Category: Media Woke

Radical Leftists Block Doors of California Capitol Chanting “Shut It Down!” – Someone Call the DOJ and Launch the Early Morning Raids!

Terror groups attacking the California State Capitol.

By Jim Hoft

Radical Leftists Block Doors of California Capitol Chanting “Shut It Down!” – Someone Call the DOJ and Launch the Early Morning Raids!

Attention Merrick Garland’s DOJ: We have another insurrection to report.

Radical leftists blocked the entrance to the California Capitol on Wednesday. They were chanting, “Shut it down!” and blocking all access to the building.

Bill Essayli tweeted: “The California Capitol was stormed today by radical leftists. They’re yelling “shut it down” which is a direct attempt to obstruct official proceedings. No word yet from DOJ on how many have been indicted for insurrection. I’ll wait…”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1691919580615291231

https://twitter.com/i/status/1692027195412390214

Abortion rights? Emotional abuse How sick is this? Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Politics Progressive Racism Reprints from others. The Courts The Law Transgender WOKE

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” Leftist publication whines.

Post author By Phoenix
Post date August 5, 2023
No Comments on “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” Leftist publication whines.

This article comes from the “BuzzLoving.com” website and is written by a Trump-hating leftist calling itself “Milla” — you can see all 81 pages of articles it’s written by going HERE.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.

–Original Article headline

Before I get into the article proper, let me state my personal opinion to the rainbow community at large.

You have the right to be whatever you chose to be. Just like I have the right to be myself. You DON’T have the right to demand that I think your way and kowtow to your fantasies on penalty of being beaten, killed or labeled a bigot, a Nazi, or any other derogatory term you come up with. I don’t have the right to sue you for being what you chose to be, but you don’t have the right to try to enforce your fantasies on me via a lawsuit, either. You respect me, I’ll respect you, even if we don’t agree on life choices. Simple. That’s the way a mature person behaves.

End of disclaimer.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an evangelical Christian web designer from Colorado who refused to work on invites for same-sex marriage, giving a significant blow to the rights of LGBTQ couples.

The Supreme Court cited free speech.

Evangelical Christian web designer Lorie Smith has a free speech right under the Constitution’s First Amendment to decline to endorse messages she disagrees with, it has been decided. This one decision could cause other owners of similar creative businesses to evade penalties under laws in 29 states that defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. (Notice the defendant is a biological woman. –TPR)

The statement from the Justice

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He added, “At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.”

Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and sued the state in 2016 because she said she would like to accept customers planning opposite-sex weddings but reject requests made by same-sex couples. She was never disciplined for declining a same-sex couple, and it’s unclear if she ever did. Instead, she sued on hypothetical grounds.

(THIS IS NOT “HYPOTHETICAL” Colorado anyone? And the author’s painfully obvious bias is on full display here. –TPR)

Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.

(How many is “many” there, cupcake? — TPR)

“This is a victory not just for me but for all of us; whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone,” Smith told the press. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that this was a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities” and a type of “reactionary exclusion,” calling it “heartbreaking.”

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”

Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman shared that this was a major blow to human rights, writing, “Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South & posit that the owners attest that they have sincere religious beliefs, reinforced by their pastor every Sunday, that Blacks are inferior and that serving them would force them to endorse a message they disagree with..” Litman added, “That’s where we are headed.”

(Oh oh, Not kowtowing is “racist” now, is it? *facepalm*– TPR)

“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”

The lawyer also clarified, “To be clear, I’m not saying that’s where we are headed, although to paraphrase Justice Jackson, the opinion is out there like a loaded gun for someone who wants to go that way. The point for today is just that the opinion doesn’t have a limiting principle that forecloses that result.”

(Bloviate much? Oh, I forgot, you’re not only a person with a law degree, but you’re also a bureaucrat. Silly me. –TPR)

Another important takeaway

Time wrote, “Put plainly: states can try to pass local anti-bigotry laws, but national religious liberties still supersede them.” The publication also connected how the ruling came a year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, and Court watchers predicted that things would only get worse for women as well as LGBTQ rights.

