This is what America has come to, the use of quotation marks is perfect.
This is what America has come to, the use of quotation marks is perfect.
The big-government loving “progressives” are coming after bloggers such as myself and of course the much-more effective and known ones.
As the media prepared to vacate newsrooms for the weekend, Democrats snuck in a last minute proposal that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) be allowed to heavily regulate political content on internet sites such as Youtube, blogs, and the Drudge Report.
Obama FEC Vice Chairperson Ann M. Ravel announced late on Friday that the FEC was preparing new regulations to give itself control over videos, Internet-based political campaigns, and other content on the web. She insisted that, “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue.”
This snap decision came after the FEC deadlocked 3-3 over whether or not an anti-Obama Internet campaign in Ohio had violated FEC campaign disclosure rules. The videos were placed for free on Youtube and were not paid advertising, but they also did not disclose who made them.
Until now, videos and other political content that is not posted for a fee are unregulated by the FEC. Only paid advertising is regulated under election rules. It is this that the Democrats want to change.
“FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site, or even a chat room could be regulated,” the Washington Examiner reported on October 24. Read More…
Wake up America, before it’s too late…
Via The Washington Post:
Recent polling of Americans shows that public concern over Ebola has grown since the first cases arrived in the United States and since the death of the first Ebola patient — with 4 in 10 Americans saying that they are worried about family members contracting Ebola. The symptoms associated with Ebola, such as bleeding and weakness, are frightening, and the death rate in this current outbreak is very high, reaching 70 percent in certain places. Ebola anxiety, while potentially misplaced and harmful, is likely to have an affect on whom Americans trust to handle the disease and what kinds of policies they will support to fight it.
Based on work that we have done on other public health anxieties, such as smallpox and the H1N1 flu, we expect that Ebola anxiety will lead people to seek protection from diseases that may cause harm to them or their family. In seeking protection, we expect that Americans will, at least initially, put their trust in medical experts like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to tell them how to stay safe and will support state powers that may lead to quarantine or other civil liberties restrictions for those suspected of exposure. Read More…
Smells of Cloward–Piven, statists never let an opportunity go to waste…
As I wrote last year in my post about the Supreme Court decision striking down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, I tend to lean (socially) to the left on certain issues. The right of free-people to make life long commitments to each other, no matter what the genders of the parties involved is one of them. The government should have no say in the matter what-so-ever.
As a small-government loving Conservative, I want Uncle Sam out of my life. If you need the strong arm of the government signing off on your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?
Last year, the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idahao, passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ordinance applies to employment, housing, public accommodation and was supposed to protect religious entities. However because the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, which sits across the street from the County Clerk’s office is a “for profit” entity, city officials claim they are not exempt from the ordinance.
This past Friday, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the city from forcing the Chapel’s owners, both ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
From The Spokesman-Review:
Owners Donald and Evelyn Knapp say in the lawsuit that they believe marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.
“Performing same-sex wedding ceremonies would thus force the Knapps to condone, promote and even consecrate something forbidden by their religious beliefs and ordination vows,” the suit reads.
According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.
“The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows,” the suit reads. Read More…
First, I would like to ask “Why would a couple that wants to express their life-time commitment to each other, want their special day tainted by having the person officiating the ceremony forced to do so under orders from the government?”
The First Amendment clearly prohibits the government from interfering in the free expression of religious beliefs, or to use the term that progressives always misuse the first amendment establishes a “Separation of Church & State.”
Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. No one has the right to use government force to make anyone be it an ordained minister or a lay person go against their religious beliefs and take part in a same-sex ceremony. It is downright totalitarian to force someone to have to choose between their strongly held religious beliefs and their livelihood.
I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have the right to do so, I just don’t believe that the rights of religious people should be trampled on to make that happen.
Common sense and the ability to reason is all but a lost cause in our nation’s schools and law-enforcement agencies. More then likely, the ability not to have a ridiculous over-reaction to every little thing that you don’t understand is gone in the country as a whole as well. The latest example is of a Kentucky man who has spent 8 days locked in jail for a post he made on Facebook.
James Evans, 31, of Muhlenberg Co., KY, is a heavy metal fan. Often times Evans likes to post YouTube videos of songs or various song lyrics on his Facebook wall, something that I do myself and countless numbers of other people on Facebook do all the time.
Most people don’t get arrested for doing so, James Evans did.
On August 24th, Evans posted the lyrics to “Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)” a song off of Exhibit B: The Human Condition, the 2010 album from legendary thrash metal band Exodus. Law enforcement officials were notified of the posting and two-days later James Evans was arrested.
