July 4, 2015

Happy 4th of July [Darleen Click]

To the country as created by the Founders, the country as it should be, the country we need to rediscover.

Posted by Darleen @ 8:16am
10 comments | Trackback

July 3, 2015

Shorter George Takei: “My intent isn’t racist when I call Clarence Thomas an inauthentic black man.” [Darleen Click]

George Takei had a melt-down over Judge Thomas’ dissent the other day with a deliberate misreading of how Thomas uses the word “dignity”

In a nasty, racist rant captured by a Fox affiliate in Arizona, former Star Trek actor-turned-gay rights activist George Takei lashed out at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, calling him a “clown in black face.”

Takei’s explosive verbal diarrhea, which can be witnessed in full here courtesy of Newsbusters, was prompted by Thomas’ dissent to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling which declared gay marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Here is the excerpt of Thomas’ dissent that led to Takei’s meltdown:

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which
this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

George transported himself over a whole shark-infested solar system to read that as denying the indignity of the institution of slavery.

He is a clown in black face sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there. And for him to say, slaves have dignity. I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains? That they were whipped on the back. If he saw the movie 12 Years a Slave, you know, they were raped. And he says they had dignity as slaves or – My parents lost everything that they worked for, in the middle of their lives, in their 30s. His business, my father’s business, our home, our freedom and we’re supposed to call that dignified? Marched out of our homes at gun point. I mean, this man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.

Today, after being subjected to a lot of criticism (though, not from the “mainstream” media which has chosen to ignore Takei’s racist rant cuz Gay Democrat), he has decided to double-down

I was struck in particular by the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, who focused his argument on the notion that the Constitution does not grant liberty or dignity, but rather operates to restrain government from abridging it. To him, the role of the government is solely to let its citizens be, for in his view it cannot supply them any more liberty

Really, George, reading-is-fundamental…

or dignity than that with which they are born.

This position led him to the rather startling conclusion that “human dignity cannot be taken away.”

Why is that “startling”? Thomas takes the position that dignity and HUMANITY is inherent in the individual. That is the one of the main arguments against slavery. But, whatever, George is busy here

A few fans have written wondering whether I intended to utter a racist remark by referring to Justice Thomas as a “clown in blackface.”

“Blackface” is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon. In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist. It is instead part of a racist history in this country.

I feel Justice Thomas has abdicated and abandoned his African American heritage by claiming slavery did not strip dignity from human beings. He made a similar remark about the Japanese American internment, of which I am a survivor. A sitting Justice of the Supreme Court ought to know better.

Yes, George gayslained, I can judge Thomas a race-traitor and a black buffoon by deliberately rewriting Thomas’ intent and writing, but don’t you dare question my intent.

I’d like to point out to George the First Rule of Holes, but he’d probably interpret that as a homophobic h8r slur.

Posted by Darleen @ 11:11am
7 comments | Trackback

July 3, 2015

Turns out there’s not too long a Trek from Lib activist to racist

Who knew?

Of course, if you’re a “progressive,” there’s a perfectly good reason why you can misrepresent a court opinion in order to call its author “a clown in blackface” and not be deemed “racist”: BECAUSE SHUT UP, RIGHT WING HATERS!

Up is down. Black is white. Bridget killed Bernie in his sleep by puncturing his throat with a rusty IUD.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:56am
7 comments | Trackback

July 3, 2015

YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE: Oregon couple ordered to shut up about same-sex wedding cakes [Darleen Click]

Not only were the Kleins fined $135,000 for the “emotional distress” they caused a lesbian couple when the Kleins declined to bake a cake, when the Kleins expressed their opinion on the case in an interview, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered them to “cease and desist” from ever talking about not providing same-sex weddings cakes.

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“This effectively strips us of all our First Amendment rights,” the Kleins, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which has since closed, wrote on their Facebook page. “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate. […]

The Kleins’ lawyer, Anna Harmon, was shocked by the provision.

“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”

And that is the whole point.

Posted by Darleen @ 10:02am
11 comments | Trackback

July 3, 2015

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge [Darleen Click]

The inspiration:

100wordcreation2

A story:

Each day they went about their chores, the driving value of each action – “purpose.”

