- These stories about the killings of African-American men by police officers (or by a “neighborhood watch captain,” in Trayvon Martin’s case) are all what my long-time radio and podcast partner Brian Ward calls “stories of choice.” They are plucked from a nearly endless supply of sad events that occur daily in a nation of 315 million, and are promoted because they further a political narrative. An unholy alliance of activists and newspaper reporters and editors tries to distort our perception of reality by giving undue emphasis to them. Then, of course, reality begins to catch up with perception, and we have riots, murders of police officers, and so on. But understand that the decision to promote these stories, in preference to others that are equally or more newsworthy, is a choice that is consciously made by people with a political agenda.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Friday, November 14, 2014
ILLINOIS CONGRESSMAN GUTIÉRREZ CALLS OUT DAVID AXELROD AND GOP ON IMMIGRATION
WASHINGTON DC – Calling out fellow Democrat David Axelrod, left-wing Congressman Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-IL-4) took to the floor of the House of Representatives today demanding the President use his executive authority to immediately give amnesty to all illegal aliens.
We have not been back in DC for a full 24 hours and the immigration shenanigans have begun already.
Republicans and even a few unhelpful Democrats have been saying the President should not take executive action on immigration or should not act yet, as if his intention to use his executive power under existing law is a surprise.
David Axelrod, safe in the confines of the University of Chicago, has no sense of urgency because his mom and his neighbor are not facing deportation.
But it is a little different on my side of Chicago where people live in nearly constant fear that a loved one or a friend will be detained and then strapped into an airplane for deportation.
My Chicagoans have been waiting for the Congress to take action on immigration for over a decade.
Polish, Ukrainian, Irish and Mexican have been waiting. Jamaicans and Philippinos.
They have been waiting for family members to get visas in backlogs that stretch to 20 years because Congress refuses to act.
They have been heart broken by laws that say -- on the one hand -- they can apply for a green card because they are married to a U.S. citizen, but on the other hand say they must wait in exile outside the country, away from their families for 10 years in order to get that green card.
Two hundred thousand deportations, three hundred thousand deportations, four hundred thousand deportations, per year – these statistics represent people – people disappearing from their churches, from their kitchen tables, and from parent-teacher conferences.
Why? Because Congress is doing nothing to make it stop or make any progress towards an immigration system based in reality and common sense, where people come legally with visas rather than smugglers.
Now, the GOP conference in the House is saying after a decade of delay, a decade of defying the American people, and a decade of demonizing immigrants that they are so anxious to work on immigration reform, but there is just one thing stopping them: The President.
The one thing preventing Republicans from taking action , they say, is that the President may also take action to keep families together and address the destructive nature of deportations.
Here’s how one commentator in the Atlantic Magazine described it:
“Boehner’s effort to hold congressional immigration reform hostage if Obama acts unilaterally is so absurd. Boehner killed the hostage long ago. Now he’s hoping that if he pretends it’s still alive, no one will notice the corpse lying on the floor.”
To put it another way, it is a little late for the Mayor of Chernobyl to worry about someone else poisoning the well.
The President stood right there and said that if this Congress fails to act on important national priorities, he will use his pen and phone within current law to do so.
Republicans heard him just as well as I did.
Republicans had more than two years to draft a bill and a year to schedule a vote on the Senate bill and I do not see one scheduled today, tomorrow, or next week and I doubt I will before this Congress – and the bill – expires.
Let’s just look at the record: Republicans said we cannot do immigration unless it is done piece meal; or we cannot do immigration unless people are denied citizenship; or we need more border security spending, or we need parole officers assigned to each immigrant who gets to stay and work.
And every Democrat from the President on down -- all the way to me – says, “Yes, yes, yes, compromise and progress are more important than gridlock and making every Democratic constituency happy.
Governing means when Democrats say yes to Republican demands, Republicans actually move forward and we work together!
But none of that happened despite the door being open, the table being set, and Democrats saying -- in effect – Republicans could order anything off the menu.
And yet, here we are with no action, no vote, and Republicans threatening to double down on “no action” if the President – acting within the letter and the spirit of the laws passed by Congress – takes action to help the country.
The President will act, as he should. Boldly, broadly and soon to help the country.
