So your arrogant, conceited, classless spoiled, ignorant self thinks your job as a wanna be rapper who has armed security is as dangerous as an American soldier? NEWSFLASH: You are not fit to shine the shoes of a soldier who is putting his or her life on the line for this country. Shut up, join the military and see how far you don’t make it mental midget
If you’ve been following along at home, this one shouldn’t be hard to figure out. Yes, the left-leaning Politifact did their best to muddle the waters with statements by Michele Bachmann and Ted Cruz taken out of context (Cruz’s people set them straight in this clip), but they weren’t able to bury the big one.
And the biggest lie award goes to…
Here’s the video:
What makes “If you like your plan…” so egregious is sheer volume of times Obama and his allies repeated it. It was the central promise they made in order to get Obamacare passed, and still the law barely squeaked by using parliamentary gimmicks.
According to Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, (an intelligence official from cold war era Romania who defected to the West back in the 70's) Mother Jones was started by a group of people who worked indirectly for the KGB.
“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: ‘But what would you replace it with?’ When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?”—Thomas Sowell (via policygal)
Fact-checking some of the gun lobby’s favorite arguments shows they’re full of holes.
Number 4 is full of shit. Armed citizens stop shooting before they’re labeled as “mass shootings”. Just look at the Oregon mall shooting as an example.
Let’s break this down, shall we?
Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns. I love hearing this. Gun control advocates always say this, but are oddly quiet when confiscations happen. Look at New York and California, they are now confiscating legally owned firearms. Hmmm, I guess that’s an alternate reality.
Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people. Guns on their own don’t do anything. They are pieces of metal, plastic and wood that have no heart or soul or anything. They can do absolutely nothing without a person operating them. In a crime, that person disobeys any laws and does whatever he/she wants. Legal gun owners, on the other hand, obey the law and *GASP* tend to not kill people.
Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. When there is a threat of retaliation towards aggression, people tend to be a little more polite and less violent. If a criminal knows room A has people with guns that can fight back and room B has people who are unarmed and can do nothing, which room will the criminal choose to rob? Look up the statistics for the “wild west” (a time when nearly everyone had a hogleg on their hip.)
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys. As cobra pointed out, when legal gun owners are present, shootings are ended before there is too much loss of life. This is backed up by statistics from the FBI.
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Like I said with #2, a gun is simply a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Merely having it around doesn’t make you safer. Learning how to use it, roper tactics in case you have to use it and your local laws on self defense does make you safer.
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Again, simply having a gun doesn’t do anything. Learn how to use it and when it is appropriate and you will be a tad safer.
Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Women aren’t special little snowflakes with their own set of rules. Again, learn how to use your gun and your local laws. Women, minorities and the disabled can and do benefit greatly from armed self defense training. There are literally hundreds of examples of women defending themselves with guns, here are just a few:
Magnolia, TX (1/29/13): Three male burglary suspects forced themselves into a home with a mother and her six year-old child inside. The mother fired her pistol, hitting one of the suspects, at which time all three fled the scene.
Milwaukee, WS (1/9/13) When a robber pulled a knife on a female convenience store clerk and threatened her, she pulled a gun and he ran away.
Loganville. GA (1/4/13) A woman hiding in her attic with her two children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety. The woman had tried to hide from the man, but he searched the house until he found her. She fired six shots, hitting him five times. She ran out of bullets but bluffed that she would continue shooting if he came any closer, at which point he fled the home.
Durant, OK (9/19/12) A strange man rang the doorbell of a twelve year old girl’s house. When she didn’t answer he went to the back door and kicked it down. The girl called her mother, who told her to get the family’s gun, hide in the closet and call 9-1-1. When the man tried to enter the closet she was hiding in she shot and wounded him.
Myth #8: “Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns. Seriously, this is a farce. Only loons on the fringes of the issue say this. The only stipulation I’ve heard that warrants credibility is when it comes to kids. Games like GTA V, Borderlands and Dead Space (just to name a few) really shouldn’t be played by 10 year olds. But then again, that comes down to parental responsibility and individual discretion.
Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners. Gun ownership is on the rise, particularly among women, and it is at it’s highest rate since 1993. Gallup, Pew, the FBI and other pollsters have shown this trend.
Myth #10: We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have. You say we need background checks. We have those. You say criminals get their guns from gun shows. Less than 2% of criminals asked by the FBI said they obtained their guns from gun shows. Furthermore, you say: “Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.” If a person gets a gun ILLEGALLY, he/she is a criminal. A criminal, by definition, DOES NOT OBEY THE LAW. You can pass 1,000 new laws and a criminal will not obey them. That’s what criminals do.
My sources vary from the FBI, to books, to polls and personal knowledge. Mother Jones, like much of the gun control lobby, is dishonest to the core. They know gun control does not reduce crime, but they still push for it anyways. It’s almost as if it isn’t about guns, but rather control.
Once again, Obama made a food of himself on the world stage. The New York Post is calling him out on it.
It was unseemly. Michelle frowned and looked as if she wanted to spit acid at the man she married, a good-time guy who humiliated her in front of their friends, the world and a blonde bimbo who hadn’t the sense to cover up and keep it clean.
Finally, Obama posed for an iPhone selfie with the Danish hottie and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Only after the damaging photo eruption did Obama get hold of himself and regain a dim memory of his marriage vows. He finally straightened his face and moved away from the gentle gams of the Danish object of his desire.
He leaned nearer to Michelle, who clearly wasn’t having any of her husband.
On Wednesday, Thorning-Schmidt saw nothing wrong with the public display of middle-aged lust. One Danish Facebook user called the antics of a president of 52 and a prime minister of 46 “frivolous and disrespectful.” Another said it was “extremely inappropriate and embarrassing.’’
But Thorning-Schmidt attempted to laugh off the whole thing, saying, “It was not inappropriate.’’ Not inappropriate? Pairing a black suit and blue tie is not inappropriate. Giving your wife grounds for divorce might be seen as otherwise. But people won’t soon forget the escapades of the people whose salaries they pay.
President Obama has some ’splaining to do. To the woman he married. To his daughters. To the people of South Africa. And to the scandalized folks here at home.
This is far worse than giving the Queen of England a cruddy iPod full of Obama’s own speeches or botching a toast during a state dinner. Obama’s self-indulgent, rude behavior is an embarrassment to the United States on the world stage.
A judge on Tuesday decided to give a Texas teenager who killed four in a drunken driving accident a 10 year probation sentence rather than jail time after defense attorneys argued the teen’s parents spoiled him and never taught him right from wrong.
Ethan Couch, a 16-year-old with wealthy parents, faced up to 20 years in prison for the deadly accident he caused. Likely stunning many, he instead emerged from a courtroom in Fort worth with 10 years of probation after entering a guilty plea.
State District Judge Jean Boyd’s decision to keep Couch out of jail has understandably angered the crash victims’ families.
Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter in the wreck, told the Star-Telegram that money “always seems to keep [Couch] out of trouble.”
“Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different,” he added.
Marla Mitchell, whose daughter died in the accident, said even though he avoided jail time, “He’s not free.”
“None of us knows what God’s plan is. He has not escaped judgment. That is in the hands of a higher power,” she said.
Boyd also ordered the teenager to receive therapy at a long-term, in-patient facility, the report states. Couch remains in a Tarrant County juvenile detention facility while officials decide on a treatment program.
The 16-year-old pleaded guilty last week to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury. Killed were Breanna Mitchell of Lillian, whose car broke down the night of June 15 on Burleson-Retta Road; Hollie and Shelby Boyles, who lived nearby and had come outside to help Mitchell; and Burleson youth minister Brian Jennings, a passer-by who had also stopped to help.
The teen admitted to being drunk when he lost control of his pickup. He had seven passengers in his Ford F-350, was speeding, had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit, plus traces of Valium in his system, according to earlier testimony.
