Monthly Archives: April 2014

The Progressives’ War on Freedom and Diversity

Posted on by
1

The forced resignation of (ex-)Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a viewpoint he held of which Progressives disapproved—in the name of diversity of opinion, yet.

(Ex-)Harvard President Larry Summers, forced out because he disapproved of a rap album that was liked by Progressives, and because he suggested the under-representation of women in science and engineering might be due to differences in aptitude—Progressives insist that equality includes identical capacity.

Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute sued for defamation by Michael Mann for ridiculing Mann’s hockey stick and for disparaging the anthropogenic “aspect” of Global Warming—Progressives consider this settled science so much they even tout the efficacy of lying in support of it.

The Gannet newspapers—in particular, the Lower Hudson Journal News—published a map of names and addresses of registered New York gun owners and tried to sue for more such data—knowing as they did so that they were identifying those honest Americans (Conservatives, though, so not so honest, after all, eh?) as targets.

The Los Angeles Times closing off and refusing to accept further commentary disputing anthropogenic global warning—see above.

Chik-fil-A threatened with boycott because its owners held a view of marriage that is disapproved by Progressives.

The IRS targeting and actively suppressing the free speech of organizations of which our Progressive government disapproves—and which now is finalizing a set of rules that would formalize the abuse.

Conservative women routinely smeared for not toeing the Progressive womanhood line—with one Progressive “commentator” insisting that Governor Sara Palin should be tied down and defecated into her mouth.  Progressive approval of this behavior is demonstrated by their silence on the despicable nature of this insistence.

Conservative blacks routinely smeared as Uncle Toms, or worse, for not toeing the Progressive Black-American line (and notice that—not “Progressive black line:” that hyphen matters to Progressives).

The steady drumbeat of slurs against Tea Partiers as racists, tea baggers, and so on—because they hold opinions of which Progressives disapprove.

The routine smearing of those with tales of damage, even ruination, due to Obamacare as liars, as tellers only of “horror stories, all of them untrue”—solely because Progressives find these truths uncomfortable.

Vice President Joe Biden openly agreeing with Congressman Mike Doyle (D, PA) as the latter called Republicans terrorists for disagreeing with Progressive views of the Federal debt ceiling.

The list goes on, without end.  It’s time we Conservatives—and Independents, and middle-of-the-roaders, and anyone else—with an opinion, or a fact, we wish to speak without murderous assault responded.  With facts and logic, because most Americans aren’t as droolingly imbecilic as Progressives make us out to be.

 

h/t Belmont Club

Ukrainian Independence

Posted on by
Reply

Ukraine’s overwhelming vote for independence from Russia in 1991, including those oblasts in the southeast where Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity live and the Crimea oblast, whose population is majority Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity, has been confirmed by a March 2014 Gallup poll, a poll that covered all of Ukraine, including occupied Crimea.

Ukrainians of all backgrounds and from every corner of the country reject Vladimir Putin’s decision to send Russian troops to Ukraine to protect Russian-speaking Ukrainians, with 81% of those surveyed expressing opposition to the move and 13% in favor.

And note especially:

85% of Ukrainians said that Russian-speaking citizens are not threatened, an opinion shared by 66% of ethnic Russians themselves.  74% of Ukrainians living in both the south and the east, regions where Russians claim protection is most needed, responded that Russian-speaking Ukrainians were not under threat because of their language.

And this:

a majority of Ukrainians…believed Crimea should remain part of Ukraine, with 57% in the south and 52% in the east supporting the status quo ante.

So much for the legitimacy of the Russian Anschluss or for the legitimacy of the Kerry-Obama timidity and moral equivalence equivocation in the face of Putin’s aggression.

Calibrated?

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State John Kerry says he’s going to reevaluate US’ participation in the “peace” talks between Israel and the Palestinians.  With his centerpiece diplomatic effort failing as sadly laughably as his failure vis-à-vis Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent occupation of a major part of it, Kerry now says this about his “peace” talks:

We are going to evaluate very carefully exactly where this is and where it might possibly be able to go….

And, with this administration’s insistence on the amorality of moral equivalence, Kerry added this:

There are limits to the amount of time and effort that the U.S. can spend if the parties themselves are unable to take constructive steps.

And

We intend to evaluate precisely what the next steps will be[.]

Will you be doing a properly calibrated assessment, too, Mr Kerry?

Jobs Mandates

Posted on by
Reply

Nearby is a post concerning the jobs impact of Obamacare costs being imposed on employers.  Two other labor costs being considered for imposition by our Know Better, Progressive administration are minimum wage increases, and now an increase in the “minimum” wage of salaried managers.

Never mind what such a thing would do to productive company cultures:

…making more people eligible for overtime pay could remove the inherent incentive for lower-level managers to hustle to earn a promotion.

“You work hard, develop the maturity for a salaried position, and then move up,” [Emo Pentermann, owner of Bell ATM Service Inc] says.  “It takes away that whole level of maturity and freedom of choosing to get the job done in the time allotted.  So for all practical purposes, they just might as well be on a time card.”

Or, regarding that last, especially:

…a workplace environment that de-emphasizes keeping up with a time clock.  For instance, employees can take time off work to attend a child’s performance in school.  [Jeffrey Harris, owner of Inte Q] says his employees are more productive as a result of that flexibility.

He had plans to adopt a new, more formal policy this year where he would tell his salaried employees: “You know what your job is.  You’re responsible for it.  Take off when you need to, and we’re not necessarily watching day by day what you’re doing.”

But when he heard about the proposal, he said he immediately thought it would affect the type of work culture that has yielded results for him in both profits and employee retention.

Because our employers don’t have enough barriers for job creation or for business growth—and job creation.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…especially, the aim of those clauses of the First Amendment, free political speech.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, had this to say in striking down aggregate limits to political contributions:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citizens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.

And

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

And [bold added, italics in the original]

The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance.  We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.  For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley.  They instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”

What he said.  The Supremes’ ruling can be seen here.