Proof that Republicans will never ever get a fair shake on MSNBC. On Tuesday, President Obama launched his dishonest “Equal Pay Day” play despite the fact that his own White House doesn’t pay women and men equally. Obama’s move forced the Republicans to respond, which is why he made the move in the first place, and it was only natural that elected Republican women would lead the charge. They see the cynicism and hypocrisy of a White House that is so desperate that it will exploit women and try making victims of them.
On Morning Joe today, they played a sequence of those women speaking out against Obama. These are women who hold elected positions in Congress. Mika Brzezinsky, given a network job because she is the daughter of a famous Democrat, calls those independently elected Republican women “hostages.”
The students, faculty and staff of Brandeis University have submitted themselves to dhimmitude.
Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.
The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.
“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”
Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”
Ali knows well of what she speaks. She was raised Muslim in Somalia, survived female genital mutilation, escaped Somalia’s civil war and became a member of the Dutch parliament. But Islam followed her, and credibly threatened her life. She and Theo Van Gogh produced a short film critical of Islam’s treatment of women, called Submission. A Muslim murdered Van Goch on an Amsterdam street in 2004. His killer used a knife to pin a note to Van Gogh’s body, and in that note he threatened Ali.
The threats became too much, and Ali was once again forced to move, this time to the United States.
So she knows very well what she is criticizing and why she criticizes it. Shame on Brandeis. The university probably thinks it is making a statement for tolerance, but in rescinding Ali’s honor, it is making a very different statement.
PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane, Democrat, scuttled a major corruption investigation soon after she took office. That investigation had snared a handful of Democrat officeholders accepting bribes. Kane smeared the investigation, claiming it was racist. When the Philly Inquirer reported on her actions, Kane pulled a Wendy Davis move and threatened to sue the newspaper. That threat is still in play.
Kane has added to her racism smear, claiming that federal investigators had concluded that the investigation was too weak to prosecute. She and her staff even gamed the situation by prepping a case file for a Republican to review, a case file apparently stacked to make the case look impossible to prosecute.
Now Kane is being called out on claiming that prosecutors believed that the case was too weak, too. This is another Inquirer story; perhaps Kane will add it to the lawsuit she is threatening to bring against the paper.
Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia never deemed a sting operation that targeted public corruption as too weak to prosecute, according to District Attorney Seth Williams and law enforcement sources familiar with the brief federal review of the investigation.
The sources and Williams say the prosecutors never came to a judgment about the investigation one way or another before the state attorney general asked them to halt their review.
Their statements echo a declaration by the Philadelphia office of the FBI, which said it made no judgment about whether the case was suitable for prosecution.
Kane’s response: “Did too!” But she hasn’t named a single name.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane has said “federal authorities” endorsed her view that the sting was fatally damaged. She has declined to identity the federal officials involved, saying they had asked for anonymity.
Much more at the link. The Inquirer contacted many of the officials who would have made the judgement that Kane is claiming, and none of them agree with her at all.
Kane will have to name a name. But it’s likely that there is no name to name. All the available evidence strongly suggests that Kane killed the investigation for purely partisan reasons. The investigation targeted Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats were caught on tape accepting the bribes. The process of prosecuting them could damage the Democrat Party in Pennsylvania for years to come, turning a swing state at least a light shade of red. Kane could have mitigated that damage by standing up for the rule of law, and presiding over a fair prosecution of her fellow Democrats. But that isn’t the choice that Kane has made.
Even as the IRS faces growing heat over Lois G. Lerner and the tea party targeting scandal, a government watchdog said Wednesday it’s pursuing cases against three other tax agency employees and offices suspected of illegal political activity in support of President Obama and fellow Democrats.
In one case the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employees who conduct politics on government time, said it was “commonplace” in a Dallas IRS office for employees to have pro-Obama screensavers on their computers, and to have campaign-style buttons and stickers at their office.
Another IRS employee in Kentucky has agreed to serve a 14-day suspension for blasting Republicans in a conversation with a taxpayer.
“They’re going to take women back 40 years,” the IRS employee said in a conversation that was recorded. The employee also said that “if you vote for a Republican, the rich are going to get richer and the poor are going to get poorer.”
That employee went on to tell the taxpayer she knew she wasn’t supposed to be voicing her political opinions, and asked the taxpayer not to say anything.
More at the link.
I used to see and hear some of this sort of thing when I worked at NASA, but in those cases nearly all of the workers involved were contractors, and NASA is a very different animal from the IRS. You’d see a sea of Howard Dean stickers on the cars in the parking lot outside some agency buildings, you’d hear the occasional political diatribe against Republicans by high-ranking officials now and then, and James Hansen’s constant politicking from his agency perch speaks for itself. But within NASA you could at least debate things, and NASA cannot ruin people’s lives the way that the IRS can.
That the IRS has apparently morphed into another arm of the Democratic National Committee is dangerous and deeply depressing. It suggests that while Lois Lerner probably was working with Obama administration officials above her in the food chain, she and many many other agency officials may not have even needed specific orders to act upon. They knew what to do, and more importantly, they knew that the Obama administration was extremely unlikely to punish them.
The Palestinians elected terrorist group Hamas to lead them. That group espouses the total destruction of Israel. Palestinians teach their children to hate and want to kill Jews. Hamas and Hizballah regularly stage deliberate attacks on Israeli civilian targets. The Palestinians do not truly believe in a “two state solution,” they believe in a one state solution that does not include the continued existence of Israel.
Yet to Secretary of State John Kerry, none of that matters as much as a few Israeli gestures.
“Both sides wound out in a position of unhelpful moves,” Kerry said at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, delineating what he said led to the current impasse.
“The prisoners were not released by Israel on the day they were supposed to be released and then another day passed and another day, and then 700 units were approved in Jerusalem and then poof — that was sort of the moment,” Kerry said.
The secretary of state was referring to the planned fourth release of Palestinian security prisoners, which was originally slated for March 29. Israel did not proceed with the release on time, with Jerusalem saying that it was delayed because the Palestinian Authority had demanded that Israeli Arabs be among those freed and was unwilling to commit to extend peace talks beyond their April 29 deadline.
On April 1, the Israel Lands Authority reissued a call for tenders for 708 homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, which is located beyond the 1967 lines and was annexed by Israel.
Later that same day, PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed 15 letters of accession to multilateral treaties and conventions, in what Israel said was a clear breach of Ramallah’s commitment not to take unilateral steps to advance their statehood bid so long as the talks were ongoing.
The Palestinians repeatedly broke their word, as they always do. The most that Kerry could say about that, about the PA’s open defiance on statehood, was that it was “unhelpful.”
There isn’t a whole lot that one can say to someone like Kerry. Sen. John McCain scolded him in that hearing, but it’s very unlikely that Kerry learned anything. If he doesn’t have a clue by now — and he doesn’t — it’s unlikely that he ever will. But he’s only a symptom of the problem. The Democrats as a whole have mostly turned against Israel, or at least see it as being on the same moral plane as Hamas. The average American voter doesn’t pay enough attention to foreign policy to realize the danger of electing any Democrat administration. The “free stuff” coalition has the upper hand in that party.
