncle-dave southparkconservative proudblackconservative

casual announcement that i might be taking urls of warframe bloggers who are referencing caitlyn jenner’s old name in regards to equinox. also casual announcement that i might make all of those urls public here on this blog.

i never was intending to be a callout blog. it’s not what i do.

but when you use someone’s name in a derogatory manner, which by doing so can insult and wound more people than you can imagine, including myself, then i’m going to do whatever i can to ensure that aforementioned offending users are written clearly for people to block.

rightly so.

if it’s within your ‘constitutional rights’ to say what you want, then it remains my right to call you out on it, right here, where the warframe devs will see it.

supermatt001 asked:

What's your stance so far? Do you want rifles available?

I don’t believe in taking away the constitutional right to bear arms. I don’t believe that eliminating guns will eliminate violence. I think that’s as ignorant as “the war on drugs.” I do, however, believe in care, attention, and education. And that’s the end of this discussion.

Some Quick Info on Petitioning & Advocacy Groups

The first thing you need to realize is that the President doesn’t have the power to overturn a sentence by a jury, so he wouldn’t be able to take away the death penalty for Jahar. The only action he can take would be to grant clemency, but that will never happen, so….

But there’s nothing saying you can’t write to him and voice your concerns. All correspondence should be mailed to:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Of course, since we’re in the internet age, the White House also has a contact form on their website.

As Americans we have the Constitutional right to petition our government, as noted in the 1st amendment:

“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.”

The easiest way to do this is by starting a petition directly to the White House. Once these petitions reach 100,000 signatures they (the White House) are required to respond.

The surest way to ensure that an execution is not followed through with is to end the death penalty. Through recent years this country has seen public support for the death penalty on a huge decline. As long as the numbers keep falling the government (state and federal) will have to address the issue.

There is somewhat of a de facto moratorium on the death penalty on a federal level right now. They’re having problems finding the execution drugs needed and have been tasked by President Obama to re-evaluate the entire capital punishment system. (And if you pay attention you know how slow the federal government moves on anything, right?) I wouldn’t worry about this sentence being carried out “soon.” He’s got years of appeals in front of him. Maybe in this time span the government will open their eyes and end the death penalty once and for all. But it won’t happen unless people continue to make their voices heard.

Amnesty International is usually the first group people think about when it comes to death penalty abolition. They do wonderful work all over the world when it comes to fighting for human rights.

National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (@NCADP) (I personally love them.) They’re in charge of the 90 Million Strong campaign. Check them out!

There’s also the World Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (WCADP) for those outside of the U.S.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is working to end the death penalty via their Capital Punishment Project.

There’s also Sister Helen Prejean’s Ministry Against the Death Penalty. Even if you aren’t Catholic, you have to admit she does great work. If you ever have the chance to attend one of her talks, do it! You will not be sorry.

For more information on the death penalty in the United States, check out the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). A wealth of knowledge there.

And remember: while this is a death penalty case we’re essentially advocating for, Jahar’s is not only about the death penalty. Being housed at ADX he is also being subjected to the inhumanity that is solitary confinement at America’s worst prison. There are many campaigns to end solitary, as it is a human rights abuse, as well as other needed prison reforms.

The aforementioned ACLU and Amnesty International both have ongoing campaigns (linked) to end solitary confinement.

Solitary Watch is another group doing good work.

Tonight I will make a separate page with all of this information and links (and more! - these are the ones that popped into my head) for easy access.

philosophyofmiracle asked:

thank you so much for this blog. I thought I was weird for not finding anything good or interesting in porn, but fortunately i'm not. I scrolled down your blog and reached the post where a man said that he needs porn to cum so he won't have to rape and I'm completely shocked. as if masturbating watching other (mostly exploited) people having sex were a primary need or else they'll die. because "without porn it takes longer". I can't even find the words to comment this nonsense. it's disgusting

not sure how old you are, but millennial men were raised to see porn as their birthright. they possibly think it’s a constitutional right. also, a lot of the language on the porn sites reinforces the framework of “you need this” “you deserve this” “you are a real guy now.”  rebecca whisnant at the U of Dayton has studied this feature of porn…the way the text alongside the pictures fucks with the guy’s brain. 

anyway, i am from a different generation, and so I remember what life was like before the mainstreaming of porn and the internet. and it was nothing like this.

The First Amendment does not protect you from:

  • Criticism: If you’re a comedian who makes a bad rape joke, people are allowed to point out that you’re not funny as well as an asshole.
  • Shame: If you tweet something racist about President Obama on your public Twitter account that’s connected to your first and last name, people are allowed to say that is bad.
  • The Right to Anonymity: If you take creepy photos of women without their consent and post them on Reddit, people are allowed to try and figure out who you are and post your information on the internet. No one is entitled to anonymity. It’s up to you whether to make it easy for people to find you.
  • Mockery: If you put yourself out there that means your peers (and news outlets) have the right to LOL and comment.
  • Consequences: If you publicly express yourself in a manner that is offensive, hurtful, or just plain dumb, strangers might contact your friends/family/school/employer and tell them what you did. That is not infringing on your right to free speech; it’s pointing out how you choose to exercise that right. Like the rest of the federal constitution, the First Amendment protects us from the government, not from private companies, which may be able to fire or otherwise punish you for stuff you say, even if it’s outside of work. The laws protecting the free speech of private employees vary from state to state, aside from specifically protected speech like labor organizing. Here are some guidelines for public employees and students.

via An Idiot’s Guide to Free Speech


Today in #FergusonOctober (10.22.14): Day 75 and the resistance continues. After being denied entrance to a public meeting, protesters in St Louis occupy the county police headquarters, demanding justice for Mike Brown and for their constitutional right to assemble peacefully AND their rights as citizens to attend/participate in local government. This is power in action. This is a movement. #staywoke #farfromover

Seriously, the image of bdoulaoblongata is one of the most powerful I’ve ever seen. It’s been 75 days. Where has there even been a glimmer of justice in Ferguson? The pain is real.

Palestinians understand, from so fucking far away, that this is RACISM.
And so many fuckwads in the United States do NOT.

A lot of my family in Mexico was so shocked to hear me say that I hate the United States while I was there visiting them last month. “How could you hate the United States?”

Well this is how. The US is fucked, and almost everyone can see it except for the fucking US.

I interrupt a long-term hiatus to help raise awareness towards the new Copyright Laws that might come into effect starting next week unless we join efforts to stop it. 

A friend and fellow artist, Will Terry, has joined forces with Brad Holland to help us understand what this Copyright Law is all about, here is their message:

Orphan Works in a Nutshell:

- Congress is drafting a new US Copyright Act. If passed, it would replace current US Copyright law. There isn’t any bill yet, but the Copyright Office has issued its recommendations for one. Their Report is 234 pages long and is very complicated, so it’s risky to try reducing it to a few words. But here’s a summary of its basic features:

  • It would void your Constitutional right to the EXCLUSIVE CONTROL of YOUR work.
  • It would effectively reverse the default premise of copyright law; which means…
  • It would make the public’s right to use your work its defining goal; which means…
  • You would have to make your work available to the public.
  • You would have to do this by registering every picture you want to retain the rights to with for-profit registries.
  • Unregistered work would be considered legally “orphaned.”
  • Orphaned work would be available for commercial infringement by “good faith” infringers.
  • Good faith infringers would be anyone who believed they had made a “reasonably diligent,” but unsuccessful effort to find you.
  • Infringers could also ALTER your work and copyright the “derivative works” in their own names.
  • This would affect all visual art: drawings, paintings, sketches, photos, etc.; past, present and future; published and unpublished; domestic and foreign.
  • It would include family snapshots and any picture or work you ever put on the Internet.
  • The Copyright Office acknowledges that this would pose special “challenges” for visual artists…
  • But they conclude that it’s in the public interest for your work to be available for anyone to use.

