Common sense conservatism with a touch of humor. The place where conservative Americans come to discuss politics, religion and the decline of civilization.
I was surfing the liberal media and found this story on MSNBC. I was at once encouraged as I thought for sure this one would go the other way. The story follows with excerpts in bold and expert commentary from yours truly:
Supreme Court rules for white firefighters But high court delays deciding status of anti-Hillary movie
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
Finally we have an official recognition that discrimination can go both ways. For the longest time it seemed that everyone but whites could be victims and only whites could be guilty of racial discrimination. I?m glad to see the court recognize that the door swings both ways.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
This should have been the law of the land to begin with. In fact I find it insulting that it took a Supreme Court decision to make a statement of the obvious.
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
God bless these justices who?s decision will help eradicate reverse discrimination across this country. Racial discrimination is a blight and should be wiped out no matter what form it appears in. Discrimination in the name of equality flies in the face of logic and is all the more insidious for its professed goal (discrimination) is no different.
Dissenting opinion
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.
Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
I wonder how the decision would have looked had Sotomayor already been seated as a justice. I imagine it would have still been a 5-4 split, just in the other direction. Thank God for small favors.
Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.
Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.
The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination.
Kennedy said an employer needs a "strong basis in evidence" to believe it will be held liable in a disparate impact lawsuit. New Haven had no such evidence, he said.
The city declined to validate the test after it was given, a step that could have identified flaws or determined that there were no serious problems with it. In addition, city officials could not say what was wrong with the test, other than the racially skewed results.
?which means they lacked a basis for making such an intentionally discriminatory action.
This decision may be among the last of its kind if the likes of Sonia Sotomayor are seated in the Supreme Court. I will celebrate this land mark case that rails against discrimination in any form, even against the ?white man?. Discrimination and racism are an anathema to a free and enlightened society and I for one am glad to see that the Supreme Court agrees.
I completely stole this post from The Left Coast Rebel (minus the nice pictures he has). Please read it and take the time to visit his site as well. There is some great stuff there.
These are the eight Republican traitors that made the cap and trade vote a success in the house. Let's pray that out Senate Republicans have a little more backbone.
Chris Smith, New Jersey (202) 225-3765
Avidly anti abortion, voted in office in the early 1980s. Liberal to moderate on economic issues. Has voted consistently with Democrats since the House regained Democrat control on economic issues. I see here that he won reelection in 2008 66% to his Dem opponent 39%. 27 out of ten rating at Club for Growth. Up for reelection in 2010. Put on your activist caps, call his office, stop his reelection. Has strong Union voting record, NAACP, AFL-CIO, ACLU, Teamsters, here. Apparently very liberal, why the 'R'? Smoke him out. Great article here on why he is not remotely a free-market guy. Voting for the biggest tax increase in history, without reading the bill is not 'moderate', make this known. Make him feel the sting of unemployment like the rest of the country will from this nightmare bill. In the middle of a massive recession....
Dave Reichert, Washington (202) 225-7761
56 out of 100 at American Conservative Union here. Also affiliated with the AFL-CIO, Teamsters, ACLU, etc here. Won GOP nomination with 45% primary vote in 2004, won reelection in 2008 51% to 48%. Facing reelection in 2010, burn the phone lines. Make him go away. I'm reading that he is considered a 'moderate'. Again, voting for the biggest tax increase ever and not reading the bill is not moderate. It is Statist. Bye-bye.
Mary Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
In 2008 she was elected with 58% against her Dem rival. She assumed office in 1998 when Sonny Bono died. Married to staunch economic conservative Rep Connie Mack IV. I would hate to hear the dinner-table arguments between these two after her vote. Connie Mack voted nay. 74 rating from ACU here Ties to liberal groups too here. She was, at one point on the fence with Cap and Tax, all of her lines were busy yesterday. Which one of the Chicago thugs twisted her arm for a Yea vote? Axelrod? Emmanuel? Vote her out, call her office, bother her up to her primary. Let her go home and stay there in 2010.
Mike Castle, Deleware (202) 225-4165
Very liberal, had requested and received $82 million in pork in 2008 alone. I wonder where the bridge will be built in Delaware to reward his yes vote? 28 of 100 at the ACU. Bye-bye RINO. Call his office, call it every day. Tell them that it is not responsible to mortgage our future. It is certainly not Republican. Or is it? You make it happen. Attorney and politician. Send him back to his day job, his antics will be well received in the law community. They aren't in the GOP. Suffered two strokes during his 2006 campaign. Won over Dem rival by 23% points. Call his office above. Shock and awe. Inundate. He's fired in 2010.
