Florida lawmaker mocks the Parkland school shooting survivors and says that adults make the laws because "we has the experience."

WATCH: Florida state Rep. Elizabeth Porter dismisses Florida shooting survivors calls for increased gun control.

"Do we allow the children to tell us that we should pass a law that says no homework?"https://t.co/Lrjygjriqh pic.twitter.com/iYBpePcpYG

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) March 7, 2018

Oh she is not a nice lady.

And yes you heard her right.

This woman also clearly says, "The adults make the laws because ... we has the wisdom"

— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) March 7, 2018

You know the reason that the "children," as she calls them, feel the need to make their voices heard is because they have all shared an experience called "getting shot at with a semi-automatic rifle" that this nasty woman has been spared.

Now perhaps she will have yet another experience that the students have yet to endure called "getting voted out of office." 

Trump Foundation suspected of being giant political slush fund for The Donald. Well duh!

Courtesy of The Daily Beast:  

The Trump Foundation, Donald Trump’s nonprofit organization, is under fire for allegedly operating as more of a political slush fund than a charity. The foundation is accused of violating rules prohibiting it from engaging in politics—prompting ethics watchdogs to call for public investigations. 

On numerous occasions this year, Trump’s campaign work and his foundation work have overlapped—putting himself at risk for penalties and his charity at risk of being shut down.

Trump is listed as the president of the foundation in the charity’s annual disclosures, and his children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump are all listed as directors. Foundations like theirs are exempt from paying taxes, and as such are barred from engaging in political causes.

But in key early primary states this year, Trump handed out Foundation checks to charities at campaign rallies. This also calls into question “whether the foundation provided the campaign with an illegal in-kind contribution by providing services for what was a campaign event. Under the campaign finance laws… providing anything of value to a campaign for free or at less than fair market value is a contribution to the campaign,” said Larry Noble, the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. 

And in 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi—an action the foundation is prohibited from taking, and which it failed to report on its disclosures.

Of course, of COURSE, Trump is using his bullshit "charity" foundation, how would anybody suspect otherwise?

Simply put Trump does NOT follow the rules, or obey laws, unless he it forced to do so by the courts.

Remember those blasphemy charges against Stephen Fry in Ireland? Yeah, that didn't take.

Courtesy of The Independent:  

An Irish police investigation into allegedly blasphemous comments made by Stephen Fry has been dropped after detectives decided there were not enough people who had been outraged by the remarks. 

Police launched an investigation into the presenter, author and comedian after he described God as "capricious", "mean-minded", "stupid" and an "utter maniac" during an appearance on Irish television show "The Meaning of Life" in February 2015. 

The comments were widely reported but did not become a legal matter until a man complained last year, prompting a police enquiry. 

After initial inquiries, officers decided that not enough people had been outraged by Mr Fry's remarks to warrant further investigation, according to the Irish Independent. 

A source told the paper: "This man was simply a witness and not an injured party. Gardaí (Irish police) were unable to find a substantial number of outraged people. 

"For this reason the investigation has been concluded."

So IF they police had found enough people who were sufficiently outraged by the comments, they could have charge Fry?

Well guess where I'm not going on vacation. 

Apparently Ireland still retains archaic anti-blasphemy laws. You know, like that bastion of progressiveness Pakistan. 

In my opinion there is no such thing as blasphemy.

You simply cannot insult an imaginary creature.

That would be like if I was arrested for teasing that a unicorn was nothing but a gay horse.

I mean, come on.

I think it is high time that Ireland join the rest of the Western world in the 21st century, and stop catering to the feelings of religious snowflakes. 

Trump claims conflict of interest laws don't apply to him, and he's right.

Wait you thought I was going to follow the rules? That's just adorable.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

President-elect Donald Trump told The New York Times Tuesday that laws around conflicts of interest don’t apply to him, and he can simply keep running his businesses from the White House. 

“In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly,” Trump said, according to tweets from New York Times reporters interviewing the president-elect Tuesday. “There’s never been a case like this.” 

Wait, can he get away with this?

