Saturday, April 30, 2016

Progressivism Is A Choice : The Choice Demands Intellignet Debate

Again, this illustration of a political ideology that has taken hold of our country bodes poorly for our future. A picture worth a thousand words?

But when it seems a majority of individuals in our country are ready and more then willing to accept that ideology as a way of life, I'm not convinced they are willing to accept the consequences for giving up their freedom to chose their own destiny, no matter what that might be, for an all powerful government making all of the decisions that will make life worth living.

Know to, once they have decided to relinquish that freedom to chose to others, that promise of security for today and in the future, that same government that promises everything for you can also take away that same security. And as the saying goes, 'chose with no regret'.

If ignorance prevails over intelligent debate and common sense, then all will be lost. The choice is ours. The time has come to chose.


Justice Under The Law : Privileged Classes Escape Consequences?

Why is this a problem? A country like America that was founded on the rule of law, this country's Constitution, that demanded "all men are created equal" and that justice is blind. Everyone must be judged equally no matter what or who you are.

Why then is one class of citizens given special privileges to ignore the law while another class must suffer the consequences of the law, when it isn't applied equally?

It appears that justice has diminished the 'equal justice under the law' rule by people with special standing in society. That is, members of a special class of citizens in America are above the law.

If this is so, what good can come from allowing classes to be separated, and therefore negating the very laws guaranteed under this country's Constitution for equal protection?

This does not bode well for future generations. A war was fought that saw more then 600,000 souls lost to sustain and preserve the foundation of this country heritage, the rule and meaning of law under the founding of our country in 1776, and our Constitution in 1789.

I sincerely hope we can all stand against the prevailing tide of progressive socialism, and worse in some cases, that presently in our nation is sweeping away the rights of the individual citizen to speak and act as a free people.

And if our political scene wasn't enough to make us fearful of losing our basic rights, our universities are demonstrating beyond any doubt the special classes that rule those institutions are and have been for decades destroying the most basic freedom of all, free speech, the right to stand be heard without fear of retribution.


Mr Ogbjma Loses Argument About What is Reality

They say a picture can't be worth a thousand words, but this surly does have a running in the contest.

Mr Ogbjma's Intentions for America : Transformation? What? Seriously?

Mr President, are you still advocating a transformation of America into socialist state similar to those in Europe? Is that your mandate as president? What's that, you don't care about our country? Oh, it's not your country?

Hey, why didn't you tell us this from the beginning. If you would have said something from the beginning we would have gone along, but to lie to us like this isn't right. It's like you don't trust us. We have feeling to. And were not stupid you know.

Obama ready for closing shots at final WHCD. (AP)

Friday, April 29, 2016

A Wedding to Remember : A Father Gives Away His Daughter

Take a break and watch this video of a father giving away his daughter and he tells the story of how she can to be - This will take the edge off the rest of the bad news that we get on TV.
I think it's been around a few times, but still heart warming. I love this one.
An Arkansas Farmer!
A video of a father giving his tractor-driving and tobacco-chewing daughter away in marriage.
Left me laughing and crying all at the same time. If I were that preacher, I would keep my remarks minimal as that father said it all.

Progressives demand Intimate Privacy Outdated for You - But Not For Me

One person declares he is a female and demands to use the female bathroom and as a consequence,  forces millions of young girls to hide. Thank  you Barack Ogbjma and the progressive socialist liberal democrat's.

I wonder where the next attack will come from after the talking heads have declare "the bathroom wars' inconsequential and a non-starter. Nothing to see here, just good liberal policy of doing what seems like the right thing to do. It just feels right.

Apparently when these smartest people in the room have their daughters in a locker room, showering, and a man enters the shower, you have to know the celebrities and corporate CEO's will welcome the diversity of sharing bathroom and showers with their young girls and men off the street. I mean, what could go wrong?

Why would a father or mother care if their young daughter has to shower with a man? Who cares, right? The big time CEO's and celebrities that have daughters won't have to worry about them being attacked in the locker-room as all of their daughters are attending private schools.

Hey, it's the 'new wave' world of progressive socialism and the ideology of all inclusiveness that millions voted for, twice.!!! Remember!!!!!  

Liberal Groups Continue to Repeat North Carolina Bathroom Bill Lies
Tami Fitzgerald / /     

Apparently, the strategy of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and other opponents of privacy and freedom, is to continually repeat a big lie in the hopes people will eventually come to believe it. That’s how they have attacked a new law in North Carolina known as the Bathroom Privacy and Safety Act (HB 2).

The Bathroom Privacy Act was a necessary and reasonable response to the Charlotte City Council’s passage of a harmful ordinance that would have required public accommodations to allow grown men to shower, undress, and use bathrooms in facilities designated for women and girls.

Since the passage of the Bathroom Privacy Act, the state of North Carolina has been the target of a sophisticated misinformation campaign orchestrated by the Human Rights Campaign, a large national activist organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., and its allies and supporters. They have poured millions of dollars into North Carolina to bully and intimidate the state into bowing to its gender identity agenda, jeopardizing the privacy and safety of our citizens, particularly women and children.

These opponents of privacy have convinced large corporations to oppose this commonsense law. In choosing to side with the likes of HRC, big business is working against its long term interests by attacking a state consistently ranked as one of the best for business in the country. And in criticizing North Carolina’s privacy protections, they seem to have conveniently forgotten that they operate in foreign countries with actual human rights abuses, including imprisoning or executing people who are gay, lesbian, or transgender.

But the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Some celebrities are refusing to perform in North Carolina even though they perform in countries where same-sex marriage is banned. But the double standard of the opposition isn’t limited to corporations, activists, and celebrities. North Carolina’s very own Attorney General Roy Cooper now refuses to do his job and defend the law against a challenge filed by the ACLU and its allies.

