by

Texas once again passes stupid law

Governor Rick Perry has three problems with the 1st amendment: First, it doesn’t allow Christians to say “Merry Christmas.” Second, it doesn’t allow for Christmas decorations. And third … uh … I can’t remember the third thing. Oops.

Yes, it’s true — Texas has just passed the “Merry Christmas Act” which is their fight against the “War on Christmas”. This law allows those in public schools to say “Merry Christmas” and allows for religious holiday decorations (as long as secular decorations are also included).

Hey, did any of you notice anything about that law? Such as that’s what the law is across the entire country now?

The whole made-up “War on Christmas” is based on the false premise that you are prohibited from having any religion whatsoever in the public sphere. “You’re not allowed to bring a Bible to school!” They yell. “You can’t even say a prayer if you want to, and you can’t have religious symbols even if secular symbols are included!”

The people who say these things are idiots, and assume you are too. They are absolutely wrong on every single point.

What is prohibited is government-sponsored religion. You can carry your Bible and say prayers all day long in school if you want to (so long as you don’t disturb classes and you otherwise follow all school rules that apply to everyone). Not to allow that would violate the “Free exercise” clause of the 1st Amendment. If a school official gives a prayer and hands out Bibles, then that would violate the “Establishment” clause of the 1st amendment (in that the government is not allowed to establish or promote religion).

It’s really very clear and obvious to anyone who takes a few seconds to read the Constitution — a small group of people that does not include Governor Perry, who proclaimed that “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.” What an idiot.

But they don’t care, really. They just want to force everyone to follow their religion. A Texas judge even ruled recently that school cheerleaders were allowed to wear uniforms with Bible verses. If we protest, we’re waging a “War on Christians” but when they force their views on us, using our tax dollars, it’s never a “War on Non-Christians.”

These same hypocrites are the first ones who shout and scream about Sharia Law becoming part of America, even though this has never happened. It’s perfectly fine if their religion becomes part of our secular laws, but if anyone else’s religion pops up, suddenly they’re all 1st Amendment absolutists.

It’s maddening, it’s illegal, and it’s … it’s …. I can’t think of the third thing. Oops.

 

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Patriot Act Hypocrites

When it comes to the Patriot Act, there are just too many hypocrites to deal with.

The Patriot Act allows the NSA to listen to phone conversations and emails for certain key words, at which time they can get a subpoena to get all the records (a subpoena which has never been denied by the court — great oversight, huh?). It certainly appears to be a complete violation of the 4th Amendment to me and many Constitutional scholars, but until the Supreme Court says so, it’s the law and allowed.

For some reason, this is now a big issue, even though it’s been going on for about ten years. This has brought out a gaggle of hypocrites.

First, you have the ones on the right, who defended George W. Bush when he did this but call Obama’s use of the same law a gross violation of their rights. (These pundits and politicians, centered mostly at Fox News, are part of the same gang that said criticizing GWB during wartime was “treason” but doing the same to Obama during wartime is their patriotic duty.)

The clip below is a great example, showing Fox’s Sean Hannity’s position flipping 180 degrees based on whether this was done by a President Fox supported or one they oppose.

But this is not limited to the right. There are hypocrites on the left as well (though not as many) who opposed this under Bush but approve it under Obama.

The biggest hypocrite on the left is Obama himself. He’s ignored his campaign promises in this regard.

His view is apparently that he is against the abuse that can come from the Patriot Act — but doesn’t see that he is abusing it. In other words, he thinks “In the hands of a bad President, this would be a huge violation of our rights, but I’m not a bad President, and I have used it for good.” I think he is feeling some guilt over this and has recently began to talk about getting rid of it (again) because he is worried about who might hold that office after him.

So he doesn’t see himself as a hypocrite; he sees his position as changed based on the circumstances. How very convenient for him.

The good news is that there are those on both the right and the left who have been consistent in their views on this issue, and they should be congratulated and acknowledged.

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Top Ten Signs You’ve Got a Bad Trial Attorney

In anticipation of my trial tomorrow, I present:

THE TOP TEN SIGNS YOU’VE GOT A BAD TRIAL ATTORNEY

10. Constantly tweeting during the trial, and he’s not on Twitter

9. Requires every witness to answer in the form of a question

8. Asks if he can make a motion, and then does the Hokey-Pokey

7. Constantly says “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit” no matter what the trial is about

6. Makes out with the District Attorney during breaks

5. All objections made by partner, Mr. Linty, a sock puppet

4. Uses air quotes when saying “Not Guilty”

3. Insists on doing his Pee-Wee Herman impersonation throughout entire trial

2. Gives closing argument in the form of an interpretive dance

1. Says “Wake me when it’s my turn to talk.”

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Scandalicious!

There’s been a lot of debate lately about scandals, with different sides proclaiming or denying said scandals exist.

I’ve been thinking about it and I’ve come to the realization that it all depends on your definition of scandal.

If you think there has to be actual wrongdoing before there is a scandal, then you may be in the minority. The way the word keeps getting used, it seems most people consider anything they don’t like to be a “scandal.”

Take Benghazi. There is no evidence that there was any wrongdoing, even though there may have been mistakes and bad decisions made. I don’t consider that a scandal.

Or the IRS. Apparently the people who made the decision to investigate groups that are against taxes to make sure they really are non-profit were conservative Republican Bush appointees. Has there been any evidence to show that this was done for political reasons? None whatsoever, and the people involved have said as much. Were there any laws broken? Doesn’t seem so. Does it look bad? Oh, absolutely. Does that make it a scandal?

Then there’s the NSA phone and email situation. It appears that this is all allowed under the Patriot Act, has been approved by Congress many times, and has been in existence since the Bush administration. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence any laws were broken. If there is a scandal, it’s that Obama broke his promise to stop doing this.

For that matter, it appears that the seizing of AP phone records was done properly under law, too.

So I’m having difficulty finding “scandal.” I certainly don’t like the situation with the NSA and the AP and am against these kinds of intrusions on privacy and freedom of the press, but the solution is to change the laws so that this is not allowed and to hold Obama responsible for doing these things in the first place.

But that doesn’t make them scandals.

I am open to evidence, however. If you have proof that laws were broken or actual wrongdoing took place, let me know. I am certainly willing to acknowledge it when it happens.

Editorial cartoon of the day

Editorial cartoon of the day

by

Reagan: The first teabagger

Bill Maher did a “New Rule” this week that needs to be seen, in which he counters the “Reagan would never be accepted in the current Republican party” myth.

I remember Reagan, and except for a few minor issues, he would fit right in with the current Republican party. He’s their patron saint for a reason, you know.

Anyway, rather than just repeat the point Maher said, I urge you to watch. It’s funny, too.

And yeah, I know that in the headline, I’m using the term “teabagger”, which they hate. Ask me if I care.