Christian engineer seeks EEOC's help in Ford firing

OneNewsNow reports that an employee of Ford Motor Company lost his job last year for expressing his Christian beliefs when asked by the company for his feedback. Now he is asking for federal intervention on his behalf.

Thomas Banks worked for Ford here in Michigan for more than three years as a product engineer. But one day he sent an email in response to a company newsletter promoting LGBT tolerance and diversity initiatives, and was soon after fired for "violating" Ford's anti-harassment policy.

Liberty Institute has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – and their investigation could lead to a lawsuit in federal court.

Commenting on the nature of Banks’ statement, Liberty Institute attorney Cleve Doty said, "It was basically about the LGBT organization at Ford and Mr. Banks had published a comment that said [in effect] ‘Look, we should care about automobiles, not about this. This may be offensive to Christians and others in the workplace. Why don't we focus on cars’ – that was the essence of his comment."

It all begs the question, if the LGBT crowd can express its views publicly and not be fired, why can't a Christian employee express himself?

“Diversity and inclusion means that we're able to have people in the workplace work together and don't necessarily have to agree but we can all get along," said Doty. "And Mr. Banks gets along individually with folks. But here, he was told immediately he was fired based upon a single comment."

Liberty's director of litigation adds that if Ford is permitted to get away with firing Banks over the comment, "we fear that every person of faith will be punished for talking about his or her faith in the workplace.

This is chillingly similar to Nazi Germany tactics if Christians, when directly asked their opinions on a questionnaire, are not free to express them -- opinions which are in line with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian moral teaching-- without fear of losing their jobs.

Banks' point is reasonable and full of common sense-- companies should not be endorsing highly controversial forms of sexual conduct, widely regarded as immoral by multitudes in our society, then expect every one of their employees either to agree with this radical pagan indoctrination, or remain silent if they don't-- even if they are offended by it. After all, what does "sex education" have to do with selling cars?

This is an outrage, and every Christian should write Ford Motor Company and demand Mr. Banks' immediate reinstatement to his job. We need to let Ford know that such intolerance will lose them many customers.

"Historic blizzard" is easier to take than hysterical bureaucrats

Millions of people in New York City couldn’t get to work last night or this morning because of New York Governor Cuomo and NYC Mayor DiBlasio’s hysterical knee-jerk reaction to a storm that hadn’t even taken place yet. An 11 p.m. mandatory curfew imprisoned free citizens in their homes. Shut down subways stranded them wherever they were and prevented many from getting to work. Of course, they weren’t allowed to go to work, and DiBlasio made the blowhard announcement that if he heard of any employers “mistreating their employees the wrong way” by forcing them to “risk their lives” in this biblical storm, they would hear from the government. Congratulations, NYC, you elected a dictator for mayor.

Meanwhile, Bridgeport, CT Mayor Bill Finch drooled thanks to Al Sharpton for his willingness to “fight the good fight on climate change,” because “we’re obviously seeing crazy climate here now.” 

Um, it’s January. It’s winter. And we’re talking about the Northeast. The biblical storm that gave government its gall to control private citizens produced anywhere from about four inches to a foot or so of snow in most places. As if we have never had snow like that before.

But politicians want to exploit normal weather to further their agenda on climate change. Never mind that climate has been changing back and forth since climate existed. But these yahoos want to blame it on humans, and therefore, by golly, they’ll punish humans when it snows by telling them they cannot be outside, they cannot work, they cannot live their lives freely.

I shudder to think of what will happen when these profoundly idiotic politicians and media fools learn that humans exhale about 100 times more carbon poison than we inhale. How soon before they start mandating we all hold our breath during certain times of the day. Worse, how soon before they really step up their efforts to promote (demand) more abortion and euthanasia out of concern for the environment? It’s happening elsewhere in the world for that very reason, and groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement are advocating precisely what the title implies.

What these arrogant politicians need is a reminder about what our country stands for. In America, you let people decide if they want to go in the snow or not. You let Americans decide if they want to try to get to work or not. You don’t order them prisoners of their own homes and then shut down the subway systems so they have no way of getting to work anyway. How many millions of dollars were lost in wages, revenue and other economic activity because of politicians' profound desire to control people?