Mark Kirk, Illinois (202)225-4385
Running for Senate, don't let it happen. Elected in 2001. Served in the Clinton Administration. Career pol and attorney. See a trend? Defeated Dem rival in 2008 by 8% points. 48 out of 100 at ACU. Porky $67 million for 2008. This is a big one folks. Running possibly for the Senate seat 2010 in Illinois. I don't think so. Hit his office daily. Pester, persecute (civically), bombard - shock and awe.
John McHugh, New York (202) 225-4611
Insurance Broker, government worker. Shocker. Voted for Stimulus, Bailouts, etc. Nominated for Army Secretary, if confirmed will vacate his seat. Read between the lines. Coming aboard the SS Obamanation, this must have been his last 'F' 'U' to the GOP. Moot point on harassing him since he is leaving. Or is it? Burn up the lines! Wipe that smirk off your face, you are shameful to your country.
Frank Lobiondo New Jersey (202) 225-6572
Who is this guy? "Hey, uh, yah....I' gonna breaka yuh kneecaps...." This guy is a republican? Wasn't he on the Sopranos? Are you kidding me? Elected in 1994, former trucking executive with small business roots. What happened? Against gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action. Part of Gingrich's Contract With America. What happened? At one point he had strong economic conservative leanings. 52 of 100 from ACU. Flush him out, he's the worst kind of pol, a turncoat that at one point was a Reagan conservative but the Washington culture has it's way with people......Melt the lines at his office, adios in 2010.
Leonard Lance, New Jersey (202) 225-5361
See the look on his face, he looks like a badly-aged Cabbage-Patch doll. Born into a political family. In 2008 he ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, moderate social values, and environmentalism. Really? It's fiscally conservative to vote for the biggest tax increase ever and not read the bill? We'll see you at the poor-house with your constituents. Won his seat in 2008 51% to 41% but had a tougher fight in the primary. That's where he is vulnerable. I can't even find a cause for his support for the Cap and Tax bill, porky goodies perhaps? Well, he will have a short-lived congressional term. Out in 2010. Burn his office line.
Update I : Thanks to Smitty at TheOtherMcCain.blogspot, he specifically put up a post for this piece. Spread the word folks, link this post, send it to as many friends/family as possible.
The story just keeps getting worse. I reported a while back on the child abuse case involving Ofc. James Parker of the Avon Park Police Department. At the time Parker had been charged with aggravated child abuse. Since that time the child, Kaedyn Short, died as a result of her injuries.
A grand jury returned an indictment against Parker for first degree murder along with indictments implicating 3 others including the child?s mother. The following is an article from the Highlands Today (a local newspaper):
Three more indicted in child death case Mother and day care workers charged along with Parker
Brad Dickerson Published: June 25, 2009 Updated: 06/25/2009 04:48 pm
SEBRING - The death of 22-month-old Kaedyn Short has now led to charges against the child's mother and two day care workers.
Jenifer Sue Short, 28, of Sebring, was indicted by a Highlands County grand jury Wednesday for felony counts of failure to report child abuse and neglect of a child causing great bodily harm.
The indictment accuses Short of failing to provide the "care, supervision and services necessary to maintain the child's physical and mental health," as well as living in a home with a child "who was known or suspected to be a victim of child abuse," between March 1, 2008 and March 28, 2009.
Sara J. Vasquez, 25, of Zolfo Springs, and Linda L. Payne, 39, also of Sebring, were both indicted for misdemeanor failure to report child abuse. The two worked at the day care Kaedyn Short attended, according to the Highlands County Sheriff's Office.
The indictment accuses Payne and Vasquez of failing to report suspected abuse between Dec. 1, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2008.
Florida statute requires that individuals in certain professions, such as teachers, social workers and day care center employees, report any potential child abuse.
Information from the Florida Department of Children and Families lists Payne as director of A Better Choice Children's Academy at 449 Park St., Sebring. A non-compliance rating for supervision was listed on a June 9 inspection report of the center. "Direct supervision of children in the three/four combination group was inadequate in that a child was found in the classroom alone and the teacher responsible for the group was not aware that he was there," the report stated. The women's arrests bring the total to four who were indicted Wednesday after the grand jury heard evidence and testimony from the death investigation.
Short's former boyfriend, Avon Park police officer James Parker, 32, was indicted for first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. He remains in jail under no bond.
Both Short and Payne were released from Highlands County Jail on a $6,000 and $500 bond, respectively. Vasquez bonded out of Hardee County Jail on a $500 bond.
Kaedyn Short died May 27 at a hospice home where she was being cared for in her final days. She had been on life support at All Children's Hospital for some time after being hospitalized for severe injuries she suffered March 29. Deputies were called to Highlands Regional Medical Center after Short, then 20 months old, was brought into the emergency room with severe injuries. Doctors determined Short suffered several skull fractures, according to the sheriff's office.