After weeks of bullying by HRC, Equality NC, the ACLU, and big corporations, Gov. Pat McCrory issued a decidedly mixed executive order that does five things:
  • Maintains common sense gender-specific restroom and locker room facilities in government buildings and schools.
  • Affirms the private sector’s right to establish its own restroom and locker room policies.
  • Affirms the private sector and local governments’ right to establish non-discrimination employment policies for its own employees.
  • Expands the state’s employment policy for state employees to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
  • Seeks legislation to reinstate the right to sue in state court for discrimination.
The first three actions in the executive order are welcome because they reinforce and affirm the Bathroom Privacy Act. The last two items, however, seem to open the door to adding unnecessary provisions that will satisfy no one.
North Carolinians and their elected representatives on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly weighed and rejected adding favoritism for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) to the law, realizing such laws undermine freedom and empower the state to punish and silence its citizens for peacefully living and working according to their core convictions.

And yet, with the stroke of a pen, North Carolina’s first Republican governor in 20 years enacted just such a new policy in this executive order. If he thought this lurch to the left was going to appease those smearing his state, he is mistaken.

The ACLU and Equality NC quickly denounced the executive order, and the corporations are still threatening to leave. They will not be satisfied until every public facility and business is forced to conform to their gender ideology by force of law. So much for tolerance and mutual respect.
More importantly, mandating new SOGI policies makes evangelicals mistrust McCrory, especially after 1,000 of them gathered to thank him for standing strong on HB 2 the day before his executive order.

The final action in the executive order calls for the North Carolina General Assembly to reinstate a state cause of action for wrongful termination from employment. Employment attorneys report that most wrongful termination lawsuits are filed in federal court, and re-establishing a state cause of action for wrongful termination is not such a pressing need that it would justify re-opening HB 2 during North Carolina’s short budget session. If it becomes a problem it can always be addressed at a later, less confrontational, time.

We know opponents of North Carolina’s Bathroom Privacy Act will not stop until the law requires biological men be given full access to intimate spaces that are set aside for women and girls, regardless of safety and privacy concerns.

McCrory and legislative leaders must hold their ground on the Bathroom Privacy Act without making any more changes or concessions. Not only because the left will not be appeased, but because the people of North Carolina, two-thirds of whom wanted Charlotte’s horrible ordinance repealed, are firmly behind them and are looking for true leadership that won’t give in to political correctness.

Ogbjma Demands British Give Up Soveregnty : Ideology and Hate Rules

Mr Ogbjma's remarks to Britain are based on his ideology of centralized power to make all decision, and his historic hatred for Britain that he learned from his father, an avoid communist that was imprisoned, tortured and then fought the British in Kenya for it's impendence.

Little wonder then why Mr Ogbjma uses executive orders to do what ever he wants, the states be dammed. So why not tell the British that executive rule from Brussels concerning Britain is best for that country and a united Europe? As in the United States, Mr Ogbjma rules the county so Britain must also be ruled by executive power in the hands of an elite few from afar.

Again, still, always, it's about his ideology, his weakness of character and his moral ineptitude that rules the day here and across the world. Mr Ogbjma is mentally weak of character and principle and therefore an unstable leader of the free world.

Obama’s Anti-Brexit Threat Will Backfire
Nile Gardiner / /     

Last Friday Barack Obama made an extraordinary intervention into the British debate over whether or not to remain in the European Union. Just two months before voters across the United Kingdom go to the polls in an historic referendum on June 23, the U.S. president issued a stark warning to the British people on a visit to London—if they leave the European Union they will be placed at the “back of the queue” for a U.S.-U.K. free trade agreement.

At present, as a member of the 28-nation European Union, Britain is unable to negotiate its own free trade deals. Trade negotiations are handled by the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, and not by member states. If Britain votes to leave the European Union, it will be able to once again negotiate its own trade agreements, with whomever if chooses.

Obama’s comments were a direct threat against those who wish to see Britain become a truly sovereign nation, with the freedom to shape their own destiny on the world stage. They were meant to convey a message that the United Kingdom would be treated just like any other country by the United States if it reasserts its sovereignty, despite the fact that Great Britain is America’s most important ally in the world, with extremely close economic, defense, and intelligence ties.

Obama’s remarks echoed those of a senior Obama State Department official back in 2009, who told Britain’s Sunday Telegraph:
There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.
Obama’s harsh words for the British electorate underscored the fact that his administration is no supporter of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. They were a sharp reminder that the Obama presidency all too often chooses to sneer at key allies (Israel is another prime example), while kowtowing to dictatorships and enemies of the free world, from Iran to Russia and Cuba. They were a wake-up call for anyone in Britain who believes that Obama has their interests at heart.

The president’s intervention was rightly met with a furious backlash in the British media, and was condemned by numerous Members of Parliament, including by the popular mayor of London, Boris Johnson. The British do not take kindly to being told how to vote, and there can be little doubt that the Obama intervention will backfire in June.

A new “YouGov First Verdict” survey shows that far more British voters were “angered” or “annoyed” by Obama’s intervention in the European Union referendum campaign than were “pleased.” The same survey revealed that nearly 60 percent of American voters disagreed with their president’s assertion that Britain should be forced to the back of the line if it sought a trade agreement with America, agreeing that “our two nations have always had a special relationship and America should never put Britain at the back of the line.”

If Brexit does take place, the next American president must ensure that a U.S.-U.K. free trade deal is a top priority for the new administration. A free trade agreement between the world’s largest and fifth largest economies would enhance prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, and be a powerful force for economic liberty.

As my colleague Ted Bromund and I argue in a major Heritage Foundation report: “a US-UK free trade area should serve as a symbol of and a real contribution toward a shared Anglo-American rejection of supranational control and the shared belief that government must be based on sovereignty and freedom.”

UnitedHealthCare Dropping Exchanges : Consumer Option - Single Payer

Mr Ogbjma's promise to union members back in 2008 that he will be able to bring 'single payer' health care to the nation, but it will require patience as he will need time to make it happen. And so he has made good on his promise?

Is it possible that Mr Ogbjma and his fellow progressives could be that intuitive and instinctive to see that their plan for national health care would actually be a reality this far into the future?  Truly amazing that they could make this happen in just less the 8 years.

Maybe it's because there hasn't been any opposition? Who knew!

How UnitedHealthcare’s Exit From Obamacare Exchanges Will Impact Consumers
Melissa Quinn / /     

In the wake of UnitedHealthcare’s decision to exit Obamacare’s marketplaces in 2017, consumers purchasing coverage on the exchanges may have fewer choices and less competition. UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley announced during an earnings call last week that the nation’s largest health provider would be exiting the majority of the exchanges after warning the marketplaces were a risky investment.