The formerly* most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States of America, said this today.
POTUS said, “[I] know it’s equal pay and not Obamacare day, but I do want to point out that the affordable care act guarantees free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care and ends the days when you can be charged more for being a woman when it comes to your health insurance. That’s true for everybody. That’s just one more place where things were not fair. We’ll talk about dry cleaners next, right? I know that — I don’t know why it cost more for Michelle’s blouse than my shirt.”
If he really doesn’t know, it’s probably because he never held a real job in his life. Or, he just isn’t very smart.
That remark prompted the Washington Post’s Juliet Epstein and Kate Zezima to study up and write a post about — I’m not making this up — why it costs women more than men to get dry cleaning.
They note that there is no federal law against charging women more. They noted that Obama isn’t even the first Democrat to bring this vital issue to our nation’s attention.
They fail to note that women’s clothes tend to be tailored more than men’s, and that women tend to wear more delicate fabrics than men. The Post’s two writers on this one story failed to even take any of that into consideration, even though it’s blindingly obvious. They note all of the politics, but none of the relevant facts.
A female commenter on the story sets them straight.
I was born in the dry cleaning business. My parents have been in the business for 18+ years.
That being said, I would like to say dry cleaners are not trying to be discriminatory. It’s business.
1.) Men’s shirts are dry cleaner’s loss leaders. We hate people who bring 10+ shirts without any dry cleaning because we make no profit.
2.) Dry cleaners have men’s shirts machines. These machines are fit for men’s shirts.
See link: http://www.mymartinizing.com/files/shirts/sankosha…
3.) Women’s clothing are more complex than men’s clothing. This article talks about cleaning a women’s blouse versus a man’s shirt, but what about pressing a blouse, dress or skirt?
4.) Think about the lines of a woman’s figure and the way that clothes are designed to contour this figure. Now think about a man’s body. It’s more boxy. No machines are manufactured that could form the many types of women’s blouses. See link above.
5.) Women’s blouses are usually more versatile in style, fabric material, and embellishments. If a woman brought in a silk shirt, a dry cleaner would not wash it. It must be dry cleaned. The cost of chemicals and pressing is more expensive. Thus, her blouse is more costly.
Overview: The time and effort that goes into cleaning women’s clothing is more labor intensive as well as time intensive. This is why Michelle’s blouse is more expensive than Obama’s shirt.
Thank you, Pres. Obama, for considering the discrimination of women in the area of dry cleaning. However, you spoke too soon.
*Barack Obama has devalued the US presidency to the extent that he is no longer the most powerful man in the world. Vladimir Putin might be, China’s president might be, George Soros might be…but Barack Obama is not.
So this happened on CNN this afternoon. The network took a break from its search for the missing airplane long enough to whack the White House over its ridiculous “equal pay” rollout.
That’s Carol Costello exploding in mockery after WH spokesman Jay Carney essentially debunks his own talking point. Enjoy.
If the Obama White House has lost CNN…well, it still has the bitter enders at MSNBC.
During a House committee hearing today, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder did not mind it when Congress held him in contempt over the Fast and Furious investigation. That sparked a bitter response from Holder.
Holder was promising the committee staff to provide it with requested documents, and Gohmert replied that the Justice Department’s response so far had been “inadequate.”
“And I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said, referring to the 2012 vote that held Holder in contempt. President Obama eventually buried that scandal by invoking executive privilege.
Holder fired back at Gohmert: “You don’t want to go there buddy. You don’t want to go there.”
Gohmert: “I don’t want to go there?”
Gohmert: “About the contempt?”
Holder: “You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think it was inappropriate and it was unjust. But never think that that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.”
Gohmert: “Well, I’m just looking for evidence and normally we’re known by our fruits. And there have no indications that it was a big deal because your department has still not been forthcoming in producing the documents that were the subject of the contempt.”
Here at PJ Media, we know a thing or two about faked crime statistics. Until we reported on the antics of the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Department on the Texas-Mexico border, the local and state media — never mind federal investigators — wouldn’t touch it. From conversations with several law enforcement officers not connected with Hidalgo County while working on that series, I learned something that bothers me still: Law enforcement agencies all over the country fake their crime statistics, and the federal government encourages them to do so. They falsify their statistics to make them look worse in order to attract federal grant money, and they continue falsifying their stats to make them look better to keep the federal grant money rolling in. They falsify statistics to make the sheriff or police chief look good, to serve the politics of gun control, and other reasons.
A big city police department like Chicago’s will have those motivations to fake statistics, plus others, notably that the city has a big-name mayor who wants higher office, that the city’s crime-ridden image harms the national gun control crusade, and that its image can hurt local industries like tourism. Ultimately, its image even hurts the president who claims it as one of his homes.
Chicago Magazine reports that the city has been falsifying its murder and other violent crime statistics for years.
Chicago conducted a 12-month examination of the Chicago Police Department’s crime statistics going back several years, poring through public and internal police records and interviewing crime victims, criminologists, and police sources of various ranks. We identified 10 people, including Groves, who were beaten, burned, suffocated, or shot to death in 2013 and whose cases were reclassified as death investigations, downgraded to more minor crimes, or even closed as noncriminal incidents—all for illogical or, at best, unclear reasons.
This troubling practice goes far beyond murders, documents and interviews reveal. Chicago found dozens of other crimes, including serious felonies such as robberies, burglaries, and assaults, that were misclassified, downgraded to wrist-slap offenses, or made to vanish altogether. (We’ll examine those next month in part 2 of this special report.)
That’s how border crime stats get massaged, too. The Texas-Mexico border is not as safe as it is usually portrayed. Its statistics are systematically altered to present a false picture of safety. That picture serves the interests both of the local officials, and the Obama administration, which desperately wants its vision of “comprehensive immigration reform” to pass without putting security ahead of legalizing millions of illegal aliens.
Back to Chicago:
[S]ources describe a practice that has become widespread at the same time that top police brass have become fixated on demonstrating improvement in Chicago’s woeful crime statistics.
And has there ever been improvement. Aside from homicides, which soared in 2012, the drop in crime since Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy arrived in May 2011 is unprecedented—and, some of his detractors say, unbelievable. Crime hasn’t just fallen, it has freefallen: across the city and across all major categories.
Take “index crimes”: the eight violent and property crimes that virtually all U.S. cities supply to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its Uniform Crime Report. According to police figures, the number of these crimes plunged by 56 percent citywide from 2010 to 2013—an average of nearly 19 percent per year—a reduction that borders on the miraculous. To put these numbers in perspective: From 1993, when index crimes peaked, to 2010, the last full year under McCarthy’s predecessor, Jody Weis, the average annual decline was less than 4 percent.
That this is going on at the same time that the department is “bleeding officers” does not make sense.
