July 2, 2014

Good for TARGET. This should put the Libertarian wingnuts on notice about their other fetish:

PRIVATE PROPERTY!

They want roads, parks. schools and everything to be in private hands, destroying the freedom the Commons allows for networking. And if the owners say no to their speech, their right to travel freely, associate and agitate, hey, they asked for it!

They WILL lose their own rights, but think that's for those 'other people.' BZZZT! Wrong answer!

If you're not a full-fledged millionaire, guess who is the 'other people,' you gleeful members of the insane clown posse?

Yes, I'm talking to you, Bro, and not gonna feel sorry for you, because you wanted to take it from me and mine, first.

Sadly, benighted areas allowing open carry of personal WMD to satisfy the egos of the Kokesh types in our country will continue to create a toxic atmosphere in public venues to keep everyone on edge to control them and silence them with their tantrums. This is simply textbook Crazymaking:

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/12799/1/Mental-Abuse--Tell-Tale-Signs-of-Crazy-Making-Psychological-Abuse.html

Or the Double Bind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

They SAY they want for people to not be afraid of their toys, and bluster about freedom, but it's irrational to believe them. Guns are for war and hunting. We've seen their list of who they want to hunt and it's a very long one.

Too bad if they get their true heart's desire and eliminate the humans on the list, there will be no one to stand up for them when guys with more money and bigger guns come for them. Look at Iraq. History repeats...

It's possible they are so lost in their Faux, Beck and Infowars reality, they really don't know WTH they are creating. They are bordering terrorism with their insistence that only THEIR rights matter. Only their viewpoint counts, no one else had better argue with them. Just like Boko Harum and ISIL. Anyone who dares to oppose them could get this treatment:

Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas

I want to thank the 400K who petitioned TARGET to stop this insanity, and hope for more of it.

July 2, 2014

The Devil Uterus and Hobby Lobby:

I found this in my Hobby Lobby scrapbooking kit:



https://twitter.com/themightylayman/status/483660312139530241/photo/1

EDIT: Image also says: 'Makes Sense.'

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/07/01/slut-shaming-for-the-righteous/

to madokie. Please go to his thread to see the article and the links to this image:

Slut-shaming for the righteous | By Mark Morford

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025182449#op

July 2, 2014

Image from the link posted by themightylayman:

I found this in my Hobby Lobby scrapbooking kit:



https://twitter.com/themightylayman/status/483660312139530241/photo/1

EDIT: Image also says: 'Makes Sense.'

http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/07/01/slut-shaming-for-the-righteous/

Nah, no misogyny there!

Thanks for posting the article by Monford...

July 2, 2014

He looks like he's running, but he's going to work until his job is done:

The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

~ Robert Frost

July 2, 2014

Most interesting part was here:

...in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question...

Beats the SCOTUS hands down for getting to the heart of the matter.

July 2, 2014

Wait until young women (and men) hear what their real agenda is:

The First Feminist President, Barack Obama

by Mandy Van Deven

March 23, 2009



On January 20th the first self-identified feminist was named President of the United States of America. Just two days after taking office, Barack Obama performed his first presidential act of solidarity with women around the world by repealing the Global Gag Rule. Established in 1984 by President Reagan, the Global Gag Rule denies aid to international groups "which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."

The Global Gag Rule has come to be seen as a litmus test of the current US President's stance on women's rights, though it is just one aspect of the complicated story of the impact of American reproductive rights policy in countries around the globe. [17]



After witnessing the impact of President Bush's reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, Michelle Goldberg, journalist, author, and long-time critic of the Bush Administration's policies on sexual and reproductive health, decided that a book about the global battle for reproductive justice was long overdue. So she wrote The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World. [17]

The cover art depicting a woman holding the Earth on her shoulders is more than appropriate for this deeply-researched, historically-informed examination: fifty years worth of research about four continents has convinced Goldberg that women's oppression is at the crux of many of the world's most intractable challenges. She illustrates how US policies act as a catalyst for or an impediment to women's rights worldwide, and puts forth a convincing argument that women's liberation worldwide is key to solving some of our most daunting problems.

