87
Posts
1333
Points
41
Users

      While Justice Alito sees an ominous sign for religious freedom at the supreme court, I see a trend for the supreme court to interpret the Constitution in a prudent manner that really respects original intent, rather than the ideological interpretations handed down by a right wing conservative court.

      Since the death of Justice Scalia the balance of the court has actually shifted to a less ideological bent, as Justice Kennedy often sides with the more constitutionally honest liberal justices. The 2016 presidential election will determine if that trend continues. If Trump wins the presidential election and republicans maintain control of the Senate, Trump has already promised to appoint more justices like Scalia and Thomas. If Hillary wins the presidency and Democrats regain the Senate, she will likely appoint more justices who will interpret the Constitutional as it was written as opposed to injecting ideological reasoning.

      Justices should be impartial disseminators of justice as prescribed by codified law, regardless of what their personal opinions or world views are. Since the Rehnquist court, right wing ideologues have injected ideology into the judicial system, that has contributed tremendously to the current unjust justice system in the USA. Without question Trump does not have the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief. Likewise, he does not have the judgment or temperament to be allowed to appoint judges to the federal and supreme courts.

      I think Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and prepared person in modern history to take the office of President of The United States of America. However, even if you don't agree with that, the role of Commander-in-Chief and the person who nominates judges to the federal and supreme courts should probably be high on your list of reasons to vote for the next president AND Congress. Good luck to those who agree as well as those who would disagree.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alito-religious-freedom-supreme-court_us_5772aa69e4b0f168323b12d0

      more less
      Pundit Post
      180
      Posts
      3146
      Points
      59
      Users

          The Greatest Dangers throughout history have always had similarities, there's always a common thread. There's always a Line. When these lines get crossed the world usually takes a turn for the worse, the rise and fall of Markets, Ideologies, Faith in Man, Lack of Faith in Man, the Rise and fall of hatred directed at the 'Reasons for the rise of Anger'.

          One of those constant threads are those in the Middle. The People and Populations of these places where great upheavals occur will always be those hardest hit. Whether in Jobs, Opportunities, Education and all those other building bricks of a Society that given time can thrive. The agreement on these simple building bricks of any location on Earth has positive effects with the Cracks in Society are sured up so that everyone is recognised, no one forgotten.

          As long as Societies a Thousand miles away keep their problems the same distance and not upset settled societies. But this isn't the world we live in. Any Empire forged is an Empire that leaves a mark leaves a presence in that former part of a defunct empire.

          Those marks left, the scorch marks and craters and Memorials and all that is lost are the marks that don't simply disappear with time. The mindsets of those directly affected from those Empires a thousand miles away are left with the mess, the massacres, the lives lost and the anger that simmers. Many read Historical perspectives but rarely seem to learn from the mistakes made.

          Or as is the case in this day and age pick the part that reaffirms what many many will regard as the truth and run it into the ground no matter how incorrect the facts at hand.



          The Rising Right, Daesh, Nationalists, all these will play off a version of History or Doctrine or belief and use those to beat their breasts and say that they are protecting the interests of the masses, their people, their Identity.

          https://www.yabberz.com/post/weve-been-here-before...

          Definitions that come from those who know that the these gripes within the masses can be manipulated, manufactured and all with a Malice towards those 'Defined'. With the mindset of that Malice comes the misinformation peddlers. In European History these characters are scattered across what is a Bloody History, one filled with Hate, Territorial Tensions and of course enough War dead to populate an Earth II.

          Lots of shouting people waving flags. All based on ignorant thinking and no actual fact.



          That's where the world is right now. Manipulation of minds is a common thread throughout that history. Minds were manipulated by the fervent Nationalism that has all the hallmarks of a Deadly Past are here right now. The rise of Charisma and Charming personas hiding the deep dark truth that with their manipulation will come the heavy price paid and the greater costs to come.

          Divide and Conquer is as useful today as it has ever been. Divisions that can push an electorate to seemingly rise up and claim some Independence from a larger entity. The cold hard reality for those who wave the flags of independent thinking, Nationalism, Religion, Politics are not only those who suffer more than most as a result of these very banners they stand under but they willingly participate in highlighting these narrow minded thought processes.


          Those who follow Charisma and Charming personas tend to be those who are left to defend and explain how they get duped. They are those who end up explaining why they allowed a rampant anger get out of control. They are those who get to explain why continents fall, why masses move and why there are those who may wish others harm.

          The rise of the Right in its worst forms is more of a threat to the civilised world than Daesh could ever wish for. Their links to power and media a great threat to the stability of the planet.

          Britain allowed its populist right to rise. America should heed the warning


          The soul of the West is at stake and it isn't Islam that should scare you.

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...

          more less
          Pundit Post
          3
          Posts
          130
          Points
          6
          Users

              I was wondering when this was going to come up again. We may just have a few more years to build our UP houses. Helium was running out and we may have been spared. It is also something we will need more of if we are to reach out into space.

              http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/africa/helium-discov...

              more less
              19
              Posts
              219
              Points
              16
              Users

                  It appears Rubio feels that doing his job is such an inconvenience. So, with such a horrible attendance record and his prior statement of saying he isn't going to run for his Senate seat, why is he running for re-election? Maybe because he can't find a real job, or he is accustomed to only working, not really working, 1/3rd of the year or is it really because Rubio needs his old job so he can once again make another run for the presidency? In all likelihood, should he run for re-election he will probably win his seat. That just goes to show how pathetic politics has become today. Yes, by all means, let's vote for someone who doesn't do their job. Great idea.


                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-ha...

                  more less
                  733
                  Posts
                  10055
                  Points
                  98
                  Users

                      "the lack of any crisp, hard-hitting allegation of professional misconduct or dereliction of duty, was certain to fuel further criticism of the length the investigation — more than two years — and the expense, estimated at more than $7 million, in addition to Democrats’ allegations that the inquiry was specifically intended to damage Mrs. Clinton’s presidential prospects.

                      And in a sign that Mr. Gowdy was also facing pressure from the right, two of the committee’s conservative members, Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mike Pompeo of Kansas, wrote a 48-page addendum including somewhat harsher criticism of the Obama administration, its response to the attacks and its subsequent public explanations."


                      "No evidence" but still trying to find a way to make her look guilty! that's how that reads to me...


                      Is it surprising to anyone else that the report from the Republican lead Benghazi committee came out today? Just like that? No more hearings, no more interviews or depositions, just done. This after the last hearing netted nothing against Clinton, found no wrong doing on her part, and after promises to keep investigating?

                      Hmmmm, I wonder why the Republicans released this report today? We should all wonder. We should also question why this report that was not supposed to be about Clinton, they've claimed many times it wasn't, so why does it address the e-mail "scandal"? I am also not surprised that the whole narrative was "Clinton, State Dept, and Obama = bad" and essentially saying there was cover up in order to explain why there is nothing there after they spent all those millions of dollars o turn up nothing. Going so far as to add an addendum to report to criticize Clinton, Obama, and the SD.

                      Of course this means that today this has become the talking points for all the talking heads on the Right. Thy're already running the spin and talking about the "lie", the e-mails, and "should've known the risk". AS IF Clinton and the people who died were so stupid that they didn't understand that they were in the middle of the hot zone and didn't recognize the risks involved.. People will eat it up though and never question any of it. Like my big question.... Why, when they claim the report was not about Clinton, did they address the e-mails? What did that have to do with Benghazi?

                      I believe the whole point of putting this "report" out and dispersing it to the media is to change the narrative. Which has been "Trump is not fit to be POTUS" and that he is ignorant when it comes to foreign affairs. What better way to take the heat off of him than to switch it back to Benghazi, AGAIN! And if they can continue to tarnish Clinton and continue to try and make it all her fault, she's guilty, and has yet another cover up.... bonus!

                      What do you think of the report and the timing of it?


                      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hill...





                      more less
                      177
                      Posts
                      1332
                      Points
                      36
                      Users

                          While continually stirring up up the progressive public about "gun culture" and trying to take away Second Amendment rights, the feds themselves are arming and militarizing at the most rapid clip in U.S. history.

