Tag Archives: Democrat Party

NC governor files suit against Obama administration

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

NBC News reports:

North Carolina on Monday filed a lawsuit against the federal government in response to a letter from the Justice Department that gave the state until the end of the day to scrap a controversial law regarding access to public bathrooms or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

Gov. Pat McCrory was given until Monday to notify the Justice Department that he would not enforce House Bill No. 2, which the federal government says limits protections for LGBT people. The measure has drawn a firestorm of protest from across the country.

The suit filed against the federal government, which lists McCrory and other state officials as plaintiffs, called the Justice Department’s position on the law “baseless and blatant overreach.”

North Carolina’s suit said that Title VII, which the Department of Justice said House Bill No. 2 violates, doesn’t recognize transgender status as a protected class. “If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress,” the suit said.

McCrory had already indicated that he wasn’t going to back down, saying on Sunday: “It’s the federal government being a bully. It’s making law.”

[…]House Speaker Tim Moore said, “That deadline will come and go. We don’t ever want to lose any money, but we’re not going to get bullied by the Obama administration to take action prior to Monday’s date. That’s not how this works.”

[…]In letters, federal civil rights enforcement attorneys focused on provisions requiring transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond to their biological sex.

[…]If the federal government yanked funding, the 17-campus UNC system could lose more than $1.4 billion in public money.

[…]Another $800 million in federally backed loans for students who attend the public universities also would be at risk if it’s found that enforcing the law violates Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on sex.

A federal lawsuit against the state is also possible, the Justice Department said.

In America, we have set up a system where the states are supposed to have jurisdiction over certain things that the federal government cannot control. We call this idea “federalism”. And it is a major reason why we are more prosperous than other nations. We believe in pushing decision-making down to the lowest level where a problem can be solved, because then it will be solved efficiently. But apparently, the socialists in the federal government – whose salaries are paid by our taxes – have decided that they know best and must force their views down onto the states. And what view are they forcing? They want private businesses in North Carolina to be forced to allow men into women’s bathrooms.

Do we not have other more pressing problems for the Obama administration to solve? Perhaps they can work on the IRS targeting of conservatives? Or perhaps they can work on the $20 trillion dollar debt, which has doubled since the Democrats took over the budget. Or perhaps they can back out of their deal to give Iran nuclear weapons? Or perhaps they can investigate their trafficking of assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels? Or perhaps they can fix the small problem of the labor force participation plunging to 62.8%? Or perhaps they can repeal Obamacare, which is set to raise health insurance premiums again by double digits in the coming year? Or perhaps they can repeal Dodd-Frank, which did nothing to fix the mortgage lending crisis that was caused in part by the two authors of the bill? Or perhaps they can privatize student loans and defuse the $1.3 trillion student loan bubble? Or perhaps they can get to work on modernizing our military – particularly our aging ballistic missiles submarines and our decrepit intercontinental ballistic missiles?

Or they could just focus on pushing a gay rights agenda down onto North Carolina. This is what you get when you elect an incompetent clown for a President, I guess.

In California, even non-members of labor unions pay to advance secular left causes

Most people know that public sector unions are among the largest donors of the secular left. But most people don’t know that Christians and conservatives are often forced to join unions in order to work in a particular job, and that some of their salary is automatically taken to push causes favored by the secular left.

Here is an article from the Daily Signal:

A large California teachers union and its national affiliate are forcing nonunion teachers to pay for political activism, according to a disclosure form acquired by The Daily Signal.

Under a category called “human rights,” both the National Education Association and the California Teachers Association require nonunion teachers to finance LGBT leadership training and other political goals that may run counter to the teachers’ convictions, The Daily Signal’s analysis of the disclosure form shows.

The form shows that unions charged $1.1 million in “human rights” costs to nonunion teachers as well as members in 2013-14, while identifying another $1.2 million in the same category as not chargeable to those who weren’t members.

A separate page lists $20,228 in chargeable costs for “Women and LGBT Issues” as a line item under the category  of human rights. The same page includes a line item on “unconscious bias training” for which nonmembers must cover $5,436.

The teachers unions also spend a pretty penny on annual conferences described as focused on education, some of which appear designed instead to further political causes.

For the 2013-14 school year, the teachers unions charged nonmembers as well as members a total of $49,739 for an “Equity Human Rights Conference,” nearly twice as much as the $25,622 deemed not chargeable to nonmembers, the disclosure form shows.