(“For women?” Really. Sorry, that just won’t wash. Maybe for those females who are still emotional babies, but not for anyone who accepts the responsibility for their own actions. –TPR)

Tags How sad.

Commentary Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Uncategorized WOKE

Why CNN is failing.

Having terrible so called Journalists doesn't help. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Why CNN is failing. All you have to do is look at their so called Journalists that they have. Now of course you do have MSNBC wh most likely is worse, but they have NBC as a back up and has the finances to back MSNBC. CNN does not. Below are some of CNN gem stories. Or should we call it Hoax stories.

I want to thank Breitbart and John Nolte for the list.

Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. WOKE

What’s the media’s problem with black masculinity? The only black men now being showcased are those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

Let me guess. An Ironworker? (Photo by Amy Sussman/Getty Images)

What’s the media’s problem with black masculinity? The only black men now being showcased are those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

No experience in my many decades on this planet felt more degrading than being repeatedly referred to as “intimidating” by my former boss. As far as I know, the affluent, influential white women that I used to work with at Condé Nast lost their right to refer to their black male employees in such racially laden language long before the death of George Floyd. Especially when I was merely asking my (mostly white and female) underlings to simply do their jobs.

I’m reminded of this charge every time I see a black man done up like a woman — which is seemingly all the time these days. Take Alex Newell and J. Harrison Ghee, who were awarded Best Actor statues at the Tony Awards in June, and both accepted them clad in colorful gowns and full makeup. Or Billy Porter, who donned platform heels and a high-collared, vaguely clerical dress to receive his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame last December. Or look in the pages of Architectural Digest, which recently featured RuPaul on its cover and — during my time working there — profiled the homes of celebrity stylist Law Roach along with Christopher Griffin, also known as the Plant Kween. All black, all stridently positioned and presented as femme.

Don’t get me wrong. I am gay and African American and appreciate efforts to showcase the widest range of men like myself in popular media. The problem is that the only black men — particularly gay black men — now being showcased appear to be those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

To be clear, there is a long tradition of black men costuming themselves as women across screens large and small. Indeed, Tyler Perry — perhaps the most successful black culture creator of all time — first attained stardom as Madea, the smart-talking Aunt Jemima-like caricature who helped make him a billionaire. Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx and Martin Lawrence have also cross-dressed for Hollywood — as have Shawn and Marlon Wayans, whose 2004 cult hit White Chicks rendered them not merely as women, but as white women to boot.

But this most recent embrace of African-American gender ambiguity marks a worrisome evolution from the era of Murphy and Madea. This should come as little surprise. Back in 2007, Oscar-nominated African-American film director John Singleton was already making clear that he was “tired of all these black men in dresses,” going on to wonder, rather presciently, “how come nobody’s protesting that?”

Three years later, Dave Chappelle straight-up declared to Oprah Winfrey, “why all these brothers gotta wear a dress?” Fresh off his $50 million fuck-you to Tinseltown, Chappelle went on to describe himself as a “conspiracy theorist… connecting dots that maybe shouldn’t be connected.” Nearly fifteen years later, those dots — and the power dynamics they connect — have never been clearer.

From MSNBC to major fashion magazines, black women — propelled by the intersecting potency of #MeToo and BLM — now lead much of mainstream media. But this status shift has yet to be extended to black men. In fact, when I became head at Alexa, the New York Post’s lifestyle broadsheet, in 2016, I was the only black male editor-in-chief at a major publication in the entire nation. There are still no others.

Things appeared to be slightly better in Britain, where Edward Enninful was appointed editor-in-chief of British Vogue in 2017. Unlike me — supremely skeptical of all things “woke” — Enninful proved masterful at navigating the ideological zeitgeist now required to succeed as a top corporate creative. He aggressively adopted the race- and gender-first mantras currently powering pop culture, even going as far as to suggest that British Vogue become “gender-neutral.” Yet Enninful was ousted in early June, a casualty of a losing power struggle with his American counterpart, Anna Wintour — the white female boss of my former white female boss with the nasty habit of calling me “intimidating.”