[I]t looked bad for Mayor Emanuel. His disapproval rating in the polls was rising sharply, particularly among black voters. Behind closed doors, according to a City Hall insider, Emanuel told his police chief that the department had better not allow a repeat performance of 2012 or McCarthy’s days in Chicago would be numbered. (Through a spokeswoman, the mayor declined to comment for this article.)
McCarthy called 2012’s homicide total a “tragic number” and vowed that things would be different in 2013. The mindset inside police headquarters, recalls one officer: “Whatever you gotta do, this can’t happen again.”
And magically, it didn’t. The city set an arbitrary number of homicides for 2013, 435. Despite January 2013 starting off with a spate of murders, and several months being punctuated by high-profile shootings in the city’s gang war, Chicago finished 2013 with an official murder tally of 414. Mayor Emanuel got his media headlines blaring a historic reduction in Chicago’s violent crime. The band played on.
The Houston Chronicle reports that one of NASA’s Mars rovers has spotted something odd: a bright light coming up from beneath the planet’s surface.
A NASA camera on Mars has captured what appears to be artificial light emanating outward from the planet’s surface.
The photo, beamed millions of miles from Mars to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was taken last week, apparently by one of two NASA rovers on the red planet.
Although the space agency hasn’t issued any official statement yet about the phenomenon, bloggers and NASA enthusiasts have started chiming in.
Scott C. Waring, who maintains the website UFO Sightings Daily, posted the photo April 6.
Waring noted that the light shines upward, as if from the ground, and is very flat across the bottom.
“This could indicate there there is intelligent life below the ground and uses light as we do,” Waring wrote on his website. “This is not a glare from the sun, nor is it an artifact of the photo process.”
I’d like to know more about the time of day, scale of the image, and overall brightness conditions when the rover captured this. Whatever it is, to me it doesn’t look like a light. It looks like gas escaping from beneath the surface. Or, a dust devil at distance that looks bright due to contrast enhancement. I don’t see why a light’s reach would be so defined and limited at the top. It could also be a processing artifact that wasn’t properly cleaned up.
What do you think?
Holder told Congress, “I mean, I think that one of the things we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either through fingerprint identification — the gun talks to a bracelet or something you might wear — how the gun can only be used by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”
That wouldn’t stop any gunman on a rampage. But an electronic bracelet would drive up the cost of firearms, make them less reliable, increase a potential crime victim’s response time and might prevent them from being able to respond at all, and might even give the government a means of monitoring gun owners within their own homes. Criminals will just disable the electronics.
So it’s very much in line with this administration’s overall aims of disarming all of us and keeping control of us.
Retired IRS honcho Lois Lerner faces the possibility of prosecution on two fronts this week. Lerner, who launched the public side of the IRS abuse scandal and subsequently misled the media and the American people about its scope (at least), is likely to be charged with contempt of Congress this week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The House Ways and Means Committee is expected to take a different tack. That committee, led by outgoing chairman Rep. Dave Camp, will vote on Thursday to request the US Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Lerner.
That action requires cooperation from Attorney General Eric Holder, which is extremely unlikely. The House has already held Holder in contempt for his refusal to tell the truth regarding the Fast and Furious scandal. Nothing happened to him.
Both votes are expected by the end of the week.
A special counsel is necessary to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, but getting one appointed by Obama and Holder is also extremely unlikely.
In other news, divisive, dishonest president who lied about your healthcare and his meeting with the Pope finds something else to lie about.
If Barack Obama really cared about the “equal pay” issue more than he cared about drumming up an issue for the politics of it, he would have seen to it that his own White House female staff make the same money for the same work before he launched today’s “Equal Pay Day” festivities. But he didn’t. Women in his own White House still make less than the boys.
And only a few years after the blogs noticed, so does the New York Times. All the news that’s fit to print…eventually. We’ll get around to it. Honest.
As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday will call attention to what he has said is an “embarrassment” in America: the fact that women make, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns.
But critics of the administration are eager to turn the tables and note that Mr. Obama’s White House fares only slightly better. A study released in January showed that female White House staff members make on average 88 cents for every dollar a male staff member earns.
Time for a spin cycle!
Jay Carney, the president’s press secretary, said the statistics for White House staff members reflect the fact that women fill more lower-level positions than men. But he said that women and men in the same positions at the White House are paid the same, and that many of the women hold senior positions.
“Men and women in equivalent roles here earn equivalent salaries,” Mr. Carney said. “Some of the most senior positions in the White House are filled by women, including national security adviser, homeland security adviser, White House counsel, communications director, senior adviser, deputy chief of staff.”
He said that the 88-cent statistic was misleading because it aggregates the salaries of White House staff members at all levels, including the lowest levels, where women outnumber men.
Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, said the 77-cent statistic that Mr. Obama has often cited was misleading for the same reason, because it aggregates salaries for the American workforce. “The wage gap is real, but the White House does itself a disservice — and embarrasses itself in the process — by grasping for misleading statistics that don’t tell the whole story,” Mr. Buck said.
Obama’s team got caught playing fast and loose with numbers when they launched this gambit. Oopsies. And of course, no one was fired for misleading the American press and people. That’s a job requirement with this White House.
The upshot of what the Democrats really want out of all this (other than an issue for the mid-terms and something besides Obamacare, the economy, Russia, etc to talk about): More regulations on businesses, more excuses for trial lawyers to sue.
This week, Democrats in the Senate are to begin considering the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would add new regulations on how private companies pay their employees.
This is who the Democrats are. They attack businesses for political fun and profit.
h/t Just One Minute
Viagra and other similar drugs are not widely covered by health insurance plans. That’s why the companies that make them air a billion ads a day to sell them, embarrassing everyone in the room when those ads show up while you’re trying to watch sports or River Monsters.
But that fact didn’t stop Barbara Boxer aka “Senator Ma’am” from going on MSNBC last week and accusing Hobby Lobby of having a double standard because its owners refuse to cover three out of about 16 contraceptive methods. Those specific methods end a life. Viagra — which most insurance policies don’t even cover — doesn’t end a life. That difference is so obvious that even MSNBC pointed it out to Boxer.
The Daily Surge sent its 60-year-old intern, Robb, into the halls of power to ask Senator Ma’am about all this. Apparently Boxer has been training for an Olympic sprinting berth. She’s got some wheels.
Exit question: When Boxer compared Viagra to abortifacient drugs, was she being ignorant, dishonest, or both?
Another kid behind him yelled “He’s making gun motions, send him to juvie!” According to AWR Hawkins, that kid had been bullying Ethan Chaplin, the kid who was twirling the pencil.
And the idiots in charge of the school took the bullying to an entire new level.
The school suspended him. It ordered him to undergo both a psychological and a physiological examination. The boy’s father says his seventh-grader son was stripped and had to give blood samples and urine samples for drug testing. He passed out during the examination. Four hours after that, a social worker spoke with the boy for all of five minutes and cleared him of doing anything wrong.
When he went back to school, the principal reportedly followed him around all day.
That boy was abused by his own school. The authorities over him terrorized him. They bullied him. All just for twirling a pencil in his hand.