The answer is yes.

He is technically correct on both counts. 

Federal conflict of interest laws do not apply to the president of the United States, and the obvious conflicts of interest created from his ownership of a global real estate empire are unprecedented in the nation’s history. Just because the federal laws mandating other federal officials to place their assets into a true blind trust run by an independent trustee do not apply to the president, does not mean that Trump’s conflicts of interest are not real. 

Trump seems to think otherwise: “The law’s totally on my side, the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

When Trump says that "the law's totally on my side" what he means is that he will not get prosecuted for not following these guidelines, and he is absolutely right. 

After all who is going to go after him on this?

His Justice Department?

A Republican Congress?

Nope, nobody.

This is why you do not elect a megalomaniac to the highest office in the land.

They believe they can get away with anything already, and once they enter the White House, for all intents and purposes, they can.

Trump supporters are not going to see the swamp get drained, they are simply going to see a whole new creature emerge from its depths.

Florida Christians launch ballot initiative that would classify abortion as first degree murder.

Courtesy of Christian News Wire:

The political committee Abolish Abortion Florida (AAFL) has launched a ballot initiative to amend the state's constitution to punish abortion as capital murder. Under the proposed amendment, anyone who performs or procures an abortion would be charged with first degree, pre-meditated murder. "Abortion" would include any abortifacient drug or device that can kill an embryo by preventing implantation, as well as the intentional destruction of unwanted IVF embryos. The amendment would define life as beginning at fertilization rather than "conception," and declares that "abortion deprives an innocent human being of the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 

According to AAFL, the idea is not only to collect enough signatures to get the measure onto the 2018 ballot, but also to encourage legislators to begin putting forward legislation to abolish abortion instead of merely regulating it. Per AAFL: "The Supreme Court cannot make murder legal. Pro-life politicians have passed incremental regulations for decades, but it's time to abolish abortion by recognizing it for what it is – cold-blooded murder – and prosecuting it accordingly."

This law could literally see a woman who took a morning after pill arrested and charged with murder. And then if convicted she could face the death penalty.

So much for being pro-life.

This is what happens when religion decides morality and puts laws on the books. 

(H/T to The Friendly Atheist.)

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on gun control.

So CBS News has a new feature where they post the policy positions of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on various issues.

I think that is very helpful and cuts through a lot of ridiculous rhetoric and circus like atmosphere of this political season.

Today's topic is gun control, which just so happens to be one of my top concerns.

First up Hillary Clinton: “I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets,” Clinton said in June. “We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things.”

Here are her proposals: 

Clinton advocates for “common sense gun laws” 

She wants to expand background checks 

She is pushing for comprehensive background check legislation, which would include banning all domestic abusers or the severely mentally ill from buying or possessing guns. 

She wants “no fly, no buy” policies, which would prohibit people on terror watch lists from gaining access to guns. 

Clinton pledges to close loopholes in existing firearm laws 

She wants to close the “Charleston loophole” which allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check is not complete within three days. According to the FBI, it’s how Dylann Roof -- the shooter in Charleston, South Carolina who killed nine parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church last June -- was able to get his gun. 

She would ask Congress to close the so-called “gun show loophole” and require any person engaging in a high volume of gun sales -- particularly at gun shows and on the internet -- to be held to the same standards as sellers at gun stores.

Clinton would repeal immunity protections for the gun industry 

She would repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.

I find many of these stances to be pretty courageous considering that they are guaranteed to fire up the NRA and 2nd Amendment types to work against Hillary's campaign.

Now let's see what Donald Trump has to offer:

Trump pledges to defend the Second Amendment 

His campaign website says he would “enforce the laws on the books” 

Trump wants to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that would also uphold the Second Amendment 

Trump is open to “no fly, no buy” policies (Well that's something at least.)


In a “Face the Nation” interview in June, Trump said he was open to “no fly, no buy” policies to prevent people on terror watch lists from buying firearms, in a seeming break from his party. Of discussions with the NRA, Trump said “I’m talking to them about the whole concept of terror watch lists. Should we take somebody directly off it -- if there is a terror watch list and if somebody is on, should they be allowed to buy a gun? Now, we understand there are problems with that, because some people are on the terror watch list that shouldn’t be on. You understand that. And that’s happened. Maybe you can reverse it.” 