"Underlying diverse conflicts - demography, natural resources, human rights, and religious mores - is the question of who controls the means of reproduction," she writes. "Women's intimate lives have become inextricably tied to global forces."

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/03/23/controlling-means-reproduction-an-interview-with-michelle-goldberg/

The war on women is not just a war on women, but on men, too. Men who don't support women's rights are sealing their own fate.

Not just an American problem. It is about global control and reducing all of mankind to commodities.

July 2, 2014

President Obama Taunts Boehner: 'So Sue Me!'

Published on Jul 1, 2014

On Tuesday afternoon, President Barack Obama continued his streak of railing against Republican "obstructionism" in Congress, taunting the rival party for "doing nothing" while threatening legal action against the president to curb executive authority.

Speaking near the Key Bridge in Washington, D.C., Obama implored Congress to continue funding for the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and suggested that the political system is currently rigged in favor of those who aren't in need, by those lawmakers who refuse to take action.

to babylonsister:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5180858

July 2, 2014

And don't let the screen door hit you on the way out, Dittohead Zombies!

July 1, 2014

He got the point... The reason for the First is to protect those with less power, not the powerful.

This decision, like so many since 2000, is all upside down. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v New London:

The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.

NOW let's look at the series of events, as this was a complicated case that was unlike most other eminent domain cases in the past:

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.”

However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump...[2]

That's disgusting and shows it was not a viable plan to help the city. And I doubt the corporation failed to avail itself of tax funded incentive from the city, waivers, low cost loans, whatever. Just like WALMART.

“Kelo” was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes.

In the Kelo case, Connecticut had a statute allowing eminent domain for “economic development” even in the absence of blight.

I'll note here that I've seen cases where cities conspired with private developers to make sure an area was blighted in advance. Minority areas for the most part, with city services denied and corporations or city run utilities conspiring to make neighborhoods less desireable. I saw this process carried out for decades at a time as areas near downtown areas were neglected because the city and the corporations envisioned more skyscrapers.

But I was also pleased and loved to see little old houses with widows living in them, like little oasises of green sitting on their front porch. It stood, bravely defying the high rise commerical buildings that were built right up to the property line, casting a shadow from all sides, unable to deny her beloved plants all the sunshine needed.

Or one time, a very lovely, well maintained old style hotel that was in nice shape that the big corporations wanted removed to build more of their district on, but the woman who owned it resisted and could not be moved, her poor tenants were safe from removal. And like the company in Kelo, the fortunes of the company that wanted all those blocks of city land, hit hard times and ended up moving away. That is how business works, it can be like a theft in the night that strongarms its way into a place, takes all that's not nailed down by law, and sails off like a pirate.

At that time, eminent domain was not abused like it can be now.

Overall, though, most of the cases I observed were pure, in your face racial discrimination. It was also done in more well off minority areas, even with mansions, well, just because...

There are cases where zoning was changed to assert that perfectly good housing, well maintained and the result of years of work and money put in by homeworkers to have a home to retire in, were changed to boot them out for more wealthy people to build their McMansons on. No blight at all, nothing unsafe or unsanitary. And nothing about economic development, as the city wasn't going to profit from it, neither were the citizens there. They were land grabs in the truest sense of the word, just like this one was.

There was also an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.

I've found with the tax breaks and incentives given, especially in terms of land given for homes for the wealthy, this is not at all true. There is no net benefit to cities. But there are rewards for the well-connected.

Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners.[6]

Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services.

The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.

The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.

During arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power."[7]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The Supreme Court of the United States: ruling for the powerful with only a few decades of the spirit of the ideals of the Constitution allowed to surface and change the world for the better.

Never forget Dred Scott.

July 1, 2014

Stealth Attack: What You Need to Know About the New Abortion Laws (Large graphic)

A coordinated attack needs a coordinated response by a powerful, well-informed movement. So we thought we'd enlist the help of comic artist Jen Sorensen to help illustrate (literally) these "stealth attacks."

More information at link:

https://www.aclu.org/stealth-attack