Monday’s second SCOTUS ruling in re Union membership:

On the heels of the Monday SCOTUS ruling involving Hobby Lobby et al:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

Leftists, Progressives and Demorats all began their unanimous bleat about a so-called “war on women.”

4.2.7It is, instead, a War on the American Taxpayer.  In terms of making the American Taxpayer responsible for funding contraception for women who still have any number of free venues available to them for contraceptive solutions, to include Planned Parenthood and various clinics open in each and every college and university across the land.

The argument was predicated upon religion, yes.  But I submit it was also foundationally (if not more so) predicated upon the mandatory payment, by businesses, of contraception for women.  Not just for religious-based businesses but for all businesses.  And: WHY should ANY business be forced to pay for contraception for any employee?

Male or female, Viagra or pill or diaphragm or condom, no business should be forced by government to pay for those contraceptive items.  According to four justices, however, you cannot even opt out.  Do they not understand that the federal government is not solving the nation’s problems?

That said, there was a second SCOTUS ruling that occurred on Monday, less revealed.

Harris v. Quinn, 5-4.

From the

Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees

by Sam Hananel


The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover a union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

This sounds like a negative SEIU ruling, as affecting Fornicalia.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks and their bank accounts in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

As in: what becomes the benefit in joining a so-called “union,” in terms of my bottom-line paycheck?

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers “are different from full-fledged public employees” because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees. The ruling does not affect private sector workers.



If one more liberal Justice is appointed in this country, we will lose our social and political and personal freedoms in this country.  And then woe, shall we be.

Quote at Roosevelt memorial Washington DC

Danes: there can be “free speech” as long as there is no pushback

Freedom Go To HellThere is in fact, something rotten in Denmark.

It appears to be from the Danes themselves.

From Pamela Gellar’s Atlas Shrugs:

Danish magazine for lawyers: Free speech is only democratic as long as it does not provoke violent people

By Nicolai Sennels, Jihadwatch, June 20, 2014

Recently the UK Law Society introduced a guide to sharia law. And in Denmark, law professor Trine Baumbach attacks the freedom of speech in the latest issue of Juristen (The Lawyer). Via, translated from Uriasposten:

Freedom of expression can be seen as an expression of democracy — but only to the extent that free speech is used for the benefit of a democratic society and its citizens. … Freedom of expression is one of the foundations of democratic societies, but only to the extent that freedom of expression is not misused to violate the rights of others or used in a way that society risks being plunged into social unrest and civil peace being threatened.

Of course.  We “like” free speech until free speech conflicts with something else that is politically incorrect or sensitive or impolitic or requires courage, which is something Lefitsts clearly do not possess.

In other words: when there is pushback — in this case, something involving Islam and Sharia Law — “freedom of speech” is merely an old, volatile and hackneyed phrase.  And one that must be kicked to the curb.  There can be no courage in the face is Islam vs Westernized Nations.  The West must inherently lose, according to the GOWPs of the West.  The Guiilty Overeducated White People.

But I say this:

There must be a REASON that our Founding Fathers decided to place freedom of speech on “front street” in terms of our Bill of Rights, which states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suppose there can be a more clear and simple delineation of a basic freedom than the First Amendment.

But here’s the “rub.”  There will be greater conflicts when so-called “free speech” comes into conflict with “tolerance” and “cultural acceptance.”

What happens when you place Sharia objections of free speech under the guise of “tolerance,” then?

I submit: you lose your free speech.

As Pamela Geller clearly states and I obviously embrace, it is a characteristic of religious barbarians vs the common sensical.

When you embrace the consideration of Sharia Law as opposed to actual western rules of law, you ask for “civilizational suicide.”

“The political function of ‘the right of free speech’ is to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression.”

Pamela Geller writes:

Abridging this most crucial freedom so as not to offend savages is civilizational suicide. It is the death knell for the modern enlightenment.

I couldn’t agree more.

Guess what, Denmark?  You’re about to LOSE your country.  Get prepared.



Potential results of the Bundy Ranch, the IRS, ObamaCare and illegal immigration, in summary:

Cruz-on-obamas-lawsIf the feds keep arbitrarily “picking and choosing” which laws they wish to enforce, the electorate is left with no other option but the same thing: picking and choosing which laws THEY wish to obey. Or not.