To date, the insurer is pulling out of 26 of the 34 exchanges it offered coverage on last year. UnitedHealthcare enrolled 795,000 consumers as of March 31, and the company expects to see that number decline to 650,000 by the end of 2016. Hemsley warned in November that UnitedHealthcare was considering leaving the marketplaces after reporting it lost money from its exchange coverage. Now, with participation from other big market players in flux with mergers and acquisitions, consumers across the country could face fewer choices when signing up for health insurance during the 2017 open enrollment period.

“I think the consensus has been that it’s not going to have a significant impact on consumers,” Chris Sloan, a senior manager at Avalere Health, told The Daily Signal. “Now, that depends on who you are as a consumer. But in states where they pull out, you’re going to have to switch plans and actively shop. When you go from two [insurers] to one, you notice.”

With UnitedHealthcare’s decision to leave 26 exchanges, consumers in the affected states could find themselves with only one option when searching for coverage for 2017.
According to an analysis conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, UnitedHealthcare’s departure could lead to a drop from two insurers to one in 29 percent of the 1,855 counties where the company sold coverage. Additionally, the insurer’s exit could have a significant impact on consumer choice in seven states—Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee—where more than half of the counties in each of those states will experience a drop from two insurers to one insurer participating in the exchanges, the organization found.

In Lee and Collier Counties in Florida, for example, UnitedHealthcare’s departure means consumers in those two counties may soon only be able to choose plans sold by Florida Blue, part of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Additionally, in both Kansas and Oklahoma, all exchange enrollees could be left with only one insurer to select coverage from should UnitedHealthcare decide to exit those exchanges. Sloan said:
For consumers, when your health plan pulls out, you have the potential to see disruptions in continuative care. If United pulls out and you go into the Blues or Aetna, there’s a chance that your doctor isn’t in the network or there’s a chance that they don’t cover your drugs. The biggest message for consumers is if they were in a United plan that’s leaving, they are going to have to take a very proactive approach to their coverage and make sure what they’re enrolling in next covers their drugs, has their provider in network, and things like that.
Sloan said that counties likely to be most affected by UnitedHealthcare’s exit—particularly those that could see a drop in insurers from two to one—are in rural areas. Limited choice in those counties is common, as carriers often decide not to set up networks there, he continued. “There are going to be places where you go from you as a consumer having a choice and now you don’t, and then it will be incumbent on some of the states and the federal government to figure out ways to incent health plans to play into those areas,” Sloan said.

While UnitedHealthcare’s departure from Obamacare’s exchanges could impact consumers who were previously enrolled in coverage through the insurer, Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said it’s not only UnitedHeathcare’s exit that’s going to affect consumer choice. Mergers are currently in the works for two pairs of large insurers: Aetna to acquire Humana and Anthem to take over Cigna. If the mergers are approved, exchanges selling coverage from those four companies and UnitedHealthcare last year would see yet another drop in choice. “United isn’t the only one who is going away,” Haislmaier told The Daily Signal. “Between exits and consolidations, you’ll see fewer competing carriers.”

Though UnitedHealthcare’s exit from Obamacare’s exchanges is likely to influence consumer choice, Haislmaier said it’s unclear whether UnitedHealthcare’s departure will impact the price of premiums for carriers continuing to sell on the exchanges. “It’s less clear regarding the premiums,” Haislmaier said. “What I think is going to have more of an impact on premiums is the plan design. The pattern that I’m seeing and what is behind United’s move is that insurers for exchange coverage have to offer restricted or narrowed networks. If they’re not set up to do that, then this isn’t a good market.”
So far, UnitedHealthcare is the only major insurer that has decided to leave the exchanges next year. Others, like Anthem and Aetna, are expected to participate. Both Anthem and Aetna lost money on the exchanges last year.

Insurers are currently in the process of applying to sell coverage on the exchanges for 2017, and carriers have until mid-September to formally sign on to sell coverage in the marketplaces, Haislmaier said. “We will see what unfolds over the next few months,” he said. “I think there will be others dropping out, and then we’ll see how the mergers and acquisitions play out.”

Reagan Lost the Nomination in 1976 : The Country Won 4 Years Later

Reagan is an historic figure in American politics and our country's history. He had a vision for America's future, and the ability to translate that vision to the general public in his words and bodily ora that brought God and pride in America back from the dung heaps of democrat ideology.

Will Trump be able to find that certain moment in this election that will ignite the needed enthusiasm required to save out country from disintegration? I can't see Mr Trump moving the needle way from most people's skepticism, but see him becoming anything other then the leader of the biggest TV show he will ever have and the absolute control of all outcomes. "I don't like you and your country. You're fired!"

A Trump presidency will just be 'The Apprentice' on steroids. For the sake of country and America's future, I truly hope I'm wrong.

When Reagan Almost Won: The 1976 GOP Convention
Lee Edwards /     

The magic number needed to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 was 1,130 delegates, and Ronald Reagan was oh so close as the national convention prepared to convene.
After losing six straight primaries to President Gerald Ford early in the year, Reagan had come roaring back, attacking Ford for his weak foreign policy and deficit spending and winning the crucial North Carolina primary with help from Sen. Jesse Helms. Reagan achieved a political resurrection and posed the most serious challenge to an incumbent Republican president since 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt had taken on William Howard Taft.

After Reagan won the Texas, Indiana, Georgia and Alabama primaries, a nonplussed GOP establishment that favored Ford struggled to understand the former California governor’s appeal. Conservative author Richard Whalen made it easy for them: Reagan was doing well because he was “unsullied by Watergate, untainted by Vietnam, and uncorrupted by a Washington system that isn’t working.”

However, after failing to carry Ohio although easily winning his home state of California, Reagan realized that the political momentum was shifting back to Ford. Something dramatic had to be done. Breaking a long-held precedent, he announced his running mate before the convention: Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a moderate conservative with a high rating from the AFL-CIO. Schweiker assured Reagan and his aides that he could pry loose delegates from Pennsylvania and other Northern states.

