Cashier plans to sue The Home Depot, lawyer should be disbarred

A former cashier believes his rights were violated by The Home Depot when they fired him for wearing an openly religious piece of flair. The Home Depot counters that it does not permit non-approved buttons, pins and other regalia on their store associate aprons.

“I’ve worn it for well over a year and I support my country and God,” Trevor Keezor said Tuesday. “I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country.”

This is the problem with America today:  We think our rights overrule the rights of others.

Home Depot spokesman said Keezer was fired because he violated the company’s dress code.

“This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button,” Craig Fishel said. “That’s not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons.”

Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, “United We Stand,” but he declined.

In other words, he got away with breaking the rules for a year.  When he was caught and asked to follow them, instead of complying to keep his job he refused.  He was fired.  It should have ended there.

Trevor Keezor doesn’t seem to understand this his right to expression does not supersede the right of The Home Depot, its owners and managers to control the message that is disseminated to its customers.  Allowing him to wear the pin could be seen by some as an endorsement of his religious views.

Filed under: liberty, button, discrimination, flair, frivolous lawsuit, kara skorupa, pin, religion, religious, the home depot, trevor keezor

Waiting lists in the health care bill? But I thought…

(H/T @JamieDupree)

Wait a second. I thought there wasn’t going to be any rationing? I thought the Democrats promised us we wouldn’t see any of the problems detailed in Steven Crowder’s video about the Canadian Health Care System in our wonderful new Democrat-sponsored Health Care “Reform” bill?

Yeah, like anyone actually believed that.

Filed under: Government, insurance, socialism, health, health care, insurance, rationing, reform, waiting list

Hate crime legislation makes some more equal than others

Disclaimer: Let me say from the start, I am not homophobic.  My best friend from high school is openly gay.  I have known and been and continue to be friends with many homosexuals.  What you are about to read is not an attack on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgendered people.  It is a critique of the very idea of “hate crimes” legislation, nothing more.

The fact that I must post such a disclaimer is horrifyingly emblematic of our politically correct society.

---

The Senate passed new “hate crimes” legislation for violent crimes against homosexuals, transgendered people and so forth.  The legislation makes it a Federal crime to make a violent attack on a homosexual, et al, and gives Federal law enforcement the ability to “assist” local law enforcement when dealing with such crimes.

My question is, why is it more important that a criminal attack a person because they are a minority, a woman, or gay, than because the criminal wanted to take their wallet?  In the end, it’s all violent crime.  The crime is the violent act.  The motive is an aspect of the crime, not the crime itself.

In essence, we are criminalizing one form of thought over another.  Not one form of crime, but one form of thought.

Filed under: crime, politics, Prejudice, racism, civil rights, class, hate, hate crimes, homosexual, legislation, minority, protected, race, thought police, transgendered

Feinberg Claws Back

In yet another stunning economic folly, the Obama Administration has chosen to “claw back” the salaries of the top 25 executives at seven firms that received TARP funds last fall. In addition, the Treasury Department’s Kenneth Feinberg announced he would force American Insurance Group to restructure and reduce the $198 million contractual compensation packages at its financial products division.

In contrast to previous years, an official said, executives in the financial products division will receive no other compensation, such as stocks or stock options.

And at all of the companies, any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special perks — such as country club memberships, private planes, limousines or company issued cars — will have to apply to the government for permission. The administration will also warn A.I.G. that it must fulfill a commitment it made to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in the financial products division.

There was a much easier answer to this whole question, and it didn’t involve billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on companies “too big to fail.” That option is called bankruptcy.

Filed under: economics, Government, wealth, executive compensation, feinberg, ill-conceived, pay czar

Ignoring economics, C.A.R.S. hurts used car dealers, working families

It would seem that the Cash for Clunkers program has had two major side effects: The sharp decline in sales of new automobiles after the program ended, and a sharp increase in the price of low-end used vehciles, the type that poor and lower-middle class families buy.

From the Reading Eagle:

In her search for a cheap, used minivan for her and her husband, Krissy Dieroff has visited seven dealerships across Berks and Schuylkill counties in the last week, but to no avail.

“There’s not much to pick from, and the ones we do find are overpriced,” said Dieroff of Auburn, Schuylkill County, while browsing the lot of a city dealership on Monday.

Dieroff blames the shortage of inexpensive used cars on the federal cash-for-clunkers program, in which almost 700,000 used vehicles were traded in for newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and then scrapped.

Those clunkers were the cars Dieroff and her husband, Jason Boyer, would have been shopping for, they said.

“I saw the cars they were putting in the junkyard, and they were better than what we’re driving now,” Boyer said.

Not that this should be a surprise to anyone. The Car Allowance Rebate System (“CARS” or Cash for Clunkers”) ignored the very basics of economics: Incentive and utility. It gave people an incentive to BUY NOW! instead of waiting for a more appropriate time to buy a new car, and it ignored the inherent utility of the low-mileage, low-end cars to the poor and middle-class families who buy older used cars.

That’s bad news in Berks, where many shoppers seek inexpensive, used vehicles, especially during difficult economic times, said George Tabakelis, general manager of Perry Auto Service & Sales on Route 61 in Perry Township.

“Customers used to be able to find a good car for their son or daughter to take to college for $2,000 or $3,000, but now that same car may cost $5,000,” Tabakelis said. “It’s sad.”

He, too, blames cash for clunkers, which has led to fewer vehicles being available at used-car auctions, and the recession.

