Democrats hating on Christians again

Eight months into their control of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hasn’t missed many opportunities to draw a stark contrast between the two parties’ policies. From defending infanticide and trying to gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the job-killing New Green Deal, hardly a day passes that the Left’s radicalism isn’t on display. But Thursdat, liberals took their extremism to new heights — demanding a tax on Bible-believing Americans.

Thursday’s hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee wasn’t the first time liberals have tried to use the IRS to do their dirty work — but it might be the most revealing. At a Thursday event that was either unnoticed by the press (or intentionally sidestepped by it), Democrats spent almost three hours bloviating on “How the Tax Code Subsidizes Hate.” Their solution? Strip mainstream Christian organizations — and anyone else guilty of the Left’s version of “hate” — of their tax-exempt status.

“Our tax code,” chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) insisted, “is no place for hate. Groups that propagate white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and hatred for the LGBTQ community, among others, do not deserve a government subsidy through tax exemption. Hate is not charitable…” Of course, it should come as no surprise that while the rest of society has written off the disgraced and discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, the Democratic Party still relies on the SPLC’s reckless labeling to define “hate” for them. That’s astounding, many would point out, since the one-time civil rights group was just revealed by its own staff to be one of the most bigoted organizations in the country. With its own leaders engulfed in decades of racist and sexist charges, only House liberals would continue using SPLC as a platform to launch their anti-conservative attacks.

When it was the Republican members’ turn to speak, one after another condemned the idea of hate and hate-motivated violence. Congressman Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) was clear that both parties could unite around the true animus is “repulsive.” He even understands the desire to “limit such offensive and disgusting views.” But, as his colleague Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) pointed out, the IRS isn’t the place to start.

Our tax code, he argued, “should not be used as a political tool to discriminate against organizations that differ in viewpoints or ideologies… This country is the beacon of freedom because of our First Amendment rights. And the First Amendment applies to all speech — not just speech we politically agree with. We can’t use political disagreement as a metric to define ‘hate.’ This type of labeling can and has led to violent acts targeting groups…”

LaHood brought up FRC, and how Floyd Lee Corkins walked into our headquarters with the intent to shoot and kill as many people as possible. Why? Because Corkins had seen us labeled as an “anti-gay hate group” on the SPLC website. Now, Democrats are willing to use that same bogus list — the same politically-motivated definition of “hate” — to single out Bible-believing Christians for punishment. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) admitted as much when she said her party got the names of these 60 targeted organizations (including FRC and American Family Association) from the SPLC. “Taxpayers are subsidizing the continued operation of these organizations,” tweeted the Ways and Means Committee, quoting AFA’s scriptural views on marriage, sexuality, and gender. “These remarks are vile and only work to perpetuate hate crimes and stir division.”

This is exactly what conservatives warned about after Obergefell. Before the Supreme Court forced same-sex marriage on the country, President Obama’s solicitor general admitted that faith-based organizations would be the single most vulnerable group in America. When Justice Samuel Alito asked Donald Verrilli point blank if Christian institutions could lose their tax-exempt status for holding biblical views on marriage, he was frighteningly honest. “It’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is — it is going to be an issue.” If the Supreme Court found the invisible ink granting a “right” to same-sex marriage in the Constitution, we were told in advance: it will be a declaration of war on principled objectors. Any nonprofit that holds to a biblical view — the same definition Barack Obama held — would have a target on its back.

Now, Democrats want to weaponize the IRS against Christian nonprofits and others with whom they disagree. But don’t think for a second that they’ll stop with a list of 60. If they succeed in making the Bible “hate speech,” they’ll march on to America’s churches — and then to anyone with politically incorrect views. Imagine what’s happening to Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein occurring on a national scale to Christians. We thought Lois Lerner’s IRS was bad. But if the Left has its way, liberals will use the power of government to financially punish believers.

SOURCE 






Dems Cook 10,500 Steaks While Lecturing Americans About Eating Less Meat

Several Democratic presidential candidates will be attending an annual steak fry event, despite lecturing Americans about the need to eat less meat because of climate change.

The organizers of the Iowa Polk County Democratic Party's annual steak fry will be grilling 10,500 steaks and 1,000 vegan burgers on 10 grills, during Saturday's event. Some of the candidates will grill steaks themselves.

Democratic candidates recently participated in a CNN climate town hall, where multiple candidates discussed the importance of reducing meat intake. Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) called for the U.S. government to create incentives to eat less meat.

"As a nation, we actually have to have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating because we have a problem in America," Harris said. "But there has to be also what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment."

Andrew Yang said he would "modify Americans' diets over time" by increasing the price of beef to the point where Americans would buy less meat. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are also in favor of adding a meat tax in order to decrease consumption.

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.), who is a vegan, said "this planet simply can’t sustain" people eating meat.

SOURCE 






With Millions in Dues at Stake Across US, One Man Fights His Union for a Refund

Francisco Molina got a refund check from his former union compensating him for dues collected after he resigned his membership.

This means that the money Molina earned on the job since that time can’t be used to finance union political activity he doesn’t support.

But what about the dues he paid as a social services aide for Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, prior to resigning from the union? This question remains unresolved.

But for Molina, and other public employees across the nation, the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2018 in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees turned out to be a game-changer because it struck down mandatory dues and fees imposed by unions for government employees.

Liberty Justice Center and National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation represented Mark Janus, an Illinois state employee who objected to AFSCME’s political activities, in his case before the Supreme Court.

Molina told The Daily Signal in an interview that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Janus provided him with the impetus to resign from the SEIU.

Although the federal court dismissed Molina’s complaint seeking dues collected since he resigned from the union, his case remains active because the judge said she is willing to entertain his complaint seeking refund of “preresignation dues,” and to consider the possibility that he didn’t get due process.