It was a bold gambit, but it failed. Schweiker persuaded only one Pennsylvania delegate to switch to Reagan. And Schweiker’s moderate pro-labor record gave party boss Clarke Reed an excuse to move the Mississippi delegation across the line to Ford. Also ineffective was a convention roll call vote to force Ford to name his vice president in advance—it was rejected by a vote of 1,180 to 1,069, an indication of things to come.
he first and only ballot was breathtakingly close: Ford, 1,187; Reagan 1,070, with 1,130 (half the number of delegates plus one) needed to nominate. Ford’s margin over Reagan was a slim 117 delegates. A shift of only 59 delegates would have given the nomination to Reagan–with its 30 delegates, Mississippi would have provided half of what was needed.

Anxious to achieve unity, Ford generously invited Reagan to join him on the platform following his acceptance speech. Reagan gave a rapt convention and tens of millions of viewers a taste of what they would have heard if he had been nominated. Without notes or a teleprompter, he speculated how Americans 100 years from now would look back at this time. Would they say, “Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom; who kept us now a hundred years later free; who kept our world from nuclear destruction?” This was this generation’s challenge, Reagan declared. “Whether [the Americans of 2076] have the freedom that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.”

The following day, in what was mistakenly interpreted as a farewell to national politics, Reagan thanked his campaign advisers and workers, many of whom were weeping. “We lost,” he acknowledged, “but the cause—the cause goes on.” And then he added a few revealing lines from an old English ballad he had memorized in childhood, “I’ll lay me down and bleed awhile; although I am wounded, I am not slain. I shall rise and fight again.”

And so he did, running again four years later and applying the lessons of 1976. He handily won the nomination, defeating a lineup of well-known Republicans led by George H. W. Bush. In the fall, he buried President Jimmy Carter in an electoral landslide that produced a Republican Senate. The man whom some so-called pundits considered to be too old and too conservative to lead the country launched an historic presidency that restored Americans’ faith in themselves and their future, sparked an unprecedented period of economic prosperity from top to bottom, and ended the Cold War, after 40 years, at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Progressive Leader Finds Comradship : Venezuela & Cuba

Remember Mr Ogbjma's buddy Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and how they were brothers in the faith, that is, the ideology of 'if you can't rule by law to stop the opposition, you kill the opposition'. Lots a laugh,fist-bumps all around and then sweet good byes. Parting is such sweet sorrow.

That's pretty much the same euphoric feeling that Mr Ogbjma got when he hugged Raul and Fidel Castro when Mr Ogbjma visited Cuba. Mr Ogbjma and the Castors are kindred spirits.

And the fact that Mr Ogbjma enjoyed his visits with the Castors and Chavez, and that are avoid communists, will bode poorly for Mr Ogbjma's reputation and standing among Western nations? nah. He doesn't hide who he is. It's just those that worship him don't know, and for that matter don't care.
Venezuela Doesn't Have Enough Money... To PRINT MONEY 
By Dr. Steve Sjuggerud
Thursday, April 28, 2016

You know the old joke about the worthless currency, right?  "The guy with the wheelbarrow full of money was robbed. They stole the wheelbarrow and left the money..."

Unfortunately, that's the type of thing that's happening in Venezuela today – only the story gets much worse...    

I saw this type of thing firsthand when I visited Venezuela years ago... I went to a bank in the middle of nowhere (Coro) to take out some cash. It looked like a bus station. There was a long line, and everyone was carrying a duffel bag. I'd never seen anything like it. It turned out, those duffel bags were full of cash... worthless cash. The duffel bags themselves were worth more than what was in them.

Today, the situation in Venezuela is much worse than when I was there.

Venezuela's currency is worthless... If you trade one U.S. penny for 10 Venezuelan bolivars, you're getting the worse end of the deal. Specifically, right now, one U.S. dollar will get you 1,100 bolivars. (Tomorrow, it might be closer to 1,200 bolivars.) So if you want to deposit $500 U.S. dollars into the bank today, then you will need 550,000 bolivars.

Amazingly, Venezuela's largest bill is 100 bolivars – which is less than $0.10 in the U.S. You would need 5,500 of Venezuela's largest bills to deposit the equivalent of $500 U.S. dollars in the bank (hence the duffel bags). That's why the lines are so long – because the banks have to count all those bills. Because Venezuela's largest bill is only worth less than $0.10 in the U.S., Venezuela has to print A LOT of bills. And this is where things get REALLY crazy...

Yesterday, Bloomberg reported that Venezuela is "now so broke that it may not have enough money to pay for its money." (The story is fantastic. You can read it
here.) At this point, the international companies that print money are tired of printing money for Venezuela... They either aren't getting paid on time, or aren't getting paid at all.

The money-printer has a dilemma with Venezuela: It's an order big enough to fill your factory for a year, but do you want to completely expose yourself to a country as risky as Venezuela?
And it's not just the currency...

Just yesterday, Venezuela announced a two-day workweek for government employees. You start work on Monday, and the weekend starts at the close of business on Tuesday. Why? Despite the fact that Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves, its government has to ration out energy.

This is a disaster... and it was all avoidable. I lay the blame squarely on Venezuela's government – mainly on the socialist rule of President Hugo Chavez from 2002 to 2013. This placed all the power in the hands of the government, and none in the hands of the people. And look what happened.

People think things like this don't happen in this day and age anymore... but they do. People also think that things like this can't happen here... but they can.

The best thing you and I can do to avoid ever being in this situation is to do our best to limit the powers of the government...

Good investing,





Political Ideology and Pathology : Take the Test - Who Is What?

Again I don't know if these quotes are fact but they seem to fit a pattern expressed by this person as to an ideology that has been front and center for decades. Snoops says they can't be verified as true or false, but were taken out of  context. But then to, Snoops has a bias as does Poltifact when it comes to trying to hide ones ideology with more smoke and mirrors. These two get at least 2 Peon

In any case, the over all thought is correct, in that this individual is ideological and probably pathological as well. Take the test and then you decide who and what the politics of this individual actually is.