As has become typical in these cases, Superintendent Charles Maranzano defends the indefensible actions of those who work for him:
“We never know what’s percolating in the minds of children,” he told the news station. “And when they demonstrate behaviors that raise red flags, we must do our duty.”
Twirling a pencil is about a billion miles away from going on a murder spree.
It’s time to go Al Armendariaz on these people and make examples of them to deter this kind of abusive behavior. Our government is already doing that to citizens and has been for years. It’s time to turn the tables. The super needs to be sued personally, as does every other teacher and official involved. They’re not fit to be around children.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has carried his Koch obsession into another week. Earlier today, the stalkerish senator suggested that Republicans should walk around bearing a mark noting some sort of connection to the Koch brothers.
Reid said, “Mr. President, NASCAR fans can easily find their favorite drivers by simply looking at the cars as they fly because there are corporate emblems on the hood of the car. In fact, they’re all over the in fact, they’re all over the car. For our clothing here in the for our clothing here in the Senate we don’t bear commercial. Many Republican senators might as well wear Koch industries insignias. But as members of the members of the United States Senate there should never be any any doubt as to our sponsors, the American people. We’re here in the Senate for one reason: To give Americans a fair shot at providing for their families and having their voices families and having their voices heard. But Republicans seem willing to identify themselves willing to identify themselves with their billionaire sponsors. While they don’t wear Koch while they don’t wear Koch industries ties and jackets, they display their sponsors proudly through their actions proudly through their actions here in the United States Senate. So it comes as no surprise that Republican senators stood here on the Senate floor and voiced their support for Charles and David Koch.”
You first, senator. Stick a sticker with George Soros’ mug on your jacket.
The NY Post reports:
The state Health Department is failing to inspect many of New York’s abortion clinics — with some facilities escaping scrutiny for more than a decade, bombshell documents obtained by The Post reveal.
Health inspectors regulate 25 diagnostic and treatment clinics and surgery centers that provide abortion services — though pro-choice advocates say there are 225 abortion service providers in New York state.
Eight of the 25 clinics were never inspected over the 2000-12 span, five were inspected just once, and eight were inspected only twice or three times — meaning once every four or six years.
A total of just 45 inspections were conducted at all 25 facilities during the 12-year period.
By comparison, city eateries are inspected every year and graded, while a new law requires tanning salons to undergo inspections at least once every other year.
Progs want every industry except abortion subjected to strong regulations and inspections.
That attitude helped Kermit Gosnell become one of the most heinous killers in American history.
Ronan Farrow arrived to an anchor chair at MSNBC as the network’s alleged next big thing, with no broadcast experience whatsoever. His ratings have stunk. While news networks have covered Russia, the missing airplane, political stories of the day, Farrow went off the rails with a feature about Bronies. His brief run hasn’t been good.
Now, it looks like he’s just throwing in the towel and letting his four or five viewers tell him what stories he should cover.
Farrow said, “Welcome back to the program everybody. Now it is your chance to tell us which under-reported story you want us to cover next. You can send your nominations on twitter and Facebook using the hash tag RFDunder and I’m hearing from the control room right now, what we’re getting. We have chatter about the polio-like virus spreading in California. Some requests for Venezuela updates, and some interest in congressional hearings on sunscreen. All right. Because Kurt Vonnegut did not say, always wear sunscreen. Keep quoting. We’re going to be right back.”
Nothing about Leland Yee? Benghazi? The IRS scandal? Shocking…
According to a new report from the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, the Internal Revenue Service did not target any leftwing, liberal or progressive groups while it was targeting groups on the right. The finding is based on testimony given by IRS agents familiar with the targeting scandal.
The new report is titled “Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives: How the IRS and Congressional Democrats Misled America about Disparate Treatment.” That title obviously includes a condemnation for Rep. Elijah Cummings and other Democrats on the panel, who have belittled the investigation and stymied it at just about every turn. The Findings section calls out Cummings and three other Democrats on the committee by name, and states that they made misleading claims to the media that the IRS targeted progressive groups.
The report also accuses the Democrats of coordinating their misleading claims.
The report looks at how three early Tea Party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status were handled by the IRS. Two of those groups have since dropped their applications in the face of the IRS’ invasive questioning. The third has been awaiting approvaly for 51 months.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether a New Mexico photography company had free speech grounds to refuse to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.
The court’s refusal to intervene means an August 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court decision against the company remains intact. Albuquerque-based Elane Photography had said its free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be a valid defense to the state’s finding that it violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The law, similar to laws in 20 other U.S. states, bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The company’s owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to “express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs,” their attorneys said in court papers. Elane Photography has previously declined requests to take nude maternity pictures and images depicting violence, its lawyers said.
The dispute arose in 2006 when Vanessa Willock asked the company if it would photograph the commitment ceremony between her and her partner, Misti Collinsworth. When Elane Photography declined, Willock filed a successful complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.
SCOTUS has not stated why it refused to hear the case.
Jeb Bush’s recent comments on immigration are only separated from Joe Biden’s by a few days, but there is little distance between them on ideology.
Speaking before the US Chamber of Commerce in late March, VP Biden spoke on illegal immigration:
Speaking at a U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event, Biden said undocumented immigrants should be given the chance to become citizens and contribute to the country.
“These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to be able to contribute fully,” he said. “And by that standard, 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans, in my view.”
Over the weekend, former FL Gov. Jeb Bush one-upped Biden:
“But the way I look at this — and I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.”
How many illegal aliens even cross in those circumstances — no other options at all available to them in their home countries? Those circumstances probably apply to a few percent of the millions who are in the United States against the law, and they’re coming from places like Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela. Economic hardship is not the same as systematic political oppression. If economic hardship justifies serial law-breaking on immigration, why doesn’t it justify ordinary theft and other crimes committed by American citizens and legal immigrants? Why doesn’t it justify driving around on the roads without auto insurance? Why doesn’t it justify a poor man stealing a rich man’s debit card and taking his money, to feed the poor man’s family? What’s the moral difference?
Bush went on from there:
“It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”
Why shouldn’t it? The same holes that allow the loving family man to cross allow all sorts of other people and things to cross too, never mind the economic impacts and the effect on the basic rule of law.
A contempt for the rule of law unites Bush and Biden on immigration, and joins both to the elites who want the cheap labor or the votes and don’t care at all about the other effects of illegal immigration.
Whatever Bush’s emotions are telling him, illegal immigration is still a crime. Illegal aliens break multiple laws not just when they cross, but every time they use false identification, drive without insurance, etc, and take advantage of American taxpayers every time they run afoul of law enforcement or use social services.
As the nation’s chief executive, a president is expected to uphold the laws of the land without favor or allowing emotion to trump the system. The fact is, as commander in chief, a president is supposed to look out for the nation’s security and integrity. The porous border, across from a drug war in a country known to have Hizballah operatives at work, is an obvious gap in both. If ordinary folks can cross, so can people who wish Americans great harm. If Jeb Bush refuses to see that, he’s no more fit to be president than Joe Biden or any other leftist Democrat.