Trump wants to expand mental health treatment programs 

He wants to create a “national right to carry” 

Trump believes concealed carry permits should be valid in all 50 states. 

His campaign website says that “a driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state.” (The hell it is!)


Trump would get rid of gun-free zones (Oh shit!)


Under a Trump administration, military bases and recruiting centers that are now “gun-free zones” would allow the use of firearms. 

Trump would do the same for schools. After Oregon’s Umpqua Community College shooting where nine people were killed last October, Trump suggested that the outcome would have been better if teachers had been equipped with firearms. “It was a gun-free zone,” Trump said at a rally shortly after the shooting​. “I will tell you -- if you had a couple of the teachers or somebody with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off.” 

He would enforce existing laws. (The President actually explained why this does not happen:"One of the most frustrating things that I hear is when people say -- who are opposed to any further laws -- 'Why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books?'" Obama said. "And those very same members of Congress then cut (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) budgets to make it impossible to enforce the law.")

So does this mean that Trump is planning to override the GOP led Congress and force them to increase the budgets for these law endorcement agencies so they can do their jobs more effectively? Of course not.

I am not a single issue voter by any measure, but if I were this would likely be one of the issues at the top of my list. And after seeing these two compared side by side, there is no doubt who I would vote for in a heartbeat. 

Texas to allow open carry in mental hospitals. You know because nothing can go wrong there.

Courtesy of USA Today:

As of New Years Day, licensed gun owners in Texas have been allowed to openly carry firearms into restaurants, shops and zoos. 

Add a new place to the gun-friendly list: state mental health hospitals. 

Visitors to one of Texas' 10 state mental health hospitals will be allowed to openly carry weapons into the facilities, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services. Employees and patients will still be barred from bringing in weapons. The hospitals this week pulled down signs banning guns at its facilities and posted new ones asking people to leave their firearms in their cars or conceal them from patients, said Carrie Williams, a state health department spokeswoman. 

“While licensed visitors are legally permitted to carry on our hospital campuses, our patients are being actively treated for psychiatric conditions and generally it’s best not to expose them to weapons of any kind.,” Williams said in statement.

Gee, ya think?

So let's get this straight.

The Right Wing has been actively blaming mental health issues as the reason behind all of this gun violence, in order to deflect criticism from the NRA and the gun nuts.

So Texas decides that they should be able to carry their little metal penis extenders in the same place where many of the people they have identified as potential mass shooters are being treated.

Is there something wrong with the water in Texas?

After consulting with attorneys Houston Zoo reinstalls signs prohibiting handguns.

Courtesy of Chron:  

A "weapons prohibited" sign has been reinstalled at the Houston Zoo months after being removed at threat of legal action. The Houston Zoo has reinstalled a series of signs that prohibit the carry of firearms into the gates of the family-friendly attraction almost three months after being forced to take them down at threat of legal action. 

Attorney Edwin Walker with Texas Law Shield, a legal services firm for gun owners, sent a demand letter to the Houston Zoo and its corporate entity and the city's parks and recreation department on Sept. 3 asking that they take down all 30.06 (guns prohibited) signs at the zoo. 

The signs came down just a week or so after the letter was received and read.

After discussing the matter with their attorneys this is what the attonrye's had to say:

In a statement sent to the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday, Houston Zoo spokesperson Jackie Wallace stated the zoo’s case for bringing the signs back. 

“After consultation with legal counsel, the Houston Zoo, Inc. has concluded that Texas government code does not prohibit HZI from lawfully posting signs that ban weapons from its premises because HZI is – at its core – an educational institution,” Wallace wrote Tuesday. 

The zoo argues that being an educational institution exempts it from being forced to allow firearms within its gates. 

Wallace wrote that the zoo was established for educational and conservation purposes, bringing in some 200,000 children a year. 

