California Assembly Bill 2201 — Almost every male between 18 and 26 years old who applies for a driver’s license or for a renewal at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would be automatically registered with the federal Selective Service System (SSS)
First, he came for our Four Loko, and we said nothing. Then, he came for powdered alcohol. Now, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is coming for Phrosties, the clandestine alcoholic slushy delivery service that has taken off across the five boroughs over the past few months.
“A 12-year-old can probably buy these ‘sloshies’ online, get it, and enjoy it because it’s filled with fruit juice and fruit punch and all the things that taste sweet and nice,” Schumer said at a press conference Monday. “A few weeks ago, I talked about powdered alcohol. I’m making an effort to prevent that from being sold. I would like to see the same thing happen to these ‘sloshies’” if they’re not regulated.
The remarks, coupled with the news that the New York State Liquor Authority is investigating the “unregulated and unlicensed” slushy merchants, has scared the creators of Phrostie out of business, or at least driven them deeper underground. By Tuesday, thePhrostie Instagram account had been scrubbed clean, its delivery contact details replaced by the warning “WE DO NOT DELIVER.” After that, my texts to the previously listed phone numbers went unanswered, until Wednesday night, when I got a reply from the Brooklyn delivery service saying that if I wanted any more Phrosties, I would have to order “ASAP.”
Twenty minutes later, a delivery guy showed up and handed me a black grocery bag full of slushies. “That’s it for the Phrosties,” he sighed. The service, he explained, was selling the last of its inventory and closing up shop, thanks to “Schumer and the regulations, I guess.”
Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about [the millennial] generation being lazy and not working for their money. Here’s a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they’re told to stop?
Child services and police harassing couple for letting their children play outside
This is a very troubling story that isn’t getting much attention in the mainstream media. We need to change that.
Dear Reason: On Monday, a Montgomery County child protective services worker went to my children’s school and interviewed them without my knowledge or consent. Why?
Because last month we’d let them walk home from the park by themselves. It’s a mile away. They are 6 and 10. We live in suburban Maryland. Let me recap the story and then tell you where we’re at.
On a Saturday afternoon in December, my husband, Alexander, gave our kids permission to walk home from the local playground. I was out of town at the time. When they’d walked about halfway, a Montgomery County Police patrol car pulled up. A “helpful” neighbor had called 911 to report unaccompanied children walking outside. Our kids were brought home in a police cruiser.
At the door the police officer asked to see my husband’s ID, but did not explain why. When he refused, she called for backup.
A total of six patrol cars showed up.
Alexander then agreed to get his ID and went to go upstairs. The officer said—in front of the kids—that if he came down with anything else, “shots would be fired.” She proceeded to follow him upstairs, and when he said she had no right to do so without a warrant, she insisted that she did.
Our 10 yr. old called me crying and saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. Alexander stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to children, she asked him: “Don’t you realize how dangerous the world is? Don’t you watch TV?” They took notes and left.
Two hours later a CPS worker arrived with a “temporary safety plan,” which she told my husband to sign. It stated that he would not leave the children unsupervised at any time before Monday morning, when someone from their office could contact him. He refused to sign it. She informed him that if he didn’t, she would instruct the police to take the children away immediately. He signed.
We were then contacted by a CPS social worker named W. Don Thorne who made an appointment for us to come to his office on Friday, Jan. 9. A little while later he called back saying that he needed to come to us, so that he could see our house. We told him we would meet with him at his office, not our home. He said he would speak with his supervisor and call us back.
On Monday, Mr. Thorne showed up at our door unannounced, accompanied by a police officer. He insisted that he had the right to come into our house without a warrant. I said that I was invoking my Fourth Amendment rights against unwarranted search, and would not let him in, but repeated my willingness to go to his office to answer questions. Then I noticed that he had a visitor’s sticker from my children’s elementary school on his jacket. Had he been to my children’s school to interview them?!
He didn’t answer that question and they quickly left. I have since learned that he visited my children’s school and spoke to my children without my knowledge or consent.
I think, in this situation, I would move out of Maryland to a state with a little more respect for parental rights.
As I said before, this story needs to get more attention. Please share it on Facebook and show support for these parents and their right to raise their children as they see fit. The more light we can shine on the Montgomery County CPS and Police Department, the better chance the Meitivs have of winning their battle to raise their own children as they see fit.
Also, if you live in Maryland, contact your Congressman and Senators and make sure they are aware of this couple’s plight. Enough is enough.
11 Ways You Know You Live In A Country Run By Idiots
1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.
2. If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.
3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.
5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.
6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.
7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.
8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher’s “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable,you live in a country run by idiots.
9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.
10. If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work, you live in a country run by idiots.
11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
1 SECTION 1. Chapter 14-1 of the General Laws entitled “Proceedings in Family Court” is hereby amended by adding thereto the following section:
Age restrictions for children. – Children under ten (10) years of age shall not be left home alone.
Children at least ten (10) years of age and not more than twelve (12) years of age shall be allowed to stay home alone for brief periods of time, but not after 9:00 pm.
Children over twelve (12) years of age may be left home alone, but not overnight.
