It doesn’t matter the city, the state or even the country. Here is another picture that perfectly explains that government is stupid and the private sector is always better.
It doesn’t matter the city, the state or even the country. Here is another picture that perfectly explains that government is stupid and the private sector is always better.
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.
Sometimes you will see a picture on the internet, look at it and decide “that has to be photo-shopped.” At first glance when seeing this picture that was my thought. Well I was wrong, big government strikes again.
Last Thursday, August 21st, a couple of nearly 15-foot parking restriction signs were spotted around Culver City, CA.
Via The Los Angeles Times:
The signs were posted Thursday.
By Friday afternoon, the signs were gone, said Culver City Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells.
Sahli-Wells — who has a son who attends the school — said there have been parking and traffic problems in the area around the school for several years. When neighborhood parking restrictions were put into place two years ago, “it relieved the community, but made it very difficult for teachers, staff and parents to access the school,” she said in an e-mail.
The towering signs “are an example of a good program with misguided communication,” Sahli-Wells said. “When I saw the number of signs, originally intended to communicate to the public and school community about the new procedures, it was clear to me and everyone else who saw them that rather than clarifying the new procedures, they were just confusing.” Read More…
“Good program” and “misguided communication,” doesn’t that just sum up government to a tee?
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.
This story proves that the best way to keep kids away from drugs, is to make them “uncool.”
Studies by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment have shown that teen ganja use has gone down slightly since the state legalized recreational pot-smoking in 2012.While the dropdown is only about 2 percentage points down from before weed smoking became legal, it is still a far cry from the claims of the drug warriors that legalization would destroy America’s youth.
Via The Washington Examiner:
“Even if it’s not statistically significant, Colorado is bucking the nationwide trend,” said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “You couldn’t argue that marijuana use is somehow worse among teens in Colorado than other states or the nation as a whole.”
Another data point that should hearten Colorado’s concerned parents, via the Phoenix New Times: National teen marijuana consumption has gone up a few points in the previous years; so Colorado’s high schoolers don’t seem to have hiked up their pot consumption since it became legal. Thus, legal-weed opponents seeking data that indicates legalization hurts teens may have to look elsewhere.
While these results might surprise some, they haven’t really raised eyebrows in Colorado’s cannabis business community. Kayvan Khalatbari, a businessman who co-founded the state’s second-oldest marijuana dispensary, said people shouldn’t have expected teen weed consumption to go up after legalization.
“Cannabis, now that it’s legal, kind of is an old person’s drug,” he said. “It’s something that kids are seeing adults use all over the place. It just doesn’t seem as cool to kids anymore.” Read More…
In their never-ending quest to control every aspect of our lives (except for the murder of unborn children) progressives are at it again. A year after former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban big gulp cups in the city, another libtard is attacking the sugary drink industry. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Communist, Conn) is seeking a National Soda Tax.
The disgusting communist pig, DeLauro, introduced the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Act, also known as the “SWEET Act,” on Wednesday, which would impose a 1 cent excise tax per teaspoon of caloric sweetener in soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, and sweet teas.
From The Courant:
“There is a clear relationship between sugar-sweetened beverages and a host of other health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, obesity and tooth decay,” said DeLauro, a Democrat from New Haven who is serving her twelfth term in Congress as a representative for the state’s third district. The bill is titled the SWEET Act. Milk, and milk substitute products, as well as fruit and vegetable juices, would be exempt from the tax.
“We in the midst of dual epidemics, with obesity and diabetes afflicting our nation and the related, astronomical health care costs,” DeLauro said. Read More…
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed at us for the scumbags we’ve allowed into congress.
While listening to Spotify in my car on the way home from work I heard this song from an artist I had never heard before, thought the tune was catchy as hell. Well now I get home to find out the video is even better.
It features a cameo at the end from Bill Clinton’s attack dog James Carville and his wife Republican political talking-head and former Reagan & Bush staffer Mary Matlin.
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.
KXM is a power-trio rock supergroup comprised of Dug Pinnick of the tragically underrated King’s X on vocals & bass, Dokken guitarist George Lynch and great session and current Korn drummer Ray Luzier. They released their self-titled debut record earlier this year and have just released the video for the latest track off of that album, “Gunfight.”
Fuck I love this video. Seriously, it is like a big FUCK YOU to the Obama administration, the Federal Government and those who would trample on our liberties.
Foul-mouthed & tattooed, 'small l' libertarian Lover of heavy metal, outlaw country, cigars & craft beer. Broken-hearted fan of Cleveland sports.
For more Click Here.