Two teens riding in the bed of the teen’s pickup were critically injured. Solimon Mohmand had numerous broken bones and internal injuries. Sergio Molina remains paralyzed and communicates by blinking his eyes, according to testimony last week.
Defense attorneys enlisted a psychologist to testify that the teen had essentially raised himself and he had an emotional age of 12.
“The teen never learned to say that you’re sorry if you hurt someone. If you hurt someone, you sent him money,” the psychologist, Gary Miller, said.
“He never learned that sometimes you don’t get your way,” Miller added. “He had the cars and he had the money. He had freedoms that no young man would be able to handle.”
The young woman pictured above is Alexandria Lainez, a single mom who sued the University of North Florida over the right to carry a gun in her vehicle while attending classes at UNF so she would be able to defend herself and her child while traveling to and from campus.
“I think it’s pretty important to be able to protect myself and my son, especially with that long commute to and from school.”
Ms. Lainez, 24, has had a concealed weapons permit for three years, has taken gun safety courses and is a proud member of Florida Carry, a state chapter of a number of organizations defending 2nd amendment rights.
When the UNF ruled that she was not allowed to have a fire arm on UNF property which includes their parking lots, she sued…and won.
The Florida appeals court ruled that UNF was violating state law and that “No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation. This decision is huge, and will affect 2nd Amendment rights statewide.
In Florida, a state law in 1987 prohibited local governments from passing local gun control ordinances stricter than those passed by the legislature, but there were no penalties for non-compliance, a number of local governments didn’t comply and passed there ownlaws and regulations.
In 2011, the Legislature passed another law that provided for hefty fines and removal from office for elected officials and allowing for personal damages up to $100,000 for violations.
After that most local governments complied, but a few politically correct bastions like UNF remained scofflaws.
It remains to be seen whether UNF decides to appeal. According to UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris, in spite of the ruling, until the university decides whether to pursue this, UNF’s anti-gun regulations will remain in effect and they will continue to break the law.
Yesterday I posted this picture with the caption: The amount of hypocrisy seen in humanity is endless
I was quite shocked to see the number of stupid selfish comments added with no thought.
Yes, the picture is condemning people for eating a certain type of meat and no other. However it is irrelevant if you say that you have eaten that sort of meat. I don’t care if you’ve eaten a dog or that you don’t like pork anymore etc etc. It is completely irrelevant and no kind of comeback.This cartoon represents the hypocrisy of humans, especially when it comes to eating meat. I can’t stand seeing these little ignorant statements. Any kind of intellectual response would’ve been appreciated if not accepted, but please just ignore my posts if you disagree with them and have nothing decent to say to back yourself up. Every argument I have seen against being a vegan has been defensive or just really badly fought for and it is proven in the responses to this photo.
anarcho-artensa - Thanks for your insight, I’m sure that lots of people would say the same. You are just like the people in the photo to be honest.
cannabis-machineguns-anarchy - I didn’t ask for a description of how dog tastes, you tried to be funny, I didn’t laugh. And “What would it be like to hunt the largest known land mammal?” - I can see what type of person you are.
cobra-23 - I’m not sure if you are trying to be funny too or if you just felt like announcing your irrelevant “I’m a hunter” comment. Also, my argument is valid, you have not said anything worthy of opposing it.
therealkillthetraitor - What are these “dual functioning” animals you speak of? Another person speaking as if animals are actual robots - oh and I don’t care what animals you want to eat.
aconservativereality - Closest thing to someone thinking before they type, but cartoons really can’t be blamed for hypocrisy on eating animals. Cartoons use all sorts of animals, including the ones that people typically eat, as main characters so I really don’t think this is the source.
The photo is also talking about how people criticise others when they do something the same. Looking at the tumblr pages of all those who made dumb comments shows how hypocritical and ignorant you are - and not only on this topic. The photo above is a generalisation. The general viewpoint of people in places like Britain and America is that there is a distinct boundary between animals we keep as pets and the ones we eat, hence the horse-meat scandal. So lots of you seem to be into hunting and killing different animals for fun. I don’t think that the majority of people in the western world are like that. Most people, even though they eat meat would not be able to kill an animal themselves because they feel empathy towards them. Those are the kinds of people who make comments like in the photo, not vegans/vegetarians like me and not hunting enthusiasts as you all make yourselves out to be. I am referring to the mainstream opinion.
Somehow even though you attempted to deny the facts of the picture I posted, every comment written backed up the point I was making, so thanks. The vast majority of humans are hypocritical when it comes to eating animals because the excuses for it just aren’t valid. I am emphasising the speciesism shown by most humans. I am not fussed about your exceptions. There are exceptions to everything, is that hard to understand?
Listen here tiny tot: You can bitch an complain all you want, but people have preferences and dislikes. If I, or any one else, chooses to eat a certain meat, that’s fine. If I don’t, that’s fine too. Get over it and stop trying to force people into your line of thinking. That’s what authoritarian dipshits do.
As for hunting: It isn’t “for fun,” though it is usually pretty fun. Most of the hunters I know of take what they kill and eat it as well as make use of as much of the animal as possible. To many, there’s a sacred bond between man and beast. Without the animals we hunt, we would never have evolved as a species and the world as we know it would not exist. That aside, the hunters that DO hunt purely for sport and don’t harvest what they kill are typically shunned by conservation hunters and, news flash, that’s illegal in most of the U.S.
You can call people hypocrites all you want, but I (just like most of the people I know who hunt) will try anything once. If I don’t like it, I won’t eat/hunt it again. When you dig deeper into society, it’s simply been ingrained in us to like certain animals and cringe at the idea of eating others. This changes depending on where in the world you are, so your picture is kind of one-sided.
People hunt. People eat meat. Some people like certain meats and some can’t even think of eating other types. Get over it and grow up.
Okay couple things. Human life is not somehow more important than anyone else’s. And I highly doubt you’ll ever be in a situation that immediately calls for you to save a human over an animal. However, you are in a situation where you can save many human lives as well as animal lives by going vegan. Yes veganism is and always will be animals first. But it indirectly saves humans as well. The question isn’t who would you save, the question is why aren’t you vegan?
Because I enjoy a nice juicy steak. Oh and if a cop has the choice of saving an animal or a human the choice will always be human because the human’s family will sue. The animal’s won’t.
I had to shoot two dogs a few months back because they were attacking an old man. I chose to save the human, not the animals. Easy choice.
Everyone who hates capitalism should leave the United States immediately and petition to live in North Korea. There's zero capitalism there. And if they continue to stay here, they are total hypocrites.
Most people who want to bring down Capitalism either benefit greatly from it (by getting wealthy as all get out) or use the fruits of Capitalism (computers and the internet) to complain about it. I don’t think they are worried about being hypocritical D-bags. lol
State universities would be blocked from regulating guns on campus under a potentially far reaching ruling handed down Tuesday by a Florida appeals court. The 1st District Court of Appeal in a rare opinion decided by the entire appeals court sided with a University of North Florida student and a gun rights group that challenged a university rule banning students on campus from storing guns in their cars.
Iva Toguri was a Japanese-American, raised in California with parents who instilled in their child a sense of patriotism. They even refused to speak Japanese in the house so as to help her assimilate. And when she grew old enough she graduated from UCLA and considered a career in medicine. By all accounts Iva was quickly working her way toward living the American dream.
In July 1941, Toguri went to visit her ailing Aunt in Japan. Five months later, Pearl Harbor was attacked, drawing America into the war and stranding Toguri in Japan for seven long years.
Her life during these years in Japan was incredibly trying: she was constantly subjected to interrogation by Japanese military officials, who would often wake her at all hours, prod her to jog in-between their bicycles on the way to their interrogation quarters, and attempt to force her to renounce her U.S. citizenship. But she refused. She was an American through and through.