Via WFIE/14 News:
Mike Drake, the Muhlenberg County school resource officer, says multiple agencies received calls concerned about the post.
So Evans was arrested for terroristic threatening.
The warrant says Evans was arrested because, “he threatened to kill students and or staff at school.” Read more…
Below is the posting, the snippet of song lyrics that got Evans in trouble with the law.
Now I will fully admit, those are some pretty violent lyrics, but I fail to see where a “threat” was made. Nowhere in that post did Evans say that he was going to a school to shoot teachers and staff.
When he was released on September 3rd, Evans had the following statement:
“It’s nonsense. I feel like my civil rights have been violated. You know first amendment freedom of speech out the window. Even all the guys I was in the cell with they thought it was nonsense themselves. I had several officials tell me it was nonsense that there was no reason why I should have even been here.”
His civil rights absolutely have been violated. To add insult to injury, Evans states that his case will be pushed back 6 months and he will have to undergo a mental evaluation.
Gary Holt, founder/guitarist/songwriter of Exodus issued the following statement in regards to this ridiculous arrest:
“The idea that an individual in this great country of ours could be arrested for simply posting lyrics to a song is something I never believed could happen in a free society,” states EXODUS guitarist Gary Holt. “James Evans was simply posting lyrics to a band he likes on Facebook, and he was locked up for it. The song ‘Class Dismissed (A Hate Primer)’ was written as a view through the eyes of a madman and in no way endorses that kind of fucked up behavior. It was the Virginia Tech massacre perpetrated by Seung-Hui Cho that was the subject and inspiration to write the song, one in which we put the brakes on playing it live after the Sandy Hook shooting, as we did not want to seem insensitive.”
Gary continues, “As some of us in EXODUS are parents, of course these things hit close to home, it’s every parent’s worst fear. These moments are the stuff of nightmares, and life, as well as music, isn’t always pretty. But when we start to overreact to things like lyrics by any band, including EXODUS, and start arresting people, we are caving in to paranoia and are well on our way to becoming an Orwellian society.”
Exodus, who recently reunited with vocalist Steve “Zetro” Souza are set to release their 10th studio album, Blood In, Blood Out, on Oct. 14. The band will also begin a string of U.S. tour dates with Slayer and Suicidal Tendencies on Nov. 11.
That is of course unless they get jailed by the thought police.
The shear stupidity that is government has struck again, this time in Nebraska.
Nebraska’s Supreme Court has struck down two exceptions to the state’s public smoking ban, a move which is very likely to destroy some small-business owners as it will outlaw enjoying a fine cigar inside a cigar lounge or tobacco shop. However, the court’s decision has sparred exceptions that allow for guests to smoke in some hotel rooms.
The decision was made this past Friday, in the case of an Omaha pool hall, Big John’s Billiards, whose owner sued the state after it enacted a public smoking ban in 2009. The Nebraska smoking ban had outlawed smoking in all public buildings and private businesses. The law, however, did allow exceptions for cigar lounges, tobacco stores and some hotel rooms.
In a split decision, the Nebraska Supreme Court has decided that because hotel guestrooms are “akin to private homes,” the exception for hotel rooms is permissible. It decided however that the exception for cigar lounges and tobacco shops is “unconstitutional”.
Via The Lincoln Journal Star:
Jason “Hutch” Hutchison fears Jake’s Cigars and Spirits’ bottom line will suffer a serious blow after a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling Friday essentially banning smoking in cigar bars.
The 39-year-old bar owner said the state’s cigar bar exemption allowed him to expand his business in Lincoln and Omaha, hire more staff, start new ventures and give back to the community.
Now, he expects he may lose up to 10 percent of his revenue in light of the Supreme Court decision, which also struck down exemptions to the state’s indoor smoking ban for tobacco shops.
The court upheld the overall smoking ban.
“It’s disappointing that one business threw a temper tantrum, and now they’ve basically ruined it for cigar smokers all across the state,” Hutchison said.
Big John’s Billiards, an Omaha pool hall, has fought the state’s ban since its inception.
Instead of scrapping the ban, the Supreme Court struck down exemptions in the law which it considered special legislation and contrary to lawmakers’ initial intent.
The lawyer for Big John’s said he now hopes state lawmakers will level the playing field in regard to the smoking ban.
But cigar bars and tobacco shops fear their revenue will suffer, and with no immediate guidance on enforcement from the state, some owners may voluntarily end cigar smoking before their permits are up to stay out of trouble. Read More…
Here in Ohio we have a smoking ban as well, but thankfully we are still allowed to go to our local cigar lounge and enjoy a smoke with fellow cigar lovers. Hopefully stupid nanny state loving liberals don’t try to end that here as well.
