Kentucky Becomes A Right To Work State

On Saturday, Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed legislation making Kentucky the 27th state in the Union where workers have the freedom to seek employment without paying a kickback to labor unions.

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) on Saturday signed controversial legislation that will allow workers to refuse to pay union dues, a victory for Republicans who control the state government for the first time in nearly a century.

The so-called right-to-work law passed the Kentucky state Senate on Saturday. The House, which Republicans captured in November’s elections, passed the law last week.

The law also banned state employees from striking and eliminated Kentucky’s prevailing wage act, sort of a Davis-Bacon, Jr., that artificially drove up the cost of large public works projects. As an aside, the prevailing wage laws have their origins in the 1930s as Southern blacks migrated North. Prevailing wage acts destroyed the competitiveness of companies employing black construction workers and building tradesmen by artificially increasing wages for jobs.

Just last year, West Virginia also became right-to-work. This marks a huge cultural shift in Appalachia where unionization has broad support because of the heritage of John L. Lewis and the United Mine Works. When unions have become so oppressive and damaging that the offspring of coal miners who were freed from peonage by the UMW reject unions, you know things have gotten pretty bad.

The post Kentucky Becomes A Right To Work State appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

British University Students Demand Removal of Plato From Curriculum Because He Was White

If you thought social justice warrior idiocy on college and university campuses is limited to American morons, you’d be mistaken. Such idiocy is prevalent around the world as we learn what is happening with London university students:

They are said to be the founding fathers of Western philosophy, whose ideas underpin civilised society.

But students at a prestigious London university are demanding that figures such as Plato, Descartes and Immanuel Kant should be largely dropped from the curriculum because they are white.

The student union at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) insists that when studying philosophy “the majority of philosophers on our courses” should be from Africa and Asia.

Emphasis mine. Yes. They’re white. So they don’t want them included in studies related to philosophy.

It comes after education leaders warned that universities will be forced to pander to the demands of “snowflake” students, however unreasonable they might be.

Under proposed reforms to higher education, the Government wants to place student satisfaction at the heart of a new ranking system, but critics fear it could undermine academic integrity.

Of course, it does. Because whiny snots are more concerned with their feelings than learning something. The idea of studying philosophy without including Plato is like discussing vaccines and not including Jonas Salk.

Thankfully, there are people with some common sense:

Sir Anthony Seldon, vice-chancellor of Buckingham University, added: “There is a real danger political correctness is getting out of control. We need to understand the world as it was and not to rewrite history as some might like it to have been.”

Getting out of control? It is out of control. Here is a more important question: What kind of person who studies philosophy doesn’t want to learn about Plato?

Would you hire somebody to teach philosophy which has, “Didn’t study Plato because he’s white,”  somewhere on their resume?

The post British University Students Demand Removal of Plato From Curriculum Because He Was White appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Harry Reid Used $7,000 of Campaign Funds to Former Staffer for Capitol Portrait

Never let it be said that a Democrat has ever found something he wouldn’t waste other people’s money on. Actually, that likely applies to politicians in general.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that former Senator and Minority Leader, Harry Reid (D – NV) paid a former staffer $7,000 in campaign funds from the campaign committee, Friends for Harry Reid, to paint a portrait of the senator that will hang in the U.S. Capitol.

The unveiling ceremony sounds like the stuff of nightmares, with people like Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, not to mention the portrait figure himself, Harry Reid, in attendance.

According to the Free Beacon, the use of campaign funds for such a purchase is not unprecedented,

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., NY.) paid $64,500 for a self-portrait and custom frame using money from his leadership PAC in 2007.

Rangel’s lawyer at the time, Phu Huynh, wrote a letter to the Federal Election Commission asking permission to use either campaign funds or leadership PAC funds to pay for the portrait.

The FEC said in an October 2007 advisory opinion that Rangel could use campaign funds to pay because “the U.S. House of Representatives is an organization described in section 170(c) of Title 26 and because payment for the portrait would not financially benefit Representative Rangel or any member of his family.”

The FEC also said that leadership PAC funds could be used because “the payment would not be an in-kind contribution for the purpose of influencing any election.”

Charlie Rangel paid $64,500! Who knew Harry Reid was such a great haggler. Or perhaps he was just lucky that he could hire a former staffer at a discount.

Whatever the case, the only real disappointment about the portrait is that it’s not reflective of the months after his battle with “exercise equipment” and resulting eye patch. That would’ve been money well spent in that case.

The post Harry Reid Used $7,000 of Campaign Funds to Former Staffer for Capitol Portrait appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

New Poll Shows President Obama is Not Leaving Office as a Favorite of Our Military

President Barack Obama is/was not a friend of the military.

At least, they didn’t think so. Recent polling shows that most of America’s troops had a less than favorable opinion of the way Obama conducted himself as Commander-in-Chief.

A Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families Poll showed 51.5 percent of military members polled had either a very unfavorable or somewhat unfavorable view of Obama’s time in office. About 36 percent saw his time in office was either very favorable or somewhat favorable.

To contrast, back in 2014, 65 percent of post-9/11 veterans had a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, labeling him a good Commander-in-Chief, as opposed to about 42 percent at that time for President Obama.

You could possibly write that off to a meme come to life – “Miss me, yet?” – but the facts are more grounded. President Bush was more devoted to our troops.

Breaking the current polling down to issues, Obama’s biggest hit came from his decision to cut the size of our military. Of those polled, 71 percent said more personnel were needed in our military, not less.

However, 69 percent agreed with his strategy of strengthening U.S. security through building foreign alliances, 60 percent agreed with his use of drones to minimize danger to troops, and 64 percent agreed with his strategy of using special forces for targeted strikes.

Enlisted personnel were the most likely to have an unfavorable view of Obama, as 52.1 percent said they didn’t approve of his time in office. The officer class was more evenly split, as 48 percent of officers had an unfavorable view of Obama and about 44 percent have a favorable view.

How does it break down, according to branch?

Marines tended to view Obama least favorably – by 60 percent.

The Navy liked him, but not very much. He managed to scratch out a 43.4 percent approval rating.

According to the poll, 59 percent of troops believed drawing down troop levels in Iraq made the country less safe, 54 percent believed decreasing military operations in Afghanistan made the U.S. less safe, and 42 percent believe less emphasis on large-scale overseas missions make the country less safe.

Relying more on special forces and emphasizing training missions make the country more safe, according to the poll.

The sample size of the poll was 1,664 members of the military, with a margin of error being plus or minus 2 percent. It was conducted from December 16 to December 21.

The post New Poll Shows President Obama is Not Leaving Office as a Favorite of Our Military appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State