Parker was reportedly watching the child during the evening of March 29 while her mother was at work.
Highlands County Sheriff's Detective Tyrone Tyson testified at Parker's May 4 bond hearing there was evidence of older injuries found on Kaedyn Short. These included a fractured right collarbone that was two months old at the time and a broken elbow that occurred about a week prior to March 29.
Parker is scheduled for a pretrial conference July 7, while Short is set to appear July 27. Payne will be in court on July 8. Vasquez did not have a court date set on Thursday.
Being of a Christian background I was taught growing up to hate the sin and not the sinner. It is a fundamental tenet of Christianity that we should accept the sinner and try to encourage a change in the behavior. It seems that in the flipped around upside down ideology of the far left that this concept has been slightly altered to fit the immoral lifestyles of its adherents.
To clarify somewhat, when I learn that someone has had an abortion my first instinct is not to denounce the person but the abortion. I do not hate the person because they made that choice despite the fact that I find the act morally reprehensible. My concern lies with the life of the unborn child and for the soul of the mother. To be true to my beliefs I must accept the sinner and renounce the sin.
The same applies to homosexuality. I accept the person for who they are but I am morally obligated to speak out against the lifestyle.
The goal is to bring the lost sheep back into the flock; not drive them further away. That is why we must still accept the sinner. We are kindred spirits so to speak, as we are all sinners. Jesus understood this and it was why he centered his ministry among the sinners and not the "holy". He wasn't preaching to the choir.
The problem with the liberal ideology is that it glorifies the sin without regard to the sinner.
Liberals have no problem accepting the flaws of those who are among them. Bill Clinton was a lying womanizer and was wildly popular among liberals. Barney Franks an openly gay legislator who has served may years despite that fact. Al Gore the leader of the Global Warming Cult and highly respected among the liberal intelligentsia.
The issue arises when an adherent leaves the fold and challenges the established dogma. They are no longer living in the "sin" of liberalism and as such they can clearly discern the lie. If they dare to speak the truth they are treated to the full vitriol and fury of the liberal establishment.
When a person who has had an abortion speaks out to warn others of the terrible mental anguish that followed such a decision they are demeaned and dismissed as brainwashed by the right.
When a homosexual realizes the error of their ways and changes their lifestyle they are branded as traitors and castigated.
When a scientist who supported the "Global warming" farce reevaluates the data and realizes that they were wrong they are branded as corporate sellouts and their opinions disregarded.
When an atheist finds religion he is excommunicated from the ranks of the credible.
When an impoverished person works their way from the welfare rolls to success they are "lucky".
When a black man succeeds without government assistance and dares speaks against affirmative action he is an "uncle Tom".
You see the fundamental tenet of the left is dogma above fact, sin above sinner.
There is no truth but the lie of liberalism.
When you are a part of the liberal machine treason is the only true sin; the one unforgivable transgression.
You must never betray the fallacy.
You must always glorify the sin above all else.
Because we accept the sinner despite their flaws we will always welcome those who have awoken from their fitful sleep to find the truth.
With the vote on cap and trade looming large this week I though it would only be fair to allow Obama to tell us in his own words what is in store for us under his plan. The following video is from January of 2008. Listen closely as Obama tells us exactly what we can expect:
From the horse?s mouth: ?Energy costs will necessarily skyrocket? under ?my plan?. Could there be any evidence more convincing than the words of the architect of cap and trade?
The sad fact is that costs will rise across the board. Everything we eat, drink, wear, drive and use is in someway manufactured or transported by means that require energy. That means everything we eat, drink, wear drive and use will see a commensurate rise in price.
What is troubling is that even if the cap and trade plan were to go off without a hitch and meet all projections and expectations the result will allegedly be a .1 (one tenth) of a degree drop in global temperature in a 100 years. That is of course if you accept the anthropogenic global warming argument. That argument is not quite as settled as Obama would have us believe. There are almost 32,000 scientists who disagree with our esteemed leader's assessment.
The question is simply this: Is the power and money we are about to turn over to our bloated, inefficient and corrupt government going to be worth the cost (that?s right cost, as we have already determined there is no real benefit)? We lose. We are looking at adding somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 a year in taxes to the average household in a time when we can ill afford the additional burden.
Obama now claims that we will benefit and there will be no cost to consumers. He is lying. This new position directly contradicts what he said in the above video. Listen to his own words as he said it best: ?they will have to retrofit their operations that will cost money; they will pass that money on to consumers?. Enough said.
6.00 out of 10 (2 Votes)
