And Our New Diversity Czar is…Our What?!

We’ve discussed previously here on Ft. Hard Knox the danger of Corporate Diversity, and its subversion of the U.S. Constitution. Maggie’s Notebook has more, in her post, Mark Lloyd is Diversity Czar: Mark Lloyd FCC Diversity Officer:

Mark Lloyd is the FCC Diversity Czar, or Diversity Officer. The first of this title ever – whether “Czar” or “Officer”…the FCC now views “communications” as a civil rights issue. If you saw Glen Beck today, he played a video with Mike Lloyd speaking and expressing his admiration for Hugo Chavez. As soon as the video is available, I’ll have it below.

Mark Lloyd was a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank. Lloyd believes there is a “Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio and he co-authored a report with three other Center for American Progress members, and titled it the same

My report on this today talks about three things: (1) What Lloyd plans to do and (2) and a meeting in 2007, referenced in Lloyd’s “Structural Imbalance…” report. From that meeting came the American Media Contract 2007, a means to balancing Lloyd’s “Structural Imbalance…,” (3) fees and fines coming our way.

Lloyd’s report found that Conservative radio talk shows are successful and Liberal talk shows are not – because the analysis found, “91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.” The report went on to demonstrate how very popular talk radio is, and what a miserable failure Liberal talkers are.

Now Lloyd plans to get something done about it….Continue reading on Maggie’s Notebook >>

 

I’d rather be in my hell than your “heaven.”

A young second-generation Egyptian-American recently demanded that a blogger-friend of mine apologize to him, and to his father, because of something she’d written on her blog. She had re-published (from public records) a partial list of just the “Letter A” section of the donors to the Obama campaign with Muslim names and his father was on the list, along with a very large number of others disproportional to the Muslim-American demographics. He said he and his father were proud Obama supporters, so he was proud to be included on the list, but went on to explain that he was outraged and offended by what he assumed were her reasons for publishing such a list.

During the course of my online conversation with him as he simultaneously espoused the virtues and superiority of the religion of peace and demanded apologies from my friend and me for our apparent lack of sensitivity, I realized something. On one hand, this young Egyptian-American enjoyed the clout that being indirectly associated with such a powerful group as Islamic jihad gave him, but on the other hand, he wore that clout like a chip on his shoulder, daring anyone to knock it off. I also realized I’d seen this type of doublespeak before.

Many years ago, I had an Italian sister-in-law. She was one of my favorite in-laws, actually, as we had a lot in common, and normally got along very well, but I recalled a very strange and awkward conversation we’d had in the beginning of our relationship, in which this woman had misinterpreted something I’d said (I never did quite figure out what it was I’d said), but she apparently thought I had insinuated that she was “connected” to the Italian mafia, and had become very offended.

Well, at the time, we were living in upstate New York, no where near any large cities. I had lived in Las Vegas during the 1970’s, when the Italian mafia was very active there, so I was familiar with who they were, but this was the late ‘90’s, and I hadn’t really thought about them in years. I discretely inquired of my other in-laws as to why my sister-in-law was so sensitive about this…Was the mob active in our area? Did she have relatives that were active in the mafia? They just rolled their eyes, and explained no, they didn’t think so, and that they didn’t know why she acted like that from time to time. After I’d met more of her family and friends, I began to realize that a few of them, like the Egyptian-American I met recently, liked the social “power” that it gave them to make people think that they just might be “connected,” yet it gave them a different kind of social power to, at the same time, feign offense, and effectively play the “race card,” when anyone brought the subject up (even by accident).

We are seeing this same doublespeak phenomenon, right now, in the political arena, as the Obama-Biden campaign is enjoying the benefits of touting the socialist ideals of social justice and wealth redistribution to garner votes from the poorer members of our society, and financial support from international leftists. Yet, they are also enjoying the social power that being able to call anyone a “racist,” who dares to use the “S” word gives them in the media.