We either have a nation of laws or we don’t. Barack Obama has been terrible for the notion that we do. Jeb Bush is sounding like he would be no better.
The majorities in California and Texas don’t agree with each other on very much. The two states have radically different social policy perspectives, the party that dominates in one is nearly unelectable in the other, they have near polar opposite views on business, on taxation, on personal liberty versus the “collective good” or whatever you want to call it, on the Second Amendment, you name it. California and Texas just don’t agree on very much. They don’t even agree on what to do with each other, really. Californians apparently want Texans to be just like them, while Texans just mostly want to be left alone.
But as of a few years ago — 2008, to be exact — the majorities in both states did agree on something. The majority of voters in California and Texas both agreed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Californians ratified that opinion in Proposition 8, which won 52-47. Not a gigantic majority, but a clear majority nonetheless. Texans had ratified that opinion three years earlier, in a state constitutional amendment called Proposition 2. Prop 2′s winning margin was 76% to 24%. 253 of Texas’ 254 counties voted in favor of Prop 2, and thus of maintaining the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage.
In both California and Texas, the pro-same-sex marriage side outspent the traditional side. Yet the traditional side won. The people of both states spoke clearly, as have the majority of voters in states wherever redefining marriage has been put to a vote, with only a couple of exceptions.
Texas’ and California’s votes aren’t going to stand up, though. Despite the clear wishes of the majority of its voters and its obligation to defend its laws, California’s government decided not to defend Prop 8 when gay marriage advocates took it to court. Texas’ government is defending Prop 2 in court, but again, it won’t hold up. If anything, those votes and the effort it took to bring them about will be used as weapons against the majorities who passed them for decades to come.
The definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman is by no means new. It goes back in Western culture several thousand years, all the way back to Genesis 2:24: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Simple, straightforward, and well understood for millennia.
Those who wanted to codify that definition of marriage in their state laws were not motivated by hatred or “intolerance.” They were motivated first and foremost by an innate conservatism against radical and rapid change to a fundamental institution that had not been adequately explained or limited by those who advocated for the change. Proponents of same-sex marriage have never been able to come up with a coherent case for why, once they win, marriage will not just be redefined by courts again, and again, until it loses all of its meaning. “Because we say so, hater!” is more or less the typical reply one gets when asking why, once courts have deemed the one-man-one-woman definition unconstitutional, they won’t go ahead and redefine marriage to include any arrangement that any number of adults can come up with for whatever reason, once lawsuits demanding such changes get to court. Where is the logical limit — the full end — of the current drive to legalize same-sex marriage by using the courts to create a redefinition that voting majorities clearly oppose? Same-sex marriage proponents have never truly engaged the debate with much good faith or fairness at all. If you stood opposed to what they want, you have typically been called names or told to just get with the times.
Those who wanted to defend that clear and simple and traditional definition of marriage did everything they were supposed to do in the American system of governance. They stuck to the American way. They got a federal law passed, the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, that spelled out the federal government’s definition of marriage as one-man-one-woman. They achieved bipartisan consensus; everyone from Franklin Graham to Bill Clinton agreed on DOMA. They organized, raised money, got laws and propositions drafted at the state level. And they won those votes, from Florida to North Carolina to Texas to Arizona to California and elsewhere, fair and square. The people spoke both at the federal level and at the state level, and they spoke up for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.
But on the activist left, “The people have spoken” only has meaning when the people say what the activist left wants them to say.
OkCupid launched the campaign against Brendan Eich at Mozilla. Today, the White House declined to give an opinion on whether Mr. Eich ought to have become unemployable for holding a position that Barack Obama held at the same time.
Perhaps the question should be re-asked on Monday.
Here is the OkCupid board of founders. They are, from left to right, Chris Coyne, Sam Yagan, Max Krohn and Christian Rudder.
Given the nature of the current debate, Mr. Rudder would be well advised to just have people call him “Chris.”
A quick donor look-up on OpenSecrets.org is revealing. Two of the four founders have donated money to political operations in recent years. Both donors gave money on a similar scale to Brendan Eich, the man they are responsible for getting ousted at a company they don’t even work for and is not a rival of their company. In fact, Eich developed a tool that OkCupid probably could not exist without.
According to OpenSecrets, Mr. Yagan donated to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign twice, once in 2007 and once in 2008. Humor Rainbow used to own OkCupid.
At the time Yagan made both donations, Barack Obama was publicly opposed to same-sex marriage.
OkCupid’s other political donor appears to be Max Krohn. According to OpenSecrets, Krohn donated to the Democratic National Committee twice in 2004.
Circumstantial evidence suggests that this Maxwell Krohn is the same one who co-founded OkCupid. Note that he lists MIT as his employer. OkCupid’s Max Krohn was a grad student at MIT from 2003, and co-founded OkCupid in 2004.
At that point, 2004, the Democratic Party as a whole opposed same-sex marriage. The majority of Democrats in Congress, and President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, had passed and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which supposedly enshrined the traditional definition of marriage into federal law.
Let’s throw this in just for irony’s sake.
Or was this whole thing just a game to them?
Evidently, whatever the game is, it goes on even after OkCupid have kicked Eich’s head around.
We are pleased that OkCupid’s boycott has brought tremendous awareness to the critical matter of equal rights for all partnerships.
— OkCupid (@okcupid) April 3, 2014
Today’s decision reaffirms Mozilla’s commitment to that cause. We are satisfied that Mozilla will be taking a number of further steps.
— OkCupid (@okcupid) April 3, 2014
Sam Yagan retweeted both of those tweets on his personal Twitter account. What “further steps” does he want Mozilla to take?
You know who is probably living in fear today? Anyone who works at OkCupid –a dating site — and supports traditional marriage.
I’m not a fan of boycotts, traditional marriage supporters should consider steering clear of OkCupid.
I’m not singling John Nolte out here, but this is wishful thinking.
I hope that like in the OX-BOW INCIDENT, some members of Gaystapo came down off the high of Eich's lynching and did some soul-searching,.
— John Nolte (@NolteNC) April 4, 2014
Did the mob engage in any soul-searching when they tried to crush Chick-Fil-A — and failed?
Did the mob engage in any soul-searching when they tried to crush Duck Dynasty — and failed?
Why, then, would they soul-search after they won one? They successfully carried out a public execution. It’s time for a party.
As we noted in Mozilla Burning, the real purpose of going after Eich was to harass and intimidate everyone who supports the traditional view of marriage. Its purpose was to drive such people out of polite society. Or make them shut up. The mob has no interest in winning hearts and minds anymore, not when crushing them swiftly will do.
Now, who is most likely to support traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage?
Catholics. Evangelical Christians. Wade your way through the average leftist blog, and who is on the receiving end of more hatred there than any other group of people?
So let’s look forward a few years from now.
The lesson of Mozilla is that you are never safe from the mob. A small donation made years ago can be used to hunt you down and destroy you, even if you have not engaged in any other political activity.
