Nike keeps the lies of Colin Kaepernick alive with its latest “Just Do It” campaign. Black lives DO matter, but most black killings are done by blacks, not cops. NFL players, just like everyone else, have no First Amendment “rights” when it comes to employment. Kaepernick continues to spout socialist/communist dogma, even though it has never worked more than a generation.
This is a stupid move by #Nike.
They myth that women make less money for equal work because of bias persists.
Single women with no children make more money that their male counterparts.
Many women with children make less money than men, in part, because they take time off to care for their family. Honorable, but doing so takes them away from what they are being paid to do. The same goes for those taking time off to have babies. It’s not bigoted, it is just what it is.
Before I sold my company, women that applied for employment generally asked for considerably less than male applicants. We hired mostly women – because we could pay them less. It wasn’t bigotry, it was good business practices.
Two women I knew were hired at the same ad agency on the same day soon after graduating from college. Five years later, one of them was making around 30% more than the other. When I asked the one that was making less (she did not know she was making less) what could cause one of two employees that were hired at the same time to make a third more after a few years.
Her answer: “The one making more is a man.”
“No, two women.”
Her: “The one making more must have slept with the boss.”
What was interesting was that she was sleeping with the boss. The woman that was making more was not.
A lot of factors go into determining what someone is paid. Your gender is not the reason for disparity, your actions and priorities are.
Devin Nunes (R-CA) must know – or be close to knowing – who from the Obama administration unmasked Trump team members from surveillance initiatives, as the left is going bat-shit crazy with his “loyalty” to Donald Trump. Never mind that a sitting administration, via the DOJ had to be spying on a political adversary. Never mind that someone had to authorize the unmasking of private citizens. Never mind the administration changed the rules for sharing data after the supremely corrupt Hillary Clinton was beaten by Trump.
Never mind that. The left’s focus on the process and the character Nunes speaks volumes: Nunes knows enough to scare the crap out of them.
The schmuck from New York, Chuck Schumer said it would be “unseemly” for the Senate to confirm Gorsuch while the FBI is investigating Trump’s campaign.
We can assume, then, that the obstructionist putz would also not vote for a SCOTUS nominee had Hillary Clinton won the election?
Speaking at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit, Hillary Clinton used euphemisms like “reproductive rights” and “reproductive health” — which of course, includes abortion — and said “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” for the sake of giving “access” to women for “reproductive health care.”
Those deep-seated religious beliefs of yours need to be changed, at least according to Ms. Clinton.
Mike McCurry, the former White House press secretary for President Bill Clinton from 1995-1998, thinks Hillary Clinton would make an excellent Supreme Court Justice. He writes, for Real Clear Politics:
What if a vacancy now appeared on our nation’s highest court? Given the bitterness and polarization that exists in Washington today, it is hard to imagine any nominee offered by Barack Obama having a less than tumultuous path to confirmation.
With one exception: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary Clinton would bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a keen intellectual perspective, a robust appetite for the legal give and take that makes good fodder for judicial decisions, and a personality that would fit well in the current court and help build consensus and respect for constitutional law — a subject she knows very well going all the way back through two impeachment discussions involving U.S. presidents. No doubt her memories of those times, painful and otherwise, would give her a perspective on the constitutional balance of powers that no other sitting justice could equal.
Hillary would bring “intellectual perspective” and “a robust appetite for the legal” while building “consensus and respect for constitutional law”? Is Mr. McCurry smoking some medical marijuana? Hillary is a pathological liar that has demonstrated that she’ll do anything to advance HER agenda.
…And would not she have a longer-term, more lasting impact on the direction of our country as a consensus-building Supreme Court justice than as a U.S. president trying to govern in the stultifying, sulfurous atmosphere of a divided Washington?
Haven’t we had enough of politicians that govern by fiat because they say the tiresome, cumbersome system set up by our Constitution is too slow?
…Hillary is probably the one person Barack Obama could nominate who would be confirmed in a nanosecond, hopefully because many senators would see her as superbly qualified jurist, but also because some no doubt would like to see a formidable presidential contender removed from the field.