The zoo, Wallace added, “maintains an Education Department that employs 17 professional educators who develop and deliver educational programming on a daily basis at the Zoo.” 

“Given the mission of the zoo and the presence of hundreds of thousands of children on its campus, it is clear that guns and zoos simply do not mix,” Wallace wrote.

Isn't it bizarre that such a statement as "guns and zoos simply do not mix" has to be made in this day and age?

Seriously, what is going on in this country? 

Alaska Marijuana Control Board votes to create nation's first "cannabis cafes."

Courtesy of the Juneau Empire:  

The Alaska Marijuana Control Board is giving tourists a place to light up (or chow down) once cannabis sales begin next year. 

On Friday, the board voted 3-2 to allow marijuana buyers to consume marijuana products in the business that sells them. Combined with other measures approved Friday, the board’s action effectively makes Alaska the first state in the nation to legalize Amsterdam-style marijuana cafes. 

Friday’s vote answers the complaints of Alaskans who contended that the state’s ban on marijuana consumption “in public” leaves visitors (and Alaskans whose rental contracts prohibit smoking) no place to consume marijuana.

Looks like Alaska is moving back to its progressive roots.

Well, at least somewhat.

Now all we have to do is wait for the federal government to catch up and declassify pot as a Schedule 1 narcotic.

House Republicans are attempting to make it easier to purchase silencers for guns. Wait, what?

Courtesy of HuffPo:

House Republicans on Thursday introduced a bill that would eliminate a federal tax on gun silencers and would weaken licensing requirements that currently make the devices more difficult to buy than most firearms. 

The Hearing Protection Act of 2015, proposed by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) and co-sponsored by 10 of his colleagues, would do this by removing silencers, which are also called suppressors, from the purview of the National Firearms Act, instead putting them in the same regulatory category as long guns. As its title suggests, the bill's sponsors are framing it as an effort to keep shooters from damaging their ears.

In 1934, in the wake of Prohibition-era violence carried out by heavily armed bootleggers and gangsters, sound-suppressing devices were included on a list of NFA weaponry and other hardware, alongside firearms like machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. Today, purchases of silencers are still subject to a $200 fee, which covers an extensive FBI background check that can take months to complete. 

People looking to buy items covered by the NFA must also go through a specific federal registration process, which is more stringent than the one that governs gun purchases from a Federal Firearms License holder. To get a silencer, for example, a buyer must submit a certification from a local law enforcement official vouching that the silencer will be used for lawful purposes.

And the Republicans want to change that?

You know I watch a lot of movies, and I cannot think of one movie where a silencer was NOT used in the attempt to take a person's life.

There are already a number of products sold to help protect the hearing of gun owners.

A gun silencer seems to me to be more designed to keep the shootee from hearing the gunfire, rather than to protect the hearing of the shooter.

 This seems insane to me.

California passes automatic voter registration. You're eighteen years old, you have a driver's license, and are not a Kardashian, congratulations you are a registered voter. (Okay I made up that Kardashian part, but I think we can all agree it's a good idea.)

California Governor Jerry Brown.

Courtesy of Yahoo News:

Gov. Jerry Brown has approved legislation to make California the second state in the nation to begin automatically registering eligible voters when they obtain or renew their driver's licenses. 

AB1461 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, aims to boost California's voter rolls by registering visitors to the Department of Motor Vehicles and was among dozens of bills that Brown announced Saturday he had signed. 

It follows Oregon's move earlier this year to adopt the nation's first automatic voter registration law. 

The legislation backed by Democratic Secretary of State Alex Padilla calls for data collected by the DMV to be provided to the secretary of state's office, which would verify a resident's legal eligibility to vote before registering them. Drivers would have the option to opt out or cancel their voter registration at any time. 

Padilla praised the signing of the automatic registration bill. 

"Citizens should not be required to opt-in to their fundamental right to vote," he said in a statement. "We do not have to opt-in to other rights, such as free speech or due process. The right to vote should be no different." 

You know that makes so much sense that it pisses me off that this is not the law in EVERY state.

