Fundamental Transformation

Posted in Humor, Politics on August 31st, 2014

Obama's Fundamental Transformation
Fundamental Transformation

Hey! Never let it be said that, despite the boy’s pathological mendacity, Obama hasn’t upheld any of his campaign promises. Claiming such is totally ignoring a more nuanced reality. Obama has, in sad fact, upheld his promise to his cultists to fundamentally transform America.

Related Reading:

Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream
What You Should Know About Politics . . . But Don't: A Non-Partisan Guide to the Issues That Matter
Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters
Passive Aggressive Notes: Painfully Polite and Hilariously Hostile Writings

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:

Hungry? Boston: The Lowdown on Where the Real People Eat!
How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns
The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity
Terrorist Recognition Handbook: A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying Terrorist Activities, Third Edition
Why Still Care about Israel?: The Sanctity of Covenant, Moral Justice and Prophetic Blessing

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 “disparate 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 “disparate 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:

Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries
Student Activism and Civil Rights in Mississippi: Protest Politics and the Struggle for Racial Justice, 1960-1965
Criminal Law: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (Criminal Law Series)
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
His Stolen Bride (Brother in Arms Book 2) (Brothers in Arms) (Volume 2)