Currently Browsing: Just Sayin’

Former Student Blames School For Him Attacking Others While Drinking.

Dillon DeStefano
(Image courtesy of Beverly, MA Police Department)

Three years ago, former Endicott College (Massachusetts) student Dillon DeStefano attacked three people while intoxicated and taking performance enhancement drugs (PED’s.)

DeStefano’s unprovoked attacks broke the jaw of one person, requiring that it be wired shut, broke the orbital bone and sinus cavity of another person and left a third with a split lip.

At the time, DeStefano was returning from several dorm parties where he had consumed copious amounts of alcohol.

DeStefano was sentenced to four years in jail for assault, battery and witness intimidation charges. He was paroled last year and returned to his native New Jersey.

If there was a lawsuit in this whole mess, one would think that it would be from the victims of DeStafano’s assaults.

One would be wrong.

In what has to be called “hutzpah,” DeStefano has sued Endicott College.

MLK Jr. Is Spinning In His Grave. Like A Top.

Here we are rolling along to the end of “Black History Month,” a time where we should be making sure that we remember and include contributions of Blacks to the country. All too often the contribution of blacks has been ignored and there can be a case to be made that we need to educate people that Black Americans were more than just chattel and slaves.

As conservatives, we believe that inclusion and diversity are good things. We should strive toward a society where, as Martin Luther King Jr so eloquently said:

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

Character, not color of skin is what we should be looking and building toward. We should come together and share our histories, our pasts, our struggles and our triumphs not to divide us, but to unite us as Americans (without and daggone hyphens.)

So while 60 years ago people were marching in the streets for inclusion, equality and against segregation, today we have people that are fighting for the opposite.

Every Best Visual Effects Winner. Ever. (1927-2016 Oscars)

This is long (over 11 minutes) but rather cool if you like special effects and movies.

This year’s Oscar nominees have been announced! So time to update our VFX award video from last year. We have added the winner from last year, this year’s nominees, and a whole bunch of great updates throughout the video entirely. Enjoy!

That ADA Was Not Meant For French Fries.

There is really no preface that we can give to this mind-boggling story. We’ll just let the reporting speak for itself for now.

Scott Magee, who is blind, filed a lawsuit in May alleging that only offering service to customers in cars at drive-thru windows when the interior of the store is closed is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A federal judge in Chicago ruled Wednesday that despite McDonald’s attempts to have the case dismissed, Magee can go forward with the suit, which seeks class-action status.

“Most Americans have the experience of driving through a drive-thru and ordering for themselves,” said Roberto Luis Costales, the New Orleans-based lawyer representing Magee in the case. “That’s an experience Mr. Magee doesn’t have.”

Most people know that you can’t walk up to a drive through even when the lobby is closed. It’s a safety issue. You don’t want people get run over by vehicles.

This is something that Costales knows and acknowledges:

The suit isn’t asking McDonald’s to allow people to start walking through drive-thrus. That’s unsafe, said Costales, who also has an office in Chicago.

Most fast food places have drive through services at night because it offers a service to the public but still protects the employees. If there is a problem, all that employee has to do is duck and let the window close on the customer. The window is not big enough for the customer to crawl through, to everyone remains safe. Furthermore, you don’t want people walking through the drive through, especially at night, because of previously mentioned safety issues.

What could a restaurant do?

Docs, Glocks and Employment.

In 2011, after some people had complained that their doctors were asking questions of them concerning firearm ownership, the State of Florida passed the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act (FOPA).

The law made it illegal for doctors to ask patients questions concerning firearm ownership effectively muzzling doctors in an area the American Medical Association says is a concern.

Doctors sued the state saying the law was a violation of their First Amendment rights. Other provisions in the law such as recordkeeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment provisions of the law were also the subject of the lawsuit on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.

The lawsuit took on the name of “Docs v. Glocks.” Catchy, eh?

A district court held the law was unConstitutional.

The State appealed, winning the next two appeals in front of a three person panel at the Eleventh Circuit.

