Administration Suing Wisconsin Company For Requiring Employees To Be Able To Speak English….

"… the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group," Administration sues Wisconsin company. 

No one is denying an individual the right to speak their own language while at work, but the ability to speak english is essential in most companies in order to facilitate communication between the employee and the employer.  

This action, however, appears to be part of the administration's "job creation" package.  Every company employing non-english speakers will have no choice but to employ interpreters for every language spoken by their employees, as well as print multi-language copies of all employment documents (applications, employee handbooks, etc.), in order to preserve their "civil rights.

"...But we are equally opposed to any discrimination against or for a man because of his creed. We demand that all CITIZENS, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair treatment in every way; that all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them.
The mighty tide of immigration to our shores has brought in its train much of good and much of evil; and whether the good or the evil shall predominate depends mainly on whether these newcomers do or do not throw themselves heartily into our national life, cease to be Europeans, and become Americans like the rest of us. More than a third of the people of the Northern States are of foreign birth or parentage. An immense number of them have become completely Americanized, and these stand on exactly the same plane as the descendants of any Puritan, Cavalier, or Knickerbocker among us, and do their full and honorable share of the nation’s work. But where immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, do not heartily and in good faith throw in their lot with us, but cling to the speech, the customs, the ways of life, and the habits of thought of the Old World which they have left, they thereby harm both themselves and us. If they remain alien elements, unassimilated, and with interests separate from ours, they are mere obstructions to the current of our national life, and, moreover, can get no good from it themselves. In fact, though we ourselves also suffer from their perversity, it is they who really suffer most. It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from europe, the sooner he goes back there the better… From his own standpoint, it is beyond all question the wise thing for the immigrant to become thoroughly Americanized. Moreover, from our standpoint, we have a right to demand it. We freely extend the hand of welcome and of good-fellowship to every man, no matter what his creed or birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed become so…," Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, True Americanism (emphasis added).

Rev. Jesse Peterson: "What If White America Just Said 'No'?"

This does not appear to be copyrighted, so I am including the entire text of Rev. Peterson's blog entry regarding the violence that has taken place in Ferguson, MO:

“He that spares his rod hates his son: but he that loves him chastens him early.” – Proverbs 13:24

As I watch the racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, I can’t help but compare the behavior of blacks in that city to that of spoiled rotten children.

Blacks have been rioting and fighting with police after the shooting death of a thug, Michael Brown. And white political and law enforcement leaders have given in to their tantrum like weak parents.

How did we get to the point of having Al “the Riot King” Sharpton as the White House point person for racial reconciliation – and having a racist attorney general like Eric Holder come to the rescue of Ferguson?

Foolish blacks jumped to false conclusions about the death of “gentle giant” Michael Brown. Protesters looted businesses and even targeting the same convenience store that Brown robbed.

Obama predictably weighed in, warning police about using excessive force. Surrendering to the political pressure, Gov. Jay Nixon, D-Mo., (one of the weakest white men I’ve seen!) pulled the Ferguson Police off the case, and placed Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson in charge.

Bad move.

Capt. Johnson’s sympathies are with the black thugs. His idea of policing was to march with protesters and order the police to stand down while black criminals roamed the streets looting.

When Gov. Nixon addressed the situation, blacks publicly berated him. Missouri’s Democrat State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal blasted him for being “disconnected” from the black community. She tweeted: “F— you” to the governor and called him a “coward” on national TV.

Angry protesters also shouted Nixon down during his press conference. A black man mocked Nixon for being soft-spoken, telling him, “Speak with your chest!” Nixon tried to appease the black mob and prematurely called for a “vigorous prosecution” of Officer Darren Wilson.

Obama gladly dispatched Eric Holder to Ferguson, but instead of calming racial tensions, Holder made matters worse.

Holder told the young protesters in Ferguson that he understood their distrust of police:

“I am the attorney general of the United States. But I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating this was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.”

Some of Holder’s past “greatest” hits:

• As a new attorney general, he refused to prosecute baton-wielding members of the racist New Black Panther Party who were intimidating white voters in front of Philadelphia polls.
• Holder said America is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to dealing with racism.
• He has said that criticism of him and Obama is rooted in racism.
• Holder blames racism for the high incarceration rate of black males.
• He applied pressure on Florida prosecutors to bring charges against “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman, charges he knew would not stick.
• Holder promotes the lie that voter ID laws are racist.

Parents know children throw tantrums when they don’t get their way. When parents give in to the unreasonable demands of a child, they’re reinforcing bad behavior. If the behavior is not corrected, they learn to intimidate to get what they want – until someone says “No!”

In Ferguson, we witnessed the result of what happens when black parents spoil their children. The children turn out to be welfare-pampered, morally crippled, racist black thugs. Now the white authorities have had to take over the “parenting,” but they too refuse to say, “No!”

Black Missouri State Sen. Jamilah Nasheed has threatened the white St. Louis prosecutor with more riots if he doesn’t indict. She stated, “If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting we witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic. …”

She’s not the only one issuing threats.

Brown family attorney Daryl Parks was asked by Megyn Kelly on Fox News, “If the grand jury doesn’t indict, will you accept that?” Parks replied, “Not necessarily … they need to come down with an indictment.”

Michael Brown’s mother said she wants the white officer to receive the death penalty.

The grand jury was just convened and blacks are complaining that it’s too white. These people don’t want justice. They want racial vengeance!

But what would happen if Gov. Jay Nixon developed a spine and said “No” to black rioters?

If Nixon stood up for law-abiding citizens, he’d have self-respect and their gratitude.