It’s the age-old issue of supply and demand: When you have steady or increasing demand and a decreasing supply, scracity becomes a problem. When more people demand a good or service than can be supplied, the price of that good or service will inevitably increase to ween away those who are least able or willing to afford it.

With 700,000 fewer low-end used automobiles on the market and the number of unemployed and under-employed people in working families steadily increasing, the government’s Cash for Clunkers program simply exacerbated the problem of finding affordable automotive transport for poor Americans. The supply has shrunk while demand is increasing, creating an economic catastrophe that is only of the Government’s making.

The Cash for Clunkers program represented less than $3 billion in Federal spending, yet it has caused far more harm than good. The net result has been the destruction of wealth and the further deepening of the economic mess in which we currenly find ourselves. Ignoring the basics of economics and the free market has harmed far more than it has helped.

The old axiom that “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions” seems apropos.

Originally posted at The Minority Report.

Filed under: economics, Government, poverty, wealth, automobile, C.A.R.S., CARS, cash for clunkers, economics, families, incentive, middle-class, poor, used

Add Insult to Prejudice

(H/T to SnarkandBoobs for the video clip)

The Japanese have a saying: “The raised nail gets hammered down.”

Juan Williams was a consistent critic of the Bush Administration and is generally a supporter of Barack Obama. He is a well educated black American. But now he opposes the NFL player’s union. He’s not towing the party line and refusing to demonize Rush Limbaugh, and he’s being attacked.

Filed under: Prejudice, racism, house negro, juan williams, on the porch, Prejudice, race, rush limbaugh, warren ballantine

I’m Hungry. Time for Some Pork!

Jamie Dupree has compiled a list of 186 earmarks, their sponsor and the amount as part of a Homeland Security Appropriations bill already approved by the House.

If you don’t follow Jamie on Twitter or read his blog regularly, you’re missing out on some very interesting stories in Washington.

Anyway, I pulled out my spreadsheet software and did a little math: These 186 earmarks total almost $420 million.

In other words, our most transparent, most ethical Congress in history has decided to spend $420 million of our tax dollars on vote buying, pure and simple.

Hmm. Turns out Senator McCain was right about that $800 billion in additional spending. No, actually, he was wrong. The spending is going to be a great deal more than that. I also loved Candidate Obama’s promise that, as President, he’d go through the earmarks “line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely.”

Filed under: Government, politics, taxes, appropriations, bacon, budget, democrat, earmarks, homeland security, jamie dupree, pork, pork barrel, republican, spending

No Cost of Living Adjustment for Social Security. Time to buy votes!

Bernie Sanders, the sole admitted Socialist in Congress (he is referred to as an “independent” but has voted with Democrats 98% of the time), and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) want to spend $13 billion on giving Social Security recipients one-time payments of $250. This is because there will likely be no Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for 2010. A similar payment was authorized in the $787 billion stimulus bill.

The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus bill singed into law in February authorized a one-time $250 payment, made earlier this year, to senior citizens, disabled veterans and disabled people living on Social Security benefits.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, and Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, introduced legislation in Congress last month to give Social Security recipients another $250 one-time payment next year in lieu of a cost-of-living increase.

President Barack Obama yesterday endorsed the plan through an extension of a program created under the economic stimulus legislation.

Effective in January of this year, Social Security beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent cost-of-living increase, the biggest since 1982.

In other words, even though the Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicates that prices are going down; even though the increase in Social Security benefits this year far-outstrips the increase in health care costs; even though this is the first time since the inception of the COLA that it did not lead to an increase in benefits, the people in Congress want to give seniors more money, anyway.

Filed under: economics, Government, health care, politics, socialism, bernie sanders, cola, health care reform, medicare, pandering, peter defazio, social security

The Company We Keep

So, a consortium of bidders for the Saint Louis Rams has apparently dropped conservative Talk Radio jockey Rush Limbaugh, based upon racist statements which he is accredited to have said.

The National Football League’s owners and commissioner were uncharacteristically vocal about the issue:

Limbaugh’s bid ran into opposition from within the image-conscious NFL on Tuesday when Colts owner Jim Irsay said he would vote against the radio personality. Commissioner Roger Goodell said the commentator’s “divisive” comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider.

The league tries to avoid getting snared in controversial issues outside sports, which has caused Limbaugh trouble in the past. In 2003, he was forced to resign from ESPN’s Sunday night football broadcast after saying of Philadelphia’s Donovan McNabb: “I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.”

Apparently, the “image-conscious NFL is just fine with drugs, DUI, manslaughter, domestic violence and-oh, yeah–dog fighting, but having a conservative viewpoint in politics and being critical of the NFL promoting a player based upon his race is unacceptable.

Filed under: racism, speech, sports, colts, football, goodell, irsay, limbaugh, nfl, owner, purchase, racism, racist, rams, ray lewis, rush, saint louis

Even Dianne Feinstein gets it

(I missed This Week this week. Heh.)

Behold, Mr. President:

To win a war, protect what you have, destroy your enemy where he feels safest but is most susceptible. Be relentless. Hit him where he doesn’t expect. Even the smallest victories bring you closer to success.

The North Vietnamese knew this and used it to great effect. Montgomery did it to the Afrika Corps in Egypt. We did it to the Nazis in Sicily. Saladin used it against Richard. Verson Getrix used it against Rome.

It works. Take a lesson from history.

Filed under: military, politics, war, afghanistan, Dianne Feinstein, machiavelli, success, sun tsu, victory, war