                          Who are these agencies arming to fight against?

                          I have posted on this issue before, but it's notable when Jeff Jacoby weighs in.

                          There are now fewer United States Marines than federal bureaucrats empowered to carry guns and make arrests.

                          "Arguments long and loud about all the deadly firepower in the hands of private US citizens regularly engage liberals and conservatives. Far less notice has been paid to all the deadly firepower in the hands of federal bureaucrats. “The government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns,” remarks former US senator Tom Coburn. Dozens of federal agencies — entities that will never be called on to fight foreign enemies — now pack heat at unprecedented levels. Perhaps that, too, is something Americans should be arguing about."

                          http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/25/the-...

                          The FDA is stockpiling military weapons — and it’s not alone

                          By GLOBE COLUMNIST JUNE 26, 2016

                          AMERICA’S GUN CULTURE has been a subject of intense interest and controversy for years, with concerns frequently raised about shadowy militias, paramilitaryextremists, and unstable zealots in possession of alarming quantities of explosives and firearms.

                          Amid the current din over assault weapons and body armor, consider one domestic organization’s fearsome arsenal of military-style equipment.

                          In the space of eight years, the group amassed a stockpile of pistols, shotguns, and semiautomatic rifles, along with ample supplies of ammunition, liquid explosives, gun scopes, and suppressors. In its cache as well are night-vision goggles, gas cannons, plus armored vests, drones, and surveillance equipment. Between 2006 and 2014, this organization spent nearly $4.8 million to arm itself. Yet its aggressive weapons buildup has drawn almost no public attention.

                          Does all this firepower belong to a jihadist terror cell? A right-wing hate group? A vicious urban gang?

                          None of the above. It is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, an agency of the US Department of Agriculture, that has built up such a formidable collection of munitions. And far from being an outlier, it is one of dozens of federal agencies that spends lavishly on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment.

                          A report issued this month by American Transparency, anonpartisan watchdog that compiles data on public expenditures, chronicles the explosive — and expensive — trend toward militarizing federal agencies, most of which have no military responsibilities. Between 2006 and 2014, the report shows, 67 federal bureaus, departments, offices, and services spent at least $1.48 billion on ammunition and materiel one might expect to find in the hands of SWAT teams, Special Forces soldiers — or terrorists.

                          The largest share of that spending has gone to traditional law enforcement agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the US Secret Service. But the arms race has metastasized to federal agencies with strictly regulatory or administrative functions. The Internal Revenue Service, for example, now spends more than $1 million annually on firearms, ammunition, and military gear, double what it was spending a decade ago. Since 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs — which has been sharply criticized for episodes of fatal incompetence in patient care — has poured nearly $11.7 million into guns and ammo. Even the Smithsonian Institution and the Social Security Administration have each devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars to weaponry.

                          Incredibly, there are now fewer US Marines than there are officers at federal administrative agencies with the authority to carry weapons and make arrests. The soaring growth of this federal arsenal alarms Adam Andrzejewski, the head of American Transparency’s OpenTheBooks.com, which researched and assembled the new report. “Just who,” he asks, “are the feds planning to battle?”

                          Arguments long and loud about all the deadly firepower in the hands of private US citizens regularly engage liberals and conservatives. Far less notice has been paid to all the deadly firepower in the hands of federal bureaucrats. “The government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns,” remarks former US senator Tom Coburn. Dozens of federal agencies — entities that will never be called on to fight foreign enemies — now pack heat at unprecedented levels. Perhaps that, too, is something Americans should be arguing about.

                          Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby.

                          © 2016 BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC

                          more less
                          Pundit Post
                          331
                          Posts
                          6298
                          Points
                          87
                          Users

                              For months I have read dialog here on Yabberz decrying the violence inherent in the Islamic tradition, claiming that Christians do not share the same malevolence.

                              For about the thousandth time or so, we have representatives who are clergy of the Christian Faith prove these witnesses incorrect. Though in their defense, these members of the pulpit whould not merit qualification as Christian in the eyes of perhaps 99.9% of the religion's practitioners.


