FUCK YOU Taylor Swift, Karlie Kloss and FACEBOOK!!!




Image result
We Removed Something You Posted

We removed the post below because it doesn’t follow Facebook Community Standards:


You’re Temporarily Blocked From Posting

This temporary block will last 30 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.

You’ve repeatedly posted things that aren’t allowed on Facebook. Read the Facebook Community Standards to learn what kinds of posts aren’t allowed.


New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (No. 39)

Argued: January 6, 1964

Decided: March 9, 1964

273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded.

Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 [p271] 365. The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.

That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression  [p272] are to have the “breathing space” that they “need . . . to survive,” NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 433, was also recognized by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458 (1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 678. Judge Edgerton spoke for a unanimous court which affirmed the dismissal of a Congressman’s libel suit based upon a newspaper article charging him with anti-Semitism in opposing a judicial appointment.

He said:

Cases which impose liability for erroneous reports of the political conduct of officials reflect the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors. . . . The interest of the public here outweighs the interest of appellant or any other individual. The protection of the public requires not merely discussion, but information. Political conduct and views which some respectable people approve, and others condemn, are constantly imputed to Congressmen. Errors of fact, particularly in regard to a man’s mental states and processes, are inevitable. . . . Whatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate.

[n13] Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error. Where judicial officers are involved, this Court has held that concern for the dignity and [p273] reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment as criminal contempt of criticism of the judge or his decision. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252. This is true even though the utterance contains “half-truths” and “misinformation.” Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345. Such repression can be justified, if at all, only by a clear and present danger of the obstruction of justice. See also Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375. If judges are to be treated as “men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate,” Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S. at 376, surely the same must be true of other government officials, such as elected city commissioners. [n14] Criticism of their official conduct does not lose its constitutional protection merely because it is effective criticism, and hence diminishes their official reputations.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

485 U.S. 46

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (No. 86-1278)

Argued: December 2, 1987

Decided: February 24, 1988

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.

[T]he [p51] freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty — and thus a good unto itself — but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503-504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a “false” idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974). As Justice Holmes wrote,

when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. . . .

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting opinion).

The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.

Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C.J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944), when he said that “[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.” Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks,” New York Times, supra, at 270.

[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry “Foul!” when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [p52] to demonstrate the contrary.

Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 274 (1971).

TIME Reveals Its Annual List of the 100 Most Influential People in the World

Published: 20 April 2017


The list features U.S. President Donald Trump, and other U.S. political figures including Stephen Bannon, Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, Bob Ferguson, John Lewis, James Mattis, Rebekah Mercer, Tom Perez, Reince Priebus, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warrenand more.

Other writers include Leonardo DiCaprio, Taylor Swift, Stephen Colbert, John McCain, Jane Curtin, Samantha Power, Kerry Washington, Ray Kurzweil, Cory Booker, Tim Kaine, America Ferrera, Rita Dove, Ed Sheeran, and more.

Xi Jinping is on the list for the 8th time, more than any other person on the list. Other repeats include: Kim Jong Un (7), Vladimir Putin (6), Pope Francis (5), Jeff Bezos (4), Recep Tayyip Erdogan (4), Narenda Modi (3), Elizabeth Warren (4), Janet Yellen (3), Julian Assange (2), Fatou Bensouda (2), James Comey (2), Viola Davis (2), Daniel Ek (2), Melinda Gates (2), LeBron James (2), Alicia Keys (2), John Legend (2), Sandra Day O’Connor (2), Jordan Peele (2), Reince Priebus (2), Juan Manuel Santos (2), Evan Spiegel (2), Donald Trump (2), and Wang Qishan (2).

This year’s list features 40 women, including, Margaret Atwood, Samantha Bee, Simone Biles, Viola Davis, Ava DuVernay, Fan Bingbing, Melinda Gates, Ashley Graham, Kirsten Green, Barbara Lynch, Sarah Paulson, Margot Robbie, Emma Stone, Ivanka Trump, Elizabeth Warren, Constance Wu, Janet Yellen, and more.

Activist for LGBT rights, Gavin Grimm, 17, is the youngest person on the list. The oldest person on the list is Sandra Day O’Connor, who is 87.

