Sunday, December 11, 2016

Obama Admin: Requiring Employees in US Speak English Is Discriminatory

Townhall.com ^ | December 11, 2016 | Leah Barkoukis 

Under new rules put forth by the Obama administration, it’s now considered discriminatory for companies in the U.S. to require that employees speak English, but it’s OK to require that workers speak a foreign language.
The new enforcement guideline is meant to crack down on “national origin discrimination” in the workplace, because according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the American workforce is “increasingly ethnically diverse.”
“The increased cultural diversity of today’s workplaces presents new and evolving issues with respect to Title VII’s protection against national origin discrimination,” the EEOC writes. “This enforcement guidance will assist EEOC staff in their investigation of national origin discrimination charges and provide information for applicants, employees, and employers to understand their respective rights and responsibilities under Title VII.”
So how did this rule come about? Judicial Watch breaks it down:
Two years ago, the administration laid the foundation for the new measures by suing a private American business for discriminating against Hispanic and Asian employees because they didn’t speak English on the job. The case involved a Green Bay Wisconsin metal and plastic manufacturer that fired a group of Hmong and Hispanic workers over their English skills. Forcing employees to speak English in the U.S. violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC claimed in its lawsuit. That’s because the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group. Therefore, the EEOC argued, foreigners have the right to speak their native language even during work hours at an American company that requires English.
Also included in the rules are new discrimination categories such as using Social Security requirements to screen applicants and relying on “word-of-mouth recruiting,” which the EEOC states could “magnify existing ethnic, racial or religious homogeneity in a workplace and result in the exclusion of qualified applicants from different national origin groups.”
According to Judicial Watch, the enforcement guidelines are another example of the Obama administration “strong-arm[ing] businesses and government agencies into adopting [their] leftist agenda and inflated standards of political correctness.”

Democrats, you had the worst year in Washington

The Washington Post ^ | DECEMBER 9, 2016 | Chris Cillizza 

Knowing what happened, it’s a little hard to recall how confident Democrats were that 2016 would have a happy ending.
Party leaders thought they couldn’t have handpicked a more desirable opponent than Donald Trump. They thought he would be such a drag on the GOP that, along with winning the presidency, Democrats might be able to win back the Senate and the House, a feat thought impossible in the pre-Trump era. “I think we could, today, win everything. Bless his heart. Donald Trump is the gift that keeps giving to us,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in June. And with the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in February, Democrats began to imagine the potential of a liberal Supreme Court. “It would enable a revival of a dramatically different role for the court: as an institution that drives social change instead of halting it,” Linda Hirshman wrote in an opinion essay for The Washington Post.
But, of course, 2016 didn’t work out that way. Now the Democrats may be effectively locked out of power in all three branches of government for years. At the state level, after last month’s elections, they’ll control only 16 governorships and 13 legislatures.
This year, punctuated by Hillary Clinton’s loss, exposed the remarkably shallow depth of the Democratic bench. The size of the Republican primary field — for which the GOP was relentlessly mocked — was also a sign of the party’s health up and down the ballot. Democrats simply didn’t have the political talent to put forward 17 candidates (or even seven). That’s partly because there’s been limited opportunity to move up in the leadership ranks.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Fat is GOOD for you! New research says cheese and cream to PREVENT diabetes and heart risk

express.co.uk ^ | Lucy Johnston 

Current dietary advice says foods containing high levels of saturated fats such as cream, butter, red meat, eggs and cheese should be avoided because they increase the risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer.
But a study published in a leading medical journal has found the opposite is true, with a diet full of natural fats improving the health of people taking part.
Professor Sherif Sultan, a heart specialist from the University of Ireland, said: “We urgently need to overturn current dietary guidelines."
"People should not be eating high carbohydrate diets as they have been told over the past decade.
“Instead our diets should be largely based on good quality high-fat foods. This will prevent the rising epidemic of Type 2 diabetes and reverse the growing numbers of people suffering weight-related heart problems.”
The study, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found overweight middle-aged men who ate high levels of saturated fat and low levels of carbohydrate became slimmer and healthier.
Researchers also saw reduced blood pressure and glucose levels, which are associated with a lower risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and cancer, in the patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...

The difference between capitalism and socialism

wnd.com ^ | 12/9/2016 | Patrice Lewis 

I’m sure most people remember the snarky condescending remarks President Obama made in 2012: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. … If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
The gist of his speech is no business owner can take credit for his or her successful enterprise. Instead, we must give credit to the government, which built the roads and bridges and the Internet and other infrastructure that made any success possible.
Obama’s remarks rightfully caused a furor among small-business owners. So capitalism can’t work without extensive government regulations? Businesses can’t succeed without government funding? On what planet?
Why would the president make such a patently absurd claim? I believe the answer could be found in an Erik Rush column: “If business owners owe their success to others [especially the government], then it ostensibly justifies confiscating their wealth.”
Even David Chavern, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in response to Obama’s speech, “Success is apparently a collective effort – but where was that ‘collective’ during the periods of risk-taking and failure? The vast majority of businesses fail. … Every day millions of people put their lives, savings, houses and families on the line and work 20 hours a day just to grab their small slice of the American dream. Where is the collective when all of this is going on? And if the collective is really responsible for success, how come everyone isn’t successful?”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...