In fact I would like to see it expanded so that you get per-registered on the day you are born, and on the day you turn eighteen you receive your voter ID in the mail.

And if THAT makes you respect California just a little more get a load of this courtesy of The Sacramento Bee: 

Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed legislation to ban the concealed carry of handguns at colleges and schools, further tightening California firearms restrictions that are already among the strictest in the nation. 

Current California law makes it illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or on a college campus without permission from administrators, but it exempts those with concealed carry permits. 

Senate Bill 707, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, expands the prohibition on school and college grounds to include concealed weapons, while keeping the same rules in place for the 1,000-foot zone surrounding schools. Active and retire law enforcement officers are not covered by the law. 

I swear sometimes California does something that really sets it apart from the rest of the country in a good way.

If they were not always on the brink of bankruptcy, constantly on fire, and home to some of the most vacuous people on the planet, it might even be nice place to live.

Tennessee lawmaker thinks his state needs a little more religion in its constitution.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

A Republican lawmaking in Tennessee has introduced legislation that would add references to God and “our Savior” to the state’s constitution. 

House Joint Resolution 71, proposed by state Rep. James VanHuss (R-Jonesborough), would add the language, “We recognize that our liberties do not come from governments, but from Almighty God, our Creator and Savior” to Article I of the Constitution of Tennessee. 

The new language could clash with Article I, Section 3 of the Tennessee constitution, which declares “no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.”

You know I'm guessing that somebody has a really hard time understanding that whole "separation of church and state" thing.

I cannot get over how these people all seem convinced that our laws and political system are based on the Bible, when in fact they are almost completely borrowed from the early Greeks.

Who by the way, were NOT Christians.

The REAL way that bills become laws in 2015.

Another childhood memory ruined.

Yeah try putting that to music Schoolhouse Rock.

Oklahoma passes law allowing religious displays on public property. Satanists thrilled at opportunity to join in.

Courtesy of Americans Against the Tea Party:  

In addition to performing the post-mortem homosexual transformation of Fred Phelps’s mom, the Satanic Temple has now offered to donate a monument on behalf of Oklahoma Satanists for display upon the statehouse grounds. The organization has moved forward to file papers to display a memorial next to the state’s display of the 10 Commandments and according to Oklahoma’s religious display legislation, signed into law in 2009, the Temple as every right to do so. 

“By accepting our offer,” said the Temple’s spokesman, Lucien Greaves. “the good people of Oklahoma City will have the opportunity to show that they espouse the basic freedoms spelled out in the Constitution … Allowing us to donate a monument would show that the Oklahoma City Council does not discriminate, and both the religious and non-religious should be happy with such an outcome.” 

It looks like the Conservatives have found themselves in a bit of a religious freedom pickle. Thanks to their argument for religious monuments on public display, it appears they now must accept the Satanic Temple and their memorial. But of course, if not accepted, we sincerely doubt that anyone would be surprised to find out that the legislation is completely hypocritical and specifically only focused on one religious view in direct violation of the US Constitution. Obviously, Oklahoma lawmakers did not take Satanists into consideration when passing such an open bill regarding religious freedom. I guess it is true what they say, “Be careful what you wish for.” 

I envision something along the lines of this:

You know, something tasteful, that the whole family can enjoy.

I think that this is going to be very entertaining indeed.

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell's "Choose Respect" campaign may be destroying young native lives and possibly the very fabric of village life.

This opinion piece showed up yesterday over at the Alaska Dispatch:  

I have worked in Bush Alaska for more than 20 years. I started in Nome working for the public defender agency, and then for a tribal consortium. I worked as a prosecutor in Bethel for almost two years and then moved to my own practice, where I travel and represent those in Bush Alaska. I regularly travel from Barrow to Unalaska, and most people I represent live in small villages off the road system. I’m married to a Yup’ik Eskimo and have three young children enrolled in the local tribe who also attend school in Bush Alaska. I have never been more frightened for their future.

Instead of improving education, helping tribes develop their courts or curbing problems like alcohol addiction, our governor has really only given these villages one legacy: more jail time for young Alaska Native males. 

