With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
This is a backup copy of the original blog
30 October, 2020
There's Something Happening Out There The Elite Refuses To See
Okay, I know what the media polls say…they say exactly what the media wants them to say. I also know that the non-media polls, and literally every other indicator, say that Donald Trump is going to win in six days. And one reason is the excitement for the president that is bubbling up out there. I‘ve never felt excitement like this about a presidential election, and I was literally at Ronald Reagan’s final campaign appearance ever in 1984 (November 5th, Mission Valley, San Diego).
Okay, if you want to despise millennials even more than you ever thought possible, watch this nightmare.
Also, doesn’t it seem kind of weird that the biggest corruption scandal in American history is entirely AWOL from the mainstream media? No? Exactly. I’m not surprised either and that may be the scariest thing about this unprecedented flex toward soft totalitarianism.
The Excitement Is All For Trump
I’m sitting with Irina at a diner in the heart of Ted Lieu’s district, munching on a patty melt after an evening out with the genius behind this soon-to-be-a-classic classic anti-Badfinger ad, and these cars and trucks waving Trump flags start going by. They’re honking, I’m pumping my fist, and some lumpy tuber who looks like a CNN anchor starts whining and it’s awesome. Then a dude in a Porsche Cayenne rolls up and steps out with a MAGA hat. And just down the road, a couple thousand people gathered for a rally – with no Trump or Pence or anyone in sight.
Again: Ted Lieu’s district.
You can tell me about polls and the electorate make-up and all that stuff, but even in deep blue Cali people are coming out for Trump. And this does not undermine the “shy Trump” theory. A lot of these out Trump folks work for themselves, or are not married to shrews, or are otherwise invulnerable to anti-Trump retaliation by the wokestapo. The fact is, people are pumped.
But you look at Hoover’s baby’s baby-daddy’s daddy and he couldn’t attract a crowd if they were pouring free Mad Dog on skid row. Kamala is doing her awkward booty-shaking on stage before spare audiences and it’s cringe central (while Trump’s perky two-step to YMCA is hilarious and joyful). They airdropped Obama into Philly to pester a few passersby with a bullhorn and it’s pathetic.
My anecdotal experience – and right now, I trust that over all the MSNBCNN polls in the world showing Biden +37 – is that 1) a lot of folks who did not go for Trump in 2016 are coming around, and 2) almost no people are migrating from Trump to Biden. Now, the non-Trumpers in 2016 might have disliked him, or gone for McMuffin, or didn’t vote at all. Some are like a rapper known, for some reason I don’t want to know, as “Lil Pump,” who tweeted Trump hate in 2016 and in 2020 tweeted a foul vid expressing his support for Trump’s tax policies in impolite terms. I’ll not bother linking. But in short, there are lots of reasons more people are moving to Trump. As for those moving to Biden? That brings us to our next topic…
What The Hell Is Wrong With These People?
What is the thought process that leads you to not only hassle your dying dad about who he is voting for but to post a video about it with this look on your mug like you are expecting a pat on the head?
This lunatic’s father is terminal, and he was a Trump voter. So, nightmare daughter decides to pester him to the point where he finally tells he her voted for Biden. I hope he lied to shut her up. But the really horrifying thing is that this hellspawn thinks this was OK.
Basically, like many Democrats, she considers emotional blackmail and intimidation to be just fine. Think about that. She can’t win an argument. She can’t convince him. No, she basically has to tell him to do as she commands or he can die alone.
That’s not sick. Sick people can’t help it. That’s evil. And evil is a choice.
Like I said, I hope he lied.
Let’s Just Not Do The News
Here’s the strangest part of the unanimous mainstream media blackout of the outrages of the Biden Crime Clan. It’s that we aren’t more shocked. Imagine ten years ago if someone told you that all the mainstream media outlets would give a full and complete pass to a presidential candidate in October whose brat was there in black and white hustling influence and dollars from foreigners (let’s not even get into what’s there in full and atrocious color). We all knew the media was garbage back then, but if someone told us that the media outlets would conspire and consciously decide to jointly to refuse to report on it (except in the vaguest “GOP Pounces!” terms) we would think he was nuts. Why, they would be all over it.
Fast forward to 2020 and that’s exactly what has happened (aided by giant corporations who own the social media platforms) and we’re like “Oh, yeah, figures.” And that Twitter has shut down a newspaper’s account (The NY Post) because it is reporting things Twitter does not think you should hear, and that the entire mainstream media support this corporate censorship of the press, likewise gets a shrug if not applause.
This should shock the hell out of us. But no one is surprised.
Yeah, I’m sure the short-term advantage in this election gained at the cost of any remaining shreds of credibility will be totally worth it for the media in the long run. When that mean old Trump is gone, things will totally go back to normal.
No.
Look, I hate the mainstream media and would detonate it like Eniwetok Atoll given the chance, but nothing I could ever do could even approach inflicting the damage upon it that the mainstream media has inflicted upon itself.
The clock is ticking. Support great conservative candidates who can win back purple seats, like Sean Parnell in Pennsylvania and Michelle Steele in California. They can do it if you help!
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/10/28/theres-something-happening-out-there-the-elite-refuses-to-see-n2578811
Which Way Will John Roberts Move?
John Roberts has a decision to make: right or left?
Roberts, our nation’s chief justice, now presides over a 6-3 sort-of-conservative Supreme Court majority
The Court’s liberal wing now has just three justices: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. By themselves, these three are powerless to decide cases. But for a time, they, along with their fellow liberal justice, the now-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were able to cobble together a majority in numerous high-profile cases by virtue of Chief Justice Roberts’s willingness to move leftward and join them.
Constitutional conservatives were disappointed to say the least, because they’d seen this movie before. Since 1970, Republican presidents have appointed a whopping 15 of our nation’s 19 Supreme Court justices. The only ones appointed by Democrats during the past half-century? Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That’s it. Heck, if one counts Nixon appointee and Roe v. Wade majority opinion author Harry Blackmun, Ford appointee and Second Amendment opponent John Paul Stevens, Reagan centrists Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, George H.W. Bush disaster David Souter, and now Roberts, Republican presidents have appointed more liberal justices than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama combined.
And for those Democrats inclined to whine about this being Donald Trump’s third nominee in a single term, consider this: William Howard Taft seated five justices in a single term, and Warren Harding seated four in just two years before dying in office.
Regarding the leftward swing of Roberts in recent years, even Vice President Mike Pence, the most gentlemanly of Christian gentlemen, has seen enough. “We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence said in August, “but Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives, whether it be the ObamaCare decision or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel.”
Why Roberts did this, it’s hard to say, but maybe he’ll write a book one day. Conventional wisdom is that he feels an obligation as chief justice — a duty, even — to protect the reputation of the Court by ensuring that his side doesn’t run roughshod over the other. As of yet, though, we’re unable to lay our finger upon that section and clause within Article III that addresses roughshod running.
Another theory is that Roberts simply hates Donald Trump, and that he can’t pass up an opportunity to poke a stick in the president’s eye. This would explain the idiotic opinion he authored to preserve Barack Obama’s unconstitutional DACA diktat, as well as his 2019 decision against adding a simple and helpful citizenship question to the Census. But what about siding against a Nevada church and in favor of COVID restrictions? What about his overreach on workplace discrimination laws, and his striking down of a Louisiana law that put modest restrictions on abortion providers?
Still another theory is that the chief justice has an acute case of Swamp Fever and he’s gotten too used to being a darling of the Beltway cocktail scene. Perhaps it’s a bit of all of these.
In any case, the days of Roberts meaningfully siding with the Court’s liberal wing are over. He’s no longer the swing vote, no longer the new Anthony Kennedy. And that’s a good thing for those who love and respect our Constitution.
And so, Mr. Chief Justice: right or left? Let’s hope he isn’t listening to lefty columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post. “Whether the court regains its independence or cements itself as a third partisan branch of government is now largely up to Chief Justice John Roberts,” opined Milbank. “If he does not act, and fast, to mitigate the court’s politicization, Democrats will be fully justified in expanding the court’s membership to restore balance — and indeed will face a public outcry if they don’t.”
This is court-packing blackmail, of course, but Milbank doesn’t care. In fact, he goes on to suggest how Roberts can rescue his Court from its five duly seated conservative justices. First, he says, Barrett must recuse herself from any cases arising out of the election. Then the Court must uphold ObamaCare and put an end to all those pesky constitutional challenges to it. It must side with same-sex couples and against Catholic Social Services in an upcoming adoption case. Milbank had some additional demands, but we’ll stop there.
Our Harold Hutchison is more of a realist than Milbank, and he suggests that the new 6-3 Court may actually pull Roberts back to the right. How? By appealing to his desire to either write majority opinions or assign them, which he can do only when he’s part of the majority. So there’s hope.
Speaking of hope, in 1990, long before he ascended to the High Court, John Roberts wrote a brief on Roe v. Wade that stated, “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”
Would it be too much trouble to ask for that John Roberts to reappear?
https://patriotpost.us/articles/74463-which-way-will-john-roberts-move-2020-10-28
The Democrat Party of Division and Hate
The Democrats' primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division, creating fear, anger, and hate.
If Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their socialist Democrat cadre take control of our national government, at least we’ll have First Amendment protection from our Supreme Court to continue our advocacy of Liberty and Freedom.
That is, protection to continue until the Biden-Harris leftists pack the Court on their way to packing the Senate with statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, while simultaneously abolishing the Electoral College. As a reminder, achieving the latter would give the people of Los Angeles County alone (population 10,040,000) more voice than those of 41 states with fewer people.
Should the oppression of our constitutional rights be accelerated, we will defend Liberty more vigorously than ever, side by side with tens of millions of grassroots Patriots, by whatever constitutional means necessary.
If my concerns about the Biden-Harris threat sound too strident, let me say that in context, my perspective is based on the leftist progression of three Democrat presidential administrations since I was first able to vote: those of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. In each of those administrations, the surge toward statist socialism was arithmetic, measurable by significant magnitudes. After Carter, Ronald Reagan turned back the tide, but neither Bush (41) nor Bush (43) did anything more than hold the line.
However, a Harris-Pelosi administration, once Biden has resigned, will take an exponential leap to the left, supported by a growing populist movement.
Looking back over almost 25 years of my political and policy analysis for The Patriot Post, advocacy firmly rooted in the previous 220 years forming our national legacy of American Liberty, one common denominator about the Democrat Party and its protagonists emerges: Invariably, over the years, their primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division along identity lines, creating fear and anger, the outcome of which irrevocably devolves into hatred.
They then collude with their powerful Leftmedia and social media propagandists and influencers who ensure that division metastasizes.
Imagine, if you will, what the American political landscape would look like if the mass and social media platforms were actually politically neutral. That landscape would take a seismic shift to the right.
Ironically, Joe Biden visited Gettysburg this past week, where he channeled Abraham Lincoln’s famous address, declaring, “A house divided could not stand. That is a great and timeless truth. Today, once again, we are a house divided.” Biden was thus feigning a call for unity, but note the irony: If not for the Democrats’ perennial success at dividing the nation into political-identity constituencies, they would be powerless.
The Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of division and hate — and demonstrably so.
It is not Donald Trump supporters and young conservatives who form the violent BLM and so-called “antifa” fascist movements. These are not the “deplorables” for whom Hillary Clinton harbors so much arrogant disdain — or, likewise, those Trump supporters whom Biden calls “chumps.”
The leftists who were burning, looting, and murdering in urban centers all summer long are haters who have acted with the tacit approval of Biden and Harris and the rest of the Democrat Party.
To be clear: I’m not saying that all Democrats “feel” that hatred, though many are besieged by fear and anger — but hatred is the driving motivation for the protagonists, both those elected at all levels of government and the social activists who are funded by the Archenemies of Liberty — George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg.
Most of the suburban “white privilege” Democrats would like to believe they simply belong to a woke party, a progressive party of inclusion and peace. But it doesn’t take much to pull back the elitist facade far enough to expose the underlying fear and anger.
This is particularly true of Democrat women, who Demo strategists consider to be emotionally incontinent dupes. The Democrat Party is completely dependent on female voters — majorities of whom have elected every Democrat president since 1960 and have been a major force in midterm elections. In 2016, Trump won 52% of votes cast by men but only 41% of those cast by women, and that 11% gender gap was the largest in four decades of presidential elections. While that gap is understandable given Trump’s “style,” it cost him two years of a legislative agenda and an impeachment charade.
One thing common to almost all urban and suburban Democrat women: Few have ever been obliged to “support and defend” our Constitution at risk of blood and life, which in part explains the gender gap.
To keep women voters in line, Democrats create division primarily along two lines: gender and race. The latter line of division is also critical to co-opting the second most important Demo constituency, black voters.
The most prevalent division in this presidential campaign cycle has been, of course, race.
The Democrats have institutionalized “systemic disunity” in the name of “systemic racism,” giving rise to leftist mob rule while ignoring the pandemic of black-on-black murders nationwide.
Arguably, Democrats are the racist party, which is why racists are backing Biden. Unfortunately, urban and suburban Demo voters won’t consider the evidence supporting claims that are diametrically opposed to their perception of their Democrat Party.
Demonstrably, that party is loaded with constituents who are “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” That is also the definition of a bigot.
I asked our Patriot editors to list a few of the ways they see Democrat Party hate manifest itself. They responded: Demos demonstrate hate in their opposition to freedom of faith, traditional families, free and fair elections, freedom of speech, diversity of viewpoints on campus, school choice, and a rejection of ideas that do not comport with their own views. They demonstrate hatred with their embrace of censorship, so-called “critical race theory,” cancel culture, Big Tech blackouts, and genocidal abortion on demand. Only haters would divide the nation on so many lines. Only haters would politicize a pandemic only to then foment race riots as the nation suffered. And the Democrats’ hatred of our Constitution and Rule of Law was on full display with their treatment of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.
As for their unmitigated and unhinged hatred of Trump, this often manifests as hatred of and contempt for Trump supporters.
Trump, of course, did not create the hate, he exposed it — though admittedly he has, unfortunately, widened the gap. But the fact is, the Trump administration’s long list of accomplishments cross political lines — which is the Democrats’ greatest fear. For that reason, they have obstructed his path to reelection with their bulk-mail-ballot fraud.
As for where we find ourselves today, fellow Patriots, recall the words of George Washington in 1777, when the obstacles to American Liberty seemed insurmountable: “We should never despair, our situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new exertions and proportion our efforts to the exigency of the times.”
Fear not.
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/74490-the-democrat-party-of-division-and-hate-2020-10-28
Coronavirus: Sad side-effect is our meek acceptance of Premiers’ power grab
And so the recovery begins. Lily-white Victorians are emerging from their homes, their forearms shielding themselves from the sun as they take tentative steps. Young children are discovering there is another world outside their five kilometres radius.
Cafés and restaurants on Carlton’s Lygon Street are chockers, families amble through the botanical gardens, crowds flock to St Kilda beach, and in the city’s south-east region marauding gangs will once again commit home invasions and carjackings.
Normality will not be restored overnight, however. Paradoxically, the absence of circling police drones will keep many awake who are accustomed to hearing their sound. Likewise, it will be a disconcerting experience for motorists to drive without stopping at checkpoints to produce papers. People will chat with their neighbours over the fence as opposed to reporting them to the authorities. East Germany made the transition, and surely Victoria can. Assuming of course there is no third wave.
Artists, musicians, and poets are probably writing peans for the Andrews government. You can expect soon to hear actor Magda Szubanski will be narrating the upcoming production “Dan, the Musical” in honour of the Victorian Premier.
The official Victorian version of the state’s recovery will make for amusing reading.
Yesterday Health Minister Martin Foley claimed the state’s contact tracing system had withstood the “stress test of the real world”; while Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton maintained it was the best in the country. Spare us. This is the same department which only two months ago was using spreadsheets, pen, paper, and fax machines for contact tracing.
It would be premature to talk of Australia having beaten COVID-19, but not so to talk about the virus’ legacy. Sadly, it is a depressing one overall. To begin with, it has shown how ill-suited a federation is to deal with the crisis. Unlike New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who presides over a unitary system of government, the preferred approach of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his cabinet largely meant naught when it came to the issue of a co-ordinated response.
Even calling our country a federation is a stretch. We are at best a confederation. Apart from NSW, the states have become fiefdoms. Almost overnight, being an Australian meant nothing if you attempted to cross a state border. South Australia, for example, at one stage was denying entry to Victorians in border towns who needed lifesaving medical treatment in Adelaide, while at the same time making plans to fly in 800 foreign students to its three universities.
Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein even ordered all non-Tasmanians to leave the island in March, declaring “I make no apologies for working hard to keep Tasmanians safe”.
Presumably he does not plan to expel GST allocation, which makes up 40 per cent of the state’s revenue.
A panicked response that leads to an arbitrary closure is one thing. But premiers playing to populist sentiment in closing their borders is another, as demonstrated by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in her re-election campaign. As someone with a reputation as a vacillator and a mere figurehead, she seized on the virus to portray herself as a resolute leader. In doing so she shut out far north NSW residents, many of whom are dependent on Queensland hospitals for treatment.
In his maiden speech to Western Australia’s Parliament in 1996, a young Mark McGowan made much of his background as an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a role in which presumably he put aside provincial yearnings. “It was Labor that successfully led this nation through the darkest days of both World Wars,” he said, lauding in particular the leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin.
As leaders, both Curtin and McGowan shared a couple of traits. Both were elected by the citizens of WA, but neither was born or raised in that state. That is where the similarity ends. Curtin was a principled man who unified the country under his leadership. Conversely, McGowan has opportunistically used the greatest threat to Australia since World War II to pick a fight with the rest of the country, having closed WA’s borders since March, even to residents from states and territories that have long recorded no cases of community transmission of the virus.
McGowan has insisted he is acting on health advice. But being a parochial braggart, he gave himself away earlier this month with his audacious declaration that opening WA to South Australia and the Northern Territory would bring no economic benefit. “All we would do is lose jobs, were we to open to those states,” he said. “They’re only saying all this for very self-interested reasons because we have higher incomes and people who are more used to travelling and therefore we will have more tourists from West Australians go to the east.”
As they say, if you wish to ascertain a man’s character, give him power.
Every Australian has a constitutional right to cross state borders, but that means little if the federal government does not act against those who would infringe it.
By and large, the Morrison government has only made token efforts to defend this right, instead relying on a proxy, that being mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who has initiated proceedings in the High Court against the WA Government.
According to Attorney-General Christian Porter, the Commonwealth simply wanted to realise “moderate middle ground” when it intervened when the matter was before the Federal Court, but he later withdrew from proceedings. It was both pusillanimous and disheartening. As such, any subsequent protest by Morrison against state closures merely emphasises his government’s impotence.
But only a fool would leave it to governments to protect civil rights, and this is an area where Australians have let themselves down badly. This virus has proved the anti-authoritarian element no longer exists in the Australian psyche. We have largely accepted questionable restrictions on our liberty but have condemned journalists who have insisted leaders account for these decisions. As evident in polling regarding support for border closures, premiers such as McGowan and Palaszczuk have delighted in our malleability.
And it is not just the politicians who increasingly exercise control over our lives. Thanks to the creeping effect we largely accept that officials in the form of anti-discrimination tribunes and human rights commissioners will regulate our behaviour. Now the virus has accelerated the rise of the bureaucratic class. Who could forget Queensland’s chief health officer Jeannette Young, who, having blocked interstate relatives from attending funerals, decided to admit Hollywood actor Tom Hanks because “entertainment and film bring a lot of money into this state”. Excuse me?
That is not to say that everything that follows this virus is bad. For example, it is refreshing to see people have little time for the climate change evangelists and rent-seekers. Yes, I am talking to you, Zali Steggall, the federal MP and self-proclaimed “climate leader” who is desperately seeking relevance. And for us OCD types, it is joyful to see the proliferation of automatic soap dispensers.
But perhaps the most evident legacy is the burgeoning government debt, which is expected to rise to $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade. We simply cannot continue this taxpayer-funded largesse. Instead we need innovative ideas to instigate an economic recovery.
On that note, it is vital when deciding that issue to utilise those parts of industry that have been dormant because of the virus. My big idea is to lobby Parliament to allow the deportations of non-citizens in cases when the person commits an offence that results in six months or more imprisonment (currently the minimum is 12 months).
This could be the answer to Qantas and Virgin’s recovery. Just think: we would need to commission an entire fleet of planes for the trans-Tasman route alone. I am not sure what is the most attractive proposition: the recovery of our airline industry or the thought of Jacinda losing it. What is your big idea?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/coronavirus-sad-sideeffect-is-our-meek-acceptance-of-premiers-power-grab/news-story/fd7f2a9b961dc78fa1d4baae35873edd
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
29 October, 2020
The Electoral College Didn’t Protect Slavery
The presidential election in 2016 reminded Americans of the role played by the Electoral College in electing our president.
Proponents of abolishing or nullifying the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct-election scheme are trying to delegitimize the traditional process by claiming it is a remnant of America’s racist past, created as part of the Founding Fathers’ effort to protect slavery.
The claim is completely false. The Founders did not create the Electoral College for the purpose of bolstering the power of slave states, nor did it have the effect of doing so.
The records of the Constitutional Convention plainly show that the Founders designed the Electoral College to keep the president independent of Congress, which would have selected the president under both the “Virginia Plan” and the rival “New Jersey Plan.”
Direct election of the president wasn’t seriously considered for several reasons, and it lost the few times delegates voted on the idea.
Using electors to select the president was proposed several times during the convention by anti-slavery delegates such as Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and William Paterson. Opposition came largely from Southern delegates.
When the convention passed an early version of the Electoral College in mid-July of 1787, only three states voted against it—Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Delegates removed that version several days later and put congressional appointment of the president back in, but delegates remained concerned about the independence of the president.
In the end, the Electoral College won out over congressional appointment with only North Carolina and South Carolina voting against it.
It should be obvious that if delegates created the Electoral College as part of a scheme to bolster the power of the slave states, its proponents would not have been anti-slavery delegates and votes against it would not have come from slave states.
Some have argued that even if the Electoral College was not intended to strengthen the power of slave states, it nevertheless had that effect and helped to elect pro-slavery presidents because the three-fifths clause gave the slave states more representatives (and thus more electors).
History doesn’t support this claim either. With one possible exception, the additional electors provided under the three-fifths clause didn’t have a decisive role in any presidential election. The candidates who won the Electoral College in every election would have won without those electors.
The possible exception is the 1800 election for president, when Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams. But it is impossible to know how the result might have differed without the three-fifths clause, because both Adams and Jefferson received enough electoral votes from slave states to affect the election. There’s no way to know who would have prevailed without those electors.
What is known is that in 1824, the Electoral College prevented victory for Andrew Jackson, a staunch defender of slavery. Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but did not receive a majority of either.
The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which selected the anti-slavery candidate John Quincy Adams over Jackson.
Hamilton said of the Electoral College that if it was “not perfect, it is at least excellent.”
Those who wish to abolish or nullify the Electoral College might want to start looking for any of its real imperfections to press their case, rather than ignoring history and trying to falsely tie it to the vile institution of slavery.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/23/the-electoral-college-didnt-protect-slavery
Calls for British government to define 'anti-Sikh hate' after reported cases soar
The government should establish an official term for hate crimes against Sikhs, an MP said today after reported cases soared by 70 per cent in two years.
Preet Kaur Gill, who was the first female Sikh MP, has written to Home Secretary Priti Patel calling for urgent action to address anti-Sikh hate.
Ms Gill is the chair of a cross party group of MPs who have produced a report on the abuse of Sikh people in the UK.
The report, by the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs, aims to establish an official name for and definition of hate crimes against Sikhs through a consultation with government and the wider public over 60 days. They propose that the term “Anti-Sikh hate” be used.
They argue that while terms such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are very well established, hate crimes targeting Sikhs are often “overlooked”.
The report also argues that some religious hate crimes against Sikhs are “almost certainly” being reported under Muslim hate crime based on the assumption of the perpetrator.
According to official Home Office figures, 117 hate crimes were recorded against Sikhs in 2017-18 compared to 202 in 2019-20.
Ms Gill, the shadow International Development Secretary said: “The scale of hate crimes targeting the Sikh community is a phenomenon that is largely invisible to government and the wider public.
“Official Home Office data for the last two years shows the level of reported hate crimes targeting Sikhs has increased over 70 per cent.
“However, the increased reporting is the result of Sikh community organisations raising awareness of the need to report and has been achieved with no government funding or support.
“This must now change as hate crimes against the Sikh community are on the increase and should not be hidden away and ignored.”
The Labour MP said the rise of hate crimes against Sikhs and Gurdwaras was a “grave concern” and that she had heard many “upsetting experiences” from victims.
The report said hate crimes against Sikhs became a “worldwide phenomenon after 9/11” and the lack of an official term or definition was a contributing factor to why this type of crime goes largely “unnoticed, unreported and unrecorded”.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/newslondon/calls-for-government-to-define-anti-sikh-hate-after-reported-cases-soar/ar-BB1apBUj
Get Woke, Go Broke
We all know someone who, when it comes to politics, simply can’t let it go. Whatever it is – how you vote compared to them, some politician you like that they hate, a single issue on which you disagree – they simply can’t get past the difference. The obsession has ruined friendships and families. The thing that is new in year of the pandemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome is it’s ruining businesses now, too.
I’d never heard of Expensify before this weekend. It’s apparently a company that helps people and companies keep track of their expenses. It’s likely not a factor in your life, but it could be a factor in your business. Now it will likely not be a factor ever for millions of Americans because the founder and CEO, a guy named David Barrett, decided to call anyone who isn’t voting for Joe Biden an idiot.
Apparently, Barrett just couldn’t help himself, he couldn’t just let it go, and emailed every customer the company had, all 10 million of them, to tell them to vote for Biden. A member of the “tolerant” left could not tolerate someone voting differently, someone thinking differently.
Barrett’s email was a cross between a diary entry from a demented loner and a cry for help. “If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy,” he started.
Like a child raised only on MSNBC, Barrett rambles on about “democracy” and how Donald Trump is a threat to it. How, like MSNBC, he doesn’t really say. He’s a believer, believers in conspiracies don’t need proof or facts, or even a grip on reality.
On whether the company should remain neutral, Barrett spews paranoia. “Expensify depends on a functioning society and economy; not many expense reports get filed during a civil war. As CEO of this business, it’s my job to plot a course through any storm -- and all evidence suggests that another 4 (or as Trump has hinted -- 8, or more?) years of Trump leadership will damage our democracy to such an extent, I’m obligated on behalf of shareholders to take any action I can to avoid it. I am confident our democracy (and Expensify) can survive a Biden presidency. I can’t say the same about Trump. It’s truly as simple as that,” he writes.
Expensify took in $108 million in 2018, but I’d hate to be one of his investors at this point. The compulsion to slam half the country, half his customers, for “thinking wrong” is the suicide bombing of the business world.
That’s what the left is - the equivalent of a terrorist organization. They demand conformity, they demand obedience. Deviate from what is acceptable and you are the enemy. And nothing is beyond the pale when it comes to defeating or destroying the enemy.
There is no corresponding purity demand on the right, Republicans fight with each other almost more often than they do with Democrats. If backstabbing were an Olympic event, Republicans would sweep the medals. A brilliant, unquestioningly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court is going to be confirmed this week and not a single Democrat will break ranks with their party to vote for her, two Republicans will vote against her.
Expensify isn’t the only company to cram politics into its business, it’s become a trend. And that trend will continue if they win. The mantra will morph from “you should do this” to “you must do this or we want nothing to do with you.” The “bake me a cake as fast as you can” crowd will make it clear they wish for our submission or else.
“So one final plea,” Barrett closed his email. “As a fellow citizen, I fully support and respect your Constitutional right to disagree -- and as an avid supporter of democracy, I value that disagreement. Constructive, well-informed debate (hopefully using the most accurate, least biased news source available) is what makes this nation so exceptional.” He linked that to a left-wing “analysis” site on media bias that ranked the Huffington Post as more honest and less extreme than Fox, and Buzzfeed and Vox among the “most reliable.”
That’s what we’re up against, insanity with a healthy budget and a deputized cadre of extremists willing to destroy themselves to win.
Like I said, I didn’t know Expensify before this weekend, but everyone knows it now. If you use their services, do you still want to? For a lot of their customers, the answer turns out to be a resounding “no.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2020/10/27/get-woke-go-broke-n2578798
'We're full!' Overwhelming number of Australians say the country doesn't need any more immigration as voters reject 'leftist elites'
An overwhelming majority of Australians oppose high immigration, fearing it could affect their way of life, a study has found.
Before the pandemic saw the border closed to non-citizens and non-residents in March, Australia's net annual immigration rate was approaching 200,000.
Australia's population also surpassed the 25million mark in August 2018 - 24 years earlier than predicted in the federal government's inaugural Intergenerational Report of 2002.
With Sydney and Melbourne among the world's least affordable housing markets, 72 per cent of respondents have told The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) Australia was full.
The survey of 2,029 people was taken in October and November 2019 - four months before Prime Minister Scott Morrison closed Australia's border to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Half the people polled wanted a reduction in immigration, fearing it caused more pollution and congestion.
Study authors and sociologists Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell said rapid population growth before the pandemic had worried a majority of Australians, who regarded both major parties are representing the interests of 'leftist elites'.
'High immigration was responsible for the deterioration of the quality of life in Australia's big cities, as well as stressing its natural environment,' they said in an opinion piece for News Corp.
'Moreover, at least half the electorate do not support the progressive cultural values that left elites (including Labor’s leaders) regard as legitimating high immigration. 'This is a key finding since it shows that there is only lukewarm support for the core Big Australia strategy of high immigration.
'We can say with confidence based on our and other surveys that half the electorate are prepared to say, within the safety of an anonymous survey, that immigration should be reduced.'
Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd a decade ago declared himself to be a supporter of a 'big Australia', with business leaders also favouring high population growth.
His Liberal predecessor John Howard two decades ago increased net immigration levels to the six-figures, putting them well above the 20th century average of 70,000 a year.
The TAPRI survey however found people no longer believed it was 'possible' to accommodate more immigrants.
'The conditions that made it possible to sustain a Big Australia and ignore this concern no longer exist in the post-Covid environment,' the study read.
'If the Coalition, or Labor, does try to revive a Big Australia many of these voters would respond readily to any attempt to mobilise them.
Australia's population stood at 25,715,134 as of October 27, 2020.
The survey found that most respondents who took a stance against more immigration were not university educated, while those with a degree were more likely to back immigration.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882601/Overwhelming-number-Australians-say-country-doesnt-need-immigration.html
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
28 October, 2020
Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism
On 6 October, when Samuel Paty, a popular history and geography teacher in a quiet Paris suburb, presented a copy of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago, he self-evidently had no idea of the tragic consequence for his own life, French society or France’s relations with the Islamic world. What was intended as a classroom exploration of the freedom of thought has turned into a mini-clash of civilisations.
Ten days later Paty was killed, allegedly by a Russian-born teenager of Chechen heritage, sending an electric shock into France’s long debate about secularism, or laïcité. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, responded by saying France would not “renounce the caricatures”.
Since then Macron has been described as mentally ill by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdo?an; his ambassador to Pakistan has been summoned to condemn incitement of Islamophobia; and from Sana’a to Riyadh he has become a one-man axis of evil. French products are the subject of a boycott. Le Train Bleu restaurant in Doha, “a quintessential Parisian dining experience” in Qatar, is for instance hurriedly re-sourcing its products.
It would be easy to think that Macron, facing record Covid infections, might look at his in-tray and back off. But he appears to have done the opposite, ringing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with the Chechen origins of Paty’s alleged assailant in mind, to urge him to redouble Russia’s efforts to cooperate on terrorism. Macron has long sought a reset with Moscow by joining forces against terrorism. The call in some accounts took the form of a lecture, and in others an appeal to cooperate more closely in a common cause.
Either way this is not a fight Macron is likely to abandon. Domestically he faces the first round of the French presidential elections in April 2022, and his challenge will come from the security-minded right, either the centre-right Les Républicains or the far-right Marine Le Pen, with whom he is neck and neck in the polls. His net disapproval rating as president is -24%.
His calculation will be that so long as he makes the final round, the left as before has nowhere else to go. Being tough on Islamist separatism, and paying a price globally, hardly wounds him with waverers on the right.
But to diminish his conflict with extremism into a narrow calculation of personal political advantage is to misunderstand his intellectual journey on secularism in office, and the way in which the issue is central to his foreign policy outlook including his attitude to Turkey, Russia, Nato and the Middle East.
By raising the stakes, and keeping them high, Macron is also trying to make others recognise they cannot stay neutral.
Macron after all had tackled the debate about Islamist extremism before Paty’s death in his speech on 2 October on secularism – an hour-long address in which he attempted to be nuanced on how to integrate Islam and French secularism. It contained a number of proposals to regulate imams and mosques.
In the passage has proved most provocative in Turkey he said: “Islam is a religion that is experiencing a crisis across the world,” in reference to Islamic State jihadism and also Wahhabism, the Saudi extremist ideology, and Salafism. “We don’t believe in political Islam that is not compatible with stability and peace in the world.”
Islamic separatism, which he describes as a deviation of Islam, is “a conscious, theorised, politico-religious project, which is materialised by repeated discrepancies with the values of the republic, which often results in the creation of a counter-society and whose manifestations are the dropping out of school of children, the development of sports, cultural and communal practices which are the pretext for the teaching of principles which do not conform to the laws of the republic”. There were also balancing passages about the state as guarantor of the freedom of religion, economic disenfranchisement, and the French colonial legacy.
A complex speech such as this does not take long to be distorted and become a source of grievance abroad, especially in Turkey, since as many as half of the imams in France are Turkish.
But more importantly Turkey is already in a number of disputes with France.
These disputes – over Syria, Libya, Nato, gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean and Armenia – each have their own context and specifics, but they all stem from a French suspicion of Erdo?an’s ambitions to lead a revived Sunni Islam.
In Syria Macron objects to the Turkish attacks on the Kurdish YPG militia, France’s allies in the war against Isis. In Libya his initial objection to Islamist influence in Tripoli’s Government of National Accord has morphed into a conflict with Turkey after Ankara sprang to the GNA’s aid. He warns that the Nato alliance may become brain dead since Turkey, a fellow member, is ambivalent about the defence of western values. In the Mediterranean, he equates Greek interests with those of Europe, leaving Germany to mediate. He more and more openly sides with Armenia.
Many Europeans worry about Macron’s somewhat Gaullist, or France-first, approach. Bruno Tertrais at the French Foundation for Strategic Research argues: “France itself does not always consult its allies or seek their support before taking diplomatic initiatives. It barely did so in Libya and didn’t do so at all with regard to its Russia reset. Perhaps if Macron had nurtured ties with France’s eastern European Nato allies and EU members, he would have gained more early support for his stance against Turkey and more trust for his Russia diplomacy.”
The French calculation is that Erdo?an will succumb to pressure. The Turkish lira is at a new low, and there are only so many fronts on which an autocratic leader can fight. But Erdo?an will draw his own strength from the condemnations of Macron across the Arab world. On Monday he explicitly joined the call for a boycott of French goods, and claimed: “It becomes more and more difficult to be a Muslim and live an Islamic lifestyle in Western countries.” This has a long way to run.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/macron-s-clash-with-islam-sends-jolt-through-france-s-long-debate-about-secularism/ar-BB1appCK
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for unlawful monopolisation
The department says Google's conduct harms competition and consumers, and reduces the ability of new innovative companies to develop and compete.
It's the most important monopolisation case in the US since 1998, when the DoJ brought proceedings against Microsoft.
It's possible the current proceedings, given their timing, are politically motivated. US President Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly voiced the view that Google is prejudiced against conservative beliefs.
But even if Democratic candidate Joe Biden is elected president, this action against Google is unlikely to go away.
The ramifications for Google, if the court rules against it, could ultimately be dramatic. The DoJ's associate deputy attorney general, Ryan Shores, has refused to rule out seeking orders to break up the tech giant, saying "nothing is off the table".
Google's monopoly power
People walk in front of a black Google logo.
the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising.(Getty Images: Mario Tama)
Google's economic power is no secret. Regulators around the world, including in the European Union, are investigating the company’s conduct and bringing actions under competition, consumer and privacy laws.
US Attorney General William Barr said the new DoJ action:
[…] strikes at the heart of Google's grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.
Specifically, the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising (the advertising that appears alongside search results).
According to the DoJ, Google's US market share is roughly:
88 per cent in the market for general search services
70 per cent in the search advertising market.
However, holding a dominant position isn't against the law. A company is allowed to enjoy a dominant position or even a complete monopoly, as long as it doesn't do so by unlawful means.