If he waited for all the evidence to come out before convicting the white officer, the rule of law would prevail.

And what if whites said “No” and didn’t spare the rod of truth when they’re attacked as “racists”?

If whites said “No,” Sharpton and Holder would be out of business.

If whites said “No,” it would give misguided blacks a chance to examine their hearts and repent of their wicked ways.

If whites said “No,” their children would be inspired by their courage.

This kind of transformation is possible for America, but only “if …”

http://www.bondinfo.org/blog/what-if-white-america-just-said-no

Administration Puts The Nation's Schools On Notice...

"Attorney General Eric Holder called upon the nation’s school districts Wednesday to rethink “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies that he said disproportionately punish minorities and push too many students into the justice system.

“Alarming numbers of young people are suspended, expelled or even arrested for relatively minor transgressions like school uniform violations, schoolyard fights or showing 'disrespect' by laughing in class,” Holder said during a speech in Baltimore.

Holder’s remarks accompanied the release Wednesday of new federal guidance from the departments of Justice and Education pressing schools to adopt disciplinary policies that are “fair, nondiscriminatory, and effective.”

The guidance lays out the parameters of punishment as governed by federal civil rights protections, alternatives to exclusionary discipline and a comprehensive list of regulations on the books in every state," http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/administration/194790-holder-school-discipline-racially-biased-overly-harsh#ixzz2qPkCWLff 

 Holder's call originates with the executive order issued by the President in July, 2012, called the "White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans," which demands race-based disciplinary policies in schools, permitting african-american students to engage in behaviors that would result in disciplinary action if committed by non-minority students:

"EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

WHITE HOUSE INITIATIVE ON EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, to restore the country to its role as the global leader in education, to strengthen the Nation by improving educational outcomes for African Americans of all ages, and to help ensure that all African Americans receive an education that properly prepares them for college, productive careers, and satisfying lives, it is hereby ordered as follows…

…. African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY EXPERIENCE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND REFERRALS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION. African American student achievement not only lags behind that of their domestic peers by an average of two grade levels, but also behind students in almost every other developed nation. Over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects. An even greater number of African American males do not graduate with a regular high school diploma, AND AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES ALSO EXPERIENCE DISPARATE RATES OF INCARCERATION.

(iii) decreasing the disproportionate number of referrals of African American children from general education to special education by addressing the root causes of the referrals AND ERADICATING DISCRIMINATORY REFERRALS;

(iv) implementing successful and innovative education reform strategies and practices in America's public schools to ensure that African American students receive a rigorous and well-rounded education in safe and healthy environments, and have access to high-level, rigorous course work and support services that will prepare them for college, a career, and civic participation;

(v) ensuring that all African American students have comparable access to the resources necessary to obtain a high-quality education, including effective teachers and school leaders, in part by supporting efforts to improve the recruitment, preparation, development, and retention of successful African American teachers and school leaders and other effective teachers and school leaders responsible for the education of African American students;

(vi) reducing the dropout rate of African American students and helping African American students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, IN PART BY PROMOTING A POSITIVE SCHOOL CLIMATE THAT DOES NOT RELY ON METHODS THAT RESULT IN DISPARATE USE OF DISCIPLINARY TOOLS, and by supporting successful and innovative dropout prevention and recovery strategies that better engage African American youths in their learning, help them catch up academically, and provide those who have left the educational system with pathways to reentry…," all caps added for emphasis.

The full text of this executive order that mandates racially-based disciplinary policies that favor african-american students and requires schools to accept levels of unacceptable behaviors from african-american students that would be disciplined if committed by students of other races/ethnicities can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.../...

In short, the Obama EO and Holder's remarks are an effort to enshrine Paul Butler's principles of race-based jury nullification (in which he states that black jurors have a moral obligation to acquit black offenders whom they know, based on the evidence, to be guilty of a given crime, in an effort to keep more black males in their home communities) in the public schools. The problem with this line of thinking is that it forces the affected community to resign themselves to a reality that accepts a level of lawlessness, violence, or other socially unacceptable behaviors as a normal part of the daily experience if that is what it takes to keep more blacks in the particular community.

"Somebody's Gotta Get Fired…"

The Today Show, 1/9/2103

Chuck Todd, Chief White House Correspondent: "There's either one or two things goin' on: either Chris Christie knew and he's now lied in that statement, or you take him at his word and he doesn't even have control of his own chief deputies, that there is a culture in his office where doing something like this political retribution is acceptable behavior…

Matt Lauer: "What does he have to do to try to get his arms around, or try to get control of this story?"

Chuck Todd: "He's gotta own this, and somebody's gotta get fired. Obviously, he says he doesn't know, that this was unsanctioned behavior, how is it that this person hasn't been fired yet…?"

Where was all this moral outrage as Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and other members of the Obama administration were blatantly flaunting the law and engaging in activities that got people killed? Where was this rush to hold Obama accountable when he claimed ignorance regarding the actions of his chief deputies? Who stepped up and said, "He's gotta own this, and somebody's gotta get fired...?" Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS political retribution scandal?  Any of this ring a bell?  The CHIEF EXECUTIVE of the NATION cannot be held responsible for the actions of his underlings, is not required to own what has happened in his own administration, but a governor who aspires to the White House (but for whom I will never vote) is REQUIRED to both OWN the problem and TAKE ACTION against those who perpetrated them?

Matt Lauer, Chuck Todd: if it is right to hold Governor Christie responsible for this event, then it is IMPERATIVE that you apply the same standard to President Barak H. Obama and DEMAND that he both OWN and PROSECUTE the misdeeds of his chief deputies.
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/54020537

The Graphic Says It All...

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.