More jail time does not, and will not, help the youth of Bush Alaska.

Is jail time even a deterrent in rural village communities?

First, jail only works when it’s worse than your home. Running water, good food and entertainment is far better than what most have in their villages. Our governor never goes to Tuluksak or Teller. He needs to see how my Gambell friend lived and how his family now survives. He needs to get out and see that too many of our citizens live in Third World conditions. Until we raise the standard of living in Bush Alaska, jail will never be a deterrent. 

One village I’m very familiar with has stopped enforcing state law but has turned to punishing its young men in tribal court. This village could care less what the governor is doing, as they want to enforce their own rules and control their own destiny. One of the reasons given to me: “One week emptying honey buckets is far worse than the luxury of being in jail and eating all that good white-man food.” 

Second, jail only works when it is in combination with strong community condemnation. This is the idea that your community has a vested interest in correcting misbehavior. Community condemnation begins with the idea that the village has agreed to all these laws, and wants to punish its citizens for violations. All of the laws the state imposes on these rural areas were passed in a foreign land by foreign people. The principles and values behind the laws rarely apply to Bush Alaska, and I constantly hear the complaint that no one in these communities had a choice for more laws and more jail. Instead, they are simply watching their young people leave for longer periods of time and then hear it’s called “choose respect.” 

When my Napakiak and Gambell friends committed their crimes, they were arrested in their villages by white, foreign troopers from the outside. They were taken to a jail run largely by white outsiders. They were then taken outside their village to a court, where each was defended and prosecuted by white outsiders. Finally, they were sentenced by judges, also white, from somewhere else. No one spoke their language, no one from their villages participated, and no one even discussed this crime or its impact on their communities.

With these conditions in place is there ANY hope for rehabilitation?

Finally, jail does not work because it is not making our youth better. Time and time again, I see that when my young Native clients get of jail they are lazier, angrier and more criminal-like than when they went in. Jail is not making our youth better — it is destroying their personalities and any chances of living a productive life. 

The governor aggressively seeks convictions for domestic violence, regardless of the circumstances. The deals offered by his prosecutors are too good to pass up, and too many plead guilty without attorneys at their first appearance in court. But the results of such plea are devastating — this Native male will now have what’s called a “barrier crime” on his record, which will preclude him from ever working for what little jobs are in town (clinics/schools). These convictions, like jail, are not making Alaskans better. 

Our jails are filled with young Native males, and it is not slowing down. Want to know if this “choose respect” campaign is working? Just spend a day at court watching the cases in Bethel, Dillingham, Barrow, Nome or Kotzebue. Or ask anyone who works at any jail in Bush Alaska. They know jail is not making them better, and they know we don’t have enough beds to even keep them in Alaska. Native young men are being sent to Colorado in droves. The cost of this is shocking.

This may be hard for many who live in other parts of the country, or even in more urban areas of Alaska, to understand, but there is a lot of truth to what this man is describing.

I know, I've seen it first hand.

Virginia Attorney General fights to reinstate sodomy laws. Apparently in Virginia its 1813 not 2013.

Courtesy of Buzzfeed:  

Although most people think sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, Virginia Attorney General  would like to explain why — in his view — that's not so. 

What's more, he wants the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to agree with him and uphold the constitutionality of Virginia's sodomy law — which makes anal and oral sex between people of any sex a crime — in the process. 

Cuccinelli last week asked the full appellate court to reverse a three-judge panel's decision and uphold the application of the law in a criminal prosecution against William Scott MacDonald, a very unsympathetic defendant. 

MacDonald, 47 at the time, was convicted of violating the state's criminal solicitation statute, which applies whenever a person over 18 "commands ... or otherwise attempts to persuade" a person under 18 to commit a felony.

Hmm so in order to punish a man for forcing sexual contact on a young woman this guy wants to make the sex act itself illegal?

Isn't that kind of like punishing a drunk driver by making operating a motor vehicle by EVERYBODY against the law?