So what has Google allegedly done wrong?
The DoJ's main complaint is Google has entered into several "exclusionary agreements" that preserve its monopoly power by hindering competition from rivals (and potential rivals). Exclusionary agreements are deals that restrict the ability of at least one party to deal with other players.
The DoJ says Google spends billions of dollars each year on:
long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser
exclusivity agreements that forbid pre-installation of competing search services by certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors
arrangements that force certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors to pre-install Google search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference
using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers and other search access points.
The DoJ claims these agreements have created a "continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolisation" in the market for online search and search advertising (which relies on Google's dominance in online search).
Google has responded by describing the court action as "deeply flawed". In a blog post it said: […] people don't use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.
It also said users are free to switch to other search engines.
But even if that's technically true, Google's agreements for pre-installation, default settings and preferential treatment give it a substantial advantage over its rivals.
Does any of this matter when Google is 'free'?
Google provides services that are hugely valued the world over — and with no direct financial cost to the user. That said, "free" services can still cause harm.
According to the DoJ, by restricting competition Google has harmed search users, in part "by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data)". This is an important recognition that price is not all that matters.
The logic behind this claim is that other search engines with better track records on privacy, such as DuckDuckGo, might otherwise be more successful than they are.
Or, to frame that another way, Google might actually have to compete vigorously on privacy, instead of allegedly imposing privacy-degrading terms on its users.
What might happen if the action succeeds?
If Google is found to have contravened the prohibition against monopolisation under the US Sherman Act, it could face substantial fines and damages claims.
But perhaps more concerning for Google would be the prospect of the DoJ seeking to break up Google's various businesses.
Google owns a range of highly successful services, including Google search, Google Chrome, the Android operating system, and numerous ad tech ("advertising technology") services. Google's position and access to data in one business arguably give it advantages in its other businesses.
Eleven Republican attorneys-general from various US states have joined the proceedings and could individually seek remedies.
The action won't be having a major impact any time soon, though. Google's lawyers estimate the case would only come before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in a year.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-22/the-us-is-taking-on-google-in-a-huge-antitrust-case.-it-could-c/12799242
James Woods Calls Democrats 'Virulent anti-Semites' After 'Jews for Trump' Clash With Protesters
Actor and prolific Donald Trump supporter James Woods has labeled Democrats "virulent anti-Semites" after a clash between protestors in New York City.
A fight erupted in Manhattan on Sunday, as Trump supporters clashed with counterprotesters in the city amid rising political tensions ahead of the election next week.
A 'Jews For Trump' convoy of hundreds of cars covered with American flags and Trump 2020 paraphernalia paraded through Manhattan and Brooklyn and was met with counterprotesters where the skirmish escalated.
Videos shared on Twitter show cars being pelted with eggs and stones as shouted insulted are exchanged with phrases like "New York hates you" can he heard.
The New York Times reports that 11 people were arrested and all were released except for one man who threw eggs in police officers' faces.
Woods shared a link to a Fox News article about the clash, saying: "Hard to remember a time now when Democrats supported Jewish causes. Now it appears they are become virulent anti-Semites."
Per the Fox story a family of seven—including four children—were pepper-sprayed during the scuffle.
A member of the family said they were driving down Fifth Avenue with the car windows down and Trump flags displayed while the children were in the vehicle.
Videos and pictures of a woman being arrested for using pepper spray have been shared on social media.
Trump's attorney and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani was present at the event and he later spoke about it on his radio show, where he condemned what he called the "group of foul-mouthed" counterprotesters.
"I would love to have had a campaign commercial of it and put it on in the middle of America and say, 'Who would you prefer for the next four years?" he said. "This group of foul-mouthed people who don't seem to have a vocabulary beyond three words, or these very nice Jewish people who are driving in the car and not saying anything back and not doing anything other than exercising their right to say they're for Donald Trump."
During an appearance on Fox & Friends on Monday, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, called Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, to denounce attacks on the president's Jewish supporters.
"I really hope that Joe Biden, his campaign, will come out and condemn these anti-Semitic actions that were taken against Trump supporters and be respectful again," Kushner said.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/politics/james-woods-calls-democrats-virulent-anti-semites-after-jews-for-trump-clash-with-protesters/ar-BB1apAw9?ocid=msedgdhp
Australian cop to stand trial for murder after an Aboriginal teenager was shot dead as prosecutors allege he was right to pull the trigger once - but not three times
All that is perfectly normal and unremarkable so why is this phony charge being levelled at the cop? It is just to placate black activists who are baying for blood. It reflects the huge racial sensitivities of the era. The authorities have to be seen as taking the death very seriously
The deceased was an habitual law-defying criminal so his aggressive behaviour was in keeping with his record. But because he was black there is a furore. He was released from prison in October last year after serving eight of a 16-month sentence for unlawful entry, property damage and stealing offences with the remainder suspended. But he had allegedly breached his parole by removing an electronic monitoring device, among other offences.
There was “face-to-face combat” between him and the two officers. One officer was reportedly stabbed, which allegedly led to the teen being shot.
A Northern Territory police officer who shot dead an Aboriginal teenager will stand trial for murder, with his lawyers arguing he acted in self-defence.
Constable Zachary Rolfe, 29, was charged with murder after shooting Kumanjayi Walker, 19, three times during an arrest in the remote community of Yuendumu in November last year.
The teen's death was protested at rallies around Australia in the wake of African-American man George Floyd's death in the United States in May.
Judge John Birch on Monday ordered Mr Rolfe to stand trial following a three-day preliminary hearing in the Alice Springs Local Court.
Prosecutors agree that the first shot fired at the teenager was self-defence, after the officer was stabbed and attacked with scissors.
But they claim the second and third shots, fired just 3.6 seconds later, were murder.
Mr Rolfe was part of a four-member elite Immediate Response Team that drove 290km from Alice Springs into the Tanami Desert to arrest Walker.
The preliminary hearing in September heard evidence that Mr Walker wounded Mr Rolfe and his partner Adam Eberl with a pair of scissors in a darkened room.
Mr Rolfe allegedly shot Mr Walker with a Glock pistol three times as Walker grappled with Eberl.
Prosecutors alleged the second and third shots were not justified, arguing the IRT 'disregarded' an arrest plan by Sergeant Julie Frost from the Yuendumu police station.
A criminologist said that two of the shots were 'excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary'.
The case comes amid rising tensions about the treatment of black and indigenous people by police.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8881545/Cop-shot-dead-Aboriginal-teenager-stand-trial-murder.html
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
27 October, 2020
'We have to erase men': Lesbian author who urges women to 'eradicate' men from their lives racks up 5 star reviews on Amazon - but some argue it's 'a form of apartheid'
A lesbian activist has urged women to 'eliminate' men from their minds and lives in a controversial new book that claims to provide the ultimate solution to female emancipation.
Paris city Councillor Alice Coffin, has revealed in her debut book, Lesbian Genius, that she doesn't listen to music, read books, or watch films made by men and her partner Yuri also only consumes things that have been produced by women.
Reflecting on feminism and lesbianism in the years since French feminist Simone de Beauvoir penned The Second Sex, she claimed that the only way for women to be truly emancipated is to eradicate men from their lives completely.
'It's not enough to help one another, we have to erase them. Erase them from our minds, from our pictures, from our representation. I don't read books by men anymore, I don't watch their movies, I don't listen to their music', she writes.
Alice admits she imagined herself as a boy when she was younger, but now believes being a lesbian is a 'greater' achievement.
The author who says she's aware that generalising may annoy people, claims men are a 'permanent war on women' and her book is a response to the favour men continue to receive.
Speaking about the male role models and those currently in leadership, Alice writes: 'There's only men like Macron at the head of our political, economic and cultural institutions and in the media.
'Some worse than others. Let them go. They sow misfortune, we want joy. Being a lesbian is a party, they won't spoil it.'
Hinting at the reason why she doesn't watch films made by men, Alice argues the media objectifies women.
'Following into a well-oiled mechanism created by the Catholic state, the movie industry turned women into objects to massacre, while still putting them on the highest of pedestal.
'Be beautiful and shut up, be beautiful and I rape you, be beautiful, you're going to die, this is the movie industry,' she says.
Alice argues men erect monuments to celebrate their heroes, meanwhile women are abused for centuries and their history is lost without a trace.
'I never say that men have everything to win with feminism. It's false. They have everything to lose. Their privilege, their monopoly, their power,' she adds.
Arguing women are blasted for speaking out, she says: 'When we, feminists, put together lists, produce data, are outraged, they have the nerve to ask: "But you don't think, you just hate men".
Despite the book receiving a flood of five stars reviews on Amazon as readers gush that the author makes points they haven't heard before, fellow French feminists have blasted Alice's call to action.
Marlène Schiappa who is France's former minister for gender equality, accused the author of advocating for 'a form of apartheid,' reports The Economist.
She was asked to share her views about the book promoting a 'form of totalitarianism' in a discussion with radio host Sonia Mabrouk.
Meanwhile, author Agnès Poirier argues Alice's new French feminism would be dubbed 'ridiculous' by Simone de Beauvoir.
Simone who published The Second Sex in 1949, was bisexual and flouted convention to give French women a voice.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8872001/Feminist-author-calls-women-eliminate-men-lives-new-book.html
Blue-Check Ignorance and Intolerance Threaten Freedom and Our Way of Life
Last week the Twitter blue-check mob tried to cancel one of the nicest and most decent people on the planet: actor Chris Pratt.
His crime? Pratt exercised his freedoms of speech and association by declining an invitation to publicly support Joe Biden. Twitter’s little hate engines went to work on him, until the Avengers actors assembled and clapped back at them. Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, the whole gang who defeated Thanos (an environmentalist extremist, by the way) on the big screen stood up for their friend Star-Lord, and good for them. It’s all too easy for actors to just go along with whatever nonsense the blue-check chuckleheads come up with. Actors tend not to be the most morally courageous lot. If they were, Harvey Weinstein would never have happened.
All in all, it was a good ending to yet another moment of mass stupid in 2020, but the moment should never have had to happen. Silence is speech (not violence). When you’re arrested, the cops even tell you that “you have the right to remain silent” as part of your Miranda rights. In that case, silence is a defense against self-incrimination. Silence can also be a defense against groupthink, and it can be an assertion of your basic human right to be left alone.
Pratt’s decision to keep his mouth shut is not only one that many more of the famous should exercise, it literally lines up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What if the Avengers actors hadn’t defended Pratt? Would we have seen cancel culture destroy a good and decent man not for saying something offensive, but for saying nothing at all? Probably.
---
Recent blue-check stupidity doesn’t stop at the Avengers’ defense of the Bill of Rights. During the final presidential debate, President Trump brought up the issue of “coyotes” smuggling people across the border. Twitter idiots erupted with guffaws. Because they’re stupid.
Someone went and gathered blue-check reaction to the president’s factual and accurate coyotes remark. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.
Blue-checkers exhibit their ignorance about a key border problem.
A couple of those blue-checkers are actually famous. Peri Gilpin, originally from Waco, Texas, played Roz on Frasier. Lexa Doig has starred in a few B-grade and below TV series and movies.
As both of them and all Americans ought to know, coyotes are human smugglers and traffickers. They charge poor people exorbitant sums of money to get them into the United States against our laws by whatever means their evil minds may devise. Coyotes do not care about the welfare of their customers at all. They care about cash and breaking laws. They tend to move the human cargo in the backs of trucks and in conditions that subject them to the real threat of injury and death. No food. No water.
Coyotes are very bad people. They are also fixtures on the border and have been for ages. Trump was right to bring them up during the debate. That he was mocked for it betrayed the arrogance and, again, stupidity that is rampant across the blue-check mob and across too much of our culture. Blue-checkers are not better than the rest of us. They tend to know a whole lot less than your average American. But they were probably handed trophies for doing nothing when they were kids, they’ve been treated like demigods for landing a TV role at some point, and the “I’m the center of the whole universe!” mentality stuck like flypaper.
The left’s combination of self-righteousness and arrogant ignorance pollutes our public discourse, threatens our fundamental rights, and may yet be the death of our freedoms and our republic.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/bryan-preston/2020/10/25/from-the-avengers-to-coyotes-and-nylon-rope-blue-check-ignorance-and-intolerance-threaten-freedom-and-our-way-of-life-n1085736
Biden is Wrong: U.S. Didn’t Have a Good Relationship With Hitler — But the New York Times Did
Did the United States really have a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before he started World War II? Joe Biden made this bizarre claim during Thursday’s debate with President Trump. Trump said of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: “North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. People don’t understand. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.”
Biden shot back: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.”
Come on, Joe! The U.S. didn’t have a good relationship with Hitler before he “invaded Europe. The German dictator was, however, beloved in certain quarters, including the editorial offices of the New York Times.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t attack Hitler directly before the war began, but relations between the U.S. and Nazi Germany were by no means good. In September 1938, Roosevelt sent a telegram to Hitler lecturing him about the importance of keeping the peace and stating: “The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.” Implying that Hitler was a warmonger was hardly a hallmark of cordial relations between the two countries.
Failing to get a satisfactory response from Hitler, on October 11, 1938, Roosevelt announced that he was increasing national defense spending by $300 million (over $5 billion in today’s dollars). No one thought that money was going to build up our defenses against Britain and France.
Some in America, however, loved the Führer.
The historian Rafael Medoff recently noted that on July 9, 1933, just over five months after he became Chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become notorious worldwide, the New York Times published a fawning puff piece on Hitler that rivals even today’s media adulation of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi in its one-sidedness, myopia, and disdain for essential facts.
Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she was an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, as in the presence of this man whose name has become justly synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.”
As if that weren’t enough, she continues with a description of the Führer as outlandish and adulatory as likening the supremely zaftig Stacy Abrams to a supermodel: “His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”
McCormick labored to portray Hitler as more modest than his public persona might suggest: “In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.” He is also, she signaled to her readers, reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”
The intrepid New York Times reporter doesn’t seem to have asked Hitler if he had a significant other, but no one would have been surprised after reading all this if the two of them had become an item.
However, McCormick’s interview was not all about Hitler’s sun-browned face and blue larkspur eyes. In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.
Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”
Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would still be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs. And old Joe Biden, as he contemplates the approaching end of the presidential race from his Delaware basement, can rest secure in the certainty that no matter what outrageously false or crazy thing he says, that same New York Times will cover for him, too.
https://pjmedia.com/election/robert-spencer/2020/10/24/biden-is-wrong-u-s-didnt-have-a-good-relationship-with-hitler-but-the-new-york-times-did-n1084607
Handling diversity-talk
These days, when we hear academic folks uttering new holy words —“diversity,” “intersectionality,” “systemic racism”— many conservatives deny in knee-jerk fashion that such a goal is important or such a thing exists. Christians should be different. Instead of denying problems, we should acknowledge them, then expand understanding by viewing them Biblically.
Instead of scoffing at diversity-talk we should say, “Your diversity is too thin: Let’s have hyper-diversity.” Paul famously wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Yes: We should welcome into our churches or colleges different nationalities, different legal statuses, and of course both male and female.
Today, instead of limiting “diversity” to the big three of race, sex, and sexual orientation, let’s say, “I’ll see your three and raise you three: Let’s add religion, ideology, and abortion orientation,” since the current Supreme Court battle shows abortion is our most divisive current issue.
After all, is it harder now for a lesbian or an openly pro-life woman to get a tenure track position at a major liberal arts college? Who is more likely to get a promotion at most Fortune 500 companies, someone who sports a Black Lives Matter sticker or someone who keeps an open Bible on his desk?
If we’re asked why a particular dispute like abortion should be singled out, let’s respond, “Fine. Let’s add issues such as socialism versus free enterprise, or evolution versus creation, and do all we can to let students hear a diversity of views.”
Christians who bristle about “intersectionality”— the idea that people can face discrimination for a multiplicity of reasons — should instead say, “Of course. Because of original sin, life is hard, for multiple reasons. Your intersectionality is too small.”
All have sinned — see Romans 3:23 — and sinful individuals create sinful systems. Mega-intersectionality includes structural problems in housing and banking that liberals have pointed out — “redlining” was a long-term sin — and also a welfare system that discourages marriage, a lack of school choice that traps poor kids in awful schools, and an abundance of cohabiting relationships that often lead to children growing up without dads.
And while we’re examining IN-famous problems, let’s be sure to emphasize street-level reality rather than suite-level theorizing. If we’re into castigating “white privilege,” let’s acknowledge that one of the most privileged people of 2020 is Robin DiAngelo. She’s white and reportedly charges $10,000-and-up to give a speech attacking whites and — according to black linguist John McWhorter — condescending to blacks.
McWhorter applies critical thinking to “critical race theory” and DiAngelo’s best-selling book,White Fragility: He wrote inThe Atlantic and said on NPR that it “openly infantilized Black people” and “simply dehumanized us” by teaching that “Black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree [since] Black people are unusually weak.”
His critique is just. DiAngelo and others teach that fragile white folks who feel defensive when charged with racism must not say things like “I marched in the ’60s” or “You don’t know me” or “You are generalizing.” Such comments will purportedly make fragile black folks furious.
The Bible emphasizes not fragility but strengthening. Proverbs 27 IN-famously tells us, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Ecclesiastes 10:10 adds, “If the iron is blunt, and one does not sharpen the edge, he must use more strength, but wisdom helps one to succeed.”
I’ll end with a theological twist from famous pastor Tim Keller: “Doubt doubt.” When a materialist professor discounts Christian testimonies by saying people believe only because they’re part of a particular social group, we should neither nod nor get angry. Instead, let’s ask, “Why do you disbelieve? Why shouldn’t we discount your argument?”
https://townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/2020/10/25/infamous-doctrines-n2578734
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
26 October, 2020
'I have made mistakes': Vogue editor Anna Wintour apologizes as black staffers call for her to resign and reveal she used a racist word and dismissed concerns when Kendall Jenner and Karlie Kloss were accused of cultural appropriation
Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour has apologized after black staffers called for her to resign and revealed she used a racist word and dismissed their concerns about cultural appropriation.
In a lengthy New York Times article published on Saturday, 18 black journalists who have worked with Wintour said Vogue favored employees who are thin, white and from elite backgrounds.
Eleven of them called for her resignation following offensive incidents involving Wintour's use of the word 'pickaninny', and cultural appropriation controversies involving Kendall Jenner's false gold teeth and Karlie Kloss's Vogue photo shoot as a Japanese geisha.
However, Naomi Campbell, one of the first black supermodels, who appeared on the cover of Wintour's first September issue in 1989, vehemently defended the editor.
And three other people of color told the Times that Condé Nast had made positive changes and that Wintour had promoted them to top roles.
Wintour recently split with her partner of 20 years, telecoms tycoon and entrepreneur Shelby Bryan, and is rumored to have grown close to actor Bill Nighy.
Wintour, who has been Vogue' editor in chief since 1988 and Condé Nast's artistic director since 2013, making her the editorial leader of all its titles, responded to the latest allegations in a statement to the Times: 'I strongly believe that the most important thing any of us can do in our work is to provide opportunities for those who may not have had access to them.'
'Undoubtedly, I have made mistakes along the way, and if any mistakes were made at Vogue under my watch, they are mine to own and remedy and I am committed to doing the work,' she added.
The Times article details a number of examples of alleged racism under Wintour's leadership.
In 2017, Wintour used an offensive racial term in an email as she raised questions about whether a photo shoot of black models wearing bonnets would itself be perceived as offensive.
'Don't mean to use an inappropriate word, but pica ninny came to mind,' Wintour wrote.
In a statement to the Times, Wintour said: 'I was trying both to express my concern for how our readers could have interpreted a photo and raise the issue for discussion, and I used a term that was offensive. And for that, I truly apologize.'
When Wintour asked a black assistant to weigh in on the photo shoot, the assistant said the image was not offensive, but expressed displeasure at being asked to render a verdict as a junior staff member, according to the Times.
In another 2017 incident, Kendall Jenner appeared at a London fashion week party wearing fake gold teeth, which a white Vogue writer described as 'a playful wink to the city's free-spirited aesthetic — or perhaps a proverbial kiss to her rumored boyfriend, A$AP Rocky.'
The Times reports that a black Vogue staffer expressed outrage, saying that the gold teeth were cultural appropriation.
A top lieutenant brought the issue to Wintour's attention, writing: 'If Kendall wants to do something stupid fine but our writers (especially white ones) don't need to weigh in and glorify it or ascribe reasons to it that read culturally insensitive.'
Wintour appeared dismissive of the cultural appropriation crisis, responding: 'Well I honestly don't think that's a big deal.'
Also in 2017, white model Karlie Kloss drew cultural appropriation accusations when she appeared in Vogue in a geisha outfit, with her face in pale makeup and her hair dyed black.
The photo shoot in Japan drew immediate accusations of 'yellowface'.
After internal cries of alarm over the feature, Wintour reportedly replied that it could not be cut because of its 'enormous expense.'
Kloss later apologized, tweeting: 'These images appropriate a culture that is not my own and I am truly sorry for participating in a shoot that was not culturally sensitive.'
That tweet reportedly angered Wintour, who received a personal message from Kloss saying 'I imagine the feeling is mutual, that it was hurtful to see the criticism from our Japan trip.
'I had written a short piece on social media as I wanted to make known that it was never my intention to offend or upset anyone from this spread.'
Wintour dryly replied: 'Thanks Karlie another time please give us a heads up if you are writing about a Vogue issue.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8875125/Vogue-editor-Anna-Wintour-responds-diversity-complaints.html
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner threaten to sue over billboards linking them to COVID-19 deaths
US President Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law are threatening to sue a group of anti-Trump Republicans for posting billboard ads in New York City's Times Square linking them to the country's almost 225,000 coronavirus deaths.
The Lincoln Project says the billboards are there to stay
A lawyer representing Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, made the threat on Friday in a letter to the Lincoln Project, calling the ads "false, malicious and defamatory".
Marc Kasowitz, who is acting on behalf of the couple who are White House aides, also wrote the ads were "outrageous and shameful libel".
"If these billboard ads are not immediately removed, we will sue you for what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages," Mr Kasowitz said in his letter.
One of the ads features a smiling Ms Trump gesturing towards text showing the number of coronavirus deaths in New York and nationwide.
The other is a photo of Mr Kushner next to a quote attributed to him last month by Vanity Fair magazine, citing an unidentified source: "(New Yorkers) are going to suffer and that's their problem."
"While we truly enjoy living rent-free in their heads, their empty threats will not be taken any more seriously than we take Jared and Ivanka," the group said.
The group, which includes former campaign consultants to president George W Bush and senator John McCain, is the most prominent Republican-led organisation opposing Mr Trump's re-election on November 3.
It has produced barrages of ads calling for his defeat, attacked pro-Trump Republican politicians and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The billboards have appeared during a week where the US President said his country was "rounding the corner" on COVID-19 despite new figures contradicting his view of the pandemic.
The US recorded 84,218 new COVID-19 cases on Friday eclipsing its one-day record high of 77,299 new cases on July 16.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-threaten-lawsuit-over-billboards/12811204
A Stake Through the Heart of the Market System
Letter to a critic:
I urge skepticism of calls for government to compel corporations to attend to the welfare of so-called “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of shareholders. The quotation at my blog from Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi nicely summarizes many reasons for such skepticism. I stand by that quotation and encourage you to consider it more carefully. But I here add one more reason – one built on the truth of your wise recognition that “corporate decisions impact communities and families outside of ownership.”
Given this truth, should government, then, compel individuals and households to attend to the welfare of “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of the individual and members of the household? After all, if you choose to shop at Safeway rather than at Kroger, your decision contributes to possible job losses at Kroger. In light of this fact, would it be wise to enable government to compel you to shop at Kroger despite that store’s higher prices or greater inconvenience?
Or if your parents are considering moving to another town, should government be able to override their decision – forcing them to remain where they are – because the sale of their current home will depress property values in their town and, thus, negatively affect their neighbors?
My point is that every economic decision has impacts far beyond the individual decision-maker. This reality isn’t confined to corporations; it’s true of each and every economic decision that you personally make, that each household makes, that each small business makes. And it’s fundamental to an economy built on specialization and trade. To ensure that as many as possible of these impacts are positive rather than negative, market economies rely upon private property and contract rights as well upon economic competition and market prices. (To better understand how these institutions promote positive impacts and lessen negative ones, I recommend a well-taught course in principles of economics.)
And so – “Stakeholder capitalism” is not, contrary to Elizabeth Warren’s claim, a means of saving or improving the market economy. It’s a frontal assault on it. By allowing government to suppress private property and contract rights, we’d move, not in the direction of what you call “a more humane capitalism” but, instead, in the direction of a more arbitrary and, hence, authoritarian means of dictating the use of resources, including labor. The end result would not be what you expect and hope.
https://cafehayek.com/2020/10/a-stake-through-the-heart-of-the-market-system.html
National anthem non-protest decision by Australia's Rugby football team
Wallabies coach Dave Rennie has confirmed the national men’s rugby side will not take a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement before their Bledisloe Cup match against the All Blacks next weekend.
Sporting teams and organisations around the world have opted to show support for the BLM movement since the death of George Floyd by taking a knee.
On Thursday, Wallabies fullback Dane Haylett-Petty revealed the Australian squad were considering a silent protest during the national anthem before their Test match against New Zealand in Sydney on Sunday, October 31.
The Wallabies would become the first Australian national side to take a knee during a national anthem if they went ahead with the silent protest.
“I think it’s great,” Haylett-Petty said. “I think sport has an amazing opportunity to have a say and join conversations and a lot of sports have done that and it would be a great thing for us to do.”
It led ex-Wallabies captain Nick Farr-Jones to speak out against the idea.
“To take the risk of basically splitting the support the Wallabies are starting to earn through their gutsy performances in Wellington and Auckland – just don't do it guys, it's too risky,” he told 2GB radio. “You run the risk that a few (viewers) would just turn off. They don't want to see politics in national sport. That's a real risk. I think it could be divisive. I don't think here in Australia that we have a major issue in relation to discrimination of coloured people."
Which led to a response from former player Gary Ella. “That's just stupid talk. That obviously shows that Nick doesn't have a full appreciation of the history of Aboriginal people in this country,” Ella said. “If you're talking about reconciliation, we're talking about sharing and acknowledging the history that we’ve come past and are working towards a better future. Those type of comments are totally ignoring the history."
On Friday, Rennie told reporters the Australian squad came to a “unanimous decision” not to perform the silent protest.
“We met with the leaders and then the leaders met with the rest of the team and it’s a unanimous decision,’ Rennie said. “The key thing is, this is about honouring our indigenous people and we want the focus to be on that.
“Everyone’s got their own opinions around the other situation, but we want the focus to be on reflecting on our history and our past.
“All I’ve said is that our focus is around the First Nations People and the indigenous jersey. We’re not looking to make a political statement.”
https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/rugby/peter-fitzsimons-blasts-wallabies-national-anthem-protest-decision/news-story/17d5069f4d75f50eb287d2df80e83749
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
25 October, 2020
Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples
Romans 1:27; Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; Matthew 19: 4-16; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Genesis 19:4-8
Catholics do claim authority for themselves that does not originate from the Bible but teachings which fly in the face of the Bible are clearly not Christian
Pope Francis has called in a new documentary for the creation of civil union laws, giving his clearest support to date for the rights of same-sex couples while breaking from the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
“What we have to create is a civil union law,” the pope says in the film, released in Rome on Wednesday. “That way they are legally covered.”
Francis’s comment does nothing to alter Catholic doctrine, but it nonetheless represents a remarkable shift for a church that has fought against LGBT legal rights — with past popes calling same-sex unions inadmissible and deviant.
Francis’s statement is also notable within a papacy that on the whole hasn’t been as revolutionary as progressives had hoped and conservatives had feared.
He has long expressed an interest in outreach to the church’s LGBT followers, but his previous remarks as pope have stressed understanding and welcoming rather than substantive policies.
The public remarks that led up to Pope Francis’s call for same-sex civil union laws
“This is the first time as pope he’s making such a clear statement,” the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit who has advocated for the church to more openly welcome LGBT members, said in a phone interview Wednesday. “I think it’s a big step forward. In the past, even civil unions were frowned upon in many quarters of the church. He is putting his weight behind legal recognition of same-sex civil unions.”
The remarks from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church have the potential to shift the debate for some of its 1.3 billion followers. While Catholic priests in some parts of the world already bless same-sex marriage, others clerics operate in countries where homosexuality is illegal.
In “Francesco,” a documentary that touches on several of the pope’s trademark issues, from migration to the environment, Francis does not indicate any openness to extending marriage to same-sex couples, but says “homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family.”
“They’re children of God and have a right to a family,” the pope says in his interview with the filmmaker, Evgeny Afineevsky. “Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”
“This is huge,” said David Gibson, director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture. “Looking behind all this, [Francis is] basically saying, again, ‘We’re not out here to be culture warriors. We’re not out here to pick fights. We are out here to build up the family.’?”
Officially, the church teaches that homosexual sex acts are “disordered.” Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, called homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil.” In 2003, under John Paul II, the church issued a lengthy document laying out the “problem of homosexual unions.” The document, issued by the Vatican’s doctrinal office, said that “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage” would amount to “the approval of deviant behavior.”
Roberto de Mattei, president of the conservative Lepanto Foundation in Rome, said Wednesday that “this is perhaps the first time Pope Francis has publicly taken a stance on a specific point of morality against the church’s doctrine.”
“There’s no doubt this will add to the great confusion already existing in the Catholic world,” de Mattei said, “and will be fodder for those who maintain that, at least privately, the pope promotes or supports heresy.”
Conservatives often accuse Francis of muddling the church’s teaching on sexuality, saying he is allowing cultural changes to influence what should be immutable rules.
Famously, Francis in 2013 said about somebody who is gay: “Who am I to judge?” And he has spoken often about his ministry to gay and lesbian Catholics, saying they are loved by God and welcomed by the church.
His previous commentary about civil unions as pope has been difficult to decipher. In 2014, he said such unions should be evaluated “in their variety.” Though some took his words as an endorsement, the Vatican’s press office at the time downplayed the significance of any message.
Pope to parents of gay kids: ’Let them express themselves’
On a flight to Rome in 2018, Pope Francis said children who show “homosexual tendencies” should be treated with understanding and not be condemned or ignored. (Reuters)
Earlier, as a cardinal in Argentina, the pope reportedly supported civil unions as a pragmatic alternative to same-sex marriage. By all accounts, he remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage.
Pope Francis’s new encyclical is a papal warning about a world going backward
Reaction in the United States among bishops who have been previously critical of Francis’s papacy was relatively muted Wednesday. Support for civil unions and same-sex marriage among U.S. Catholics has steadily risen over the years: According to a Pew Research Center study from 2019, about 61 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage, compared with 42 percent a decade earlier.
Thomas Tobin, the bishop of Providence, R.I., said in a statement that “the Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples needs to be clarified.”
“The Pope’s statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions,” Tobin said. “The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law. However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”
Pompeo and Vatican officials face off over negotiations with China on bishops
For many LGBT members of the faith, Francis may not have gone far enough.
Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, a national organization of Catholics dedicated to LGBT rights, was skeptical on Wednesday.
“Is this a confession that the world and legal communities are moving forward and the church is eons behind?” Duddy-Burke said. “Is it a step forward, or is it a way to avoid going all the way toward same-sex sacramental marriage? Because we’ve experienced a push-pull from the church on this, we’ll hold our breath.”
The pope’s statement may be seen by some as the next step toward marriage equality, but the Catholic Church is far from taking that step, said Patrick Hornbeck, professor of theology at Fordham University.
Hornbeck, who left the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church before he married his same-sex partner in 2015, said Catholics who stay in the church have to do so with open eyes, because it is not likely to change for decades.
“As long as the Catholic Church continues to treat the lives and loves of LGBT people as short of the divine plan for humanity, people who are LGBT will always have second-class status,” Hornbeck said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-civil-unions/2020/10/21/805a601c-139e-11eb-a258-614acf2b906d_story.html
For Racial Healing, Reject Critical Race Theory
Imagine you own a small shop, perhaps something like a tailor shop where you have to assist each customer individually, and you find yourself in the situation where two people have entered at almost exactly the same time. One is white, and the other is black. You’re a sole proprietor, so you’re working alone. You are now faced with a decision: which of these two customers do you approach and help first?
Had you been confronted with this simple, everyday scenario a few months ago, you might not have thought much about it. You probably would have laughed and said it doesn’t matter; considering this a thought experiment would likely have seemed impertinent or even race-baiting. Maybe you still feel the same way now, but there’s also a good chance that you don’t. Though you may struggle to explain why, the thought of finding yourself in this perfectly ordinary situation may seem rather discomforting. There is a reason for this discomfort; you’re not just being paranoid.
The reason you’re uncomfortable is because a style of thought—indeed, an entire worldview—called Critical Race Theory has suddenly become mainstream. To be fair, this once-obscure way of thinking about the world has been in development for over 40 years, and has been seeping into our culture for the last decade in particular. In a sense, if you feel uncomfortable by the idea of being caught in the situation described here, it’s because you can feel the critical eye and fear its being turned on you. In a sense, you’re aware that the weight of your decision depends entirely on a factor completely outside of your control: whether or not one of the people who entered your shop, or someone who might end up a bystander to what happens next, has imbibed Critical Race Theory.
Critical Race Theory proceeds upon a number of core tenets, the first and most central of which is that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in our society. It is not aberrational, and therefore it is assumed to be present in all phenomena and interactions. The Critical Race Theorist’s job is to find it and “make its oppression visible” so that it might be “disrupted and dismantled.” This societal presupposition has been further distilled to a single operational question for those who accept the Critical Race Theory view of the world: “The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” as phrased by the now world-famous critical whiteness educator and bestselling author Robin DiAngelo.
That is, as you imagine yourself coming out from behind the counter to greet one or the other of these two customers—one white and one black—racism is present in your decision. If anyone involved accepts the tenets of Critical Race Theory, it will be that person’s job to identify your racism and make a stink of it (which might result, if you’re in certain American cities today, in your shop being vandalized, looted, and burned down in the coming nights). In some sense, everything in your life hinges upon you making the right decision in a situation that doesn’t allow for such a thing.
Why not? Consider your options.
If you choose the black person, say, racism is present in that situation. A Critical Race Theorist will ask how it manifested, try to find it, and will then call it out to disrupt and dismantle it. In this case, it is clear that you don’t trust the black person to be in your shop unattended while you help another customer, which is based in racist stereotypes and upholds racism. If you choose the black customer, you have chosen poorly.
If you choose the white person instead, though, racism is present in that situation. A Critical Race Theorist will ask how it manifested, try to find it, and will then call it out to disrupt and dismantle it. In this case, you clearly favor white people, who you view as first-class citizens over black people, who you see as second-class citizens, because you’re a racist. If you choose the white customer, you have chosen poorly.
Because Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary, present, and intolerable, there is no right choice in this plain, everyday circumstance. The only way to remedy this problem, to someone who accepts Critical Race Theory’s premises, is to find the racism embedded in the situation and then to call it out, so that it might be disrupted and dismantled. This is the world according to Critical Race Theory, and in such a world, you’re always wrong (and notice—your race never had to be assumed for these situations to play out to the inevitable conclusion of present racism: the conclusion was simply to be and was assumed from the outset).
A world that operates like this cannot be functional, and it certainly cannot achieve Critical Race Theory’s stated objective: to achieve “racial healing” by ending racism and making society more just and fair. If we want to achieve those goals, which I believe are possible, it begins by rejecting, not accepting and mainstreaming, Critical Race Theory.
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/racial-healing-reject-critical-race-theory/
Trump Makes History in the Middle East Yet Again With Another Israel Peace Deal
On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that yet another Middle Eastern Muslim-majority country will formally recognize the Jewish State of Israel, in yet another massive foreign policy coup for the president’s diplomacy in the Middle East.
“President [Donald Trump] has announced that Sudan and Israel have agreed to the normalization of relations— another major step toward building peace in the Middle East with another nation joining the Abraham Accords,” Judd Deere, deputy assistant to the president and deputy White House press secretary, announced on Twitter.
The recognition of Israel appears to be part of a broader agreement by which Trump will formally rescind Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Between 1989 and 2019, military dictator Omar al-Bashir controlled the North African country, allegedly engaging in human rights abuses and sponsoring terrorism. After protests in 2018, a coup d’etat ousted Bashir from power in April 2019.
“President Donald J. Trump has informed Congress of his intent to formally rescind Sudan’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” the White House announced on Friday. “This follows on Sudan’s recent agreement to resolve certain claims of United States victims of terror and their families. Yesterday, in fulfillment of that agreement, the transitional government of Sudan transferred $335 million into an escrow account for these victims and their families.”
