Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


David Hogg Tries To Publicly Extort $1,000,000 From Supermarket Chain, Their Response Is Perfect

Just got smacked with a dose of reality!



Anti-g*n rights activists have not gone away even though we do not see them in the news as much. Specifically, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students who launched the March for our Lives campaign. David Hogg, in particular, has taken a turn to social media and is targeting any and all companies, corporations, politicians, and individuals who do not wholeheartedly agree with him. Now it looks like one Florida politician in particular and a grocery store chain are at the epicenter of his rage.

The Conservative Tribune reported:

“Shakedown in aisle 3.” Before teenage anti-g*n celebrity David Hogg targeted the Florida-based Publix supermarket chain for made-for-TV “d*e-ins” last week, he demanded a huge payoff for a fund for victims of February’s mass s******g in Parkland, Florida. On Tuesday, the father of a girl who died in that s******g went public with the Publix response, and liberals could not have been happy.

CLICK HERE To Sign Card And Show You Stand With Roseanne

Publix was on the receiving end of Hogg’s latest stab at fascist activism thanks to the company’s previous financial support for Adam Putnam, Florida’s agriculture commissioner and a candidate for the GOP nomination for governor who is proud of the support he gets from the National Rifle Association. In a Twitter post published a week before Friday’s demonstrations, Hogg demanded a payment of $1 million from the supermarket chain to make up for its support of Putnam — and tried to extort a humiliating promise from Publix to make its politics conform to a teenage liberal’s demands.

Trending: Rock Star Sees Trump Supporter In Crowd, Jumps Off Stage And Makes Him Pay Vile Price [Video]

As atrocious as Hogg’s behavior is here, it’s not entirely unexpected. Hogg himself isn’t exactly famous for his honesty, and liberals have a long, ugly history of leveraging “progressive” causes into corporate shakedowns. (Jesse Jackson was so well known for it that a conservative author and activist wrote a book about the Chicago huckster called “Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson”.) But Publix — to its credit — wasn’t coming across with the cash. While the supermarket chain tried to wiggle its way out of the protests by announcing it would stop all political donations, turning over what would amount to a $1 million extortion payment wasn’t going to be in the cards. (It’s not like the fund needs money anyway. According to Orlando Weekly, it’s already collected some $8.7 million.)

This week, Fred Guttenberg, a Hogg ally and the father of 14-year-old Parkland victim Jaime Guttenberg, published a series of Twitter posts recounting how Publix CEO Ted Jones had informed him on Tuesday that the company wasn’t going to be victimized by a shakedown scheme. Jones cited Friday’s “d*e-ins” at two Florida locations as the reason, according to Gutttenberg. That would make sense to anyone who knows that an extortionist who finds a victim willing to pay will only keep demanding more, but Guttenberg proclaimed that he was shocked.

CLICK HERE To Sign Petition to BAN ‘The View’ For Being Hateful

“He had the gall to say to me that because the d*e in made this so political that he would not be able to come down here to meet with the Parkland kids and families, as a reminder we are customers, and that Publix would not be making any donation to the victims fund,” Guttenberg wrote. Now, it’s important to remember that Guttenberg lost a daughter in the Parkland s******g, and grief can do strange things to a man’s decision-making process, so maybe he shouldn’t be held completely accountable for what this sounds like to normal people. But this Twitter user summed it up perfectly:

It’s unfortunate that Publix — the largest, most popular supermarket chain in Florida — was cowed into stopping its financial support for Putnam — a potential governor who grew up in the same county where Publix is based. But it’s heartening to see a corporation with the stones to tell an opportunistic extortionist like Hogg and his allies that the jig is up. This was one liberal shakedown that wasn’t going to pay off.”

Hogg is known for his aggressive and outspoken activism. Going on live television and cursing, speaking at rallies, hosting school walkouts and sit-ins. Those are just a few of the things he has done. But his increasingly hostile tactics are drawing a comparison by spectators to that of African American activist Al Sharpton.

USA Today reported:

“Well-known teen g*n control activist David Hogg posted social media statements Wednesday that suggested he plans a Memphis protest against FedEx.”See you this summer,” he wrote to his 813,000 Twitter followers, adding a smiley face. “1000 Ridgeway Loop Memphis, Tennessee.” “That’s FedEx,” he wrote in a subsequent post. (FedEx is listed as one of the tenants in this East Memphis office building, but the main FedEx headquarters is at 3680 Hacks Cross Road.)

People immediately began asking for more details, but Hogg didn’t add much, writing, “More info to come.” FedEx released a statement late Wednesday that didn’t mention Hogg and repeated several points the company had made earlier this year during a dispute over its discount program for NRA members. “The pricing program mentioned in some reports is not for the NRA itself – it is for American small businesses and consumers that are members of the association,” the company said.

The company also repeated earlier statements distancing itself from the NRA’s positions: “FedEx opposes assault rifles being in the hands of civilians . . . Most important, FedEx believes urgent action is required at the local, state and Federal level to protect schools and students from incidents such as the horrific tragedy in Florida on February 14th.” Hogg is among a group of teenagers that emerged as some of the most recognizable faces of a revitalized g*n control movement this year following a February mass s******g at their high school in Parkland, Florida.

Hogg and supporters recently held protests at Publix supermarkets to bring pressure against the company’s support for Adam Putnam, an NRA-friendly candidate for Florida governor. In the protests, young people lay on the supermarket floors in “d*e-ins” as managers routed shoppers around them. The protests led the company to announce Friday that it was suspending its political donations.

On MSNBC’s “AM Joy” in February, Hogg pressed for FedEx to end its NRA discounts and said, “The CEO is one of the biggest donors to the NRA, and we have to take care of them.” The company said CEO Fred Smith isn’t an NRA backer. “He has never been a member of the NRA, nor has he ever contributed to the NRA … and his political contributions are a matter of public record,” spokesman Patrick Fitzgerald said in February. During a protest on the University of Memphis campus earlier this year, students stopped in front of the FedEx Institute of Technology building on campus and chanted, “Hey FedEx, whaddaya say? Divest from the NRA!”

It appears that Hogg is not just targeting Publix but anyone who disagrees with him. Because FedEx is one of those companies he is now targeting. Soon enough he will run out of companies. If you took the moral high ground and refused to buy chocolate from companies that use illegal child labor you literally would not be able to buy chocolate because no company is immune. The same goes for any other company, all companies have a certain. nefarious aspect to it. That’s the real world, a lot of places do things we don’t like and we have to patronize their business anyways because of the monopoly they have on the market. It is time Hogg comes to understand that.

Share if you agree.

Share if you believe that what Hogg is doing is wrong.

Share if you think that what Hogg is doing is illegal.

Share if you agree he should stop what he is doing.

Share if you believe that Publix is being unfairly treated.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!



A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:


“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.


“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading


Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!



Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend