Dr. Ben Carson, who has never studied Constitutional Law in his life but has studied medicine and still thinks life begins at conception, recently declared that Congress has the Constitutional authority to remove judges just because they don’t like them.
Most Americans aren’t aware of this Congressional power “because they don’t know the Constitution,” he said. Exactly where in the Constitution is this power? He didn’t explain. Probably because it’s not there, I dunno. 
Anyway, Bennie here thinks that judges who rule in favor of gay marriage should be removed because they made an unconstitutional decision. Let’s see, who decides whether a law is unconstitutional according to our Constitution? Is it the judicial branch? No, of course not. It’s Dr. Ben Carson.
Carson, who also believes Obamacare is Unconstitutional, has previously spoken about how wonderful it would be if Congress loved the Constitution like they used to. He then cited Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd as shining examples of people who loved the Constitution — you know, those two senators who were members of the KKK and believed that the Constitution only applied to white people. Those guys. (Yes, you can now do some psychoanalysis on Dr. Ben if you wish.)
And this guy is on the short list of Republican Presidential possibilities.
I am not making this up.
Since the November election, Obama seems to have gone into a “screw you guys, I’m doing what I want” mode. He said he’d veto the Keystone pipeline, support free college education, work for policies to fight climate change, argue for gay marriage before the Supreme Court, raise taxes on the very wealthy, and allow illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Tie that into his policies that removed us from a recession and thrown us into the lowest unemployment rate and strongest economy we’ve seen in many years.
Does this man look worried?
And whaddya know. His poll ratings have risen faster than any time since bin Laden was killed. He’s now got a 50% approval rating, which is very unusual for a president in his final two years. And it might go even higher.
And no wonder. As I’ve pointed out before, the main problem Democrats have is that they shy away from issues that are supported by the majority of the public. They get cowed down by bullies on the right and instead of saying, “Damn right I support health care for all and higher taxes on the wealthy. The question is why don’t you?” they wimp out, lose their backbone, and then they lose elections. And the politicians in the last election who didn’t wimp out won.
A majority of Americans (61%!) support Obama’s plan for free college educations for student who get good grades. A majority supports Obamacare. A majority are in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana. A majority wants Citizen’s United overturned and think that the very wealthy should pay more taxes. These issues are not radical liberal dreams. They are mainstream, and politicians who embrace them will find favor with the public.
Give the people what they want and they’ll like you. I mean, duh.
The Saudi Arabia-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation is planning to sue the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo following its publication of a front cover depicting the Prophet Mohamed.
“It’s hate speech,” they argue. And they have a point.
You see, in most of Europe,”freedom of speech” is limited. They don’t have a 1st Amendment over there, after all. Certain types of speech are illegal, such as denying the holocaust. Nazi symbols are prohibited. In France, there is a law prohibiting speech that is “defamatory or insulting, or which incites discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person or a group of persons on account of place of origin, ethnicity or lack thereof, nationality, race, specific religion, sex, sexual orientation, or handicap.”
What a terrible law.
But the Muslims have a point. If you are banning hate speech, you need to ban all hate speech. You can’t make it illegal for anyone to say something bad about Jews while allowing Charlie Hedbo to insult Muslims with every issue.
My hope is that this lawsuit will point out the hypocrisy of any law that punishes speech.
We have to protect speech we hate. We have to protect speech that is insulting.
Speech everyone agrees with doesn’t need protecting.
A man wearing a dress in Italy today declared that even though he has never had sex and is not married, allowing all people to be able to marry the person they love will destroy families.
Citing the supernatural, the man argued with a straight face that if people in love create loving, caring families, that such a thing would cause loving, caring families to be ruined. 
Surprisingly, his audience did not laugh him out of the room. Perhaps they were just being kind to the old fellow, dressed as he was in a flowing white gown and a quaint little cap, which he said was required by the aforementioned supernatural being who spoke to him in his head and which no one else could hear or see.
Ironically, in other areas the man was completely coherent and spoke passionately about the evils of unbridled capitalism, the importance of caring for those less fortunate, and how we should all love each other no matter what. Apparently, the magical being who speaks to him said, “Whoa there, kid, let’s not go too far. Sure, love them all but don’t let them love each other if you know what I mean.”
A new study has found a very high consumption of porn in sexually-repressed middle eastern countries. According to google searches, of the top eight countries searching for porn online, six are Muslim.
This is actually not surprising. The more repressed a society is about sexuality, the more they will secretly seek it out, despite whatever their religion tells them. 
We have seen this in America as well. The state that consumes the most porn is Mormon Utah, followed by most of the southern Christian-dominated states (with the exception of Hawaii for some reason). The people who are most likely to say they support “family values” and complain about seeing sex on TV are the ones most likely to be searching it out on their computers.
More disturbing is seeing subject of the porn search. One of the top search terms in Iran is “pain.” In Pakistan, it’s “animals.” Syria wants porn about incest.
In the middle east, searches for gay sex are prominent in their top ten. In America, states where a majority of residents agreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought more porn per capita than states where a majority disagreed. In the states that fought against gay marriage, the search for lesbian porn was high on the list.
Hypocrisy runs rampant. And are we surprised by any of that?