And when he acts, tens of millions of our fellow American citizens will support him. Why? Because they care more about justice and practicality than they do about partisan politics and the blame game.
Because a policy based on driving out 10 million immigrants is neither a sensible one nor one we should be spending billions of dollars on.
The President will act because Presidents before him have acted to solve immigration problems when the Congress acted too slowly.
The President will act because he believes -- as the American people do -- that families are important and children should be raised without the Government coming along and ripping their mommy or daddy away from them.
I am tired of the manufactured excuses for inaction. The U.S. Congress can still debate, vote and pass any immigration law it wants to and the best way to get something done will be if leaders on both sides work together.
If you don’t like it, do something! There is nothing in your way but yourselves.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Obama is going to sign an executive order granting amnesty to (who knows how many - millions) illegal immigrants. How does that make you feel?
Is Obama acting in the best interest of the United States or is he doing everything he can to dismantle American society as we know it?
Saturday, November 1, 2014
INCREASING NUMBER OF COLLEGE STUDENTS SUPPORT POST-BIRTH ABORTION, INFANTICIDE
A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.
Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”
“We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”
Campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of Created Equal have encountered this opinion include Purdue, University of Minnesota, and University of Central Florida. And at Ohio State earlier this year, the group captured a debate on video between one of its members and an older woman on campus who defended infanticide.
“This is the whole problem with devaluing human life at any stage—it will naturally grow to include other groups of humans; in this case, born humans as well as preborn humans,” Harrington said. “[I] talked with one young man at the University of Minnesota who thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age.”
Sunday, October 12, 2014
WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S NON-DECISION SHOULD UPSET AMERICANS
By Teri O'Brien -
There is a real reason to be extremely upset about the Supreme Court's underhanded and disgusting ruling of October 6, 2014, which allows rogue, activist, results-oriented federal judges in lower courts to run roughshod over the rights of the American public by declaring that there is a federal Constitutional right to so-called "same sex marriage," which of course, is a ridiculous contradiction in terms to anyone with a passing knowledge of the English language.
No, it's not that we must endure cringe-inducing B-roll of pairs of 300-pound females, some of whom bear a striking resemblance to Chaz Bono, holding the hands of their "brides" resplendent in their strapless white wedding dresses. (Who knew those dresses came in size Orca?) Nor is it the obligatory footage of two males French-kissing after they are pronounced "husband" and "husband."
Those things are bad enough, but the real reason to be upset has nothing to do with that. Nor does it matter whether a person opposes so-called same sex marriage, supports it, or isn't sure. Every single American should be extremely concerned about these court decisions because they demonstrate an utter contempt for the rule of law from the very branch of government that should be most concerned about it.
Where precisely in the U.S. Constitution is this "right" for two men or two women to marry found? It's hard to say exactly. Let me cut to the chase: IT ISN'T IN THERE, unless we resort to the sort of results-oriented reading of the Constitution that gave us emanating "penumbras" where liberals suddenly discover "rights" unimagined by the Founders.
In the current flurry of activity to nationalize the issue of marriage, some of the courts seem to rely on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, while others appear to look to the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. It's not unlike what happened in the Supreme Court case that arguably kicked off all of this Gay-a-palooza madness in the federal courts, or at least accelerated it, Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
In that case, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy relied on that reliable tool of activist justices from the Dred Scott case through Roe v. Wade through this Lawrence disaster, substantive due process. Justice O'Connor, who also agreed with the outcome in the case chose instead to rely on the Equal Protection Clause. I love it when activist judges bend over backwards to pretend that there is a Constitutional basis for the result they desire, don't you?
As I have previously pointed out, Lawrence v. Texas was actually a fraud on the Supreme Court, a result of manipulation by militant homosexual activists, enraged by a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, that said the state of Georgia was perfectly within its rights to criminalize sodomy between two men. These groups cooked up the whole set of facts. To quote a book review of "Flagrant Conduct," book that exposed the truth about this case:
[T]he case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica.
Here's the real kicker: the Supreme Court has already ruled on the Constitutionality of so-called same sex marriage and the right of states to prohibit it. It did so back in 1972, in Baker v. Nelson, a case from Minnesota, in which two men were denied a marriage license in Hennepin County (Minneapolis). The Supreme Court.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in an opinon that seemed to just barely avoid saying "You cannot be serious," said that the Constitution does not provide any "fundamental right" for two guys to get married. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision with an order consisting of the phrase "“Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” End of story.
