Organizations such as the Moms for Liberty seek to push back against critical race theory in schools. (Reuters)
Views: 18
Why do groups like Moms for Liberty scare White Progressives, certain Blacks, and the LGBTQ crowd? It’s really very simple. Moms for Liberty feel that they do not need co-parents. Schools should teach the children how to Read, Write, and Arithmetic.
White Progressives have no issues with teachers going off curriculum and injecting their social views. That’s not what a well rounded education is about.
Some Black parents and Black hate groups are more about students learning about racism, and government programs than learning how to do it for themselves.
The LGBTQ crowd cares about what boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Big topic is about boys using girls bathrooms.
Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., appeared on ABC's "The View" on Monday and called out the hosts for their "offensive, disgusting" comments about race. (Screenshot/ABC)
Views: 21
What race baiters like Sunny Hostin and white progressives don’t get about people like Senator Scott, Justice Thomas, and other successful Conservative Blacks about being exceptional.
Folks who think like Hostin think that just because a person of color is successful that has to be a rare occasion. They think that the only way for a person of color to make it is to just rely on the government for help.
Sadly white progressive Democrats think that besides the government, a person of color has to also rely on a white person to get ahead. They have thought like that since the days of slavery.
White folks don’t have a free pass to being exceptional. Everyone who puts their own best effort can make it. It’s just harder when you expect someone else to do the lifting.
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.”
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 increasinglyexpect 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.”
Man who asks blacks to boycott Florida lives there. NAACP Photo
Views: 12
Ron DeSantis: No social transformation without representation
Calling the Race Baiter out. The chairman of the Florida Republican Party on Monday offered to help pay for the chair of the NAACP to move out of Florida after the NAACP issued a travel advisory for the state.
Christian Ziegler, chair of the Florida GOP, noted in a tweet on Monday that NAACP Board of Directors Chair Leon W. Russell lists Tampa, Florida, as his location on Twitter and offered to have the Florida GOP help pay for Russell to move out of the state.
“The CHAIRMAN of the @NAACP lives in Tampa, FLORIDA! True leadership is being willing to do what you ask others to do … time to step up and MOVE. If you think our state is so bad, the @FloridaGOP will help with moving costs,” Ziegler tweeted.
Last week, the NAACP issued a travel advisory for Florida that criticized Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his “aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Florida.”
NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson wrote in a statement: “Under the leadership of Governor Desantis, the state of Florida has become hostile to Black Americans and in direct conflict with the democratic ideals that our union was founded upon.”
Send them back. Mayor Eric Adams. (Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
Views: 14
Winning, Judge Blocks NYC from Pawning Off Border Crossers on Upstate Suburbs.
No Mas.
Go back home.
We are seeing more and more so called Sanctuary cities telling the undocumented No Mas. Go back home. And when the undocumented come to these Sanctuary cities, they’re being turned away.
A second judge now has told NY to stop deporting the undocumented. It’s your problem now. This from Breitbart.
A New York Supreme Court judge has blocked New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) from busing any more border crossers and illegal aliens to Orange County, New York, a decision that comes after a judge blocked the city from sending new arrivals to Rockland County, New York.
Blame Macron for Europe’s migrant crisis, not Meloni. To have accused Italy of mishandling it could be construed as hypocrisy of the highest order.
France and Germany have fallen out again after the French interior minister Gérald Darmanin accused Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni of incompetence in her handling of the migrant crisis. In response, Itay’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has canceled a meeting in Paris scheduled for Friday and he is demanding an apology from Darmanin for his “vulgar insults.” Meloni has put on hold her own visit to Paris, which was due to take place next month, according to the Italian press.
It’s not the first time the interior minister has outraged a neighbor. Twelve months ago, Darmanin was accused of wrongly laying the blame for the chaos that erupted in Paris during the Champions League final on Liverpool fans. In fact, they and the Real Madrid supporters were the victims of the lawlessness that has come to characterize the French capital in recent years. It took many weeks before Darmanin issued an apology through gritted teeth.
