The thought of this just keeps me up at night, but hey……..that’s just my opinion.
The thought of this just keeps me up at night, but hey……..that’s just my opinion.
In a bold move, United Airlines declared that “diversity is at the forefront” of its pilot program and pledged that 50% of their new 5,000 pilots will either be women or people of color. You have to admire the insanity of that plan because it is so incredibly stupid that you know a liberal was involved in its conception. I can just imagine the meeting at United that birthed the concept of making flight deck diversity Job #1. Scotty woke up one morning and wanted to make some changes.
Scotty: “Does anyone have an idea of how to destroy United? I mean really tarnish our image? Come on guys and gals, lets think out of the box.” Voice #1 from the back of the room: “Why don’t we drag a 69-year-old man off of a flight after we break his nose, knock out some of his teeth and give him a concussion?” Scotty, throws Voice #1 a small pack of peanuts. “I like the cut of your jib but that was done in 2017. Remember? We overbooked the flight and needed to accommodate 4 United crew members flying to another city? We had to drag that dude down the aisle and his belly was handing out!” Voice #2 from the back of the room: “Hey lets kill some of their beloved pets!” Scotty: “Done and doner. Remember when we forced that passenger to stuff her puppy Kokito in an overhead bin and the dog suffocated? That dog had a stupid name anyway!” Scotty: “Come on folks, put your backs into it. Give me something. Voice #3 from the back of the room: “Hey, can we force a female to hold her two-year-old on her lap for 4 hours because we sold the kids seat to a standby passenger?” Scotty: “You’re killing me here folks. We already did that. Come up with something new that will really get peoples attention.” Voice #4 from the back of the room: “We could require that 50% of the next 5,000 pilots we hire must be either women or people of color.” Scotty was now excited. He was really tired of putting safety first and now, finally, diversity could play a major role in determining what pilots were qualified to set foot on the flight deck. Woke Scotty finally realized that the pilots appearance was much more important than his/her flight skills. Hallelujah!
As a passenger I think that United made a great decision. Just think of the possibilities. Denzel Washington could be the next United pilot welcoming you on the plane. It doesn’t matter if he lacks the skill set to fly a plane. What matters is the fact that he played an amazing but flawed airline pilot in a movie and really looked cool in his uniform. Okay, in the movie Denzel had a drinking problem, but so what. You know it would be trey cool to meet the dude and maybe share a pitcher of beer with him before the flight. Mindy Kaling would also be a great pilot. She is female, funny and United gets to check off two boxes on their wish list: woman and person of color. What a coup.
I do have one more suggestion for Scotty who salivates about achieving diversity on the flight deck. Why stop with females and minorities? If you want the flight deck to accurately reflect the diverse group of passengers sitting in coach, why not train old people to fly your jumbo jets? I’m 73, and I really want to be a high paid United pilot because I can use the cash to buy a new grill and I’m tired of sitting in my living room watching reruns of Firefly and eating Cheetos. I’ve got some wicked skills. I can drive a car, parallel park and most of the time remember my wife’s name. I don’t want to brag, but I really know my way around a plane already. For example, when you enter the door on the plane or hatch as we like to call it in the biz, immediately turn left to enter the cockpit which is now called the flight deck thanks to the morons behind political correctness. Passengers will love to see an old geezer at the controls. I can hear the young whipper snappers comment as they enter the plane, “Look Mommy, grandpa’s flying the plane. Did they let him out of the home to fly us?”
I could suggest another stunning public relations move. United could initiate a PAY ONLY IF YOU LAND (POIYL) incentive. Passengers will obviously become anxious when they discover that reverse discrimination and skin color were the major factors in selecting pilots. The white guy may have been the most talented pilot and flew combat missions in Afghanistan, but when the color chart is placed next to his face, Major Richard Bong’s great, great-grandson should be rejected. The new incentive, POIYL could be used to mollify those fears. Flying became boring when United transported passengers safely from point A to point B. Now, thanks to diversity on the flight deck, passengers can experience the terror of flying over Berlin during WWII. Will we survive? Will we crash? Who knows? Only the Magic Eight Ball knows for sure. Free gifts can be used to calm passengers nerves. Some airlines magnanimously insist that “… seat cushions can be used for flotation; and in the event of an emergency water landing, please paddle to shore and take them with our compliments.” What a thoughtful gesture!