Facing another appeal, the Eleventh Circuit decided to hold a hearing en banc where all the judges were present. That appeal was heard in July of 2016.

Last week, on February 16th, the full Eleventh Circuit released its opinion and held that the law was indeed unConstitutional saying:

How City Codes, Government, And Developers Can Steal Your Home.

This is one of the strangest and most frightening stories we have ever written about.

It all starts in the town of Charleston, Indiana – a small town of about 7,500 people and about 11.5 square miles. The Town sits across the Ohio River and 18 miles away from Louisville, Kentucky. After a new bridge was built across the Ohio, Charlestown was seen by a developer and perhaps some in the City Government as a perfect “bedroom community” for Louisville.

A developer by the name of John Neace saw an opportunity in developing a 350 home community within Charlestown called “Pleasant Ridge.” Neace calls his company “Pleasant Ridge Redevelopment.”

(The name of the company should give people some hint about his targeted plans of land acquisition.)

But the 350 homes present a few problems. Buying the homes would be extremely expensive even if the City used the Kelo decision and eminent domain to buy the homes for the Neace and Pleasant Ridge Redevelopment. Even more, Indiana is one of the states that enacted “anti-Kelo” measures which make it against the law for a government to use eminent domain to force people to sell their property for a private company to develop.

The homes themselves were built during World War II as housing for workers in a nearby munitions plant that has long since closed. The structures are rather small, aren’t built on slabs, and only have an appraised value of $25,000 – $45,000. The people who live in the homes are not wealthy with a household median income of $43,000.

So what is a developer to do? What can the City who wants the developer to get the properties and a new, upscale development in their city do?

You start fining people for code violations.

We’ll let the Institute for Justice pick up the narrative from here:

It’s Here Again. (Again.)

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a repost of a post that got a lot of negative reactions from people. To this day, we don’t understand why people reacted to it other than they disagreed with us on other issues. Perhaps this hit a little too close to home on how they show their affections to a spouse of loved one throughout the year.

We will say it again, if you are only demonstrating your love for another on Valentine’s Day, you are doing this whole “love thing” wrong. You should demonstrate and iterate your love each and every day of the year. People should also be cognizant that there are others who have lost spouses or are simply lonely and Valentine’s Day can and does cause heartache to those people. While we agree, that was not the focus of our post.

Our post was a call to arms, if you will. A reminder that if you have a special loved one in your life, you should let them know how blessed you are each and every day and not just one day of the year.

Today is the day.

The worst holiday known to mankind is here: Valentine’s Day.

It is not that we think the idea of love and romance is a bad thing. We are all for it. (Nice to know, eh?)

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NIV)

Our objection to this holiday is that if you aren’t telling your loved on that you love them daily and showing them that you love them daily, you are doing something wrong. In short, every day should be “Valentine’s Day” – not just February 14th.

We love sappy stories like this one we posted last year:

Eternal love

Full text below the fold.

The 9th Circuit’s Ruling On The Immigration Executive Order.

9th Circuit rules against Donald Trump’s constitutional travel ban proving once again their liberal bias.
(image courtesy of AF Branco at Comically Incorrect.)

Yeah, well, maybe not.

As you are probably aware, a three person panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary restraining order (TRO) against an Executive Order (EO) issued by President Trump on immigration.

The text of the EO can be found here.

The 9th’s decision can be found here.

There are going to be people who applaud the decision and those who are against it.

We are somewhere in the middle.

First, some background. The EO is Trump following through on campaign promises he made during the election. We like the idea that a politician is trying to fulfill their campaign rhetoric, but the fulfillment has to be done in a legal manner.

There are two laws in play here.

The first is 8 USC § 1182:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

8 USC § 1182 was passed in 1952 by the Congress. As you can see, it gives the President the authority to suspend entry into the country of any class (group) of people.

The second law that is in play is 8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(A) which was passed in 1965 as part of the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

8 USC § 1152(a)(1)(A) says the following:

« Previous Entries