It’s not Meloni Darmanin should be attacking but the leader of his own country
His latest blunder is more serious, given the gravity of the situation in the Mediterranean: so far this year an estimated 40,000 migrants have crossed into Italy. This is having ramifications for France with a record number of unaccompanied minors breaching their border with Italy in March.
But instead of trying to work together to resolve the crisis, Darmanin used a radio interview on Thursday morning to attack Italy. Asked about recent comments made by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party regarding the worsening crisis on the Franco-Italian border, Darmanin retorted, “Madame Meloni, a far-right government chosen by Madame Le Pen’s friends, is incapable of solving the migration problems on which she was elected.”
Darmanin first angered Rome in November when he and Meloni had words following Italy’s refusal to allow an NGO migrant vessel to dock. France directed the ship to one of its ports, but not before the Italian prime minister criticized Darmanin’s “aggressive, incomprehensible and unjustified” reaction towards her country.
Tajani’s visit to Paris was supposed to be part of the reconciliation process, but that now lies in tatters thanks once more to Darmanin.
“The insults towards the government and Italy uttered by minister Darmanin are unacceptable,” announced Tajani in a tweet. “This is not the spirit in which common European challenges should be addressed.”
His French counterpart, Catherine Colonna, clearly embarrassed by the row, spoke subsequently to Tajani on the phone. “I told him that relations between Italy and France are based on reciprocal respect, between our two countries and their leaders,” she said. “I hope to be able to welcome him in Paris soon.”
Many commentators in France were surprised Darmanin survived the Stade de France scandal, and this latest diplomatic disaster will once again raise questions over his suitability for office. His petulant comments are perhaps an indication of the huge strain he is under, domestically and internationally. The police handling of the pension reform protests has drawn criticism from home and abroad, most recently from the United Nations. Then, last week on the Indian Ocean island of Mayotte (a French Department), Darmanian was humiliated by a local court which put a stop to his attempt to evict illegal immigrants.
To have accused Italy of mishandling a migrant crisis could therefore be construed as hypocrisy of the highest order, a point made by Jordan Bardella, the president of the National Rally.
“With Gérald Darmanin as minister of the interior, France is beating all immigration records,” he tweeted. “A record that disqualifies him from giving the slightest lesson in firmness to our Italian neighbors.”
As undiplomatic as Darmanin’s remarks were, they hit a nerve in Rome, where there is growing despair at the soaring numbers of migrants landing on their shores. Last month, Italy declared a six-month state of emergency. But what unfolds in southern Europe will inevitably have repercussions in France and Britain, two of the most popular destinations for those making the voyage across the Mediterranean.
France’s response to all this seems to be insults and inertia; in February, Darmanin made a great play about the tough new immigration bill that would address the crisis. It was supposed to be presented to the Senate in March; then it was pushed back to the early summer. Last week, prime minister Elisabeth Borne announced it won’t be examined until the fall at the earliest. She cited a lack of cooperation between the governing Renaissance party and the center-right Republicans as the reason for its delay; their support will be needed in parliament. In reality, the division is within Macron’s own party, many of whom are opposed to any stringent crackdown on illegal immigration.
Herein lies the bitter truth for Darmanin, one of the few ministers in Macron’s government who genuinely understands the seriousness of the migrant crisis. It’s not Meloni he should be attacking but the leader of his own country. Macron has been in office longer than most EU heads of states, and since the departure of Angela Merkel in December 2021 he has regarded himself as the Union’s senior statesman. He therefore should take the initiative in co-ordinating a robust response to the chaos in the Mediterranean.
That was the ambition outlined by Macron in one of his first major speeches as president in September 2017. In an address entitled “Initiative for Europe,” Macron stressed both the urgency of the situation and the need for co-operation.
“In the coming years, Europe will have to accept that its major challenge lies there,” he said of the migrant crisis. “So long as we leave some of our partners submerged under massive arrivals without helping them manage their borders; so long as our asylum procedures remain slow and disparate; so long as we are incapable of collectively organizing the return of migrants not eligible for asylum, we will lack both effectiveness and humanity.”