According to the White House, Trump achieved “the resolution of longstanding claims of victims of the East Africa embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the murder of USAID employee John Granville.”
“This is a significant achievement for the President and his Administration and brings a measure of closure to many to whom it has long been out of reach,” the announcement argued.
The White House hailed the agreement as “a pivotal turning point for Sudan, allowing for a new future of collaboration and support for its ongoing and historic democratic transition.” The statement also urged Congress to pass legislation to “ensure that the American people rapidly realize the full benefits of this policy breakthrough.”
The Sudan agreement represents another major foreign policy coup for Trump, following the Abraham Accords.
This summer, Trump announced historic peace deals between Arab states in the Persian Gulf and the State of Israel. In the Abraham Accords, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized relations with Israel. Before the signing, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia announced they would open their skies to Israeli flights to the UAE. As part of its rapprochement with Israel, the UAE agreed to order hotels to serve Kosher foods in Abu Dhabi, delivering a powerful symbol of Jewish acceptance in a notoriously anti-Semitic part of the world.
Shortly before the Abraham Accords, Trump brought Muslim-majority Kosovo and Christian-majority Serbia together for a historic agreement that included promises to set up embassies in Jerusalem. This agreement brought reconciliation to two countries with centuries-long animosities that had sparked multiple wars, including World War I.
These historic diplomatic successes have brought Trump multiple Nobel Prize nominations.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/23/breaking-trump-announces-another-middle-east-muslim-country-will-recognize-israel-n1081920
The West’s booming new religion
This week, Britain’s Equalities Minister delivered a speech we probably wouldn’t hear in our federal parliament. That’s a shame because we could do with some home truths about a booming wokeness movement that is deeply flawed.
During a House of Commons debate on Black History Month, Tory minister Kemi Badenoch, an immigrant of Nigerian heritage, exposed the blind adherence of schools to simplistic slogans of the Black Lives Matters movement.
“I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home in my life and it is the promotion of critical race theory — an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression,” she said. “What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted facts. We don’t do this with communism. We don’t do this with socialism. We don’t do it with capitalism.”
Badenoch said that some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group “often fully aware that they have the statutory duty to be politically impartial”.
“Black lives do matter. Of course they do,” said Badenoch. “But we know that the Black Lives Matter movement — capital B, L, M — is political. I know this, because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling — and I apologise for saying this word — calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a ‘pet n …’.”
When Badenoch entered the British parliament in mid-2017, she was hailed by sections of the media as the smartest of the crop of new MPs. And maybe only a woman of colour could rise in parliament and say we should stop pretending BLM “is a completely wholesome anti-racist organisation”. ‘There is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that,” she said.
“We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and their inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear, any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”
Let’s not kid ourselves. There is a similar propensity in Australian schools to present BLM in simplistic, and misleading, terms as a wholesome anti-racist movement.
For example, at Ballarat Grammar, a weekly chapel service in week eight of term three, delivered as a video package to students, was devoted to the BLM movement. After an introduction where the school chaplain describes social movements as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, a number of students read scripted statements extolling the virtues of the BLM movement. Students call for reparations for invasion. They talk about white privilege. They detail the terrible treatment of some Indigenous Australians within the justice system.
Students should bring complex and difficult issues to the attention of other students. Genuine learning will, at times, cause discomfort. But the video package for Ballarat Grammar students, and posted on the intra-school website, is a mickey mouse version of the BLM movement. It makes no attempt to recognise BLM as a political movement, which, like every political movement is complicated, sometimes inconsistent, and not figured out from a handful of scripted platitudes. Students are not stupid. Teachers, and preachers, respect them far more by allowing them to explore how political movements can be both significant and far from perfect.
Students have come of age in an online world. So there has never been a greater need to help them be discerning, curious, even sceptical of what they come across in their digital world. So why package up the BLM movement as a Hallmark card?
Defunding police, for example, has become a crude mantra of the BLM movement. It ought to be contested, even at schools, lest students imagine that mantras are a substitute for thinking about complex issues.
As Ballarat Grammar was compiling its BLM chapel video, the BLM website stated its aim to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family”. Though deleted from the website in mid-September, how does this anti-family view fit with the chaplain’s claim that the BLM movement is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit?
Parts of the BLM movement are radically political, vehemently anti-capitalist and aimed at dismantling the liberal order. It’s not hard to find video footage of black-clad BLM protesters standing over diners at restaurants, chanting “white silence is violence”, demanding that all people raise their fists to show solidarity with their chosen agenda.
If this was just a case of dumbing down education, that would be bad enough given the woeful results of Australian students in international educational rankings. But if educators are not giving students the warts-and-all truth about the BLM movement, how will kids learn to separate some very sound aims from some deeply authoritarian traits? Ballarat Grammar’s chapel service could have offered students the chance to consider a deeply ethical question: when, if ever, do the ends justify the means?
Imagine a school classroom where high school students are asked to consider whether Western lives matter? Where they are challenged to think whether we should kneel for French teacher Samuel Paty? Where they are asked to consider what Italian journalist Guilio Meotti said during the week after the civics teacher was beheaded for discussing the Mohammed cartoons in his classroom: “This French teacher was the victim of the most ferocious racism that circulates today in Western democracies, that of fundamentalist beliefs against ‘infidels’.”
Alas, not just schools offer unthinking support for the BLM movement. Corporations and all kinds of other groups salute it too as part of their commitment to “diversity and inclusivity”. This commitment, part and parcel of a wider wokeness agenda, is another quasi-political movement that, like the BLM movement, could do with a splash of scepticism and analysis.
Parading virtue is not the same as doing good. No organisation should need a highly paid team of D&I “experts” to prove it supports inclusivity and diversity. Nor should it need pages of turgid D&I policies to understand that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex, sexuality, creed, culture or race.
But the D&I industry has become the perfect Trojan horse for more opportunistic activists to demand special status and privileges for groups they deem special. And timid CEOs and boards are swallowing it, lock, stock and barrel. Most companies have D&I statements drafted by D&I “officers”, D&I KPIs drawn up and monitored by more D&I “professionals”, D&I workshops run by D&I “experts”. It is, as Time magazine reported late last year, a booming industry: a 2019 survey of 234 companies in the S&P 500 found that 63 per cent of diversity “experts” were appointed during the past three years.
What a terrific lurk. No skills or formal qualifications required. Learn the D&I lingo, master the art of bullshit, and you’re on your way to a lucrative career with guaranteed work from company executives and board members looking to mimic each other with expensively drafted drivel about diversity and inclusion.
Woke D&I flunkies are paid handsomely, for example, to advise companies to establish their diversity and inclusion credentials by encouraging employees to “bring their whole self to work”. Most of it is for show. And much of it is as deeply flawed as the BLM movement.
What if your whole self includes a Christian or Muslim view of traditional marriage or homosexuality? Rugby Australia famously told Israel Folau not to bring those bits of his whole self to work, nor to express them on his personal social media accounts. Then he was told not to come to work at all.
James Cook University is another organisation that, according to its website “encourages diversity.” “JCU has an extensive program in place to encourage diversity,” it says. JCU places “diversity messages” in its recruitment advertising — such as this: “We are enriched by and celebrate our workplace diversity and welcome applications from candidates of all backgrounds and abilities.”
But when it comes to the university’s core business, diversity and inclusion is a crock. Rather than defend the diversity of academic opinions, JCU sacked physic professor Peter Ridd, claiming he acted in an uncollegial manner when he challenged the quality of climate research by a JCU academic.
More and more, the D&I industry resembles a new religion for our secular age. Corporate executives throw shareholder money in the D&I collection plate to signal their virtue.
Even worse, whereas older, traditional religions are learning to become more tolerant of difference, the D&I industry is not there yet.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/diversity-and-inclusion-the-wests-booming-new-religion/news-story/700b9126217c89e78daa81560ebf8600
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
23 October, 2020
Dem Hive Mind Tries to Cancel Chris Pratt for Avoiding Biden Fundraiser
Welcome to America in the first year of the 2020s, boys and girls. Everything matters. Nothing matters. There is no way to tell up from down anymore.
Enter Chris Pratt — everything people want to like about an entertainer. He’s a decent, God-fearing guy who always seems to be in a good mood. Scandal-free. Heck, even when he and his first wife Anna Faris got divorced in 2018 it was so amicable people were wondering if they were even real.
But in the aforementioned topsy-turvy nature of American society, Pratt’s decency is a hard “no” from enlightened, tolerant leftists.
OK, it’s not just his decency, it’s also his lack of willingness to participate in the leftist hive mind.
Some of Pratt’s Avengers castmates decided to get together for this bit of nonsense:
The Daily Wire:
“On Tuesday, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Paul Rudd, Don Cheadle, and Zoe Saldana will participate in a fundraising event to support Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris,” Vanity Fair reported.
“Yet while there was broad interest in the latest star-studded push for the Biden campaign, it’s the absence of one key Avengers star that has caused the biggest stir on social media,” the outlet noted. “Shortly after the event was announced, Chris Pratt’s name trended on Twitter, with many criticizing the Guardians of the Galaxy star for his perceived political views.”
As noted by The Daily Wire, Pratt was ridiculed over the weekend for allegedly radiating “homophobic white Christian supremacist energy,” among other left-wing attacks.
Because, of course, everyone who doesn’t support the leftist groupthink mob is homophobic and racist.
They really think that dismissing the over 200 million Christians in the United States as homophobic white supremacists is a sustainable winning political strategy.
I won’t post any of the social media hate directed toward Pratt here because I don’t like giving people like that any kind of publicity. It’s plenty easy to find (especially on Twitter) if you want to.
One of Pratt’s Marvel Cinematic Universe costars was having none of it. Robert Downey Jr. came to Pratt’s defense with a gentle but biting rebuke of those who are attacking his friend:
The “sinless.”
Priceless.
If we just went a few years back in the Wayback Machine we wouldn’t be talking about the need to defend an American because he is a Christian and doesn’t want to support a certain candidate just because some of his friends did, but this is where we are at now:
Yeah, now we have to “defend” someone for being honest and open about his struggle with cancer because he’s a wrongthink Rethuglican. It’s bad to worry about dying in front of all the people who want you dead, after all.
Chris Pratt is being excoriated for openly possessing values that most Americans do. He’s a celebrity, however, and our betters will be having none of that, thank you.
It would be nice if Chris Pratt wasn’t an anomaly in the entertainment industry, but we are well past that point. The fact that he’s there is encouraging, however. The more that the cancel crowd extends its reach like this, the more diluted and weak it gets.
It’s a weird silver lining to see but we have to take the small victories when we can in order to get to the big ones.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stephen-kruiser/2020/10/21/dem-hive-mind-tries-to-cancel-chris-pratt-for-avoiding-biden-fundraiser-n1073341
What is the antidote to ‘Wokeness’?
Political comedian Evan Sayet says he has long dedicated himself to conserving and promoting the American values that have given him freedom and allowed him to pursue his life of liberty and happiness. His new book, The Woke Supremacy, lays out the history and characteristics of “Wokeness.”
However, in failing to examine the origins of this totalitarian intolerance, he misses the critical difference between old-style Marxism, so-called “Democratic socialism,” and “cultural Marxism” as first delineated by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci and employed by Chinese dictator Mao Zedong.
That’s okay, though, because Sayet masterfully describes how these subversives operate and lays out the tactical principles (and lack of moral principles) that drive them. Their goal, he says, is to replace Western civilization with a nihilist premise that everything about Western culture is evil.
One fruit of this evil, poisonous tree is that Western society is so racist, Woke activists assert, and so fraught with multiple other evils that it cannot be repaired. Instead, it must be eradicated and replaced.
Philosopher, historian and self-defense advocate Sam Jacobs summarizes the origins of Wokeness by reviewing Gramsci, who spent a decade in Mussolini’s prisons and rejected the twin ideas of a dictatorship of the proletariat and direct ownership of the means of production as losing propositions.
Instead, this son of a low-level Italian bureaucrat argued that for socialism to “take America without firing a shot” (as Khrushchev would later boast) would require a “long march through the institutions” of Western culture in order to penetrate, infiltrate and eventually control them. In the 1960s Marshall McLuhan summed up Gramsci’s argument in his book, The Medium Is the Message.
Both Chairman Mao, beginning in 1966, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot a decade later saw existing cultural institutions as impediments to their quest for absolute power to reshape their societies according to their Marxist ideals. But both revolutions failed, perhaps because they had missed Gramsci’s point. Success comes from slowly subverting the culture rather than destroying it.
Mao’s vision was to rid China of “the four Olds” – Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Ideas. In other words, everything that pre-dated communism. As Christopher Holton writes in The Hayride, Mao’s Red Guards started out renaming streets, quickly escalated to destroying old buildings, old books, and old art, and ransacking homes of the disloyal. They even desecrated cemeteries, dug up corpses and tore down monuments. Only later did they start killing.
Pol Pot witnessed China’s “Cultural Revolution” and wanted to outdo his mentor via a “Super Great Leap Forward,” instead of a “long march.” He expelled foreigners, closed embassies, shuttered newspapers and TV stations, confiscated radios and bicycles, outlawed mail and telephones, and put those still alive in agrarian camps. People began starving to death.
In his 2012 book, The Kindergarten of Eden, Sayet posited four laws of “modern liberalism,” beginning with “indiscriminateness,” total rejection of the intellectual process. This, he said, leads to a topsy-turvy worldview that always sides with the lesser and against the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good. That is what happened in China and Cambodia.
Promoting the lesser is always paired with denigrating the better. The negative qualities of the Woke (socialists) are ascribed to the un-Woke (nationalists) – and vice versa. Hillary Clinton thus framed President Trump for “collusion with Russia,” which evidence now shows she herself engaged in.
The primary goal of the modern liberal, Sayet contends, is the total regression of man back to his first days on earth. Or as Joni Mitchell wrote, “We’ve go to get ourselves back to the Garden.” The blueprint for cultural Marxism in America, Sayet argues in both books, is John Lennon’s popular song, “Imagine.” The perfect, peace-filled world has no heaven or hell and people live just for the moment, with no countries, no religion, no possessions, and nothing worth dying for.
This Woodstock hippies’ quest for an imaginary simpler time provided the New Left with a ready-made tool for organizing to effectuate institutional control. Their rejection of Western civilization – their search for the innocence of “the Garden” – enabled them to create new curricula that lured “useful idiots” into the halls of academe, the arts and the political arena, where hard-core Woke nihilists could redefine “truth.”
Sayet opens The Woke Supremacy by stating that, while Hitler’s National Socialism was ideologically the polar opposite of Democratic Socialism, ideology has little influence over behavior once any socialist system gains power.
Both rejected nationalism built on a foundation of local leadership (hence our Tenth Amendment) that implements policies which make sense locally even if not nationwide. Socialism, Sayet affirms, requires top-down governance where “one size fits all” (except for governing elites).
Enforcement of top-down government requires tyrannical control, and tremendous energy, to impose a Woke supremacy from which there can be no dissent or even debate. Wokeness thus requires the use of hate and fear. There is no redemption for the apostasy of believing facts when they conflict with “Woke truth.” The “Cancel Culture” can be just as vicious against a prior ally as against longtime opponents.
Conversely, there is no “Woke morality” by which infidelity, theft, property crimes or even murder disqualify a person who is useful in promoting Wokeness. The Woke proudly spotlight even criminals who shot first as “victims” of a “racist” police force that oppresses the entire society. Deconstructing sexual norms is also a powerful tool that confuses what is a “right.” Environmentalism turns science into a Woke morality play, regardless of real-world evidence to the contrary.
The Woke also use modifiers to confuse, divide and conquer. Adding “politically” to “correct” changes objective truth or outright fiction into narratives of “my truth.”
Similarly, the modifier “social” transforms the concept of “justice” notions that “the oppressed” are morally right to steal or commit voter fraud if their “intent” is couched in victimhood that can spark “peaceful protests.” The goal is victory, “by any means necessary,” whether packing the Supreme Court or turning a murderer into a victim to generate hatred of the law.
Not only must evil become good to the Woke; actual good deeds must be deconstructed. A major tool is the “dog whistle,” a tactic that asserts the Woke “know” the “real meaning” behind seemingly innocent or even positive words or actions.
Sayet recognizes that even a Trump/Republican political victory this fall will not defeat the Woke Supremacy’s culture war on America. They are too entrenched in schools and universities, in newsrooms and entertainment fields, and across social communications industries, to be easily vanquished.
Jacobs helpfully suggests that the first step in defusing cultural Marxism is to learn what it is and how it operates – and call it out for what it is. Sayet provides an excellent primer for this.
Step 2, says Jacobs, is to learn from the history of society and ideas the many benefits that Western Civilization has brought, including its self-correction of prior evils – and teach them to others.
Step 3 is to reject political guilt and instead recognize that Western civilization is a constant work in progress, a continuing effort to improve society, not a static conspiracy to rob everyone but “old, rich, white men” of their just rewards.
VP Pence Honors Castro and Che Guevara’s Murder Victims, Obama Honored the Murderers
“It is great to be back in the Sunshine State with so many champions for freedom, just 19 days away from a great victory all across Florida and all across America. But standing here, near the hallowed grounds of Memorial Cubano, it is my great honor, on behalf of our president, to accept the endorsement of these extraordinary heroes of the Cuban exiled community. Thank you so much. I thank you so much for the honor and for the support,” Vice President Pence at the Cuban Memorial, Oct. 15.
Far from honoring communist murder victims, Obama visited Cuba to gift the mass-murderers a financial lifeline, covered his heart while posing with Che Guevara and raised Raul Castro’s arms in triumph. Could the choice in this election be any starker?
You’ll often find people with itchy noses and red-rimmed eyes ambling amidst the long rows of white crosses at Tamiami Park on Coral Way and 107 Avenue in Miami.
It’s a mini-Arlington cemetery called the Cuban Memorial, in honor of Castro and Che Guevara’s murder victims and those who fell trying to free Cuba from the murderous barbarism they imposed with their Soviet overlords while "The Best and Brightest" dithered, bumbled, and finally betrayed.
But the crosses at the Cuban Memorial are symbolic. Most of the bodies still lie in mass graves dug by bulldozers on the orders of the Stalinist dictator who Jimmy Carter called “an old friend” and his mass-murdering henchman who Obama saw fit to pose in front of with hand his over heart.
Never heard of this Cuban Memorial in the mainstream media? Well, it honors the tens of thousands of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s victims (many of them U.S citizens, by the way). Need I say more about the media blackout? I didn’t think so.
Some of these Cuban Memorial visitors will be kneeling, others walking slowly, looking for a name. You remember a similar scene from the opening frames of Saving Private Ryan. Many clutch rosaries. Many of the ladies will be pressing their faces into the breast of a relative who drove them there, a relative who wraps his arms around her spastically heaving shoulders.
Try as he might not to cry himself, he usually finds that the sobs wracking his mother, grandmother, or aunt are contagious. Yet he’s often too young to remember the face of his martyred uncle, father, or cousin — the name they just recognized on the white cross.
"Fusilado" — firing squad execution — it says below it.
According to the Black Book of Communism these total 16,000, all at the orders of the man Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern called “likable and a good friend.” Even many of the older men walking among these crosses will be red-eyed, choked up.
The elderly lady still holds a tissue to her eyes and nose as they wait to cross the street after leaving the memorial. Her red-eyed grandson still has his arm around her. She told him about how his freedom-fighter grandfather yelled "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Cristo Rey!" the instant before the volley of Russian bullets shattered his body.
They cross the street slowly, silently, and run into a blue and orange-haired harpy waving a Black Lives Matter placard. Her T-shirt sports the face of her husband’s cowardly executioner, Che Guevara. You, friends, tell me how she might feel?
Another woman will go home after placing flowers under her father’s cross — a father she never knew. "Killed in action, Bay of Pigs, April 18th, 1961" reads the inscription on his cross. She was 2 at the time. "We will not be evacuated!" yelled her father’s commander into his radio that day, as 41,000 Red Troops and swarms of Stalin tanks closed the ring on her father and his 1,400 utterly abandoned Band of Brothers. "The Best and Brightest" all had important social engagements that day.
"We came here to Fight!" her father’s commander kept yelling at the enraged and heartsick CIA man offering to evacuate them from the doomed beachhead. "Let it end here!" was his last yell, barely audible over the deafening blasts from the storm of Soviet artillery.
Her 23-year-old father — an accountant in Cuba a year before, a dish-washer in a Miami Hotel only two months before, and now grim-faced, thirst-crazed, and delirious after three days of continuous ground combat — heard the order from his commander: "No Retreat! We Stand and Fight!" and rammed in his last clip. By then he’d long realized he’d never see his daughter’s graduation.
His ammo expended, and no more coming on the specific orders of "The Best and Brightest," he fell among the bodies of 100 of his Band of Brothers, after mauling his communist enemies to the score of 20 to one. "Wimps! Yes, Wimps!" the woman hears Democrat Party Golden Boy Michael Moore label her father and his Band of Brothers in one of America’s best-selling books. "Crybabies too!"
Again, friends, you tell me how she might feel.
Castro murdered her relatives, shattered her family and plunged a nation — which had double Japan’s per capita income in 1958, plus net immigration from Europe — into a pesthole that repels even half-starved Haitians. He jailed, tortured, and murdered more political prisoners than pre-war Hitler, and about 20 times as many as Mussolini.
He asked, pleaded, and finally tried to cajole the Butcher of Budapest into an obliterating nuclear strike against America. Failing there, he tried to blow up Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdale's, and Grand Central Station with more TNT than used by Madrid subway terrorists.
Yet he’s hailed as "One Helluva Guy" by Ted Turner; as "Very likable, a man I regard as a friend!" by George McGovern; and "Way Too Cool!" by Bonnie Raitt, among dozens upon dozens of other accolades by dozens of other liberal scoundrels and imbeciles. Tens of thousands of Cubans (and dozens of Americans) fought him. "We were fighting for Cuba’s freedom as well as America’s defense. To call us mercenaries is a grave insult," says Alabama Air guard officer Albert Persons about his and his Alabama comrades’ heroism during the battle of The Bay of Pigs. The Ivy League’s Best and Brightest might sell our comrades out, they snorted. We sure as hell won’t.
It was more than bluster, too. Four U.S. volunteers — Pete Ray, Riley Shamburger, Leo Barker, and Wade Grey — suited up, gunned the engines, and joined the fight. These were Southern boys, not pampered Ivy Leaguers, so there was no navel-gazing. They had archaic notions of right and wrong, of honor and loyalty, of who America’s enemies really were. Their Cuban comrades — men they’d trained and befriended — were being slaughtered on that heroic beachhead. Knowing their lumbering B-26s were sitting ducks for Castro’s unmolested jets and Sea Furies, all four Alabama air guard volunteers flew over the doomed beachhead to lend support to their betrayed brothers in arms.
All four were shot down. All four have their names in a place of honor next to their Cuban comrades on the Bay of Pigs Memorial, plus streets named after them in Little Havana, plus their crosses at the Cuban Memorial.
When Doug MacArthur waded ashore on Leyte, he grabbed a radio: "People of the Philippines: I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God our forces stand again on Philippine soil — soil consecrated in the blood of our two peoples."
Cuban soil was similarly consecrated.
https://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2020/10/17/vp-pence-honors-castro-and-che-guevaras-murder-victims-obama-honored-the-murderers-n2578221
Women’s March Unites Against a Woman: Amy Coney Barrett
The second 2020 Women’s March, held on October 17, centers on sending an “unmistakable message about the fierce opposition to Trump and his agenda, including his attempt to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. This comes after the president nominated Judge Barrett, a brilliant jurist admired even by legal experts who disagree with her, as the late justice’s replacement. This latest march takes a stand against Barrett, even as so many American women identify with her story.
It’s true that Ginsburg’s seat is a big one to fill – and should be approached with thoughtful consideration. At her nomination, Barrett herself recognized the late justice as a “woman of enormous talent” who “not only broke glass ceilings” but also “smashed them.”
But this march isn’t just against President Trump nominating a new justice – the timing of it, or the politics surrounding it. It’s also specifically against his nominee, a woman: Judge Barrett.
Confirming this, the Washington Post named its live stream of the D.C. event, “Women's March protests Amy Coney Barrett.” And, in the promo video, the Women’s March included a clip questioning Barrett and her abortion position.
“Amy Coney Barrett won’t say if climate change is real, if presidents should commit to a peaceful transfer of power, if cases protecting marriage equality and our right to birth control were correctly decided,” the Women’s March tweeted on October 14. “Not only is her nomination illegitimate, it's a danger to our future.”
In other words, according to the Women’s March, Judge Barrett “is an affront to everything that Justice Ginsburg fought for.”
Among other things, she stood against women, the group complained on September 28.
“All of the progress that has been made—for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and more—could be rolled back if Barrett is confirmed,” it urged.
The Women’s March also accused her of being an “anti”: “anti-immigrant,” “anti-choice,” “anti-lgbt,” and “anti-gun control.”
She was also anti-feminist, it said.
“Her presence on the Supreme Court would be a direct threat against all the freedoms, rights, and feminist values we've fought so hard to defend under Trump,” it added in another tweet on September 26.
And yet, in its haste to condemn her, the Women’s March overlooks the American women who identify with Amy Coney Barrett. They exist.
“For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal,” one New York Times headline read on September 28. A Politico opinion headline declared, “Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon” the day before. Another opinion piece, in America magazine, announced, “I see my own pro-life feminism in Amy Coney Barrett” on October 14. “Feminists Should Be Celebrating Amy Coney Barrett,” another piece, published by National Review, argued.
Each was written by a woman.
That’s something that should attract the Women’s March, which tries to come across as inclusive. Its self-described mission, after all, is “to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change.”
“We must create a society in which women - including Black women, Indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Jewish women, Muslim women, Latinx women, Asian and Pacific Islander women, lesbian, bi, queer, and trans women - are free and able to care for and nurture their families,” the Women’s March declares, “however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.”
The list notably doesn’t include pro-life or conservative women who, from the beginning, have been excluded. But pro-life groups, such as New Wave Feminists, and conservative groups, such as Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), still attend in an unofficial capacity – or host their own rallies.
Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, the head of New Wave Feminists, which was uninvited as a partner from the first Women’s March in 2017, has stressed that even women marching in the Women’s March support them.
“We were so overwhelmed by the positivity of women coming up to us and saying, ‘We disagree with that decision’ and ‘We’re so glad you’re here,’” she said last year, referring to the reaction of women at past marches.
This year, New Wave Feminists had a presence again, as did IWF, which hosted an “I’m with Her” rally – “her,” meaning Amy Coney Barrett.
“The Women’s March is a picture of today’s feminist movement,” IWF President Carrie Lukas told the Washington Times. “It purports to speak for all women, but it ignores all of the women who reject its extreme progressive agenda.”
Tammy Bruce, the president of Independent Women’s Voice, IWF’s sister organization, added that the “so-called women’s movement is standing by while the mainstream media questions if Amy Coney Barrett can be a Supreme Court justice and a good mother, in addition to vilifying her background and her faith.”
At the same time, Barrett stresses that she values women and their choices. She addressed this while answering the question, “Can women really have it all?” at a Hillsdale College event last year.
“I think each woman is called to a unique path,” she urged. “I don’t think there’s one cookie-cutter way that women should proceed.”
“One thing I think that is really important not to lose sight of, is that we are so fortunate as women living in 2019 to have so many more doors open to us, and so many choices,” she said. “But I think as part of that conversation, I always want to be careful never to devalue the choices that women make that are different.”
That’s a message that the Women’s March should embrace, too.
https://townhall.com/columnists/katieyoder/2020/10/18/womens-march-unites-against-a-woman-amy-coney-barrett-n2578298
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
22 October, 2020
What the Never Trumpers are saying
So, wonderful as Reagan was, taking your definition of conservatism from him is very narrow.
The big failing of libertarians is that they see liberty as the solution to all problems. That is very dogmatic. We certainly could have much more liberty than we do but part of the reason why we do not is that there are other factors that are influential on human decision-making. Open borders are for instance a libertarian ideal but conservatives foresee many problems with that -- increased crime, increased load on the welfare and health systems, support for Fascist politics -- and Trump has clearly acted on that reasonable fear, which is one of the big factors behind his huge popularity among Republican voters
So what we are looking below at is what a small group of post-Reagan intellectuals think is good policy and what the big mass of conservative voters think is good policy. Trump has created a new definition of what conservatives stand for and the old guard can't accept that. They cannot accept what the mass of conservative voters have shown to be conservatism in the present era. They dismiss as "populism" the verdict of the people.
And the Trump gospel is both crystal clear and with much traditional conservatism behind it. The one thing it is not is libertarian.
Trump is patriotic, gives foreigners no unearned credits and will use whatever means are available to him to advance America's interests as he sees them. And that includes tariffs and trade deals. It should be noted that, contrary to all libertarian assumptions, America's great thriving in the 19th century took place behind high tariff walls.
Tariffs are in fact a great insult to libertarians. Free trade is one of their most basic beliefs. And they have orthodox economic thinking on ther side. Tariffs do clearly to some degree jack up the prices that Americans pay in their supermarkets. So in ignoring that Trump has simply reminded us that money is not everything, which is a thoroughly Christian view. If paying a bit extra at the supermarket helps troubled communities a government may well consider that worthwhile
And Trump's patriotism is very conservative. Patriotism may seem crass to many intellectuals but it means a lot to many ordinary Americans. And notable British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has argued that patriotism is at the heart of conservatism. So Trump is not breaking new ground in his emphatic patriotism
Isolationism too is traditional in American conservatism and Trump's largely succesful efforts to bring American troops back home from the Middle East is a vivid expression of that
And Trump's tough stance abroad has had amazing results. Three peace deals in the Middle East and the Balkans is exactly three times more than anybody else has accomplished. The success of Trump's economic policies in creating jobs is a legend and he has now added to that achievement a stellar record of achievement in international politics. So his form of conservatism works wonders. The Never Trumpers should swallow their pride and their outdated assumptions and recognize that Trump has revived real conservatism and shown that it works wonders
The future of American conservatism will be decided at the coming election with the two options being the self-destruction inherent in a Trump victory or the long agony of reinvention necessitated by a Trump defeat.
Both will be chaotic — but in their different ways. From his 2016 presidential victory Donald Trump has throttled and then recreated the American conservative movement under new values and ideas — yet the Trump revolution remains bitterly contested and the movement is divided against itself. This election is about the destiny of American conservatism. Trump is the most important transformative figure for conservatism since Ronald Reagan, with The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F Seib saying of Reagan’s 40-year inheritance: “He personally made the Republican Party into a conservative party and his legacy inspired the movement’s leaders, animated its policy debates and stirred its voters’ emotions long after he left the scene.
“Then four years ago it all changed. Donald Trump ran in 2016 and swamped a sprawling Republican field. In doing so, he didn’t merely win the nomination and embark on the road to the White House. He turned Republicans away from four decades of Reagan-style national greatness conservatism to a new gospel of populism and nationalism.”
Seib calls the political revolution that saw the Reagan legacy buried in the Trump upheaval the “most important political story of the new millennium”. This is hard for Australians to grasp since there is no organised conservative movement in this country able to take command of a party like the Republican Party.
In America conservative ideology constitutes a throbbing, rampant, powerful coalition with ties to churches, corporates, small towns, middle-class virtue, blue-collar workers, the military, the flag and national pride. The thesis in Seib’s new book, We Should Have Seen It Coming, is self-explanatory — his story is the collapse of the Reagan foundations and Trump’s storming of the fortress.
In retrospect, it looks so obvious; it always does. The Reagan legacy hit the wall when the conservative movement turned against the Republican Establishment with the Bush family in its sights. In truth, the Reagan legacy was sandbagged by a changed world.
It came in unsuccessful wars after 9/11, the 2008 global financial crisis where Wall Street was saved and Little America punished, the arrival of China’s trade power at the cost of jobs in Middle America while poor services, compressed wages and skyrocketing incomes at the top end fermented a store of grievance. Seib says that when George W Bush left the White House in 2008 he identified three threats — isolationism, nativism and protectionism. They became the troika that Trump mobilised.
After Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election the Republicans faced an internal revolt. Trump’s one-time political guru, Steve Bannon, wanted to burn the edifice — he wanted to make rejection of immigration and free trade into the two biggest issues. Trump was neither a true Republican nor a reliable conservative. But the times suited a rebellious outsider who looked beyond the party establishment and exploited a rebellious conservative base. By contrast, the conservative power structure was aghast.
Trump offended at every level. Where Reagan had been a “morning in America” optimist, Trump warned of carnage as he raged and insulted; Reagan had a core of deeply held beliefs while Trump’s essential outlook was what suited his instincts and interests; where Reagan had an expansive view of US global leadership, Trump saw America as a victim being ripped off; where Reagan’s confidence saw him back immigration and free trade, Trump was a passionate double protectionist.
True conservatives saw the real threat. Hillary Clinton might defeat the Republicans but she could not betray their purpose. Trump could and he did. Yet Clinton had another role — along with the lurch to the left of the Democrats, she frightened many moderate conservatives who had no time for Trump. Seib said Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus swallowed his misgivings and “turned the keys to the party’s entire infrastructure over to the Trump campaign”.
“Still, even most people in Trump world didn’t think he would win,” Seib said of the 2016 contest. “Indeed, some of his campaign managers put Trump’s chance of winning at only 15 per cent.” But it was how Trump won that mattered — he largely repudiated the past policies and behaviour of Republican presidents as he exploited a grassroots hostility to nearly all forms of established power.
The core of Trump’s appeal lay in tribalism and nationalism. His message was the bankruptcy of old conservatism — it was too global, too Wall Street, too economic libertarian and out-of-touch elitist. Trump said what mattered were national borders, government intervention, cultural traditions and national pride. That meant knowing the differences between citizens and foreigners, jobs in China and jobs in America and honouring the difference between a man and a woman.
But Trump’s campaign against the system in 2016 was much easier than his 2020 campaign as an incumbent President. Four years in the White House have proved Trump does not possess the discipline, consistency and focus to entrench a new settlement based on populist and nationalistic conservatism.
Trump is a rebel, not a governor. He is a shooting star, not a policy builder. He cannot turn populist sentiment into a governing model. A narcissist obsessed by his own needs cannot create a new structure for his country. Every stakeholder quickly learnt Trump was a compulsive deal-maker.
Anything could be traded. Everything was negotiable. No principle would stand in the way of Trump’s advantage. His governing model violated every notion of conservative principle.
Companies, churches and Republicans — anyone who dealt with Trump — knew that trying to strike bargains was the only language he knew. Trump even told the Chinese that if they fixed the North Korea problem they’d get a trade dividend.
Classic conservatism is wary of executive power but Trump was addicted to executive assertion. He ran on instinct, not analysis. He saw history as bunk. He criticised allies and threatened to walk out of NATO. He was attracted to dictators with whom he could do deals.
He was obsessed with tariffs, cared nothing about budget deficits (before the pandemic) and had no interest in reforming government programs.
Seib quotes the “Never Trumpers” in the Republican Party saying: “Trump has blown up what used to be the ideological core of the party.” Can it be put back together? No, the Trump experience has changed American conservatism forever. It has been seduced by Trump’s success and the corrupting prospect he offers — that only Trump can resist the progressive tidal wave seeking to cancel every aspect of US cultural values and traditions.
By throwing in their lot with Trump, conservatives have turned their movement towards tribalism, populism and government intervention, rejecting both Adam Smith and Edmund Burke in favour of Trump’s “only I can fix it” narcissism. History will show it’s a bad deal.
Populism is the antithesis of conservatism. It rests upon stirring up passions, fuelling division, promoting polarisation and policy based on “reward and punish” transactions. Seib does a brilliant job in describing with detachment the transition from Reagan to Trump and the existential dilemma that confronts American conservatives regardless of who wins this presidential contest.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/us-election-conservatives-face-another-moment-of-truth/news-story/647bff340299962cc01ada93880fcd87
Leftist 'Rights' vs. Your Freedom of Conscience
The foundation of civilized society is freedom of conscience. But this core freedom is under severe assault from the Left. And that is frightening because all our constitutionally-enumerated freedoms rest on the bedrock liberty of conscience.
Consider the First Amendment. Free exercise of religion is informed and motivated by the dictates of conscience. So also with the other planks of the First Amendment—free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these liberties spring from the foundational freedom of conscience and date to America’s founding.
Jailed for Preaching
For James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, his commitment to religious freedom and the rights of conscience may have begun while standing with his father outside a Virginia jail. There he heard Baptists preaching from the jail cell windows. What was their crime? According to historian William J. Federer, they were unlicensed ministers—preaching religious opinions not approved by the government.
Prior to his work on the U.S. Constitution, Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” against religious assessments (taxes imposed to support religion). In it, the man John Marshall called “the most eloquent man I ever heard” wrote:
"The equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature (of God); if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us (emphasis added)."
While his argument focused largely on religious liberty, Madison’s use of the phrase “the dictates of conscience” highlights the broader and more general applicability of freedom of conscience—which undergirds all our God-given freedoms.
Thomas Jefferson, whose letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was widely quoted on the question of church and state, speaks even more powerfully about freedom of conscience in that same letter:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions (emphasis added)."
Actions only. Not opinions. This highlights the distinction between rights and beliefs—a distinction that must be made for civil society to exist. But that distinction is rapidly yielding to the onslaught of the radical Leftists.
Religious Rights Second?
Today, a whole cast of Leftist characters argue that their right to assume non-biological gender identities (for example) is superior to your right to deeply-held religious convictions. As one LGBT activist put it: “For human rights to flourish, religious rights have to come second.”
Chai Feldblum, the openly-lesbian former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, agrees. She is the architect of the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would force religious organizations to hire people not having the same (or any) religious convictions. Feldblum also writes: “Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are all morally neutral . . . but lack of gender equity is morally bad.”
This is the agenda of the Left—now on full display. Their “rights” must always prevail over your beliefs. In their fevered understanding, your beliefs are “morally bad.”
In less than two weeks will be an election—one holding greater portent for America than at any time since the Civil War. This election is fundamentally about whether this cornerstone freedom of conscience can endure and whether the Gospel is one of those things that must come second.
The question today is the same posed by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: “Will government of by and for the people perish from the Earth?” The answer depends largely on you.
Will you bend the knee to radical Marxists, or remain obedient to the truth of God? Will you be bullied into silence or stand on your convictions? Will you cower in your homes for fear of the pandemic, or will you stand and defend freedom for the sake of future generations?
Many have gone to ends of the Earth—giving their lives for the sake of the Gospel. You need only set aside an hourof your life to stand for Christ in the voting booth.
The hour is late. The Constitution is on life support. Our freedom to proclaim the Gospel stands in jeopardy. Your vote can help preserve the Constitution which guarantees rights endowed by our Creator. The very freedoms of those yet unborn hang in the balance.
Vote. Vote your conscience—while it’s still allowed.
https://townhall.com/columnists/frankwright/2020/10/20/leftist-rights-vs-your-freedom-of-conscience-n2578382?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=10/20/2020&bcid=6bed8ec6c23532f964400caf5c21036b&recip=6139244
Antifa Fascists Violently Shut Down Free Speech Rally in San Francisco
The Associated Press (AP) finally reported Antifa violence perpetrated against Trump supporters at a Free Speech Rally held in San Francisco on Saturday.
The rally was organized by Team Save America in response to Twitter's Orwellian decision to suppress the news three weeks before the presidential election to protect Joe Biden. How fascist of Twitter.
Demonstrators wore "Make America Great Again" hats and displayed "Thin Blue Line" and U.S. flags in a show of patriotism and support for members of the law enforcement community. Cops have been shot, injured, and wished dead by the leftist mob over the past several months.
Hundreds of Antifa members attacked participants and cops who were protecting rally-goers, or at least trying to. An Associated Press photographer witnessed an injured Trump supporter and a police officer on the ground near San Francisco's United Nations Plaza. San Francisco Police put out a statement saying three of their officers were injured after being attacked with pepper spray and caustic chemicals.
If Nancy Pelosi's district is a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the nation, it doesn't bode well for civil liberties, or really anything Americans traditionally value. Democrats pretend the right to protest is essential but all they care about is using the far-left mob to intimidate Republican voters.
The leftist mob even attacked two seniors attending the Free Speech rally.
Antifa attacked 2 senior citizens that were trying to enter our rally. After knocking one of the elders to the ground, Antifa continued attacking everyone who tried to enter my free speech rally. They still can’t explain why they committed countless hate crimes. Real NAZIS https://t.co/7QfRp0dKkO
Democrats have done everything they can to incite left-wing violence while simultaneously denying its existence. The Democrats are doing this because they think it helps them politically.
But will Americans really hand the country over to Democrats and the angry mob this November? Is violence the new way to win American elections?
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/10/18/watch-antifa-in-san-francisco-attacks-republicans-and-cops-hurl-racial-epithets-n2578318
Man denied German citizenship for refusing to shake woman's hand
The man aced the German naturalization test, but refused to shake hands with the female official handing over his citizenship. Despite claims he will not shake hands with men either, his citizenship has been rejected.
A German court ruled on Friday that a Muslim man who refused to shake the hand of a woman should not receive German citizenship.
The 40-year-old Lebanese doctor, who came to Germany in 2002, said he refuses to shake women's hands for religious reasons.
The Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH) ruled that someone who rejects a handshake due to a "fundamentalist conception of culture and values" because they see women as "a danger of sexual temptation" was thereby rejecting "integration into German living conditions."
The doctor studied medicine in Germany and now works as a senior physician in a clinic. He applied for citizenship through naturalization in 2012, for which he signed a declaration of loyalty to the German constitution and against extremism. He passed the naturalization test with the best possible score.
Nevertheless, he was not granted citizenship because he refused to shake hands with the responsible official when the naturalization certificate was handed over in 2015. The woman therefore withheld the certificate and rejected the application.
His petition against the ruling was unsuccessful before the Stuttgart Administrative Court and he appealed to the VGH. Following its decision Saturday, the court said that the man can appeal to the Federal Administrative Court due to the fundamental significance of the case.
The VGH described a handshake as a common nonverbal greeting and farewell ritual, which are independent of the sex of the involved parties, adding that the practice goes back centuries.
The judge found that the handshake also has a legal meaning, in that it symbolizes the conclusion of a contract.
The handshake is therefore "deeply rooted in social, cultural and legal life, which shapes the way we live together," the judge said.
https://www.dw.com/en/man-denied-german-citizenship-for-refusing-to-shake-womans-hand/a-55311947
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
21 October, 2020
Judge Barrett Is An Intelligent, Independent Woman and It’s Driving Democrats Crazy
The second day of the confirmation meetings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court had a moment to remember. Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) observed that he and his Senate colleagues had voluminous binders, meticulously prepared by staffers, to use while questioning Judge Barrett. Cornyn asked her what she had on the note pad in front of her. With a smile, she held up an empty pad with only the letterhead of the U.S. Senate on it.
It was obvious to anyone watching that Judge Barrett was more than a match for all of the senators on the Judiciary Committee and their staff. Using just her own wits, she has been able to respond with class and dignity to every question. Which made one of the lines of attack used by Democrats on the committee all the more puzzling.
Even on day three of the hearings, they continued to question her as if she were a clone of her mentor Justice Scalia. Although she several times pointed out that she is an independent person and will arrive at her own conclusions, Democrats continued to make it seem like she was incapable of her own thoughts.
Democrats seem to believe that anyone who admires and respects their mentor will never diverge from them. In that case what are we to make of President Bill Clinton, who so admired his mentor Senator William Fulbright (D-AR), who was a Dixiecrat and favored segregation, that he gave the eulogy at Fulbright’s funeral?
Fulbright was one of only nineteen U.S. Senators who signed the Southern Manifesto, a document of Constitutional principles meant to oppose the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that mandated desegregation of public schools. By Democrats logic this would make Bill Clinton in favor of segregation.
An intelligent, well-educated woman who disagrees with Democrat ideology, in their world, must have an explanation. Which may be why we see an attempt by Democrats to cast Judge Barrett as the unwitting padawan of the evil conservative Justice Scalia, who somehow turned her to the Dark Side. But this is not a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.
This is reality here and now. Once again, Democrats’ patronizing attitude towards women and minorities that do not agree with them is exposed. It appears that in Democrats’ minds, women and minorities are incapable of independent thought, should that thought disagree with left-wing orthodoxy. Remember Joe Biden’s “You ain’t Black” remark? The condescension is striking, especially when directed towards a legal scholar whose empty note pad shows she is impressively qualified.
The submission lives loudly within Democrats—submission to an ideology that precludes independent thought. An ideology that is at the root of Cancel Culture and uses fear to enforce it. Judge Barrett is respectful but not afraid of these Senators. She is intelligent but not condescending to those who disagree with her. Most of all, she is a representation of all that is great about our nation, both at its founding and today. That should be an inspiration to us all.
https://townhall.com/columnists/jakehoffman/2020/10/15/judge-barrett-is-an-intelligent-independent-woman-its-driving-democrats-crazy-n2578113
Kyle Rittenhouse, accused of killing 2 people during Wisconsin protests, won't face charges in Illinois, his home state
Illinois authorities have determined the AR-15 rifle used to kill two people and injure a third during unrest in Kenosha was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin, and that Kyle Rittenhouse never possessed it in Illinois.
That bit of information came from the Lake County State's Attorney's Office in a news release issued Tuesday. The release said police in Antioch, Rittenhouse's hometown — and where he turned himself in — investigated any possible crimes Rittenhouse may have committed in Illinois, but found none.
The statement does not indicate whether someone else possessed the gun in Illinois, or where it is now. It said prosecutors — not Antioch police — would release any additional information "as to not disrupt any investigation that may be taking place in Wisconsin."
'That's the shooter':Witnesses describe the night Kyle Rittenhouse opened fire in Kenosha
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, part of the USA TODAY Network, has sued to obtain records of Rittenhouse's arrest in Illinois.
Rittenhouse, 17, remains in a Lake County juvenile detention center awaiting a ruling on his lawyers' attempts to block his extradition to Wisconsin. He is facing six charges, including one count of first-degree intentional homicide, and could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge.
Rittenhouse was acting as self-appointed security against rioting on the third night of protests after the police shooting of Jacob Blake in August and considered himself a militia member, the Journal Sentinel has reported.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/10/13/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooter-illinois-charges/3648313001/
Ending California’s Lockdown on Churches Is Compatible With Science and Good Health
James Enstrom
Forty million California residents have been living under Gov. Gavin Newsom’s statewide lockdown order since March 19. This lockdown order—which was the first in the nation—was based on Newsom’s assessment of the health risks of COVID-19.
In Los Angeles County, 10 million residents are in lockdown, which was implemented at the county level by a series of health orders issued by the county health officer, Dr. Muntu Davis.
One aspect of this lockdown has been an effective, ongoing ban on indoor services at all churches. One church is now defying the ban: Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, a suburb of Los Angeles.
The church’s leader, Pastor John MacArthur, agreed to voluntarily comply with the March lockdown restrictions because of the original dire predictions of massive COVID-19 cases and deaths in California.
It became clear after four months that these predictions were wrong, and that the virus was not nearly as dangerous as originally feared. However, the restrictions continued to drag on indefinitely and were undermining the ability of the church to function properly.
On July 24, the Grace Community Church board decided to reopen the church, as explained in a detailed statement, titled “Christ, Not Caesar, Is Head of the Church: A Biblical Case for the Church’s Duty to Remain Open.”
The church determined that the health order was illegitimate, over-broad, and unconstitutional, because it indefinitely prevented the congregation from assembling and exercising its religion and sincerely held religious beliefs.
The church has relied upon the guaranteed religious freedom protections of the U.S. and California constitutions, and is now represented by a Thomas More Society legal team.
In response to the church’s indoor services on July 26, the Los Angeles County counsel, Mary Wickham, and five senior county council attorneys, acting on behalf of Davis, had a law firm, Miller Barondess LLP, issue a cease and desist letter on July 29.
The letter warned MacArthur that violating state and county health orders is “a crime punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment of up to 90 days.”
The letter was reinforced by a 97-page complaint for “violation of emergency health orders.”
I have challenged the public health validity of the cease and desist letter and the complaint by documenting the inaccuracy of the following claim:
By holding indoor services for hundreds of persons during this pandemic, you are placing the health and safety of not only the persons attending the service, but also the community at large at risk.
This unsubstantiated claim is contradicted by the fact that this health-conscious, low-risk church congregation has had no reported illness or death due to COVID-19.
Furthermore, this congregation is experiencing the substantial spiritual, mental, and physical health benefits of regular indoor church attendance. Key evidence of the health benefits of regular church attendance is described in a letter I sent on Sept. 18 to Davis.
Davis has refused to respond to my letter in spite of my numerous attempts made directly to him and to other county health officials, Miller Barondess, and the county council.
Davis needs to examine and acknowledge the decades of peer-reviewed epidemiologic evidence that regular church attendance is consistently associated with reduced death rates and many other health benefits, as described in my 2008 article in Preventive Medicine and a 1997 article in the American Journal of Public Health.
For instance, a representative sample of U.S. adults adhering to four simple health practices, one of which is weekly church attendance, had a total age-adjusted death rate that was only one-half of the death rate among the entire sample.
Among a representative sample of Californian adults, frequent church attenders had a total death rate that was only 64% of the death rate of infrequent attenders. Even after adjusting for other health-related factors, there was still a significant mortality reduction among regular attenders.
In addition, frequent attenders were more likely to stop smoking, increase exercise, increase social contacts, and stay married. There is much more evidence that supports the benefits of church attendance.
Thus, there is very strong evidence that the health benefits of indoor worship services far exceed the alleged health risks of COVID-19 for this congregation, which has thus far experienced no illness or death associated with COVID-19.
Rather than supporting an unconstitutional and oppressive legal complaint against the church based on invalid health claims, Davis needs to modify the current county health order to allow indoor worship services at this church.
This church and its low-risk congregation can be carefully monitored for COVID-19 risk, and can serve as a model for reopening churches, as part of a rapidly growing effort to reopen low-risk parts of American society.
This reopening strategy is described in the Great Barrington Declaration, now signed by over 10,000 public health scientists, which states:
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call focused protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health …
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.
Rather than condemning the Great Barrington Declaration and ignoring thousands of public health scientists, including me, Davis must objectively and promptly act in response to the overall health evidence that justifies reopening low-risk churches, like Grace Community Church.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/10/16/ending-californias-lockdown-on-churches-is-compatible-with-science-and-good-health
"Social housing" in action
An Australian family whose social housing apartment was riddled with mould and left without repairs for seven months has been given a new home just days after a visit from federal Opposition leader Anthony Albanese.
Nathan Andersen had reported severe mould in his bathroom ceiling from a leaking pipe in the flat above back in March, and was concerned it was a health hazard for his son.
It took until last week, after the dire need for repairs gained media attention during Mr Albanese’s visit to SA, for there to be progress. “It was all stuck in the woodwork for months and months and months and nothing,” Mr Andersen said.
“When (they) came out to do an inspection again, when they had a look at the roof, they deemed it unliveable because it’s a health hazard,” he said.
“They got back to me within two hours and said they had a house for me.” Mr Andersen welcomed the result, saying: “I’ve got upgraded to a three-bedroom house with a yard – it’s really great.”
He was told the delay was due to miscommunication.
Federal Labor’s housing spokesman Jason Clare said: “It shouldn’t have to take a visit from the Leader of the Opposition to get this fixed.”
He said there were “100,000 stories just like Nathan’s across the country” where tenants were living in social housing that desperately need to be repaired.
Labor has called on the Federal Government to fund social maintenance as part of its COVID-19 recovery package to create jobs for the construction sector and to improve conditions for tenants.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-family-gets-new-home-after-unliveable-social-housing-gained-media-attention-in-anthony-albanese-visit/news-story/6c80f6b257b143bd7c1a67554253696d
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
20 October, 2020
Fury as New Statesman writer condemns 'brutal police murder' of Islamist terrorist who beheaded teacher outside French school
A British-based writer sparked outrage last night by condemning French police for shooting dead the armed Islamist terrorist who beheaded teacher Samuel Paty.
Dana Nawzar Jaf – a former Chevening Scholar at Durham University – questioned the police's decision to kill Chechen fanatic Aboulakh Anzorov, fearing the terrorist would attack them or others.
Mr Jaf, who describes himself as a Kurdish activist, had taken to Twitter, posting: 'I fully condemn French police's brutal senseless murder of the Muslim suspect last night.
A picture of a body lying in the middle of the road was shared online before French anti-terror prosecutors confirmed they were investigating an assault in which a man was decapitated on the outskirts of Paris
'Macron and his security apparatus should explain to the public what was the need for the use of the disproportionate force against someone suspected of a knife crime. France is in crisis.'
Mr Jaf – an occasional writer for the Left-leaning New Statesman magazine, did not condemn the beheading itself.
His Twitter account, which bears the motto 'build bridges and destroy idols', was inundated with angry comments.
One poster wrote: 'Police have done what they needed to do. They were protecting their citizens.'
Last night, Mr Jaf, who is believed to have arrived in Britain as an exchange student from Iraq in 2009, said: 'That was not meant to be a factual statement about the police. It's meant to be a sarcastic comment towards Macron who is the number one fueller of terrorism.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8851689/Anger-writer-condemns-brutal-police-murder-Islamist-terrorist-beheaded-French-teacher.html
The Party of Enduring Racism, Bias, and Prejudice
For three years, and without evidence, The New York Times falsely claimed that Donald Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Thereafter, their hopelessly biased executive editor, Dean Baquet, decided to switch gears. After the Mueller report imploded, at Baquet's direction, the Times would shift its focus of its coverage from the 'Trump-Russia affair' to the president's 'alleged racism.'
"We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well," Baquet said, apparently unaware of the historically profound idiocy of his statement. "Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.” Through daily bogus reporting, the ‘newspaper of record’ would now seek to expose ‘the racism’ of Donald Trump and America in general.
A Myth for All Time
From 93% to 96% of American media is controlled by leftists, considering book and magazine publishing, major newspapers, Internet tech giants, television, etc. The Left dominates in our schools, Hollywood, and popular culture. The only domains in which the Right has dominance are radio, and perhaps YouTube and blogging.
An enduring Democrat myth propagated for decades, and ramped up since Donald Trump became president, is that the Republican Party is racist. Democrats are able to maintain this myth in part because they dominate public discourse and because most Americans, daily, are concerned with making a living and caring for their families, not with scrutinizing history. Joe Biden tells the Charlottesville “fine people” lie at every appearance, despite video footage to the contrary and Trump’s 20+ denunciation of white supremacist groups.
Even a cursory review of American history, however, starting with Abraham Lincoln, and the Emancipation Proclamation, reveals that it is the Democrat Party that has practiced and still exhibits fiery racist behavior.
Who formed the Confederate States of America? Was it Republicans? No, it was Southern Democrats. President Lincoln, the 16th in U.S. history, was shot and killed while watching a play, “Our American Cousin,” at Ford's Theater in Washington DC, on April 14th, 1865 by John Wilkes Booth.
Lincoln was 56 years old, had just been re-elected to his 2nd term and, along with millions of other Americans, was celebrating the end of the U.S. Civil War, which occurred on April 9. Wilkes, a leading actor of that era, was not a Democrat, but was sympathetic to the Democrats and their opposition to Lincoln.
The Dawn Civil Rights
Who murdered John F. Kennedy, the 36th president of the U.S., in Dallas, on November 22nd 1963? Unquestionably Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed JFK. This is explained in intricate detail by Gerald Posner in his landmark book Case Closed (1993). Mr. Posner dislodged every conceivable stone in reaching his conclusion. After illuminating Posner’s work in a 25-page feature in its publication, U.S. News & World Report declared it would never review another book on the topic because the case was closed. Oswald was a Leftist, who viewed communism favorably and espoused Marxist theory.
Hesitatingly, JFK championed civil rights. “He ordered his attorney general to submit friends of the court briefs on behalf of civil rights litigants.” He appointed African Americans to positions within his administration. He selected Thurgood Marshall for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. He backed voter registration drives. In a second term, JFK, influenced by Martin Luther King, Jr., was contemplating civil rights legislation.
Who murdered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? On April 4, 1968, James Earl Ray, a southern segregationist, assassinated MLK in Memphis, TN. Ray, who fled to England, was subsequently captured.
In summary, the murderers of Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, were politically Left, and certainly not Republicans. Lincoln, Kennedy, and King, each of whom had great potential for expanding the rights and acceptance of African Americans, were cut down in their prime.
A Sordid History
Prior to the Civil War and for 27 months past the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, who owned slaves? Democrats. Republicans, with a few exceptions, did not own slaves.
Who lynched at least 5,400 blacks, from 1882 to 1968, primarily throughout the South, with the annual peak occurring in the late 1800s, when one party acted to enforce white supremacy? In a word, Democrats.
Who created the Ku Klux Klan? Politifacts says: “Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a ‘strong arm’ for many local Democratic politicians...” A Confederate general, “believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.” Democrats didn’t launch the KKK, but they played along.
Who blocked and delayed women's suffrage, for some 79 years? At the critical times, it was Democrats.
Who upheld segregation throughout the early 1900s, during World War II, and into the 1950s and 1960s? Democrats. Who posted signs that said, "Colored drinking fountain," or, "Colored bathroom?" Democrats.
Who stood at the doorway of high schools and institutions of higher learning and said to African-Americans you may not attend? Democrats.
Who interned Japanese American citizens during World War II, for three years? President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat.
The Part of Racism, Bias, and Prejudice
Malcolm X once noted, “Both parties are racist, and the Democratic Party is more racist than the Republican Party.” What would prompt this learned man, with vast experience in politics and racial prejudice, to make such a statement?
For 200+ years, Democrats have revealed their racism, bias, and prejudice. Yet, with a Democrat-controlled mainstream media, which party is cast as being racist and biased? Which presidents and politicians are deemed racist? Republicans.
Throughout time, Republicans have not always acted as saints, but they can’t hold a candle in our society to the Democrat party when it comes to racism, bias, and prejudice.
https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2020/10/18/the-party-of-enduring-racism-bias-and-prejudice-n2578300
France to expel 231 suspected extremists after attack on teacher
Paris: France is preparing to expel 231 foreigners on a government watch list for suspected extremist religious beliefs, a police union source said, two days after a Russian-born Islamist beheaded a teacher.
France's interior ministry, responsible for expelling foreigners, was not available to confirm the information, which had been initially reported by Europe 1.
France defines extremists as "people who, engaged in a process of radicalisation, are likely to want to go abroad to join terrorist groups or take part in terrorist activities".
President Emmanuel Macron's centrist government has been under pressure from conservative and far-right parties to take a tougher stance on non-nationals deemed to pose a security threat.
Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin asked local prefects to order the expulsions at a meeting on Sunday afternoon, Paris time, according to the source and Europe 1.
Of the total number of suspects, 180 people are currently in prison and 51 were due to be arrested in the next hours, the police union source said.
Darmanin also asked his ministry's services to examine more closely the requests of people wishing to obtain the status of refugee in France, the source said.
The 18-year-old suspected Islamist who beheaded history teacher Samuel Paty outside his school on Friday was born in Russia of Chechen origin and had refugee status.
Macron held a Defence Council meeting with senior cabinet ministers on Sunday as thousands of people gathered across France to support teachers and defend freedom of expression after the killing of Paty.
From Paris to Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux and Lille large crowds gathered quietly, pausing regularly to applaud, hold minutes of silence or sing the national anthem.
Prime Minister Jean Castex attended the gathering on Place de La Republique in Paris along with Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer and politicians from across the spectrum, showing solidarity after a killing that has shocked the country.
"You don't scare us. We are not afraid. You will not divide us. We are France!" Castex tweeted later.
Earlier this month, the Paty had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a class on freedom of expression, angering a number of Muslim parents. Reports say he asked Muslim students who felt they may be offended to leave the class ahead of the lesson. Muslims believe that any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous.
The assailant was shot dead by police soon after the attack. Police have detained 11 people in connection with the killing.
People at the events on Sunday wore masks against COVID-19 and carried signs such as "Teaching yes, bleeding no". "I am Samnuel", "I am a teacher" echoing the "Je suis Charlie" slogan that became the rallying cry of marches after a deadly Islamist attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo five years ago.
"We're here to defend the Republic, the values of the Republic: liberty, equality, fraternity and secularism. We can feel that the nation is threatened," Pierre Fourniou, 83, said in Paris.
Another protester, Valentin, carried a placard displaying the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons. "If a teacher is attacked, the republic is attacked," he said.
The Paris rally was organised by the editorial team of Charlie Hebdo, the organisation SOS Racisme and teachers' unions.
Earlier on Sunday, an 11th suspect - a friend of the suspected attacker - was arrested, but French prosecutors did not give details about how he was linked to the killing.
Paty had been the target of an angry campaign on social media before he was killed. Castex said in an interview in the Journal du Dimanche newspaper that the government was working on a strategy to better protect teachers from threats.
A national tribute will be organised for Wednesday.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/france-to-expel-231-suspected-extremists-after-attack-on-teacher-20201019-p566bb.html
Australia: Newly elected Perth mayor and Channel Seven star Basil Zempilas doubles down on his radical plan to 'forcibly remove' homeless people from the CBD
Newly-elected Perth mayor Basil Zempilas has spoken out about his radical plan for a 'safer, cleaner, friendlier city' ahead of his swearing-in on Monday.
The high-profile Weekend Sunrise sports presenter and former Channel Seven host was voted in as Lord Mayor of the city on Saturday night.
The father-of-three sparked outrage early in his campaign when he said he'd 'forcibly remove' homeless people from the CBD, calling them a 'blight' on the city.
Despite backtracking during the campaign, Mr Zempilas on Sunday doubled-down, saying dealing with the homeless was a 'huge issue' for ratepayers and visitors to Perth, and vowing to bring up the topic with the State Government.
'My view is, the situation at the moment, it's not fair on the individuals themselves and it's not fair on the City of Perth and we need to find better interim solutions for those people who are homeless,' Mr Zempilas told The West Australian.
He also revealed he will work with Queensland based organisation Beddown, who turn carparks into temporary shelters for the homeless.
'They take empty or unused spaces ... They roll out bedding ... and instead of people sleeping on the streets, they sleep in a safer environment where they can get a good night's sleep and get some extra support,' he said.
On what he wants to achieve in his three years as Perth's leader, Mr Zempilas said he wanted to fix the issues which were keeping people away from the city.
'I just want people to feel like it's a more welcoming environment. And right now, there are a number of reasons why people don't necessarily come into the city to either work, to shop, or to live.'
Other priorities mentioned on Sunday where Premier Mark McGowan's hard border policy in response to the coronavirus pandemic, in which Western Australia remains closed to eastern states.
He said he wants to see the borders open as soon as possible, adding that a wider number of compassionate cases could be looked at first.
A tactic of softening of the hard border stance on a number of smaller cases and seeing how that goes is the position he said he would like McGowan to take.
Industry experts have previously said Perth CBD businesses and hotels have collectively lost hundreds of millions in revenue courtesy of the border closure.
He also said factionalism in the local government, an issue which contributed to the previous council being dissolved in 2018, would be addressed.
Mr Zempilas said he expected each newly voted in councillor to abide by their own decision-making and ideas rather than voting for political reasons.
He is expected to continue to juggle his media roles along with his duties as Mayor.
He presents the sports segment on Seven News Perth, writes as a columnist for the 'West Australian' and leads Channel Seven's AFL and Olympics commentary.
He also co-hosts the 6PR Breakfast Show with Steve Mills, but will step down from his role at the end of this year.
On Saturday, he narrowly beat former ABC journalist Di Bain by securing 29.4 per cent of the vote.
Mr Zempilas was behind for most of the count but enjoyed a last-minute surge in support, edging ahead of Ms Bain who finished with 24.94 per cent of the vote.
It marks the first time in two years that voters have elected members of the council after it was suspended in March 2018.
A government inquiry was launched at the time and found 'greed, incompetence and mismanagement' was practiced by a number of councillors.
Mr Zempilas called the latest election a brand new beginning for the City of Perth.
'This is a great opportunity for everyone, and it's a great opportunity for the City of Perth to have the fresh start that it has so desperately been looking for,' he said.
'Everything we do from this point on is for the ratepayers and for the residents of the City of Perth. That's who we are here for and that's who we are here to serve.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8853365/Basil-Zempilas-forcibly-remove-homeless-people-Perths-city-elected-Lord-Mayor.html
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
19 October, 2020
No, the Proud Boys are not white supremacists
There are good reasons to dislike these 'Western chauvinists'. But racism is not one of them.
I can’t say there’s a hill I’m willing to die on. But there are hills I am willing to walk away from with a limp.
I received my latest limp on behalf of the Proud Boys. And I’m not even a member. I just had the temerity to point out that Antifa’s archnemeses, the Fred Perry-wearing Western chauvinists, are not white supremacists.
What I’ve learned is this: if you are convinced the Proud Boys are white supremacists, you won’t care to find out that they’re not. That certainly seems to be the case for assorted news–media outlets, not to mention some of my friends on Facebook.
The link between white supremacism and the Proud Boys was established during the first presidential debate of 2020, when Fox News moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump if he would condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and Joe Biden followed up by asking him to condemn the Proud Boys specifically. Thus linked to white supremacists and militia groups, the Proud Boys were found guilty by association.
Admittedly, Trump’s response – ‘Proud Boys, stand back and stand by’ – didn’t help. Although in a follow-up interview Trump denied even knowing who the Proud Boys were, and edited his command to ‘stand down and let law enforcement handle things’.
That debate feels like forever ago now. Since then, Trump has contracted and defeated Covid-19. He is now apparently ‘feeling so powerful’ that he was up for kissing ‘the guys and the beautiful women’ at a recent rally in Florida. There was even a vice-presidential debate along the way.
So you might have expected that brief Proud Boys moment to have faded into the infinite scroll of social-media history. But like the fly that outshone Mike Pence and Kamala Harris in the vice-presidential debate, the Proud Boys continue to buzz around my social-media feeds.
On the Proud Boys’ official website, ‘white supremacy’ is not listed among the group’s tenets. In fact, according to the website, the ‘core values of the Proud Boys’, include ‘anti-racism’ and, in clearly stated language, a refusal to ‘discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation / preference’. I guess one could argue that this is exactly what a group of white supremacists would put out if it didn’t want the world to know its members were a bunch of white supremacists. But then how would said white-supremacist group attract further white supremacists to its cause?
The Proud Boys are not relying on their website to set the record straight. In Salt Lake City, Proud Boy Thad spoke ‘on behalf of the entire national organisation’, and said the Proud Boys ‘denounce white supremacy’. This was during a joint news conference with a leader of a local Black Lives Matter chapter. The international chair of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, has also been vocal about the group’s anti-white-supremacy stance.
Tarrio is Afro-Cuban and, while I don’t know how Thad identifies, he certainly doesn’t look white. If you search for photos of Proud Boy members you’ll notice that there sure are a lot of black, brown and Asian men in their ranks. Perhaps even white-supremacist groups have diversity-and-inclusion quotas.
When I’ve brought this up with Proud Boy truthers, I’ve been met with some of the most torturous twists of logic and analogies. Didn’t I know that the Aryan Brotherhood will sometimes work with Mexican cartels on drug deals? Hadn’t I read that article in the Daily Beast about ‘Why young men of colour are joining white-supremacist groups’?
One guy I was arguing with went so far as to share a picture of a black Confederate soldier, and followed that up with an article about Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War. It is as if they believe racist history is repeating itself, albeit in the form of a diverse group of men who voluntarily get together to drink beer, get into street fights and try not to jerk off. I wonder what the #NoWanks equivalent was for the Southern slave who, in the last days of the Civil War, was forced to don the grey uniform and fight for the Confederacy?
I wish people would try unsheathing Occam’s razor every once in a while, and accept that the reason for the Proud Boys not being discernibly white supremacist is that, well, they’re not white supremacist. This group you so dislike does not have to hold every hateful belief for you to dislike it.
If you’re so inclined, I’m sure you can find plenty about the Proud Boys to hate without having to make shit up about them. They don’t have to be white supremacists or homophobes for you to think they’re dicks. That way, if you’re ever called upon to condemn them, at least you’ll be condemning them for the right reasons. Then it’s up to you whether to die on that hill.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/15/no-the-proud-boys-are-not-white-supremacists/
Federal Judge Allows 21 Businesses to Sue Seattle Over Harms Caused by CHOP
On Friday, a federal district court judge allowed a lawsuit brought by 21 businesses against the city of Seattle to proceed, despite the city's attempt to have it dismissed.
The lawsuit accuses the city of harming local business owners by allowing the existence of Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), a self-declared autonomous zone that was established and occupied by racial justice protestors from June 8 to July 1.
The occupied zone blocked all car traffic, reducing the businesses' access to customers, vendors and revenue, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit further alleges that city police largely neglected the zone, allowing protesters and others to damage business property and threaten business owners without punishment.
Lastly, the lawsuit states that the city provided concrete barriers, medical supplies, washing and sanitation facilities, portable toilets, lighting and other material support, including the use of Cal Anderson Park to CHOP occupiers, and told police to adopt a "no response" policy wherein officers wouldn't arrive unless a 9-1-1 caller reported "significant life safety issues."
In his decision, Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington wrote, "Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the City's actions—encouraging CHOP participants to wall off the area and agreeing to a 'no response' zone within and near CHOP's borders—foreseeably placed Plaintiffs in a worse position."
While Zilly dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the city violated their constitutional rights to equal protection by treating them differently from other city residents or CHOP occupiers, he allowed the plaintiffs' three other legal claims to proceed.
The plaintiffs' three other claims allege that by allowing CHOP to operate for a month before police eventually shut it down, the city unlawfully took their private property for public use with no compensation, restricted their ability to fully use their property to conduct business and failed to protect the businesses from a danger of the city's own making.
The CHOP zone was first established in June 8 after officers abandoned the Seattle Police Department's (SPD) East Precinct in an effort to de-escalate a week's worth of conflicts between racial justice protesters and police.
Afterwards, CHOP's occupiers demanded that the city release all arrested protesters and slash its $409 million police budget in half in order to donate the other half to services within the city's Black communities.
The occupiers also painted a block-long "Black Lives Matter" mural, set up spaces for free music performances and political discussions, constructed a community vegetable garden, erected a tent city and established a "No Cop Co-op" with food, medical supplies and other shared resources.
However, city police eventually dismantled the CHOP zone after two Black teenagers were shot dead, four victims were injured in shootings and multiple residents reported violent assaults, harassment and threats.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/us/federal-judge-allows-21-businesses-to-sue-seattle-over-harms-caused-by-chop/ar-BB1a73Uz
Amazon Censors a Black Conservative
Amazon is known as "The Everything Store," and for good reason: There just aren't a lot of things we can't buy from the online retail colossus. A box of bacon-strip bandages, a mini jail cell for our mobile phones, even a harness and leash for our beloved pet chicken.
Yep, the online retail juggernaut will sell us just about anything. Anything, that is, except a new documentary by esteemed scholar, author, and Hoover Institution senior fellow Shelby Steele. Apparently, Steele's film, "What Killed Michael Brown?" falls short of Amazon's "quality expectations."
Quality expectations? Right. This from a company that sells toilet paper with President Donald Trump's face on it, and, even worse, sells the autobiography of Hanoi Jane Fonda. But a film that thoughtfully explores the truth behind one of the most racially charged and consequential news stories of the decade? A story that began the fictitious "hands up, don't shoot" narrative that even Barack Obama's Justice Department debunked? A story that was the catalyst for starting Black Lives Matter? That's a bridge too far.
Steele's film, which he wrote and narrated, and which his son Eli directed, "doesn't fit the dominant narrative of white police officers killing young black men because of systemic racism," writes the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. "As a result, says the younger Mr. Steele, Amazon rejected it for its streaming service. 'We were canceled, plain and simple.'"
The film speaks "plain truths," as reviewer Jason Riley writes, but it isn't one-sided. Al Sharpton has his say, as does the NAACP. That's not good enough for the cowardly censors at Amazon, though, who informed the Steeles via email "that their film is 'not eligible for publishing' because it 'doesn't meet Prime Video's content quality expectations.' Amazon went on to say it 'will not be accepting resubmission of this title and this decision may not be appealed.'"
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post and whose net worth is now just over $200 billion, may think he has a license not only to print money, but also to gag renowned scholars and social commentators like Shelby Steele. He should think better. Censorship is cowardice, Jeff. If you're afraid of a physical fight, you run. If you're afraid of an intellectual fight, you censor.
Longtime civil rights activist and community development champion Robert Woodson tweeted out a novel idea: "Amazon refused to stream Shelby Steele's documentary, 'What Killed Michael Brown?,' b/c they say it 'doesn't meet Prime Video's content quality expectations.' Why not let Americans decide for themselves if the film has merit?"
Indeed, we're adults. Why not let us decide?
