Dave Coppedge was fired by NASA for distributing intelligent design DVDs

Evolution News explains.

Excerpt:

Before Coppedge was fired, he was demoted and punished — and this happened precisely because he was talking with colleagues about intelligent design. The evidence in the case is unmistakable on that point. Consider this exchange between Coppedge and his supervisor at JPL, Clark Burgess, on April 15 and 16, 2009:

Query from David Coppedge to Clark Burgess: “Per our meeting this afternoon, I just wanted to be sure I didn’t misconstrue what you told me. Is it correct to say that the allegation of harassment was limited to the activity of my handing out DVDs on intelligent design to coworkers, and that if I had not done that as to anyone here in the building, I would still be in good standing? (i.e., I would not have been investigated or gotten the written warning)? Or would you word it some other way? I just want to be crystal clear I was not being investigated/reprimanded for some other activity, personal flaw or deficiency in job performance.” (See Declaration of William J. Becker, Jr. Re: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine #1, Exhibits, p. 13)

Reply from Clark Burgess: “I believe the investigation was triggered by the discussion you had with Greg [Chin] on April 13th, when he demanded you stop passing out DVDs and discussing them in the workplace. When I first conversed with HR, they mentioned they were going to conduct an investigation based on that encounter. Whatever else they may have found, I do not believe entered into their decision to generate the written warning. It’s my belief, if that incidence had not happened HR would not have been contacted and the written warning would not have been generated.” (See Declaration of William J. Becker, Jr. Re: Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion in Limine #1, Exhibits, p. 13)

(Burgess accidentally gives the wrong date for when Greg Chin “demanded you stop passing out DVDs.” The actual date was March 2, 2009.)

This clearly shows that Coppedge’s demotion and punishment had everything to do with his lending intelligent design DVDs to co-workers, and in fact had nothing to do with anything else.

Even JPL admits that the demotion had to do with Coppedge’s conversations at work. The AP story reports:

In an emailed statement, JPL dismissed Coppedge’s claims. In court papers, lawyers for the California Institute of Technology, which manages JPL for NASA, said Coppedge received a written warning because his co-workers complained of harassment. They also said Coppedge lost his “team lead” status because of ongoing conflicts with others.

[…]Indeed, as we expect Coppedge’s case will show, no one at JPL had complained of “harassment” against him until after Coppedge himself filed a harassment claim. Coppedge filed that harassment claim because on March 2, 2009, a JPL mid-level manager named Greg Chin yelled at Coppedge, ordered him to stop “pushing religion,” and told him to stop talking about intelligent design. No one ever stepped forward and proactively filed a harassment complaint against Coppedge for his conversations about ID. Rather, he was targeted by administrators who disliked his pro-ID views.

The reason I posted this is to just make it clear to everyone what is really going on here, as if there were any doubt about what happened. Darwinists, like global warmists, do not engage in debates. They exert power to coerce and silence dissent. Let’s be clear about that. They are the Spanish Inquisition and they smash anyone who dissents from their dogma.

New study finds that Obama’s regulations cost $46 billion per year

From the Washington Examiner.

Excerpt:

Some 10,215 new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing consumers, businesses and the economy overall $46 billion annually, more than five times the regulatory price tag of former President Bush in his first three years in office. Worse: just implementing those regulations had a one-time additional cost of $11 billion, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis provided to Washington Secrets.

Ironically, Bush instituted more regulations, 10,674, but they cost just $8.1 billion annually, said the Heritage report, titled “Red Tape Rising: Obama and Regulation at the Three Year Mark.” It will be released Tuesday.

The analysis backs up complaints from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups that the president’s regulations are stalling the economy and employment growth. It also calls into question Obama’s promise to put the brakes on new regulations and his State of the Union bragging about issuing less red tape than Bush.

The fact is, said Heritage’s review, hundreds more costly regulations are coming, especially those targeting energy companies and Wall Street. They threaten “to further weaken an anemic economy and job creation,” said Heritage’s James Gattuso and Diane Katz.

[…]The $46 billion price tag calculated by Heritage is staggering, as are those hitting the economy the hardest. Just consider the regulations tagged as “major” for costing $100 million or more. Obama’s team issued 106 on private industry since taking office, compared to 28 by Bush. Last year alone, Obama’s administration issued 32 major regulations impacting everything from clothes dryers, to toy labels.