Six trivia questions to see how much history you really know.  Be honest; it's kind of fun and revealing. If you don't know the answer make your best guess.  Answer all of the questions before looking at the answers.  
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." 
A. Karl Marx                    B. Adolph Hitler                  C. Joseph Stalin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.. And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin                           B. Mussolini                        C. Idi Amin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
 3) "(We).... Can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita  Khrushchev        B.  Joseph Goebbels            C. Boris Yeltsin
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... In order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Tung             B. Hugo Chavez                    C. Kim Jong II
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A.  Karl Marx                   B. Lenin                                C. Molotov
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
 A. Pinochet                      B. Milosevic                           C. Saddam Hussein
D. Barack Obama            E. None of the above
 Scroll down for answers...  
... and the answers are:
(1)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6)  E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Conservative Explains Why Anger and Divison In America(Video)

The division between what we know is the truth and real as history has shown, and what we see in the media and our politicians is so different, a fantasy of a type like the Dan Rather syndrome, 'well it not true, but it should be'.

It appears Conservatives have to be the adults in the room, as the other political factions have decided trying to solve problems is too difficult and so let others, Conservatives, work on the problems while they, so to speak, 'take the money and run'.

But it appears Conservatives are starting to fight back against the prevailing system of t'o get along, go along'. Enough is enough.

Kevin Williamson on Why Conservatives Are in a Bad Mood
Genevieve Wood / /     

In an interview with The Daily Signal, author and columnist Kevin Williamson talks about why, like many other Americans, conservatives are in a bad mood. And it’s not, he says, just because of this presidential election cycle.

Hillary Traveling On Back Roads : Car/Cow Accident (Humor)

Well, I think this is a fabrication as I saw her last night on TV. But non-the-less, using ones imagination a little, there is a good laugh in this little story of 'cause and responses'.

This is a good one!


 Hillary Clinton and her driver were cruising home along a country road
 one evening when an old cow loomed in front of the car. The driver
 tried to avoid it but couldn't. The aged cow was struck and killed.

Hillary told her driver to go up to the farmhouse and explain to the
 owners what had happened. She said that he should resist any request
 from the farmer to pay for the animal, but she said, “you killed it, so
 if they have to have money, it will come out of your pocket!”

She stayed in the car making phone calls. About an hour later the driver
 staggered back to the car with his clothes in disarray. He was holding a
 half-empty bottle of expensive wine in one hand, a huge Cuban cigar in
 the other, and was smiling happily, smeared with lipstick. "What
 happened to you," asked Hillary?

"Well," the driver replied, "the farmer gave me the cigar, his wife
 gave me the wine, and their beautiful twin daughters made passionate
 love to me.” "I had just stepped inside the door and said, 'I'm Hillary
 Clinton's driver and I've just killed the old cow.' The rest happened
 so fast I couldn't stop it."

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Duplicitous And Shameless Millionaire : Elite Progressive Michael Moore

Goodness - this is the mind set for the progressive socialist liberal democrats that grind their teeth and rent the clothing as they profess their qualifications to offer their considerable assistance to lesser individuals from both a financial and a moral position.

After all, everyone knows who has the best ideas to solve problems. Who has the best education? So what's not to like about explaining to people what is best for them by other people that are better equipped to make those decisions?

Not that we have to actually live by the rules that we demand of others, we can afford to do what we want. The poor and disadvantaged have to obey a strict set of rules that we believe make their lives a little easier and more accommodating to the section of society that they have to live in.

Privilege is something that cannot be shared easily.

So who do you see often times in front of the cameras when the street is full of unrest due to the perceived inequity of the 1%? Why it's millionaire Michael Moore, the man about town telling a crowd and the camera crews how horrible the elite are, the fat cat CEO's making millions for doing nothing, and something needs to be done to level the playing field so everyone has any equal chance at the good life.

But hey Michael, how's the filming business these days? Still making millions? What a great country we live in, don't ya think?

Kansas & Maine Work Rules for Food Stamps/Welfare: It Works - Ojbgma Is Still Wrong!

Kansas and Maine have established a working relationship with food stamp recipients, the state and the workers understand work is the best solution to prosperity for both.

One of the first things when Mr Ogbjma did when taking office in 2009 was to eliminate the work requirement in welfare. I wonder why he would do this? Could it be that he wants more individuals dependent on government and therefore a permanent voter base?

Kansas Required Work for Food Stamps. Here’s What Happened.
Rachel Sheffield / / Elmore Wallace /     

Abraham Lincoln once said, “No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive.”

Over the past several years, the number of Americans on food stamps has soared. In particular, since 2009, the number of “able-bodied-adults” without dependents receiving food stamps more than doubled nationally. Part of this increase is due to a federal rule that allowed states to waive food stamps’ modest work requirement. However, states such as Kansas and Maine chose to reinstate work requirements. Comparing and contrasting the two approaches provides powerful new evidence about the effectiveness of work.

According to a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.

Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly.

Work programs provide opportunities such as job training and employment search services. For example, in Kansas, workfare helped one man, who was unemployed for four years and on food stamps, find employment in the publishing industry where he now earns $45,000 annually. Another Kansan who was also previously unemployed and dependent on food stamps for over three years, now has an annual income of $34,000. Furthermore, with the implementation of the work requirement in Kansas, the caseload dropped by 75 percent. Previously, Kansas was spending $5.5 million per month on food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults; it now spends $1.2 million.

Maine is another powerful example in favor of work over dependency. Similarly to Kansas, Maine saw a major decline in its caseload after instituting a work requirement. Within the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps plunged by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
Providing assistance to help those in need does not have to be a one-way handout. According to a Heritage Foundation survey, Americans overwhelmingly agree that able-bodied adults receiving welfare should work. However, very few of the federal government’s 80 means-tested welfare programs require recipients to work for benefits.

One of the best ways to ensure that welfare does not become a trap is to initiate reform based on the principles of work and personal responsibility. As the examples of Kansas and Maine show, good public policy can help encourage individuals towards self-sufficiency and better lives.

Oregon Bakers Fight Back :The Progressive Crimes Against the People

The progressive socialist liberals march on to destroy the American society as we have know it, a society constructed under the Constitution and it's laws that have built the most prosperous and free nation on earth.

That the progressive socialists demand that the Constitution has no part any longer in our country as governing document is beyond the pale, a catastrophic bleeding of our individual rights as laid out in the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, it fact, it's a crime against the people.

Oregon Bakers Continue Legal Fight, Challenging ‘Gag Order’
Kelsey Harkness / /

The Oregon bakers who were ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding filed a brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals on Monday, arguing the ruling against them was biased and violates both the Oregon and U.S. constitutions.