The Copyright Office has also recommended the following:

  • Mass Digitization of the world’s intellectual property by corporate interests.
  • Extended Collective Licensing, a form of socialized corporate licensing that would replace voluntary agreements between artists and clients.
  • A Copyright Small Claims Court to handle the expected flood of orphan works lawsuits.

         —> The deadline is This Thursday, July 23, 2015″ <—


  • Write a letter —> HERE <— Let them know why this isn’t a good idea!
  • Don’t know what to write? Here are Letter samples 
  • SHARE this information as much as you can! 


This Copyright Act could affect all kinds of creators!! 

Ohio public school brainwashes 8 year olds: "Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

So much for “inalienable rights” that are “endowed by our Creator”! The public school district of Fairfield in Butler County, Ohio is teaching students that rights come from the government.  

Just look at this homework assignment posted on Facebook by one concerned father:

“Rights are special privileges the government gives you.”
“Because the government gives us rights, we have the duty to be good citizens.”
“Someday you will be given the right to vote.”

Here’s what Andrew Washburn, the parent who posted the assignment on Facebook, had to say:

So Emma brought home a very interesting handout from school the other day. So informative! I didn’t know that our rights come from the government! Thank you, government! And thank you, public schools, for teaching my eight year old daughter all about her rights! You see, I know how important it is to get to children early in their lives and make sure they understand how it is in the world. Otherwise their impressionable minds might be corrupted by falsehoods like the idea that our rights come from our Creator and that we are born with them. That, obviously, would be unacceptable. I mean, next we would have, what? People going to church wherever they wanted? Criticizing the President? Where would it end?! It’d be mass hysteria, just like with those clowns back in 1776!

So, again, I just feel so grateful to live in a country whose leaders have generously granted my rights, and even more grateful that they make sure my children know where those rights came from!

The whole point of “inalienable rights” as opposed to the government granting rights is that government can’t take away inalienable rights.  They are inherent.  They are given to you by the Creator. Our founders write this into the Declaration of Independence. The US Constitution lays out limitations on the government, not the citizens.  The entire point of our nation’s revolution and founding was to fight back against an oppressive government that infringed upon the rights of the people.

Liberal Progressives want children to grow up believing that they get their rights from the government because that belief lessens the opposition when government tries to take those rights away.
The disappeared: Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden 'black site'

The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

Alleged police practices at Homan Square, according to those familiar with the facility who spoke out to the Guardian after its investigation into Chicago police abuse, include:

  • Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.

  • Beating by police, resulting in head wounds.

  • Shackling for prolonged periods.

  • Denying attorneys access to the “secure” facility.

  • Holding people without legal counsel for between 12 and 24 hours, including people as young as 15.

At least one man was found unresponsive in a Homan Square “interview room” and later pronounced dead.

Brian Jacob Church, a protester known as one of the “Nato Three”, was held and questioned at Homan Square in 2012 following a police raid. Officers restrained Church for the better part of a day, denying him access to an attorney, before sending him to a nearby police station to be booked and charged.

“Homan Square is definitely an unusual place,” Church told the Guardian on Friday. “It brings to mind the interrogation facilities they use in the Middle East. The CIA calls them black sites. It’s a domestic black site. When you go in, no one knows what’s happened to you.”

The secretive warehouse is the latest example of Chicago police practices that echo the much-criticized detention abuses of the US war on terrorism. While those abuses impacted people overseas, Homan Square – said to house military-style vehicles, interrogation cells and even a cage – trains its focus on Americans, most often poor, black and brown.

Unlike a precinct, no one taken to Homan Square is said to be booked. Witnesses, suspects or other Chicagoans who end up inside do not appear to have a public, searchable record entered into a database indicating where they are, as happens when someone is booked at a precinct. Lawyers and relatives insist there is no way of finding their whereabouts. Those lawyers who have attempted to gain access to Homan Square are most often turned away, even as their clients remain in custody inside.

“It’s sort of an open secret among attorneys that regularly make police station visits, this place – if you can’t find a client in the system, odds are they’re there,” said Chicago lawyer Julia Bartmes.