During the war years, the Japanese Imperial Army had been working to propagandize American troops through the use of radio. Iva Toguri, seeking to assist various Allied prisoners of war who were being used by the Japanese to produce demoralizing radio shows, ended up striking up a relationship with the POW crew who worked on a show called the “Zero Hour.” This crew, led by Australian Major Charles Cousens, American Captain Ted Ince and Filipino Lieutenant Norman Reyes, decided to have Toguri host the show. They hoped to fool the Japanese into believing she was reciting propaganda when, in reality, she was sabotaging it and raising the morale of Allied troops. Iva considered the broadcasts, along with her frequent deliveries of supplies and food to the POWs as the most effective means of contributing to the war effort against the Japanese, and serving her country.
When the war ended, Toguri granted an interview to two journalists, Clark Lee and Harry Brundidge, who she thought would portray her story in a positive light. Lee and Brundidge also offered her $2,000, money she desperately needed after surviving through the war on a meager $6.60 per month. But Lee and Brundidge had no interest in portraying Toguri’s story positively. They were far more interested in furthering their careers by portraying Toguri as the infamous “Tokyo Rose,” a monster who’d betrayed her country.
In October 1945, Toguri was arrested by the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps. She was released a year later due to lack of evidence.
In 1948, the U.S. press, led by influential media personality Walter Winchell, began slamming the U.S. government for going soft on Iva Toguri and letting the “traitor” off softly. The Truman administration had been portrayed as being soft on Communists and other subversives. Given that it was an election year, a head had to roll.
It was to be Iva Toguri’s.
Miracles and Massacres details how the U.S. government went about fabricating Toguri’s supposedly treasonous activities during the war, leading to a conviction that not only cost her six years in prison, but also her U.S. citizenship.
Iva Toguri’s life was ruined. She lost a son, a husband, her citizenship and the potential for a fulfilling career, along with over six years of freedom—all because of election-year politics and the need for the government to find a scapegoat.
Two journalists had helped ruined a woman’s life for their own personal gain. They were aided by two accusers with whom Toguri had worked with in Japan; two men who were former U.S. citizens themselves, who succumbed to U.S. government pressure to produce perjured evidence against her.
This woman, who had attempted to serve her country as honorably as possible and who, despite constant interrogation and abuse by the Japanese government, never renounced her citizenship, was destroyed by her own country. It was not until 1977 when she finally received some measure of vindication by being pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
Ron Yates, a Chicago Tribune journalist who played an instrumental role in helping Toguri gain her pardon, argues that Toguri, who died in 2006, has never received a proper disposition. As Yates told us in an exclusive interview, Toguri deserved more than a pardon, she deserved a full exoneration.
Instead, the story of Iva Toguri proves George Washington’s aphorism that “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” As Yates told TheBlaze:
“[Toguri’s] entire life was just destroyed by this monolithic thing called the U.S. government. It’s a very powerful thing to have the government on top of you…if they want to come after you, they will do it, and of course we have more rights in our country than most countries do, but still it didn’t help…If it’s not used properly and if people misuse the power of government, this is what can happen…If you have people in government who want to misuse their power and misuse the power of government, it’s a frightening thing, and she is an example of what can happen when that does occur.”
In a world in which the IRS targets innocent civilians, a President covers up an attack on an American ambassador in an election year, and the Department of Justice selectively enforces the laws while working topunish those with whom it has political differences, Yates’ words were just as true in 1948 America as they are today. Ultimately, justice can only be ensured by a vigilant people who hold both their leaders and themselves accountable under the law. Otherwise, the rights of the most fundamental and important minority, the individual, will be unable to stand.
Iva Toguri was a living testament to this and her story should serve as a warning to all of us.
The parents of a Marine sergeant who died while stationed in Greece say that they discovered weeks after his funeral that his body had been sent home without a heart – and that the Department of Defense later gave them somebody else’s heart in its place.