In a despicable act of gutless capitulation to efforts to Constitutionalize the Left's agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overrule Baker, and instead chooses to allow lower court judges to violate the rights of states, which have throughout the history of this country had the authority to define marriage, and trample on the desires of the vast majority of American citizens.
I will repeat: even if you are a supporter of so-called same sex marriage, you should be extremely concerned about living in a post-Constitutional time, with a lawless occupant of the Oval Office gleefully wielding his pen and phone to do whatever he pleases, and courts apparently willing to do whatever it takes to get the result they think is "fair." When legal matters are decided by that standard, rather than by legal procedure and rules applied without regard to outcome, we have tyranny in black robes, the rule of man, not the rule of law. We need only look to history to see where that leads.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
31 SHOT, 7 KILLED IN CHICAGO OVER WEEKEND WHILE MEDIA FOCUSES ON FERGUSON
As Rebel Pundit notes, while the protests in Ferguson, MO, dominate the headlines after a police officer shot and killed Mike Brown, the violence rages on in Chicago. Over the weekend there were 31 people shot and 7 killed.
HeyJackass.com, a website that maintains a running tally of the shootings and murders in Chicago also reports the homicide total for 2014, which is 259 so far, with a total of 1,360 shot and wounded.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Someone please help me understand the thinking behind the ink.
Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?
Continue reading the main story
Tattoos are more popular than ever, but workers can be dismissed from or denied jobs because of their body modifications. Some want protection under employment law. Should they get it?
You're perfect for the job. You have all the skills and experience the company is looking for, and you've turned up for the interview in your smartest attire.
But there's a problem.
If you have a tattoo that incurs the displeasure of the boss, you might find any offer of employment is swiftly rescinded.
In July Jo Perkins, a consultant in Milton Keynes, had her contract terminated because a 4cm image of a butterfly on her foot contravened the no-visible-inking policy of the firm for which she worked. The company said she had failed to cover it up.
She wasn't the first. A 39-year-old mother-of-three from Yorkshire with the mantra "Everything happens for a reason" on her forearm was dismissedas a waitress in 2013 following complaints from customers. The previous year, a Next employee complained he had been forced from his job because his employers disliked his 80 tattoos.
In all cases, the employers insisted they were acting within their legal rights. And therein lies a potential hazard for a rapidly-growing section of the workforce.
One in five Britons now has a tattoo, according to research cited by the British Association of Dermatologists in 2012. Among US thirtysomethings the estimate rises to two-fifths.
From the prime minister's wife, Samantha Cameron - who has a dolphin image on her ankle - to celebrities like David Beckham and Cheryl Cole, tattooed individuals are firmly part of the mainstream.
But employers have not all kept pace with changes in attitudes. A report last year for the British Sociological Association found managers frequently expressed negative views about the image projected by noticeably tattooed staff.
Continue reading the main story
Andrew TimmingSt Andrew UniversityRecruiters who had tattoos [told me] they wouldn't have someone with a visible tattoo on display”
While ink was an asset in some industries, such as those targeting young people, most of those interviewed felt there was a "stigma" attached to visible markings, according to Andrew Timming of St Andrews University, who carried out the study.
Words like "untidy", "repugnant" and "unsavoury" were all used to describe the perception clients were likely to gain of the organisation if someone decorated in this way was hired.
This was true even when managers were themselves fond of body modifications. "There were recruiters who had tattoos, who showed me them - they weren't visible on the hand, neck or face - they wouldn't have someone with a visible tattoo on display," says Timming.
Some enthusiasts for skin markings insist this is deeply unfair. A number of e-petitions have been organised against tattoo-related discrimination.
A 34-year-old from Birmingham who changed his name by deed poll to King of Ink Land King Body Art The Extreme Ink-Ite (previously Mathew Whelan), who describes himself as the UK's most tattooed man, has led a campaign to protect the employment status of people with body modifications.
Continue reading the main story
Body ArtI was nine when I knew I wanted them”
Body Art (as he gives his shortened name), a property entrepreneur and Liberal Democrat activist in Birmingham, has personally lobbied ministers Lynne Featherstone, Jo Swinson and Ed Davey in favour of a level playing field for those with tattoos.