Regardless of who wins this election, and becomes our President in January (or whenever they get through with all the re-counts), we are going to be fighting a war of words. To win this war, we are going to need to be able to accurately identify and describe the various “ministries of truth” that have made great advancements online, in our government, in international government, and in commerce.

Corporate employees have been fighting this war of words for a long time in the United States. The word “diversity,” used to pertain to financial assets and to agriculture, but now it’s applied to human beings, and has come to mean giving preferential treatment to designated minority groups. Our Founding Fathers struggled with the idea of “religious tolerance,” but generally applied it when refraining from killing someone regardless of how warped you thought his ideas were. Now, religious tolerance has come to mean that you will “embrace” the diversity doctrine and the values of every minority group, or you will be unemployed and ostracized.

Christians have also been fighting this war of words for a long time. Our adversaries have tried to use misinterpretations of our scriptures to try to control us. For example, they’ll mockingly ask “Isn’t it a sin to ‘judge’ people?” as they try to play on our fear of hell – and of disappointing our Creator – for the advancement of their own Marxist, political-correctness agendas.

In this war of words, and in this world of doublespeak, those of us who love individual freedom are going to have to summon the courage to resist. We have reached the time that the apostle Paul talked about when he wrote to the Church at Ephesus, “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” It won’t be easy, and there is no doubt that some of us will face persecution.

At times, it will seem like it would be easier to just give in, and go with the flow. But folks, I’ve taken a look at what the enemies of liberty have to offer. The so-called “heaven” promised to the jihadis does not entice me. The soulless, lifeless void of communism has nothing to offer me. I have news for them. Yes, I’m a Christian, and yes, I love God, and I’m planning to spend eternity with Him, but frankly I’d be better off in my hell than in the so-called “heaven” that any of them are offering.

Those of us who have known and loved freedom know what we’re fighting for, and we know it’s worth it. Freedom is worth it. America is worth it. And we can win – Together, and with God on our side, we can win.

I believe, as King David said in the Psalms, that God will confound and put to shame those that seek to kill the soul of America, and He will cause them to be tangled in the very traps that they laid for the destruction of our nation. Our Founders, who were preparing for a battle that was different in nature, but just as serious wrote, “…With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

So, as Todd Beamer, before he sacrificed his life in helping stop terrorists from most likely destroying our nation’s capitol, said, “Are you guys ready? Let’s roll!”

(The above speech was given during the first 20 minutes of the second half of the Rally for the Conservative Cause on Blog Talk Radio – The link is below). For the first half of the Rally, click here.

 

Bailout of Fannie/Freddie – a Move Toward Socialized Housing?

In April, in Finding a Roommate Online: It’s illegal to ask sexual orientation, race, or religion to choose a roommate, I wrote about the Fair Housing Act being applied to an online roommate-finding service.

As Wired.com explained in April:

Apartment hunting site Roommates.com cannot shield itself from an housing discrimination lawsuit by claiming it is just an internet forum, because the site requires users to answer questions about their gender, marital status and sexual orientation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The ruling is an important one because it sets a limit on a federal law protecting internet forums from lawsuits. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act largely frees websites, online forums and ISPs from responsibility for what users say on their sites. Online freedom advocates describe that law as the best thing Congress has ever done for freedom of expression on the internet, since it allows social networking sites, hosted blogging services and news sites with commenting features — like this one — to let users be responsible for their words.

That legal immunity doesn’t apply to Roommates.com, the court ruled, because the check boxes on the site actively solicit discriminatory content, making the service much more than a simple forum….(more)

And I wrote in response:

The larger story here is that the advocates for the political-correctness agenda onine have just won a major victory while advocates for personal liberty and freedom of speech online have sustained a loss. Watch for more lawsuits like this, in which things like “discrimination” and “hate speech” become not only frowned upon by the online community, but actually illegal.