So a few years from now, a perfectly ordinary American decides to run for office. He owns his own business. His family is strong and together. He has no criminal record, no bankruptcies, none of the usual fodder for oppo research to pick out and exploit. He treats his employees well. He’s clean. You know, like Brendan Eich.
But he is a Republican and a well-known member of the local church. Maybe that membership is noted on his campaign website to connect him to the community’s values. He has humbly responded to his business success by giving back, donating some of his income to the church over the years. Maybe, if he was really successful, he helped it fund a new building. So not only is he clean, he has been doing the right thing by his faith.
Some years back, five or even ten, the pastor of that church delivered a sermon that someone recorded, in which he defended the traditional definition of marriage. He quoted Genesis. He quoted Matthew. He stated a position that is perfectly mainstream. This was no Jeremiah Wright type of sermon, I want to be clear about that. It wasn’t hateful. But it wasn’t equivocal either. It was energetic and it was clear.
That sermon appears on YouTube as Ordinary Citizen becomes the front-runner in his campaign. It’s edited to condense the remarks about marriage into a punchy minute or two, and it gets all over Twitter and the networks get ahold of it too.
What happens to our Ordinary Citizen?
My guess is, unless he is a strongly principled and prayerful man possessing more courage than most and is extremely savvy about public relations, he finds himself on defense and before long he’s toast. Not only does he drop out of the campaign, but the local church comes under assault, his family comes under personal attack, and he may lose his business.
For what, exactly? Well, what did Brendan Eich do?
Why do we now know who Brendan Eich is, but most still don’t know who the people at OKCupid are who launched the campaign to destroy him? Why did President Obama’s spokesman today dodge a question about what the president thinks about what has been done to Eich? It’s not like this White House is ever shy about expressing an opinion. It’s fighting a private company in court over religious beliefs right now. Why didn’t the president stand up for Eich’s right to believe what he wants? That silence sent a signal from the president to the mob: Do whatever you want. Punish your enemies. Make them fear you.
In succeeding in getting Brendan Eich ousted, the mob has created a future of fear for everyone who disagrees with them and has ever disagreed with them and has ever contemplated any public life. Publicly announce your full support for the mob, or (economically and culturally) die. Christians, you are their public enemy number one.
So, “Gaystapo” has a certain ring to it.
This is outrageous. In my old job with the Texas GOP I met with Univision executives and anchors a few times. Univision claims that it wants to be a fair broker to both political parties, but it is increasingly revealing that it’s completely in the tank for the Democrats — even more than the English-language mainstream media.
This email screen shot speaks for itself, and also says quite a lot. It’s a reply from someone who works in Univision. That person received a press release from the RNC’s Communications/Research department. And rejected it out of hand “because I am a Democrat and do not need to read your viewpoints.”
You couldn’t even forward the email to someone who is more open and tolerant?
The email says “entravision,” which may be confusing. Entravision ”is the largest affiliate group of both the top-ranked Univision television network and Univision’s UniMas network, with television stations in 19 of the nation’s top 50 Latino markets. The company owns and/or operates 56 primary television stations and also operates one of the nation’s largest groups of primarily Spanish-language radio stations, consisting of 49 owned and operated radio stations. Additionally, Entravision has a variety of cross-platform digital content and sales offerings designed to capitalize on the company’s leadership position within the Latino broadcasting community.”
So this is a Univision person. The question is, is this Univision policy?
A woman in Henry County, Georgia called 911 because she saw some fifth graders building a tree fort in their own neighborhood. Why she called police has not been explained. What happened next may be unexplainable.
A police officer showed up and forced the boys to stop — at gunpoint. The police officer was reportedly shouting profanity at the boys while he aimed his gun at them and forced them to the ground. WSB-TV reported on the insane incident.
Police arrived on scene to find 11-year-old Omari Grant and his friends playing in a small patch of trees, prompting at least one officer to reportedly draw his firearm and force the boys to the ground.
“I was thinking that I don’t want to be shot today, so I just listened to what they said,” Grant said.
This kid has just been taught to fear the police as a first response. He says he is now hesitant to even play outside in his own neighborhood.
Edgar Dillard, whose wife made the 911 call, was reportedly stunned to hear of the neighbor boys’ encounter with police.
“Yeah, that’s pretty shocking to hear that a gun was pulled on a child,” Dillard said.
Why did she call 911 on a bunch of kids playing?
The incident is under investigation. The police department has not released the identity of the officers involved.
The Shark Tank may have uncovered a massive story.
In the closing days of the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) , the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was mailing out letters notifying certain Americans that they had already started a healthcare coverage application on their behalf.
The HHS letter stated that the information they used to begin the application for individual Healthcare was obtain by the state agency in charge of implementing Obamacare.
The next step for the individual would be visit Healthcare.gov and complete the already started application to see if they qualify for “Marketplace coverage.”
News of the HHS letter was first mentioned by a listener of the popular “Daybreak with Drew Steele” Show on Fox 92.5, which is out of Fort Myers, Florida.
They have the letter over at Shark Tank.
Let’s just wrap our minds around all this.
The Obama regime was in a panic that it would not get the 7 million sign-ups that it said would constitute success. It was in such a panicked state that it distanced itself from that number, which was its own number. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius even said that the number wasn’t hers and she didn’t agree with it, which was a provable lie.
The regime knew that it could not depend on the website staying alive during the final sign-up crunch period. In fact, Healthcare.gov went down for hours on March 31, deadline day. Yet they got the number they needed anyway.
Because they had a plan? They harvested information and started signing people up without their permission. They squared the individual mandate — if you don’t even sign up, we’ll sign you up.
The regime just wanted the number, so President Obama could go out there and crow about it and the media would report it uncritically. Mission accomplished. He got his day in the sun.
The Boston Globe:
Ukraine’s interim authorities on Thursday accused fugitive president Viktor Yanukovych of ordering snipers to open fire on protesters and getting help from Russian security agents to battle his own people, but they provided no evidence directly linking him to the bloodbath in Kiev that killed more than 100 people.
Acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov also accused former interior minister Vitali Zakharchenko, who was in charge of police, of recruiting gangs of killers, kidnappers, and thugs to terrorize and undermine the opposition during the monthslong protests.
It’s classic Spetsnaz behavior, going back to the Soviet days: Undermine opposition by dishonestly painting them as extreme. The Obama government is engaging in similar tactics, though the Russians (through Yanukovych, its puppet) went the next step and infiltrated some of the protests directly, and killed some of the protesters.
Speaking at a televised news conference, Avakov said police snipers shot at demonstrators near Kiev’s Independence Square, also known as the Maidan, as they walked toward the government district. He said that 17 people were killed by snipers positioned at the October Palace cultural center and that one sniper alone killed as many as eight people.
The Spetsnaz are rumored to be active in eastern Ukraine, across the border from where those thousand of Russian troops are amassed. Their aim would be to stir up what will appear to be anti-Russian protests and violence, to provide Putin an excuse to send in the troops to “protect” ethnic Russians.
Pretty much no one outside the walls of Westboro Baptist Church harbors anything but contempt for them. They’re hateful. They’re fringe.
Oh, and by the way, their late pastor was a Democrat. Media never mention that, for some reason.
The Westboro bozos have nothing at all to do with Brendan Eich.
But that didn’t stop ABC “News” from marrying up footage of Westboro with Eich in its story about his ouster from Mozilla.
Newsbusters noticed the Westboro smear:
According to Good Morning America’s Linzie Janis, a CEO who made a donation in opposition to gay marriage is the same as the hateful members of Westboro Baptist. On Friday, Janis reported on Brendan Eich, the former head of the tech company Mozilla. Eich was ousted after liberal groups found out that in 2008 he made a $1000 donation to support Proposition 8 in California.
As Janis spoke about the six-year-old donation, video footage of Westboro Baptist protesters with “God hates fags” and “soldiers die 4 fag marriage” signs appeared on-screen.
None of this is accidental. Here’s how this works behind the scenes in a big news shop like ABC. ABC’s producers had log into a database of all the video they have in their library, to locate each clip they used to build that piece. They found the materials needed to build a smear, and they deliberately built one. Every act along the way — keyword searching, finding the clips, laying them into an edit timeline, putting the package on the air — was deliberate. It got through every editorial layer.
Or they’re just lazy, overpaid hacks and grabbed the first clips they could find.
I’ll go with the deliberate smear. This is the same network that doctored footage of George Zimmerman to make it appear that he had no wounds after his confrontation with Trayvon Martin. They’re not above propagating a lie in the service of the leftwing fascists’ goals.
The congressional GOP leadership always seems to be about a nanometer away from surrendering on “comprehensive immigration reform.” But if Byron York’s take on the state of play is accurate — and I can’t recall a time when he got anything wrong — then it’s time for both conservatives and tech immigration reform backers to be just a little bit patient.
It wouldn’t take much to break the [pro-comprehensive immigration reform] coalition apart. And if that happens, the effort to enact comprehensive immigration reform could blow up, not just for the moment, but for some time to come. And there are signs that is exactly what is occurring now.
Compete America is a group that calls itself the “leading advocate for reform of U.S. immigration policy for highly educated foreign professionals.” Its members are some of the biggest names in the tech world: Amazon, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft and many others.
The companies, as well as other high-profile groups, like Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, have given millions to the cause of comprehensive immigration reform. The main reason is that they want an expansion of the H-1B visa program that allows high-skilled immigrants into the United States, thus expanding the labor pool for tech companies.
They understand economics. Broadening the labor pool makes more talent available, and reduces upward pressure on wages at the same time. The same is true for workers outside the tech fields, but Democrats and the media never acknowledge that. They never acknowledge that, in their political pursuit of legalizing millions of illegal workers, they are knowingly forcing wages down.
Of course, comprehensive immigration reform involves much more than H-1B visas. But the tech giants supported comprehensive reform, with its increases in unskilled immigration, its legalization of currently illegal immigrants, its path to citizenship, its byzantine agricultural provisions and much, much more because they wanted the H-1B boost.
Read the rest. For conservatives, the tactics should be straightforward. Democrats oppose breaking the tech visas off from the rest of “comprehensive” “reform.” The GOP is on track to capture the Senate this fall. H1-B visas aren’t controversial. Those who use them to attract talent, and to get to the US, are following the law and they’re contributing to the economy without draining it. Increasing H1-B visas does not turn on any magnets that attract more illegal immigration. The GOP could tell the tech community leaders that it will send an H1-B bill through both houses of Congress and to the president’s desk if it captures the Senate this year. The GOP needs their help to win the Senate. That should give the tech community reason enough to, if not support the GOP, then at least not pour money into efforts to help Democrats this year. Then the president would face pressure from the wealthy tech community to sign the bill.
The Democrats will cry about the rest of the “comprehensive” mess and charge racism, whatever they think they can get to stick to the wall. They always do. But they’re already showing desperation over Obamacare. That’s what’s driving the president to make ever more ridiculous statements on raising the minimum wage — which many in the business community don’t support anyway.
Overall, this could break some of the Silicon Valley set off from the increasingly anti-business Democrats, while bringing more needed tech talent into the US from around the world, and cracking the “comprehensive” coalition.
Are we all missing the point of the nasty little war that ended with Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigning yesterday?
As an opponent of same-sex marriage, but more importantly a proponent of free speech in this instance, it’s heartening to see Andrew Sullivan strike such a strong position on this:
Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.
Let’s just throw this out there: If one’s position on a personal-religious-cultural issue as same-sex marriage becomes a hiring or firing offense, then we have truly moved into dangerous new territory. Illegal territory too, as such questions are not supposed to be part of the employment process.
But let’s look at the anatomy of a cyber witch trial.
The IRS — the federal government — deliberately leaked confidential information on the National Organization of Marriage’s donor file to one of its enemies, the Human Rights Campaign. That leak was illegal, but no one has been sanctioned for it.
The Human Rights Campaign took its illegally-obtained booty and used it against NOM donors. That information formed the basis of the assault on Eich, via the dating site OKCupid. The company he co-founded, Mozilla, behaved like craven cowards and pressured him to resign.
What was the Chick-Fil-A battle about? It was about the company’s owner, Dan Cathy, stating his beliefs on marriage in an interview. Democrats tried to shut his company out of whole cities, to shun him and hurt him.
What was the Duck Dynasty battle about? It was about the Robertson family patriarch, Phil Robertson, stating his beliefs on life and marriage in an interview. Activists pressured A&E into taking him and his hit show off the air.
The fascists lost both of those battles, so they adjusted their tactics. The Mozilla battle saw a few employees within the company tweet their displeasure with Eich. No employees tweeted support for him or for the concept of free speech.
In both of those earlier cases, and in Eich’s, private citizens expressed their views, and the fascist mob tried to destroy them and their entire lives for it. The fascists lost the first two battles, but have won the third. Eich is gone and now Mozilla is radioactive to a large number of people. I deleted Firefox from my computers and mobile devices, and replaced it with other products. Many made similar decisions. Web browsers are easy to replace. I’m already happier with Epic and Dolphin browsers than I was with Firefox, which had become buggy and slow.
The progs don’t care what happens to Mozilla. It can live or die, they can’t be bothered about that. It doesn’t matter to them at all. They actively wanted both Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty destroyed. They would probably be content to see Mozilla die too. But it doesn’t matter to them anymore. It did what they want. They will turn and attack some other target when the opportunity arises.
The objective was not to intimidate those of us in the pundit world. On that score, the fascists’ tactic backfired — same-sex marriage supporters have been rightly appalled by all of this.
But we aren’t the target audience.
