Archive for the ‘Discrimination’ Category


Tuesday, February 7th, 2017




According to Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report, the “progressive” left needs a new name that more accurately describes the movement. In this week’s video, Dave, who considers himself a true liberal, says that we should call the “progressive left” the “regressive left.” Why? Because progressives today oppose free speech, freedom of religion, and diversity of thought. In other words, progressives have turned liberalism on its head. So if liberals don’t have a home on the left, should they consider themselves conservatives?





Thursday, March 31st, 2016


This is the controversy over  the HB2 bill which overturned the Charlotte, NC,  ordinance that would  allow transgender men to legally access women’s bathrooms, changing and shower facilities.  Lt. Governor, Dan Forest, shoots down the liberal media who accuse North Carolina of discriminating  against the transgender community.    Go Dan !     Nancy

Lt Governor Forest delivers the facts about HB2 on CNBC

Published on Mar 30, 2016
Lt. Governor Forest gave a national interview today (March 30th) on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street. Watch as he breaks down the facts of what HB2 actually does, dispels the myths perpetuated by the media and those who have a misunderstanding of the common sense law.




Saturday, November 7th, 2015



How Web giants wage war against guns

Ignoring Second Amendment rights assaults the free market

 Monday, October 26, 2015

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Google, Twitter, PayPal and Facebook all have established policies blocking ads and payments for guns, gun parts, gun accessories or even optics that can be attached to firearms. These massive companies have become the superhighways, the interstates, of Web commerce. Blocking access to customers using these portals impacts companies large and small the same as it would a retailer on a main thoroughfare that suddenly had its signs removed and faced a barrier shielding the view from the road.
Google blocked firearms ads from Google Shopping. Twitter’s ad policy blocks weapons, even when the firearms are for competition and hunting. PayPal will not allow its online payment system to be used for legal firearm purchases. Facebook arbitrarily shuts down pages it deems to be about weapons, even when there are no firearms being sold. One major online company that sells optics (scopes and binoculars) and flashlights had its Facebook page shut down without warning, and appeals have — so far — fallen on deaf ears. Hundreds of thousands of customers suddenly cannot see this company’s Facebook page. The company prefers to remain anonymous to avoid endangering its appeal.
The situation drips with irony as Google et al. rail against Internet censorship by the government while they censor legal commerce from their sites. Because this isn’t censorship by the government, it is not a First Amendment issue, making it virtually impossible to fight.
New, massive players entering the gun rights battle on the side of those who would restrict individual rights are changing the political playing field in stealthy, insidious and possibly effective ways.
America’s 100-plus million gun owners expect constant assaults on their rights from elected politicians, much of the media and the gun ban lobby. Through individual and collective lobbying (contacting their representatives as set out by the Founders of our government), and challenging the misinformation and even lies in the media, the men and women who make up the 99.9 percent of gun owners who do not commit crimes answer the call to fight discrimination and bigotry that labels as undesirables a third to half the adults in the United States.
These people have no recourse, however, to a massive censorship campaign currently underway — one which blocks the free exchange of information as well as stifles commerce. This isn’t the government at work, but is being done by the giant companies that dominate the Internet. Google, Twitter, PayPal and Facebook all have established policies blocking ads and payments for guns, gun parts, gun accessories or even optics that can be attached to firearms. These massive companies have become the superhighways, the interstates, of Web commerce. Blocking access to customers using these portals impacts companies large and small the same as it would a retailer on a main thoroughfare that suddenly had its signs removed and faced a barrier shielding the view from the road.




Monday, February 2nd, 2015



Sunday, March 23rd, 2014


Mosqueing the Top of the Empire State


A Muslim family from Long Island slapped the owners of the Empire State Building Tuesday with a $5 million lawsuit that claims that Islamic prayer is not being accommodated on the observation deck of the Emprie State Building.

This is the template for imposing Islam on the public square (or a top ten target of jihadists). This public prayer on the observation deck of the Emprie State Building was a provocation. It had nothing to do with piety or religiosity. It is political and supremacist. Were they facing Mecca or Ground Zero?

You don’t see this in Muslim countries. They can make up a prayer at any time. They go to the mosque or stay at home to pray. There are no prayer breaks in Iran and Dubai at workplaces. No prayers on the streets. It is a direct act of defiance against the host culture. It is a prelude to conquest according to Islamic texts. They always prayed in front of their enemy’s gates before they invaded.

Liberals do not get it. They think this is a matter of the free exercise of religion. It isn’t. It is a call to conflict and a gesture of supremacism. If the Empire State Building loses this suit (and it may if Eric Holder’s Justice Department gets involved, and it often does in these matters), they will pray there in dozens or even hundreds in the future, scaring away other visitors.

I describe this well-worn but successful tactic by these supremacist colonizers in my book, Stop Islamization of America, A Practical Guide to the Resistance. This is by no means the first attempt to Islamicize the public square in New York. Just last week, Muslim children demanded halal food in the New York City public schools. (more…)



Thursday, September 19th, 2013



Thursday, September 5th, 2013


Conservative student group at

University of North Carolina claims

political bias robbed it of funding

  • UNC-Chapel Hill.jpg
    University of North Carolina

Conservatives at the University of North Carolina say the Tar Heel student government plays favorites when it comes to doling out budgets to campus groups, and they rank somewhere below self-professed anarchists.

The College Republicans of the school’s Chapel Hill campus say their request for $8,000 to fund guest speakers editor and Fox News Contributor Katie Pavlich and filmmaker Ann McElhinney got chopped to just $3,000 because the Student Congress doesn’t share their politics. And the GOP students note that the governing body had no trouble finding $3,000 for self-professed anarchist group UNControllables, and even more for a hard-core feminist group.