The unions charged nonmembers as well as members a total of $17,108 for an “LGBT Conference,” referring to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement, with a lower amount, $11,358, that wasn’t charged to nonmembers.

The only way out of paying for secular left causes seems to be passing right-to-work laws, but those are strongly opposed by the Democrat Party. Why would the Democrats be in favor of forcing people to pay unions money and not letting them opt out?

Most unions donate almost exclusively to Democrats

This Wall Street Journal article explains that unions donate mostly to Democrats.

Excerpt:

Corporations and their employees… tend to spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, unlike unions, which overwhelmingly assist Democrats. In 2008, Democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations, with 92% going to Democrats.

So how much money are we talking about?

Total political contributions in 2014 election cycle
Total political contributions in 2014 election cycle (click for larger image)

To see how much unions control government, take a look at this story from National Review, written by economist Veronique to Rugy.

It says:

  • The top campaign donor of the last 25 years is ActBlue, an online political-action committee dedicated to raising funds for Democrats. ActBlue’s political contributions, which total close to $100 million, are even more impressive when one realizes that it was only launched in 2004. That’s $100 million in ten years.
  • Fourteen labor unions were among the top 25 political campaign contributors.
  • Three public-sector unions were among the 14 labor groups: the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of Teachers. Their combined contributions amount to $150 million, or 15 percent of the top 25’s approximately $1 billion in donations since 1989.
  • Public- and private-sector unions contributed 55.6 percent — $552 million — of the top 25’s contributions.

Where does the money go? The Daily Caller notes:

“Nearly all of labor’s 2012 donations to candidates and parties – 90 percent – went to Democrats,” the report from CRP concluded. “Public sector unions, which include employees at all levels of government, donated $14.7 million to Democrats in 2014.”

Although unions helped a great deal in the past to protect workers from unfair practices, their primary function now seems to be to confiscate money from their members to give to themselves and to Democrats. When we make the collection of union dues optional, then unions will have to be more responsive to their members, and less responsive to their Democrat allies.

This suprises no one: Trump won Indiana with votes from fake Christians

Trump does well with registered Democrats, and in Democrat states
Trump does best with registered Democrats, and in states run by Democrats

Here is an interesting article from The Stream.

Excerpt:

Last night’s Indiana primary was the final showdown for the GOP nomination, and unfortunately for #NeverTrump, Ted Cruz lost to Donald Trump. Trump won half the self-identified evangelical vote (though he did better with those who weren’t evangelicals).

A CBS exit poll shows how the votes played out and brings one striking feature of this race to light: the less frequently a Republican voter went to church, the more likely he or she was to vote for Trump, and vice versa.

Cruz won those who attend church weekly (which includes more than once a week), while Trump won occasional churchgoers. As Ross Douthat has explained, active Christians aren’t going for Trump — but cultural Christians are.

Trump also does well with registered Democrats, and he outperformed in blue states like New York – where his favored policies have been in effect for some time.

One woman who supports Trump is divorced from an adulterous ex-husband, with several fatherless children and is currently sexually involved with a non-Christian man. The non-Christian man has no college degree and is unemployed, so it’s no surprise that he is a Trump supporter. The woman also has no college degree, but she fancies herself a serious Catholic. If you actually ask her questions about her faith, you’ll find that her Catholicism is just “cosmic butler” Catholicism. Her “faith” is all non-cognitive spirituality and mysticism. She hopes that God will give her goodies in this life and imagines that her poor life choices result in “unexpected” disasters because the Devil is after her. Do what you feel like, act surprised when it all explodes and you go on welfare, and pray that God will help you to win the lottery, so that all the craziness works out in the end.

I think a lot of people who make poor judgments about others based on appearances and emotions, like this divorced woman, are very impressed with Trump. He looks good, he’s confident, he says entertaining things. Who needs to look for past achievements? If he says he everything will be great, then his words are better than actual demonstrated ability. Confidence and inherited wealth matters more to them than achievements. His sinfulness is not a problem to them – they’re embroiled in the same sin themselves. Christianity is just a label they thrown on an otherwise non-Christian life. If they are willing to slap the label on themselves, then what’s wrong with slapping the “Christian” label on Trump? Or the “conservative” label? They have no ability to make judgments about someone else’s fruits, since they aren’t Christian or conservative themselves. It’s not a surprise to me that fake Christians and fake conservative voters cannot spot a fake Christian and a fake conservative like Trump. If they could, they would be impugning their own selves.

Related posts