It looks like those disgusting excuses for human beings who support
discrimination against homosexuals are now getting desperate as
their internal sickness is being rejected across the political
spectrum.

I’m sure yesterday was a particularly rough day for these sick
bastards as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the “Let’s
Discriminate Against Gays!” bill AND a federal District Court struck
down the Texas statute declaring marriage to be exclusively
between a man and woman.

In response to getting their asses handed to them across the board,
today they offer their latest example of their brilliance; a “challenge”
that questions whether a white man covered in Nazi, KKK, and other
racist tattoos can be refused service at a black barbershop. These
sick fucks would like you to believe there is some connection
between their barbershop scenario and denying products or services
to homosexuals.

Perhaps these turds actually believe there is some connection. Most
bigots have low IQs, so perhaps they actually believe their own
bullshit. Perhaps.

But let us be thorough and explore the reality [always lost on bigots]
of the absurd scenario they paint.

The only standard that should lawfully exist in a land of liberty for
denying anyone products or services that are readily and openly
available to every other member of society is if the person being
denied is/has engaged in conduct reasonably understood to harm
the business. A plain example of this would be someone who enters
a convenience store and starts tossing merchandise on the floor. At
best he is causing a disturbance that may well cause other
customers to leave, and at worst he is damaging/destroying the
property of the business. No matter how one looks at it, he is
harming the business.

Now let us look at another example. A woman walks into a
convenience store. She smiles pleasantly at the clerk, selects her
desired items, lays then on the counter before the clerk with money
in hand, ready to pay and be on her way. The clerk says “Get out of
here nigger bitch! We don’t want your kind in here!” I don’t know of
any rational thinking human who wishes the law to turn a blind eye to
that conduct.

Now let us imagine that very same situation, but this time the female
patron is white. As she waits for the clerk to ring up her items, a co-
work silently mouths to the clerk, “lesbian”. The clerk then says “Get
the fuck out of here you cunt-sucking lesbian!” I don’t know of any
rational thinking human who wishes the law to turn a blind eye to
that conduct – but I apparently know more than a few walking pieces
of shit who do.

Let us now turn our attention to the barbershop. After all, that is the
ignorance that spawned this article. The scenario painted by the
morons is that the white man is covered in tattoos that convey a
hatred of blacks. But let us alter that scenario for just a moment (and
then return to it “as presented”).

Imagine that the white man had no tattoos but walked into the
barbershop holding a big white sign bearing the words “I hate
niggers!” How should we look at that? How should the barbershop
owner look at that? Only a moron bigot (but I repeat myself) would
not see that such a sign certainly constitutes a “disturbance”, and
probably more than that. As such the man with the sign is harming
the business and the owner is quite properly within his rights to not
only deny the man service but to demand he leave the property.

Now let us return to the actual scenario. Is not a visible tattoo that
says “I hate niggers!” exactly the same as the sign? Of course it is.
What if the tattoo was simply the letters “KKK”. Most people, white
and black alike, are aware that the KKK is known for lynching black
Americans. I think it is reasonable for people – perhaps especially
blacks – to see a KKK tattoo as making the exact same statement as
“I hate niggers!” In other words, a white man entering a black
barbershop covered in tattoos that speak to racial hatred IS harming
the business and can be refused service and ordered off the
property.

Pretty simple stuff when you take half a second to think about it.

But as I indicated at the top, as these fucktards get desperate to
defend their inner sickness they have no choice but to show the
world exactly how far into the depths of ignorance their sickness
drives them.

Copyright 2014 Dave Champion

I don’t know about you, but I have had it with police abuse. It continues at a rampant pace. Every day you can find a new deluge of audio and video evidence of criminal conduct by police. And nothing changes.

The fact that it is so prevalent speaks to the failure – perhaps the unwillingness – of the police command structure to address the problem in the firm, perhaps even harsh, terms that are now necessary to rein in this ugly, dangerous, and at times deadly, misconduct.

Since the police commanders who are supposed to be putting an end to this type of conduct are, in the vast majority of cases, merely sitting on their hands, it is time for the citizens to act through their elected officials. It is time to enact laws that allow the citizens to fight back. When cops break the law, the time has now come – actually it’s far overdue – for Americans to put the hurt on bad cops, not the other way around. Like all first steps, we cannot expect to complete the journey of a thousand miles with the first step. But a first step must surely be taken if the journey is to begin.

One area that is crystal clear is that citizens are free to record audio or video police in the public conduct of their job as long as the act of recording does not interfere with the commission of his lawful duties.

While there are still a few arcane laws being intentionally misused by police (and even a few reprobate prosecutors) to make the false claim that citizens cannot record officers without their consent, the courts have routinely held otherwise. The weight of these court cases is so overwhelming that despite the occasional archaic statute on the books, it is now a well-settled point of law in America that citizens may freely record cops – and that the act of doing so is not a criminal act.

In other words, there is ZERO legal justification that permits a cop to harass, threaten, assault, or arrest a citizen for recording his actions or the actions of other cops.

Despite this, we see cops physically attacking citizens nearly every day for recording. Recently cops beat a man to death in effort to seize his phone with which he was legally filming them. Citizens who have committed no crime are arrested and held for hours in cold concrete cells because…well…they committed no crime – except angering an asshole thug in a police costume.

Since there is ZERO legal justification for a cop to do ANYTHING to you – even speak to you, no less murder you – for recoding him, why should society put up with it for another second?

I can’t find one single reason why we should.

Since police commanders aren’t correcting it, citizens – with the assistance of your elected officials – should now take the lead in ending this noxious abuse.

To that end I offer this proposed legislation:

1) Any person who, having recorded any peace officer or other law enforcement officer/agent, without obstructing him in his duties, who is physically assaulted by any peace officer or other law enforcement officer/agent within this state, the officer or agent attempting to seize the recording device or detain or arrest the person for the act of recording, may use any degree of force deemed necessary, up to and including deadly force, to end the assault.

a) Because officers and agents are trained in physical control techniques, use of chemical weapons, impact weapons, Tasers, and firearms, any person defending himself under the provisions of section 1 is authorized to use that level of force he deems necessary without regard to any judgment by a prosecutor or court later as to the appropriateness of the level of force employed. If the person defending himself states that he was in fear for his safety, that statement justifies the level of force he employed against the attacking officer/agent, without further inquiry into the appropriateness of the level of force used.

b) No person defending himself from an attack as described in section 1 may be prosecuted criminally for the violence done to the attacking officer/agent.

c) No person defending himself from an attack as described in section 1 may be prosecuted civilly the violence done to the attacking officer/agent.

d) Injuries received by an officer/agent engaged in an attack as described in section 1 are not eligible for Worker’s Compensation benefits.

e) Injuries received by an officer/agent engaged in an attack as described in section 1 may not be considered by the officer’s or agent’s employer, any outside arbitrator, or any court, in reference to disability retirement.

There is no excuse whatsoever for an officer to attempt to seize by threat or force a recording device from a person because that person was recording police in the public commission of their duties. If police wish to continue this illegal violent conduct against innocent citizens, I think it is imminently reasonable that the officer gets face-shot and the citizens goes free.

Do you know what that’s called? It’s called “Problem fucking solved!”

Copyright 2014 Dave Champion