“In America, you’re innocent until proven guilty,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, the group representing Aaron and Melissa Klein in their legal fight. “Commissioner Brad Avakian decided the Kleins were guilty before he even heard their case. This is an egregious violation of the Kleins’ rights to due process. We hope the Oregon Court of Appeals will remedy this by dismissing the government’s case against the Kleins.”

Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, was responsible for issuing the final ruling on the case. On July 2, 2015, he ruled that in declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding due to their religious beliefs, the Kleins violated an Oregon law that prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation against people based on their sexual orientation.
Avakian ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in mental, physical, and emotional damages to the couple whom they denied service.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer (who have since married) filed a complaint against Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Ore., in February 2013, a month after the Kleins refused to make a cake for the same-sex couple’s wedding.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries opened its investigation into Sweet Cakes by Melissa in August 2013, six months after the agency received the initial complaint from Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer alleging the bakery owners discriminated against them. Yet, in the appeal brief filed Monday, lawyers for the Kleins argued that Avakian had publicly declared the Kleins guilty before even waiting for an investigation to take place, citing a Feb. 5, 2013, Facebook post.

In that post, Avakian writes, “Everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but that doesn’t mean they can disobey laws that are already in place. Having one set of rules for everybody ensures that people are treated fairly as they go about their daily lives.”

In August 2013, after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced it was opening an investigation to determine whether the Kleins had discriminated against the same-sex couple, Avakian also commented about the case, suggesting he had already decided that the Kleins were guilty. “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs,” he said in an interview with The Oregonian, “but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate.”
“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,” Avakian added.
Ken Klukowski, an attorney at First Liberty, told The Daily Signal that “it’s clear” Avakian demonstrated bias “that rises to the level of violating due process.”

In addition to ruling the Kleins must pay $135,000, Avakian also ordered the former bakery owners to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication … to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote in the final order.

The justification for this part of his final order originates from an interview Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in 2014. During the interview, Aaron said that they, “don’t do same-sex weddings,” and “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.” Avakian wrote those statements demonstrate a “prospective intent to discriminate.”
“This gag order that they’re under right now, where they have been ordered by the government that they can’t even discuss these things with the media,” Klukowski said, “is shockingly overbroad.”
“There are aspects of their beliefs and of this case, including aspects of their religious beliefs about marriage, that if they were to share these things publicly, that the government could punish them, saying that it amounts to the equivalent of advertising their intention to continue engaging in illegal discrimination,” Klukowski said.

“That censors so much protected speech.” The punishment for violating the order is “notoriously unspecific,” Klukowski added. Because of that, lawyers for the Kleins are treading carefully on what they allow their clients to do and say in public.
“This is a couple with young children and where the law does not specify what the most severe penalty could be where as far as we know, the sky could be the limit, that’s where we owe it to our clients to err on the side of caution and try to shield them from additional exposure that could have consequences of unspecified severity,” he said.

In reviewing the appeal, the Oregon Appeal Court will determine whether or not the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ constitutional rights to religious freedom, free speech, and due process.

The Kleins maintain that they did not decline the same-sex couple due to their sexual orientation—stating in the brief that they have served one of the women who filed the complaint against them in the past. Instead, they maintain they were only declining to participate in an event that they disagree with because of their Christian beliefs about marriage. Avakian ruled there is “no distinction” between the two situations.

Klukowski said he expects oral arguments to take place later this year. If the Oregon Court of Appeals rules against the Kleins, the next step would be appealing to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Correction: The Oregon Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, would hear the case after the state appeals court.

Terror Moving North : The Open Boarder - What Boarder?

America has many sins to atone for, pride in God and country, prosperity and individual freedom. 

And Mr Ogbjma and his followers have made abundantly clear, they are more then willing to make sure America suffers sufficiently for of our crimes against humanity, especially against those countries that are controlled by tyrants and want us dead.

It's isn't fair that we should a system that works for the people, for liberty and freedom while the other systems are designed to imprison and or kill the individual for seeking the freedom to chose. Cuba?

Welcome to the 'new wave' world of progressive socialist liberalism.

Yes, Terrorists Are Setting Their Sights on Our Southern Border
James Carafano / /     

According to press reports, a man arrested as part of an Islamic State (ISIS) group in Minnesota claimed he wanted to setup a pipeline to funnel terrorists into the U.S. through Mexico. The story rekindles concerns over the security of our southern border.

It should come as no surprise that there are reports of terrorists trying to cross from Mexico to the U.S.—it’s been tried before. In 2011, Iranian agents tried to recruit a Mexican cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States with a car bomb while he dined at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.

The assault on our border is overwhelming—and it’s not just about jumping over walls. U.S. officials just discovered a massive 800-foot tunnel under the border—complete with elevator. This means that bad actors are increasingly flying over the border, and they’ve used undersea craft, as well as speedboats, to smuggle people into the U.S. Further, the Obama administration has a dismal record in securing our southern border, exacerbated by self-defeating immigration policies that ignore the law and encourage waves of human smuggling across the border.

The U.S. is lacking effective, and persistent, border security with responsible enforcement of immigration laws. Serious efforts to stop terrorists demands vigilance at the border.

It’s also important to note that many of the terrorist plots we see aimed at Americans come from—America. There have been 10 successful terror plots within the U.S. since 9/11 that were led by Americans. Of the failed plots, 63 out of 74 involved homegrown terrorists.
This doesn’t mean we get to ignore the threat from abroad and our borders and ports of entry, but rather that we can’t solely focus on our southern border problems.

When it comes to stopping terrorists from overseas, there are lots of places to stop them. This means our goal should be to stop them long before they get near our borders. There are lots of ways President Barack Obama could be doing more to shut down the pipeline of foreign fighters.
Critically, Obama ought to be doing more to stop the heartbeat of the Islamist insurgency—which comes from ISIS’ control of vast territories in Iraq.

16+ Corporations Threaten 3 States : Do As I Say OR Else!

Selective outrage and blatant hypocrisy is the rule of the day. But I won't bore you with my outrage against these corporations for having as their corporate mottos, 'do as I say but not as I do' to show the world who they are and what they stand for.