"It's sadly telling about elite political conformity," the Journal's editors continue, "that an intelligent film that gives voice to a variety of people, almost all black, who would otherwise not be heard is somehow deemed unfit for polite company. As Eli Steele puts it, 'When Amazon rejected us they also silenced these voices and that is the great sin of a company that professes to be diverse and inclusive.'"
Perhaps there's something more insidious at work here, something that Amazon's speech stiflers have yet to think through. Their claim about the inferior quality of Steele's work is ridiculous; he's an award-winning author and filmmaker. So their refusal to allow him into their marketplace of ideas is about something else entirely.
Steele isn't a bomb-thrower, but he is a black conservative. As such, he's what former Democrat President and "Great Society" architect Lyndon Johnson might've called "uppity." And Amazon's efforts to silence him sounds awfully intolerant, even Jim Crow-ish. This here streamin' service is for members only ... boy.
Shelby Steele's ideas pose a mortal threat to the Left's most loyal voting constituency. And he's being denied access to Amazon's marketplace either because of the color of his skin or the content of his character.
Neither reason is legitimate, but both are bigoted.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/74182-amazon-censors-a-black-conservative-2020-10-16
Anti-vaxxers don’t deserve to be on ballot says Australian conservative State leader
LNP leader Deb Frecklington has lashed anti-vaxxer candidates, saying they do not deserve to be on the ballot paper.
The criticism follows the LNP’s move to preference a renowned anti-vaxxer party below Labor after originally saying it would put the ALP at the bottom of the ballot in all electorates.
Ms Frecklington said she was unashamed about putting anyone who risks the safety and health of children last. “They don’t deserve to be on the ballot paper,” she said.
Ms Frecklington had committed to preferencing Labor last due to the Palaszczuk Government’s uncertainty around approvals for an expansion of the New Acland coalmine on the Darling Downs, but left wriggle room, saying a final decision would be made after candidates had been finalised.
An LNP spokesman told The Courier-Mail the party had made an exception to put the IMOP party below Labor because it fundamentally disagreed with its position on vaccines
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-election-2020/antivaxxers-dont-deserve-to-be-on-ballot-frecklington/news-story/1d12ecc6416e9521ae08ead7248857d6
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
18 October, 2020
The Deadly Biden-Harris Assault on Cops
MARK ALEXANDER
Having graduated from a state police academy at age 19, having served as a uniformed police officer for three years while in college, and having carried various law enforcement commissions since then, I’ve always maintained a fraternal relationship with the men and women in blue.
Whenever the Democrat Party seeks to politicize a police-involved shooting — meaning only those rare occasions when a white police officer kills a black suspect — I step into our analysis of those incidents with a very different perspective than virtually all news and policy analysts. My perspective has been shaped not only by actually having walked in the shoes of a law enforcement officer (LEO), but by my involvement with federal, state, and local LEOs in the years since.
Barack Obama’s disgraceful eight-year war on cops had deadly consequences for police officers — and for citizens of our nation’s most crime-infested urban centers. But his utter disdain for everyone in uniform — police and military — pales in comparison to the assault on LEOs being waged by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and the consequences it will have for all Americans.
In the middle of the CV19 pandemic shutdown, Harris, Biden, and their enemy-of-the-people cadre used the death of a black Minneapolis man, George Floyd, as political fodder for a race-bait hustle to light up their Democrat constituents — and urban centers. The result: Uncontrolled burning, looting, and murder — and the billions of dollars in damages — compliments of the Demos’ Marxist Black Lives Matter radicals and their so-called “antifa movement” of self-styled “anti-fascist” fascists.
Biden and Harris claim that our nation is saturated at every level with “systemic racism,” and they thus stepped over the epidemic of black-on-black murders and their epic urban policy failures to foment racial unrest and blame it on law enforcement.
Biden and Harris calculated their blame-shifting charade would rally legions of suburban “white privilege” Democrats nationwide — those emotionally incontinent adolescents of all ages with their virtue-signaling Biden-Harris yard signs. They especially depend on white women voters, who cast the majority of votes for Democrat presidential candidates.
But of course, the crisis in urban centers is not a “police problem.”
The real “systemic” problem in Minneapolis and other urban centers that have been run into the ground by generations of Democrat “leadership” is that inner-city black families have been systematically oppressed by Democrats. As a result, the Democrat-controlled city of Minneapolis is now a wreck.
To propagate this cruel charade, these same Democrats don’t dare “say the names” of all the victims of their failed social policies.
As Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley notes: “Police shootings have fallen precipitously since the 1970s. … Empirical studies have found no racial bias in police use of deadly force, and that the racial disparities that do exist stem from racial differences in criminal behavior. The problem isn’t a shortage of data but a race-based narrative that is immune to any data that challenge it.”
So, whose narrative?
After a lifetime observing how the Left has manipulated black constituents, Walter E. Williams notes, “The true plight of black people has little or nothing to do with the police or what has been called ‘systemic racism.’” Instead, he says, “We need to look at the responsibilities of those running our big cities.”
No sooner had the Minneapolis epicenter of nationwide urban riots cooled down than Biden and Harris jumped on the justifiable shooting of a black man in Kenosha, Wisconsin, by a white officer.
On the Kenosha incident, celebrity LA Clippers coach Doc Rivers declared, “It’s amazing to me why we [black Americans] keep loving this country and this country does not love us back.”
I couldn’t care less about Rivers’s opinion, but Biden and Harris embraced his position. Biden asserted yesterday to an ever-shrinking audience, “Think about what it takes for a black person to love America.”
And when the Kenosha story started to fade, the Demo-duo then stirred the race-bait pot by claiming injustice in Louisville.
They were thus among the strongest advocates of all those “peaceful protesters” across the nation.
In Portland this week, the Biden-Harris mobs of “peaceful protesters” sponsored a “Day of Rage” ahead of Columbus Day — or as the Biden campaign promoted it, “Indigenous People’s Day.” With no resistance from that city or state’s Democrat leaders, rampaging rioters, including a former Democrat candidate, tore down statues of Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln and then ransacked the Oregon Historical Society building.
All of those arrested by Portland PD were white-privileged leftists.
In Seattle, where the Democrat politicos are no longer objecting to police intervention, this week police arrested 16 leftists after they threw explosives at officers while yelling “KILL COPS.”
“KILL COPS” could be a centerpiece of the Biden-Harris platform.
There was a time when big-city police unions backed Democrats in a quid pro quo with the elected Demos in those jurisdictions. They did so even though most rank-and-file police supported Republicans. But no more. Recall that in the first presidential debate, Biden couldn’t name a single major police organization backing his ticket. He later admitted, “I have had overwhelming support from police my whole career up until this year.”
In fact, the nation’s largest police organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, endorsed President Donald Trump in September. That followed the endorsement of the New York City Police Benevolent Association, which hasn’t endorsed a candidate in 36 years.
Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, declared that Biden has “shifted 180 degrees.” The head of the National Association of Police Organizations, Bill Johnson, said Biden “kept moving left and fell off the deep end.” The NAPO had endorsed Biden in both the 2008 and 2012 elections.
Biden has said that “absolutely” some police funding should be redirected. His campaign team has been on the frontlines of those supporting the “defund the police” movement, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe funding for police should stay the same or increase.
Recall that Harris told The New York Times, “It is status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety,” and that perspective is “just wrong.” But the fact is, black Americans appreciate police presence in their communities as much or more than anyone.
In state campaigns, the visceral attack on police is much worse. For example in Arizona, Demo Mark Kelly’s Senate campaign spokesman, T.J. L'Heureux, recently publicly referred to police in Chicago as “worthless f—ing pigs.”
Amid all the violence that is the direct result of their politicization of police-involved shootings, Biden and Harris pretend to oppose all the violence committed by their Demo constituents. But the net result is that they are leaving a long list of victims in the wake of their condemnation of LEOs.
As a result, there’s now an exodus of police, including the top cops in 18 of the nation’s 70 largest cities. There are fewer police officers per capita than any year of the last quarter century – a 9 percent drop since 2007.
If elected, their reckless assault on police officers will have dire results and will, inevitably, find its way into your neighborhood. Make no mistake: The most formidable political wall of defense against that havoc is Donald Trump.
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/74152-the-deadly-biden-harris-assault-on-cops-2020-10-14
UK: We have to get out of this spiral of authoritarianism
Lockdowns are having a devastating impact on people’s lives. It’s time for some serious dissent.
We voted to take back control, and yet it’s hard to remember a time when people were less in control of their lives than they are right now. This is the tragedy, and the failure, of the Boris Johnson government. It was swept to power on a wave of democratic yearning, on a people’s tiredness of life under the diktats and decrees of bureaucrats and self-styled experts. And where have we ended up? In a situation where every facet of our existences – from where we’re allowed to go to which loved ones we may hug – is governed in minute detail by long, dry decrees drawn up by the powerful and well-educated. Take back control? I’ve never felt more controlled in my life.
Something has to be done about the terrible Covid spiral the government has pushed this country into, about our dizzying descent into more and more local lockdowns and reams of life-denying rules and regulations. For me, the worst thing about yesterday’s unveiling of the three-tier lockdown approach was not the announcement itself, not the actual traffic-light system drawn up by officials to dictate to the populace whether they’re allowed to travel, visit family, work, live. No, it was the waiting for the announcement. It was that utterly disempowering sense of trepidation as I and millions of others – mere citizens, after all – waited to hear what our fate would be. Whether you would still have a job, whether your business will survive, whether you may get married, whether you may visit your dying grandmother, whether you’re allowed to leave your hometown: we waited, impotently, like serfs rather than voters, to discover what the powers-that-be had in store for us.
And for some people, what the government had in store was devastation. No one could fail to be moved by the sight of Liverpudlian hospitality employees on BBC News in floods of tears because the latest government decree effectively means the end of their jobs, and possibly of their businesses. The Liverpool city region has been put into the most severe tier of lockdown, which means pubs and leisure centres must close, households are forbidden from mixing indoors or in gardens, and travel is restricted. Just like that, with the swipe of an official’s pen, more than a million people’s lives are put on ice and their livelihoods are put in grave danger. It’s a sacrifice we must all make, say government officials and the lockdown zealots in the broadsheet press and the knowledge economy. That’s easy for them to say. Their jobs are mostly secure. As of yesterday, that is not the case for many in Liverpool and elsewhere in the north. Their lives will become more precarious, poorer, more full of despair.
It is time officials and other influential people who have been so blasé in calling for lockdowns and laws to stem the spread of Covid-19 considered the impact of what they are doing. Losing one’s livelihood is about so much more than losing income, which is why those who think everything will be fine so long as we drag out the furlough scheme for longer are so wrong and clueless. Work gives people a sense of purpose and of control over their lives. It allows them to plan and to save. It gives them some command over their family’s destiny – saving for your daughter’s college education, keeping something in store for future weddings, planning one’s retirement. All of this, this stuff of life, is thrown into utter disarray when people’s livelihoods are wrecked. There are many, many people whose ability to govern their own lives has just been laid to waste.
It was striking that yesterday there was a huge controversy over a government-backed advert encouraging people in the arts to retrain for other forms of work. ‘Fatima’s next job could be in cyber (she just doesn’t know it yet)’, the witless, insulting ad says next to a photo of a ballerina tying her shoes. And yet where was the outrage when tens of thousands of retail workers lost their jobs as a result of lockdown? And bar workers? And hotel cleaners? Those people’s jobs were important, too. And yet as these jobs fell apart and people were forced, in what threatens to be the worst recession on record, to seek out the meagre assistance of Universal Credit, some of the same people who fumed over the government’s crass ballerina advert shrugged and said: ‘Well, we have to lock down. It’s the only way.’
This disparity of concern captures one of the core problems with the cult of lockdown: the moral, political and economic gap between the people making the decisions and the people who must live with the consequences of those decisions. When SAGE scientists call for another national lockdown (an idea Boris Johnson rejected), you get the impression that the job security and economic comfort enjoyed by these experts makes them blind, at least partially, to the devastation lockdown has wreaked on other people’s livelihoods and their mental and spiritual health. When middle-class commentators and academics bark at Boris for failing to lock down sooner and harder, what I hear are the entitled voices of people who are largely bubble-wrapped from the worst consequences of the manmade recession of the Covid era. Still working at home, Zooming their colleagues, having meals delivered by underpaid Deliveroo workers, making their sourdough bread – there is a whiff of Marie Antoinette to the lack of concern for other people’s lives implied in their lockdown fanaticism.
What we urgently need is to democratise the discussion of Covid and what we should do about it. This doesn’t mean carrying out yet more opinion polls, in which a government-terrorised, fractured populace is essentially tested by pollsters to see if they are still scared. (Answer, every time: yes.) Polling, especially in an era in which parliamentary life was temporarily put on hold and public gatherings and protests have been banned, is not true democratic engagement. No, we need the inclusion of vastly more voices and concerns in this debate. Workers’ voices, stay-at-home mums’ voices, pub owners’ voices, ordinary people’s voices – the people impacted by lockdown should become the driving force in the discussion about future Covid policy.
That is what ‘taking back control’ should mean. It is what democracy should mean. We must have the right to consent, and, importantly, to not consent, to the laws we are expected to live under. Drawing the masses into the Covid discussion is the only solution going forwards. As long as this issue remains the property of experts (usually experts of a pretty samey outlook), and of politicians who have disavowed their responsibility to govern in the broadest interests of society in favour of ‘following the evidence’, and of talking heads and academic voices who are relatively immune to the devastations of lockdown, we will remain in this authoritarian spiral. The common sense and the interests of the rest of the society, of the majority, must now be activated and taken seriously. They should be the guiding force.
There would be huge hostility to this, of course. Anyone who doubts the reluctance of the lockdown lobby to democratise the discussion only needs to look at what has happened to the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). This initiative, set up and supported by medical and scientific experts opposed to lockdowns as a means of dealing with Covid, has been subjected to the most extraordinary smear campaign. Google has ‘shadow-banned’ the GBD, pushing it down its list of search results. The Guardian and Observer have gone into typical dissent-crushing mode, even contacting one of the founders of the GBD – Martin Kulldorff – to ask him why he agreed to be interviewed on a podcast that has previously interviewed anti-Semites. Smear by association.
The censorious hysteria over the Great Barrington Declaration confirms how determined some people are to exclude dissenting voices from the Covid debate. And if they don’t want to hear from questioning scientists, they are even less likely to want to hear from pub owners or retail workers or builders. This needs to change, radically. As spiked argued at the very start of all this, on 23 March, dissent doesn’t become a luxury we can live without during a time of crisis – on the contrary, it becomes essential. We need to hear dissenting voices ‘because they can help to hold at bay the desire for unflinching certainty and dogmatic responses to Covid-19, both of which could end up causing as much harm to our society and our wellbeing as the disease itself’, we argued.
People who want a more democratic, dissenting approach to the Covid crisis are often written off as cranks and conspiracy theorists. We’re told that we are failing to take this virus seriously, that we want it to ‘rip’ through the population. This is untrue. We know Covid poses a serious health challenge. And we know that some measures must be taken. What we are calling for is a more rational, reasoned response which emphasises shielding the vulnerable and offering shielding to the elderly, while allowing everyone else to determine their own risk levels and to carry on working and living as normal. It is perfectly possible to protect vulnerable people from disease and to protect our economy and our society from the manmade devastation of the dogmatically controlling response to the virus we have seen thus far.
We need democracy. We need to engage communities in Covid decision-making and trust individuals to decide for themselves what risks they are prepared to take. Trust, engagement, reason and openness – these are the tools that will get us through this crisis in one piece and allow us to start living again, rather than merely existing.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/13/we-have-to-get-out-of-this-spiral-of-authoritarianism/
The tech oligarchs are a menace to democracy
The censorship of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden exposé is a frightening intervention in the election.
Silicon Valley crossed a line last night. The powerful tech platforms made their most explicit and brazen intervention into democratic politics yet. The New York Post has produced allegations of corruption against one of the presidential candidates. But Facebook and Twitter have used their powers to stop people from reading the exposé.
The Post alleges that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, took cash from a Ukrainian oil company in exchange for granting access to his father. It has published emails from Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, who allegedly thanked Hunter for ‘inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father’ (sic). Biden has always vociferously denied having ever spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings.
Facebook and Twitter quickly mobilised to stop the spread of the story. Facebook’s communications director, Andy Stone, announced that ‘we are reducing its distribution on our platform’ as part of ‘our standard process to reduce the spread of misinformation’. Twitter, meanwhile, blocked users from linking to the story and from posting photos from the report. Users who clicked links that had already been posted were told that, ‘This link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful’. This message was later updated to say, ‘The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe’. The New York Post’s Twitter account was also blocked on the grounds that the story violated rules against the ‘distribution of hacked material’. Then, when White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tweeted the story from her personal account, she was locked out of her account.
Journalists from other outlets have raised concerns about the strength of the Biden story. The email that forms the basis of the exposé came from a trove of data recovered from a laptop, which allegedly belonged to Hunter, and was dropped off at a repair shop in 2019. The Post was tipped off by former Trump aide Steve Bannon and was provided with the hard drive by Rudy Guiliani, the former NYC mayor who is a Trump ally. Neither of them are particularly trustworthy characters. Journalists and social-media users are right to ask questions about how the hard drive ended up in those hands.
But for the tech platforms to block the story on the grounds that it is ‘unsafe’ or unethically sourced is an act of censorship, pure and simple. It is not only an astonishing and unprecedented intervention into the free press (Facebook and Twitter have never rebuked a mainstream publication in this way before), but it is also an astonishing and unprecedented intervention into democracy. In the middle of a highly fractious election, Silicon Valley has deliberately tried to suppress information that could damage one candidate and benefit another.
Just imagine the outcry if this were done on behalf of the ‘fascist’ Donald Trump. But instead, you have self-proclaimed liberals cheering on the Silicon Valley censors, celebrating the unaccountable power of tech companies to decide what information members of the public can access.
Facebook and Twitter’s intervention didn’t come out of nowhere, of course. Social-media censorship has been growing for some time now. It started with fringe figures, as bans were handed out to conspiracy theorists, racists and trolls. But it now extends to the president’s press secretary and one of America’s most popular newspapers.
Social-media platforms constitute the new public square. It is nigh-on impossible to participate fully in democratic life without an online presence, and information that is excluded and suppressed from the online space is unlikely to travel very far. We cannot allow tech oligarchs to police democratic politics.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/15/the-tech-oligarchs-are-a-menace-to-democracy/
Minor Australian bank BANS customers from using credit cards on any gambling services including Sportsbet and pokies - sparking backlash as critics ask whether McDonald's will be next
A bank has banned its customers from using credit cards on any gaming or gambling services, sparking backlash from customers who claim McDonald's will be next for selling unhealthy food.
Bank Australia has informed its customers they will not be allowed to make any gaming transactions on their credit cards from December 1.
'Effective from 1 December 2020 we are blocking all gambling and gaming transactions on credit cards,' the 'responsible' bank wrote to customers.
Chief executive of the Australasian Association of Convenience Stores, Jeff Rogut, told the Courier Mail the bank should not be controlling how customer's behave.
'I don't think the companies that are offering the service should decide where consumers are spending their money,' Mr Rogut said.
He said the bank could 'take it to another extreme' by not processing payments for alcohol, tobacco or lottery tickets.
Director at The Centre for Independent Studies, Peter Kurti, said it was 'odd' that a bank would dictate these 'moral decisions'.
'What's next? If you go to Dan Murphys or McDonalds and make four trips in a week is the bank going to say "no it's bad for you"?' Mr Kurti said.
Mr Kurti said if his bank 'did this to him' he would be frustrated and immediately cancel his credit card.
Bank Australia is customer-owned, meaning there are no external shareholders.
'We return our profits to our customers through pursuing our purpose of doing good for people and the planet as well as offering competitive and fair rates, fees and services,' the website reads.
A Bank Australia spokesperson said any money loaned from savings and deposits by customers needs to be used responsibly.
'As part of our commitment to responsible banking we want to make sure that the money we lend is used in ways that minimise potential harm to our customers and others,' he said.
The spokesperson said the bank does not think gambling with funds that are borrowed from other customers is responsible.
He said a 'majority' of the bank's' 165,000 customers supported the new changes.
Customers are still allowed to make gaming and gambling payments on their debit cards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8828991/Aussie-banks-BAN-customers-using-credit-cards-gambling-including-Sportsbet-pokies.html
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
16 October, 2020
Handmaids of Bigotry
Well, they dusted off those colorful “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that were so visible at Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018.
Even before Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing on Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Democrats were being cheered on by permanently angry women (and maybe some men) dressed in red cloaks with white duckbills extending from their hoods.
This is the uniform of the oppressed women in Hulu’s serialization of Margaret Atwood’s dystopic, anti-Christian novel. If you thought atheist crusader Philip Pullman’s thinly disguised depiction of church authorities as evil in “The Golden Compass” book and movie were bad, Ms. Atwood runs circles around him. In her 1985 book and TV series, the polygamous men cite Bible verses and treat the women as sex slaves.
Braving the rain on Monday, the demonstrators held signs festooned with messages such as a giant NO! in rainbow colors over “Trump/Pence Must Go!”
This time around in the Senate star chamber, the Democrats who pretend to honor religious liberty while assailing nominees’ faith think they have a smoking gun. The word “handmaid.”
Mrs. Barrett and her husband have long been members of an ecumenical charismatic Christian group begun in 1971 called People of Praise, based in South Bend, Indiana, home to Notre Dame University and its law school, from which she graduated summa cum laude and taught constitutional law.
Women leaders in the group, including Mrs. Barrett, previously held the title of “handmaid,” which is derived from Jesus’s mother Mary’s own description of herself in Luke 1:38 as “the handmaid of the Lord.”
The group dropped that title in favor of “women’s leader” because “the meaning of this title has shifted dramatically in our culture in recent years,” a spokesman said.
Mrs. Barrett, 48, now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to which she was nominated by President Trump in 2017. At that time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said at a hearing that Mrs. Barrett’s religious beliefs worried her because “the dogma lives loudly within you.”
Wow. Talk about open religious bigotry. But it’s OK because the senator is a Democrat, and they get to do this sort of thing. It’s not as if the media would have a problem with it.
Here’s a front-page headline from last Wednesday’s Washington Post: “Barrett long active with insular Christian group: Community preached subservience for women, former members say.”
Ah, those “former members.” You can always dig up a dissident or two to make the point you want, unless you’re reporting on Black Lives Matter or the Democratic National Committee, which are pretty much the same thing.
As for People of Praise, here’s more from their own media statement provided to Heavy.com:
“A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.
“Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.”
As the Apostle Paul instructs, and many biblically sound churches teach, men are to be the spiritual leaders in the church and in their own households and they are to love their wives as they love themselves. This is considered scandalous by our cultural commissars.
In Ephesians 5:25, Paul writes: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for her.” That means laying down your life if necessary. It’s why when things go bump in the night, the guy should be the one who goes downstairs with the baseball bat or the Sig Sauer.
Democrats are terrified of the attractive and articulate Mrs. Barrett, a mother of seven, just as they were threatened by Clarence Thomas, who destroyed their narrative that blacks belong on the leftist plantation.
Mrs. Barrett has impeccable credentials that the Senate already examined when she was nominated for the appeals seat. At that time, the “handmaid” reference didn’t get traction, since the TV version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” only debuted in April of that year.
In the meantime, we’ve seen New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker take a page from Bernie Sanders and grill Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo in 2018 about sex and marriage, strongly implying that his traditional Christian views are a form of bigotry. Booker likes to make much of his own Christian faith, which apparently is free of the burden of having to abide by crystal clear biblical principles regarding sex.
Also hewing to “smarter than God” theology is Kamala Harris, who has embraced all things LGBTQ, plus taxpayer-funded abortion and Marxist economics. On December 5, 2019, Harris asked Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for district court in Nebraska, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And, “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”
During Monday’s hearing, Mrs. Barrett had to face the likes of Booker, Feinstein and Harris, plus the troupe of “Handmaid” harridans.
After the process is over and Associate Justice Barrett is sworn in, the “ladies” can make further use of their costumes.
After all, Halloween is right around the corner.
https://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2020/10/13/handmaids-of-bigotry-n2577913
Saudi Prince Bandar Denounces Palestinian Leadership: Is Saudi-Israel Peace Deal Next?
Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, one of the most widely recognized and respected Saudi officials in the world, gave a three-part interview to the government-controlled Al Arabiya news network and proceeded to tear down 70 years of myths about the leadership of the Palestinian national movement. Bandar spent 22 years as a Saudi ambassador to the U.S. and is known to speak for the government.
It was an extraordinary series of interviews — a brutal assessment of the numerous self-inflicted wounds by Palestinian leaders going all the way back to the 1930s. It was broadcast in Arabic with English subtitles on a news network that reaches every country in the region. And while Bandar is no longer in the government, a palace spokesman said he was speaking for Crown Prince Mohammed ben Salman.
Bandar began by talking about the Mufti of Jerusalem, the very first Palestinian national leader, who made a deal with the Nazis back in the 1930s and got nothing to show for it.
Bloomberg:
Bandar goes on to mention a list of similar bad choices and decisions: The Arab rejection of the 1948 United Nations partition plan that would have given the Palestinians a state. The Arab League’s rejection of UN Resolution 242 after the 1967 War that called for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories; and the Palestinian Liberation Organization rejection of the Clinton Plan in 2000 that would have given the Palestinians a state in most of the West Bank and Gaza.
The most interesting rejection came in 1979, at Camp David. Israel offered Palestinians autonomy in the occupied territories. Yasir Arafat, turned it down flat. Sixteen years later, Arafat signed the Oslo Accord with Israel. Bandar asked him at the time to compare that deal with the terms he had turned down 16 years earlier. Arafat said that the autonomy offer was “10 times better” than Oslo.
Bandar asked Arafat why he nixed the Camp David peace accord between Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Arafat’s simple answer was that President Assad of Syria would have had him murdered.
The prince’s diatribe against Arafat was only the beginning. His stinging criticism of Palestinian leaders for their obstinancy and hesitations has, he believes, cost the Palestinian people dearly.
Why did he do it?
Prince Bandar is candid about the reasons for his monologue. First, he wants a record of how hard the Saudis have worked on behalf of the Palestinians over the decades. Second, he intends to reassure the UAE and Bahrain, which are being vilified by the Palestinians for recognizing Israel — and any other Arab country contemplating a similar step — that the Saudis have their back.
Third, he is calling out the PLO and Hamas for making alliances with non-Arab countries Turkey and Iran, who the Saudis consider dangerous. He is signaling that the Saudis will deal only with a new generation of pragmatic, moderate and dependable Palestinian partners. About the current leaders, he is candid: “It is difficult to trust them and to do something for the Palestinian cause with them around.”
And in what has to be one of the most significant developments in Middle Eastern diplomacy, Bandar concluded his remarks with a declaration of independence from old obligations. “In my own personal opinion,” he says, “we are at a stage in which, rather than being concerned with how to face the Israeli challenges in order to serve the Palestinian cause, we have to pay attention to our national security and interests.”
The Saudis have seen what happened to UAE when they made their deal with Israel: the shunning by certain Gulf states and the anger of the Palestinian mobs. But they also see Turkey and Iran growing in power and influence and it worries them greatly.
So what now for Israel?
BBC:
They have certainly watched Prince Bandar’s interview with interest but have so far declined to comment directly.
Instead, a spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said: “We hope that even more countries will recognise the new reality in the Middle East by joining us on the road to reconciliation.”
Saudi Arabia has traditionally moved slowly and with great caution when it comes to changes of policy, testing each move before committing itself.
With Prince Mohammed ben Salman dragging his country out of the Middle Ages and trying to modernize his society, the pace of change may be accelerating. Bandar’s words and the sentiment behind them is a clear signal to Israel that they are ready to talk seriously about normalization. And that particular earthquake would upend the region and change the world in dramatic ways.
SOURCE
Police use of deadly force is not about racism
By David Wojick, PhD
The screaming headline said "Black Americans 2.5X more likely than whites to be killed by police." The statement is false. It is the kind of assertion that is used to claim police are systemically racist. It leads to fewer police, fewer arrests, more crime, more racial discord, and more innocent black deaths.
Accurate, honest statistics show just the opposite. When police must use deadly force, whites are more likely to be killed than blacks. But we rarely see these statistics, because they do not support claims of systemic, systematic racism against blacks. The statistics we do see are too often agenda-driven.
The sad reality is that, as a percentage of their total American population, black deaths by police are around 2.5 times white deaths. But this has nothing to do with likelihood, because the vast majority of people of both races have near-zero likelihood of being killed by police.
In fact, up to 88% of people killed by police were armed and being arrested at the time of their deaths. Such people are indeed at greater risk of being killed. However, racism has nothing to do with it.
On a per-arrest basis, the data say whites are much more likely to be killed by police than blacks. If so, the police are clearly not racist. Indeed, they seem to be deliberately trying not to kill blacks. Another study found that 36% of officer-involved shootings were “suicide by cop,” 16% of whom were blacks.
Statistical reality must begin with the fact that black males represent 6.5% of the US population – but according to FBI data they constitute 54% of arrests for robbery and 53% of arrests for murder. Far worse, nationally syndicated talk show host Larry Elder points out, in 2018 there were approximately 7,400 black homicide victims, more than half of America’s total homicides, and nearly all were murdered by other blacks. (Have Black Lives Matter or NFL-NBA-MLB athletes ever acknowledged any of this?)
Those are the real reasons blacks outnumber whites in the nation’s prisons – the real reasons more blacks are likely to be killed during arrests and other confrontations with police.
Even more telling, when we look at the issue that motivates and infuriates Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its allies – unarmed blacks killed by police – we learn that the Mapping Police Violence database tabulates “just” 25 such police killings in 2019, resulting from shootings, tasers, beatings, chokeholds and vehicles. (A Washington Post database records only police shootings.) And then we read this:
“A wave of gun violence swept through the nation over the [July Fourth 2020] holiday weekend, leaving dozens dead from coast-to-coast – with children as young as 5 among the casualties,” the New York Post despaired. In Chicago, the article continued, police reported 87 shootings and 17 deaths, and nearly a dozen [of those shot] were children caught in the crossfire. The vast majority were black.
Think about that. In one weekend, in one city, we had three-fourths the number of deaths that BLM is raging about, for the entire nation, over the course of an entire year. Or consider this awful news:
“Every single person who has been shot in New York City [so far] this July, nearly 100 in total, has been a member of the minority community” and “97% of shooting victims in June were members of the city’s minority community,” NBC News reporter Tom Winter tweeted. New York City witnessed a 204% increase in shooting victims over the past 28 days, compared to the same period in 2019, he added.
Meanwhile, Darrius Sutton participated in at least three drive-by shootings after he was released from NYC jails without bail on attempted murder charges – a far too frequent occurrence in Di Blasio Town. Again, no comments, no outrage from BLM.
What about law enforcement officers like David Dorn and Patrick Underwood? What about Mekhi James, LeGend Taliferro, Secoriea Turner and too many other Black children gunned down by their fellow blacks? Seven-year-old Natalia Wallace was playing with other children in Chicago over this year’s Fourth of July weekend, when thugs leapt from a car and sprayed gunfire into a crowd, killing her.
Why don’t their black lives matter to Black Lives Matter, its often violent supporters, and its corporate, Hollywood and pro athlete funding sources? Does anyone really think the solution is “defunding” or “reimagining” police forces – perhaps replacing thousands of police officers with social workers?
The victims’ families certainly don’t. Natalia’s father told local news media he wants more police, not fewer. Her aunt said, “We talk about Black Lives Matter, but at the end of the day, we’re killing each other off. We’re killing our babies.”
“The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, such as car accidents and drownings,” Larry Elder notes. “The No. 1 reason for death, preventable or otherwise for young black men, is homicide, almost always at the hands of another young black man.” How depressing.
Police have to deal with way too many criminals, attacks, confrontations and murders, especially in poor and minority areas of our cities. They never know who will pull a gun, even during a routine intervention, traffic stop or domestic disturbance – or which incident might be a setup, an ambush. That’s part of the reason some officers are jumpy or feel they must use potentially deadly force when they would much prefer not to. But racist tendencies, much less systemic racism, have nothing to do with it.
The United States once had systemic, government-decreed racism. This is no longer the case, and elevating individual, thankfully now pretty rare cases of racism into something systemic gets us nowhere.
It is much more likely that what is happening today is the result of too many black boys being raised fatherless, by gangs, amid street violence – and to their not attending school, and thus growing up with no education, skills or future. They likewise receive no grounding in civics, humanity, morality or religion, and have few scruples and little remorse over murdering someone to settle a score or perceived insult.
Just as in medicine, getting the diagnosis wrong can be much worse than useless. Trying to blame or cure systemic white racism or supposedly widespread individual white racism will only make matters worse. Blaming people for things they are not doing just makes them angry. Intimidating them into silence over these accusations just makes them angry and resentful.
Honest, probing social science, media coverage and debate could help us find solutions. Name calling, guilt trips and false assertions of systemic racism will make the situation worse. That people are being told everything is due to racism is tearing us apart, instead of pulling us together in search of solutions. It is a political trick that is causing horrific, widespread social upheaval, whether by accident or design.
Marching, screaming, burning, looting and simplistic, deceptive slogans are not solutions. They are not even calls for constructive action. They are certainly not calls to ponder the points presented here and in countless other articles and reports – or to reexamine some of the well-intended but woefully misguided government programs that helped get us where we are today.
Angrily demanding that “things have to change” is not a step forward. It may even be a step backward, if it leads to more confusion, and more stupid or useless programs. Promoting racial division and discord will ensure that the real causes of crime, violence and murder in our black and other minority communities are never addressed
These issues cry out for attention they are not getting. Perhaps after the elections, after the insanity and riots are over, we can have honest, no-holds-barred conversations about this, without being shouted down and canceled out. We must hope so. Otherwise, our nation’s future is bleak indeed.
Australia: Politically correct spending on childcare
Josh Frydenberg has confirmed the Morrison government, fresh from bringing forward some tax cuts slated for 2022, still plans to lift the top marginal tax rate of 47 per cent to $200,000 in 2024.
That may not happen if Labor gets to implement its universal childcare policy, born of the absurd idea that the federal budget handed down last week was anti-women.
The government already spends more on childcare as a share of GDP than socially democratic Germany, The Netherlands and Austria, and about the OECD average.
Federal spending on childcare, supercharged by the Coalition’s 2017 reforms, is on track to rise 30 per cent from last financial year to $10.3bn by 2024, according to the budget.
That’s not enough for Labor which, we learned in Anthony Albanese’s budget reply speech, wants to increase the subsidy per dollar families spend on childcare from 85c to 90c.
Reflecting its base among high-earning public sector workers, where two incomes easily lift household income above $189,000 a year, Labor would scrap the cap of $10,500 per child a year that applies at that level of household income. Households earning below $530,000 a year — basically all of them — would receive a subsidy.
The government screamed “upper-class welfare” but it was crossbench senators David Leyonhjelm and Derryn Hinch who imposed a modicum of discipline on the Coalition’s own childcare reforms in 2017, capping support at household income of $350,000.
We are well past the optimal quantum of childcare funding, which increasingly forces the childless to subsidise the career ambitions of well-off parents who would have had children anyway.
It’s understandable high-income earners advocate universal childcare, making all sorts of fabulous arguments about how it’s good for the economy and GDP. While formal childcare can pay developmental dividends for children in single-parent or lower socio-economic households, for children in other households it’s glorified childminding.
Of course putting children in childcare adds to GDP: parents caring for their own children don’t count in the formal economy. Fees to childcare centres do, as do wages earned in a job. But this says nothing about prosperity.
Advocates overlook the cost of raising the funding: the distortion of higher taxation and the goods and services those taxpayers would have bought instead.
But it’s worse than that. Excessive childcare subsidies create childcare jobs that wouldn’t have existed otherwise. They can lure parents into work that — even with the taxpayer subsidy — pays little more than childcare workers earn, implying it would be better if they swapped jobs and left the poor taxpayer alone.
And, naturally, childcare centre owners cream off as much of the public subsidy as they can, knowing government will pick up the bulk of the fees charged.
Childcare funding is really about ideology, not economics or fertility. It’s about socialising child-rearing and “empowering” women.
Labor is opposed to the third stage of tax cuts, for instance, which would return years of bracket creep for those earning above $180,000, yet it is happy to give the same households sizeable handouts for childcare.
The great increase in female workforce participation — and collapse in fertility — occurred in the 1970s, long before significant childcare subsidies emerged.