The target audience is people like Eich who have money, are not mainly political, and just want to use their means to make some difference. He gave $1000, six years ago, to support a referendum on the definition of marriage that ultimately passed. So he stood with the majority of voters in California. That thoughtcrime against the left’s fascist collective has cost him his job — and it has scared the hell out of anyone else contemplating donating to NOM or other groups that support traditional marriage. They justifiably fear that even the most benign move can end up costing them greatly, at some point in the future.
And that has been the point of all this. Terrify people who do not engage in political combat every day, and therefore do not know just how savage and dishonest it has all become. Dry up funding for activist groups opposed to re-defining marriage. Persecute and blacklist one or two famous people to provide an example to others. Destroy livelihoods. Divide. Harass. Intimidate.
It’s the same Roman tactic that former Obama EPA official Al Armandariaz disclosed before a small group of like minds in 2010:
EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariaz: “I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
Whoever leaked NOM’s donor file to the HRC has never been prosecuted. Armandariaz was not fired for disclosing the Roman strategy. He resigned, but leading Democrats never disavowed his strategy. Even if they had, their actions since would have shown any disavowals to have been strategic lies.
Armendariaz’s management by crucifixion is what the GLAADs and Human Rights Campaigns of the world — and their allies within the Obama government — are really after. They cyber-crucified Brendan Eich to make non-political but instinctively conservative Americans easier to manage by fear. They also salted the earth from which groups like NOM hope to reap donations.
And unfortunately, the fascists probably succeeded.
Correction: Eich’s information was not disclosed by the IRS. It was disclosed legally by the State of California.
Which constitutes an extremely strong argument for preserving donor anonymity.
The fact remains, his small donation was used to destroy him, and to terrify others who agree with him.
When she campaigns within Texas, no one bothers to show up. Check out the line highlighted in blue.
Hopefully all of her campaign stops will be just as comfortable.
My goodness, what an out-of-touch braggart we have in the White House.
WASHINGTON — White House officials sought valuable primetime air for a rare, impromptu Tuesday night address to tout the accomplishment of signing up more than 7 million people under the Affordable Care Act.
But network officials refused to make the kind of accommodation they did previously for the announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed, for instance, and Obama was left instead cutting into the much smaller audiences ofEllen and other daytime shows.
Three sources familiar with the request confirmed the White House asked for the primetime slot in their effort both to emphasize a bright moment following the challenging roll out and, more important, to try to reintroduce the country to a law that remains unpopular. One top White House official referred BuzzFeed to another top official for comment on the conversation with networks, but the second official did not respond to a request for comment.
For once, the networks made a good call.
Or, on second thought, maybe they didn’t.
The majority don’t want Obamacare. It’s hurting people right now. It’s even a subject of ridicule on the late night shows. The networks may have done Obama a favor by keeping his smug mug off the air when he could have irked the most people at once.
Brendan Eich committed a thoughtcrime. He supports the traditional definition of marriage. For that, he has now joined the ranks of the unemployed.
Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.
We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.
Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. He’s made this decision for Mozilla and our community.
Yeah. He’s “made this decision” after thugs forced him into it.
Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.
Obviously Mozilla does not believe in equality or freedom of speech. If it did, it would have defended its CEO and noted that many of its employees agree with him, not just the other side. It would have asserted that both sides deserve a hearing.
Firefox surrendered to the OKCupid mob, which loves free speech so much that it has successfully deprived a man of his income because of his beliefs — beliefs which are not fringe, but are shared by roughly half the country or more. Beliefs which he once shared with the left’s own champion, Barack Obama.
I know many readers here and many writers here support gay marriage. Are y’all cool with depriving someone of their ability to work if they disagree? That’s where we are right now. They tried it with Chick-Fil-A and bombed. But they have succeeded in the tech field, which drives much of our culture forward. Into what?
Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.
We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.
While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better.
“Freely.” That word no longer means what it once did. You’re free to agree with the mob. You’re not free to disagree with the mob.
Update: GLAAD responds with a lie of its own.
Mozilla’s strong statement in favor of equality today reflects where corporate America is: inclusive, safe, and welcoming to all.
“…welcoming to all.” Unless you disagree with us, in which case, you might as well be dead.
GLAAD also gives something away. Mozilla claims that Eich stepped down on his own. GLAAD says Mozilla has made a “strong statement.” That can only be true if Mozilla forced him to step down.
So either GLAAD are projecting, or Mozilla is lying.
Update: Check this out. The IRS abuse scandal started the process that got Eich ousted.
Why, then, the ruckus? Amazingly enough, it is entirely due to the fact that Eich made a $1,000 donation to the campaign urging a ‘yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 8. When this fact first came to light in 2012, after the Internal Revenue Service leaked a copy of the National Organization for Marriage’s 2008 tax return to a gay-advocacy group, Eich, who was then CTO of Mozilla, published a post on his personal blog stating that his donation was not motivated by any sort of animosity towards gays or lesbians, and challenging those who did not believe this to cite any “incident where I displayed hatred, or ever treated someone less than respectfully because of group affinity or individual identity.”
To whom did the IRS leak NOM’s files? The Human Rights Campaign.
The HRC evidently engineered Eich’s ouster, in the name of equality and tolerance.
The IRS actions create a serious chilling effect. Your donations to any group can be leaked by a hostile operative within the government, to your enemies, for use against you — up to and now including costing you your job.
Democrats have become interesting creatures in the age of Obama. The other day I was on a local radio show, the topic was Obama’s triumphal speech on reaching the phony 7 million sign-up target, and an Obamacare supporting Democrat caller attempted to pull a version of “It’s the law!” on me. He tried to take me down a path of defending the law that began “Wasn’t this decided by the Supreme Court?”
“So was Dred Scott. What’s your point?” was my response.
The Supreme Court is composed of fallible humans and makes awful decisions with almost as smooth a routine as it makes good decisions. What even constitutes a good or bad decision is in the eye of the beholder. Wearing a robe does not make the justices any closer to divinity than the rest of us, and it does not lift them above criticism. Right now, Democrats who claim “It’s the law!” to bully Obamacare critics are the first ones to whine and howl at how awful the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions are. And they admit no contradiction between the two positions. They can’t even look up “hypocrite” on Google.
Despite “It’s the law!”, former Obama adviser Robert Gibbs, for one, thinks the Obamacare law will be gutted of one of its mandates.
Gibbs delivered a speech at the 2014 Benefits Selling Expo in Colorado Springs, CO this week.
“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect,” Gibbs told the audience. “It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go.”
The employer mandate is not a small part of the Obamacare law at all. While the number of Americans who get their health coverage from their employer is on a slight decline, according to Gallup it was still at nearly 45% as of 2011. The individual slice of the market is far smaller. The employer mandate is one of Obamacare’s funding mechanisms.
The employer mandate has already been delayed twice, both times to push it back past elections to benefit Democrats. “It’s the law!” clearly didn’t matter more than “We might lose the next election!”
But the fact remains, the employer mandate is part of that law that Democrats claim is sacrosanct when Republicans criticize it, before Democrats re-write it on the fly to protect themselves.
If the employer mandate can be jettisoned, the entire law can be jettisoned. And it should be.