"If someone can do a job, they should be equal with the next person who has the same CV," he says.
Tattoos are more than simply a lifestyle choice, he argues - they are an expression of someone's identity just as much as their religion or other beliefs.
"I was nine when I knew I wanted them," he says. "People who are modified have an identity because of their image and who they are."
It's not a view that is widely shared by bosses.
Policies which restrict tattoos are commonplace in the UK. The Metropolitan Police bans them on the face, hands and above the collar line, as well as any which are "discriminatory, violent or intimidating". In 2012 the music retailer HMV was criticised for issuing guidelines instructing staff to cover up their ink. Airlines frequently place restrictions on tattoos among cabin crew.
Firms have every right to decide who represents them, argues independent human resources consultant Sandra Beale. An organisation that wishes to project a smart, professional image, or whose clients would likely be put off, is entitled to ban or limit body modifications, she says - workers can choose whether they prefer having a tattoo or a job.
"For an employer, if they employ them in a customer-facing role, it could have an impact on reputation and doesn't portray a good corporate image," she says.
Around the world, the law tends not to protect tattooed employees.
In Japan, where tattoos are widely associated with organised crime, bans are commonplace. A US federal appeals court ruled in 2006 that ordering public employees to cover up their tattoos did not violate their First Amendment rights. In New Zealand, where tattoos are an important part of Maori culture, a ban by the national airline on visible markings ignited a national debate.
However, in Victoria, Australia, they may be considered a physical feature protected by the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, according to at least one legal opinion.
Under UK law it's perfectly legal for managers to refuse to hire someone on this basis, according to employment law expert Helen Burgess, a partner at law firm Shoosmiths. The only exception might be under the 2010 Equality Act if the tattoo were connected to their religion or beliefs, she says - and even then a plaintiff would have to demonstrate this were the case.
Existing employees would fare little better if their boss took a dislike to a new adornment. "If there was a blanket ban on tattoos and an individual were to turn up with one, if the employer followed proper process that would be a fair dismissal in law," Burgess says.
By contrast, Body Art argues that body modification has "protected characteristic" status under the 2010 act, given the practice's connection to people's beliefs.Japan's tattoo taboos
- Tattooing in Japan goes at least as far back as 5,000 BC
- During 7th and 8th Century, evidence suggests that tattooing began to be used as a form of punishment for criminals
- Resulted in an enduring association with criminality, although elaborate tattoo artistry also has a long history
- Regularly linked to Japanese mafia - known as the Yakuza - whose members often sport tattoo "suits", invisible when fully clothed
- In 2012 the mayor of Osaka tried to crackdown on city workers with tattoos. "If they insist on having tattoos, they had better leave the city office and go to the private sector," he said at the time
- Young people tend to be more open to tattoos but still common for visible art to be banned in gyms, water parks and many workplaces
But the fact so many organisations have anti-tattoo policies suggests this interpretation of the law has not yet entered the mainstream among HR and legal circles. Secondary legislation specifically excluded tattoos and piercings from the 2010 act's definition of a severe disfigurement, on which basis an employer cannot discriminate.
For this reason, some tattoo artists refuse to ink the face, neck or hands of customers who are not already heavily inked.
Nonetheless, the sheer critical mass of younger people with tattoos suggests it's likely that attitudes are likely to change over time regardless of what the law says.
Employers - especially those seeking specialist skills - may find they can't afford to exclude talent. In an effort to tackle a recruitment shortfall, the British Army is reported to be considering relaxing its rules to allow tattoos on the face, neck and hands.
However, says Timming, "There will be certain genres of tattoos that would never be normalised. Any kind of racist symbols would be a death sentence in terms of your job prospects."
Even now, he says, the size and location of a tattoo make a big difference to whether an employer is likely to accept it.
Likewise, designs with connotations of drugs, violence, crime or death are likely to impede a job search, Timming says. Even football-related tattoos sometimes cause applicants to be rejected because some employers associate them with hooliganism.
By contrast, "any kind of more innocuous, smaller tattoos - a rose or a butterfly - would be more acceptable in the workplace".
For the time being, it's advice worth considering when balancing the appeal of that new tattoo against the prospect of a dream job.