Coincidence, perhaps — but Enninful’s demise can’t help but remind me of Chappelle’s theorizing from so long ago. Women such as Wintour remain unrivaled gatekeepers to rarified worlds of elitism and privilege that are rapidly eroding all around them. Indeed, Wintour is credited with overhauling the sartorial standards of awards shows like the Tonys, where Newell and Ghee recently triumphed so glamorously.

Yet while they front as champions of diversity, these women actually promote a limited view of inclusiveness that reinforces the worst stereotypes of black men — scary, uncivilized, minstrel-like, dangerous. Rather than remedy such outdated views with truly comprehensive displays of what black manhood can be, they erase and neuter them instead. And there’s no better way to do so than to put these men in a dress.

As evidenced by Wintour’s now infamous banishing of the late Vogue editor André Leon Talley — who actually preferred elaborate capes rather than dresses — in the eyes of many powerful white women, powerful black men are little more than dispensable and disposable. Widely regarded as an inevitable successor to Wintour herself, Enninful is now making do with lucrative commercial ventures while staying on at Condé Nast in a hastily-manufactured “global advisory position.”

Meanwhile, as nearly 60 percent of black kids grow up without fathers, this year’s Pride month offered endless additional examples of dudes done up like ladies. Again: representation is a good thing — it matters. But most black men — gay or straight — bear little resemblance to Billy Porter in full make up. Sadly, with black men mostly absent from media C-suites, this is unlikely to change anytime soon — just as women like Wintour have probably always wanted it.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s August 2023 World edition.

Corruption Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke MSM Opinion Politics Social Venues-Twitter Social Venues-Twitter

Does the mainstream media need to bring back the ombudsman to restore credibility and trust? Liberal journalists should acknowledge it’s natural that people wronged by the Bidens would be welcomed by the conservative media, just as Trump-haters (like angry niece Mary Trump) would be celebrated by the liberal media.

Does the mainstream media need Competition? Ren LaForme/Poynter)

Does the mainstream media need to bring back the ombudsman to restore credibility and trust? Liberal journalists should acknowledge it’s natural that people wronged by the Bidens would be welcomed by the conservative media, just as Trump-haters (like angry niece Mary Trump) would be celebrated by the liberal media.

In case you didn’t know, the MSM tends to leave out stories and articles that point out the wrong doings of the Biden Administration and their far left allies.

But they don’t pass up an opportunity to report negatively on Conservatives even when they don’t have verification on the articles that they print. How do we correct that?

Here’s parts of an interesting article from The Poynter.

Despite a slight increase since 2016, the public’s low level of trust in the mainstream media is of deep concern for the future of journalism.

Nearly half of people surveyed listed inaccuracies, bias and “fake news” as factors in their low confidence. A general lack of credibility and the perception that reporting is based on opinions was also cited for the loss of trust. But the Gallup poll did offer a glimmer of hope. Nearly 70% of all respondents said they felt trust could be restored somehow.

Would the return of ombudsmen improve public trust in the mainstream media? If so, what changes in the traditional ombudsman role would make its use even more effective? Eight former ombudsmen weigh in with their thoughts on the current state of journalism and the role of ombudsmen in the era of online journalism.

“The ombudsman was thought to be an independent, autonomous person, on a level with the editor-in-chief of the paper’s organizational level, but not reporting to anyone in the newspaper,” said Mark Prendergast, who from 2009 to 2012 was the ombudsman at Stars and Stripes.

Tags Bias, MSM

Corruption Crime Facebook Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter The Courts The Law

DOJ files an appeal. Wishes to continue having Social Media block Conservatives.

Post author By MC
Post date July 6, 2023
No Comments on DOJ files an appeal. Wishes to continue having Social Media block Conservatives.

Doughty bitch slapping the Biden administration. Again.

DOJ files an appeal. Wishes to continue having Social Media block Conservatives. It looks as if the DOJ is upset that the federal judge put a clamp on their ability to spread false information using Social Media. Well the judge had good reason to do this.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre lashed out at the Trump judge for granting a preliminary injunction, blocking the federal government from censoring conservatives online.

The State Department canceled its future meetings with Facebook just one day after US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee who still honors the US Constitution, accused the Biden Regime of violating the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views in a blistering 155-page opinion.

So let’s see if it comes out that the government had other secret meetings with other Social Media Venues.

Tags DOJ, Filesan appeal

Corruption Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Opinion Politics The Law

McCarthy Destroys CNN Reporter in Less Than 1 Minute: ‘You Can’t Put Words in My Mouth’

Post author By Phoenix
Post date June 13, 2023
No Comments on McCarthy Destroys CNN Reporter in Less Than 1 Minute: ‘You Can’t Put Words in My Mouth’

He isn't always the sharpest tool in the shed, but you gotta love his takedown of CNN.

Commentary by Johnathan Jones for The Western Journal

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy offered a masterclass in regard to how to deal with hostile reporters on Monday when he obliterated one of them from CNN.

The California Republican’s argument was one that CNN and its partisan coverage of the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents is disingenuous.

CNN anchors, contributors and guests routinely feign outrage at Trump by portraying him as playing loose with national security.

But the network also platforms a classified documents leaker in former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and one who abused his power in 2020 in former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

That wasn’t lost on the speaker in the Capitol on Monday when a CNN reporter asked him about Trump’s indictment.

McCarthy said he was concerned the government was being “weaponized” by the Biden administration for political purposes and that he and other Republicans are working to ensure there is not a two-tiered justice system in the country.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1668304943227322369?s=20

“You’re with CNN, right?” McCarthy asked the CNN reporter during an interview in which she interrupted him repeatedly.

After the reporter confirmed her affiliation, the speaker grinned and pointed out that it was only appropriate to speak about the two CNN contributors.

When he invoked the name McCabe, the reporter cut in and made a perilous attempt to redirect the conversation.

She asked the speaker about topics such as defunding the FBI and defending Trump.

McCarthy ignored every word she said and hit her with his own line of questioning. It took him all but one minute to put her on the defensive.

“Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” he asked.

After a number of interruptions, McCarthy then took command of the conversation and lit CNN up.

“You can’t put words in my mouth, even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents,” he said.

McCarthy followed up, “Did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump.”

In spite of multiple interruptions, McCarthy continued his criticism of the beleaguered network:

“So your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public — one of 51 other individuals that had briefings — and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russian collusion, even though it had all this other information about the Biden administration.”

He then asked, “Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network?”

After he received no answer to his question, he laid into CNN for weaponizing information in the same manner Clapper and McCabe weaponized their access to intel.

“My concern as a policymaker is that when you weaponize government and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” he said.

He concluded, “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who [used] classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put him on your network to try to give an opinion about a president.”

Had McCarthy been holding a microphone, an appropriate measure would have been to drop it and then walk away.

The corporate media has been up in arms about Trump and his relationship to classified information since the FBI raided his home last summer.

The same people have not been concerned by the fact then-Vice President Joe Biden made off with classified documents — none of which he was authorized to declassify — when he left office in 2017.

Clapper’s signature on a letter that falsely portrayed the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation also never bothered anyone at CNN.

Nor did the fact McCabe was fired from the FBI in 2018 for leaking classified information to the media.

The answer to the discrepancies here are obvious: the establishment media mostly exists to protect the Democratic Party and its interests and to target people such as McCarthy — the most powerful Republican in the country.

While the speaker is often maligned by people on both sides of the aisle, he can’t be accused of being dull.

Not one person at CNN has the privilege of speaking about Trump’s classified documents case from any position of moral authority.

McCarthy was savvy enough to know that and to turn what could have become a hit job on him into a referendum on the blatant bias in media.

Leftist Virtue(!) Media Woke Racism The Courts WOKE

This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

Post author By Phoenix
Post date May 31, 2023
No Comments on This Supreme Court case could spell the beginning of the end for affirmative action. DEI-ers are bracing for a crisis.

This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”

Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above

Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.

It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade. That’s why laws and mandates exist.

And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.

While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.

And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”

Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.

“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”

Indeed, DEI initiatives at public universities have been challenged in Florida and Texas this year. Corporate DEI programs have been the target of rage and ridicule in op-eds from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. And amid a wave of layoffs, many tech companies are rolling back their diversity pledges, cutting DEI roles at disproportionate rates.

Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.

“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”

A ripple effect

Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies

The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.

And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasingly expect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.

“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”
Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality

Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.

Backlash to the backlash

The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”

“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”

BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.

BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”

21%
Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022

In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.

Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.

“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”

Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”

Strategize now

Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.

For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.

It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”

75%
Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022

That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.

“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.

Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.

“This is the time to help your DEI team.”
Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm

Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.

Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.

“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”

Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Reprints from others.

The Feds Come For Fox News! When is a lawsuit really a shakedown coordinated by the Biden regime?

Post author By MC
Post date April 19, 2023
No Comments on The Feds Come For Fox News! When is a lawsuit really a shakedown coordinated by the Biden regime?

Putting out researchable facts. Rumble Photo.

This article is a reprint from Emerald Robinson’s The Right Way.

The #1 conservative site on Substack — The Right Way is recommended by over 180 fellow Substack authors

The corporate media has been buzzing the last few months about a defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by an electronic voting machine company. In fact, the left-wing corporate press is positively salivating at the monetary damages that might be inflicted on Fox News if the case is lost. Apparently, those purple-haired kids don’t understand that $1.6 billion is hardly a fine for Rupert Murdoch — he probably pays that much semi-annually for those routine divorces he’s always getting.

Why would the American corporate media cheer on a lawsuit that has broken all the rules for discovery, and threatens the First Amendment protections of journalists? And since when do vendors operating as third-party proxies for state governments in national elections get to sue the Fourth Estate for defamation?

That’s just the start of the trouble. Consider the plaintiff. How can you defame a company that Americans didn’t know existed until the 2020 election — in an industry that Democrats like Kamala Harris regularly defamed as corrupt in HBO specials like “Kill Chain” among others?

That’s a tough question — legally speaking. Of course, it’s an easy question in terms of politics. What can you tell Democrats that they won’t believe? For example: that boys are girls and girls are boys? There’s no basic fact of biology that Democrats won’t deny — if necessary. There’s no scientific law they won’t denounce in a pinch — gravity! chemistry! the third law of thermodynamics! — to remain in the good graces of their shameless mob.

After all, the memory of the average Democrat voter is about the same as a fruit fly dipped in Fentanyl.

That’s why the corporate media can publicize the private text messages of Fox journalists, and expect that dangerous precedent to be viewed as normal too.

That’s the only explanation for CNN covering the jury selection and calling it “historic.” Or Mediate celebrating the fact that the Delaware judge assigned to the case is clearly not neutral. Here’s a slice from that craptastic outlet’s coverage:

That was not the only time Judge Davis spoke out in colorful terms about Fox’s coverage in the aftermath of the election, which he has described in scathing terms throughout this case. “I could have a lot of fun with this case,” Davis said at one point, during a discussion of Dominion’s opportunity to cross examine Fox witnesses.

Nothing like the judge openly admitting that he views Fox News as guilty before the trial. Do you remember a time when judges tried to hide their liberal bias? I sure do. That’s the old America. In the new Amerika (thank you Kafka!) the communist judges advertise their lack of impartiality to the communist press. And why not? Maybe there’s a Soros retirement bonus waiting for any robed idiot who turns our judicial system into a modern Stalinist replica that’s suitable for the Banana Republic of Biden.

Though it’s hard to believe, MSNBC’s trashy commentary was even more toxic and absurd than Mediate’s garbage:

“There could be a lot of implications depending on how it plays out,” said Imraan Farukhi, an assistant professor at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. Besides the financial impact, Farukhi added, “The other question is what will they do with their talent if they lose? The majority of the stars at Fox are implicated. Any other news organization would have probably seen their hosts losing their jobs for improper reporting.”

Who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that if getting fired for “improper reporting” was actually a thing in American corporate media, there would no longer be American corporate media?

For that matter, who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that good entertainment lawyers don’t leave to become assistant professors at third-tier colleges? (I peeked at his bio.) How much does Farukhi even know about media? Or America for that matter? Did he just cross the southern border or something? I ask because he seems to be — well, you know — new here.

Of course, Assistant Professor Farukhi is not the only lunatic who’s out howling in the moonlight about the Fox lawsuit.

Everywhere you look, you find manifest absurdities on display in this lawsuit.

1st: The judge involved the case has already ruled that Fox’s claims about the electronic voting machine company are false.

In this case, it’s obvious that Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis is writing checks with his mouth that he simply can’t cash. The Constitution mandates that individual states conduct our elections. It is illegal for individual states to outsource our elections to foreign companies owned by foreigner individuals using private software that cannot be reviewed or audited.

This is basic law 101.

Why would such an absurd scenario be tolerated by our national security state (just think of all the cybersecurity spooks at the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS) for even a moment? The answer, of course, is that it would not be tolerated — unless the national security state was the ultimate power behind it all.

That’s why you see 2020 election votes being counted in Spain by a DoD “contractor” called Scytl. That’s why you have a FBI agent posing as Arizona’s Director of Elections for the 2022 midterm disaster in Maricopa County.

And that’s why you have Delaware judges pretending to be cybersecurity experts who want you to believe that flaws in our election systems (that are published by CISA on its official website no less!) are really just “conspiracy theories.”

2nd: The plaintiff was allowed to seize the data from any journalist or producer or anchor at Fox News that it wanted. When has that ever happened in America?

A private company has never been allowed to hoover up the data from a legacy media network and embark on a fishing expedition. Never. Until now.

How was that data used?

On Monday March 6th, Tucker Carlson released the first footage of the January 6th insurrection showing police ushering protestors inside the Capitol.

On Tuesday March 7th, Tucker Carlson’s private text messages were widely published by the corporate media — as part of the “coverage” of the Fox lawsuit.

Notice the perfect timing. The data from discovery was used as leverage.

That same day, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch against running more footage: “Rupert Murdoch has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight […] our democracy depends on it.”

These are not subtle threats.

3rd: Chuck Schumer’s public threat to Rupert Murdoch gave the game away — it’s the federal government behind it all.

Why did the leader of the U.S. Senate claim that the owner of a news network had “a special obligation” to stop a TV anchor from investigating January 6th? That’s just the sort of thing that violates our democratic norms isn’t it? What was he talking about? The “special obligation” is no doubt Fox’s role in trying to sell the American people on the phony results of the stolen 2020 election — and the early Arizona call for Biden/Harris in particular.

There’s a word for this sort of threat and the word is: kompromat.

America’s national security state (FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA) is none too thrilled to be unmasked as the instigator of a phony insurrection on January 6th that stopped our duly elected senators from challenging the 2020 election certification due to fraud.

After all, subverting America is a delicate business.

Our spy agencies understand that they’ve lost their legitimacy with the American people — which is why they’re trying to seize power through the TikTok bill this week after getting caught trying to infiltrate Catholic churches last week in between investigating angry parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and stealing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s cellphone in a parking lot for no good reason.

It’s hard work rigging America’s elections at taxpayer expense — especially once its citizens start to notice.

Tags Fake News, Left wing Terrorism?

Pass it on.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes of the 1960s South” – US Supreme Court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights.

End of disclaimer.

The Supreme Court cited free speech.

The statement from the Justice

Smith sued on hypothetical grounds.

Smith celebrated, but many expressed worry and dread.

“Return to the ‘whites-only’ luncheonettes.”

“The opinion is out there like a loaded gun.”

Another important takeaway

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**

Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR

A ripple effect

Backlash to the backlash

Strategize now

Pass it on.

Pass it on.

Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above