See the complete 2017 TIME 100 list: www.time.com/time100

“A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.”

~Albert Camus

“The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.”

~Joseph Pulitzer

The right to criticize public officials (see New York Times Co v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 273, II L Ed 2d 686, 84 S Ct 710 (1964)) and to petition the government for a redress of grievances protected activities (see United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n, 389 US 217, 222, 19 L Ed 2d 426, 88 S Ct 353 (1967)); see Connick v. Myers, 461 US 138, 75 L Ed 2d 708, 103 S Ct 1684 (1983) (“public concern”) whereas “The First Amendment was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Id. at 145 (see also Roth v. United States, 354 US 476, 484, 1 L Ed 2d 1498, 77 S Ct 1304, 14 OHIO Ops 2d 331 (1957)).

Citing New York Times v. Sullivansupra, “Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.  Where judicial officers are involved, [the US Supreme Court] has held that concern for the dignity and reputation of the courts does not justify the punishment {376 U.S. 273} as criminal contempt of criticism of the judge or his decision.

Citing Hustler Magazine & Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell, 485 US 46, 99 L Ed 2d 41, 108 S Ct 876 [no 86-1278] 02/24/88, “Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 522 U.S. 655, 673-674, 88 L Ed 1525, 64 S Ct 1240 (1944), when he said that “[O]ne of the prerogatives of American Citizenship is the right to criticize public [wo/men] and measures.”  Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to “Vehement, Casuistic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.”  “[T]he candidate who vaunts [her/his] spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry ‘foul’ when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts {485 US 52} to demonstrate the contrary.  (See also Monitor Patriot Co v. Roy (1971)).

First Amendment: An Overview

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments.

Enemy of the People: Pleading the First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Published in the American Bar Association Section of Litigation Employment & Labor
Relations Law Newsletter, Spring 2013, Vol. 11, No. 2.

Freedom of Speech – Freedom of Press


Language on vacation : an olio of orthographical oddities


Bramscher, William Robert “Billy bob”

Mr. William Robert “Billy bob” Bramscher is a victim of First Amendment Retaliation by a Non-Employer FACEBOOK aswellas employer Icon8 whereas:

This temporary block will last 30 days, and you won’t be able to post on Facebook until it’s finished.


See also FAGGOT

See also Fagot

Also found in: ThesaurusEncyclopedia.
Related to fagot: Faget



1. bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
2. bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.

tr.v.fag·ot·edfag·ot·ingfag·otsalsofag·got·ed or fag·got·ing or fag·gots

1. To bind into a fagot; bundle.

2. To decorate with fagoting.

Is the Fa-word the new N-word?


‘Context Is All Important’

Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard University’s law school and author of Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word, has given a lot of thought to hate language. “Faggot can be used as viciously or facetiously or ironically or tenderly as nigger,” says Kennedy. “Obviously they have different histories. But they are each verbal symbols and can be deployed or revalued or reinterpreted like any other symbol including the Confederate flag or the swastika.”

He adds, “In a bow to history, I will say that using any of these symbols is presumptively bad. But only presumptively. They can all be put to other uses. Context is all important.”

Part of the context, of course, is where we are as a society. Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, told USA Today in 2007 that “we are in a place where the words traditionally considered the most obscene — sexual and scatological words — are viewed as less and less offensive, while words that are ethnic and religious slurs have increased in offensiveness.”

The more the culture cares what blacks, Hispanics or gays think, Sheidlower said, “the more attuned we are to slurs against them.”

Men belittling men — on a basketball court, in a bar, at a business meeting — is an ancient practice. “Even enlightened men,” says Stuever, “men with many gay friends, men with functional relationships with wives and girlfriends — will demasculinize one another in casual conversation.”

That challenge to manliness is at the heart of the recent NBA incidents. And whether the origin of the Fa-word-meaning today comes from the burning of heretics or the belittling of women (see Origins Of The Fa-Word), there is no positive way to look at it.

In our most popular culture, Stuever says, “nothing is currently more funny to male and female audiences than the subtle anti-gay joke, in which masculinity is threatened by inferences or direct examples of homosexuality. You see it everywhere – Saturday Night Live, sitcoms, movies like The Hangover.”