This is the poster child for to see and understand the total shamelessness and moral rot that exists among our larger companies and corporations.

The following  article is long but an excellent demonstration of our major corporations willingness to talk out of both sides of their collective mouths. This is despicable and Un-American. And even in Mr Ogbjma's own words, "this isn't who we are"!!

16 ‘Pro-LGBT’ Businesses That Operate in Countries With Poor Human Rights Records
Mariana Barillas / Kristiana Mork /

Big corporations have come out to criticize state religious liberty measures in Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina as discriminating against those who aren’t heterosexual, some going as far as to propose boycotting states that enact such laws.

However, several of the most vocal companies that say they stand with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans also operate in countries with troubling human rights records, including places where homosexuality can result in a death sentence, a review by The Daily Signal shows.

Details on the fate of the measures in Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina are below. The following is a list of 16 corporations that publicly attacked religious liberty measures in one or more of the three states, yet do business in countries that blatantly and sometimes brutally discriminate against LGBT citizens or otherwise have a poor record of defending human rights:

1. Unilever
Unilever CEO Paul Polman tweeted that many businesses would boycott Georgia if its HB 757 religious liberty bill were signed by the governor:

The multinational corporation earned top marks by the Human Rights Campaign, one of the nation’s most influential gay rights groups, in what it calls its 2016 Corporate Equality Index for LGBT Workplace Equality.
However, Unilever North Africa Middle East has production facilities in countries such as Tunisia and Algeria. A 2015 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association indicates that those countries make homosexual activity illegal.
Unilever did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
2. Microsoft
Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith tweeted that he supported opposition to Georgia’s HB 757.

The tech giant complies with government search engine censorship policies in China, according to Human Rights Watch. Microsoft and other search engine companies argue that just by operating within the borders of the communist state, they make China freer.
A corporate document describes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, but states “restrictions on free expression and privacy should only be imposed where necessary, narrowly tailored and provided for by law—and we are opposed to restrictions on peaceful political expression.”
>>> Big Businesses Side With LGBT Activists Against Georgia’s Religious Liberty Bill
Microsoft did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
3. Intel
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich tweeted in opposition to the Georgia bill:
Intel has partnered with the Vietnamese government to develop education, environment, and “digital inclusion programs.” Human Rights Watch describes Vietnam as a one-party communist state that “bans all independent political parties, labor unions, and human rights organizations.”
Like Microsoft, Intel says it bases its human rights policies on United Nations standards to “avoid complicity in human right violations related to our own operations, our supply chain, and our products.”
Intel did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

4. Live Nation
Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino voiced his opposition to the Georgia bill on Twitter.
After rock musicians Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams canceled shows in protest of recently enacted religious liberty laws, Live Nation said in a statement regarding the North Carolina legislation that it “supports our artists’ efforts to take a stand against this exclusionary and unfair law.”
Live Nation’s corporate website says it celebrates diversity, “ensuring all our work environments are those in which people are free to be themselves and celebrate what makes them great.” However, the international conglomerate hosts events and manages venues in countries, including the United Arab Emirates, which prohibit homosexual behavior. 
Live Nation did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

5. The Weinstein Co.
The big film studio threatened to move production of its Richard Pryor biopic out of Georgia if HB 757 were enacted.
A Weinstein Co. movie, “Shanghai,” was set to be filmed in China, which is accused of hostile policies toward LGBT citizens, before production was moved to London and Thailand.
The company’s 2015 film “No Escape” also was  filmed in Thailand, a country that Human Rights Watch argues is in the midst of a “deepening human rights crisis” after a military coup in 2014. “No Escape” was released there only after censorship boards were put into place to approve all films shown in Thailand. 
>>> Commentary: Liberals’ Double Standard on Bathrooms, Boycotts, and Religious Freedom
Human Rights Watch says Thailand’s current government has “banned political activity and peaceful public gatherings; criminalized freedom of expression; made hundreds of arbitrary arrests; and held detainees in incommunicado military detention without safeguards against abuses.”
The Weinstein Co. did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

6. AMC Networks Inc.
AMC Networks Inc., which films the hit television show “The Walking Dead” in Georgia, opposed HB 757. A spokesman told the Los Angeles Times that “discrimination of any kind is reprehensible.”
“We applaud Governor [Nathan] Deal’s leadership in resisting a previous version of this divisive legislation and urge him to reject the current version as well,”  the spokesman said.
AMC broadcasts in Russia, which drew international attention after it enacted a gay “propaganda” law in 2013. A Human Rights report noted an increase in violence and harassment against LGBT citizens in Russia.
AMC Networks Inc. did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

7. Time Warner
Time Warner opposed Georgia’s religious liberty bill, arguing in a statement that the measure “violates the values and principles of inclusion and the ability of all people to live and work free from discrimination.”
Time Warner has expanded its entertainment empire into Singapore, a country that bans homosexual activity, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association report.
Time Warner did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

8. The Walt Disney Co.
The Walt Disney Co. and its subsidiary Marvel Entertainment proposed to boycott Georgia over HB 757.
A company spokesman said, “Disney and Marvel are inclusive companies, and although we have had great experiences filming in Georgia, we will plan to take our business elsewhere should any legislation allowing discriminatory practices be signed into state law.”
The Walt Disney Co. continues to expand into China—including investing $5.5 billion for a theme park in Shanghai. Human Rights Watch says the communist state has “no law protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The Walt Disney Co. did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

9. General Electric Co.
Alex Dimitrief, General Electric’s senior vice president and general counsel, signed an open letter to Mississippi lawmakers urging repeal of the state’s Religious Liberty Accommodations Act.
The letter claims the law’s use of “religion to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Mississippians” does not reflect the “values of our companies.”
GE does business in Saudi Arabia, a country that criminalizes homosexual behavior. In 2014, a Saudi Arabian man was sentenced to three years in jail and 450 lashes for using Twitter to arrange to meet other men.
A GE corporate spokeswoman told The Daily Signal that the company has “zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind, and oppose laws permitting discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”