                              Roger Jimenez, the Sacramento preacher whose proclomation that is was a "tragedy that more of them didn't die" has provided him significantly more than the 15 minutes of fame it might have (and its a good thing, for that kind of infamy whould never be forgotten) is hardly alone in his joy and concern for the failure of the shooter to "finish the job".

                              Sermons posted online since the attack have been interspersed with dehumanizing labels for L.G.B.T. people reminiscent of those used by the perpetrators of historical genocides. The Orlando victims were “sodomites,” “reprobates,” “perverts” and “scum of the earth,” preachers have said.

                              The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, said it was alarmed by the comments of extremist pastors after the mass shooting in Orlando. Heidi Beirich, the center’s director of intelligence, warned that they should not be dismissed as empty rhetoric.

                              Independent Baptist clergy in five churches in California, Texas, Arizona and Tennessee have proven to be bastions of hatred and ignorance, where In a sermon at a church in Fort Worth, Pastor Donnie Romero told his congregants that every gay person is a pedophile. He was praying that the injured Orlando victims would not survive, he said, “so that they don’t get any more opportunity to go out and hurt little children.”

                              “I’ll pray to God that God will finish the job that that man started..."


                              “Just like if there was a building that had a bunch of rapists or a bunch of evil, murderous people, and the building collapsed on them, or something happened where they were all killed, I don’t think that’s something we should mourn over, because they’re evil people,” Romero

                              Just spreading the word. And because everything is bigger in Texas, he has company.

                              G. Craige Lewis of the Adamant Believers Council in Grand Prairie said he believes many of the details from the Orlando shooting are false.

                              “It reminded me of the Sandy Hook shooting where I believe nobody died,” said Lewis. “If people died, you know, I apologize if you think I’m being insensitive or whatever because I’m not saying no one died, but I definitely know that it is not on the magnitude that they’re putting it as the worst mass killing in history.”

                              What people should be focusing on, Lewis said, is that clubbing is a sin and those who were at the Orlando nightclub were “giving praise to Satan.”

                              “I don’t believe it’s right for us to just be a vigilante,” said Steven Anderson, the leader of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Ariz., in a video response to the massacre. But, he added, “These people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government.”



                              The message that the shooter was misguided, but still doing work that is pleasing to the eye of God brings the worst of the Christian Ultra Right to light.

                              There have been a number of incidences of churches refusing burial to members of their own congregation when their sexuality comes to light. In Denver and Florida in 2014 were two well documented and publicized incidences. In the Lakewood suburb of Denver, Hundreds of Vanessa Collier’s friends and family gathered Saturday at New Hope Ministries, sitting before an open casket that held the woman they loved, when suddenly the minister overseeing her funeral stopped the service.

                              Rev TW Jenkins, Pastor of the New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Tampa, Florida refused to inter a popular member of his congregation, for to do so would be blasphemous.

                              There have been other instances of this ilk, the worst example to my knowledge being back in 1973 when some parishes in New Orleans refused to bury 32 people were killed when the Gay Nightclub they were in was torched.

                              The circumstances have become so challenging that on Sunday Pope Francis said the Catholic Church should apologize to members of the LGBTQ communities for not being respectful or accepting.

                              Now I do not remember anything, anywhere in my religious studies that prevented the Rites of Burial from being performed due to the sexual orientation of the deceased, nor the exhoration that we should help put them in the grave as soon as possible.


                              http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pastors-praise-an...

                              more less
                              Pundit Post
                              17
                              Posts
                              163
                              Points
                              12
                              Users

                                  The big event will come in a couple of years. I expect once another half a dozen states legalize President Clinton will remove marijuana from schedule 1, and then the rest of the states will quickly legalize. The tax revenue will be too much of a lure.

                                  Another major loss for social conservatives.

                                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-rec...

                                  more less
                                  256
                                  Posts
                                  2901
                                  Points
                                  85
                                  Users

                                      I was reading the news online a few days ago, and had an instant stress headache from seeing politicians declare there "is no poverty". The proof, according to them, is that the poor have things like microwaves, refrigerators, and cell phones. The proof, according to them, is the poor is eating steak, or fish, or lobster.

