Monthly Archives: May 2021

Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R, FL) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (D, GA) are hitting the campaign trail (a bit early, IMNSHO, but that’s beside my present point), taking their America First Tour to the nation:

The radical left is coming for you. And they know I’m in the way. Come stand with me as we fight back together against this radical president and his far-left agenda[.]

However, and here’s the mistake. They intend, also, to

call out so-called Republicans in Name Only, or RINO’s, and politicians whom they consider part of the country’s “radical left.”

These two need to stay focused on the real Leftist extremists, their Progressive-Democratic Party, and Party’s and Biden’s destructive policies and the destruction they’re trying to wreak with yet more of their extremist proposals.

Hitting RINOs, and other Republicans who are squishier than many of us like, however emotionally agreeable to us, will be counterproductive. Republican majorities—especially strong majorities—in both houses of Congress from 2022 forward is far more important than demanding party purity. That last can only weaken a majority, even put gaining either majority in jeopardy.

Purity-demanding caused a lot of Republican failures in 2010-2016 period when Republicans had majorities. The current crop needs to learn that lesson.

C Boyden Gray vs NASDAQ

Posted on by
Reply

I know who should be winning. I know how the matter should be resolved.

Recall that NASDAQ wants to require companies, as a condition of being listed on the NASDAQ exchange, to have quotas of particular groups of Americans on those companies’ boards of directors:

“at least one director who self-identifies as female,” and “at least one director who self-identifies as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, two or more races or ethnicities, or as LGBTQ+.”

And

Noncompliant firms must publicly “explain”—in writing—why they don’t meet Nasdaq’s quotas.

Gray’s and his colleague, Jonathan Berry’s, summary of their Comment filing before the SEC is spot on.

Nasdaq’s discriminate-or-explain rule is unlawful, unconstitutional, and unsupported by the evidence. Quota systems like this unjustifiably classify people by arbitrary categories of sex and race in violation of equal-protection principles, and the “alternative” of explaining why a firm won’t discriminate compels speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Yet, this is the damage the social justice warriors that infest our government at all levels would inflict.

Racist Spew

Posted on by
Reply

Many of you may recall Senator Tim Scott’s (R, SC) response to President Joe Biden’s speech to a sparsely attended joint session of Congress last Wednesday.

Many of you may recall the vitriol and outright racist spew sprayed Scott’s way in response to the Senator’s statement

Hear me clearly. America is not a racist country.

There are a couple of things that really stand out about that shameful period.

One is that Jack Dorsey let that racism trend on his Twitter for 11 hours, carefully reaching for the trending’s peak damage before deciding to…detrend…the spew. That makes Dorsey’s and his social medium’s views on race and on blacks in particular crystalline.

Even more shameful, even more despicable than that, though, is this.

Even after all this time, neither black Progressive-Democratic Party Senator—Cory Booker (D, NJ) or Raphael Warnock (D, GA)—have said a word—not a syllable—in objection to, much less in condemnation of, that disgusting response to Scott’s statement.

Not a single black Representative in the House has spoken in condemnation, or even mild objection, to that racist treatment of Scott.

Not even any of the White Saviors of the Progressive-Democratic Party members of either house of Congress have spoken against the spew or in support of its target.

It’s clear that the Progressive-Democratic Party condones this blatantly racist behavior.

That’s disgusting, and it needs to be remembered in the fall of 2022.

Walls

Posted on by
Reply

Who’s building them? President Joe Biden (D), within days of being inaugurated, ordered construction of physical walls along our southern border halted.

We have an exploding—and still expanding—crisis on that southern border, one that centers on illegal aliens inundating our facilities (and Mexico’s) and that has a second center involving accompanied children (children; let’s not hide behind the soft-pedaling euphemism “minors;” these unfortunates are as young as eight or nine), many of whom have been abused, repeatedly to the point of being a routine matter, on their way to that border.

Nevertheless:

Biden has refused to visit our southern border, and he won’t even discuss any plan to visit it in his term, much less at any time soon.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D) laughs at the idea of visiting our southern border, even though she’s been charged with responsibility for dealing with that crisis. She’s also more widely traveled domestically than her partner in this administration. She’s been to California to discuss Governor Newsom’s (D) plans for handling the State’s Wuhan Virus situation. She’s been to Chicago for a Chicago-style piece of German chocolate cake. She’s been to Connecticut to push her partner’s spending plan. She’s been to North Carolina to push her partner’s “infrastructure” plan. She’s been to New Hampshire on a 2024 campaign preparatory trip. Now she’s going to Milwaukee on a Progressive-Democrat agenda touting trip.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (D) actually has been to our southern border, but only to visit within the safety of the interior of a CBP/ICE facility; he’s never actually been to the border itself, away from those facilities.

It’s almost as though the Harris/Biden (Biden/Harris?) administration has erected its own wall—the purpose of which is to keep administration officials, including the two top dogs, away from the border.

A Free Speech Oral Argument

Posted on by
Reply

(Pun not necessarily intended.)

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of a 14-year-old girl who tried out for, and didn’t make, a varsity cheerleading team and subsequently vented her frustrations in a Snapchat rife with “colorful metaphors.”

The girl’s school punished her with a year-long suspension from cheerleading, she demurred from the punishment, lower courts agreed with her, and the school continued its protest to the Supremes.

Attorney Lisa Blatt, representing the girl’s school, had this, among others, at oral argument, as paraphrased by Just the News:

Schools aren’t trying to police political, religious, or critical expression, or impose the heckler’s veto…. They want to address digital bullying, harassment, and cheating….
A student who is upset at her teacher can safely text her views to friends but not picket the teacher’s house, Blatt told Chief Justice John Roberts: the “manner” of speech is the issue, not the offensiveness of it.

And

[Blatt] rejected the suggestion that students can get in trouble for simply sharing unpopular views: wearing a Confederate flag symbol “alone” is protected, but not using it to “terrorize” a black student.

Blatt seemed unable to address those arguments in detail, however.

What about students or teachers who think a student’s positions on police, politics, or religion are themselves offensive?

What about students or teachers who think a student’s disagreement with another student’s (or teacher’s) positions on police, politics, or religion is harassment or bullying?

What about students who think another student’s wearing of a Confederate flag symbol “alone” terrorizes them?

We’re on a short, slippery, downhill road off the edge of a very high, steep cliff when we begin expanding limits on speech.