Sana is agreeing with non-natural personhood for corporations insofar as he agrees that corporations should be able to act as liability-shields for natural persons, but he doesn't agree with constitutional rights being given to corporations. You are wrong, completely wrong, to suggest that he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision. We can fact-check you if you'd like, by simply asking Sana if he agrees with the Hobby Lobby decision

I have it on good authority from an accomplished constitutional scholar that Hobby Lobby was decided on the basis of one single piece of legislation from 1993 and absolutely nothing else, because that's how Supreme Court decisions work.

It's encouraging to see a religious ideology evolve to changing values... It's the ideologies that forbid change that need to eradicated from the planet.

I guess from a practical/political point of view, if people find out that you are running into a building like that just to make a political point, it's likely to backfire. if people don't find out though, then i guess it works.

I'm not sure if the interpretation should be that they are idiots or if I should consider them closer to the monks who practice self-immolation. Although now that I think of it, I'm not sure what I should think about those monks either.

I don't know what to make of the reports of Gazans moving into a building after Israel calls and sends warning shots that the house will be destroyed.

I can see the day when the skies will be thick with drones.Amazon is already working on using drones to deliver packages.
That said I do think that there should be some legal limitations on drones spying on people who are on private property.

Contract Shows Obama Planned Border Invasion

Immigration: A federal employment ad posted in January showing that 65,000 unaccompanied minors will enter the U.S. illegally shows that the administration expected this cross-border child abuse and encouraged it.

Concrete evidence has shown up proving our earlier assertion: The breach of our border by waves of unaccompanied alien children was orchestrated by the administration based on a strategy straight out of the playbook President Obama studied as a community organizer. His goal is to get his way on immigration reform by overwhelming the U.S. Border Patrol and collapsing an already weakened system.

The evidence comes in the form a government contract solicited in January by the Department of Homeland Security. The listing asked for "Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children" in expectation of the arrival of 65,000 minors on our southern border without their parents or guardians.

The operative language in the listing is the statement by DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement that they expect there "will be approximately 65,000" alien minors requiring assistance. This is a significant increase from the 5,000 minors who are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement annually. It also strongly suggests not only advance knowledge of the human catastrophe about to unfold but a lack of any effort to stop it.

Not only have the numbers vastly increased, but the points of origin have changed. No longer are we talking about just poor Mexican families seeking a better life from an "act of love," as one possible 2016 presidential candidate put it. Hondurans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans now make up about 75% of illegals caught in South Texas.

The number of children traveling without parents has overwhelmed Border Patrol detention centers along the Texas border, prompting officials to ship them to converted warehouses and military bases as far away as California. The situation is so bad that there is fear we would have no place to put American citizen refugees if another Hurricane Katrina occurs. Some have even called this alien-children invasion Obama's Katrina.

This is no act of love, as children are transported by cartels and other human traffickers from Central America and then through 1,800 miles of difficult Mexican roads. They are subjected to the worst abuse along the way, then dumped across the border, where they huddle on warehouse floors in conditions ideal for the spread of infectious diseases.

Such a journey is made on the expectation that these children will not be turned away. At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing this week, committee Republicans noted three causes for this influx: Obama executive actions such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program; lax enforcement policies; and talk on both sides of the aisle of comprehensive immigration reform indistinguishable from amnesty.

As committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul noted in his opening statement:

"Newspapers in El Salvador and Honduras seem to be encouraging youth to head to the United States based on these policies. And recent internal DHS surveys of these children reveal that more than 70% believe they are going to stay in the country."

This is a human tragedy of the administration's making. ICE union boss Chris Crane testified last year at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, lodging complaints about the lawlessness behind the "nation's broken immigration system."

"ICE has essentially prohibited its agents from enforcing" immigration law, Crane said. "What message do ICE practices send to the world? The message is: 'We don't enforce our laws, come on over, and if you do get caught, just lie to us. Lie about the day and year you entered, lie about going to high school, you won't be required to prove anything.'"

This is a humanitarian disaster as well a political outrage, and the Obama White House wanted it to happen.

If people worried less about whose fucking lap it is in and more about fixing the prolem maybe someone thing would happen.   