Chicago civil-rights attorney Flint Taylor said Homan Square represented a routinization of a notorious practice in local police work that violates the fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution.

“This Homan Square revelation seems to me to be an institutionalization of the practice that dates back more than 40 years,” Taylor said, “of violating a suspect or witness’ rights to a lawyer and not to be physically or otherwise coerced into giving a statement.”

Much remains hidden about Homan Square. The Chicago police department has not responded to any of the Guardian’s recent questions – neither about any aspect of operations at Homan Square, nor about the Guardian’s investigation of Richard Zuley, the retired Chicago detective turned Guantánamo Bay torturer. (On Monday evening, it instead provided a statement to MSNBC regarding the Guardian’s Zuley investigation: “The vast majority of our officers serve the public with honor and integrity,” said the statement, adding that the department “has zero tolerance for misconduct, and has instituted a series of internal initiatives and reforms, to ensure past incidents of police misconduct are not repeated”. Without providing any specifics, it claimed “the allegations in this instance are not supported by the facts.”)

When a Guardian reporter arrived at the warehouse on Friday, a man at the gatehouse outside refused any entrance and would not answer questions. “This is a secure facility. You’re not even supposed to be standing here,” said the man, who refused to give his name.

A former Chicago police superintendent and a more recently retired detective, both of whom have been inside Homan Square in the last few years in a post-police capacity, said the police department did not operate out of the warehouse until the late 1990s.

But in detailing episodes involving their clients over the past several years, lawyers described mad scrambles that led to the closed doors of Homan Square, a place most had never heard of previously. The facility was even unknown to Rob Warden, the founder of Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, until the Guardian informed him of the allegations of clients who vanish into inherently coercive police custody.

“They just disappear,” said Anthony Hill, a criminal defense attorney, “until they show up at a district for charging or are just released back out on the street.”

Jacob Church learned about Homan Square the hard way. On May 16 2012, he and 11 others were taken there after police infiltrated their protest against the Nato summit. Church says officers cuffed him to a bench for an estimated 17 hours, intermittently interrogating him without reading his Miranda rights to remain silent. It would take another three hours – and an unusual lawyer visit through a wire cage – before he was finally charged with terrorism-related offenses at the nearby 11th district station, where he was made to sign papers, fingerprinted and photographed.

In preparation for the Nato protest, Church, who is from Florida, had written a phone number for the National Lawyers Guild on his arm as a precautionary measure. Once taken to Homan Square, Church asked explicitly to call his lawyers, and said he was denied.

“Essentially, I wasn’t allowed to make any contact with anybody,” Church told the Guardian, in contradiction of a police guidance on permitting phone calls and legal counsel to arrestees.

Church’s left wrist was cuffed to a bar behind a bench in windowless cinderblock cell, with his ankles cuffed together. He remained in those restraints for about 17 hours.

“I had essentially figured, ‘All right, well, they disappeared us and so we’re probably never going to see the light of day again,’” Church said.

Though the raid attracted major media attention, a team of attorneys could not find Church through 12 hours of “active searching”, Sarah Gelsomino, Church’s lawyer, recalled. No booking record existed. Only after she and others made a “major stink” with contacts in the offices of the corporation counsel and Mayor Rahm Emanuel did they even learn about Homan Square.

They sent another attorney to the facility, where he ultimately gained entry, and talked to Church through a floor-to-ceiling chain-link metal cage. Finally, hours later, police took Church and his two co-defendants to a nearby police station for booking.

After serving two and a half years in prison, Church is currently on parole after he and his co-defendants were found not guilty in 2014 of terrorism-related offenses but guilty of lesser charges of possessing an incendiary device and the misdemeanor of “mob action”.

The access that Nato Three attorneys received to Homan Square was an exception to the rule, even if Jacob Church’s experience there was not.

Three attorneys interviewed by the Guardian report being personally turned away from Homan Square between 2009 and 2013 without being allowed access to their clients. Two more lawyers who hadn’t been physically denied described it as a place where police withheld information about their clients’ whereabouts. Church was the only person who had been detained at the facility who agreed to talk with the Guardian: their lawyers say others fear police retaliation.