“They are each verbal symbols and can be deployed or revalued or reinterpreted like any other symbol including the Confederate flag or the swastika.”


Image result

“Human behavior is subject to the same laws as any other natural phenomenon. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry, patriotism and hatred; these are all learned behavior patterns. If the environment is unaltered, similar behavior will reoccur.”

[M]aterial dealing with sex in a manner that advocates ideas, . . . or that has literary or scientific or artistic value or any other form of social importance, may not be branded as obscenity and denied the constitutional protection. Nor may the constitutional status of the material be made to turn on a “weighing” of its social importance against its prurient appeal, for a work cannot be proscribed unless it is “utterly” without social importance.

See Zeitlin v. Arnebergh, 59 Cal.2d 901, 920, 383 P.2d 152, 165, 31 Cal.Rptr. 800, 813 (1963).

See also Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 191 (opinion of BRENNAN, J.). Followed in, e.g., People v. Bruce, 31 Ill.2d 459, 461, 202 N.E.2d 497, 498 (1964); Trans-Lux Distributing Corp. v. Maryland Bd. of Censors, 240 Md. 98, 104-105, 213 A.2d 235, 238-239 (1965).

The First Amendment is one of the most formidable sources of American Civil Liberties.  It includes several guarantees, of which the most important are the “Freedom of Speech” and the “Freedom of Press”.  Freedom of Speech and of the Press is a constitutional guaranty under the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to the Constitution of the United States and provisions in many state constitutions, embracing the concept that free discussion is essential to the growth, development, and well being of our free society under a democratic form of government (seeN.A.A.C.P. v Button, supraAssociated Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 20, 89 L Ed 2013, 2030, 65 S Ct 1416 (06/18/45)Parsons v. Age-Herald Publishing Co., 181 ALA 439, 450,461, So 345, 350 (1913)).

Billy bob Bramschers’ petition of First Amendment Retaliation must be considered against the background of a profound national commitment to the principal that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials (see Terminiello v Chicago, 337 US 1, 4, 93 L Ed 1131, 1134, 69 S Ct 894 (05/16/49)DeJonge v Oregon, 299 US 353, 365, 81 L Ed 278, 57 S Ct 255 (01/04/37).

To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, Billy bob Bramscher must demonstrate three things. First, that Billy bob Bramscher engaged in protected conduct. This means that Billy bob Bramschers‘ speech or expression was the type traditionally covered under the First Amendment. Second, an adverse action was taken against the Billy bob Bramscher that would deter “a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in that speech or conduct. Third, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between these two elements, i.e., the adverse action was motivated at least in part by Billy bob Bramschers’ protected conduct.

Citing Rocky Mt Rogues, Inc v. Town of Alpine, 375 Fed Appx 887, 04/19/2010, “Any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech, including… legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom.”

Citing Worrell v. Henry, 219 F3d 1197, 1212 (10th Cir 2000) “The eight circuit’s approach in Helvey resembles one we have adopted in assessing First Amendment Retaliation claims against defendants other than the defendants employer.  We have stated that ‘any form of official retaliation for exercising one’s freedom of speech including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment constitutes an infringement of that freedom’.”  (See also Lackey v County of Bernalillo, 1999 US APP Lexis 75, No 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at **3 (10th Cir 1999)).

In broad terms, the First Amendment protects the right to be free from government abridgment of speech. Retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights is a blackletter constitutional violation. In fact, an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under 42 Chap 21 USC § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.

Official retaliation against on who threatens to expose governmental corruption may, in certain circumstances, amount to political persecution warranting relief.

See Hayrapetyan v Mukasey, 534 F3d 1330, 1337 (10th Cir 2008) in re “explaining  that persecution requires the infliction of suffering or harm by the government itself, or by a non-governmental group that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”

See Ahang v Gonzales, 426 F3d 540,542 (2nd Cir 2005) in re “Retaliation for opposition to government corruption may… constitute persecution of political opinion.”

See Hasan v Ashcroft, 380 F 3d 1114, 1120-21 (9th Cir 2004) in re exposure of political leader’s corruption is “inherently political.”