Bowing to political correctness, and citing “safety concerns” the owner of Sneakers Bistro in Winooski, VT removed an advertisement that read “YIELD FOR BACON,” because a local Muslim resident found the sign offensive.
It got there as part of “Operation Bloom.”
A city program put it in place to keep its flower beds beautiful. If businesses do some gardening they can post an advertisement where they do it, but the word “bacon” on the Sneakers Bistro sign started a discussion about diversity on the Winooski Front Porch Forum.
It started with a post from one woman who wrote that the sign was insensitive to those who do not consume pork. She said as a Muslim she is personally offended by it.
The owners of Sneakers spoke to WPTZ. They say they’ve reached out to the individual who made the post and proactively took the sign down. They also say they regret any harm caused by the sign, and that their goal was never to cause stress or bad feelings. Read More…
On their now deleted Facebook page Sneakers Bistro had this response:
“We are here to serve people BREAKFAST, not politics. We removed the sign that was located on public property as a gesture of respect for our diverse community. There were also concerns raised about safety. Removing it was not a difficult decision. We still love bacon. We still love eggs. Please have the political conversation elsewhere.”
I’m interested to know what these “concerns raised about safety,” were? Did they think that the sign was going to cause potential traffic accidents over cars stopping in the street over the thoughts of wonderful tasty bacon goodness? Or were they concerned about violence over their harmless and amusing ad?
It is a free country, or at least it is supposed to be. Much like I wrote in my post about atheists attacking an Arkansas restaurant for their church bulletin promotion, I believe that in a free society small-business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit. So they have every right to pull their sign down due to political correctness, I just think that its sad and pathetic.
I’m more & more convinced each day that the vast-majority of vocal atheists aren’t even really devout in their lack of faith — they’re just a bunch of malcontents and assholes who enjoy stirring up trouble. Sort of like the scumbag ass-hat’s who are harassing a small-business owner in Arkansas.
On July 19th, Steven Rose, the owner of Bailey’s Pizza in Searcy, Arkansas, posted a pictuire of the sign outside his business on the restaurant’s Facebook page on. It was a promotion depicting a 10% discount for anyone coming in with a church bulletin. A few days later the post received a comment from “Bong Hits for Jesus” that read, “Good luck on your discrimination lawsuit.”
A few days after that Rose received a letter from the douchebags at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, postdated July 30th, the same date of the “Bong Hits for Jesus” post. The atheist nut-jobs called the promotion a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Rose does not agree. “It has nothing to do with excluding anybody,” said Rose. “It’s not specific to any church. It’s another way to bring people in and make them feel welcome.”
Rose opened his pizza buffet style pizza joint back in July. His restaurant has a wall allowing customers to write bible verses and scriptures.
In the center of the wall, it reads,
“God is the center of our lives, so our scripture wall is the center of Bailey’s Pizza.”
Rose received a letter from the national organization the first week of August. “It says that because I give a ten percent discount to people who go to church on Sundays, I’m discriminating against those who don’t go to church.” Read More…
What’s next? How about we sue car insurance companies that give a good grades discount to student drivers, that’s discriminating against those with learning disabilities. While we’re at it we should also sue anyone giving discounts to people with College I.D.’s, that’s discriminating againt people who can’t afford higher education. We should also sue anyone that makes people clip a coupon, that’s discriminating against those who don’t get the Sunday paper delivered.
Hey atheists, there is a simple solution if you don’t support this small-business owners right to run his business the way he see’s fit — don’t spend your money there jackasses!
In a free society people (small-business owners included) should be allowed to live their lives as they choose and run their businesses as they see fit.
Seriously stop the fucking planet, I want off.
I wrote a poem once in High School for submission to the schools poetry book, it was deemed too dark and violent for a high school publication. My punishment? It wasn’t included — that was it, I do think I got an A on the project though. It was a good thing that my poem was rejected anyways as it wasn’t entirely original, I took a Metallica song and added extra verses to it.
I couldn’t imagine what sort of punishment I would get in today’s over-sensitized liberal dominated world of ridiculous zero-tolerance policies. The school year is barely even a few days old and already a 16-year-old student at Summerville High School in South Carolina has been not just suspended but arrested as well. All because of a gun.
Not just any gun, this violent juvenile delinquent was sent to jail for the most dangerous gun of all, a fictional one.
That’s right, the poor kid didn’t actually bring a gun to school, he didn’t even threaten to bring the gun to school or make any threats at all. In a class project where the kid wrote an obviously fictionalized version of what he did during the summer, the suspended and arrested student wrote that he had purchased a “gun” to kill his neighbors pet “dinosaur.”
