blueblo0ded:

She makes me a proud Oklahoman. 

(Source: unepetitecrise)

(Source: lighthouseheroics)

The Surveillance State

(Source: un-gif-dans-ta-gueule)

inothernews:

YOU DON’T SAY.

Cue the Republican outrage.  Amirite?

discopeanut:

- Helen Mirren, beautiful in every way it’s possible for a human to be beautiful. 

oinonio:

U.S. Gun Deaths Since the Massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School

The legality of the DOJ’s actions is impossible to assess because it is not even known what legal authority it claims nor the legal process it invoked to obtain these records. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the DOJ’s power to obtain phone records is, as I’ve detailed many times, dangerously broad. It often has the power to obtain those records without the person’s knowledge (as happened here) and for a wildly broad scope of time (as also happened here). There are numerous instruments that have been vested in the DOJ to obtain phone records, many of which do not require court approval, including administrative subpoenas and “national security letters” (issued without judicial review); indeed, the Obama DOJ has previously claimed it has the power to obtain journalists’ phone records without subpoeans using NSLs, and in its relentless pursuit to learn the identity of the source for one of New York Times’ James Risen’s stories, the Obama DOJ has actually claimed that journalists have no shield protections whatsoever in the national security context. It’s also quite possible that they obtained the records through a Grand Jury subpoena, as part of yet another criminal investigation to uncover and punish leakers. None of those processes for obtaining these invasive records requires a demonstration of probable cause or anything close to it. Instead, the DOJ must simply assert that the records “relate to” a pending investigation: a standard so broad that virtually every DOJ desire will fulfill it.

Glenn Greenwald (via azspot) —

funnyorwtf:

Meanwhile, in Minnesota.

azspot:

400 PPM: We’ve Never Been Here Before