Not only is Hillary über partisan and not a “superbly qualified jurist,” she is not a formidable presidential contender. Hell, the community organizer with limited qualifications whipped her. Any GOP candidate with conservative credentials would destroy her.
==
According to a Washington Post story, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.”
Pelosi on Gruber: “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.” According to the Washington Post, Pelosi mentioned Gruber and his work in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.
Here’s the transcript published by the Washington Post, via Nexis:
Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.
PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.
And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.
We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
In trying to distance herself from Gruber, Pelosi’s spokesperson Drew Hammill told the Post that the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally. He posted this statement via Twitter to clarify the comment.
Mr. Gruber, who has been touted as a leading architect of ObamaCare, according to Pelosi and Hammill, played no role in drafting th bill
Apparently “the stupidity of the American voter” is something the Democrats are clinging to, somewhat like conservative cling to their guns and Bibles.
Justice Roberts got ObamaCare wrong: ObamaCare was written as a fine because had it been written as a tax, it would not have passed. The American people bought this garbage legislation and SCOTUS gave it a stamp of approval.
President Obama wasn’t lying to conservatives, but rather liberals to get the Affordable Care Act passes. At least we know which group of people the Democrat party believes to be stupid, as no conservative believed the lies.
Chief Justice Roberts interpreted the law as written (a fine) to mean a tax. In Mr. Gruber’s words, “this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” Words have meaning, especially in laws and legal proceedings. Justice Roberts bought the lie.
SCOTUS has the opportunity to get it right when the ACA comes before them again soon. We’ll understand if the letter of the law matters or if just the intent of the law is acceptable, no matter how fuzzy or deceitful the language . If intent is good enough, then our system of government is finished.
It’s just — you can’t do it — politically. You just literally cannot do it. OK, transparent financing. Let’s start with transparent financing – transparent spending. I mean, the, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay. So its written to do that. In terms of, in terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed. Okay. Just like the lack of — people — transparent — lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. And, you know, it’s the second best argument, look, I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent, but I rather have this law than not. So its kind of like his reporter story, you know, yeah, there’s things I wish I could change, but rather have this law than not.
We should congratulate Mr. Gruber for his honesty.
George Orwell’s 1984 is a step closer to reality, albeit 30 years late. The top European Union court has deemed that if something on the Internet doesn’t suit you, it must be scrubbed. Left or right, this is a dangerous idea.
[T]he European Union’s top court that EU citizens have a legal right to control the availability of “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant or excessive” information about them, material that would otherwise remain permanently available via Google and other search engines. …
The “right to be forgotten” is the quintessential example of a slippery slope. It starts off with a seemingly undeniable premise, which is that the Web has made it easier than ever before to commit and disseminate libel and slander. Moreover, I think most of us would agree that there’s something decidedly discomfiting about the equally undeniable fact that a 12-year-old can post foolish comments about another person (or about himself) that will be universally accessible forever after. There oughta be a law, right? But the trouble with such arguments is that they have a way of running into the law of unintended consequences, at which point terrible things can happen. …
All this serves as a valuable reminder of how our existing notions of “truth” are being undermined by the migration of information from the printed page to cyberspace, which is infinitely malleable. George Orwell predicted as much when he wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four of the ceaseless and insidious activities of the Ministry of Truth, one of whose functions was to alter previously published newspaper, magazine and encyclopedia articles to bring them into more perfect accord with the latest dictates of Big Brother. Any evidence to the contrary was promptly dropped down the nearest “memory hole” and whisked away to an incinerator. Today such rewriting is vastly easier: Any editor who longs to change history need only alter the electronic text of his online edition, instantly and at will. It’s carved in mush, not stone.”
Sen Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) was laughed at by the audience at the New Hampshire Senate Debate on Tuesday when she would not give a clear answer on whether she approved of the job President Obama is doing.
Watch the video and read the full story on Breitbart
Recent Comments