This blog is a continuation of freedom of opinion, expression, and personality. Therefore it explores several aspects that make me, me. There is nudity and adult content (since I am an adult, so it's NSFW.) Children and those faint of heart should move on. I make no apologies for what I post. Reblogs and photos are not mine (obviously) and shared. IF you own one and want it removed simply ask. If you enjoy I'm glad, intrigued, I'm thrilled! I don't care to discuss any opinion, and will do so, but please use tact. I strive to not be racist, sexist, or anything close to those narrow minded fearful positions. I support equality and freedom of expression, so go ahead ask, challenge if you must, but if you attack, be ready for an equally challenging response. Hope you all enjoy!

 

flawlesstitties:

otherbully1:

internetsgreatesthits:

cutebeam:

softboycollective:

postracialcomments:


A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.
Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.
Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.
Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.
The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?
Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?
Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source
Thank you lieutenantnorals!

"cop breaks and enters with state approval, gets his ass shot"

brah………………. BRUV……………………..

this happened in Texas where it is perfectly legal to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into your home

Literally everybody knows that in Texas you can open fire on someone who comes onto your property without permission. What in the hell did they expect??

Where the NRA at? In the largest pro-gun state of Texass, those second amendment rights only apply if you’re white.

flawlesstitties:

otherbully1:

internetsgreatesthits:

cutebeam:

softboycollective:

postracialcomments:

A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.

Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.

Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.

Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.

The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?

Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?

Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source

Thank you lieutenantnorals!

"cop breaks and enters with state approval, gets his ass shot"

brah………………. BRUV……………………..

this happened in Texas where it is perfectly legal to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into your home

Literally everybody knows that in Texas you can open fire on someone who comes onto your property without permission. What in the hell did they expect??

Where the NRA at? In the largest pro-gun state of Texass, those second amendment rights only apply if you’re white.

Frankly, I don’t think that any of the architects of the Iraq War should ever be invited on TV to say one word about foreign policy — and especially the Middle East. They have zero credibility to comment. They have been wrong over and over again and created the conditions that spawned the problems we face today.

But if they are invited to act as “talking heads,” interviewers must at least have the common decency to point out their failed track record — and to demand that they do more than criticize the president’s efforts to clean up their mistakes. They must also be required to tell us exactly what they would do to fix it.

And if any of them actually do propose a course of action, you can pretty much be sure that based on their past track records, that course of action is wrong.

How to be a better skeptic, and improve your scientific literacy

gothamknowledge:

The Beyond Doubtful List
Never send us stories from this sources:

  • Natural News (Mike Adams, “Health Ranger”)
  • Pat Robertson (700 Club)
  • Before It’s News
  • Info Wars / Prison Planet (Alex Jones)
  • Mercola.com (Joe Mercola)
  • CryptozoologyNews.com
  • News-hound
  • Topekasnews.com
  • The Canadian (agoracosmopolitan.com/new)
  • All News Web
  • World News Daily Report
  • World Net Daily (WND.com)

See the rest of the dubious, and biased sources addressed here

The nation's biggest abortion battle is playing out in Tennessee

justinspoliticalcorner:

The most contentious political battle raging in Tennessee this year has nothing to do with control of the US Senate or the governor’s mansion—it’s taking place over a ballot measure that would make Tennessee the next hot zone in the war over abortion rights.

The referendum, called Amendment 1, would amend Tennessee’s constitution to read: “Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion,” including for pregnancies “resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.” If the amendment succeeds, it would allow state lawmakers to pass the kinds of draconian abortion restrictions seen in neighboring states. And pro- and anti-abortion rights groups are raising millions to swing the outcome.

Tennessee Republicans have been striving to put this referendum before voters since 2000, when a state Supreme Court decision blocked several harsh anti-abortion measures from becoming law. The ruling, which struck down several anti-abortion laws passed in 1998, has prevented the Legislature from passing certain strict laws enacted in other states, such as a mandatory abortion waiting period. In 2011, a supermajority of both chambers of the state Legislature, which included many Democrats, passed a measure to place Amendment 1 on the November 2014 ballot.

Amendment 1 would overturn that court decision. “It will basically just open the floodgates for the General Assembly to pass any kind of restriction if the amendment passes,” says Jeff Teague, the president of Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee. “We think they probably have a long list of things they’re going to pass.”

The fight has implications beyond Tennessee. A 2010 survey found that 1 in 4 women who receives an abortion in Tennessee is from out of state—from places such as Alabama and Mississippi, where, thanks to highly restrictive abortion laws, there are only a handful of abortion providers.

Supporters of Amendment 1 have raised more than a half-million dollars for voter outreach and television ads. Some $250,000 of their war chest came from an event hosted by Republican Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey last fall. The rest has flowed from church groups and state anti-abortion organizations. The campaign, which is being coordinated by Tennessee Right to Life, has set an overall fundraising goal of $2.1 million, according to the Tennessean.

The most recent independent poll of Amendment 1, by Vanderbilt University in May, found that 71 percent of voters sampled opposed changing the constitution.

The state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate and the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee are closely involved with the campaign to oppose Amendment 1. “Vote No on One” kicked off several months after anti-abortion groups began fundraising. As of June 30, the last time the campaign was required to disclose its finances, the group had notched $360,000. Ultimately, the campaign hopes to raise $4 million for ads and voter outreach, according to a “Vote No” spokesman.