Craig and Beverly LaLoup, who are suing the department, said Tuesday that authorities told them 21-year-old Brian LaLoup had shot himself in the head during a party at the U.S. Embassy compound in Athens, where he worked a security detail.
The Marine was taken to an Athens hospital and died a few hours later. Six days after that, on Aug. 18, 2012, the state-run hospital performed an unauthorized autopsy, according to the family’s lawsuit, filed Friday in Pennsylvania.
The LaLoups don’t know what happened to their son’s heart. They say a heart arrived months later and the Department of Defense and Greek authorities claimed it was their son’s. However, a months-long wait for DNA results proved otherwise.
“This is his heart. This is his soul. This is what made Brian who he is,” Beverly LaLoup, of Coatesville, said Tuesday in a phone interview.
Brian LaLoup, who was buried with full military honors, had served in Afghanistan before being selected for the embassy detail in 2011. He first worked in South Africa, where a photograph shows him with visiting first lady Michelle Obama. He loved the Marines but was upset about a recent romantic breakup, said the family’s lawsuit, which seeks at least the minimum $75,000 for a federal claim.
A friend told a Marine supervisor, who suggested more drinks instead of getting help, the lawsuit alleged. LaLoup, despite being intoxicated, was allowed to get a weapon from an unsecured storage area, it said.
Government immunity prevents the family from filing a wrongful-death lawsuit. Their lawsuit instead seeks damages for emotional distress over the missing heart. But mostly, the family wants answers.
The Department of Defense says it doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
The LaLoups only learned their son’s heart was missing by chance. They were filling out paperwork weeks after the funeral when a military official with the file let it slip, Beverly LaLoup said.
“I was absolutely devastated,” she said. “I was hysterical. I was running around the house, hyperventilating.”
She made a flurry of phone calls, to the embassy, to the Marine Corps, to the Department of State.
A spokesman for the Greek Embassy in Washington, D.C., said Tuesday that the heart was removed during the autopsy.
“His heart was kept for toxicological tests,” said spokesman Christos Failadis, who declined to answer questions about what happened to it or why the family received a heart belonging to someone else.
“The Greek ambassador in Washington has offered his condolences to the soldier’s mother,” Failadis said.
Family lawyer Aaron Freiwald said he doesn’t believe that hearts are typically tested for toxicology.
Dr. Judy Melinek, a San Francisco pathologist unaffiliated with the case, agreed it would be unusual to use a heart for toxicology testing. However, she said, organs are sometimes removed for further study, especially if anything seems amiss, and laws governing how long they can be retained vary from place to place.
The LaLoups sued the Department of Defense along with the Navy, which handled the family’s inquiries. They spent months trying to work through administrative channels but got nowhere, said Freiwald, who hopes to learn not only what happened to LaLoup’s heart but what led to the wrong one being flown to the U.S.
“They actually had somebody fly with (it), because this is part of a fallen soldier,” Freiwald said. “The image of that is gruesome and disturbing and ultimately so incredibly sad.”
Among the members of the official U.S. delegation to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s memorial service were Democratic Reps. John Lewis of Georgia and Elijah Cummings of Maryland, as well as Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.
Cummings — the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee opposite GOP Chair Darrell Issa — had quite the prediction concerning Cruz after speaking with him during the trip.
“It’s clear to me he’s running for president — I don’t have any doubt about it,” Cummings told The Baltimore Sun.
Which may be why Cruz reportedly “got an earful” from Lewis, Cummings and others about Obamacare during the journey across the Atlantic Ocean, the Sun added.
“I know he got an earful for 20 hours out and he’s going to get another earful for 20 hours on the way back,” Cummings said.
“I mean it was a very good conversation, nothing negative,” Cummings told the Sun during an interview from Johannesburg. “I just reminded him that I’m concerned about the many people in my state and his state who have no health insurance.”
Cruz cemented himself in the national spotlight in September when he spoke for 21 hours on the Senate floor to try to stave off the implementation of Obamacare. He was both lauded and criticized for his efforts, criticisms which included blame for the ensuing partial government shutdown in October.