Heritage said that most expensive regulation of 2011 was from the Environmental Protection Agency, which added five major rules costing $4 billion. Among them, stricter limits on industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators, for a cost of $2.6 billion annually for compliance.

The regulations are also hitting workers through higher fees on items such as checking accounts.

The link to the Heritage Foundation study is here. The title of the report makes me think of “Red Storm Rising“, an excellent novel written by conservative author Tom Clancy.

Rick Santorum wins Alabama and Mississippi, big spending Romney places third

From the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum won the Alabama and Mississippi primaries Tuesday, pulling off another pair of surprise victories and boosting his claim to be the conservative alternative to Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who built his campaign around the Southern strategy, appeared headed to a second-place finish in both states while Mr. Romney was trailing slightly in third.

The result marked a surprisingly strong showing for Mr. Santorum, as polls had suggested a tight race between Messrs. Romney and Gingrich for the lead in both states. Mr. Santorum had even begun to suggest that he was fighting for a strong showing rather than a win.

In jubilant remarks to supporters in Louisiana, another Southern state whose primary is coming up, Mr. Santorum took a shot at Mr. Romney. “People have said ‘You’re being outspent’ and people are talking about the math and that this race is inevitable,” Mr. Santorum said. “For someone who thinks this race is inevitable, he spent a whole lot of money against me.”

The results were an undeniable boost for Mr. Santorum in his bid to position himself as the conservative alternative to Mr. Romney. Since the beginning of the GOP nomination battle last year, Mr. Romney has benefited from a division among his more conservative rivals.

“I don’t think there was a single poll that had me anywhere close to a win in Mississippi,” Mr. Santorum told supporters. He added, “This campaign is about ordinary folks…going out there and exceeding expectations, defying the odds, because we believe in something bigger than ourselves.”

The Romney campaign had devoted last-minute resources to put its candidate over the top. Mr. Romney made a hastily scheduled visit to Mobile, Ala., on Monday, and an outside group supporting his candidacy spent nearly $2.3 million in Alabama and Mississippi.

Is Santorum too socially conservative?

Let’s see:

The New York Times focused on the “treacherous political ground” occupied by President Obama as the election draws closer, while proving wrong pro-Obama assumptions made in recent stories by Times reporters Susan Saulny and Jackie Calmes, in Tuesday’s front-page poll analysis “Obama’s Rating Falls as Poll Reflects Volatility,” by Jim Rutenberg and Marjorie Connelly.

[…]The responses to poll questions #73 and #74, asking whether employers and religious groups should be forced to cover birth control for their employees, showed that most respondents favor employers be allowed to opt out of covering birth control for moral reasons (51% were in favor of the opt out, while 40% favored making coverage mandatory. The gap grew when the question was narrowed down to “religiously affiliated employers” like hospitals (57% were in favor of the opt out, 36% in favor of the mandate).

[…]As Kaus puts it:

If the Times says women were “split,” you know that must mean they were actually narrowly against the NYT‘s preferred position. Sure enough, when asked, “Should health insurance plans for all employees have to cover the full cost of birth control for female employees or should employers be able to opt out for moral or religious reasons?women favored opting out by a 46-44 margin. The margin increased to a decisive 53-38  for “religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university.”

The Times has pushed hard on the idea that the debate over birth control and abortion is hurting the party among women. Yet the actual poll data contradicted anti-Republican anecdotes forwarded by Times reporter Susan Saulny on Sunday suggesting “centrist women” were abandoning the GOP and fleeing to Obama.

CBS News broke the poll results from Republican primary voters down by male and female and found that, despite the liberal media insinuation that the issues of birth control and abortion were scaring away women voters, Republican women were actually breaking toward socially conservative candidate Rick Santorum over Mitt Romney by a strong 41%-27% margin. (Men went for Romney over Santorum 32%-27%.) 

Maybe voters should stop worrying about electability and just vote for the best candidate. With an economy like this, my keyboard could run against Obama and win. The man has failed at everything he has tried in the last 3.5 years.

More about Rick Santorum