See Grava v INS, 205 F3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir 2000) in re whistleblowing against abuse of public trust is necessarily political, even where whistleblower does not espouse political theory.”).




Image result for rose cross


Creator of the Morning, The new rays of morning light remind me of the streams of love that you are sending toward me today. I will meditate on the many facets of your love that sparkle more beautifully than the most brilliant diamond. I will meditate on your compassion, your mercy, your forgiveness, and your faithfulness; they are all reflected in the beauty of your love.

I look out my window and observe the beauty of the trees that reach their limbs up to you in praise. Lord, I lift up my heart, and I lift up my hands to you in praise. You are worthy of my praise.


“The freedom to speak your mind. To worship. To pray without interference. To protest in peace. These rights are still protected by the First Amendment. The freedom to speak one’s mind on issues of the day, exercise religious beliefs, remain educated through a free press, associate with others and petition the government when you have been wronged is just as important today as it was in 1791. If our First Amendment protections are to remain intact, however, it will require courageous individuals who are willing to take a stand in defense of them.”

~The Rutherford Institute




Schenck v. United States 249 u.s. 47 (1919)

Abrams v. United States 250 u.s. 616 (1919)

Gitlow v. People 268 u.s. 652 (1925)

Whitney v. California 274 u.s. 357 (1927)

Stromberg v. California 283 u.s. 359 (1931)

Near v. Minnesota 283 u.s. 697 (1931)

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc. 297 u.s. 233 (1936)

De Jonge v. Oregon 299 u.s. 353 (1937)

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization 307 u.s. 496 (1939)

Thornhill v. Alabama 310 u.s. 88 (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 u.s. 296 (1940)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 u.s. 568 (1942)

Marsh v. Alabama 326 u.s. 501 (1946)

American Communications Assn. v. Douds 339 u.s. 382 (1950)

Dennis v. United States 341 u.s. 494 (1951)

Adler v. Board of Education of City of New York 342 u.s. 485 (1952)

Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson 343 u.s. 495 (1952)

Watkins v. United States 354 u.s. 178 (1957)

Yates v. United States 354 u.s. 298 (1957)

Roth v. United States 354 u.s. 476 (1957)

Barenblatt v. United States 360 u.s. 109 (1959)

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. No. 12 367 u.s. 1 (1961)

Scales v. United States 367 u.s. 203 (1961)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button 371 u.s. 415 (1963)

Edwards v. South Carolina 372 u.s. 229 (1963)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 u.s. 254 (1964)

Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 u.s. 184 (1964)

Aptheker v. Secretary of State 378 u.s. 500 (1964)

Cox v. Louisiana 379 u.s. 536 (1965)

Zemel v. Rusk 381 u.s. 1 (1965)

A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Massachusetts 383 u.s. 413 (1966)

Bond v. Floyd 385 u.s. 116 (1966)

Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 u.s. 589 (1967)

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts 388 u.s. 130 (1967)

Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 u.s. 308 (1968)

United States v. O’Brien 391 u.s. 367 (1968)

Epperson v. Arkansas 393 u.s. 97 (1968)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. 393 u.s. 503 (1969)

Stanley v. Georgia 394 u.s. 557 (1969)

Street v. New York 394 u.s. 576 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 u.s. 444 (1969)

Rowan v. United States Post Office Department 397 u.s. 728 (1970)

Younger v. Harris 401 u.s. 37 (1971)

Cohen v. California 403 u.s. 15 (1971)

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia 403 u.s. 29 (1971)

New York Times Co. v. United States 403 u.s. 713 (1971)

Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 u.s. 551 (1972)

Police Dep’t v. Mosley 408 u.s. 92 (1972)

Grayned v. City of Rockford 408 u.s. 104 (1972)

Perry v. Sindermann 408 u.s. 593 (1972)

Branzburg v. Hayes 408 u.s. 665 (1972)

Miller v. California 413 u.s. 15 (1973)

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations 413 u.s. 376 (1973)

Smith v. Goguen 415 u.s. 566 (1974)

Jenkins v. Georgia 418 u.s. 153 (1974)

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo 418 u.s. 241 (1974)

Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights 418 u.s. 298 (1974)