With this in mind, I cannot help but shudder a bit when I hear that the federal government has just seized two more major mortgage companies. I have to ask myself how long it will be before affirmative action and gay-rights activists will be suing the federal government for special considerations in neighborhood planning in lending practices? How long before banks and Realtors will be given special tax breaks and preference on corporate contracts according to their commitment to promoting the diversity doctrine?

It won’t be long.

Update: See Major Earmark in Democrat Bailoutand What’s The Holdup On The Bailout? [Hint, it involves ACORN and the Nat'l Council on LaRaza...]

---

Also see: Michelle Malkin – Here it is: The Mother of all government bailouts and Paulies Point – Senate Comrades Pass Bailout Plan

Most U.S. Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes in the U.S.

A report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office yesterday showed that approximately two-thirds of American Corporations do not actually pay taxes in the United States.

While the purpose of the report was to compare foreign-controlled domestic corporations (FCDC’s) to U.S. controlled corporations (USCC’s), the report also showed that most of both do not have a tax liability in the United States. Read more

Socialist “Curriculum” cannot penetrate home schools…therefore, they must be outlawed. (Updated – Corporate America Agrees)

(Updated) Michelle Malkin reports, “The Subway sandwich corporation is holding a story-writing contest for kids. You can win athletic equipment, gift baskets, or sandwich shop cash cards. Except if you’re a homeschooled student…”

In the fine print at the bottom of the contest information:

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. Contest is open only to legal residents of the Untied [sic] States who are currently over the age of 18 and have children who attend elementary, private or parochial schools that serve grades PreK-6. No home schools will be accepted.

Doctor’s Associates Inc., which owns and operates Subway, typifies an American corporation with an international bent toward subverting the U.S. Constitution and acting as socialism’s change agent. Don’t believe it? Check out its “Helping Society” page, outlining its “diversity” and “going green” policies, as well as it’s commitment to to only dealing with “business partners” adhere to the same practices.

Also see:

• More Subversion of the Constitution through the American Corporation
• When American Corporations were American

 

---

(Original Post 5/19/08) Rob Shearer, of Contending with the Culture, reports:

The Tennessee Department of Education has recently defended its decision not to recognize homeschool diplomas with the assertion that because they were prohibited from having anything to do with the selection of a curriculum, teachers, or textbooks…(more)

That word, “curriculum” is a little-understood word that has been used to change the public school system in the last 100 years. As I wrote, in What Happened to the New England Primer and a Slateboard?, during the early part of the 20th century, the subject of curriculum development changed from a study for “curricularists,” who specialized in general curriculum development for colleges and universities to a field of educational psychology, according to Marshall, Sears and Schubert, in their Turning Points in Curriculum (pp. 19-20).

Jerome Bruner, a leader in the field of cognitive studies, published his book, Process of Education, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961) was instrumental in turning the field of curriculum development into a forum on how children and adults learn, and how educators can shape public thought.

Read more

Why America is Doomed! (Unless We Change) [Part 2]

First read: Why America is Doomed! (Unless We Change) [Part 1]

Political parties now adjust their platforms according to the “electable” candidate rather than requiring a potential candidate conform to the desires of the party majority. Principals be damned it is the power that matters. For without the power how could politicians get rich?

There is a famous quote, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Money itself is neither good nor bad it is what you do to get it and what use you make of it after you have it.

Too many American companies, corporations and people have forgotten the lessons of World War II. During WWII this country pulled together and sacrificed for the good of the Country. Industries stepped up to produce the necessary arms, tools, and supplies needed for the war effort. They didn’t do it to increase the profit margin. Most didn’t try to gouge the Government. They did it to help defend the free world.

Read more

Why America Is Doomed! (Unless We Change) [Part 1]

Try this simple experiment at home and follow along. Take a mirror and place the reflective side facing you. What do you see?

Hopefully you see your reflection and what is behind you.

Now step to a window and look out. What do you see?