He arrived in The Community and they thought him odd. He would wander the fields gazing at the sky.

“Why?” they would ask.

“Because it’s beautiful.”

They would go away confused.

He became focused on an activity, shaping, molding, sculpting.

Ah! They thought. Finally! Purpose!

“No. Because it’s beautiful.”

In spite of themselves they gathered and watched, first curious (that was a new emotion) then in awe at what was taking shape.

He leaned over, blew into his creation, and it stirred.

He smiled, “Adam.”

******************************************************

Now, your turn.

Posted by Darleen @ 12:30am
4 comments | Trackback

July 2, 2015

Chicago Democrats — “You’re amused? We’re gonna tax that!” [Darleen Click]

From the city that taught everything Obama knows about thuggery

Netflix service in Chicago is about to get notably more expensive. On the hunt for new revenue, Chicago’s Department of Finance is applying two new rules that would impact companies like Netflix and Spotify. One covers “electronically delivered amusements” and another covers “nonpossessory computer leases”; together they form a unique and troubling new attempt by cities to tax any city resident that interacts with “the cloud”. According to the Chicago Tribune, streaming service providers need to start collecting the tax starting September 1.

No fun for you without paying us!

8. The amusement tax applies to charges paid for the privilege to witness, view or participate in an amusement. This includes not only charges paid for the privilege to witness,view or participate in amusements in person but also charges paid for the privilege to witness,view or participate in amusements that are delivered electronically. Thus:

a. charges paid for the privilege of watching electronically delivered television shows, movies or videos are subject to the amusement tax, if the shows, movies or videos are delivered to a patron (i.e., customer) in the City (see paragraph 13 below);

b. charges paid for the privilege of listening to electronically delivered music are subject to the amusement tax, if the music is delivered to a customer in the City; and

c. charges paid for the privilege of participating in games, on-line or otherwise, are subject to the amusement tax if the games are delivered to a customer in the City.The customer will normally receive the provider’s electronic communications at a television,radio, computer, tablet, cell phone or other device belonging to the customer.

9. Providers who receive charges for electronically delivered amusements are owners or operators and are required to collect the City’s amusement tax from their Chicago customers.See paragraphs 13 and 14 below. As of the date of this ruling, the rate of the tax is 9% of the charges paid.

It is who they are, it is what they do.

(PS Here’s a suggestion for Netflix … stop streaming to all Chicago customers on 9/1.)

Posted by Darleen @ 6:00pm
4 comments | Trackback

July 2, 2015

Unwarranted bleg

Hello, all. I’m not going to beat around the bush: I really want to raise the money for a Golden Tee home edition to help finish off my basement. I don’t deserve a cent from any of you, and I’m not going to pretend that any contributions you give are in direct support of pw. They’d be in direct support of an overpriced video game.

That said, I still really want the damn thing. It helps me relax and clear my head.

So if you want to contribute, cool. If not, cool. You’re still welcome here. Unless you’re a baked cod fish. Then you’re just a fucking interloper who hasn’t much of a life to speak of — and you’re here because, well, what else have you got going on? Plus, you make me throw up a little in my mouth every time you belch up your latest iteration of my supposed absence of social worth, so thick and wretched is the projection therein.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:19am
22 comments | Trackback

July 2, 2015

Oh, geez, I’m so old I remember when people would complain about a TV show being offensive … [Darleen Click]

… they were told “turn the channel!”

The latest victim of the growing controversy over the Confederate flag is the 1980s TV series “The Dukes of Hazzard.”

A TV Land spokesperson confirmed Tuesday that the network has pulled reruns of the series from its schedule, which had been airing twice a day.

The network declined to comment on why the episodes were removed, but the South-set show has come under fire recently for its use of the Confederate flag, which is emblazoned on the roof of the Duke Boys’ signature 1969 orange Dodge Charger.

Posted by Darleen @ 12:45am
14 comments | Trackback

July 1, 2015

Oh, look, some Libertarians are having a few second thoughts about the goals of gay activists post-Obergefell [Darleen Click]

And it is not like they haven’t been warned

In the 40-some-odd years since the Libertarian Party took such positions, we’ve seen the end of sodomy laws, the end of officially sanctioned government discrimination against gay employees, both civilian and military—and with Obergefell v. Hodges, the end of government bans on same-sex marriage recognition. We’ve seen the end of just about every government policy that treats gay and lesbian citizenry as somehow less than the heterosexual citizenry.

