antigovernmentextremist
When someone robs a bank with a gun or kills someone with a gun, there’s no debate about who needs to be investigated and prosecuted. When a police agency is charged to seek out and prosecute people who are illegally possessing or transferring guns, they’re required to use their own discretion when it comes to what communities to target and what methods they’ll use to target them.

Inevitably, this will manifest as sting operations against communities with little political clout. (Or, just as troubling, deliberately targeting people for political reasons.)

[Brad] Heath points out that a federal judge recently accused the agency of “trolling poor neighborhoods” in search of patsies. In some cases, the ATF — the federal agency that exists to fight gun crime — actually supplied its targets with the guns the agents would then arrest them for using to rob stash houses — which were also set up by the ATF.

Radley Balko - Shaneen Allen, race and gun control (via antigovernmentextremist)

That screams trust.

wesleyhill

Spouses shouldn’t wind up completely sated by a relationship, able to retreat from the rest of the world. Married people, just like singles, have some needs that are best met by a friend or by a neighbor or by family. Our mutual, unsated needs draw us together in service to each other.

Few partners will be in danger of making a complete retreat, utterly emotionally self-sufficient as a dyad, but aiming at this goal is as destructive as achieving it. Spouses in this situation are likely to sell their friendships short, failing to rely on them, as the theatre-going wife does.

If the friends of these marital perfectionists are rarely given the chance to excel, their spouses are only ever given the chance to fail. Expecting a romantic partner to be fully satisfactory doesn’t just damage existing marriages, it can preempt them. A person who assumes that their spouse should fit seamlessly into his or her life may pass up several good partners while waiting for the perfect one.

In the meantime, they’ll be missing out on the best part of marriage—the presence of a partner in the ongoing project of becoming better versions of yourself. The spouse you pick shouldn’t be the one who makes you happiest, but the one who makes you more kind, prudent, and generous, and whom you can give the same gift. You join to grow, not to accommodate the desires of your present self.

“You complete me,” remains a trite and unhealthy declaration, whether you say it to one lover or a full set.

Leah Libresco (via wesleyhill)

Expecting our significant others to fulfill all the social needs we have is a recipe for guaranteed failure. It’s dehumanizing to us, our significant other, and the thousands of other people we come into contact with.

thisshouldbeit

lacigreen:

joponyhere:

lillianloverly:

THIS IS A PSA

THIS APP IS CALLED SAFETREK AND IS ABSOLUTELY INVALUABLE TO ANYONE WALKING ANYWHERE WHERE THEY DONT FEEL SAFE

YOU ENTER YOUR INFO AND SET A PIN AND THEN WHENEVER YOU DONT FEEL SAFE, YOU HOLD DOWN THE BLUE BUTTON UNTIL YOU DO

ONCE YOU RELEASE THE BUTTON, YOU HAVE 10 SECONDS TO ENTER YOUR PIN, AND IF YOU DONT THE POLICE WILL BE NOTIFIED OF YOUR LOCATION AND DISTRESS CALL

I TRULY BELIEVE THIS APP CAN HELP SOMEONE OUT THERE SO PLEASE DOWNLOAD IT

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/safetrek/id716262008?mt=8

signal boost the shit out of this

THIS IS AMAZING SPREAD THE WORD

All caps notwithstanding, that’s a cool app.

poorrichardsnews

Obama: the first President in history to start rumors of his own impeachment

poorrichardsnews:

image

President Obama is the first President in history trying to start rumors about his own impeachment.  Why?  So that Democrats can have a different narrative going into the November elections. Rep. Stockman was the first person I heard articulate this well, and it turns out he’s exactly right.  

“He wants us to impeach him now, before the midterm election because his senior advisors believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat. Evidently Obama believes impeachment could motivate the Democratic Party base to come out and vote.”

Despite the fact that there are no Articles of Impeachment even being considered in Congress, Democrats are already fundraising on the false narrative of impeachment.  

from Washington Times:

In a bid to bring in more campaign cash, House Democrats sent out a plea to donors to pitch in more funds to defend President Obama from a seemingly-imminent impeachment.

In an email notice, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee solicited immediate donations citing House Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against Mr. Obama.

“The White House announced yesterday that Boehner’s lawsuit could lead to the impeachment of President Obama,” the email read.

“Boehner’s lawsuit against the President is more than a political stunt. It’s a full on attack on President Obama’s agenda, his legitimacy, and the Democratic process that elected him twice.”

The DCCC asked donors to reach into their pockets to smash their 100,000 donation goal saying, “We’ve had enough of it.”

read the rest

"Had enough of it"? Enough of what?  Literally, nothing is happening on the impeachment front because Republicans know that they need a 2/3 majority in the Senate for conviction.  That’s not stopping the White House from trying to advance this ridiculous narrative (with the media’s help, of course!):

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

I think you get the picture.  The White House WANTS this narrative to move forward so that they have something to talk about heading into the midterm elections other than Obama’s failure.  

The sad thing is…Obama deserves impeachment and it appears he knows it. 

Isn’t this like giving yourself a nickname?

"After Senator Ted Cruz’s warning that he would hold all State Department nominees until questions were answered about the political motive behind the FAA’s travel ban on Israel… the FAA suddenly reversed itself.

On the same day that the FAA had announced a 24 hour extension of the ban, the FAA turned around and reversed itself.

These were the 5 questions that Senator Cruz wanted answered.

Was this decision a political decision driven by the White House? For instance, who was this decision made by – a career official, a political appointee, or someone else (at the FAA, State Department or White House?)

If the FAA’s decision was based on airline safety, why was Israel singled out, when flights would be permitted into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?

What was the FAA’s ‘safety’ analysis that led to prohibiting flights to Israel, while still permitting flights to Ukraine—where a commercial airline flight was just shot down with a BUK missile?

What specific communications occurred between the FAA and the White House? And the State Department? Why were any such communications necessary, if this was purely about airline safety?

Was this a safety issue, or was it using a federal regulatory agency to punish Israel to try to force them to comply with Secretary Kerry’s demand that Israel stop their military effort to take out Hamas’s rocket capacity?

Instead of providing answers, the FAA lifted the ban.”

I’m not a huge fan of Cruz, but I’m a big fan of calling out this kind of shenanigans.

up-schist-creek

mr-mononucleosis:

lunalovegouda:

The intro cards for Futurama have always been one of my favorite parts of the show because people always talk about the old Simpson’s couch gag but this is just pure gold… I mean-

It goes from everything from 

image

image

and then they made fun of how much everyone reacted to the the infamous ‘dead dog episode’ that I cried about…

image

image

image

And then one time when the show got canceled…

image

and then when it came back..

image

you’re missing my favorite one though

image

Those would always hook me in — what’s it gonna say?!, and I’d sit and watch the whole thing.