This goes beyond just merely being an example of idiotic, over-reacting nanny state bureaucrats. These politicians used a typical snowstorm to shut down the entire northeast, including the largest city in the country so they could "dodge a bullet." If they can do this for a typical storm, they can do this for any reason. They can ban driving on a day they feel there is too much pollution in the air, or because it is too hot and they “need” to keep cars off the road to reduce temperatures. 

By caving into the politicians – who, as a reminder, were put in office to serve us, not control us, we are allowing a very wide berth for future demands on our freedoms by the people we elected to serve us.

If the political nitwits want to issue warnings, that’s fine. “You might get stranded in the snow, so beware.” But to tell private American citizens they must stay home, miss work, agree to forfeit their freedoms because of potential snow is preposterous, and to be honest, a disturbing sign of just how out of control – and controlling – government has become and will continue to be unless we demand a check be put on its power.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Obama's soak-the-rich scheme would hurt us all*

In his State of the Union address last night, President Barack Obama promised the American people everything short of maid service. In his last two years, the president will take from the rich and give to the poor -- if the Republicans will let him.

To fund free college, a tripling of child care support, tax benefits for a select group and higher mandatory wages for entry-level jobs, he wants to raise taxes on the rich. Never mind the little matter of an $18 trillion debt that grows by a half billion dollars each day. We can enjoy all of these promises and more -- and the rich can afford to pay for them -- because of economic recovery.

Most working-class and middle-class Americans aren't exactly feeling recovered, aside from relief at the gas pump the president took credit for. The low fuel prices we're seeing result from a series of events initiated by private-sector exploration and drilling, a "Big Oil" agenda Obama opposed. While mocking calls for more energy production in 2012, the president said: "The American people aren't stupid . we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices."

Except, we did.

Obama spoke yesterday of low unemployment figures, promoting the illusion of a solid recovery that helps us all. He failed to mention the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics assessment that said long-term unemployment remains "essentially unchanged." Labor participation hasn't been so low since the economic crisis of the late 1970s.

Dwindling labor force participation can cause long-term pain. It means more Americans are becoming dependent on those who work hard and sacrifice chunks of their paychecks to pay for federal and state spending. It means the ratio of dependents to producers is moving in the favor of dependents. With baby boomers retiring in droves, we will see only more stress on government programs, Social Security and state retirement pensions going forward. It all will be funded by people who work and/or invest.

And, no, we can't just soak the rich. By rich, Obama means couples with combined incomes of $500,000 and up. That sounds like a lot of money to working- class individuals struggling to get from one paycheck to the next, and it is. But these are primarily the incomes of small-business executives and average investors. Each dollar they pay to the federal government is a dollar they won't invest to expand a business and create new jobs.

If we're going to raise taxes on the wealthy, we should do so only to pay down debt. Even then, we risk stalling the economy and going further into debt by speeding growth of the dependent class. And Obama isn't even talking about new taxes to pay down debt. He wants new spending on proposals that have little chance of creating new wealth. If he wants spending, he should do as successful business leaders do. He should reduce spending somewhere else.

President Obama, the American people aren't stupid. They know we can't just tax, spend and promise ourselves into prosperity. That's why they overhauled Congress last fall, hobbling the executive branch. As a result, Obama can act like a fabled outlaw on TV without having to deliver the goods. It's fine to applaud his egalitarian rhetoric. It's the thought that counts. Just don't bank on free college, triple-sized child care assistance and other handouts this country cannot possibly afford.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

*(c)2015 The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colo.) I do not claim authorship of this post.

Where is LGBT community's outrage on recent homosexual murder?

As the US tears itself apart over the supposed torture of terrorists, let's just remember who we're up against: ISIS recently threw a man off a roof to his death for being gay.  

Chilling new images released by ISIS militants show a group of fighters throwing this man off the roof of a building for being gay. Moments before he is flung to his death, a mob of at least eight men can be seen atop of the building that is believed to be somewhere in northern Iraq.

The images were posted on a jihadist website just hours after a US senate report described  ‘a stain' on American values  for the supposed sadistic abuse of CIA detainees in a network of secret prisons around the world.  

Meanwhile, the homosexual community in America remains mute on the deadly Islamist assault on homosexual human beings. They’re much too busy accusing Christians and conservatives of being the haters. Maybe if they paid attention to what is actually going on in the world – instead of making scapegoats of those who pose no threat – we could turn things around at least to the extent of displaying a unified front against terrorism and the brutal treatment of all human beings. But it seems their heads will remain in the sand while their fellow homosexuals are murdered in cold blood.