“It’s not the end of the case for a couple of reasons,” The Fairness Center’s Osborne said. “Molina raised due process arguments because he believes he was not properly informed of his rights, and he has also made a claim seeking dues going back for two years based on the fact that he believes the membership card he signed was invalid. So, his case is not dead.”

In the meantime, SEIU Local 668 appears to have dropped the “maintenance of membership” requirement in its new collective bargaining agreement for state employees over concerns that the state’s legal provision is unconstitutional.

National Impact

“Francisco [Molina] believes he’s entitled to a return of pre-Janus dues in part because the SEIU itself recognized that the membership card he signed prior to Janus was invalid,” Osborne said. “So Francisco could make a national impact with his case, but I’d describe the impact as establishing a foothold—not necessarily a right—for any other public employees who want to recover pre-Janus dues payments.”

While Molina and other government employees in Pennsylvania press their cases in court, some state lawmakers have introduced proposed changes to state law that would strike “maintenance of membership” requirements as unconstitutional in light of the high court’s Janus ruling.

State Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican, introduced a measure (HB 785) that would require government employers to notify workers of their rights. State Rep. Greg Rothman, a Cumberland County Republican, introduced a bill (HB 506) to allow government employees to resign from a union anytime they like, without a window to do so or any other restrictions.

Commonwealth Foundation, a free-market think tank based in Harrisburg, released a new report that includes an online interactive database detailing public sector labor laws in all 50 states.

“The Janus decision was a watershed moment for workers’ rights, but our report shows that a lot of heavy lifting still needs to be done to ensure the ruling is enforced,” Charles Mitchell, president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:

Since Pennsylvania is not a right-to-work state, it stands out as one of the states most impacted by the decision. But our ‘maintenance of membership’ law represents a loophole allowing union leaders to keep public employees locked into paying dues and supporting political positions at odds with their own.

Thankfully, Pennsylvania lawmakers are proposing to do away with resignation restrictions. Other states, especially those friendly to worker freedom, should seize on the Janus ruling as an opportunity to update their own statutes. Union leaders will continue calling in political favors from their allies in government. We can’t let them undermine the workers’ constitutional rights.

More HERE 







Thirty million by 2030: Mass immigration will see Australia's population grow by 160,000 a YEAR - putting more pressure on home affordability and public services

The present population of Australia is just under 25 million.  Only a small part of the Australian continent is fully usable



More than 160,000 migrants are expected to arrive in Australia every year over the next four years putting unprecedented pressure on the nation's infrastructure.

A new report reveals government plans to spend billions of dollars on improving roads and transport to cope with exploding population numbers.  

Sydney, Melbourne and southeast Queensland have absorbed 75 per cent of the nation's population growth in the last 10 years.

The boom has taken its toll on public transport and roads, which are now overcrowded and congested, and the cost of housing has soared.

'The freeways have slowed, trains are sometimes at crush capacity and housing construction has not always kept pace,' said the report, called Planning for Australia's Future Population. 

 'Avoidable congestion is already estimated to cost $25 billion and is forecast to reach $40 billion by 2030 without further change.'

To cope with the growth the government has vowed to spend billions of dollars trying to relieve the congestion in the pressured capitals pledging a $4billion urban congestion fund to relieve pressure on the roads.

The government also plans to spend $4.5 billion on regional roads connecting ports, airports and freight routes, in an effort to boost regional employment.

And another $9.3 billion for an inland rail corridor stretching from Melbourne to Brisbane and $2 billion for a fast rail connection from Melbourne to Geelong.

Since 2010, migration rates have outstripped birthrates with about 59 per cent of Australia's total population growth coming from migration, the report said.

Of those migrating to Australia, the vast majority have moved to urban areas.

In the past 20 years, migrants have made up nearly two-thirds of Sydney's population increase and half of all population growth in Melbourne and Perth.

More than 1,400,000 international student visas granted since June 2015 according to Home Affairs department figures.

Population growth needs to be sustainable, the report said.

'It needs to occur at a rate where infrastructure and services can be put in place to match the growing population. If this does not occur, the result is increased congestion, housing pressures, pollution and lack of support and amenity. This has adverse consequences for quality of life.' 

Australia's total population is forecast to expand from 25 million to 29.5 million by 2029, the report said.  

Both Sydney and Melbourne are expected to add just over a million people each,  increasing to 6.4 million and 6.3 million respectively over the next decade.

The Morrison Government said on Monday that the permanent migration intake had been lowered from 190,000 per year, and it would try to deflect new migrants to regional areas in order to relieve the pressure on Sydney and Melbourne.

Population minister Alan Tudge said the 160,000 yearly cap would include 23,000 skills visas requiring people to work outside the big cities for three years before being eligible for permanent residency.

Seven Designated Area Migration Agreements have been made to allow regional employers to sponsor skilled workers.

Changes have also been made to the Temporary Graduate visa for international students who have completed their studies at a regional campus of a university, so they can continue to live and work in regional Australia, the report said.

Mr Tudge said the plan would also create incentives to encourage international students to go to regional areas and smaller cities to study.

Economist Leith Van Onselen, who worked for Treasury, Goldman Sachs and now writes for website Macrobusiness, was scathing about both the Coalition and Labor's plans to cope with mass migration through infrastructure spending or diversion to regional areas.

 'The only 'solution' to maintaining Australia's liveability is to slash immigration back to historical levels – well below 100,000 people a year – to allow housing and infrastructure to keep pace,' he wrote on Monday.

'Anything else is treating symptoms, not the cause, and are merely policy smokescreens.'

Daily Mail Australia has asked Mr Tudge's office for economic modelling to show the cost-benefit analysis of mass migration set at 160,000 per year. 

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************