Connect with us

News

CRAZY CALIFORNIA: Golden State Wants to Make Hotel Toiletries Illegal

The hair gel gestapo has spoken!

Published

on

toiletries

California is one of those places where even the most bizarre news can appear somewhat mundane.

The Golden State is politically governed by the massive populations living near its southern beaches, with Los Angeles, Hollywood, and other liberal locales completely overtaking the rural, conservative corners of Cali in terms of political might.  This means that, despite what a great many Californians think, the progressives on the Pacific get to call the shots.

This has led to a great many bizarre pieces of legislation sprouting up in California, including their latest push to ban travel-sized toiletries.

Trending: BLM Goes Into Target, Demands the Store Stop Calling Police On Black Shoplifters (Videos)

“In California alone hotels use hundreds of millions of single use plastic bottles every year,” said Assembly Member Ash Kalra of San Jose.

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Kalra is co-authoring a bill that would ban the tiny plastic bottles at almost 10,000 hotels state wide.

“We can get those bottles out of the waste stream, but also cut the production of them, which is also harmful to the environment,” he said.

Surprisingly, the move already has precedent.

Last year Santa Cruz County became the first jurisdiction in California to ban the small bottles.

“This is a significant step forward to make sure that these bottles do not get into the bay,” said Santa Cruz County Supervisor Zack Friend.

No word yet as to where or not California will out law shot glasses next, allowing citizens to only purchase full bottles of liquor at the bar.

Save conservative media!

News

Minority Owners Of Washington Redskins Looking To Sell Stake In Team

Published

on

Three individual minority owners of the Washington Redskins professional football team are looking to sell off their shares in the team amid controversy over the team’s name. Again. Yes, it seems the Redskins are forever caught in a loop of having to defend their team name from the gaggle of social justice warriors running around the nation screaming and crying about faux systemic racism and crusading for causes like renaming sports teams in order to make themselves feel important and like they have a purpose. Here’s more on this from The Washington Examiner: Businessmen Robert Rothman, Dwight Schar, and Frederick Smith have hired an investment banking firm to conduct the search for potential buyers, which, according to one unnamed source, was happening because they are “not happy being a partner” of majority owner Daniel Snyder, the Washington Post reported. ProFootballTalk first reported that Schar and Smith were trying to sell their share of the team on Sunday. Rothman is chairman and CEO of Black Diamond Capital, a private investment company; Schar is chairman of NVR Inc., one of the largest homebuilder companies in the country; and Smith is the chairman, president, and CEO of FedEx, which has a long-standing partnership with the football franchise. Together, they account for about 40% of the team’s ownership. The remaining stake rests with Snyder, his mother, and his sister. The organization said on Friday that it will conduct a “thorough review” of the team’s name amid new demands that it stops referring to the team as the Redskins, which critics view as being racist and insensitive to Native Americans. Snyder released a statement last Friday saying, “This process allows the team to take into account not only the proud tradition and history of the franchise but also input from our alumni, the organization, sponsors,…

Continue Reading

News

Good News For Trump: SCOTUS Issues Ruling Against ‘Faithless’ Electors

Published

on

The Supreme Court ruled against “faithless electors,” allowing states to require presidential electors to vote for the candidates they are committed to, which is good news for President Trump just ahead of what is sure to be a very tight contest come November. Essentially, this means that electors can’t rebel and refuse to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state, therefore, if Trump wins a state, he gets all of the votes without worrying about losing any. The ruling strips a tool of dissension out of the hands of the left who aren’t above using any and every strategy at their disposal to stop him from having a second term. Here’s more on this from The Washington Examiner: The 538 members of the Electoral College are chosen based on the presidential vote in each state, and they, in turn, elect the president of the United States. States can require these electors to vote for the statewide winner or otherwise follow state laws, the court ruled. Justices decided against four 2016 Electoral College electors seeking to overturn state laws binding them to the presidential nominee to whom they are pledged. In that race, a record seven electors didn’t back the candidate to which they were pledged. A total of 10 electors rebelled last cycle, and seven of those votes counted toward the final tally. The overall results were 304 for Donald Trump, 227 for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and others seven, instead of Trump 306 to Clinton 232. Four “faithless electors,” one from Colorado and another three from Washington, presented their oral arguments to the Supreme Court last month challenging the laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia. This is a good thing. Whoever wins a state should be entitled to those Electoral College votes. Period.…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

 
Send this to a friend