The real thoughts from Demorats, Pt I:

North Carolina Democrat LetterThank you sir, whoever you are, for putting in print your true thoughts.  You’re precisely why Conservatives are Conservatives, and you confirm our beliefs that Leftists couldn’t care less about our foundational documents.  And that damned Constitution, written a hundred years ago.



Did the “Gay Mafia” go after Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich?

Gay MafiaThe Chief Executive Officer for Mozilla (which provides the Firefox browser that I personally prefer to Internet Exploder), Brendan Eich, contributed $1,000 to a Fornicalia Proposition 8 campaign six years ago.  This was — shock of shock — in 2008, at a time when Mr Obama was still not supporting gay marriage himself.

Proposition 8 consisted of two brief sections:

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Proposition 8 passed in November of 2008 by a majority of Fornicalia voters.  And, oddly enough, it was ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court in the Strauss v. Horton case in 2009.

Fast forward six years to April of 2014, as brings us up to speed:

by Charles Cooper

Brendan Eich’s short stint as chief executive officer of the Mozilla Foundation came to an abrupt end this week. All things considered, his ultimate undoing might have been more a matter of his personal style than his personal opinion.

Eich’s resignation on Thursday ended a storm of controversy that whipped up after public records revealed he made a $1,000 donation in 2008 to an organization that promoted a ban on gay marriage in California.

Many, including Mozilla employees and independent Firefox developers, viewed Eich’s support for California’s Proposition 8 as condoning a mean-spirited campaign to prevent gay couples from enjoying the same rights held by other US citizens. (Until it was overturned last year, Prop. 8 had rescinded the right for gay couples to marry.) Dating site OKCupid even publicly urged Firefox-using members to switch Web browsers and called out Eich on its Web site as “an opponent of equal rights for gay couples.”

Others were just as upset that a supremely talented technologist — Eich invented the JavaScript coding language in 1995 — lost his job simply because he exercised his Constitutional right to free speech. After all, he wasn’t contributing to the Nazi Party. In a widely circulated piece, Andrew Sullivan gobsmacked Eich’s critics: “[Eich's fate] should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society…If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the antigay bullies who came before us.”

Andrew Sullivan, not one to customarily embrace Hard A-Starboarders, wondered where we were ultimately going with this.  So did Hard A-Porter Bill Maher, as he threw down the term “gay mafia” for the first DEM/AMM time:

Ultimately, the arguments go on in Silicon Valley and throughout the nation.

One dollar, one thousand, one million — apparently the size of the figure means naught.  You are damned if you not only place a quarter where your thoughts are, but if you even have the thoughts themselves.

Cooper focuses the crux of the biscuit here:

Everything is context, and when you’re sitting on top of the corporate pyramid — especially in Silicon Valley — there are always consequences to free speech. How this squares with the First Amendment, not to mention this industry’s counterculture roots, is a question that calls for a serious airing.

Please allow me to translate Fornicalia EmoSpeak.

The First Amendment can go straight to flaming fucking Hell.  Our foundational documents, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, mean nothing compared to the elevated and “spiritual” sentiments of Leftists.  They believe that emotions trump facts in every circumstance and, most certainly, in common and everyday situations.  Facts and statistics are nothing more than impediments to an enlightened state.

Another point of focus from the article:

“We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn’t make a simple statement,” Rarebit said. “Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO. The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.”

An apology.  Yes, there it is.  An apology for placing a mere $1,000 towards a campaign he felt — freely and lawfully — to support six years ago in 2008.

An apology that was demanded by Leftist Emos.

But then, apparently, the “gay mafia” intervened.

And instead of obfuscation, my view and the views of others like me regarding technology and Leftists and Silicon Valley and business in general acquired much more clarity.  Like a brand new windshield untouched by wind or rain or dust.

Bottom line: did the “gay mafia” go after Brendan Eich?  That depends upon whom you ask.  To some, the “gay mafia” doesn’t exist in the same universe that the “Amish mafia” doesn’t exist.  And therein lies the rub.

I’m certain you can do that math.