                                      I'm poor. I'm damn poor. I'm on disability, and two weeks into the month, I'm scrambling to find money to get food. But according to these people, and according to a lot of other people who enjoy shaming the poor, I've 'got it good'.

                                      Why? Because I have a cell phone. Ignore the fact my wife and I cut our land line, and we looked for one of the cheapest plans on existence, we've got a cell phone, and thus we are obviously not poor. Ignore the fact that if we didn't have cell phones, my wife couldn't look for work. Ignore the fact that if we had a land line, she'd not be able to go job hunting because she'd miss the calls from prospective employers. In the modern age, going without a cell phone is a huge disadvantage when it comes to job hunting. It's almost a necessity - and in our case, it's cheaper than a telephone.

                                      We have a game console. Hell, we've got two computers and two laptops in the house. The vast majority of these are gifts from friends. Some were paid out-of-pocket because a relative was nice and helped us get ahead - and because since I'm on disability I'm not allowed to save money. Yes, that's right. Any time I have a windfall, ODSP tells me I have to spend it. I'm not allowed to save up for a rainy day, I'm not allowed to have a buffer to protect against unforeseen accidents. Thank the gods I don't have a car.

                                      But you see, having people do nice things for us - people don't see that. They don't care. All they see is 'you have nice things so you're obviously not hard done by'. And that's crap. The nice thing about having friends and having contacts is people do nice things for you when you're down. A computer and internet is vital in the modern age because most companies want you to send your resume in by e-mail or online. And you can't sit in a library and wait all day for a reply, it's better to do it from home.

                                      Being poor doesn't mean 'you're not allowed nice things'. It means you can't afford things. Wondering when the bills will get paid. Wondering where food is going to come from. It means swallowing your pride and asking friends for a hand. It means, when you're at the most desperate, selling what you own to make ends meet. I collect game books, like Dungeons and Dragons. It's a guilty pleasure, but it's an essential pleasure. I entertain myself, and I entertain my friends, and we get together two times a week. Some people get video games, I get books. And when things get desperate, I can sell my books - which hurts a lot.

                                      Some people think the poor shouldn't have entertainment. If you don't have things to brighten your days, what the hell's the point in living? Being poor already sucks, but take away their entertainment, and that's where you start seeing people turn to drugs or suicide. There has to be a bright spot in the day. They say poor people make stupid choices. Yeah, sometimes. But poor people also make desperate choices. You go out to a movie, knowing that's two day's worth of food you're spending, because you need some happiness in your life and a bit of escapism. You buy a book, because that's a few days of entertainment. You eat at McDonald's because you're hungry now and might not have the energy to cook real food.

                                      And let's talk about food.

                                      $10 for three steaks. People need protein. But if you dare walk out of a grocery store with steak, you'll see people get upset if they know you're on welfare / food stamps. You're poor! Where do you get off having steak? The answer? Because it was cheap. And because steak is good for you. These people think you should be eating canned crap that's loaded with salt. How dare you eat "real food". And this entire bullcrap about having a microwave or a fridge. Microwaves are a godsend to the poor. Food gets cooked quickly, and can be reheated quickly. It's almost essential. And really? Fridges? What, poor people aren't allowed to keep their food from spoiling?

                                      This kind of closed-mindedness really gets on my nerves. The poor are allowed to have "stuff". They're allowed to have nice things. They are allowed to be happy. That doesn't mean they're not poor. And it definitely doesn't mean you're entitled to make their lives harder.


                                      more less

                                      Yabberz Search

                                      Topics Found

                                      Members

                                      Posts

                                      Load More Posts
                                      Hi There,

                                      Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

                                      Do you have an email group that shares news items?

                                      It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

                                      This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home
                                      0

                                          Click to confirm you are 18 yrs of age or older and open

                                          Click to confirm you want to see post

                                          more less
                                          Posts
                                          Points
                                          Users
                                              more less

                                              Block User

                                              This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in. In order to later unblock the user, visit the blocked user listed on your about me page.
                                              loading...
                                              Last Heard: a minute ago
                                              Joined: Mar 4' 15
                                              Followers: 100
                                              Points: 100,000