But Europe has proved incapable of accepting the challenge. The number of migrants grows, and so do the insults between member states. Instead of effectiveness and humanity there is just ineffectiveness and humbug.
This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website.
All Forms of Redistribution Are Slavery And every leftist is a kind of slave-owner.
Do I have your attention? Good. It’s time for people on the right to wake up.
At this point, I suspect that a majority of Republicans and conservatives have accepted that the welfare state is okay, but that it should be a lot smaller…
It’s okay to have welfare and Social Security and Medicaid and transfer payments of all sorts—we should just have less of them. They should be managed better. We should tailor them to reduce dependence.
No. No no no no no.
If this describes you, then I am talking to you. And though I will sound intense, I am doing this in solidarity with you, in the hopes of waking you up.
You are wrong. You have accepted a fundamentally evil premise.
You have allowed socialism to colonize your mind, just as it has colonized all of Western civilization.
The original creator of the property, wealth, income, etc. is not the sole claimant upon it.
They (the left, and government) have the authority to control the property and adjudicate between competing claims.
Both claims are not just wrong—they’re moral crimes. In order to explain why, I am going to have to hit you with some philosophy. Don’t tune out! Philosophy—good philosophy—is what made this country. It’s what undergirds the founding documents that you love and the protections they seek to enshrine. If you do not understand the philosophy, then you won’t know why the left is wrong, and why you are wrong to go along with these premies even a little bit.
Start by asking yourself why slavery is morally impermissible. Really think about it. Write your thoughts down. Chances are, you’ll come up with things like this:
Slavery is wrong because it…
forces people to labor against their will,
forces people into an arrangement they did not choose,
forcibly compels a person’s actions and choices,
creates a condition wherein one person is legally “owned” by another,
imposes punishments for resistance or attempts to escape.
You know, intuitively, that those things are morally forbidden. And yet you accept, to one degree or another, practices that, though they may differ by degree, do these exact same things. And you need to stop. Our whole civilization needs to stop.
So why are these things morally impermissible? Here’s where the philosophy really kicks in. Fortunately, it’s easy. It may sound fancy, but it really is just an expression of things that even toddlers know intuitively.
We begin with the reality of free will. Every individual has personal control over his thoughts, choices, and actions.
An individual may be subjected to forcible compulsion, but no external party can actually think, choose, or act for him. Free will is thus naturally exclusive. Free will is a consequence of personhood, and since no one’s personhood can be unmade, it is naturally inalienable.
This leads to a simple argument in which we demonstrate that free will lies at the heart of human self-ownership:
1. Exclusive, inalienable personal control over thoughts, choices, and actions (free will) grants to each individual exclusive, dispositive decision-making power over his own body and life.
2. The primary characteristic of property rights is exclusive, dispositive decision-making power.
.˙. Free will grants to each individual property rights over his own body and life.
Self-ownership is thus an outgrowth of free will. It is the quality of being the exclusive owner of one’s own body and being—of having a property in one’s own person. Let us then define self-ownership as Dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life (with all the concomitant rights and responsibilities), rooted in (naturally and morally) exclusive, inalienable personal control over thoughts, choices, and actions.
Dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life, for short.
Here again, just about everyone knows that their self-ownership is real. Savvy lefties understand that self-ownership stands in the way of their primary objective—taking the property of others by force—and thus may use sophistry to try to deny its reality. But they will react just the same as anyone else when their self-ownership is directly violated—because even they know it’s real!
Now let us return to Dinesh D’Souza’s discussion of the flute. It was created by one person: the girl who used her mind and her labor to take a previously unowned thing and convert it. This process is an outgrowth of her free will and self-ownership. Her property rights in her own person have extended to property rights in the thing she made. It is hers…and hers alone. Her property right is grounded in a natural and moral reality.
Where would any other claim come from? The utilitarian claim (the flute should go to the person who would play it the best) and the leftist claim (the flute should go to the person who “needs” it the most) have no such grounding. They are opinions. And actuating those opinions (in the context of a society) requires two things:
The violence required to take the flute from the owner, and
A “legitimate” entity empowered to deploy that violence, i.e., government.
Why do you think the left likes big government so much? They want to use violence to take people’s stuff, and government allows them to do so “legally” and “legitimately.” It also gives them jobs and power, which requires that more stuff be taken by force to fund those jobs and create that power.
Are you catching on yet?
It’s a racket. The racket provides money and power to the left’s operatives and feeds the bottomless narcissism of its virtue-signaling rank-and-filers. It’s not noble. It’s just a modernized and legitimized iteration of the age-old human strategy of taking, by force, that which has been produced by another. It’s nothing more than that, and you should not be supporting it in any form.
So as to keep the main text of this article short, I will put into the footnotes
the arguments for why the initiation of coercive force against self-ownership is itself morally impermissible. We will take those as understood.
Now, return to our list of reasons why slavery is morally impermissible. They all are demonstrably wrong because they all violate one’s dispositive decision-making power over one’s body and life. They all violate self-ownership.
Our system of “legitimized” forced redistribution does the same thing It…
forces you to labor for the benefit of others, against your will;
forces you into an arrangement you did not choose;
forcibly compels your actions and choices;
imposes punishment if you resist or try to escape.
These are all clear. The last one—the concept of “ownership” of the “slave” may seem like more of a stretch, but wargame it out just a little bit…
A slave is kept in his condition by force. So are you. A slave is punished if he resists. So are you. (Try not paying your taxes for a while and watch what happens.) The slave has been forced into an arrangement he did not choose, and so have you. The slave cannot opt out and neither can you. You may enjoy dispositive decision-making power over your body and life in some areas, but not in this one. When it comes to the redistributive state, you are, in essence, a slave. If there is a difference, it is one of degree, not of kind.
Do not fool yourself into believing that “voting” gives you some sort of choice. Voting is nothing but a wish, cast into the wind, and all the incentives of democracy are a gale pushing the whole of society towards more redistribution. Never less. (Search your feelings, Luke—you know this is true.)
The people who run the redistributive state, and those who support it and fuel its continuance, believe that your stuff does not belong to you. They believe that they have a license to forcibly violate your self-ownership—the foundation of your rights as a human person. They believe that they, and their agents in government, have the legitimate right to determine what stuff of yours they steal, and how much, and when, and to whom it will be given, and what punishment you will suffer if you resist.
EVERY kind of redistribution is a species of slavery. (Even when the intended recipient is the most sympathetic of characters.) And EVERY person who actively engages in redistribution, or who empowers those who do, is a kind of slave owner.
Do not mince words. Do not dither about on the margins, wondering exactly how much moral crime is allowable.
We can acknowledge the impact of biology, upbringing, circumstances, external influences, and even luck, but the reality of free will remains. Biology and upbringing can be analogized to the earth beneath our feet, and our external circumstances to the sky above—yet in spite of these, each of us still chooses how we move upon that ground and weather life’s storms. Free will is real!
Ontological/automatic/birthright authority does not exist. All authority must either be granted or imposed upon the unwilling by means of coercive force. Any attempt to refute this claim produces a performative contradiction: Anyone who asserts automatic authority MUST use force to impose it upon anyone unwilling to grant that authority. The same applies when asserting a claim of authority on behalf of another.
The unavoidable use of the claim in the attempted refutation raises the claim to the level of an axiom. The absence of ontological authority is a natural fact. Authority is, in essence, the license to compel the actions and choices of others, and no one has this license as a mere fact of his existence. So…
1. Authority is imposed upon the unwilling by means of the initiation of coercive force.
2. No one has ontological authority (automatic authority as a mere fact of his existence) over any other.
.˙. No one has the ontological authority to initiate coercive force upon the unwilling.
The ontological authority to initiate coercive force against another does not exist, and the initiation of any such force is morally impermissible. As shorthand, then, we will say that the initiation of coercive force is ontologically and morally impermissible.
Relating this back to self-ownership…
The natural facts of reality confer upon the individual a property right—that is, exclusive, dispositive decision-making power—in his own person. Such a right constitutes a just moral claim; it came about as the result of an organic process (birth and life), and its exercise does not inherently coerce any other (save for the natural, temporary, and generally welcomed period during which parents must care for their children). Thus,
1. A naturally exclusive, inalienable property right in one’s own person (self-ownership) constitutes a just moral claim.
2. Violation of a just moral claim is morally impermissible.
3. The just moral claim of self-ownership is violated by the initiation of coercive force.
.˙. The initiation of coercive force against self-ownership is morally impermissible.
Of course, we’ve just dealt with redistribution and welfare here. Later, we’ll have to tackle taxation and government in general. But just focus on this for now. Baby steps!
LSU’S Reece and Iowa’s Clark played a good game. Jill Biden played a game of racism. Jill Biden took a great basketball game and made it about race. Now I see where Joe gets it from.
There was no racism. Reece took it to Clark and the better team won. But Jill who felt the LSU team and Reece needed to have a white superstar along side the black girl. Signs of Jill showing her inner White Plantationist side.
And those folks who said Reece showed racism and disrespect towards Clark? Bull Reece did what Clark has done in the past.
Iowa lost so they do not go to the White House. To the victor belongs the spoils.
San Francisco elections official released from contact because he is white, male.
Views: 35
“Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan.”
The San Francisco elections director is out of a job after the Elections Commission voted not to renew his contract despite his successful 20-year record because he is a white male.
In a 4-2 vote in a closed session last week, the commission declined to renew a fifth five-year contract for John Arntz so that the city could “take action” on its “racial equity plan.”
Commission officials recognized Arntz’s impeccable service, but said the decision came down to racial equity.
Commission president Chris Jerdonek wrote in an email obtained by local outlets, “Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position.”
This is the same commission that in 2021 wrote to the mayor that “San Francisco runs one of the best elections in the country and we believe this transparent process has allowed us to continue to improve our elections.”
In 2020, it wrote a commendation to Arntz “for his incredible leadership … The Department successfully ran two elections this year while facing significant challenges, including national threats to election security, mandatory vote-by-mail operations to all registered voters, the anticipated increase in voter participation, budget cuts, and the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The city’s Democratic Mayor London Breed objected to the commission’s vote and said, “John Arntz has served San Francisco with integrity, and professionalism and has stayed completely independent.”
“He’s remained impartial and has avoided getting caught up in the web of City politics, which is what we are seeing now as a result of this unnecessary vote. Rather than working on key issues to recover and rebuild our City, this is a good example of unfair politicization of a key part of our government that is working well for the voters of this city.”
Division Manager Mayank Patel said in an email to the department, which included a letter signed by 11 other division managers supporting Arntz’s renewal, “We are gravely concerned that the Elections Commission is actively seeking to remove John Arntz from his employment as the Director of Elections.”
“Under the leadership of Director Arntz, our department successfully conducted over thirty public elections and rebuilt the public’s confidence in the city’s elections processes from the ground up. All of us have worked with Director Arntz and we know that under his experienced and proven leadership, we will continue to provide city voters with excellent service while fulfilling our mission of conducting free, fair, and functional elections for many years to come.” City Attorney David Chiu said he was “mystified” by the commission’s decision noting, “some folks have forgotten the history of this department.” He added, “Before Director Arntz, we had five directors in as many years, ballot boxes floating in the bay, and an intense lack of confidence in city elections.”
From the Joy Reid school of Racism, Bigotry, and Hispanic hate. Latinos voting Republican cause they’re really white. What happened to the we need Latinos to come here even if undocumented? Now a small group of progressive race baiters are claiming that Latinos are really white folk. And they might even be proud boys. But fear not ladies, the undocumented in California are still drinking the Kool – Aid. No reports yet if they’re hanging out at Popeye’s.
That proximity to whiteness is a real thing. Also reminds me of an adage I heard a long time ago about how the oppressed begin to take on the traits of the oppressor. https://t.co/5xx5PzRHUE
This wouldn’t surprise me at all. The Proud Boys have all but merged with the Miami Dade Republican Party. Sociopolitically, Florida is basically morphing into Brazil. https://t.co/W7Xk1GPi6yhttps://t.co/J1BxxTCM4f
125