So: Is that it, then? Have supporters won, after all this time? Should we move on to other issues of liberty?

Some gay activists are warning that no, there is still work to be done. There are other issues of concern that affect the gay, lesbian, and transgender community. Top gay activist Michelangelo Signorile, predicting the gay marriage ruling and the subsequent celebrating, wrote a book-sized warning, titled It’s Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality. Even before the ruling, “What comes next?” analyses started popping up in the media.

But just because libertarians and gay citizens were aligned in the pursuit of ending government mistreatment, that doesn’t mean other goals line up. Libertarians draw that bright, hard line between government behavior and private behavior. Others often do not, and what many gay activists see as justice and equality in the private sector, libertarians see as inappropriate government coercion. […]

Religious Freedom Exemptions. Even more than anti-discrimination employment laws, there is a significant philosophical divide between libertarians and many gay activists, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and state-level civil rights commissions over the responses to religious business owners not wanting to provide their goods and services for gay weddings. We’re now seeing additional suggestions that religious colleges could be punished for not accommodating gay couples, and even an early suggestion that churches should not have non-profit status any longer.

The freedom to choose with whom to associate is a fundamental human and Constitutionally protected right. The ability to engage freely in commerce another one. Anybody with any doubts about the importance of free commerce to human liberty is encouraged to ask a nearby Venezuelan about the alternatives. As such, libertarians have consistently been supporting the rights of religious businesses and individuals to say “No thanks” to potential customers. […]

A wedding cake is not a right. A wedding photographer is not a right. Everybody has the right to engage in commerce. We have the right to buy and sell our services and goods, but it must be voluntary on both ends of the exchange. Nobody has the right to force the baker, the photographer, or anybody else to work for them in a free country. The exchange of money doesn’t make it acceptable.

When defending accommodation laws used to force religious people’s hands, the response tends to be something along the lines of “A business is not a church. If religious folks want to run a business, they can’t use their beliefs to ignore the law. Those who choose to run a business have to follow all the government regulations.”

This argument flips the idea of civil liberties completely on its head and attributes the source of our rights to the government, a contradiction of the spirit of our own Constitution. If somebody said “If people choose to speak out they have to follow all the government regulations,” most people would immediately wonder: “What sort of regulations are we talking about? We have freedom of speech. The government can’t just pass any regulations they want to control what people say.”

The same should hold true for people’s right to engage in commerce. Any law or regulation that inhibits the right of individuals to choose with whom to associate needs to immediately be treated as suspect. In order to justify restrictions or mandates on this freedom, the government should be required to prove that a significant amount of harm is the result of inaction.

You would think a place that uses reason as an identifier would be just a little less naive about their partners’ motives.

The Left is never satisfied with whatever skirmish they just won because the details of that skirmish were never a goal or anything really of importance.

They want power. Total and complete power over everyone’s life down the last book one reads or thoughts one will be allowed to think.

Whatever goals of a “freer” society Libertarians thought they were working towards when they partnered with the Left-subsidiary “Gay Rights” group, Libertarians were the useful idiots who helped make the rope that will hang them, too.

How does it feel, Reason, to wake up sore and find the bed next to you empty with a $20 bill on the nightstand?

Posted by Darleen @ 11:07pm
23 comments | Trackback

July 1, 2015

a post that examines what life would be life if Boggle game boards could actually speak

Boggle: “acrkbrdiegmlsotl”

me: “Seriously? Are you sure?”

Boggle: “”acrkbrdiegmlsotl”

me: “Wait — all of them? Or is that final s just an accident?”

Boggle: “acrkbrdiegmlsotl”

me: “If you say so. But when I finish killing off all the abes, you’re going to have to tell the cops and the court that it was you who told me to do it, ok?”

Boggle: “Meh. No need. Kennedy and the other four morons will have our backs. There’s precedent now. Trust me!”

Posted by Jeff G. @ 3:21pm
25 comments | Trackback

← Older posts