“It’s frustrating, but not entirely surprising.” Peter McClelland, chairman of the College Republicans of UNC Chapel Hill, told “We’ve seen a pattern since last year which has culminated in a 75 percent total cut in budget for conservative groups. It’s safe to say that there’s a fair amount of hostility.”

The group appealed the cut on Tuesday and was denied for a second time.

McClelland says that last year the campus rifle and pistol club had their budgets cut and that resolutions have been passed in recent years that have taken aim at conservative groups on campus.


“I’m happy to consider going to speak [at UNC] anyway and I invite those who oppose my view points to attend.”

– Katie Pavlich

In addition to providing generous funding for the group called UNControllables, the student government doled out $5,000 to feminist group Siren Womyn Empowerment Magazine. (more…)



Wednesday, August 14th, 2013


  • The Wall Street Journal

The Clinton-Era Roots of the Financial Crisis

Affordable-housing goals established in the 1990s led to a massive increase in risky, subprime mortgages.


  • AND MIKE SOLONMr. Gramm, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is senior partner of US Policy Metrics and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon, a former economic policy adviser to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, is a partner at US Policy Metrics.

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  Effective in January 1993, the 1992 housing bill required Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their mortgage purchases affordable-housing loans. The quota was raised to 40% in 1996, 42% in 1997, and in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered the quota raised to 50%. The Bush administration continued to raise the affordable-housing goals. Freddie and Fannie dutifully met those goals each and every year until the subprime crisis erupted. By 2008, when both government-sponsored enterprises collapsed, the quota had reached 56%. An internal Fannie document made public after the financial crisis (“HUD Housing Goals,” March 2003) clearly shows that by 2002 Fannie officials knew perfectly well that these quotas were promoting irresponsible policy: “The challenge freaked out the business side of the house [Fannie] . . . the tenseness around meeting the goals meant that we . . . did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done.”
The mortgage market shows the dramatic results of this shift in policy. According to the nonprofit National Community Reinvestment Coalition, total CRA lending rose to $4.5 trillion in 2007 from $8 billion in 1991. The American Enterprise Institute’s Ed Pinto found that in 1990 80% of the residential mortgage loans acquired by Fannie and Freddie were solid prime loans with healthy down payments and a well-documented capacity by borrowers to make mortgage payments. By 1999 only 45% of their acquisitions met this standard. That number fell to 15% by 2007. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgages in America were high-risk loans. In 1990, very few subprime loans were securitized. By 2007 almost all of them were.


Simply put, the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by a lot of banks making a lot of loans to a lot of people who either could not or would not pay the money back. But this explanation raises two key questions. Why did private lenders, whose job it was to assess credit risk, make those loans? And why did the army of financial regulators, with massive enforcement powers, allow 28 million high-risk loans to be made?

There’s a strong case that the answers can be traced to Sept. 12, 1992. On that day presidential candidate Bill Clinton proposed, in his campaign book “Putting People First,” using private pension funds to “invest” in government priorities, such as affordable housing, to “generate long-term, broad based economic benefits.” Seldom has such a radical proposal been so ignored during a campaign only to later lead to such devastating consequences. After his election, President Clinton tapped Labor Secretary Robert Reich to lead the effort to extract, as Mr. Reich put it in 1994 congressional testimony, “social, ancillary, economic benefits” from private pension investments. Mr. Reich called on pension funds to join the administration’s “Economically Targeted Investment” effort. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros assured participants that “pension investments in affordable housing are as safe as pension investments in stocks and bonds.”




Tuesday, August 13th, 2013




Thursday, August 8th, 2013



Obama administration using housing department to

compel diversity in neighborhoods

In a move some claim is tantamount to social engineering, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is imposing a new rule that would allow the feds to track diversity in America’s neighborhoods and then push policies to change those it deems discriminatory.

The policy is called, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” It will require HUD to gather data on segregation and discrimination in every single neighborhood and try to remedy it.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan unveiled the federal rule at the NAACP convention in July.

“Unfortunately, in too many of our hardest hit communities, no matter how hard a child or her parents work, the life chances of that child, even her lifespan, is determined by the zip code she grows up in. This is simply wrong,” he said.

Data from this discrimination database would be used with zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation.

Specifics of the proposed rule are lacking. Now published in the Federal Register and undergoing a 60-day comment period, the rule, “does not prescribe or enforce specific” policies.

But one critic says it smacks of utopian idealism.

“This is just the latest of a series of attempts by HUD to social engineer the American people,” said Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute. “It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50’s and 60’s. They tried it again in the 90’s when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.”

Some fear the rule will open the floodgates to lawsuits by HUD —  a weapon the department has already used  in places like Westchester County, N.Y., where mayors and attorneys representing several towns, like Cortlandt, are writing HUD  to protest burdensome fair housing mandates that go far beyond those agreed to in a 2009 settlement with HUD.

One letter written by Cortlandt town attorney Thomas Wood expresses a common dilemma.

“Cordlandt is mostly residential and has only a few vacant parcels that could be developed for commercial use,” he writes. “In order to stabilize the tax base amongst the most affordable in Westchester County, the Town Board needs to encourage the development of commercial property for commercial use.”

Rob Astorino, the Westchester County Executive recently said, “What they are trying to do is to say discrimination and zoning is the same thing. They are not. Discrimination won’t be tolerated. I won’t tolerate it. Zoning though, protects what can and can’t be built in a neighborhood.”

Also troublesome to critics is that the HUD secretary, in announcing this proposed rule, blamed poverty on zip codes – rather than other socio-economic factors that studies have shown contribute to poverty.

Read more:

Search All Posts