10. The Coca-Cola Co.
The Coca-Cola Co., based in Atlanta, opposed the state’s religious liberty legislation.
Coca-Cola North America President Sandy Douglas signed a letter condemning the bill proposed in the company’s home state. Douglas then signed another one to Mississippi political leaders, arguing that the state’s recently enacted bill, HB 1523, did not reflect the “values of our companies” by using “religion to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Mississippians.”
In 2006, Coca-Cola’s bottling plants were accused of  interfering with irrigation in regions in India and Latin America experiencing water scarcity. More recently, Coca-Cola reevaluated its sugar supply chain after accusations it was benefiting from unethical land seizures. Its website lists diversity, protecting local land rights, and sustainability as core values.
Coca-Cola did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

11. PayPal
PayPal CEO Dan Schulman announced that the online-payments firm would abandon plans for a new global operations center in Charlotte, N.C.
North Carolina’s “bathroom law,” known as HB2, “perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture,” Schulman said.
The decision, he said, “reflects PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”
PayPal continues to offer services in Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries where homosexuality may be punished with the death penalty, and in Nigeria, where homosexual conduct may be punished with caning, imprisonment, or death by stoning.
PayPal did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

12. Salesforce
Software firm Salesforce said it would reduce investments in Georgia. “Once again, Georgia is trying to pass laws that make it legal to discriminate,” Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff tweeted.
After Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed the legislation, Salesforce said it looks forward to “growing both our team and investments in Georgia—including hosting thousands of customers, partners, and employees at our Salesforce Connections event in Atlanta on May 10-12th.”
Salesforce maintains an office in India, where a 15-year-old boy was teased and harassed to the point of lighting himself on fire because he was seen with a male partner.
Meenakshi Ganguly, Human Rights Watch’s South Asia director, wrote that India’s penal code section 377 “reinforced the idea that discrimination and other mistreatment of LGBT people was acceptable in Indian society.”
The United Nations’ Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization reported that in India, “students who do not conform to gender norms were more likely to suffer from violence in education settings than other ‘sexual minorities.’”  
Salesforce did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

13. Apple Inc.
Apple Inc. opposed Mississippi’s religious liberty bill. The technology giant said the measure, titled the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, “empowers discrimination.”
Apple also opposed North Carolina’s bill. The company said“Our future as Americans should be focused on inclusion and prosperity, and not discrimination and division. We were disappointed to see Governor [Pat] McCrory sign this legislation.”
An Apple subsidiary, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., is located in China—where the government in its Xinjiang region justifies “pervasive ethnic discrimination, severe religious repression, and increasing cultural suppression” in the name of the “‘fight against separatism, religious extremism, and terrorism,’” according to Human Rights Watch.
Apple did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

14. The National Basketball Association
The NBA said it isn’t sure the effect North Carolina’s religious freedom measure will have on its plans to host next year’s All-Star Game in the state.
“We are deeply concerned that this discriminatory law runs counter to our guiding principles of equality and mutual respect and do not yet know what impact it will have on our ability to successfully host the 2017 All-Star Game in Charlotte,” the NBA said, adding: “The NBA is dedicated to creating an inclusive environment for all who attend our games and events.”
In August, the NBA hosted an exhibition game in South Africa.
The U.N. Committee on Human Rights wrote in a report of its concern about South Africa because of “numerous manifestations of racism and xenophobia, including violent attacks against foreign nationals and migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, resulting in deaths, injuries, displacement and property destruction” and other human rights violations.
The NBA did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

15. Netflix
Netflix, the world’s leading Internet television network, threatened to move production if Georgia’s governor signed the bill.
“Netflix is an inclusive company,” a Netflix spokeswoman said, Deadline reported.
“We recently completed two films and a series in Georgia and had planned on filming two series there in the coming months,” Netflix said. “Should any legislation allowing discriminatory practice be signed into state law, we will move our productions elsewhere.”
The Netflix website says it offers services to every country except China, North Korea, Syria, and Crimea.
Libya, home to violations of international law that “may amount to war crimes and other international crimes under international law” is among the many nations that do receive Netflix.
Netflix did not respond to The Daily Signal’s  request for comment.

16. Sony
Sony called the Georgia bill “anathema to our studio and to all those who value diversity and inclusion” and added: “We strongly urge Governor Deal to exercise his veto.”
Breitbart News reported that Sony signed a pledge to boycott Georgia over the measure there.
The media giant has an office in Kazakhstan, where Amnesty International reports that “impunity for torture and other ill-treatment [remain] largely unchallenged” and “freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly [continue] to be restricted.”
Human Rights Watch reports that LGBT citizens in Kazakhstan face a climate of fear “stoked both by the abuses and discrimination they face directly, as well as abuse and discrimination when they try to report rights violations to authorities.”
Sony did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
Drawing the most attention in recent weeks were religious liberty bills in Georgia, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant early this month signed a bill into law to protect “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” allowing businesses to decline participation in same-sex marriages and to determine who gets access to facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms. Bryant, a Republican, said in a statement that the law—known as HB 1523—”does not limit any constitutionally protected rights or actions of any citizens of this state,” The Washington Post reported.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory last month signed a measure, known as HB2, requiring individuals to use public restrooms that correspond to their biological sex. McCrory, a Republican, later issued a clarifying executive order “to protect privacy and equality” after receiving a national backlash from some quarters.

 Commentary: NBA’s Textbook Cultural Cronyism in Threatening North Carolina

“After listening to people’s feedback for the past several weeks on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina,” McCrory said, according to CNN. “But based upon this feedback, I am taking action to affirm and improve the state’s commitment to privacy and equality.”

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal last month vetoed a religious liberty bill, HB 757, arguing that the measure does not reflect Georgia’s image. Deal, a Republican, also resisted a previous version of the law, saying he would reject any measure that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith.”
Commentary: Georgia Governor Caves to Big Business, Vetoes Religious Freedom Bill

A summary of the final version states it was designed to ensure the protection of religious liberty, including a provision that allowed faith-based organizations to choose not to employ those who hold contrary beliefs. Deal said in an April 12 interview that supporters of reviving the legislation must carefully consider whether they wish the state to become embroiled again in national controversy.
“It’s time to take another deep breath. I see what’s happening in North Carolina. I see what’s happening in Mississippi,” he said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “And I would hope that many of the ones that are pushing for it would not want the state of Georgia to go through that kind of scenario.”