Parents and legal guardians should use their judgment to access the maturity and responsibility of their children and to discuss safety procedures and precautions before deciding whether to leave their child(ren) home alone.
Once again we have the lawmakers interfering with basic parenting decisions. Why? What if I need to get medicine for my 8-year-old? I have to drag her, vomiting, to the store with me? What if my 11-year-old is reading and it’s 9:30 at night and I have to go pick up his dad from the train? I have to take him with me or risk losing him to foster care?
Why is the state so obsessed with making these laws that leave parents no room to decide what works best for them and their families? How does it make children safer to take away their parents’ judgment and flexibility? And since when do you have to be 10 to spend any time alone at home? Where does that recommendation even come from? What is it based on, besides a number pulled out of thin air? In the rest of the world, kids age 7 walk to school on their own. In Japan, kindergarteners do it. Why do Rhode Island’s lawmakers think their state’s 10-year-olds are so helpless?
These laws are preposterous. They assume it is the government’s job to dictate family life. They criminalize maturity in children and common sense in parents, and turn mundane decisions—like running out to do an errand—into legal minefields.
So: If you live in Rhode Island and can get to the state legislature on Tuesday, do. A reader who alerted me to this bill, Randall Rose, is organizing parents who would like to put in a word or two. He says the hearing will be in room 313 of the State House (Senate Judiciary Committee), 80 Smith St., Providence. He adds that “It’s best to be there by 4:30 p.m. because sometimes they start then, but if you can’t make it until 5:00 p.m. or a little later, there’s a chance they’ll still be going then.” His email is: email@example.com.
Good luck, Rhode Island. Tell the lawmakers we know they are “thinking of the children,” but this bill will make criminals out of fine parents, and prisoners out of competent kids. You might also remind the lawmakers that most of them spent some unsupervised time before they were 10, too. (Back when the crime rate was higher than it is today.) Do they wish their parents had been arrested?
The Seattle City Council passed a new ordinance Monday that could mean $1 fines for people who toss too many table scraps into the trash. […]
Under the new rules, collectors can take a cursory look each time they dump trash into a garbage truck.
If they see compostable items make up 10 percent or more of the trash, they’ll enter the violation into a computer system their trucks already carry, and will leave a ticket on the garbage bin that says to expect a $1 fine on the next garbage bill.
Composting and not wasting food are obviously good things, but:
1. Kinda creepy. Obviously there’s not really a reasonable expectation of privacy with garbage, but we also don’t expect the garbage collectors to be actively rooting through our trash. Especially if you’re tossing medical stuff, like empty prescription bottles.
2. It’s difficult to imagine that this won’t eventually be abused. Trash can tell you a lot about someone’s life. In our “see something, say something” society, the garbage men may become de facto, warrant-free eyes and ears for the police department. Pot is legal in Seattle, but other drugs aren’t, and it’s especially easy to see how this policy could be a boon to the drug war.
3. 10% could be awfully subjective. A dollar fined here and there can add up for a city budget, and there will be no real way to contest these fines. The fines will be based entirely on the garbage collector’s very quick estimation, and by the time the citizen finds out, their trash will be long gone. Even if the trash collectors estimate honestly to the best of their abilities, it seems naive to think that people won’t get fined unfairly.
4. If our garbage is up for review, what next? The crux of the issue here is not whether people should be responsible and frugal with their food and food waste. I think everyone pretty much agrees with that, even if they don’t necessarily practice it. Indeed, there are a lot of good things to do which we don’t let the government mandate, because we understand that adults should be able to make their own decisions. But if our trash is fair game for government review, what other surveillance powers might the government claim to make us “better” people?
So much dumb: LA bans possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
Sigh. The city of Los Angeles has just enacted a sweeping new gun law…that will do absolutely nothing to prevent or deter crime in any way and will make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Yay government!
From The Washington Free Beacon:
Los Angeles banned the possession of gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in a unanimous vote Tuesday.
The ban goes beyond California state law, which bans the manufacture or sale of those magazines. Instead, within the city of Los Angeles, it will now be a misdemeanor to possess a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Once the ordinance goes into effect, gun owners who currently have a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will have 60 days to get rid of them before they are in violation of the law.
“People who want to defend their families don’t need a 100-round drum magazine and an automatic weapon to do it,” Councilman Paul Krekorian (D.) told the Los Angeles Times. “Imagine what a gunman on this sidewalk could do with that kind of firepower with a crowd like this.”
Guys! Did you hear that? Councilman Paul Krekorian knows what we need!
Councilman Krekorian’s words remind me of a C.S. Lewis quote that I reference often:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Individual liberty? Never heard of it. This is the modern, nanny-state-loving Democrat party, folks.
New Yorkers may soon not be able to smoke in their own homes, if Democratic New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio gets his way.
The New York Post reported on de Blasio’s new initiative to partner with health groups that will “pressure landlords” into banning smoking in apartment buildings.
“That means smokers would be barred from lighting up in one of their last sanctuaries: their own living quarters,” the paper said. “Smoking is already banned in public places, including bars and restaurants, workplaces, sports venues, and parks.”