Via WWBT NBC12:
Alex Stone said he and his classmates were told in class to write a few sentences about themselves, and a “status” as if it was a Facebook page.
Stone said in his “status” he wrote a fictional story that involved the words “gun” and “take care of business.”
“I killed my neighbor’s pet dinosaur, and, then, in the next status I said I bought the gun to take care of the business,” Stone said.
Stone says his statements were taken completely out of context.
“I could understand if they made him re-write it because he did have “gun” in it. But a pet dinosaur?” said Alex’s mother Karen Gray.”I mean first of all, we don’t have dinosaurs anymore. Second of all, he’s not even old enough to buy a gun.”
Investigators say the teacher contacted school officials after seeing the message containing the words “gun” and “take care of business,” and police were then notified on Tuesday. Read More…
Police then arrested the poor kid and charged him with “disorderly conduct.”
In an effort to curb violent gun related crime in the City of Cleveland, Ward 2 City Councilman Zack Reed is proposing to ignore the basic 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and implement a “stop & frisk” policy in the Cleveland Police Department. Reed’s idea, which is not yet an official piece of legislation that has even been proposed to City council, comes on the heels of a very violent Monday night which saw four men injured in four separate gun-related incidents.
In an interview with WKYC’s Tom Beres, Reed said:
“We’ need to get in their face. Let them know if you are carrying a gun we are going to get it. You commit a crime you are going to jail. We are going to do all these aggressive things to put in their mind this is not the Wild Wild West.”
As a Clevelander, albeit one that has moved out and escaped to the suburbs and as a decent human being, I can sympathize with Councilman Reed’s desire to make the streets of my hometown safe for everyone. However, as is typical of the idiotic politicians that make up Northeast Ohio, Reed’s idea is not just an ass backwards way of trying to solve the gun violence problem, its also unconstitutional.
Thanks to the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key words there are “unreasonable” and “probable cause.” The type of “stop & frisk” situations that would be used, much like the policy that was used in New York City until it was struck down by a Federal Judge would neither be “reasonable” or take legitimate “probable cause” into account. Time and time again studies have shown that the type of “probable cause” used by police officers is their suspect being young, black and in the inner city.
On October 31, 1963, in Cleveland none-the-less, Police Detective Martin J. McFadden saw three men loitering in front of a jewelery store near E. 13th and Euclid Ave. and peering into the windows. Believing that a robbery was about to take place, McFadden approached all three, identified himself as a police officer and then patted them down. During his search he found weapons on two of the three men and they were eventually charged with and convicted of carrying concealed weapons.
The law at the time only allowed police to stop a suspect after a crime was committed, the convicted men appealed their case and it eventually made its was to the United States Supreme Court. In a landmark decision on June 10, 1968, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the court’s opinion that McFadden’s action, called a “Terry Stop” after one of the suspects, was justifiable.
Councilman Reed says that he wants to put in the minds of the criminals in Cleveland that “this is not the Wild Wild West.” The problem with the version of “stop & frisk” that Reed wants to implement, the same version that was struck down in New York is that it is “Wild Wild West” law enforcement. In New York much of the time not only was there no “reasonable” suspicion used in patting down American citizens, but no suspicion at all was used.
On NYPD’s stop & frisk program, via the American Prospect:
At the core of the constitutional challenge to the department’s practices is a comprehensive study by Professor Jeffrey Fagan at Columbia University. Fagan’s study provided overwhelming evidence that New York’s aggressive stop-and-frisk policy was arbitrary and discriminatory. The sheer numbers are staggering—more than 5 million searches have been conducted under the current policy. Nearly 90 percent of the searches did not turn up anything that could justify any kind of arrest or summons. Blacks and Latinos comprised 87 percent of those searches.
More in-depth analysis confirms what the general numbers suggest. Fagan’s study found that a minimum of 6 percent of searches were “apparently unjustified.” As Scheindlin observes, the 6 percent of unjustified stops is a floor rather than a ceiling. Scheindlin made extremely charitable assumptions—including taking the unchallenged reports of officers at face value. The percentage also doesn’t consider the occasions in which a stop-and-frisk goes unreported.
Even if we were to assume that “only” 6 percent of searches were completely unjustifiable, this still represents 200,000 people whose rights were violated. The number of people subject to unjustifiable searches is certainly far higher. For example, Fagan did not classify searches justified by the officer solely based on allegedly “furtive movements” by the suspect, although it is clear that this is reasoning that cannot meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard. Virtually anybody can be accused of “furtive movement,” and the standard is so useless that Fagan’s study showed that people who displayed “furtive movements” were actually less likely to be arrested than those that did not.