And by the way just which segment of the population might be the most affected by having sodomy laws prosecuted in Virginia? Well, certainly not the uptight Mr. Cucinelli, that's for damn sure!

I am pretty sure that even Virginia has laws against rape in their state, and do NOT need to reinstate laws originally thought up by people wearing black outfits with belt buckles on their hats.

Oh and by the way for those who want to provide a knee jerk defense of this guy, be aware that this is not the first time he has demonstrated intolerance for the LGBT community:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has urged the state's public colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing in a letter sent to each school that their boards of visitors had no legal authority to adopt such statements. 

I am suddenly made to feel very badly for MRS. Cuccinelli, whose sex life with Attorney General "Cotton Mather" must consist of being completely covered head to toe with a sheet in which a hole has been strategically placed over her genitals allowing "the master" to do his business while beating her about the head and face with a Bible and screaming "Oh Lord please forgive this revolting creature for a forcing me to defile her in this manner!"

Personally I think sex between religious zealots should be outlawed. That would certainly help to quickly put an end their ignorant reign of terror don't you think?

Four year old finds father's gun with predictable, and heartbreaking, result.

Courtesy of Raw Story:

 A 4-year-old boy in Houston died early Sunday morning after finding his father’s handgun and shooting himself in the stomach. 

Houston Police Sgt. Harris told KTRK that 4-year-old Jaiden Pratt’s weekend with his father, 23-year-old Marquez Pratt, ended in tragedy. The father and son had gone to sleep on the couch. After waking up, Jaiden picked up the gun and accidentally fired a round into his own stomach. 

Paramedics tried to revive child, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. 

“This is not a case of a responsible homeowner having a weapon for protection,” Harris said. 

According to the Houston Chronicle, the serial number of the handgun was listed as stolen. Marquez Pratt was expected to face charges resulting from drugs and several weapons found in the home.

Of course the 2nd Amendment crowd will point out that this was a stolen gun and therefore gun laws that affect the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase and own firearms would have little effect. But I disagree.

You see I think that once you go through a background check and take possession of a firearm it is your responsibility, until you have either sold it in lawful manner (Complete with insisting that the purchaser have the gun registered in their name) or until you die.

In other words EVERY crime or accident that occurs with the weapons stolen out of your house, if it is discovered that you did not do EVERYTHING in your power to keep that from happening, should open you up to both criminal and civil legal proceedings.

No more of this, "Well officer that gun was stolen out of my house so I am not responsible for how it was used." If you are responsible enough to own a weapon, then by the gods you should be responsible enough to maintain control over that weapon.

I can guarantee you that if we had laws like that on the books there would be a HELL of a lot less guns sold, and a a whole HELL of a lot fewer guns stolen. Which also means less crime, and fewer terrible accidents like this one.

Man sends pictures of his arsenal to news outlet and dares the government to come and take them away.

The Saiga-12 Shotgun. Nobody's penis can be THAT small, can it?

The man above is a frequent visitor to the Business Insider news site and this is what they wrote about their exchange with him:  

The photos show an arsenal of weapons the reader just legally bought including a Russian made Saiga-12 shotgun, an AR-15 assault rifle, a huge cache of ammo, and several accessories. 

The reader bought the shotgun at a gun show where there was no wait or background check. He left with the Saiga, a 30-round drum, a 10-round magazine, and an additional 5-round magazine. 

On top of that he added night vision, three laser sights, and a tactical light. "Please come to my house and take my guns!!!" he taunted the government, when he gleefully sent us the string of pictures below. 

Those are laser sights shining in the photo above. Looks kind of like Christmas.

In addition the the Saiga, and the .45 caliber and 10mm handguns this reader owns, he's also waiting on an AR-15, which he ordered online. The AR of course is the assault weapon used in the Colorado theater shooting. 

Including the custom modifications, the AR-15 will arrive at his door (dealer's door...) about three weeks after ordering. With that rifle he ordered a 100-round drum, three 30-round magazines, and a 10-round drum as well as a tactical night scope that's better than most anything given to U.S. military members. The rifles are harder to get after recent shootings. 

