Connect with us

News

WATCH: NC Man Slings Rabid Bobcat Across His Front Yard

WOW!

Published

on

For many North Carolinians, neighborhood living brings with it the peace of mind that the most invasive animals you might have to deal with are squirrels who are trying to rest in your attic, or raccoons hoping to fatten up from your trash can.  The Tar Heel state has some bears, sure, but they’re not often the pestering or dangerous type like you might see in the Pacific Northwest or parts of California.

But one man this week got up close and personal with a seriously frightening creature this week, after it lunged at his wife from underneath their car.

A disturbing video captures the moment a rabid bobcat attacks a North Carolina woman—and the moment her husband grabs it off her and throws it through the air. Kristi and Happy Wade of Burgaw were walking to their SUV to take their cat to the vet the morning of April 9 when the growling animal ran across the street and attacked, WIS-TVreports. After throwing it several feet, Happy Wade eventually shot it after it ran into the couple’s garage and then continued to charge, ABC 11 reports. A neighbor who had been jogging by at the time stopped to help and called 911.

Video of the incident is simply unbelievable.

The bobcat was injured by Wade and later euthanized by local law enforcement.  An autopsy revealed that the animal was indeed rabid, and the family has been undergoing treatment for their numerous bite wounds.

Entertainment

Spotify Chooses Joe Rogan Over Neil Young After Egregious Ultimatum

Young thought that he had enough clout to make Spotify blink. He did not.

Published

on

Earlier in the week, a Canadian folk rocker with a penchant for sticking his nose into American culture and politics gave streaming giant Spotify an ultimatum:  Either cancel immensely popular podcaster Joe Rogan, or pull Neil Young’s music from the platform.

Young, whose nosiness in matters not of his own was forever enshrined in Lynyrd Skynyrd’s seminal hit “Sweet Home Alabama”, told his own streaming service that Joe Rogan’s “misinformation” was enough to make him want to leave the platform.  Young appeared to believe that he had enough clout to make Spotify blink.

He did not.

Spotify Technology is removing Neil Young’s music, as the folk-rock star isn’t wavering in his objections to Joe Rogan’s podcast.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • 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.

The “Heart of Gold” and “Harvest Moon” singer earlier this week penned an open letter to his manager and label asking them to remove his music from the service, saying it is spreading fake information about COVID-19 vaccines through Mr. Rogan’s show. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” he wrote.

Spotify was unapologetic.

“We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users. With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators,” a Spotify spokesman said. The company has detailed content policies in place and has removed over 20,000 Covid-related podcast episodes since the start of the pandemic, he added.

“We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon,” he said.

Rogan’s allegedly controversial “misinformation”, (which is literally a set of two-way conversations being misconstrued to manufacture some faux outrage), has been defended by Spotify several times in recent weeks, often with a reminder about the First Amendment included.

Earlier in the week, a Canadian folk rocker with a penchant for sticking his nose into American culture and politics gave streaming giant Spotify an ultimatum:  Either cancel immensely popular podcaster Joe Rogan, or pull Neil Young’s music from the platform. Young, whose nosiness in matters not of his own was forever enshrined in Lynyrd Skynyrd’s seminal hit “Sweet Home Alabama”, told his own streaming service that Joe Rogan’s “misinformation” was enough to make him want to leave the platform.  Young appeared to believe that he had enough clout to make Spotify blink. He did not. Spotify Technology is removing Neil Young’s music, as the folk-rock star isn’t wavering in his objections to Joe Rogan’s podcast. The “Heart of Gold” and “Harvest Moon” singer earlier this week penned an open letter to his manager and label asking them to remove his music from the service, saying it is spreading fake information about COVID-19 vaccines through Mr. Rogan’s show. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” he wrote. Spotify was unapologetic. “We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users. With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators,” a Spotify spokesman said. The company has detailed content policies in place and has removed over 20,000 Covid-related podcast episodes since the start of the pandemic, he added. “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon,” he said. Rogan’s allegedly controversial “misinformation”, (which is literally a set of two-way conversations being misconstrued to manufacture some faux outrage), has been defended by Spotify several times in recent weeks, often with a reminder about the First Amendment included.

Continue Reading

News

Dem-Run City Adds Stunning New Stipulation to Second Amendment

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement. 

Published

on

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it.

They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed.

And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds.

The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • 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.

A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules.

The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021.

“The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week.

The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent:

The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates.

“Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common horrific reports of shootings throughout the nation do little more than elicit a performative parade of prayers and platitudes from Congress. Because problem-solving must be elevated over political posturing,” he added.

On Monday, Liccardo explained at a news conference that the proposal intends to better compensate shooting victims and their familes, as well as make it harder for people who aren’t willing to follow the rules to own a firearm, KTVU reported.

“While gun rights advocates argue that gun owners should not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms,” Liccardo said, via the report, the “2nd Amendment does not require the taxpayers to subsidize folks to own guns.”

At some point soon, the left will likely be faced with the litigious reality that all of this impedance is no different from infringement.

We must remember always:  When the Democrats talk a big game about repealing, rescinding, or abolishing the Second Amendment, they don’t mean it.  They can’t mean it. They know as well as the rest of us that any attempt to go door-to-door to confiscate firearms, (of any kind), is going to lead to the sort of horror that would end their political party outright.  The Second Amendment is its own insurance policy, and was built into our nation’s DNA in such a way as to never be fully removed. And so, instead of going after the amendment itself, the liberal left seeks to increase the complexity, cost, and confusion surrounding the right to bear arms.  They are battling constitutional rights with bureaucracy, essentially, and it’s just as offensive as it sounds. The latest lurch in this battle for liberty comes to us, almost predictably, from California. A California city has approved liability insurance for gun owners, the first such measure in the US, as it seeks to lower gun violence through stricter rules. The San Jose City Council held a final vote on Tuesday to turn a proposal it previously passed into law requiring gun owners in the city to carry the insurance and pay a fee, the Associated Press reported. The previous vote was held on June 30, 2021. “The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives,” San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo wrote in an op-ed with the Los Angeles Times last week. The logic here was liberal lunacy at its most potent: The mayor also predicted an ensuing legal storm from pro-gun advocates. “Why should any city subject itself to litigation? Because now-common…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week