Passengers can breathe easy during the landings. I’m sure that the “new” pilots will be required to successfully land at least 8 out of 10 attempts in the simulator. 80% is the new gold standard for aviation excellence. Actually, one scene from the movie Airplane! Perfectly captures the conversation before the two catastrophic failures:
“Elaine Dickinson: Ted, the altitude! We’re falling. Ted! We’re falling!
The mountains, Ted! The mountains!”
“Ted Striker: What mountains? We’re over Iowa!”
“Elaine Dickinson: The…the cornfields, Ted! The cornfields!”
On the bright side, passengers won’t have to pay for the trip. Bonus!
This is not real. It’s just satire for entertainment. I hope you like it. 😁
The sergeant major of the Army commended the second lieutenant whose December traffic stop prompted a lawsuit and the firing of a Virginia police officer for remaining cool as a pair of cops pointed their weapons at him.
“Like many of you,” Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston tweeted Monday, “I was concerned by the video of [2nd Lt. Caron] Nazario’s traffic stop in December. He represented himself and our Army well through his calm, professional response to the situation — I’m very proud of him.”
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com …
H/T Free Republic
In this image made from Windsor (Va.) Police video, a police officer uses a spray agent on Caron Nazario on Dec. 5, 2020, in Windsor, Va. Nazario, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, is suing two Virginia police officers over a traffic stop during which he says the officers drew their guns and pointed them at him as he was dressed in uniform. (Windsor Police via AP)
For the second time in two weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been taken to court.
Georgia GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde is planning a legal challenge to the “unconstitutional” requirement that members pass through metal detectors in order to gain access to the House floor.
Pelosi’s House panel rejected his appeal after he was fined $15,000.
Image via patch.com
While I am not an attorney and cannot give formal legal advice, a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, may give Second Amendment–supporters an overwhelming legal weapon with which to destroy every single firearm ownership (although not necessarily concealed carry) licensing scheme in the country. This includes those that require licenses to own or purchase firearms.
The executive summary of the ruling in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943) was that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise. “A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is ‘sold’, rather than ‘donated’ does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise.”
What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, “A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment.
It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax. This could well be the reason why states with voter ID laws must provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver’s licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. “The law’s universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” States can charge fees for driver’s licenses because driving is a privilege, but voting is a right.
Gun Licensing Fees Are Racist
The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. “African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament[.] … NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans,
due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community.” White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention, and I recall that the complete quote, while it did not use the N-word, did refer to the “son of Ham.”
It is a matter of common knowledge that in this state and in several others, the more especially in the Southern states where the negro population is so large, that this cowardly practice of “toting” guns has always been one of the most fruitful sources of crime[.] … There would be a very decided falling off of killings “in the heat of passion” if a prohibitive tax were laid on the privilege of handling and disposing of revolvers and other small arms, or else that every person purchasing such deadly weapons should be required to register[.] … Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.
The same went for a Virginia poll tax on the right to vote.
Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose; that, exactly, is what this Convention was elected for — to discriminate to the very extremity of permissible action under the limitations of the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.
The same applies to laws that require gun-owners to buy expensive liability insurance that might be affordable by people of the middle and upper classes, but not by low-paid workers among whom are many black Americans. While these laws cannot discriminate openly against black people (just as Jim Crow gun taxes and prohibitions on inexpensive firearms known as N-word Saturday Night Specials did not specify any race), they can and do exploit the economic disparity that unfortunately prevails between Caucasians and black people to disarm the latter. Perhaps certain elements of the Democratic Party have hidden the same sheets and hoods they wore openly 70 or 80 years ago instead of getting rid of them entirely.
An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement
More to the point, however, is the brief’s citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase “[a]cross constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue.”
Even Illinois’s own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. “The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons’ rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense.” The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois’s own laws: “a person cannot be compelled ‘to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution. Thus, Brown, who was merely exercising her right to keep a long gun in her own home for self-defense, cannot be made to purchase a card or obtain a license to exercise this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.” I do not know the outcome of this case but the bottom line is that an Illinois court had problems with the FOID law.
This article has hopefully provided Second Amendment–supporters with a valuable legal tool with which to attack all state laws that require people to pay for licenses to own or purchase firearms, and potential jurors (i.e., every citizen in the country) with information to use if called to serve in cases that involve these laws.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. The author is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to “cancel culture” for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
Image via Pexels.