You see the world outside. If you stand just right you can see a faint reflection behind you but mostly you see outward. You see other people. They are looking in and on a cold blistery day they wish they were where you are.

In both cases you are merely looking through a piece of glass. The only difference is one is lined with silver and doesn’t allow you to see past it.

When you are facing the mirror and reflecting on who you are, what you have and where you are, the only people that can see this image are those standing with you on the reflecting side. To take this analogy a bit further, imagine trying to drive and navigate a roadway facing a mirror. You would have to peek past the side of the mirror to safely traverse the roadway. The more you watch behind you and admire your own image the more dangerous this exercise becomes. It is hard to move forward if you can’t see where you are going

Now step back to the window. Read more

When American Corporations were “American”

As my readers know, while I’m a strong believer in capitalism and the free-market ecomomy, I have become increasingly leery of the so-called “American” Corporation. Here is a video that gives us a glimpse into how the American Corporation USED to feel that supporting America was in its best interest.

A big hat-tip goes to Richard Disney for this video, who commented:

A vintage video produced in 1942 showing how General Motors contributed to the war effort before the “Wussification of America.”

Also see:

• Corporate Diversity…Subverting the Constitution?
• Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent?
• More Subversion of the Constitution through the American Corporation

More Subversion of the Constitution through the American Corporation

I am a capitalist, and I believe in a free-market economy. However, in recent years, I have become increasingly suspicious of some of the things I have observed in Corporate America, and have come to the conclusion that there are many socialists and communists who have found a way to force their ideals on the American people through the workplace. It almost seems at time that corporate America has become an unofficial fourth branch of government – except that it has none of the restrictions of the three legitimate branches.

What am I talking about? Read more

FHK SitRep 12.09.07: Fark wants to trademark “NSFW”?

You know the feeling…you’re sitting at your desk at work, and one of your friends sends you to a link that you open, only to find out that you shouldn’t have opened “THAT” one at work! Maybe, for example, it’s a story from Jihad Watch, and you work in an office where everyone including your boss (who walked by your desk about the time a story with a title that doesn’t meet the new “diversity” guidelines) your boss is a proud member of the leftist-islamist convergence.

Your buddy could have helped you keep your job by adding the acronym “NSFW,” which means “Not Safe for Work.” This has been a common term on the web for some time now, but the social psdeudo-news site, Fark.com, in e-mail, and on social networks. Now Fark, where the general feeling is that the phrase originated there. Pehaps it, did.

hatp-tip: Mashable

SitRep Archive

 

“What do you mean, I can’t read Foehammer’s Anvil at Panera Bread?”

To our amazement and disgust, some of us have recently discovered that access to legitimate news and political sites – especially antijihadist sites, including Foehammer’s Anvil and Jihad Watch – is being blocked at many WiFi sites, workplaces, schools, government buildings, and other locations. This blacklisting is done automatically by content-control software, also known as “censorware.”

As Jenn Sierra recently wrote, the WiFi system at Panera Bread is using the SonicWALL content filtering system to block access to Foehammer’s Anvil. (See Are Anti-Jihadist Sites Blocked where you Work, Study, or Use WiFi? for more details.)

No explanation was given, but there IS something you can do about it:

Tell Panera Bread and SonicWALL to Stop Censoring Foehammer’s Anvil!

Also see:

• Related Articles on 1389 Blog
• Related Articles on Fort Hard Knox Blog
• Related Articles on Foehammer’s Anvil
• Related Articles on Little Green Footballs
• Jihad Watch: Banned in Chicago!
• Jihad Watch banning update

Related Articles on FHK

Are Anti-Jihadist Sites Blocked where you Work, Study, or use Wi-Fi?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Foehammer’s Anvil being blocked from Digg, and about corporate diversity policies being used to censor anti-jihadist sites like Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch.

Since then, Foehammer and 1389 have been doing some research, and believe the Anvil (and probably other anti-jihadist sites) have been placed onto “blacklists” at various American and international companies.