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 u.s. 323 (1974)

Spence v. Washington 418 u.s. 405 (1974)

Bigelow v. Virginia 421 u.s. 809 (1975)

Buckley v. Valeo 424 u.s. 1 (1976)

Time, Inc. v. Firestone 424 u.s. 448 (1976)

Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board 424 u.s. 507 (1976)

Greer v. Spock 424 u.s. 828 (1976)

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.425 u.s. 748 (1976)

Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. 427 u.s. 50 (1976)

Wooley v. Maynard 430 u.s. 705 (1977)

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro 431 u.s. 85 (1977)

Carey v. Population Services International 431 u.s. 678 (1977)

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona 433 u.s. 350 (1977)

In re Primus 436 u.s. 412 (1978)

Hutchinson v. Proxmire 443 u.s. 111 (1979)

Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale 443 u.s. 368 (1979)

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 u.s. 74 (1980)

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n 447 u.s. 557 (1980)

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia 448 u.s. 555 (1980)

Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim 452 u.s. 61 (1981)

Heffron v. International Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness 452 u.s. 640 (1981)

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego 453 u.s. 490 (1981)

Widmar v. Vincent 454 u.s. 263 (1981)

Brown v. Hartlage 456 u.s. 45 (1982)

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court 457 u.s. 596 (1982)

Board of Educ. v. Pico 457 u.s. 853 (1982)

New York v. Ferber 458 u.s. 747 (1982)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 u.s. 886 (1982)

Connick v. Myers 461 u.s. 138 (1983)

Bolger v. Youngs Drugs Prods. Corp. 463 u.s. 60 (1983)

Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent 466 u.s. 789 (1984)

Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence 468 u.s. 288 (1984)

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund 473 u.s. 788 (1985)

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. 475 u.s. 41 (1986)

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court 478 u.s. 1 (1986)

Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser 478 u.s. 675 (1986)

Board of Airport Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc. 482 u.s. 569 (1987)

Rankin v. McPherson 483 u.s. 378 (1987)

Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier 484 u.s. 260 (1988)

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell 485 u.s. 46 (1988)

Boos v. Barry 485 u.s. 312 (1988)

Frisby v. Schultz 487 u.s. 474 (1988)

Texas v. Johnson 491 u.s. 397 (1989)

Massachusetts v. Oakes 491 u.s. 576 (1989)

Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 u.s. 781 (1989)

Osborne v. Ohio 495 u.s. 103 (1990)

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens 496 u.s. 226 (1990)

United States v. Eichman 496 u.s. 310 (1990)

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 497 u.s. 1 (1990)

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois 497 u.s. 62 (1990)

Rust v. Sullivan 500 u.s. 173 (1991)

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 u.s. 560 (1991)

Dawson v. Delaware 503 u.s. 159 (1992)

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul 505 u.s. 377 (1992)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee 505 u.s. 672 (1992)

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 u.s. 384 (1993)

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia 515 u.s. 819 (1995)

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 00-795 (2002)

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White 01-521 (2002)

United States District Court W. D. Kentucky, at Louisville Civ. A. Nos. 2321, 2322

Cultural references [edit]

Among the world leaders who communicate with Randy in the episode are French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva,[4] Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi, Chinese president Hu Jintao,[5] Japanese prime minister Taro Aso,[6] Mexican president Felipe Calderón,[7] and Finnish prime minister Matti Vanhanen. The episode received some degree of criticism overseas for depicting the wrong leaders for its countries.[8][9] The episode featured John Howard as Prime Minister of Australia, even though he had been replaced by Kevin Rudd almost eighteen months earlier; according to the Macquarie National News, the episode “has copped some flack on video sharing websites” over the error. The episode also features Vladimir Putin as President of Russia, even though he stepped down in May 2008.[9] The episode also featured Prime Minister of the United KingdomGordon Brown.[10][11][12][13]


Is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers

Wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints

We spend more, but we have less.

We have bigger houses, but smaller families

More conveniences, but less time.

We have more degrees, but less sense

More knowledge, but less judgement

More experts, but more problems

More medicines, but less wellness.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.

We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often

We have learnt how to make a living, but not a life.