Scandinavian nations spend double what we do and have similar female workforce participation and fertility rates. Even if childcare did boost fertility, with almost eight billion people on Earth (up from 4.4 billion in 1980) the case for subsidising people to have more isn’t obvious.
Economics has long considered work a disutility, something you avoid if you are fortunate enough to be able to. Childcare advocates see having women in paid work as desirable in and of itself, independently of what women themselves want.
If families want to use childcare that’s fine, of course, but why should others — including families that choose to look after their children — pay for it?
Government could make childcare more affordable by paring back the so-called National Quality Framework, which micromanages supply.
If parents don’t care whether staff have Certificate III, let them pick a cheaper centre that doesn’t care either.
If there’s to be a bias in the system it should be towards parents caring for their own children, the most efficient transaction of all, even if it’s ignored by GDP — one sustained by love, not money.
Taxpayers already fund primary and high school education, and a multitude of other payments and benefits in kind. Can we draw the line somewhere, please?
In economic terms, children once had the characteristics of an investment from the perspective of the parents: more hands to work on the farm, daughters to sell off for dowries, and for some help in old age, and so on. But today they are more akin to consumption.
“A very young child is highly labour-intensive in terms of cost, and the rewards are wholly psychic in terms of utility,” Nobel prize-winning American economist Theodore Schultz noted.
“From the point of view of the sacrifices that are made in bearing and rearing (children), parents in rich countries acquire mainly future personal satisfactions from them.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/australia-spends-too-much-on-childcare-now-but-it-is-not-enough-for-albanese/news-story/0259ed93d2bdcf09dcd1f9fb009a45ac
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
15 October, 2020
War on Columbus: Cities Cave to Senseless BLM Rage
After the death of George Floyd, Black Lives Matter protests across America devolved into riots. Rioters vandalized public spaces with graffiti and knocked over statues. It began with Confederate monuments, but vandals progressed to targeting America’s heroes, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. Then came Mahatma Gandhi, Union General Ulysses S. Grant, black Union soldiers, and freed slave Frederick Douglass. Vandals even attacked a monument to 9/11 firefighters and painted a statue of Jesus black.
Some of these acts of vandalism might have been mistakes, but the attacks on Christopher Columbus seem intentional. Many proponents of Marxist Critical Race Theory blame Christopher Columbus for the defeat and “genocide” of native Americans. Cities across America have caved to the Columbus hate and decided to remove statues of the Italian explorer from their public squares.
As BLM activists toppled statues of Robert E. Lee and George Washington, they carved out some time to vandalize Columbus, too. Rioters toppled a statue in St. Paul, Minn. After rioters removed a statue in Richmond, Va., they carried the statue 200 yards, set it on fire, and cast it into a lake. Another band of vandals removed a Columbus statue’s head in Boston.
In July, a horde of antifa rioters converged on the Columbus statue in Chicago, Ill. They came armed with sharpened umbrellas, frozen water bottles, and fireworks. They proceeded to besiege police who defended the statue in a scene reminiscent of Greek hoplite warfare. The siege left forty-nine officers injured. Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D-Chicago) honored the brave cops by caving to antifa agitators and ordering the statue removed.
As Columbus Day approached, other mayors across America followed Lightfoot’s cowardly example. On Friday, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Pueto ordered the removal of the Columbus statue in Schenley Park. On the same day, the mayor of Syracuse, N.Y., also ordered a Columbus statue’s removal. Early last week, leaders of the Italian American Alliance in Boston, Mass., said they were surprised to hear the Columbus statue in Boston would not be returned after the statue was beheaded in June.
Louisville Cancels King Beheaded in the French Revolution as Rioters Give Us a Taste of the Terror
Before these most recent announcements, CBS News reported that no fewer than 33 statues of Christopher Columbus have been taken down since June.
Cities are caving right and left because the radical Left has dominated much of the commanding heights of American culture, and Marxist critical race theorists have demonized Columbus.
“For Native people in the U.S., Columbus Day represents a celebration of genocide and dispossession,” Megan Hill, a citizen of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and a program director at the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, wrote in The Harvard Gazette.
“The irony is that Columbus didn’t discover anything,” Hill argued. “Not only was he lost, thinking he had landed in India, but there is significant evidence of trans-oceanic contact prior to 1492. The day celebrates a fictionalized and sanitized version of colonialism, whitewashing generations of brutality that many Europeans brought to these shores.”
This anti-Columbus view is tragically mainstream. While Christopher Columbus was not the first European to discover America, his voyages corrected Europeans’ misconceptions about the world and connected Europe, Asia, and Africa with the Americas. Tragically, this enabled grave injustices like slavery and racial stratification. Yet the pre-Columbian states in North and South America had their own injustices, as well, and neither Hernan Cortes nor Francisco Pizarro could have succeeded in defeating the Mexica (Aztec) and Incan Empires without the help of other native Americans whom those empires had previously oppressed.
Accusations of genocide are rarely backed up by evidence. Europeans did often subject native Americans to forms of slavery and oppression, but the major killer of native American populations was disease — diseases that the Europeans unwittingly carried with them. Occasionally, the Europeans used the disease as a weapon (smallpox blankets), but for the most part, the tragic and horrific collapse of native American populations had more to do with unwitting transmission of disease than with intentional slaughter.
Columbus enabled the European conquest of the Americans, but he also initiated the “Columbian Exchange,” linking parts of the world in a trade network that made people in every corner of the globe richer. Crops that had previously only grown in the Americas became available in Europe, Asia, and Africa, while Europeans introduced livestock, writing systems, and new crops like coffee and sugar to the Americas.
Before Columbus, potatoes, corn, tomatoes, and tobacco only grew in the Americas. Potatoes helped Europeans stave off hunger, and they also spread as far as India. In the 1500s, Spanish colonizers introduced corn and sweet potatoes to Asia, resulting in population growth. Pizza was not invented until the 1800s!
Europeans also introduced many new crops to the Americas, including almonds, bananas, carrots, cinnamon, citrus, coffee, garlic, oats, olives, peach, peaches, pistachios, and wheat. Some of these crops helped natives fend off food scarcity and starvation. Livestock like cattle, pigs, sheep, and horses were also introduced, allowing for a more meat-heavy diet.
While writing developed independently in Mesoamerica, the grand Inca Empire of Peru and many other Native American tribes did not have written languages. The Europeans exploited this weakness, but they also introduced writing to these unlettered people.
Europeans also introduced new technologies like the compass, the navigational map, and new forms of crop rotation. The merging of the two worlds had negative consequences, but it also brought long-term benefits that people around the world now enjoy.
The Real Tragedy of Removing Chicago’s Columbus Statue
Columbus Day is a multicultural holiday
Finally, celebrations of Christopher Columbus have a noble history in America.
Much of the demonization of Columbus traces back to an anti-Catholic anti-Italian prejudice that led the Ku Klux Klan and other groups to demonize the Italian explorer. The celebration of Columbus Day actually helped American diversity, integrating this Italian-American hero into America’s pantheon and encouraging acceptance of Italian-Americans (who were not considered “white” at the time).
“Columbus has been a target of white supremacists since the 1920s, when a resurgent Ku Klux Klan attacked monuments and celebrations of Columbus from coast to coast,” Patrick Korten, a member of the National Christopher Columbus Association (NCCA) board of directors, said in 2017.
“They hated that he was Mediterranean, not Anglo, that he sailed for Spain, not England, that he was popular in the immigrant community, and most of all, that he was Catholic,” Korten added, noting that “Catholics, along with African Americans and Jews, were regular targets of the Klan.”
The NCCA board member warned that “the disparagement of Columbus today has its roots in a centuries-old habit of painting Italian and Hispanic immigrants in this country as cruel, violent, sexually aggressive and untrustworthy. In the context of Spanish exploration, this is known as the ‘Black Legend’ — based on propaganda peddled about Spain dating from the 16th century, which continues to be the grist for racially tinged comments about Hispanics and Italians to this day.”
One of the catalysts for Columbus Day came on March 14, 1891, when an angry New Orleans mob lynched 11 Italian immigrants after they were cleared of murder charges.
Columbus Day helped Americans recognize Italian immigrants as their fellow Americans — with a noble heritage.
Christopher Columbus and the day on which Americans celebrate him are not symbols of oppression, but symbols of American pluralism, the acceptance of a new influx of Americans from Columbus’ native Italy. Just as the 13th Amendment corrected a historic American evil by abolishing slavery, so this holiday helped combat the anti-Italian prejudice behind a horrific lynching.
Tragically, Black Lives Matter and antifa agitators seem intent on demonizing and erasing this legacy along with so much of America’s noble heritage. Mayors should not cave to this pressure.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/10/12/war-on-columbus-cities-cave-to-senseless-blm-rage-n1028669
Portland Rioters Topple Statues of Roosevelt and Lincoln, Smash Windows at Oregon Historical Society
On Sunday night, rioters in Portland, Ore., toppled statues of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and caused thousands of dollars’ worth of damage at the Oregon Historical Society. Declaring a day of action, the “indigenous wing” of antifa threatened violence to anyone caught live-streaming or recording video of their actions leading into Columbus Day.
The statues, once toppled, were covered in what appears to be orange paint.
After toppling the statues, rioters smashed windows at the Oregon Historical Society, an expansive museum on the South Park Blocks near Portland State University.
One person attempted to set the building on fire by throwing a lit flare into the lobby.
The east side of the Oregon Historical Society building faces SW Broadway Street, a heavily traveled thoroughfare through downtown Portland. That side of the building has a large, multistory mural depicting events from Oregon’s history. Rioters defaced the mural by pelting it with paintball guns.
The rioters claimed moral righteousness in destroying as much American history as they could get their hands on.
https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/jeff-reynolds/2020/10/12/portland-rioters-topple-statues-of-roosevelt-and-lincoln-smash-windows-at-oregon-historical-society-n1022591
Federal appeals court strikes down Texas abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court challenge
A federal appeals court has struck down a Texas law banning the most common abortion procedure in the second trimester, a win for abortion rights groups that will most certainly be challenged by the state at the US Supreme Court.
In a two-to-one ruling among the three-judge panel, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling argued that the ban “unduly burdens a woman’s constitutionally protected right” to obtain an abortion, while forcing care providers "to act contrary to their medical judgment [and] the best interest of their patient.”
The law effectively bans the evacuation and dilation procedure, the most common procedure. after the first trimester, effectively banning abortions in the state for women after 12 weeks; pregnancy awareness is roughly at five-and-a-half or more than six weeks.
Judges James Dennis and Carl Stewart, both appointed by former president Bill Clinton, ruled to strike the law, while Donald Trump’s appointee Don Willett dissented.
The ruling arrived as Senator Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate alongside Joe Biden to face Trump in November, grilled the president’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on the future of US healthcare.
The case could be among more than a dozen abortion-related rulings to appeal to the nation’s high court.
State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, could also ask the full court to reconsider the ruling en banc.
Texas passed the law in 2017 but federal courts blocked it from taking effect, arguing that doctors would have to perform unproven and medically unnecessary methods to cause fetal demise before beginning a dilation and evacuation abortion.
Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in 2017 on behalf of Whole Woman’s Health and other providers in the state.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also argued that the dilation and evacuation method is “evidence-based and medically preferred because it results in the fewest complications for women compared to alternative procedures.”
“Efforts to ban specific types of procedures will limit the ability of physicians to provide women with the medically appropriate care they need, and will likely result in worsened outcomes and increased complications," the organisation has said. “These legislative efforts are based on non-medical, subjective language. This language will create confusion, thus putting women at risk and, in certain cases, actually leading to abortion later in pregnancy.”
Under the Texas law, doctors who violated the ban could face up to two years in prison.
“Today’s decision puts a stop to Texas’s strategy to ban one abortion procedure after another until it is all but inaccessible, ” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
“Politicians should never decide what medical procedures a patient can and cannot receive," she said in a statement. "This ruling follows decades of Supreme Court precedent and the Fifth Circuit has joined every other federal court in striking down these types of bans.”
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said with the ruling, “our physicians can continue to practice to the highest level of their training, and Texans will continue to benefit from their expertise. ”
The ruling arrives four months after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have closed all but one abortion health centres in the state. The high court struck down a similar Texas law in 2016.
Democrats fear that the confirmation of Judge Barrett – who has supported anti-abortion campaigns – could threaten the landmark decision in Roe v Wade, which provides constitutional protections for women’s healthcare, by tipping the body of the court to a conservative majority.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-abortion-ban-dilation-evacuation-ban-supreme-court-latest-b1021809.html
The harm in hate-crime laws
Identity politics has long been enshrined in law. A complex mess of equalities legislation, public-order and criminal-justice acts, enacted over the course of several decades, have reduced people to ‘immutable characteristics’, such as skin colour or sexuality, each with associated degrees of privilege or oppression. But, if proposals now set out within the Law Commission’s recently published consultation on hate-crime laws make it on to the statute books, we had all better start swotting up on critical race theory and intersectionality.
Hate-crime laws protect some and criminalise others. Those found guilty of a crime receive a harsher punishment if they are perceived to have been motivated by hatred of their target’s disability, race, religion, transgender identity or sexual orientation. This creates legal double standards. If two violent thugs beat someone up, each dishing out the exact same injuries, they could be punished differently depending on the identity of their victim.
Bizarrely, not only is intent irrelevant to hate crime, but so too is the existence of a victim and the carrying out of a criminal act. As Harry Miller, a former police officer from Huddersfield, found out to his cost, you can be investigated and recorded as having committed a ‘non-crime hate incident’ without having broken the law and without there being any particular victim. Last year, Miller tweeted a limerick ridiculing the notion that people can change sex on a whim. For this, he was visited by the police at his place of work and formally warned about his behaviour.
The Law Commission’s latest consultation aims to simplify and clarify the raft of legislation that hate crime currently falls under. In practice, this means expanding the law to protect more groups and criminalise a broader range of speech and behaviour. The ideology driving this expansion, illustrated by the quotations from choice academics that pepper every page of the consultation, seems cut and pasted from an undergraduate critical-theory module.
In considering the distinct harm of hate speech, the consultation points to arguments that victims perceive ‘their experience as an attack upon the core of their identity’. In relation to acts of racist hate crime, this means that ‘black-minority victims of racist crime will experience the crime more acutely than white-majority group victims because the crime serves as a painful reminder of the cultural heritage of past and ongoing discrimination, stereotyping and stigmatisation of their identity group. When an anti-black racist hate crime occurs, it brings all of the dormant feelings of anger, fear and pain to the collective psychological forefront of the victim.’ This is a view of crime that could have been lifted straight from the pages of Words That Wound, a 1993 book offering one of the first analyses of critical race theory.
Elsewhere, we get Foucault 101. Hate crime, we are told,
‘is a mechanism of power and oppression, intended to reaffirm the precarious hierarchies that characterise a given social order. It attempts to recreate simultaneously the threatened (real or imagined) hegemony of the perpetrator’s group and the “appropriate” subordinate identity of the victim’s group. It is a means of marking both the Self and the Other in such a way as to re-establish their “proper” relative positions, as given and reproduced by broader ideologies and patterns of social and political inequality.’
If all this academese seems confusing to the average man on the street, we need not worry. The whole point of hate-crime law, the Law Commission tells us repeatedly, is to educate the public.
The consultation proposes that ‘gender or sex should be a protected characteristic for the purposes of hate-crime law’ because this would have ‘declaratory importance’. Making misogyny a hate crime would send a message, ‘that culturally endemic negative attitudes towards women are not acceptable’. In such instances, the law is assumed to have ‘educative value’: ‘After a bias incident, there is often discussion about the crime that serves to educate the public. If sexual assaults were appropriately labelled as hate crimes, a similar discussion could occur in regard to rape and other forms of gender-motivated violence that would educate the public about the actual nature of rape and discredit common rape myths.’ In other words, the law needs to change in order to educate the British public into holding the ‘correct’ views.
The ‘correct’ view, it seems, is to affirm the identity of protected groups. The Law Commission flags up a problem with current hate-crime legislation – namely, ‘the lack of acknowledgment of the intersectional nature of victims’ characteristics’. Helpfully, it explains that ‘by “intersectional” we mean the fact that some people experience multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination and abuse’. Of course, this desperate bid to recognise and affirm every identity group leads to a clamour from campaigning groups that want the law extended to protect their members. Commissioners met with ‘older people, homeless people, sex workers, members of alternative subcultures, and those who adhere to non-religious philosophical beliefs. They argued that there is considerable unfairness in the fact that they are excluded altogether from the protection offered by hate-crime laws.’ Likewise, ‘disability groups shared the concerns of LGBT groups about unequal treatment in law compared with race and religion, and the practical and symbolic implications of this’.
The Law Commission’s consultation on hate crime drips with contempt for the British public: we are either hateful and in need of re-education, or pathetic and in need of protection. We already have laws shaped by identity politics, and the proposals put forward by the Law Commission take us further into identitarian terrain. Both free speech and equality before the law are casualties of this. Rather than protecting free expression, the consultation heralds the fact that ‘hate-speech law sets the parameters of morally acceptable speech’, and can therefore ‘represent a permissible interference with freedom of expression’. Meanwhile, equality before the law becomes reinterpreted as equal protection for different victims.
Incredible as it may seem, this new consultation threatens to make a morass of bad laws even more illiberal.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/10/06/the-harm-in-hate-crime-laws/
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)
*****************************************
14 October, 2020
Extreme globalization must be fought tooth and nail
By MARTIN HUTCHINSON, an economic historian
Twenty years ago, I was strongly in favor of globalization. I recognized the theoretical benefits it could bring and believed that poor countries could get richer while rich countries and their inhabitants did not get poorer. Alas, I favored a globalization that we did not get, and that maybe does not exist. Politics, as always, messes up the process; once you take account of politics, it becomes clear that extreme globalization must be fought tooth and nail.
According to David Ricardo’s Doctrine of Comparative Advantage, propounded in 1817, if two nations each produce the goods and services for which they have the greatest advantage, world wealth will be maximized. In the world of 1817, that Doctrine held very largely true, and the move to free trade that it inspired, to the extent that movement was shared among the world’s leading economies (which it increasingly wasn’t) was responsible for a massive improvement in human welfare.
When the Soviet Union imploded and, almost simultaneously, the Internet and cellphones appeared, it seemed that Ricardo’s Doctrine was once again going to lead to an almost unimaginable improvement in human welfare, this time with the world’s poorest countries sharing in the increased wealth that in the 19th Century was almost entirely confined to western Europe and the United States. World War I had clearly derailed the steady improvement in life standards of the 19th century. The imprisonment of a large part of the human population in the economic dead-end of Communism after that war and the second war that followed had greatly reduced the Ricardian potential that might have been available from a truly free world. Now it appeared that the old barriers had finally broken down, even in India and China, home to nearly 40% of the world’s population, so the economic lift-off ought to be spectacular.
The advent of modern telecommunications should have done even more for global growth. Suddenly, it became relatively easy to outsource globally, controlling a supply chain from the rich countries where the markets were, while carrying out the actual manufacturing in poor countries with wage levels one tenth those of the rich ones. Combined with the extension of the market to an additional 40% of the world’s population, this should have produced global growth rates at an unprecedented level, with the relatively high research expenditures and rapid diffusion of knowledge characteristic of modern economies also serving to turbo-charge global growth and increases in wealth.
Admittedly, you would also expect an equalization of living standards between rich countries and poor countries by the new globalization, as poor countries were fully integrated into the world economy. However, in a truly free market, Say’s Law should have ensured that nobody got poorer. The additional supply potential of the poor countries, and their higher purchasing power, should produce its own demand. In a truly free market, the opening of the Chinese and Indian economies should have led to a bonanza for Western producers, who should have been able to double their output while reducing costs, in a free market a guaranteed recipe for success. That doubled output should have provided additional job opportunities in Wisconsin as well as in Wuhan.
In practice, a Ricardian episode of faster growth through globalization is not what we got. Global GDP per capita, the growth of which should have accelerated after 1990, as full globalization and the Internet/telecom revolution took hold, has in fact slowed. Whereas in the 30-year period 1960-90, growth averaged 1.25% per annum, on World Bank figures, in the 28-year period 1990 to 2018 it has averaged only 1.15% per annum. Given the changes of the 1990s, you would have expected global growth to accelerate to an annual 1.75%-2%, reflecting the exceptionally attractive new growth environment. Thus, the growth shortfall is much more serious than it at first appears – the world is at least 20-25% poorer today than it should be.
Some of the explanations for this are relatively benign. Ricardo’s doctrine does not work well in knowledge-intensive service sectors, because relative advantages can be shifted. A good example of this was given to me by a software CEO, who in 2002 explained that his outsourcing was benign, because the Indian-domiciled graduates of the Indian Institute of Technology had the ability to be coders, but did not have the higher-level abilities and experience to be software managers. That has proved to be rubbish in the intervening years; the Indians to whom he had outsourced, being intelligent people, learned the higher-level skills that he intended to keep in the United States and have now taken over the projects entirely, greatly restricting his business. That did not happen in the textile industry of 1817; life has moved on, and Ricardo is no longer so applicable.
On the other hand, the adverse relative effect we would have expected to see on the living standards of the less skilled in rich countries has been only too visible. Those living standards before 1990 had been increasing steadily, albeit with a relative transfer of wealth from the United States to Europe and Japan in in 1973-90. However, since 1990 living standards for the average and lower-skilled in rich countries have declined, in the United States, Western Europe and Japan. You would expect this; globalization’s wealth transfer to poor countries has indeed occurred, as exemplified by the huge rise in Chinese wealth, but instead of being Pareto-optimal, helping all participants in the world economy, globalization, because it has not produced faster growth, has produced a massive wealth transfer away from Western citizens, whose welfare Western politicians are paid substantial salaries to protect.
Beyond the simple failure of Ricardo in certain areas (and they still add to only a modest percentage of the total economy) there are several reasons, generally less benign, why globalization has drastically underperformed:
Intellectual property theft. To the extent that China, in particular steals Western intellectual property, the speed of economic growth is unaffected in the short-term, because China’s wealth increases at the expense of the West. Of course, if Western companies go out of business or cut back their innovation as a result of their IP being stolen, global growth will suffer in the long-term. There is considerable evidence that this effect is occurring and has grown more significant since 2010.
Regional Free Trade Agreements. Until 1994, free trade was primarily a global movement, with the exception of the EU’s move to a Single Market. Since that date, innumerable regional free trade agreements have sprung up. These have generally increased tariffs, because the regional blocs increase barriers against competitors who are not members. In general, they distort the flow of goods and services, reducing the benefits of globalization. At the same time, if low-wage countries are involved, they may involve just as much “outsourcing” and impoverishment of rich-country workers as full globalization. Generally, they are a thoroughly bad idea.
Environmental policies. To the extent that governments pursue “green” policies they impoverish all their citizens except a few well-connected environmentalists. This problem is exacerbated if environmental policies are imposed by multi-lateral treaties, where ordinary voters cannot get rid of them through the ballot box. The “climate change” scam has been responsible for much of the growth shortfall of the last decade and is only going to get worse unless it is fought tooth and nail.
Short-termist corporate management. Partly because of “funny money” (see below) but also because of excessive grants of stock options, corporate management has become obsessed by short-term gains. In a globalizing world, this has meant an excessive regard for the wage and other cost savings from relocating production to the Third World, and an insufficient attention to the long-term costs and above all risks that outsourcing produces. With Covid-19 and the increasing geopolitical hostility of China, those costs have now become all too clear. Global supply chains must be shortened, and production brought back to Western economies, benefiting Western workers.
“Funny money” With all major advanced economies running a lunatic monetary policy that sets interest rates far below their natural levels, all kinds of economic insanities have been encouraged. In particular, the owners of assets have been excessively benefited at the expense of the earners of wages and salaries. Small business formation has also been decimated. “Funny money” also compresses the capital cost differential between Western and emerging market economies, artificially encouraging low-wage competition and outsourcing. Finally and most important, “funny money” has killed productivity growth and therefore wage growth in every country where it has been imposed. The policy needs to be reversed as soon as possible.
Supranational governance. Globalization has brought an increasing governance by supranational public-sector bodies, who are subject to absolutely no democratic control and impose the barmiest theories of leftist academics on the struggling global economy.
Even the World Trade Organization, in principle a sensible and necessary organization, has in practice been subjected to a series of leftist Third World bureaucrats who have no understanding of free-market trade dynamics. It is now obvious, if it was not before, that a unified world government would be an Orwellian nightmare, where all the worst fantasies of the leftist professoriate were given full rein, and ordinary people had no say at all. It would combine 1984 and Brave New World, being simultaneously impoverishing and socially controlling. Even more than environmentalism and “funny money” it must be resisted a l’outrance.
The “populist” uprisings in the U.S., Britain and many other Western countries are a natural reaction to globalization’s failings. Whatever the intellectual incoherence and bad manners of populism, the uprisings should be encouraged, albeit accompanied with a non-populist reversion to sound monetary policies. Only thereby will we regain control of our societies and get the growth in prosperity we all deserve.
https://www.tbwns.com/2020/10/12/the-bears-lair-the-emerging-global-one-party-state/
Woke warriors outraged over Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra because she is not black are ridiculed for not knowing the Egyptian Queen was GREEK
Israeli actress Gal Gadot has been slammed on social media after she was cast to play Cleopatra in the upcoming historical epic about the iconic Egyptian queen.
The 35-year-old on Sunday confirmed she will play the titular role in a new movie after Paramount Pictures won the rights to the film in a bidding war between Universal, Warner Bros., Apple and Netflix.
The casting however, immediately drew outrage from confused social media users who wrongly assumed Cleopatra was black and North African.
Critics argued it was inappropriate for Gadot, a white Israeli woman, to play such a role and suggested the part be given to an African or black actress instead.
The outrage was met with ridicule by other social media users who were quick to point out the Egyptian ruler was actually ethnically Greek or Persian.
'Cleopatra was NOT black, she was of Greek descent, and there are even effigies of the time on how she looked like. People need to stop trying to rewrite history with the SJW stupidity of today,' one user tweeted.
'People are upset because Gal Gadot, who isn't black, is playing Cleopatra, who wasn't black either,' Journalist Ian Miles Cheong quipped.
Cleopatra is known as the last ruler of the Ptolemaic Kingdom in ancient Egypt before her death in 30 BC.
While she was born in Egypt, she was the daughter of Pharaoh Ptolemy XII, a member of the Macedonian Greek royal family that ruled Egypt for 275 years, meaning Cleopatra was most likely fair-skinned
In books and paintings, she was often depicted to have ivory skin, which was also seen in depictions Roman and Ptolemaic goddesses at the time.
The real life Cleopatra ruled Egypt for three decades, first with her father, then with her two younger brothers and finally with her son, reputed to have been fathered by Julius Caesar.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8829671/Social-media-mocks-uneducated-outrage-Israeli-Gal-Gadot-cast-Cleopatra.html
UK: War on woke: ministers to get powers to protect controversial statues
Boris Johnson is to give a minister the power to veto the removal of statues, plaques, and memorials across the country, to help guard against campaigners and politicians "bullying" local officials into wiping out public heritage.
The Government is preparing to change planning rules to allow Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary, to take over formal applications relating to the dismantling of statues and other monuments, rather than the final decision resting with councils.
The move would amount to the Government's first legal intervention relating to recent cultural clashes that have led to museums, councils and universities facing pressure to remove statues, plaques and other objects linked to the country's colonial past.
Tower Hamlets, a Labour council in east London, is one of the latest local authorities to consider relocating or removing statues in the borough, according to a dossier compiled by the Policy Exchange think tank. Lambeth, another Labour council in the capital, is also intending to "review existing troubling or historic links and assess whether we can legally suggest new names or commemorations".
The government plan comes after Oliver Dowden, the Culture Secretary, separately wrote to publicly-funded museums and galleries warning that they could jeopardise their taxpayer support by removing statues or other artefacts as a result of pressure from campaigners.
Under planning laws, the Housing Secretary can generally take over, or "call in", planning applications if the proposal conflicts with national policy in a major way, or is nationally significant. However, the minister is bound by a set of specific criteria for the type of application that can be called in.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is planning to amend the current criteria to include planning applications for the removal of public heritage such as statues, plaques and memorials.
If Mr Jenrick took over such cases, an inspector would carry out an inquiry, which the minister would then have to take into account before reaching a decision.
A senior government source said: “The Labour Party has given the green light to cultural and historical vandalism across the country. Statues of Britain’s heroes from Sir Francis Drake to Admiral Nelson are under threat from Marxist militants, working hand in glove with Labour councillors."
The source said the plans would allow the Government to "protect Britain’s heritage, and ensure all planning decisions are made with due process and due consideration of historic heritage guidance”.
Last night, Trevor Phillips, the chairman of Policy Exchange’s History Matters Project, said: “In recent months, Policy Exchange has documented more than 100 cases where aspects of our shared past – from statues to street names and what is taught in schools and universities – are being erased, without genuine debate and with very little consultation with the public who pay the bills.
"For example, it was shocking to see a statue in Bristol be torn down against the will of the only black mayor of a large British city.
"We should recognise changes in public sentiment, but our response in a democracy must not be driven just by those who shout loudest. It is very welcome news that ministers will be able to ensure that if change takes place it will be by public consent rather than by extremist coercion.”
Ministers are understood to be concerned that councils could fail to follow due process before removing statues and other monuments.
On Tuesday, Sir Laurie Magnus, the chairman of the Historic England quango, warned MPs: “Our collective past is going to be just torn away, slowly, piece-by-piece.”
Criticising Labour's approach to the campaigns to remove controversial statues, Mr Johnson told Tory members last week: “We are proud of this country’s culture and history and traditions; they literally want to pull statues down, to rewrite the history of our country, to edit our national CV to make it look more politically correct.”
SOURCE
If you dare to tell it like it is, you’re a racist
Mike O’Connor writes from Australia:
If you want to express an opinion that is in anyway contrary to what is seen as politically correct in this great land of ours, don’t expect anyone to stand up for your right to freedom of speech.
Kerri-Anne Kennerley is the latest person to incur the wrath of the self-righteous following her acceptance of an offer to play the role of Pippin in the upcoming Gordon Frost Organisation’s musical of that name due to open in Sydney next month.
Her decision was immediately denounced by prominent theatre director Richard Carroll who said that the decision to cast Kennerley demonstrated that the musical theatre industry was not willing to change.
Pardon? Well-known performer lands acting gig? Where’s the problem and what hasn’t changed?
Kennerley’s sin was to air the view on television last year that people protesting to have the date of Australia Day changed were ignoring the alleged rape of children and women in the Outback.
“Has any single one of those 5000 people waving the flags saying how inappropriate the day is, has any one of them been out to the Outback where children, where babies and five-year-olds are being raped, their mothers are being raped, their sisters are being raped. They get no education” she said.
“What have you done?” she asked of the Invasion Day protesters. “Zippo!”
Predictably she was howled down for stating an obvious truth, the announcement of her role in Pippin firing up social media harpies who immediately cried “racist!” and demanded she be removed from the show.
It seems that for voicing her views, she should now be ineligible for future employment. How dare she expose the shallowness of urban activists who rant and chant and tell each other what a great job they’re doing and through indolence, ignorance or self-absorption, do nothing about the real problems in society.
Kennerley, bless her, is not one to fold in the face of criticism. “It matters not,” she said. “I am delighted to be doing Pippin. it’s wonderful to have jobs back for the theatre industry.”
I don’t place much credence in Australia Day awards, given that they are frequently handed out to people who have merely done what they have been well paid to do but if the gong givers want to give one to Kennerley next year for having the courage to speak her mind, that’s fine with me.
The outrage, however, has not been confined to Kennerley.
Performer Gabrielle McClinton has also been given a role in Pippin, having previously appeared in the Broadway production of the same musical.
The catch here is that not only is McClinton an American but he is also black.
“This is an opportunity for the Gordon Frost Organisation to formally acknowledge the lack of inclusion in our industry and adopt cultural competency in their productions,” said the actors’ union.
“It is important GFO recognises that moving forward there needs to be a formal agreement to ensure transparency and inclusion.”
Cultural competency? What precisely is that? Sounds like racism to me, denying Mr McClinton the role because he is a black American and not an Indigenous Australian.
This is another way of saying that theatrical producers should not be free to give the job to the person they feel to be best qualified but to a local whom they believe to be less qualified.
It’s their money they are risking. Surely they should be able to decide who they hire without being accused of lacking “cultural competency.”
The Gordon Frost Organisation has said that it looked for an Australian person of colour to fill the role but it couldn’t find anyone could with the requisite level of singing, dancing and acrobatic skills.
Giving jobs to people who are not qualified to perform them doesn’t do anyone any favours.
Moves gaining traction to force companies to have gender equality on their boards, now being made mandatory in California, are equally flawed.
Once you throw merit aside, the whole system becomes debased. The only winners are the underqualified.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/comment-if-you-dare-to-tell-it-like-it-is-youre-a-racist/news-story/dba117593332a1dc2cf2415168548ecb
***************************************
My other blogs:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
*****************************************
13 October, 2020
The magic of monarchy
Republican politician, Jason Smith has criticized The Duke and Duchess of Sussex for dabbling in American politics. I agree with him.
The British Monarchy is politically neutral, so for political campaigning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be stripped of all their royal titles.
The Duchess is a rabid leftist; she had no intention of supporting Prince Harry in his role as a prince of England; she drew him from his family and his country and she is now drawing him into political commentary as well. She is a witch, and he appears bewitched.
The British Monarchy is traditionally apolitical; it “reigns but does not rule”. And there is good reason for that. People are naturally inclined to adore and idolise those with prestige, and the British Royal Family provide a focus or target for people’s natural inclination to adore and idolise.
And being politically neutral the Royal Family draws the British public’s emotional adoration and idealism away from politics, thereby enabling the public to more rationally assess their voting options in government elections.
With their adoration directed toward politically neutral personages, people are better able to direct their intellectual functions to the voting process. Adoration and political judgement are thereby made separate within the voter and across the voting public. And that separation of adoration and political judgement not only makes the voter more rational, it also makes the population more stable and government more stable. Great political lurches left and right driven by adoration are reduced.
As an analogy; in a democratic constitutional monarchy as in the British system, the government directs the country forward with adjustments left and right, as a rudder directs a boat, and the Monarchy stabilises the country as the keel stabilises the boat, without which there would be too much lurching and drifting left and right with each adjustment of the rudder.
The USA does not have such a system of separating adoration from politics. Without a royal family, US celebrities have become the focus or targets of the American people’s natural tendency to adore and idolise, and celebrities are nearly all leftist campaigners.
There is reason celebrities are nearly all leftist. Most celebrities are natural actors and attention seekers. Celebrities are very image conscious people, as are all lefties. Lefties try their best to be seen as society’s good people. They want to feel good and look good.
The British people may like and admire their actors but they do not adore and idolise them like the Americans do theirs. And that is largely due to the British having the Royal Family. American celebrities suck up public adoration and direct it leftward, and that is a significant impairment on sensible American voting.
And there is a reason why American celebrities do not keep their leftism to themselves but feel an irresistible need to campaign. It is because leftism is more than just emotionalism; leftism is elitism. It is a psychological elitist syndrome. Leftists believe they know best how society should be, that they kow best what should be allowed and what should be banned, they know best how other people should live, what their opinions and thoughts should be, how they should speak, even which words they should be allowed to say and not say. You cannot get more elitist than that.
And elitism and authoritarianism always go together. That is why leftists always coerce others by any means to comply with leftist expectations. Conservatives just want to be left alone to live our lives without leftists continually telling us how to be, think, and speak.
I see only two possible solutions for the mixture of adoration and politics that exists in the USA, both of which are far out. Either the USA disallows its celebrities commenting on political matters, which will not happen, or the USA and Britain unite as one country thus enabling the US publics' need to adore to be directed to the Royal Family and away from politicians and leftist celebrities. But there would need to be an extraordinary series of events and social changes for anything that to happen.
It seems that for the foreseeable future America, like a ship with a rudder but with no keel, will continue its great emotional lurches left and right.
Candace Owens Leads BLEXIT March to the White House, Trump Welcomes Crowd
Conservative commentator and activist Candance Owens led a peaceful Back the Blue rally in Washington, D.C. on Saturday. The author of Blackout: How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation is encouraging minorities to leave the Democratic Party and support President Trump. Owens and her supporters traveled to the White House where President Trump addressed the crowd in his first public event since contracting the Wuhan coronavirus.
"There is not a time that Black Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Brazilian Americans need to find their voice more," Owens told the large crowd. "I know it can be scary. I know what it's like when you look at your own friends and your own family and people that you've grown up with and they tell you that you're crazy and that you're a racist but ... if the left wins, we are not going to recognize this country anymore."