The child trafficking law was well-intended but with unintended consequences.  The 20008 law that brought this about was a bipartisan effort applauded by both sides.  I thought Bush did a good thing when he signed that law as well.  We all thought it was a good thing to make sure kids arent being trafficked in sex trades etc.   But it had unintended consequences.  Rather than being obsessed with making sure we can BLAME Obama and put it "in his lap" (you cant)....how about congress fix the fucking law like the president has asked?  The problem is in all of our laps. Obama asked congress to get to work and fix it.  The 3.7 Billion is temporary.  The law needs to be revised....that is the job of congress. Start writing to your representative and ask them how it will be fixed.

People are so obsessed with finding ways to blame Obama, the problem itself is not actually the issue.

This it will likely end up with isolating the U.S. economically in certain sectors. Simply put, the laws in certain countries will make it impossible to use certain services offered by American businesses. That is true whether the servers are hosted on American or foreign soil. Likewise, the laws in certain countries will make it impossible for certain foreign businesses to operate in the U.S. since it would end up compromising their operations outside of the U.S..

Now I'm not suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't stop enforcing the law as soon as data is hosted on foreign soil. I am saying that it is a very complicated matter as far as businesses that have operations inside of the U.S. are concerned. As such the U.S. should be looking at other avenues to collect evidence.

The effects of your first suggestion would be disastrous and as others have pointed out would eliminate freedom of the press for newspapers. It would also eliminate due process, contract rights, etc. It's simply a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never work.

Your second idea is perhaps worse. Government already has a terrible time attracting and retaining professionals because of lower pay and opportunity. Right now the main incentive to go into public service is the experience. Your proposal devalues the experience completely. Who in the right mind would work for the government under your proposal?

Your last proposal will lower already minuscule interest rates for savers and will make loans more expensive. And ignores the real problem: the Fed's balance sheet.

Ideally, I don't think any human should be allowed to make decisions that affect others but then hide from the law behind a non-person. But, there probably are more far-reaching consequences to completely banning legal liability shields. Certainly there are large economic effects -- investments would be chilled considerably.

Yes, that last sentence is easily possible.
Corporations exist solely due to charters granted by government. If you want to tax them as distinct entities, it is hardly a difficult matter to legislate -- it very certainly does not require that any Constitutional rights be granted to them.

What's to prevent governments from banning certain organisations it deems nasty--like your typical union or non profit? Or your newspaper?
And Rigon,so no more PIRGS? Ralph Nader would be unamused.

Has anyone ever talked to a drunk, or someone with mental illness, or someone brainwashed? Even when you try and discuss any subject with them they always go back to their obsession. The drunk it could be his wife, you try to steer them back to another subject and their right back to their wife. Same goes for all mental illnesses. After a while maybe you chuckle to yourself and say see ya later

Same thing here with Obama. It's sad, because it says one day there will be enough mindless mental cases that will give rise to pre WW2 Germany .

Gaza is a highly populated area, and to eliminate one Hamas member Israel is firing missiles with 100% accuracy at their homes. But this is a crime committed by a country which Canada has close ties. Canada must stop supporting a Terrorist sate which kills women and children intentionally in these indiscriminate bombing.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/death-takes-no-holiday/

... The truth is that I have been waiting to die for quite some while now. I do not wish to die, certainly not until, as Socrates says, “life has no more to offer.” I’ve not found that life has anywhere near run out of delight for me. I’ve never considered suicide, though I have, at different times, out of spiritual fatigue, thought I would welcome death. “All is finite,” wrote Santayana, “all is to end, all is bearable—that is my only comfort.”

Yet, though, contra Dylan Thomas, I hope to be allowed to go gently into that good night, I do not figure to welcome death when it arrives. Like everyone else, I take blood tests with my annual physical, and each year I expect the results to be disastrous, showing I have three different cancers, Parkinson’s, incipient Lou Gehrig’s, and what looks like Alzheimer’s well on its way. I am waiting, in other words, for both shoes to fall.

