All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Obama DOJ moving fast against NC HB2 but slowly on Clinton investigation

Obama speaks to the Human Rights Campaign
Obama speaks to the Human Rights Campaign

Here is what your taxpayer dollars are going to pay for at the Department of Justice.

Religious liberty champion David French writes about it at National Review:

At an afternoon news conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced a “significant law enforcement” action — its own lawsuit. At the same time, Lynch indicated that the DOJ retained the authority to federal funding to key state entities, issuing a not-so-veiled threat of dramatic action before the courts issue a definitive ruling. At the same time, she preposterously compared the act of preserving bathrooms for people of the same sex to, of course, “Jim Crow” and hearkened back to the days of segregated water fountains.

A public-relations battle over bathrooms and showers has transformed into a fight over the meaning and indeed authority of the Constitution itself. In its zeal to advance the sexual revolution, the Obama administration has defied the will of Congress, unilaterally rewritten federal law without even bothering to go through a statutory rulemaking process, and now seeks to bring a sovereign state to heel through a combination of threats and lawsuits.

French explains that there is no support for what the DOJ says in federal law:

Title VII prohibits private and public employers (including state governments) from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.” Title IX prohibits federally funded educational institutions from discriminating on the basis of “sex.” Neither statute prohibits sexual-orientation or gender-identity discrimination. For more than 20 years, LGBT activists have sought to amend federal law through the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would essentially add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes within federal nondiscrimination law. For more than 20 years, LGBT activists have failed. ENDA hasn’t passed even when Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress.

Rather than wait for the law to change, however, federal regulators and lawless federal judges have incrementally changed it by executive and judicial fiat, steadily expanding the scope of Title VII until July 2015, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission unilaterally amended the statute. In a document entitled “What You Should Know about EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers,” the Commission declared that it interprets and enforces Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on ” (boldface in original).

At a stroke, the EEOC decided that it was going to essentially enforce ENDA — a statute that doesn’t exist. Democracy wasn’t working fast enough for the Obama administration, so it decided to give authoritarianism a try.

So why exactly are social conservatives fighting the gay activists on this? Simple. We want to protect people’s right to privacy, as well as protect them from sexual assaults.

Here’s a case of privacy violated from last week, as reported by CBS News:

Frisco police are looking for a man they say photographed a young girl in a Target changing room.

Benito Valdez with police says it happened at the Super Target on Preston Road. “The man was in a female dressing room at the Target and was seen by the victim, over the wall with his cell phone, taking photos of the victim.”

It occurred at Target, of course- they let you use any bathroom you feel comfortable with, regardless of your sex.

The Toronto Sun reported on an example of sexual assault:

A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender.

Gay rights activists like to ask how many sexual assaults have been committed by transgendered people. The answer is none or few, but no social conservative is worried about that – we are worried about cases like the one above, where a real predator pretends to be trans in order to get access to bathrooms, showers and yes, women’s shelters. But none of this is a problem for the Department of Justice, and besides, they would probably be more considered about the criminal rather than the victim anyway. That’s how liberals think.

But gay rights is a priority for the Department of Justice, under Barack Obama. Do you know what isn’t a priority? Criminal investigations.

This post is from Conservative Review.

Excerpt:

President Obama’s top law enforcement officer declined to give a firm answer on whether or not her department would take any action on the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation before the end of election season.

At a press conference held to announce the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the state of North Carolina over its controversial bathroom safety legislation, Attorney General Loretta Lynch was asked why the DOJ was able to move so quickly on the latter of the two cases and slowly, in contrast, on the former. When pressed, Lynch would only say that the investigation against the former Secretary of State was simply still “ongoing.”

No need to investigate the IRS for persecuting conservative groups, or to investigate Hillary Clinton’s unsecure private e-mail server in a timely fashion. No! The priority is to make sure that private businesses are forced to allow biological men into women’s bathrooms, because that’s what the gay activists want. Remember that Lynch is also passionate about prosecuting anyone who is critical of radical Islam. Not radical Islamic terrorists, but people who are critical of radical Islamist terrorists.

The New York Times discovers that universities discriminate against conservatives

Academic diversity: ratio of liberals to conservatives is 36 to 1
Academic diversity: ratio of liberals to conservatives is 36 to 1

Wow! And from that radical leftist Nicholas Kristof, of all people.

Here is the New York Times:

We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.

Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.

[…]Four studies found that the proportion of professors in the humanities who are Republicans ranges between 6 and 11 percent, and in the social sciences between 7 and 9 percent.

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents).

In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican.

[…]The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate.

Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas,conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican.

The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical.

“Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

A study published in The American Journal of Political Science underscored how powerful political bias can be. In an experiment, Democrats and Republicans were asked to choose a scholarship winner from among (fictitious) finalists, with the experiment tweaked so that applicants sometimes included the president of the Democratic or Republican club, while varying the credentials and race of each. Four-fifths of Democrats and Republicans alike chose a student of their own party to win a scholarship, and discrimination against people of the other party was much greater than discrimination based on race.

“I am the equivalent of someone who was gay in Mississippi in 1950,” a conservative professor is quoted as saying in “Passing on the Right,” a new book about right-wing faculty members by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. That’s a metaphor that conservative scholars often use, with talk of remaining in the closet early in one’s career and then “coming out” after receiving tenure.

I often get asked by people why I push your Christians and conservatives so hard towards STEM fields, especially math and engineering and technology. The answer is simple. For Christians, this is the safest way to get a degree that will pay for itself. The risk you take when you borrow money to go into a non-STEM field is that you will face discrimination, be graded down, and be denied your degree. Every other minority gets affirmative action on the university campus except for evangelical Christians and Constitutional conservatives. And the worst thing that you can be is what I am, a black conservative male evangelical.

I was talking to one of my mentorees who is an graduate program in computer science the other day. I said to her that I find it more difficult to get motivated to keep up with the latest programming technologies than to keep up with apologetics and politics. She asked me why I chose computer science, then. And I said “because I was good at it, and I needed a way to be able to support a wife and four children”. I was interested in English and criminal law when I was younger, but I saw that those departments were among the most liberal by taking night classes at the local universities while I was still in high school. I actually got into trouble with the law professors because I always wanted the stiffest sentences for criminals.

So this is why I push young people to STEM, or more accurately, TEM. It’s because to come out of university as a Ted Cruz, you have to be the best by far. You have to be ten times as smart as the typical pot-smoking, drunken, promiscuous leftist college student. They get As just for parroting what the professors indoctrinate them with. It really is much safer to stick with quantitative fields, especially engineering.

Donald Trump plans to default on our debt and/or embrace hyper-inflation

Donald Trump with some of his supporters
Donald Trump meeting with some of his alt-right economic policy advisers

In the past, I’ve given reasons to social conservatives to explain why no social conservative could vote for Donald Trump, even to stop Hillary. Trump is “very pro-choice”, favors partial birth abortion, is liberal on gay rights, is an unrepentant adulterer and a serial divorcer.

But, fiscal conservatives can’t vote for Trump either, and that’s because Trump knows less about basic economics than what you flush down the toilet. This is because inheriting wealth from Daddy does not give you an understanding of basic economics.

The radically leftist New York Times reports: (H/T ALL MY DEMOCRAT CO-WORKERS)

After assuring Americans he is not running for president “to make things unstable for the country,” the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, suggested that he might reduce the national debt by persuading creditors to accept something less than full payment.

Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

You could make a deal with creditors – you could offer them less than what they borrowed – declare bankruptcy, in effect. That’s just what he did as a businessman – over and over and over.

More:

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money.

Experts also described Mr. Trump’s proposal as fanciful, saying there was no reason to think America’s creditors would accept anything less than 100 cents on the dollar, regardless of Mr. Trump’s deal-making prowess.

The Weekly Standard notes who will bear the brunt of the damage:

It’s odd for the candidate who promises, seriously, to eliminate the $19 trillion national debt in eight years—without reforming entitlements—to tell America’s creditors (read: mostly Americans) to accept less than they were promised.

If it weren’t a sad-but-true situation, that could be a more honest Trump campaign slogan: Accept Less Than Promised.

Seniors, of course, being savers, would bear the brunt of a Trump debt writedown—if such a thing could happen. But the real losers would be, well, everyone. Were Trump elected, ignoring the market shocks that the likelihood of that would bring, signalling that the U.S. might hedge on repaying its sovereign debt in full would be, effectively, a default on our debt.

He’s a lunatic. Defaulting on our debt would not just destroy the wealth of Americans, it would disrupt the world economy. But since he was on “The Apprentice”, I guess Trump supporters think we can let it slide.

Oh, but his ignorance of basic economics is much worse than that.

Here is the latest Trumpfoolery reported by CNN:

Donald Trump declared Monday the U.S. never has to default on debt “because you print the money,” while trying to clarify his strategy for managing the national debt.

Got that? He’s decided now that he’s not going to default on our debt, he’s going to print more money so he can buy back all our debt with printed money.

So, now, we’re going to inflate our way out of a $20 trillion debt. Why not? It worked in Germany with the Weimar Republic. It worked more recently in Venezuela, Argentina and Zimbabwe. Why not elect a cretin to the highest office in the land? He’s confident, and he has orange skin and hot supermodel wife.

We can blame the low-achieving college drop-outs who voted for Trump for this. They own it. Their stupidity caused this.