Terrorist’s Veto

Posted in Politics, Religion, Society on August 27th, 2014

In 1980 American jurist Harry Kalven, Jr. coined the term “Heckler’s Veto,” which means means, in its strictest sense, when an acting party’s right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party’s bad or dangerous behavior. In a slightly broader sense it occurs whenever a person or group self-censor in order to avoid a reacting party’s bad or dangerous behavior.

Yield For Bacon! No! Haram! Infidel!
Yield For Sneakers’ Bacon!

What they’re experiencing in the small Vermont town of Winooski is even worse though. It’s the terrorist’s veto.

Last week, Sneakers Bistro and Cafe removed a sign reading “Yield for Sneakers Bacon” from a garden at the Winooski Rotary because a Muslim woman complained about its existence, claiming that as one of the large number of Muslims in this small town it personally offended her.

Be assured that Sneakers only removed the sign out of fear of reprisals and attacks by those Muslims in and around Winooski, VM. Hence, this is a Terrorist’s Veto since censorship, dhimmitude, and compliance with whims and sense of “offense” of Muslims is being enforced through fear of bad behavior on the part of Muslims.

One must remember that there is no difference between the Muslims that would protest and blockade Sneakers, those such as CAIR who would engage in Paper Terrorism and lawfare against them, and those who would engage in violence against them. There all the same except in methodology and they all seek the same disgusting and pernicious goals.

Related Reading:

Sharia-ism Is Here: The Battle To Control Women; And Everyone Else
An Elementary Study of Islam
The Terrorist's Dilemma: Managing Violent Covert Organizations
America
Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains

Ginsburg Is Right

Posted in Politics on August 26th, 2014

US Supreme Court Justice is rarely right about things, hence why her opinions are based upon perceived or hoped for outcomes rather than the law. She can, however, be right about the fact from time to time. A case in point being her tirade during an interview with the The National Law Journal. She was and is right about this.

“What’s amazing is how things have changed,” Ginsburg said, recalling the landmark 1971 decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that employer policies that look neutral on paper can still constitute discrimination if they disproportionately harm minorities in practice. “It was a very influential decision and it was picked up in England. That’s where the court was heading in the ’70s.”

– Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

And, to our nation’s shame, that was exactly where the court was heading in the ’70s. It was heading at a headlong pace towards enabling special race-based privileges for non-Whites and forcing everyone to make race as the overriding factor in all decisions due to ‚Äúdisparate impact.”

NOTE: The singular exception to this is the progressive income tax which has a very disparate impact upon Whites but is never considered be discriminatory or a violation of their civil rights.

What most aside from Blacktivists don’t know is that the employer policy being lambasted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was Duke Power’s requirement that employees in more demanding positions had to either have a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate. As Blacks have a long-standing history, which hasn’t changed to this day, of graduating from high school far less often than Whites, this was considered by the Burger Court to be both discriminatory and a violation of Blacks’ civil rights.

And following along with that High Court ruling and creation of the ‚Äúdisparate impact” framework is exactly the path to Hell that America was taking until the Roberts Court finally started to make inroads against this race-based legal framework.

So, as she so often is, Ginsburg has her facts in order but draws the wrong conclusion. Hardly shocking since she’s SCOTUS justice in the first place only due to Affirmative Action.

Related Reading:

The Racial Crisis in American Higher Education: Continuing Challenges for the Twenty-First Century (Frontiers in Education)
Whose Black Politics?: Cases in Post-Racial Black Leadership
History's Greatest Generals: 10 Commanders Who Conquered Empires, Revolutionized Warfare, and Changed History Forever
Legal Methods, 4th (University Casebook Series) (English and English Edition)
The Amateur

Obama’s Third Term

Posted in Humor, Politics on August 26th, 2014

I support a third term for Obama
I Support A Third Term For Obama – 25 To Life

Yes, a third term of 25-to-life in a federal Supermax prison for Obama and Moochelle sounds acceptable. Hanged by the neck until dead would be better but 25-to-life would do the job that America needs done almost as well and with less headaches.

Related Reading:

Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment
President Barack Obama: The Kindle Singles Interview (Kindle Single)
Thug Kitchen: The Official Cookbook: Eat Like You Give a F*ck
Thug Passion 2
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage)