Ask a leftist the very most basic question you can, and you will never get an answer. Try “What imbues a human life with value?”, and you’ll get a pile of hard luck pregnancy cases, and some very impolite descriptions of your character. Ask “What characteristics define a woman?”, and you’ll get called a transphobe. (Matt Walsh has made much of his career out of this.) Ask “To what standard should we keep those that simply decline to work?” and you’ll get called heartless
This isn’t an accident. They KNOW that they can’t actually defend ANY of their positions, so they deflect from actual discussion OF those positions.
And here is where OUR failure begins, and where Donald Trump has shown us the way. We need to stop letting them get away with it! We need to start pointing out that their policies have led to tens of thousands of child sex slaves being brought across their unmonitored border, that the minimum wage leads ONLY to generational poverty, and benefits virtually no one. We need to keep asking the questions, and ignoring the obfuscation. We need to STOP pretending that they have “good intentions”, because anyone that is willing to lie to bring about their goals CANNOT mean well.
A conservative judge running for a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court says the state bar association has threatened him with a “Not Recommended” rating if he doesn’t fill out its “political” questionnaire on diversity and LGBT issues.
These questions are intrusive, divisive, and racist. Would you answer these? I reject the very premises of the questions and would file them in the garbage can. “Inclusion” is not important. In fact, “inclusion” violates freedom of association.
If these various types of “people” aren’t included it’s for good reason. Either they want to be left alone, like most normal people, or they are moral reprobates who should be excluded, if not jailed, for their deviant crimes (looking at you, LGBTPxyzwtf crowd).
I used to think that bar associations were groups of professionals…
• “How important is it to you to have inclusion from people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?
• “What efforts, if any, have you made in your community to include people of a different race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, or sexual orientation than you as a lawyer and/or judge in the legal profession?”
California passed an emissions law that required trucks to meet standards that the majority of trucks in America can’t meet. Basically, about half the truckers in America are banned from operating in California.…
The Constitution clearly allots to the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but California’s law — one Democrat-controlled state’s “Green New Deal” — is clearly having a disastrous impact on this commerce. Donald Trump would have put a stop to this, but Biden got 64% of the vote in California, and Biden would very much like to impose those job-killing policies on the whole country.
Applying this emissions law to existing trucks makes it an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional.
This is also a violation of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Therefore a vehicle licensed in one state is licensed in all states.
The Constitution is not rocket science. It was written for the people to understand. The only reason to rely on ‘Constitutional’ lawyers, scholars, or ‘experts’ is when you are trying to obfuscate and get around the plain text of the Constitution.
I think the very idea of ‘microaggressions’ is a Communists attack on Western Civilization in general and myself personally. My evidence is my ‘lived experience.’ You’re a racist, bigoted, heterophobe if you disagree.
Further strengthening the authors’ argument about the unscientific nature of microaggression research is the way its proponents have responded to the few scholars who have dared to question their methods and conclusions.
For example, when Sue’s research was finally critically analyzed for its weak-to-nonexistent evidence, he responded that what constitutes evidence “is bathed in the values of the dominant society.” But that is no answer at all, as he is saying that the well-established norms of science and academic discourse should not apply to his pet ideas. No one should be allowed to proclaim scientific findings and then declare that normal scientific skepticism toward them is inappropriate.
Or consider the way Monnica Williams replied to criticism of her microaggression research by the late Scott Lilienfeld, professor of psychology at Emory University. She maintained that his insistence on proof was trumped by her “lived experience,” and even said that it was a microaggression for white professors to demand that microaggression proponents prove their case.
Because of such unscientific responses to criticism, Cantu and Jussim write that microaggression research exemplifies “aggressive fragility.”
Americans deserve an open and neutral internet. Consumers and businesses need access to an open internet, but so do elected officials, journalists, and anyone who cares about the way that our country is run and has an opinion about government, culture, and education.
Big Tech engaged in blatant election rigging and voter suppression in the 2020 election. And it’s marginalizing and suppressing the views of half the country from the marketplace of ideas.
Its front group laughably claims that it’s suppressing half the country in the name of free speech.