Foehammer is requesting readers to advise if they have experienced this same problem, and to let him know, in this comment section. (For more information about so-called “hate-speech” filtering, see here.)

I was using free Wi-Fi service at Panera Bread last weekend, and found that Foehammer’s Anvil was blocked from there – no reason was given. Other bloggers have written about censorship at Panera Bread here, and here…particularly the use of SonicWall Filtering.

Get your own Resist! button here.

Also posted on the 1389blog

Related Articles on FHK

Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent?

This is a follow-up to my earlier post, Corporate Diversity…Subverting the Constitution? In response to that post, a reader correctly pointed out that corporations do, indeed, have a right to limit internet use on company servers during company time to company business. Indeed, employers have many legitimate reasons for doing so, including labor efficiency and network security. However, while the reader was correct in this assertion, I believe he was incorrect in explaining that the companies have this right because of “individual property rights.”

Yes, I do believe in individual property rights. However, the American corporation is not an individual. It is a government-sanctioned entity (corporations have federal and state tax benefits and legal protections not afforded to individuals).

Here is a sobering quote by Abe Lincoln:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. –U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan,
1950, NY)

An important aspect of Socialism is the reprogramming of society – a transition from capitalism and to communism. In the words of Vladimir Lenin:

The expression ‘the state withers away’ is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occasions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression.

Here are some ways (other than the afore-mentioned selective enforcement of internet usage) that this reprogramming is happening in corporate life, especially for those companies that are striving for commendations for being “diverse.”

• Use of employee restrooms: One of the main focuses in the last few years for Diversity Inc. is benefits for GLBT people. The use of company restrooms is an issue in many of these more diverse companies. A company which is trying to get to the top of the Diversity, Inc. list not only has to provide insurance for partners of homosexual and lesbian couples but may also take GLBT accommodation a step further by making special allowances for transvestite and transgender people. This either involves letting employees use whichever bathroom they please, or simply having unisex restroom. Employees who don’t like this and complain are disciplined under “sexual harassment” policies, mandated by the new diversity ethics. (Here’s an example of a discussion on that issue.)

• This new code of diversity ethics is affirmative action on steroids. The major corporate conglomerates are bragging about employee hiring and retention rates of minority rates of 30, 40, 50%…this is not proportional to the population in very many areas of our country, and is far above the requirements of affirmative action.

• Pressure on Families: Employees, particularly management employees of these organizations are required to participate in “diversity training.” (See #33 on DiversityInc’s list: http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1838.cfm Employees who have attended these training sessions sometimes refer to them as “reprogramming” and “brainwashing.” They are required to not only “live and let live,” in terms of alternate lifestyles, but actually promote homosexuality and other GLBT-agenda issues. Some also have family events, in which employees who have children are strongly encouraged to teach these new “values” to their children by having the children participate in coloring contests showing what diversity means to them.

• Pressure on Vendors: The major corporations that want diversity bragging rights are not only scrutinized for their internal practices…they are evaluated based on the diversity practices of their vendors, as well. So, if you work for a smaller business that is not fully assimilated in to this “Borg” of political correctness, you may find it harder and harder to get contracts with these larger, more “diverse,” companies.

Greater public awareness is needed, so that the employees, customers, vendors and communities affected by these corporations understand the political-correctness agenda that is now being forced upon them through this corporate diversity program.

Once individuals become aware of this specific attempt to subvert free speech, they will come up with a number of solutions that will be effective in fighting it, such as voting with their feet, exposing the agenda for what it is (socialism), and standing up to the corporate bullies just like individuals, communities, and small-business people have been successfully doing for years.

This is very important. If we, as individuals and private citizens who value individual liberty, choose to ignore the fact that the most powerful economic entities in our society are being hijacked by socialists/progressives who are using corporate economic power and social influence to promote their agendas, then we are foolishly giving up the freedoms that others have fought so hard to win and preserve for us.