One man in January 2013 had his name changed in the Chicago central bookings database and then taken to Homan Square without a record of his transfer being kept, according to Eliza Solowiej of Chicago’s First Defense Legal Aid. (The man, the Guardian understands, wishes to be anonymous; his current attorney declined to confirm Solowiej’s account.) She found out where he was after he was taken to the hospital with a head injury.

“He said that the officers caused his head injuries in an interrogation room at Homan Square. I had been looking for him for six to eight hours, and every department member I talked to said they had never heard of him,” Solowiej said. “He sent me a phone pic of his head injuries because I had seen him in a police station right before he was transferred to Homan Square without any.”

Bartmes, another Chicago attorney, said that in September 2013 she got a call from a mother worried that her 15-year-old son had been picked up by police before dawn. A sympathetic sergeant followed up with the mother to say her son was being questioned at Homan Square in connection to a shooting and would be released soon. When hours passed, Bartmes traveled to Homan Square, only to be refused entry for nearly an hour.

An officer told her, “Well, you can’t just stand here taking notes, this is a secure facility, there are undercover officers, and you’re making people very nervous,” Bartmes recalled. Told to leave, she said she would return in an hour if the boy was not released. He was home, and not charged, after “12, maybe 13” hours in custody.

On February 2, 2013, John Hubbard was taken to Homan Square. Hubbard never walked out. The Chicago Tribune reported that the 44-year old was found “unresponsive inside an interview room”, and pronounced dead. The Cook County medical examiner’s office could not locate any record for the Guardian indicating a cause of Hubbard’s death. It remains unclear why Hubbard was ever in police custody.

Homan Square is hardly concerned exclusively with terrorism. Several special units operate outside of it, including the anti-gang and anti-drug forces. If police “want money, guns, drugs”, or information on the flow of any of them onto Chicago’s streets, “they bring them there and use it as a place of interrogation off the books,” Hill said.

Regardless of departmental regulations, police frequently deny or elide access to lawyers even at regular police precincts, said Solowiej of First Defense Legal Aid. But she said the outright denial was exacerbated at Chicago’s secretive interrogation and holding facility: “It’s very, very rare for anyone to experience their constitutional rights in Chicago police custody, and even more so at Homan Square,” Solowiej said.

Church said that one of his more striking memories of Homan Square was the “big, big vehicles” police had inside the complex that “look like very large MRAPs that they use in the Middle East.”

Cook County, home of Chicago, has received some 1,700 pieces of military equipment from a much-criticized Pentagon program transferring military gear to local police. It includes a Humvee, according to a local ABC News report.

Tracy Siska, a criminologist and civil-rights activist with the Chicago Justice Project, said that Homan Square, as well as the unrelated case of ex-Guantánamo interrogator and retired Chicago detective Richard Zuley, showed the lines blurring between domestic law enforcement and overseas military operations.

“The real danger in allowing practices like Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib is the fact that they always creep into other aspects,” Siska said.

“They creep into domestic law enforcement, either with weaponry like with the militarization of police, or interrogation practices. That’s how we ended up with a black site in Chicago.”

Hey, NRA. About That Second Amendment...

If you don’t happen to have the Bill of Rights memorized, here’s the text of the Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the Amendment’s argument is this: we need to keep the state secure, which requires a functioning militia, which requires the people be allowed to bear arms. Fine.

If we cut out the ambiguous middleman, the word “militia,” it’s clear that the Founding Father’s saw the right to bear arms as essential to the security of the state. However, security is also the only (explicitly stated) reason to protect this right.

So…I don’t see how the amendment necessarily protects the NRA’s objective of “furthering the shooting sports”—that’s a recreational thing, not a security thing, which was (seemingly) the whole point of allowing gun use.

And if recreational gun use can actually undermine national security, limiting the right to bear arms wouldn’t be unprecedented. After all, even the First Amendment is limited by the “clear and present danger” test.

Anyway, I’m just throwing things out there. Do with it what you will.