"I paid triple for a gun that was $900 a few months ago," he told me. 

And the reader has been in plenty of legal trouble. 

In addition to a restraining order, and time in jail for violating it, the reader was tried for conspiracy to commit murder against his wife. 

"You can get in all sorts of trouble, but as long as you get out of it you can buy whatever you want," he said Monday morning during a phone call. 

After his acquittal on the conspiracy to commit murder charge, the reader applied for and received a concealed weapon permit as well. 

You know I don't know if we could adequately explain what is wrong with our current gun laws if it were not for the help of morons like this guy.  He has not only single-handedly explained what his wrong with the gun show loophole, but also what is wrong with the ease of online gun shopping, and that background checks are not sufficient to keep clearly dangerous people from getting their hands on weapons they have NO business having in their possession.

This guy is like a walking billboard for stricter gun control laws.

"Is that your nipple I see?" Those words spoken by a North Carolina police officer might soon mean jail time, as a new bill is set to make a woman's areola indecent.

Actress Milla Jovovich should probably avoid North Carolina.

Here is the portion of the bill referred to in the headline:

 (a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1. 

(a2)For the purposes of this section, the term "private parts" means external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.

That's right ladies. Your next nip slip in North Carolina might see you locked up in a prison cell for up to ten years where you and your now pornographic body part can rethink your wardrobe choices.

Here is a bit more about how this whole thing came about:

Brown, whose district is more than 100 miles from Asheville, said she hadn’t planned to get involved with the issue until she started getting calls about it from her constituents. “I felt that, if this was of concern to my constituents, it was going to be of concern to others as well.” 

Brown says topless protests are actually illegal under the current law, but there’s some confusion about it, dating to conflicting court rulings from the 1970s. 

North Carolina law already forbids “indecent exposure,” but it doesn’t specifically define “private parts” as including breasts. 

The proposal adds that definition, including “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast,” with an exception made for breastfeeding. 

“All we are doing is codifying the Supreme Court definition of ‘private parts,’" added committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Stevens, R-Surry. “That’s it. “

Well at least they are giving a pass to women who are using the offending protuberance to feed their babies.  But if you don't have a baby hanging off of those things then you are headed up the river my dear.

Okay well as you know I am quite liberal, and probably never more so than when it comes to the issue of sexuality and nudity.  If you want to walk around with your goodies hanging out, regardless of your age or gender, I have nothing negative to say about it. (Except in Alaska of course. Some things are simply not meant to be exposed to the elements.)

However I do have a question.

Exactly WHY is it that the aerola is the portion of the female breast deemed unacceptable? And why is it ONLY the female's that is considered so?

Now look I'm a guy, and I dearly love breasts. But personally I find the entire breast rather pleasing to the eye and do not necessary consider the actual nipple to be any more erotic than say the cleavage, or the side, or really ANY other part of the breast.

So why exactly is THIS, according to this new North Carolina bill, okay?

And the above picture, which actually covers up much more of the breast, considered "indecent?"

Anybody have an answer?

Michigan just passed union busting "Right to Work" measure. Expected to be signed into law tomorrow.

Protesters outside the State Capitol in Lansing, Michigan today.

Courtesy of the AP:  

The Republican-led Michigan House has approved a contentious right-to-work bill limiting unions' strength. 

The measure approved Tuesday morning deals with public-sector workers. Another bill focusing on the private sector was approved last week, when the Senate OK'd both bills. 

When final versions have cleared the House, they'll go to GOP Gov. Rick Snyder for his expected signature as early as Wednesday.

Even with Obama's reelection and strong national support for the policies espoused by Democrats, there are still places, like Michigan, that are still fighting against corporate backed Republicans working hard to break unions and diminish the rights of the middle class.

I know right?

The Republicans talk about the "Right to Work" laws being beneficial to the worker, but of course that is bullshit. Instead it does the following:

The Republicans talk about how representing big business at the expense of the average American has hurt them politically, but let's face it, they have no intention of changing ANYTHING except how they hide their agenda.