Also see:

• AWOL- Civilization: Politically Correct Corporations?
• A Pig Named ENDA

Corporate Diversity…Subverting the Constitution?

Recently, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reported that he has received e-mails from readers informing him that his site has been blocked at corporations like Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, Site Coach, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, and DFAS, as well as at least one federal and one city government agency.

In response to this news, reader, Ipwnalla, of RightWingNews brought up a valid point

With all due respect, shouldn’t this decision be up to executives of companies? If it is indeed a private organization, should they not have the say in what is blocked or not? On a side note…should people, using company resources, be viewing ANY of this stuff anyway while at work? Most of it probably violates a company policy.

I would be inclined to agree, if this policy is applied an enforced across the board to surfing the internet, regardless of the political persuasion of the sites being viewed. And who knows? It is possible that these companies have blocked the word “jihad” from their sites in an effort to make it difficult for anyone within their organization to access jihadi websites, right? We hope so.

Unfortunately, however, there is another, very likely, possibility. There is a trend right now in Corporate America, to promote “Diversity,” in the “Politically-Correct,” sense of this term. DiversityInc is a company that specializes in promoting workplace diversity, and on it’s “About” page, it has this to say:

DiversityInc’s mission is to bring education and clarity to the business benefits of diversity…By providing foundational information about the business benefits of diversity, DiversityInc has been a catalyst in moving diversity from a compliance mandate to a serious business discipline.

Our target audience is line executives at larger corporations and organizations and is appropriate for line management, owners/partners of women-and minority-owned businesses, and educators and students. Our audience is diverse in race, gender, orientation, ability and age and includes senior executives, community leaders, educators and professionals who are highly educated, key influencers and decision makers all passionate about diversity in their professional and personal lives.

DiversityInc has an annual “Top 50 Companies for Diversity List,” which listed corporations can use as a bragging point to improve their image, particularly when dealing with minority-owned businesses, government agencies, and other corporations which buy in to the modern “Diversity” philosophy. The first business on this list for 2007 is Bank of America. Bank of America, coincidentally (?) is one of the corporations Robert Spencer lists as blocking the site, Jihad Watch.

The reasons Bank of America was chosen for this honor include their high employment rate (44%) and retention rate (88-90%) of minorities, the fact that Monica Lozano is on the Board of Directors (Ms. Lozano also serves on the Board of Directors for LaRaza), and its inclusion of a “global diversity and inclusion executive,” on staff.

Another company Spencer listed was JP Morgan Chase, which is number 9 on the list. It’s “Diversity Strengths,” include it’s phenomenal 53% minority new-hire rate and it’s efforts to work with GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans) suppliers.

DiversityInc explains its methodology:

Companies in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity demonstrate consistent strength in the four areas the survey measures: CEO Commitment (the most heavily weighted), Human Capital, Corporate Communications and Supplier Diversity; This year, questions were added on Native Americans, CEO commitment, mentoring, work/life, management retention, people with disabilities and GLBT people. Our commitment to GLBT rights is so strong that we determined that a negative answer to one question-giving domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples-disqualified a company from appearing on the Top 50 or any of the specialty lists.

Back to Robert Spencer’s plight, I tried searching the site for specifics about “Islam,” and “Muslims,” and most of the articles I found were available only with a free subscription. The one article I found under “jihad,” was this article, which was compiled by the DiversityInc staff, critical of the Pope for comments perceived to be anti-Islamic.

So, it seems that the promoters of political-correctness have finally found a way to circumvent American Constitutional law. By encouraging the largest corporations in America to enforce to a “code of diversity ethics,” not only within their organizations but among their vendors, they hope to bully the remaining population into also adhering to this code for the sake of competing in corporate America.

Will we let them get away with it?

Follow-up: Corporate Diversity…Socialism’s Change Agent?

Also see:

• AWOL- Civilization: Politically Correct Corporations?
• A Pig Named ENDA