When they do, I shall not be shocked or even surprised, but disappointed nonetheless. I have had a good and lucky run, having been born to honorable and intelligent parents in the most interesting country in the world during a period of unrivaled prosperity and vast technological advance. I prefer to think I’ve got the best out of my ability, and have been properly appreciated for what I’ve managed to accomplish. One may regard one’s death as a tragic event, or view it as the ineluctable conclusion to the great good fortune of having been born to begin with. I’m going with the latter.

Unless the Dirty Tricks Department, which is always very active, gets to me, and makes my final years, months, days on Earth a hell of pain and undignified suffering, I shall regret my departure from life. On his deathbed, Goethe’s last words are said to have been, “More light, more light.” Gertrude Stein, on hers, asked, “What is the answer?” and when no one replied, laughed and asked, “Then what is the question?” I don’t have a final draft of my own deathbed words, but I do have a theme, which is unembarrassed thanksgiving

Chris Christie's Bizarre Pro-Life Defense Of 10-Bullet Gun Magazine Bill Veto
By John Amato July 9, 2014
Chris Christie's bizarre reasons for vetoing the ten bullet gun magazine bill

I wrote about Joe Scarborough calling the New Jersey governor a chickensh*t because he refused to met with the Sandy Hook families after he vetoed a bill reducing the number of bullets that would be in a magazine, but first I wanted to highlight how he defended himself on the veto because it was so truly off the wall.

    Christie: I've heard the argument so are we saying that the 10 children on the clip they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable? If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero because every life is valuable. And so why 10? Why not six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero? Why not just ban guns completely?

    So the logical conclusion of their argument is that you get to zero eventually so you know, I understand their argument. I feel extraordinary sympathy for them and the other families and all the families across America who are the victims of gun violence.

What they are saying is by reducing the number of bullets in a gun clip, you're giving maniacs less bullets and less firepower to massacre humans with, Chris. Every life saved is a victory. How he goes from 10 bullets in a magazine to zero is stunning to say the least. Why does anyone need fifteen round magazines is beyond me accept if you plan to be in a war. The lengths in which he ties himself up in knots to defend his veto is mind boggling.

UPDATE: Mark Barden, a parent of the Sandy Hook massacre was very upset that Christie refused to meet with him:

    Nearly a week after Gov. Chris Christie rejected a controversial gun control measureand then declined to meet with the parents of two children gunned down in Connecticut, the father of one slain first-grader described the governor’s reason for turning down a meeting with them as "unfortunate."

    Mark Barden, whose son Daniel, 7, was killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., said he was confused by the Republican governor’s comments on Monday in which he defended his decision to veto the bill intended to reduce the size of ammunition magazines from 15 rounds to 10.



http://crooksandliars.com/2014/07/joe-scarborough-calls-chris-christie

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings of well being are described by Maslow.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfil self actualization, but so too can many things.

The Facts on Women, Children and Gun Violence

presence of a firearm in a home with domestic violence can transform an argument into homicide in a fraction of a second. Firearms and domestic violence are a lethal combination - injuring and killing women, children, and bystanders every day in the United States. In one study of 25 high-income countries, the United States represented just 32% of the female population but accounted for 84% of all female firearm homicides.i A gun is the weapon most commonly used in domestic homicides. In fact, more than six times as many women are murdered by guns used by their current or former intimate partners than are killed by male strangers’ guns, knives or other weapons combined.

332,014 people died from guns between 2000 and 2010. That number is greater than the populations of U.S. cities such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati.

31,328 people died from gun violence in 2010, or roughly 1 every 17 minutes.

A gun in the home makes homicide three times more likely, suicide up to five times as likely, and accidental death four times higher than in non-gun owning homes.

Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.

Over 40 percent of guns sold in the U.S. are done so without a background check.

Gun Violence & Women

94% of female murder victims killed by men are killed by a man they knew. In other words, females are 16 times as likely to be killed by a male acquaintance than by a male stranger. In 2010, 1,017 women, almost three a day, were killed by their intimate partners. viii

Of females killed by men with a firearm, more than two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners.

In 2010, 52 percent of female homicide victims killed by men were shot and killed with a gun. Female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined.

Women suffering from domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed if there are firearms in the home