And as the threat of fanatical Islam continues its pock on the world, do you think President Obama will address it in his State of the Union address tonight? I am not holding my breath.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

John Kerry's moronic display in Paris an embarrassment to the US

As if President Obama's failure to join world leaders in denouncing terrorism following the massacres in France last week wasn't bad enough, enter Secretary of State John Kerry.

In a pathetic attempt to make up for the Obama administration's no-show diss of France and terrorism in general, Kerry made a belated appearance to appease France and the world in response to the negative outcry Obama is receiving for not showing any acknowledgment of the gravity of Islamist terror in our world.

It's bad enough that Kerry tried to show solidarity with France after the fact to convey America's supposed values, when he or our president should have been there when world leaders first linked arms in solidarity against terrorism. But it gets worse. He told France he wanted to give them a big hug.

"My visit to France is basically to share a big hug for Paris and express the affection of the American people for France and for our friends there who have been through a terrible time," Kerry driveled, evoking God only knows what kind of response from the people witnessing this.

But wait, it gets even worse than that. Kerry then trotted out the gentle guitar-strumming James Taylor to serenade the Parisians with the syrupy, "You've Got a Friend." Seriously....gag me.

Fanatical terrorist murderers are on the loose. They have declared war on freedom across Europe and in America, and are making good on their promise to kill anyone who does not share their beliefs. I'm sure it gives great encouragement to the terrorists to learn that America's response to terrorism entails little more than a hug and a guitar.

I love my country, but I am ashamed of our supposed leaders. As for France being offered Kerry's friendship, you know what they say, "With friends like that....", well, you know the rest.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Obama's approach to terrorism: Release terrorists from jail

In the wake of deadly Islamist terrorist attacks in Paris last week, what does President Barack Obama do (besides blowing off France -- and terrorism -- by not attending the anti-terrorism rally in Paris last week)? He releases five more prisoners from Guantanamo.

It's time to call a spade a spade. Either the president is on the side of terrorism or he lacks anything even resembling common sense. Of course he will, along with Eric Holder, try to make this look like the America he believes in is all about fair play. 

But this is not fair play. It is the president unfairly playing with our safety, and it is a slap in the face of justice. These men should have been brought to trial, and if convicted sentenced. They are not POW's who can be released after a truce has been signed. They are not petty thieves of convenience stores. They are not professional soldiers accused of some transgression. They are cold-blooded killers who want Americans and other citizens of the West dead.

Despite how the liberal media Obama-sycophants are portraying this as being some act of humanity - one that will appease terrorists to the point that they will reject their terrorist inclinations -- the truth is our president released terrorists who are just as, if not more, vile than those who killed dozens of people in France, so that they can continue their deadly jihad in Europe and in America. At one point, we will not be able to deny the blood on Obama's hands.

At the same time our president releases hardened illegal alien criminals (ostensibly to go to Estonia, as if they will be controlled there) he thumbs his nose when it comes to protecting our borders, in fact, he even jokes about it. The other day he was laughing to a crowd of his groupies about how we crazy Americans want to build a moat around our country and populate it with alligators. He said we'll never be satisfied no matter what he does to protect us. 

How would he know we won't be satisfied no matter what, since he's done nothing to protect us at all? As it stands, Obama's policy against terrorism is to allow any Tom, Dick or Terrorist who wants to come to America to inflict upon us whatever horror they choose. But why should we hope Obama would change his open border policy when he thinks holding terrorists in jail is wrong?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

House to vote on Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on the historic Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36) on January 22nd, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the date of the March for Life.

Yesterday POLITICO featured the breaking news on its homepage: the House will vote to protect babies from abortion after 5 months of pregnancy as hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers march around the Capitol. 

"Their first salvo will come from the House, where GOP leaders plan to vote on a federal 20-week abortion ban on Jan. 22. That’s the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and falls on the same day as the March for Life, an annual mass demonstration of anti-abortion activists on the streets of Washington," the site wrote.

Please click here to instantly email your Representative to ask him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 36. 

Through this initiative, so far 129 congressmen have responded, stepping up for Life and co-sponsoring this pro-life bill. Please consider contacting your Rep to ask him or her to do the same, or thank them if they already have.