"They are looking to foster race hate. When they see a crowd like this, this makes them nervous," said Owens.
Owens and the rally-goers then marched to the White House where President Trump attended his first public event since contracting the Wuhan coronavirus.
"Democrats have run nearly every inner city in America ... for a hundred years and their policies have delivered nothing but calamity, poverty, and trouble," Trump told the crowd. "Sleepy Joe Biden has betrayed Black and Latino Americans ... for half a century. Shipping your jobs to China ... opening your borders to mass illegal immigration ... trapping us in endless foreign wars ... and selling you out to the rich, globalist, Wall Street donors. Black and Latino Americans are rejecting the radical socialist left and they are embracing our pro-jobs, pro-worker, pro-police .. and pro-American agenda."
The liberal media only covered the event to accuse Owens of paying supporters to be there. The media believes as Joe Biden does: "you ain't black" if you support President Trump.
Owens' event was peaceful, in sharp contrast to left-wing gatherings. Has the media ever investigated who's been paying Antifa and the Black Lives Matter thugs to trash our cities?
SOURCE
Treat Women Equally By Treating Them Differently?
Let’s face it, there is nothing that won’t offend a Democrat. They get up every morning actively seeking something to bother them after waking up in a cold sweat and dreaming of microaggressions. They aren’t normal people; you wouldn’t wish their lives on your worst enemy, you also wouldn’t have to because they already have them. Liberals being miserable is nothing new, they’ve just gotten more forceful in projecting their misery on everyone else. If they get their way in the election, they’ll be able to mandate their misery and punish those who don’t comply. How that will manifest itself is always on display, just flip on MSNBC or CNN for two minutes and you’ll see it.
This week’s examples are about sexism, which at least is a nice change of pace from Democrats calling everyone racist.
Since its inception, feminism told everyone they were fighting for equality. That’s a noble goal. It’s also one the feminists achieved, whether they want to admit it or not (and they don’t want to admit it because there’s no money or power in admitting it). But equality brought with it something unexpected and inconvenient – literal equality.
No one is screaming about how women can’t be this, that, or the other thing anymore. There are more women in college today than men, for example. But with that success came expectations, particularly that men could treat women the way men treat other men. As we see regularly, that’s not allowed.
College professors demand more women authors to be taught rather than the classics written by men. Museums want to display more female artists, and the list goes on and on. No one dare say to women, "write better books, create better art, and produce classics."
The same demand for preferential treatment was on display in the vice-presidential debate. Mike Pence committed the “sin” of treating Kamala Harris like he has treated other men he has debated. Rather than being applauded, or better yet simply unremarked upon, for treating Harris as an equal, Pence was accused of “mansplaining,” a made-up crime to perpetuate the progressive feminist grift.
The truth of the matter is feminists, leftists, and pretty much anyone claiming to be pursing equality are actually seeking preferential treatment. No one wants to be “treated equally” because, on average, people treat each other pretty poorly.
I’m not saying we’re abusive to each other, though some can be. Mostly we simply don’t care. We don’t care about people we don’t know. We don’t wish them ill. It’s not like we walk around cursing the strangers we pass in our heads; we just simply don’t give them a second thought.
It’s not wrong when people pretend not to notice someone begging for money at an intersection or step over an unconscious homeless person sleeping on the sidewalk. It’s human nature. We only have so much bandwidth. What isn’t human nature is pretending to seek equality while demanding special treatment.
Should a woman never be interrupted by a man? That’s not equality. Yet, it’s what the self-professed seekers of equality demanded this week. It’s what they demand every week and every day of every week.
What the left demands publicly and how they pursue it are incompatible. They’re also destructive.
The Governor of Michigan blamed President Trump for an alleged plot to kidnap her by a group whose members, it turns out, include people who hate the president and attended Black Lives Matter protests (figure that one out). Trump said mean things about her, so she lied and said they were inspired by him, which was enough for her to claim victim status. It had to be Trump’s fault because Trump hates women, and Gretchen Whitmer is a woman. The media eagerly parroted her lies as fact, not mentioning the unpopularity of her own decisions and abuses as governor (declared such by the state’s Supreme Court).
Two weeks earlier, a woman mailed the poison ricin to the White House hoping to kill the president. You likely never heard of it. One event, thankfully, never made it past the planning stage. The other happened. The president’s criticisms were blamed for what happened in Michigan, four years of relentless slanders, accusing Trump of being everything from a puppet of Russia to Hitler reincarnated. The slanders, repeated endlessly on two cable “news” outlets, were not even considered to be a possible inspiration for an assassination attempt against the president.
When progressive “Bernie Bro” James Hodgkinson opened fire on Republicans practicing baseball because of an endless stream of “reports” claiming their health care plan would lead to the deaths of 10,000 people per year, the leftist media moved on before Congressman Steve Scalise was off life support. It was inconvenient to the narrative that Republican rhetoric leads to violence, so after three days it was like it never even happened.
One side gets treated one way, the other treated differently. You can call that a lot of things, none of which are equality.
Equality is not what Democrats want, and it’s not what they would ever accept. Democrats are above criticism and not responsible for anything. Everything is the fault of Republicans, even when the evidence clearly shows it isn't. Repeating Gretchen Whitmer’s whining about Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t make her lies true. Complaining about Kamala Harris being interrupted “because she’s a woman” doesn’t change the fact that she was interrupted not because of which bathroom she uses but for the lies she uses. Demanding equality while insisting on being treated differently does not make liberal women victims. It makes Democrats hypocrites.
SOURCE
Australia: Leftist judge wants more controls on the media
A High Court judge has come out swinging at the freedom of the press but his comments reek of a misunderstanding to the media’s role and his words should not go unchallenged, writes Des Houghton.
High Court judge Pat Keane has savaged the media, and suggested new laws to curb its powers.
And he has taken a swipe at the media industry’s Right-to-Know campaign, following the Australian Federal Police raid on journalist Annika Smethurst, cynically suggesting the crusade was motivated by “dollar signs”.
Keane goes further, saying that “it would not be surprising” if the High Court accepted a tort (a civil wrong) of invasion of privacy. He quotes from records that show judges favour protecting an individual’s private life “free from the prying eyes, ears and publications of others”.
His outspoken comments came in his Griffith Law School Michael Whincop memorial lecture. It was a scholarly, entertaining and dangerous speech in which he quoted some of civilisation’s greatest thinkers including Plato, Socrates, Sigmund Freud and Thomas Jefferson, and jurists like Louis D Brandeis, one of the great figures of the United States Supreme Court.
Keane said the electronic and print media cared little for the private lives of citizens.
“Should the law aid individuals to profit from the commercialisation of their intimate moments?” he asked.
Keane said drawing “satisfactory boundaries” between our private and public lives is one of the great challenges of Western civilisation.
Really?
He added: “The position taken by the media in Smethurst is a reminder, if one were needed, that, when the owners of the media are faced with a choice between the right to know and the right to privacy, they can be expected to favour the right with the dollar signs attached - and that will be so wherever one might think the balance of the public interests lies. The legitimate self-interest whose energy we need to harness is the interest that all of us have as citizens.
“It is definitely not the interest of media outlets, such as Fox News, which lies in pandering to the prejudices of its audience and stoking their distrust and disapproval of their fellow citizens.”
And others will see Fox as a bulwark against the increasingly left-wing media bias in the US led by the New York Times that routinely stokes distrust and disapproval against Republicans.
I could say that the ABC also stokes distrust and disapproval as it panders to the green-left.
Keane says laws to protect privacy had been “hit and miss”.
For me, his comments reek of a misunderstanding to the media’s role. His words should not go unchallenged.
True, the media sometimes does intrude. But it does not do so unless there is a strong public interest.
Much of the reporting of the intimate affairs of celebrities comes from the stage and screen and sporting luminaries themselves. They crave the limelight.
They frequently leak to the media because publicity feeds their egos and their bank balance.
Those of us who lead comparatively humdrum lives may find their trivialities an entertaining distraction. There is no crime in that. Not everyone spends their days off reading Plato, Your Honour.
While the media should not pander to the basest of instincts, nor should it be expected to change human nature and stifle an inquiring mind.
Paradoxically, much of the salacious gossip and scandal Keane seems to be complaining about comes directly from juicy court cases presided over by his fellow judges. There is an especially rich serving of the most intimate detail delivered weekly by Appeal Court judges of the Supreme Court as they forensically analyse the evidence.
More scandal, spice, humiliation and shame is delivered in Parliament in the time-honoured ritual of bucket-tipping.
In journalism, muckraking is a most noble art.
Keane puts a persuasive intellectual case, but an impractical one.
This is odd for a man who obviously has a brain the size of a planet.
He grew up in dreary, working-class Wilston in inner-city Brisbane and attended St Joseph’s Gregory Terrace where he was (of course) dux of the college. At the University of Queensland he won the university medal and then a scholarship to Oxford where he won the Vinerian prize for outstanding scholarship.
Later he was appointed Queensland Solicitor-General then a judge of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court.
Next he was appointed Chief Justice of the Federal court of Australia before ascending to the High Court in 2012.
The Australian reported in November 2012 that he was “a Labor man” and a friend of Kevin Rudd, although his appointments met with bipartisan support.
Keane spoke just as Crime and Corruption Chief Alan MacSporran ludicrously suggested that the media be gagged from reporting on matters he was investigating. I found his comments astonishing and arrogant.
Are MacSporran and Keane suggesting we curtail free speech, and therefore your right to know? I’ll quote Jefferson back at them: “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
MacSporran already has extraordinary powers of investigation. He can drag innocent people from the street and compel them to give evidence in a so-called Star Chamber court that the media is forbidden from covering. What would life be like without a free press? Perhaps we should go to China or Russia to find out.
However, tensions between the media and the judiciary may not be a bad thing.
For all their legal smarts, I have a hunch that Keane and MacSporran know very little about journalism or the million wrongs we right every year.
Any more restrictions on the press would kill investigative journalism. A shackled press would not have uncovered the Watergate case that toppled Richard Nixon. Senator Ted Kennedy would not have been exposed as the Chappaquiddick Island coward who fled the scene and tried to cover up his part in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
Without intrusive journalism, The Sunday Times in England would not have exposed the cover-up of the thalidomide children who were born with shocking deformities.
Without dangerous and meddling journalism, The Courier-Mail would not have exposed the corruption in the Bjelke-Petersen era that forced the Fitzgerald Inquiry which led to the Police Commissioner and several Cabinet ministers being sent to jail.
But MacSporran and Keane ought to reflect on what they are suggesting. They want to edit our papers, just as bureaucrats do in China.
Could MacSporran’s gag proposal be in breach of the new Human Rights Act that guarantees my freedom of thought and freedom of expression?
As irksome as it might sound to the MacSporran and Keane, they are often in the same boat as journalists. This is because journalists, judges and police ultimately strive to serve the same ideals.
If the press is seen to have too much power, so are the courts.
There is dangerous, totalitarian thinking in the belief that the media can somehow be “managed”.
The independence of the judiciary is paramount, as is the independence of journalism.
In protecting the citizenry from wrongdoing and injustice, may I humbly suggest, Your Honour, that the intrusive media quite often does a better job than your courts.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
12 October, 2020
St. Louis Couple Indicted for Wielding Guns to Defend Home
Mark and Patricia McCloskey have been indicted by a grand jury on felony weapons and evidence-tampering charges. The McCloskeys, you may recall, are the St. Louis couple — both attorneys — who in June stood outside their own residence holding firearms to deter a Black Lives Matter mob that was trespassing in their gated neighborhood.
The McCloskeys were featured at the Republican National Convention in August after Kim Gardner, St. Louis's George Soros-funded Democrat district attorney, searched their home in July and seized Mr. McCloskey's semiautomatic rifle and then charged the couple on trumped-up charges. Now a grand jury has agreed.
"The government chooses to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our right to defend ourselves, our home, our property, and our family," Mark McCloskey insisted Tuesday. "We didn't fire a shot. People were violently protesting in front of our house and screaming death threats and threats of rape and threats of arson. Nobody gets charged but we get charged." He's right. Initial charges against several trespassers were dropped.
He added, "What you're witnessing here, in this case, is just an opportunity for the government — the leftist Democrat government — of the city of St. Louis to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our Second Amendment rights."
Moreover, as Mr. McCloskey noted in his RNC speech, this fiasco has direct impact on a congressional election: "The Marxist liberal activist leading the mob to our neighborhood stood outside our home with a bull horn screaming, 'You can't stop the revolution.' Just weeks later, that same Marxist activist won the Democrat nomination to hold a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives [for] the city of St. Louis. That's the same as winning the general election. That Marxist revolutionary is now going to be the congresswoman from the first district of Missouri."
The "Marxist revolutionary" is Cori Bush, the Ferguson native who got her start by fomenting hatred over the lie about Michael Brown's death in Ferguson in 2014. She was indeed among the Black Lives Matter protesters who encountered the McCloskeys in June. Naturally, she dismissed their characterization of her as "their way of just trying to get attention, trying to get some notoriety," but make no mistake: BLM is absolutely Marxist.
On a final note, Republican Missouri Governor Mike Parson says he'll pardon the McCloskeys if they're convicted, but here's hoping the jury has more sense than the grand jury.
SOURCE
CRAZY! DHS Homeland Threat Assessment Omits Antifa
In the fight to make the government figure out that Antifa is a danger, the DHS has once again left them out of the Homeland Threat Assessment (HTA). After all the riots, looting, burning, attacks on journalists, they only listed “white supremacists” as the most important domestic danger to National Security. (Breitbart) (Washington Times) threat assessment omits Antifa
They seem to have completely ignored the journalists who’ve been attacked by Antifa and revealed videos of their activity. Andy Ngo, Ian Miles Cheong, Elijah Schaffer, Brendan Gutenschwager, and many others that have gone toe to toe with Antifa, risking life and limb, and now…poof. The Homeland Threat Assessment skips over that work and relies on certain government intelligence agencies.
Excerpt from the Report:
Domestic violent extremism is a threat to the Homeland. As Americans, we all have the right to believe whatever we want, but we don’t have a right to carry out acts of violence to further those beliefs. The Department works with other Government, non-Government, and private sector partners to prevent individuals from making this transition from protected speech to domestic terrorism reflected by violence. As Secretary, I am concerned about any form of violent extremism. That is why we design our programs to be threat agnostic – ensuring that we can combat a broad range of domestic threats. However, I am particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years. I am proud of our work to prevent terrorizing tactics by domestic terrorists and violent extremists who seek to force ideological change in the United States through violence, death, and destruction.
Exploitation of Lawful and Protected Speech and Protests. During the course of developing the HTA we began to see a new, alarming trend of exploitation of lawful protests causing violence, death, and destruction in American communities. This anti-government, anti-authority and anarchist violent extremism was identified by DHS in September 2019 when we published our Strategic Framework for Countering Terrorism and Targeted Violence. As the date of publication of this HTA, we have seen over 100 days of violence and destruction in our cities. The co-opting of lawful protests led to destruction of government property and have turned
deadly.
Indeed, DHS law enforcement officers suffered over 300 separate injuries and were assaulted with sledgehammers, commercial grade fireworks, rocks, metal pipes, improvised explosive devices, and more. This violence, perpetrated by anarchist extremists and detailed in numerous public statements that remain available on the DHS website, significantly threatens the Homeland by undermining officer and public safety— as well as our values and way of life. While the HTA touches on these issues, we are still in the nascent stages of understanding the threat this situation poses to Americans, the Homeland, and the American way of life.
So, even after Acting Director Chad Wolf witnessed the continuous uprising of Antifa and BLM in Portland, he says they still don’t exactly understand the threat it poses to Americans. They simply don’t want to call Antifa an “organization.” It’s only been around since before WWII.
The Homeland Threat Assessment mentions foreign actors attempting to commit cybercrime- absolutely true. It mentions foreign states like Russia, China, and Iran attempting to mess with our elections – absolutely true as well. It says that illegal immigration is a threat- also absolutely true. It calls natural disasters a threat- again, absolutely true. But Antifa and Black Lives Matter are organizations with a Communist/Marxist plan to destroy the country.
Antifa leadership changes with every event- and that’s by design. By keeping themselves away from an ordinary leadership style plan, they believe they are safe from being called a “domestic terror organization.” FBI Director Christopher Wray calls it an “ideology or movement.” Joe Biden calls it an “idea.” That “idea” has caused millions of dollars worth of destruction, hundreds of injuries, and the death of an American patriot. Had they been able to complete some of their actions like burning police alive in their own building, (which they have attempted several times) we’d be talking about a lot more deaths.
No, Chad Wolf, your Homeland Threat Assessment doesn’t inspire our confidence. It causes concern.
SOURCE
The Whitmer Plot Isn't What It Seems
Whether by a plot to bomb a federal building in Oklahoma City or a plot to kidnap a duly elected governor, the Great Lakes State has given militias an awful name. A repugnant name. A name they don’t deserve. It was a militia, after all, that in 1775 took up arms at Lexington and Concord and took on the world’s most powerful army.
As for the bizarre events that came to light yesterday in Michigan, here’s what we know: Federal agents thwarted a plot to violently overthrow the state’s government as well as kidnap or otherwise harm its governor, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer. As The Detroit News reports, “The alleged plot mainly involved six conspirators unhappy in part about Whitmer’s coronavirus restrictions, calling her a ‘tyrant.’ They wanted to create a ‘self-sufficient’ society free from what they called unconstitutional state governments and discussed plans to storm the Capitol and take hostages, according to FBI documents filed in court. Organizers allegedly met starting in June, including at a Second Amendment rally in [the state capital of] Lansing and in a Grand Rapids shop basement accessed through a secret door hidden under a rug.”
In addition to targeting the governor, the suspects, who number 13 in all, are also accused of plotting against law enforcement generally. As Fox News reports, “The suspects, now under arrest, are accused of calling on the groups’ members to identify the homes of law enforcement officers in order to target them [and] making threats of violence to instigate a civil war leading to societal collapse.”
Wait. These guys wanted to target cops, start a civil war, and cause societal collapse? That sounds an awful lot like the modus operandi of antifa, a group of violent far-left anarchists we’ve had our eyes on for years.
The knee-jerk, anti-Republican media narrative is already out there, of course, but at least one of the suspects is actually a Trump-hating anarchist. “You know Trump is not your friend, dude,” said Brandon Caserta, with an anarchist flag as a backdrop. “And it amazes me that people actually, like, believe that, when he’s shown over and over and over again that he’s a tyrant. Every single person that works for government is your enemy, dude.”
Caserta’s YouTube account has been terminated, but his videos were anything but those of a law-and-order Trump supporter. “They are oppressing you for a paycheck,” he said in one video. “If you’re still supporting law enforcement, you are supporting the people who are enforcing slavery on everyone else.” In another, he said, “The Constitution is illegitimate.” In still another: “Authority doesn’t exist, dude, and, like, the law doesn’t exist.”
Dude. Where are those hard-working Pulitzer Prize winners at The New York Times and The Washington Post when we need ‘em?
To no one’s surprise, Democrats and their media brethren were lightning quick to make political hay, however dishonestly and despicably. Almost as soon as the story broke, Whitmer took to the airwaves to blame Donald Trump and, ostensibly, the 63 million Americans who voted for him. “You know, the fact [is] that after a plot to kidnap and to kill me,” she complained to CNN’s Erin Burnett, “this is what they come out with. They start attacking me, as opposed to what good, decent people would do [which] is to check in and say, 'Are you OK?’ — which is what Joe Biden did. I think that tells you everything that’s at stake in this election. It tells you everything you need to know about the character of the two people on this ballot that we have to choose from in a few weeks.”
In short: You can join me and vote for Gentleman Joe Biden, or you can vote for the Orange Guy who wants me dead.
President Trump, of course, is a counterpuncher. And to no one’s surprise, he did just that: “Governor Whitmer of Michigan has done a terrible job,” he tweeted. “She locked down her state for everyone, except her husband’s boating activities. The Federal Government provided tremendous help to the Great People of Michigan. My Justice Department and Federal Law Enforcement announced today that they foiled a dangerous plot against the Governor of Michigan. Rather than say thank you, she calls me a White Supremacist — while Biden and Democrats refuse to condemn Antifa, Anarchists, Looters and Mobs that burn down Democrat run cities. I do not tolerate ANY extreme violence. Defending ALL Americans, even those who oppose and attack me, is what I will always do as your President!”
SOURCE
Father, 27, is charged after refusing to break open window of hot car to save his dying one-year-old daughter because of the cost
A severely defective human
A Las Vegas dad has been charged with child abuse leading to substantial bodily harm after his one-year-old daughter was found dead in a hot car.
Sidney Deal, 27, was arrested on Monday after refusing several efforts to free his daughter, Sayah, from the hot car, where she was trapped for about an hour.
Deal was booked at the Clark County Detention Center and is being held on $20,000 bail. He didn't attend his initial hearing for medical reasons.
The Las Vegas Man told police officers on the scene that he didn't want to break the car windows of his Nissan Altima because of the potential cost to the vehicle, according to The Daily Beast.
His partner also called an insurance company who offered to send a tow truck, but Deal refused the request after a disagreement about the price.
Police officers offered to call a locksmith, but Deal used the opportunity to speak on the phone with his brother instead.
Deal reportedly told officers that Sayah had simply fallen asleep, and that the air conditioner in the vehicle was on, according to KVVU-TV.
Mother, 20, and father, 21, are charged with manslaughter...
When officers were finally able to retrieve Sayah from the car she was already dead, with police stating her body had gone into rigor mortis.
'My son was not negligent the way he handled it,' Artavia Wilson said to KLAS, in regards to her son, Deal.
KTNV reports Deal told the police that he accidentally locked Sayah in his car after a fight with his girlfriend. The girlfriend told police he returned to her just a few minutes after leaving with Sayah.
Additionally, Deal talked on the phone with his brother, Samid, who arrived and offered to punch in a window after wrapping his shirt around his knuckle.
Deal reportedly prevented Samid from breaking the window, concerned that he wouldn't be able to afford a fix for the car.
Deal is expected to make his first court appearance on Thursday.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
11 October, 2020
Jordan Peterson on Marriage and the family
For a start, he overlooks the divorce problem. Feminist inspired divorce laws have destroyed marriage for a large slice of the population. The divorce laws so heavily favour women now that the possibility of divorce scares off any well-informed man. They don't enter marrige because they know that marriages do end and that such an end will leave them financially ruined.
I know a tradesman who was well-paid in his lifetime who should now be retired in comfort but who is now in his 70s almost completely "skint". Two divorces took the lot and he is too old to start again
Another thing that Peterson overlooks to some extent is the power of sexual appeal. The sex drive is often strong in women and will lead them into relationships that are unwise. And the more good-looking men in particular can fall victim to that. They might find that they have a very satisfying sexual partner and start living with her, only to find that she is a "bitch". The lady gets into bed very readily but the two of you are so ill-matched in other ways that after a while you end up making one another unhappy.
And because their sex drive is so strong, women will find a range of different things sexy in men, with a large wallet being the traditional example of that. So even men without traditional good looks can end up in bad relationships after the initial glow wears off. So divorce or breakups can be needed if a relationship ends up as being unwise and painful.
So Jordan's advice that a married couple should at some stage tell one-another all their secrets is undoubtedly wise in general but has been known to destroy relationships. And what can seem toxic to one woman may be relatively untroublesome to a more worldly woman. It's a risk. It could destroy an otherwise successful marriage.
I have found in my own life that total openness about myself and my varied past works wonders. Women really love a man who is honest with them. And the converse of that is that they hate men who lie to them. I have had four marriages and four divorces with minimal financial or other damage because I am habitually honest. It is quite amazing what women with put up with if the man they like is always honest with them. Honesty is powerful stuff.
So Peterson is right. Having no secrets is highly desirable and constructive. But it does depend on the secrets. Some things are probably best left to lie undisturbed in a man who has made mistakes but has learned from them. It is amazingly liberating if you have no secrets, however, as I have found.
I could go on but this essay is developing into a treatise rather than than a commentary on Peterson
Black Lives Matter Is Taking Their Anti-American War into the Suburbs in Wisconsin
Well, they’re back. Leftist rioters and Black Lives Matter are descending into the Wisconsin city of Wauwatosa after a police officer wasn’t charged in a shooting that led to the death of 17-year-old Alvin Cole. Cole was killed on February 2 when he opened fire on officers. The Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office announced today that the officer who shot Cole, Joseph Mensah, wouldn’t be charged (via Fox6Now):
There will be no criminal charges filed against Wauwatosa Police Officer Joseph Mensah in the shooting death of Alvin Cole, 17, outside Mayfair Mall in February, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm announced Wednesday, Oct. 7, writing: "In this case, there is sufficient evidence that Officer Mensah had an actual subjective belief that deadly force was necessary, and that belief was objectively reasonable. I do not believe that the State could disprove self-defense or defense of others in this case, and therefore, could not meet the burden required to charge Officer Mensah."
"We have a very strong policy of not charging anybody if we don't believe we can prove it," Chisholm told FOX6 News.
In making his decision, Chisholm outlined the factors that must be present for police officers in Wisconsin to use deadly force: a weapon, a means of delivering lethal force and displayed intent by the armed individual. According to Chisholm, this case presented all three.
"Mr. Cole went to Mayfair Mall armed with a 9mm," said Chisholm. "He had a confrontation with a patron. While he was running from them, he discharged the firearm, and from that point on, he was ordered to surrender the firearm and never did so."
But facts don’t matter to the Left or their band of thugs in the BLM and Antifa movements. Our own Julio Rosas is on the ground in Wauwatosa, where this anti-American mob took their war into the suburbs.
In a lengthy thread, Rosas captured BLM rioters targeting homes, along with the typical vandalism they inflict on storefronts. Yet, the police here appear to be not messing around. They tried to loot a gas station but fled when police arrived.
“The BLM crowd marched towards a line of police officers in Wauwatosa and began to throw projectiles,” wrote Rosas. “Police fired tear gas and pepper balls in response.” He added that this group was tear gassed a second time when they approached police.
“At another standoff between police and BLM marchers, the crowd inched their way towards the cops, using a car as cover. Police used tear gas to disperse the crowd,” he wrote.
Police and the National Guard have formed a perimeter around city hall.
SOURCE
“Systemic Racism”: a Popular Illusion
Slavery was commonly practiced throughout the world before and after the advent of Christianity. But some still blame the Catholic Church’s 15th century Doctrine of Discovery that claimed ownership of all discovered lands for the purpose of European colonization. The subjugation of native peoples then came in tow. However, since slavery had existed on every continent long before, placing the blame along these lines seems skewed against Christians, as well as being rather short-sighted.
The Papal Bull (Proclamation) “Inter Caetera” issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493 gave European Christians a monopoly on the lands in the New World. It read: “…the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.”
This was the common practice of conquest done by nearly every tribe and society of mankind since antiquity. Slavery was part of conquest; it was systemic throughout the Old World. Today, some claim that the one-time existence of slavery has left behind an indelible stain of systemic racism on the United States.
These slavery and race theorists are correct about the existence of the stain but wrong about it being indelible. Despite the 620,000 Americans—equivalent to 6 million in today’s population—who died in action in the Civil War to end slavery, the defeated and resentful Southern states were the first population in the world to institute systemic racism in 1877, known as the ” Jim Crow” laws. If they could not have their slavery, they could still identify by race and exploit former slaves.
As a testament to the utter moral corruption of these laws, something similar was later adapted by the Nazi Party with the 1935 Nuremberg Laws and applied against Jews, with little change except for the ethnicity of the afflicted population. The Nazis had searched the world looking for a body of laws that targeted a certain race of people. Only Jim Crow articulated a workable, systemic racism.
In the case of both the United States’ Southern Democrats and Germany’s Nazis, these systems of racism did not endure. Yet the systemic racism theorists of today dismiss the historic struggle against slavery and the racism it generated. In 1215 A.D., with the adoption of the Magna Carta, the “Divine Right of Kings” over enslaved serfs began to be eroded. The abolition of slavery was then pursued over the next 400 years throughout Europe in a succession of attempts to establish the God-given and, therefore, inalienable rights of the sovereign individual. These efforts culminated with the Somersett Case in 1772, in which a fugitive slave was freed with the judgement that slavery did not exist under English common law. This created the legal foundation that would eventually recognize all men, very much including slaves, as sovereign individuals regardless of their race.
In America, after the Revolution and even before the United States was formally established, Pennsylvania passed legislation in 1780 abolishing slavery, and Massachusetts adopted a state Constitution that declared all men equal. Again, these facts are generally unknown or ignored by systemic race theorists, who presume an unbroken chain of racist oppression in America. Do they know that the first person shot and killed by the British in the Boston Massacre (and thus, arguably, the first casualty of the American Revolution) was Crispus Attucks, a free black man?
Do they know that the black man pictured next to George Washington in the famous painting of Washington Crossing the Delaware was Prince Whipple, who was born in Ghana, sent to America for his education, kidnapped, enslaved, and then freed during the Revolution? Do they know Whipple was specifically included in the painting because he was so admired by the patriotic soldiers who fought for America alongside him? Do they know he died a hero and free, leaving behind his free wife Dinah and two children?
Do the systemic racism promoters who recently published “The Few, the Proud, the White” in The New York Times accusing the Marine Corps of systemic racism know that one of the first acts of the American military, specifically the Marine Corps, was to attack and destroy the practice of slavery being conducted by North African Barbary pirates from the shores of Tripoli? Do they know this action is commemorated by the Marine Corps in their “Marine’s Hymn” and that racism has been banned by Executive Order 9981 in all branches of the military for 72 years now?
Yet, systemic racism’s proponents persist. They point to the establishment of Jamestown in 1619 that included slaves as proof that America was founded on (and became reliant on) slavery. In their view, slavery is the root cause of America’s wealth and prosperity. Not much is made, however, of the fact that Jamestown failed, with its slaves. All the while, other foundational American colonies established without slaves like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts thrived.
The remnants of slavery and systemic racism were federally outlawed by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution and further abolished through the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s. Since then, all elements of systemic racism have been actively pursued and effectively eradicated through litigation. In fact, with the advent of affirmative action legislation, racial preference has been consistently shown to black Americans in some employment opportunities and in higher education. Americans elected a black president, Barack Obama, twice.
Today, there is no systemic racism in the United States, though many theoretical claims have recently been made relying on the discredited Marxist “oppressor and oppressed” theory. This says, in effect, that systemic racism must exist because black Americans are oppressed by aggressive police tactics, failing schools, and family disintegration. Systemic racism, it is argued, is the universal culprit for a range of oppressive social ills in communities now defined as populated by “people of color,” a phrase that, of course, draws upon the old Jim Crow label of “colored” people. It is the same Jim Crow segregation logic applied now ostensibly to benefit—instead of exploit—black and brown Americans. It is just as morally corrupt as the old Jim Crow laws and just as focused on attaining political power instead of fair governance.
Systemic racism in America today is a myth. It is more than a shame that actual civil rights history is not read today or is dismissed by the activists who promote this myth. They disgrace themselves as the modern inheritors of dividing people by race. They disregard the achievements of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. They undermine their very own stated goals by judging people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character.
SOURCE
DOJ Blasts D.C. Mayor for 'Silencing' Churches: 'There Is No Pandemic Exception to the Constitution'
The Department of Justice on Friday announced it had filed a statement of interest in the case filed by Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., against the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser. The 853-member church has a strong religious conviction that it must meet weekly and in person, as a single body, for worship. As a result of Mayor Bowser’s onerous COVID-19 orders (first capping worship services at 10 people and now 100), Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC) has not been able to meet together in the District since March. As a temporary measure, they’ve been meeting in a field in Virginia.
The congregation had asked the mayor for permission to meet at the 45,000-plus-seat Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, which would give them ample room to social distance, but the city denied the application for a waiver, and also the church’s appeals. (More background here.)
Finally, on Sept. 22, the church filed a lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order asking that they be allowed to hold outdoor worship services in the District of Columbia, citing the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. CHBC says the mayor has double standards—one for churches and another for large gatherings of protesters. The lawsuit pointed out that the mayor herself has attended some of these gatherings.
“The right to free exercise of religion and the right to protest are both enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution,” said Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, in a press release. “We are a nation dedicated to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. The District of Columbia has, unfortunately, neglected these rights. The Justice Department is committed to defending both of these fundamental freedoms and in supporting all Americans’ rights to worship as they choose.”
The statement of interest is part of Attorney General William P. Barr’s initiative, announced April 27, directing the DOJ to “review governmental policies around the country to ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
9 October, 2020
British Subpostmasters to have convictions quashed following Horizon computer scandal
Dozens of subpostmasters will have their convictions quashed two decades after a computer glitch led the Post Office to wrongly accuse them of theft, fraud and false accounting.
It is feared as many as 900 former employees may have suffered miscarriages of justice after the Horizon IT system was introduced to branches in 1999.
The defective computer system would routinely return shortfalls in their accounts, reducing hundreds of subpostmasters to financial ruin, while others were prosecuted and even jailed.
A group action was brought against the Post Office over the computer system and last year the High Court approved a £58 million settlement involving more than 550 claimants.
There was a further major development on Friday as the company said it would not be opposing 44 appeals against criminal prosecutions linked to the scandal.
The appeals are the first batch of cases referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), but more are expected to follow.
Tim Parker, the chairman of the Post Office, said: "I am sincerely sorry on behalf of the Post Office for historical failings which seriously affected some postmasters.”
He added: "Post Office wishes to ensure that all postmasters entitled to claim civil compensation because of their convictions being overturned are recompensed as quickly as possible."
Solicitors acting for some of the subpostmasters on Friday described the news as a "landmark moment".
The Horizon scandal left a trail of ruined lives when the livelihoods of hundreds of innocent employees were snatched away by the accounting malfunction.
Seema Misra took over her local Post Office in Woking, Surrey, in June 2005, but quickly found the computer system was claiming she owed tens of thousands of pounds in shortfalls.
She had £20,000 taken from her wages, but then found herself dragged in front of the courts accused of theft - where she received a 15 month jail sentence while she was pregnant.
“If I wasn’t pregnant I would have killed myself,” she told the Telegraph last year.
It is now likely that she will see her conviction quashed.
Others will not be afforded that moment of vindication.
Martin Griffiths took his own life in 2013 after facing accusations that he had stolen money from a Post Office in Chester
The former postmaster was forced to repay £60,000 after the software erroneously cast a cloud of suspicion over him.
"My uncle had his life and his reputation torn apart by the Post Office and his mental health was completely destroyed, it's an absolute tragedy," his nephew, Samuel Caveen, told the Liverpool Echo earlier this year.
On Friday, the Post Office said it had set up an extensive disclosure process to identify material which might call into question any relevant historical prosecutions.
Hudgell Solicitors said their 33 clients had carried convictions against their name for a decade or longer - but they will now be quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Neil Hudgel, executive chairman of the firm, said: "For the Post Office to concede defeat and not oppose these cases is a landmark moment, not only for these individuals but, in time, potentially hundreds of others.
"We are obviously delighted for the people we represent. Clearing their names has been their driving goal from day one, as their reputations and livelihoods were so unfairly destroyed.
"We must never forget that these people endured years of suffering and how these allegations and convictions affected not only the individuals themselves, but their loved ones too.”
The Post Office said it still intends to contest three of the 47 cases referred to the Court of Appeal.
SOURCE
Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K
Three Christian schools and a Christian network of pregnancy centers are suing Attorney General Mark Herring (D-Va.) in order to prevent Virginia from implementing two pro-LGBT laws that force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.” The two laws purport to prevent “discrimination” against LGBT people but, in reality, they force Christian ministries to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or paying hefty fines, as much as $100,000 per offense.
The so-called Virginia Values Act (S.B. 868), which Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va.) signed on Holy Saturday (the day before Easter Sunday) in the middle of a pandemic, compels churches, religious schools, and Christian ministries to hire employees who do not share their stated beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender identity. A companion law (H.B. 1429) requires ministries and others like them to pay for transgender surgery in employee health care plans, a procedure that violates these ministries’ convictions.
“The faith of many Americans inspires them to act for the good of their neighbors and also requires them to abide by its teachings,” Denise Harle, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the law firm representing the Christian ministries, said in a statement. “Our clients offer spiritual guidance, education, pregnancy support, and athletic opportunities to their communities because of the religious beliefs that motivate them. But Virginia’s new law forces these ministries to abandon and adjust their convictions or pay crippling fines—in direct violation of the Virginia Constitution and other state laws.”
“Such government hostility toward people of faith has no place in a free society,” Harle argued.
The lawsuit
The ministries filed a pre-enforcement challenge, a lawsuit designed to convince a court to prevent the government from implementing an unconstitutional law.