Of that $360,000, Tennessee’s Planned Parenthood affiliate donated $175,000. The opposition campaign has also attracted heavy out-of-state support, from groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which gave $35,000. Planned Parenthood affiliates from Boston to Seattle have donated tens of thousands of dollars, too. All told, as of late June, Planned Parenthood affiliates had given more to the “Vote No” campaign than Planned Parenthood has spent on some of this year’s tightest Senate races.

The “Yes on 1” campaign website argues that the amendment would make the constitution ”neutral on the question of abortion.” Neither organization responded to repeated requests for an interview. But Myra Simons, a spokeswoman for the campaign, has told reporters that the amendment is necessary because “our clinics are not regulated or inspected or licensed, not required to be. And that is a scary thing for women.”

In reality, the state has required most Tennessee abortion clinics to be licensed as ambulatory surgical treatment centers since the 1970s. (This means, for example, that most abortion clinics in Tennessee must provide patients with information about advanced directives and living wills—even though the complication rate for most types of abortion is minuscule.) A spokeswoman with the Tennessee Department of Health confirmed that the agency recently inspected several of Tennessee’s abortion clinics in advance of renewing their licenses.

This highlights a strange contradiction about the “Yes on 1” campaign: The only anti-abortion laws that conservatives have been prevented from passing are the three laws struck down by the court in 2000: a 48-hour waiting period between a woman’s initial visit to a provider and the procedure itself; a requirement that all second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital; and a requirement that abortion providers read a script describing risks associated with abortion, written by the Legislature, to a woman before her procedure.

The passage of Amendment 1 wouldn’t cause the laws that were struck down to go into effect automatically, according to Elizabeth Nash, a researcher with the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights think tank. But it would clear the way for the Legislature to pass them again. And Teague warns that these still have the ability to strangle abortion rights in Tennessee. In other states, for example, “informed consent” laws force providers to give patients false or misleading information about abortion. South Dakota, for example, compels doctors to tell women that abortion can lead to an increased risk of suicide—an assertion that mainstream medical organizations say is false.

But even with the 2000 ruling in place, Republicans have passed plenty of anti-abortion laws. The state bans health care plans for sale on Tennessee’s Obamacare exchange from providing abortion coverage. Tennessee also forbids doctors from instructing patients on the use of abortion medication by phone or webcam, making abortions more difficult to obtain for rural women. And in 2012, Tennessee passed a law requiring all abortion providers to have admitting privileges with a local hospital. Two clinics whose physicians were unable to obtain admitting privileges closed, says Teague, leaving seven clinics to serve the state.

The laws that legislators could enact if Amendment 1 passes, says Teague, wouldn’t start a fight against abortion rights—it would finish the job.

"The people behind this campaign, their ultimate goal is to create a situation where abortion will be technically legal, but it will be virtually impossible for women to access it," Teague says. "And Amendment 1 is going to give lawmakers carte blanche to pass anything in service of getting us to that point."

VOTE NO ON 1 if you live in Tennessee!

h/t: Molly Redden at Mother Jones

It’s like déjà vu. We saw it happen in Watts in 1965, Chicago in 1968, Miami in 1980, and in LA in 1992. The people of Ferguson were fed up with continuous terrorization, brutalization, and overall systemic oppression and rose up in righteous rebellion against the power structure. For every action, there is a reaction. What happened in Ferguson was a reaction, to the oppressive actions of police and state.

For weeks all eyes were fixed upon the town of Ferguson, MO. The media frenzy was high as the enemy scrambled to suppress the mass of uncompromising people demanding justice for Mike Brown. The oppressor used every trick in the book, from putting a Black man “in charge” to calling in so-called Black leaders to pacify the people. The enemy even turned the town of Ferguson into a literal warzone where people on the ground had to engage in a revolutionary struggle to preserve their humanity.

Around the country people had their false-sense of comfort shaken again by what happened to Mike Brown and the vicious attack on the people of Ferguson. Rallies, vigils, and protests spread like wildfires through Amerikkka and around the globe. Social media timelines were filled with #DontShoot and #HandsUp pics. Celebrities, dignitaries, and even the President commented on Ferguson. However in spite of this humungous response from the people, we still haven’t even received an arrest for Darren Wilson. Now the hype has begun to die down, and many people are slowly going to back to sleep. Where did we go wrong?

Every time we have a sensationalized injustice, we get mad, we protest, we wait on justice, and eventually we go back to sleep. Why does this happen? It happens because we are mobilized but not organized. History can’t be repeated, but errors can be. We have continued to make the error of mobilizing around issues, and not organizing against the system. In order to be productive in a liberation struggle the difference between mobilization and organization must be understood. Mobilization is temporary, while organization is constant. Organization is proactive, calculated, and uncompromising. Mobilization is reactionary, compromising, and often non-specifically center around action.

It’s easy to mobilize people these days, especially during sensationalized events as the murder of Mike Brown. After a while, it even became trendy to respond to Ferguson. This is not to discredit anyone’s contribution, because trendy or not, it showed solidarity with Ferguson and raised awareness. However trendy consciousness and mobilization will not get us the liberation and power we so desperately seek. Power only comes from the organized masses. We have seen time and time again how unsuccessful mobilization alone is when it comes to improving our condition.

Mobilization at its best leads to reform, and reform is not going to solve our problems. The only way oppressed people will achieve liberation in this land is through revolution. Revolution takes organization, without organization it’s just a mobilized unproductive reaction that is bound to fail.