What’s even worse is that the arbitrary searches are not distributed randomly. Racial minorities are searched far out of proportion to their percentage of the populations. New York City has defended this by arguing that racial minorities are also disproportionately represented among those arrested for violent crimes. Scheindlin disposes of this defense by noting that since nine out of ten people stopped are innocent, this defense is irrelevant. Moreover, “[t]he NYPD carries out more stops where there are more black and Hispanic residents, even when other relevant variables are held constant.” The singling out of racial minorities cannot be justified.
Given the data, Scheindlin had little choice but to find that the stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth Amendment as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. A large number of searches have been conducted without reasonable suspicion, and these suspicionless searches have disproportionately targeted racial minorities. Of 19 individual stops, the court found that 9 of the stop-and-frisks were unconstitutional, 5 of the frisks after stops were unconstitutional, and 5 were constitutionally permissible.
Instead of trying to find actual ways of influencing the culture and dealing with the root problems of crime and poverty in the inner-city Zack Reed’s idea would only take away the rights of every citizen in an effort to weed out the bad apples, turning the city into a NAZI-style police state. I’m sorry Zack Reed but the Fourth Amendment applies to everyone, white guys in the suburbs like myself and minorities in the inner-city as well.
Are you a cigar enthusiast? Well guess what, Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration is set to have their grubby big-government hands ready to choke the life out of your hobby. If the government prevails the cost of stogies is going to skyrocket.
The FDA is planning a whole new slew of big-government regulations that would completely change the way that cigars are treated in the eyes of the law.
Amongt these proposed regulations? Part of being a ‘premium’ cigar would mean that it would be required to cost at a minimum $10 a stick. That’s right the federal government wants to step in and actually dictate the minimum pricing of a consumer product. Even though currently over 80% of cigars sell for less then that and the vast majority are not any less ‘premium’ then the more expensive smokes.
Do you have a local cigar lounge with a nice walk-in humidor that you enjoy visiting? Well if Obama’s FDA get’s their way you can kiss that goodbye. Because the FDA would put a ban on self-serve sales.
Do you enjoy infused or flavored handmade cigar? Cigar’s like Rocky Patel Java, Drew Estate ACID, CAO Flavours and many more? Or even cigars whose wrapper’s are aged in rum or bourbon barrels? Kiss those goodbye if Obama’s FDA have their way.
The proposed FDA regulations would define a ‘premium’ cigar as the following:
On the surface most of those aren’t really bad until you get to the minimum price point and flavor definitions.
The FDA also wants to more closely monitor the coming-to-market process, and require cigar manufacturers to submit new blends for testing and approval. The FDA estimates that between 10 and 50 percent of the cigars on the market today will exit the market after the proposed regulation due to the increased costs. Thus possible forever taking your favorite cigar away from you.
Bipartisan legislation is in the works to attempt to fight the FDA’s power grab, in the House of Representatives, Republicans have submitted House Resolution 792, introduced by Florida Rep. Bill Posey. This one is currently in the House Subcommittee on Health. Democrat Senator Bill Nelson has introduced Senate Bill 772 which is also still in committee.
Both bills essentially exempt cigars from FDA regulation.
I enjoy going to my local cigar lounge. It is a chance to meet with friends and make new ones. The cigar hobby brings together people from all walks of life and all sides of the political spectrum, like the barber shop or local hardware store in days of past.
The federal government has no business interfering with that type of camaraderie, fellowship, and personal pursuit.
If these bills fail and the FDA big-government power grab succeeds it will just be more freedom lost at the hands of the power hungry Obama administration.
Call your member of Congress. Tell them how you feel about this federal act of tyranny against our passion for great cigars.
This is Carey Wedler, the girl who’s YouTube video where she burns her Obama campaign Tee Shirt is currently making the rounds on Conservative blogs and Facebook Pages. She made a lot of great points in that video, however in the end her thoughts veered dangerously close to anarchism, which I am most definitely not an advocate of.
Some of her thoughts in this video also step dangerously close to anarchism, but she makes some very excellent points as well.
It’s great to see the awakening that is slowly growing in this country of ours.
For more Click Here.
Error: API requests are being delayed for this account. New posts will not be retrieved.
There may be an issue with the Instagram access token that you are using. Your server might also be unable to connect to Instagram at this time.
Error: No posts found.
Make sure this account has posts available on instagram.com.
Error: admin-ajax.php test was not successful. Some features may not be available.
Please visit this page to troubleshoot.