We have added years to life, but not life to years.

We’ve been all the way to the moon and back

But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour.

We have conquered outer space, but not inner space.

We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted our soul.

We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice.

We’ve higher incomes, but lower morals.

We’ve become long on quantity but short on quality.

These are the times of tall men, and short character;

Steep profits, and shallow relationships.

These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare,

More leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are the days of two incomes, but more divorces;

Of fancier houses, but broken homes.

It is a time when there is much in the show window, and nothing in the stockroom.

A time when technology can bring this letter to you,

And a time when you can choose,

Either to make a difference …. or just hit, delete.


Doctor Hunter S. Thompson

Hunter, wherever you are, Happy Birthday. Here is one of your favorite poems by W. H. Auden:

Earth, receive an honoured guest:
William Yeats is laid to rest.
Let the Irish vessel lie
Emptied of its poetry.

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;

Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face,
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.

Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice.

With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress.

In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountains start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.

~W. H. Auden

It is true that Auden later deleted the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stanzas, but Hunter preferred to have the poem read with those included…

Image result

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”


“If you’re going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you’re going to be locked up.”


“I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me.”


“These things happen. One day you run everything, and the next day you run like a dog.”


“Sex without love is as hollow and ridiculous as love without sex.”


“Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”


“I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.”

“Freedom is something that dies unless it’s used.”


“You won’t find reasonable men on the tops of tall mountains.”


“Anything that gets your blood racing is probably worth doing.”


“If you can’t make yourself understood by your friends, you’ll be in trouble when your enemies come for you.”


“Sleep late, have fun, get wild, drink whiskey and drive fast on empty streets with nothing in mind but falling in love and not getting arrested.”


“He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.”


“For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled.”

“Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors.”


“Journalism, to me, is just another drug – a free ride to scenes I’d probably miss if I stayed straight.”


“The TV business is a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There is also a negative side.”


“Most people who deal in words don’t have much faith in them and I am no exception.”


“Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.”


“The best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism.”


“Las Vegas is the savage heart of the American Dream.”

“Weird heroes and mould-breaking champions exist as living proof to those who need it that the tyranny of ‘the rat race’ is not yet final.”


“The truth, when you finally chase it down is almost always far worse than your darkest visions and fears”


“Publishers are notoriously slothful about numbers, unless they’re attached to dollar signs – unlike journalists, quarterbacks, and felony criminal defendants who tend to be keenly aware of numbers at all times.”


“Life’s journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting ‘Holy shit…what a ride!”



old soul
“How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are?” ~Satchel Paige


Contemplation (Edit & Redux):

Families and family members within today’s society are seemly disconnected lacking full-transparency and full-disclosure… Honestly, most people know little of themselves except what they see in the mirror and are told by others or the media.

This is a process of “samsara” which destroys a most important connection for sharing and learning as we cope with endless and chaotic internal and external stimuli.

“Pure love” and cosmic energies dictate human need to connect in many ways spiritually, physically, emotionally an so on with other humans…

We all are unaware of the dramas and hardships which have affected our closest family/friends within this or previous lives, not to mention our own, and it may be seen that this separation is causing pain, sorrow and anxiety throughout our homes, villages, countries and so on…

Although learned “ego” seems culprit for these issues, it seems other factors including social and media programming, a failing educational system, the separation of family, separation from selves and so on are cause factors to this samsara.

What is needed now in this world more than ever before is for each individual to look, feel and focus inward on truly what “Pure love” and “True integrity” are…

Everyday each of us has a profound power too effect all sentient beings with as little as a simple thought(s) and leading up to horrific violence…

For many thousands of years in human history families lived harmoniously with nature attributed to close maternal/fraternal bonds, villages to raise our children and [relying] on elders as the source to transcend history and culture to younger generations as well as being active members within the tribes.

“United WE Stand, Divided WE Fall!!!”

It is time to start loving yourself more than ever and by this eliminate “ego” and without doubt your bright pure light will influence positively all sentient beings…



“Tha Lonesome Lozer” in “Lone Tree”

Om Mani Padme Hum

“This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever.”

~Sigmund Freud (speaking about the Irish)

Image result for o'farrell family crest








Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s