In the lawsuit, ADF is representing Calvary Road Christian School in Alexandria (preschool through 6th grade, 250 students), Grace Christian School in Staunton (preschool through 12th grade, 320 students), Community Christian Academy in Charlottesville (K-9, 50 students), and Care Net, a 501(c)3 nonprofit that supports a network of 1,100 pregnancy centers, churches, and other ministry organizations and has approximately 22,000 volunteers.
“For the Ministries, personnel is policy; and so they intentionally employ staff and recruit volunteers who further their respective Christian missions. Virginia’s new laws, however, make this free religious exercise and association impossible — and label these liberties ‘discrimination,'” the lawsuit argues.
S.B. 868 and H.B. 1429 require the ministries to hire employees who disagree with their beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender; mandate that the ministries hire employees whose beliefs and lifestyles are “antagonistic to the ministries’ convictions”; prohibit the ministries from firing employees who oppose their missions; require the ministries to provide services in a manner that violates their beliefs; ban the ministries from even communicating their biblical beliefs; make the ministries use their facilities in a way that contradicts their beliefs; and force the ministries to pay for “gender reassignment” procedures in their health plans, even though the ministries object to these procedures.
These laws put the ministries “in an impossible position: they must either abandon the religious convictions they were founded upon, or be ready to face investigations, an onerous administrative process, fines up to $100,000 for each violation, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages and attorney-fee awards, and court orders forcing them to engage in actions that would violate their consciences.”
The lawsuit brings five claims against AG Herring. It claims the LGBT laws violate the ministries’ right of free exercise of religion under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act; violate their right to free exercise of religion under the Virginia Constitution; violate their right to free speech under the Virginia Constitution; violate the Virginia Constitution’s Establishment Clause; and violate the state constitution’s Due Process Clause.
While the state constitution’s “Establishment Clause requires the government to act with a secular purpose and to neither promote nor inhibit religion,” the Virginia Values Act “targets the Ministries by singling out their religious speech and belief for hostility, and by showing favoritism towards, preferring, and promoting religious beliefs that approve of same-sex marriage and transgender ideology.”
The pro-LGBT law “also singles out the Ministries based on disfavored religious views and sends a message that religious persons with beliefs like the Ministries’ are second-class citizens, outsiders, and not full members of the community.”
Lawsuit: ‘I Won’t Let the State Force Me to Express Messages That Contradict My Beliefs’
Anti-religious bigotry fueled the Virginia Values Act
The lawsuit notes that the Virginia legislators who supported the Virginia Values Act expressed hostility to those who view marriage as between one man and one woman.
When considering SB 41 2016, a bill that would have allowed religious persons to object to solemnizing a marriage “in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief … that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman,” State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-30) condemned the bill, claiming it “carves out a space for bigotry cloaked under the guise of religious freedom.” Ebbin was the chief patron of the Virginia Values Act in the Senate.
During a debate in the Virginia House of Delegates over an amendment to the Virginia Values Act that would have excluded “a religious corporation, association, society, or unincorporated house of worship” from the definition of public accommodations, Delegate Joshua Cole (D-28) asserted his view of Christianity as the correct one in opposing the amendment:
I understand we have theological disagreements and we have theological beliefs of what we’re supposed to carry out, but if you are a public organization, your doors are supposed to be open to everyone in the public. Now I don’t know what type of Christianity you come from, but the type of Christianity I come from, the Apostle Paul said “Try with everything within you to live peaceably with all men.”
…The Bible also says “And they shall know us by our love.” What are we doing with our witness when we allow organizations to say just because we have St. Peter’s behind it, or Christian behind it, … that we don’t like you so don’t come over here…. Madame Speaker as an ending thought, I will let you know that in Jesus’ day the sinner was not his enemy. It was the church.
These and other Virginia Democrats showed the very same kind of hostility to conservative religious beliefs about marriage that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed toward Christian baker Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had violated Phillips’ right to the free exercise of religion by subjecting him to “religious hostility” in its application of the law.
This hostility is not limited to the legislators, however. AG Herring has repeatedly insisted that if wedding photographers refuse to help celebrate same-sex weddings, they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Mark Herring said as much in amicus curiae briefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and in Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey (2019), two cases on the issue of whether or not bakers and photographers have the free speech and religious freedom right to refuse to serve same-sex weddings.
Virginia Gov. Northam Sneaks in Raft of Lefty Bills on Voting, Guns, Abortion, Climate, LGBT — Under Cover of Easter Weekend
Christian ministries were not pushing bigotry
Yet the ministries suing to stop the Virginia Values Act are not pushing bigotry — they merely intend to operate on the basis of their religious convictions.
The lawsuit explains why each of the ministries cannot simply adopt the government ideology on LGBT issues.
For example, Calvary Road Baptist Church, which operates Calvary Road Christian School, “believes that the Bible is the Word of God, divinely revealed and without error.”
“Calvary Road believes that God wonderfully and immutably creates each person as male or female, and that these two distinct, complementary genders together reflect the image and nature of God. Calvary Road believes that rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person,” the lawsuit explains. “Calvary Road believes that marriage has only one meaning: the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture, and that God commands that sexual intimacy occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other.”
“To preserve its function and integrity, Calvary Road believes that all employees and volunteers must agree to and abide by its beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender,” and the school runs athletics based on biological sex. “Calvary Road maintains separate facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms for males and females. Access to private facilities is limited to those of the same biological sex in accordance with Calvary Road’s teaching on sexuality.”
“Calvary Road welcomes workers of any race, color, ethnicity, and national origin in any of its ministries, so long as the potential workers share Calvary Road’s religious values and doctrinal beliefs,” but it cannot employ those who disagree with its fundamental beliefs.
ADF is also representing a wedding photographer, Chris Herring, who also brought a pre-enforcement challenge against the Virginia Values Act.
Anti-religious bigotry seems on the rise, with Democrats adopting extreme pro-LGBT and pro-abortion policies and legacy media outlets reporting Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s mainstream Christian beliefs as some sort of extreme religious insanity.
SOURCE
TOPPLED! Oxford-educated museum curator who sparked fury for posting guide on vandalising statues leaves job after independent review
An Oxford-educated museum curator who sparked outrage after tweeting a guide about vandalising statues has left her job after an independent review.
American-born Madeline Odent posted messages to her 5,000 Twitter followers in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement explaining how they could use household goods to permanently damage monuments.
A police probe was launched after she revealed that covering bronze busts in 'a tone of tomatoes' could irreparable damage them and make them impossible to display.
Her comments sparked calls for her to be sacked from her taxpayer-funded job at at Royston and District Museum in Hertfordshire from MPs and local residents.
Mrs Odent is no longer employed, but the council had refused to say if she was fired or quit — despite previously saying it 'condemns all criminal acts including damage to statues and monuments and incitement to commit unlawful acts'.
The American also failed to clarify, telling her followers: 'They are not commenting because they can't and neither can I. Anyways, I don't work for them anymore.'
Mrs Odent appears to have stopped working for the council at the end of August. She revealed she had a new job but declined to comment further.
Royston Town Council probed Mrs Odent after condemning her tweets, adding that her position would be reviewed following the next full council meeting.
A spokesman said: 'Royston Town Council deplores and condemns all criminal acts including damage to statues and monuments, and incitement to commit unlawful acts.
'The council has instigated an external independent enquiry into the recent use of social media by one of its employees.
'This will ensure that the process is completed free from any political influence and should provide a fair and measured conclusion.
Glamorous curator Madeline Odent, whose maiden name was Madeline Briggs, comes from a wealthy family of American academics and is married to a banker.
Local Tory MP Oliver Heald said he had been bombarded with messages from locals, adding: 'I deplore criminal damage to national monuments and statues in public places... It is important to respect the rule of law and there is a democratic and lawful process to remove statues.
SOURCE
No English, no visa - even if you're married to an Aussie: Huge change brings in language test for loved ones who want to settle in Australia
Immigrants applying for a partner visa will be tested for 'functional levels' of English before they are granted permanent residency.
The government may require immigrants who do not speak English to have 500 hours of free class under the plan announced in Tuesday's budget.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the new requirement would promote social and economic inclusion.
'It's a much more basic level of English language competency and we think this is important to just enable people to engage to access government services,' Mr Morrison said on Wednesday.
'For example, to engage with those who are seeking to assist to access and get the best possible medical treatment, to understand what teachers are saying at school at parent-teacher conferences, and to understand their rights.'
Partner visa are processed in two stages. First an applicant gets a temporary visa for about two years after which they can apply for permanent residency.
The English language requirements will need to be fulfilled at the second stage when the partner wants to become a permanent resident.
'What this will mean is that we will require an applicant and a sponsor to have met functional level English or to have at least made reasonable efforts to learn English,' said Immigration Minister Alan Tudge.
'And by reasonable efforts we mean for most people that would be doing about 500 hours of free English language classes.'
Mr Tudge said the English test will be much simpler than the one needed to be met for economic migration.
Earlier this year the government made English classes free for migrants.
The policy will kick in from the middle of next year. The requirements will apply to applicants and their partners who are permanent residents not citizens.
Mr Tudge said about one million partners who are in Australia cannot speak English.
'In some cases, the husband will not want his partner or wife to learn English. And in part that's for control reasons,' he said.
The announcement has been slammed by the Opposition, who claim the new rule ignores Australia's multicultural values.
Andrew Giles, a Labor MP and the party's spokesman for Multicultural Affairs and Assisting for Immigration and Citizenship, said the government needs to understand the impact of the new measure.
'It's come about without any context ... and it seems to reflect an understanding of Australian society that's anchored in the past, that doesn't recognise the multicultural nation we are today,' he told SBS.
People can apply for partner visa from inside or outside of Australia.
It can set applicants back about $8,000.
Applicants are often allowed a bridging visa while their visas are processed.
Other visa changes announced on Tuesday include waiving or refunding application charge for temporary visa holders affected by the COVID-19.
There is also a push on the Family Stream Visa, with a temporary application increase from 47,700 to 77,000.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
8 October, 2020
Marvel launches its first Muslim superhero on TV screens: Pakistani American called 'Kamala' who shapeshifts hits Disney
Marvel has cast its first ever on-screen Muslim superhero for an upcoming Disney+ series.
Iman Vellani, 18, will play Kamala Khan, who goes by the pseudonym Ms. Marvel, in the groundbreaking TV show, and Marvel bosses are reportedly planning to feature her in future films.
The character is a 16-year-old Pakistani American from New Jersey with shapeshifting powers and was Marvel's first Muslim character to headline her own comic book.
Iman, herself the daughter of Pakistani Muslim immigrants in Canada, gushed on Instagram: 'Speechless and excited! Wish me luck. #msmarvel.'
Created in 2014, Kamala develops 'Inhuman' genes in the aftermath of the 'Inhumanity' storyline and assumes the mantle of Ms. Marvel from her idol Carol Danvers after Danvers becomes Captain Marvel.
Adil El Arbi, Bilall Fallah, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, and Meera Menon will direct the show, according to Deadline.
Hugo Award-winning writer G. Willow Wilson - who penned the relaunched Ms. Marvel comics - tweeted of Vellani: 'She is the real deal.'
The president of Marvel Studios, Kevin Feige, reportedly plans on using Iman in both the series and future Marvel films which might mean fans get to see Oscar winner Brie Larson play Captain Marvel in her show.
'I just saw they cast Ms. Marvel and legit got teary eyed,' Oscar nominee Kumail Nanjiani - who's also a proud Pakistani-American Muslim - tweeted.
'Congratulations Iman Vellani! Your work is going to mean so much to so many people, myself included. I can't wait.'
Not much is known about the teen sensation, who directed two short films (available on Vimeo) and served on the Toronto International Film Festival's Next Wave Committee last year.
SOURCE
Michigan Supreme Court Strikes Down Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's Pandemic Powers
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Friday that Governor Gretchen Whitmer had no authority to issue executive orders relating to the pandemic beyond April 30.
Whitmer had defied the Republican legislature which had been seeking to rein in Whitmer’s draconian response to the coronavirus, which included barring Michigan residents from moving between homes in the state or using motorboats, and stopping stores from selling carpeting, flooring, furniture, garden supplies, or paint.
Now the state Supreme Court has ruled those orders illegal.
CNN:
But the Michigan Supreme Court Friday ruled that Gov. Whitmer did not possess the authority under the EMA to re-declare a state of emergency or disaster based on the pandemic and that the EPGA was an “unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive branch in violation of the Michigan Constitution.”
“Accordingly, the executive orders issued by the Governor in response to the Covid-19 pandemic now lack any basis under Michigan law,” the justices’ opinion reads.
This is exactly what Republican legislators had been arguing for months: Whitmer did not have the authority to supersede the legislature, even in an emergency.
The Supreme Court scolded Whitmer for her executive overreach.
Washington Examiner:
It notes a wide variety of businesses that had to close as a result of the orders, including “restaurants, food courts, cafes, coffeehouses, bars, taverns, brew pubs, breweries, microbreweries, distilleries, wineries, tasting rooms, clubs, hookah bars, cigar bars, vaping lounges, barbershops, hair salons, nail salons, tanning salons, tattoo parlors, schools, churches, theaters, cinemas, libraries, museums, gymnasiums, fitness centers, public swimming pools, recreation centers, indoor sports facilities, indoor exercise facilities, exercise studios, spas, casinos, and racetracks.”
“These policies exhibit a sweeping scope, both with regard to the subjects covered and the power exercised over those subjects. Indeed, they rest on an assertion of power to reorder social life and to limit, if not altogether displace, the livelihoods of residents across the state and throughout wide-ranging industries,” the ruling continues.
Long after other states had begun to relax the stay-at-home restrictions, Whitmer maintained her iron grip on the state. There was a petition to remove her from office and large, noisy — and armed — demonstrations were held at the Capitol building that scared the pants off Democrats and the media, although the protesters were never a threat to anyone.
The Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion at the request of the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The district court had asked the justices “to resolve questions concerning the constitutional and legal authority of the Governor to issue executive orders over the past six months limiting public and private gatherings, closing and imposing restrictions upon certain businesses, and regulating a broad variety of other aspects of the day-to-day lives of our state’s citizens in an effort to contain the spread of this contagious and sometimes deadly disease.”
It followed a lawsuit filed by three medical centers against Whitmer in federal court challenging her executive order that prohibited nonessential procedures during the pandemic.
How many other governors overreached but haven’t been called out on it? In Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker had the state’s Democratic-dominated Supreme Court in his pocket, which ruled he had not overstepped his authority despite measures similar to Whitmer’s. But many states resisted challenges to the governors’ lockdown orders, claiming the emergency meant they could do anything they wanted to. They were backed by public health officials who wouldn’t know a Constitution from a scalpel. So Americans were brought to heel by measures that many Americans resisted but too many supported.
SOURCE
Laurence Fox says he is boycotting Sainsbury's for 'promoting racial segregation and discrimination' after it announced support for Black History Month
Laurence Fox has accused Sainsbury's of 'promoting racial segregation and discrimination' and said he will be boycotting the supermarket chain after they promoted Black History Month.
The actor, who recently announced he was launching his own political party to 'reclaim British values, denounced the supermarket on Twitter.
He said: 'Dear Sainsbury's
'I won't be shopping in your supermarket ever again whilst you promote racial segregation and discrimination. I sincerely hope others join me. RT'
It came after Sainsbury's announced they would be marking Black History Month, an annual celebration of achievements of the black community, recognising the central role black people have played in history.
The supermarket says it's aim is to be 'the most inclusive retailer' where 'every single one of our colleagues feels safe and supported at work'.
The company said it is actively pushing for change for black people in the UK and want all their customers and colleagues to be themselves and feel celebrated when they shop at Sainsbury's.
In a statement, Sainsbury's said: 'We are proud to celebrate Black History Month, together with our Black colleagues, customers and communities and we will not tolerate racism.
'We proudly represent and serve our diverse society and anyone who does not want to shop with an inclusive retailer is welcome to shop elsewhere.'
Fox told his 239,000 Twitter followers that despite it being his closest supermarket, they would not be getting his custom until they 'address their regressive and segregationist policies'.
His response sparked debate on Twitter with some backing his views while others said Sainsbury's tweet had had the desired effect.
Laurence Fox and his past controversies
January 16, 2020: Fox was involved in a heated debate with the academic and ethnicity lecturer Rachel Boyle after she called him 'a white privileged male' on BBC's Question Time.
The 41-year-old accused Ms Boyle, an academic at Edge Hill University on Merseyside, of 'being racist' after she called him 'a white privileged male' for denying the Duchess of Sussex was hounded from Britain for being mixed-race.
As the row continued the following day he quoted Martin Luther King's 1963 'I have a dream' speech about living in a nation where children 'will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'.
He said: 'This is the position I took last night and I live by in life. If you can improve on it, I'm all ears. Or you can keep screeching ''Racist!'' at me and I can carry on having a jolly good giggle at your expense. The tide is turning'.
January 17, 2020: The actor later went on to reveal that he does not date women under the age of 35 because they are 'too woke' and many of them are 'absolutely bonkers' during an interview with the Delingpod podcast.
During the podcast , Fox said that he called off a relationship with a former partner because she praised a Gillette advert which highlighted 'toxic masculinity.'
January 23, 2020: Fox apologised for his comments about the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in the First World War film 1917 by Sir Sam Mendes.
The actor had initially referred to 'the oddness in the casting' of a Sikh soldier and was met by widespread criticism by historians who confirmed that Sikhs had served in the British Army.
Fox later tweeted: 'Fellow humans who are Sikhs, I am as moved by the sacrifices your relatives made as I am by the loss of all those who die in war, whatever creed or colour.
'Please accept my apology for being clumsy in the way I expressed myself.'
June 18, 2020: In a piece for the Spectator, Fox, questioned if Meghan Markle stepped down as a working royal because she did not get the 'limelight'
In September 2020, Fox said that he had been 'cancelled' by fellow actor Rebecca Front because she had blocked him on Twitter over his use of the 'All Lives Matter' counter-slogan in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Fox later apologised for revealing this through tweeting a private text conversation between the pair, in which Front had explained her reasons for blocking him.
One wrote: 'Beautifully put! I cannot believe how wrong Sainsburys has got this.
'This idiocy has to have come down from Board level. Really feel for their staff - how the hell do they handle this?'
Another posted: 'Sainsbury's say they don't want racists using their shop and racists doing exactly what they have asked by going elsewhere, bants'
A third penned: 'Will be making sure I pop there much more than I did before - will be a bigot free store by the state of the comments here.'
His website states: 'Over many years it has become clear that our politicians have lost touch with the people they represent and govern. Moreover, our public institutions now work to an agenda beyond their main purpose.
'Our modern United Kingdom was born out of the respectful inclusion of so many individual voices. It is steeped in the innate values of families and communities, diverse in the truest sense but united in the want and need to call this island home.
'The people of the United Kingdom are tired of being told that we represent the very thing we have, in history, stood together against.
'We are all privileged to be the custodians of our shared heritage. We can reclaim a respectful nation where all are included and none are ashamed to have somewhere to call home.'
He added: 'I have been so encouraged by the support I have received by those wishing to add their voices to this reclamation of our values.
'Our country is now in desperate need of a new political movement which promises to make our future a shared endeavour, not a divisive one. This is now my endeavour.'
Fox, who has been a fierce critic of the BBC, sparked controversy when he said suggestions of 'racism' over how the Duchess of Sussex was treated in some quarters was 'boring'.
He also hit out at black and working class actors for complaining about the industry once they have 'five million quid in the bank'.
A Westminster source said the new party is a version of UKIP for the culture wars and believes it could attract hundreds of thousands of unhappy Conservative voters.
Sources close to Fox said the party does not see itself as strictly left or right wing but will be a broad church.
Reclaim so far has three objectives, which include protecting free speech, reforming publicly funded institutions, and preserving and celebrating Britain's cultural history.
Planning has been underway for the last two months and backers include former Tory donor Jeremy Hosking.
Staff are already being recruited for the party after Fox was launched into the political arena after his performance on Question Time in January.
Laurence Fox announced last month that he was launching a new political party called the Reclaim Party in a bid to 'reclaim British values'.
The actor, 42, has received substantial sums from former Tory donors and hopes to stand dozens of candidates across the UK.
The Lewis star says he wants to provide a movement for people who are 'tired of being told that we represent the very thing we have, in history, stood together against'.
He hopes to launch the party next month and the name is subject to the Electoral Commission's approval.
SOURCE
Australian government cuts refugee places by thousands
The Morrison government has slashed the maximum humanitarian intake by thousands on the basis it is too difficult to bring refugees into Australia in the same numbers as before the coronavirus pandemic.
The humanitarian intake was reduced from 18,750 places to 13,750 over the next four years in Tuesday's budget.
Asylum seeker advocates have slammed the move, which is expected to save almost $1 billion, saying the country should be accepting more refugees at a time when its net overseas migration will drop by hundreds of thousands a year.
But the government insists the number of humanitarian places had to be slashed because of international travel grinding to a halt and refugee services around the world being significantly impacted.
Most of Australia's refugees are taken through the UNHCR's resettlement program - meaning they have to fly here from other countries to get to Australia.
The humanitarian intake will still be reviewed every year, allowing the government to return the cap to pre-pandemic levels if the global situation improves.
The change will keep Australia as accepting the third-highest number of refugees via the United Nations resettlement program, behind the United States and Canada.
Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge said the new cap was in line with last year's outcome of 13,171 and reflected the "global impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic".
"The government will continue to focus on settlement and integration support for humanitarian entrants," Mr Tudge said.
"This will include prioritising supporting people in work and improving English language skills."
Opposition immigration spokesman Andrew Giles said the reduction in the humanitarian intake was a "very big change".
"And while we are in very novel and uncertain circumstances it does require a proper explanation and then a very serious examination," Mr Giles said.
"Who will be the next Frank Lowy, Majak Daw or Anh Do that Australia will miss out on due to the Morrison cuts to our humanitarian program?
"We can recover from COVID-19 and continue to provide a lifeline to people in need - like Frank, Majak and Anh who have contributed so much."
Australia's collapse in overseas migration and a falling fertility rate has forced Treasury to downgrade the nation's population forecasts by about one million over the next two years, which is a long-term blow to economic growth.
Amnesty International campaigner Shankar Kasynathan said the government's decision was "inhumane and makes no sense".
"Throughout COVID-19, refugees across Australia have gone above and beyond to help their communities get through these difficult times," he said.
"Instead of seeing these people as a financial burden, this government should be welcoming them with open arms.
"It's the humane thing to do; it's also, economically and for our communities, the most sensible thing to do. When refugees move to regional communities like Wagga Wagga and Armidale they restart their lives and in doing so support schools, infrastructure and businesses."
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
7 October, 2020
Why Trump Doesn't Have to 'Denounce' White Supremacy
After the September 29 debate, politicos and reporters couldn't wait to get to their desks to report President Donald Trump's response to Chris Wallace's biased question regarding white supremacy.
Headlines label the president as having failed to denounce white supremacy that evening. It was as if the mainstream media suffered acute amnesia from Trump's prior condemnations.
Trump's response may have emboldened voters who already believed him to be a "racist." It appears these people haven't been paying attention. Here's what they missed:
I'll start with who he actually denounced — antifa, a Marxist organization on a mission to create civil unrest between the rich and the poor, whites and blacks, and nonbelievers and Christians. With most of the members being white, Trump in fact denounced a white supremacy group — just not the one the media was hoping for.
In fact, just days before the debate, Trump announced that he vows to designate both the Ku Klux Klan and antifa as terrorist organizations. He revealed this during his Black Voices for Trump rally held in Atlanta. Black conservatives know good and well that these two organizations are no different from one another and that both have racist roots. But to the mainstream media, it was as if this declaration never happened.
Speaking of obligatory ignorance, the progressive media also forgot to mention Trump's "Platinum Plan." Introduced to a large crowd of black leaders and voters, the plan includes pledges designed to uplift black communities, improved access to business capital, a second step toward criminal justice reform, enhanced educational opportunities, naming Juneteenth as a national holiday, and making lynching a national hate crime.
As black people across the U.S. were celebrating this critical step forward, the media wasn't paying attention at all. How's that for white privilege?
The media can write all the headlines they want from the debate. But I come from an upbringing where you put your money where your mouth is. Trump, before and during his presidency, has done just that, keeping his promises and never backing down in front of a challenge.
No, President Trump actually doesn't have to use words to denounce white supremacy. I believe the black community has had decades of lip service from Democrats, enough to be mad as hell that change never came. Statistics show it, but all one has to do is go to an urban Democrat-run community with a high population of black Americans to see the ruins and remains of a community that once was.
We hear with our ears and then see with our eyes to decide whether something is true. What we've heard are progressive leaders tell lies about what the black communities actually need — as we've seen with Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit, to name a few. In contrast, what we are seeing is Trump taking action — once again — to make things right for black communities across the nation.
SOURCE
Biden Threatens Religious Freedom, Suggests Christians With Certain Traditional Views Are Dregs of Society
Liberals often mock conservative Christians for supporting a notorious sinner and philanderer in Donald Trump, but the left has grown increasingly hostile to biblical (small-o) orthodox Christianity. Even the ostensibly moderate Democratic nominee Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. represents an insidious threat to the religious freedom of conservative Christians. He also represents a threat to Roman Catholics, even though he is himself a practicing Catholic.
How could this be? Biden’s rhetoric and policies single out those who adhere to traditional religious beliefs and moral convictions, aiming to limit their ability to live by their consciences and ostracizing them from polite society. The Democrat may outwardly campaign on a platform of unity and diversity, but his candidacy truly represents a threat to traditional religious believers.
Disqualified from the Supreme Court?
The most recent evidence of this insidious threat came last week, when a Biden staffer suggested that traditional religious beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is between one man and one woman should be so “taboo” as to disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court.
Politico contributing editor Adam Wren noted that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett “was a trustee at a South Bend private school that described ‘homosexual acts’ as ‘at odds with Scripture’ & said marriage was between ‘one man and one woman’ years after Obergefell v. Hodges.”
Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, responded, “Wait, why is this news? Isn’t this the standard position for any orthodox Catholic?”
Nikitha Rai, deputy data director for Pennsylvania at Biden’s campaign, responded to Hamid, saying, “Unfortunately, yes.”
Hamid responded, “to be fair, it’s the standard position for any orthodox Muslim or Jew as well…”
“True,” Rai acknowledged. Yet the staffer insisted that this perspective must be marginalized. “I’d heavily prefer views like that not be elevated to SCOTUS [the Supreme Court of the U.S.], but unfortunately our current culture is still relatively intolerant. It will be a while before those types of beliefs are so taboo that they’re disqualifiers.”
Rai suggested that presidents and the U.S. Senate should apply a religious test for Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for service in government. Article VI Clause 3 reads in part, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Nikitha Rai is just one Biden staffer. She doesn’t represent the entire Biden campaign, right? On the contrary, Rai’s insistence that traditional religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality should be taboo fits perfectly with the candidate at the top of the Democratic ticket.
In 2018, Biden described conservatives who oppose LGBT activism as “the dregs of society.”
Speaking to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Biden attacked people who have “tried to define family” in the U.S. “Despite losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time they, not you, have an ally in the White House,” he said of President Donald Trump.
“They’re a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society,” Biden added. “And instead of using the full might of the executive branch to secure justice, dignity, safety for all, the president uses the White House as a literal bully pulpit, callously exerting his power over those who have little or none.”
As my colleague Paula Bolyard reported, Biden again spoke to HRC in June 2019. On that occasion, he called the Orwellian Equality Act his first priority. The so-called Equality Act would force biblical orthodox Christians to violate their consciences on LGBT activism. It would also open women’s sports and women’s private spaces to biological males, undercutting fair play and privacy. A broad coalition of diverse groups allied to oppose the Equality Act, including pro-lifers, religious freedom advocates, and radical feminists.
Yet of the Equality Act, Biden said, “I promise you if I’m elected president it will be the first thing I ask to be done. It will send a message around the world, not just at home.”
“This is our soul, da*mit, this is who we have to be… This is our real moral obligation,” the Democrat added. “Using religion or culture to discriminate against or demonize LGBTQ individuals is never justified. Not anywhere in the world.”
Interestingly, while Biden vocally condemns traditional believers in such harsh terms, he has remained curiously silent on the horrific attacks against Catholic statues and churches amid the George Floyd riots this summer — despite his Catholic identity.
Americans do not support discrimination, but Democrats have twisted the notion of discrimination in order to force Christians to violate their beliefs.
Christian baker Jack Phillips, for example, refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, although he gladly sells all sorts of pre-made cakes to LGBT people in his shop. Yet the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he had discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation. He appealed the case all the way to the Supreme Court and won — because members of the commission displayed animus against his religious faith, comparing his views to those of the Nazis.
Even after this Supreme Court victory, Phillips again faced the commission. A transgender lawyer asked him to bake an obscene custom cake celebrating the lawyer’s gender transition. Phillips refused, citing his free speech right not to be forced to endorse a view with which he disagrees. The commission again found him guilty of discrimination, but it dropped the complaint in March 2019. The lawyer promptly sued Phillips. Christian florists, farmers, and other bakers have faced government sanctions for “discrimination” when they refused to celebrate same-sex weddings, exercising their rights to religious freedom, freedom of association, and free speech.
This year, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va.) signed legislation that will force Christian schools and ministries to hire people who oppose their religious convictions on sexuality and gender. The laws will also force these ministries — which hold that God created humans male and female — to open women’s sports and women’s restrooms to biological males, to refer to biological males by female pronouns if they “identify” as female, and to pay for transgender surgery in their health care plans.
A lawsuit challenging the new laws as unconstitutional charged that Virginia’s LGBT statues force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.”
This religious freedom battle in Virginia is just a small taste of what the Equality Act threatens nationwide.
The Democratic Party’s increasing anti-religious animus
Joe Biden’s opposition to the “discrimination” from the “dregs of society” represents a tragically mainstream view in the Democratic Party. Last year, the Democratic National Committee adopted a resolution condemning religious freedom defenses.
“[T]hose most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of ‘religious liberty,’ to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities,” the DNC resolution states.
Senate Democrats have launched attacks on the religious faith of Trump nominees, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) infamously saying, “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) compared a conservative Christian law firm to the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, citing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate group” accusation against mainstream conservative and Christian groups.
The SPLC faced a devastating sexual harassment and racial discrimination scandal last year, and former employees outed the “hate” accusations as a cynical fundraising scheme. An attempted terrorist tried to kill everyone at a conservative Christian nonprofit due to the SPLC’s “hate group” accusation, but Democrats continue to cite the SPLC as a reliable arbiter of hate.
Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), has proven one of the worst offenders. In May 2018, Harris launched an inquisition into the Roman Catholic faith of two of Trump’s judicial nominees — because they were members of the Roman Catholic fraternal order the Knights of Columbus Harris also cited the SPLC in branding Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian law firm that defended Jack Phillips, a “hate group.”
While serving as California’s attorney general, Harris refused to defend the state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman — even though Californians had voted for it in 2008. Adding insult to injury, Harris rushed to officiate the first same-sex marriage after a court struck down the will of the people.
Animus against conservative Christians is a growing problem among American elites, and it arguably fuels the legacy media’s astounding ignorance of Christian doctrine.
In the book So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Is There Christianophobia in the United States? sociology professors George Yancey and David Williamson painstakingly document the presence of bias against conservative Christians, proving that it is as real as animus against Muslims and Jews. Indeed, Yancey’s most recent research shows that animus against Christians leads some people to support LGBT activism, even when they have a low opinion of LGBT people.
Democrats represent this Christianophobia in political form. Even though Biden is a practicing Roman Catholic, his candidacy represents an insidious threat to traditional Christianity, including orthodox Roman Catholic positions on sexuality and gender.
Those who support traditional marriage or the biological definition of sex as male or female will find their beliefs demonized and their religious freedom and free speech under fire in a Biden administration. It does not matter that supporters of traditional marriage or biological sex are a rather diverse group, including Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, even atheists, and radical feminists. Biden’s presidency would represent a threat to all of them.
SOURCE
UK: Equality campaigner Trevor Phillips compares Prince Harry to a '1980s polytechnic lecturer' for using 'empty jargon' he doesn't understand after he blasted UK’s 'structural racism'
Equality campaigner Trevor Phillips said Prince Harry used 'empty jargon' that 'he doesn’t appear to understand' when being interviewed about race alongside Meghan Markle yesterday.
Mr Phillips - the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - said the Duke of Sussex's use of the term 'structural racism' made him sound 'like a 1980s polytechnic lecturer'.
He also said Meghan's claim that she 'didn't realise that there was a Black History Month in Britain' was a mistake, because it was first celebrated in 1987, and showed 'how little she learnt about Britain' during her time in the country.
Mr Phillips - the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - said the Duke of Sussex's use of the term 'structural racism' made him sound 'like a 1980s polytechnic lecturer'.
In the interview from the couple's £11million California mansion with the Evening Standard, Prince Harry revealed his 'awakening' to the discrimination faced by black people after meeting his wife.
In a separate article for the newspaper, the couple said: 'As long as structural racism exists, there will be generations of young people of colour who do not start their lives with the same equality of opportunity as their white peers.
'And for as long as that continues, untapped potential will never get to be realised.'
Mr Phillips said although he 'always wanted them to succeed', he was left feeling 'sorry for Harry' after he used the term 'structural racism' - a term he 'doesn’t appear to understand'.
In the interview, Harry also said that even though London 'celebrated as one of the most diverse cities in the world, if you actually get out on to the streets and talk to people, it doesn't feel as diverse as it actually is'.
Writing in The Times, Mr Phillips said: 'I feel sorry for Harry when he uses terms like “structural racism” that he doesn’t appear to understand and which make him sound like a 1980s polytechnic lecturer.
More HERE
We are living under Covid Sharia
The British government is carrying on like the Taliban, introducing increasingly strict and killjoy laws in the name of defeating Covid.
Most will be familiar by now with the 10pm curfew for bars and restaurants, curtailing our access to alcohol. Many say this does not go far enough and have called for entertainment venues to be closed altogether, and for alcohol sales to be limited in shops, too.
Now the government has slipped out a new law which officially makes singing and dancing haram in certain settings.
Restaurants, bars, cafés and other hospitality venues are now legally obliged to stop their customers from dancing. Singing in groups larger than six is also banned. Only wedding venues are exempt. The government has also banned venues from playing music louder than 85 decibels.
Then there are the restrictions on sex. Sex between members of different households was banned altogether during the earlier lockdown, until government guidance was liberalised last week to allow ‘established couples’ to have sex. Still, grand mufti Matt Hancock confirmed on Sky News this week that casual sex between consenting adults from different households is still illegal.
We even have a form of Covid modesty dress, as we are all obliged to cover our faces in certain public spaces or face hefty fines. That we have almost become accustomed to all this shows how quickly we have capitulated to this authoritarianism.
We must challenge this Covid Sharia.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
6 October, 2020
The Antics of Anti-Feminist Feminists In the Trump Era
King Solomon once wrote the most annoying sound on the planet is a nagging wife. Obviously, he’d never heard what frothy-mouthed feminists sound like now that Judge Amy Coney Barrett will likely replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.
After the first anti-Trump women’s march, I suggested everyday Americans take preventative action to keep the insane from driving us insane by investing in a good set of earbuds to drown out the whining.
Unfortunately, earbuds cannot erase certain scenes our minds would prefer to forget, like the time anti-Trump “women’s march” feminists ran around in idiotic pink protest hats – as if wearing female body parts on their heads would inspire intelligent women anywhere to join their cause. As they gathered, Madonna welcomed the sisterhood to their “revolution of love” and shot off a series of F-bombs amidst crazy talk about blowing up the White House.
Democrats bragged about the women’s march crowd numbers, but I secretly wondered if they really meant crowd size, given all the anti-Trump feminists going public about their hate-eating like Barbara Streisand who blamed Donald Trump for her overeating pancakes and weight gain. One could only hope that one of the smartest Democrats to ever run for office, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), certified the structural integrity of the bridges on which many of those feminists loitered. Johnson is the supercilious brainiac who once raised concern Guam might “tip over and capsize” from overpopulation.
During the marches, leftist news commentators predicted these outlandish displays were a glimpse of things to come. They were right. Trump’s presidency has been four years of pure misery for Ashley Judd’s “nasty” women crowd—who support the pro-Biden anarchist groups that kill police officers, chuck bricks, shatter glass, ignite fires and destroy personal property in Democrat-run cities across the United States.
And who can forget the larger-than-life outspoken feminist and self-righteous crackpot, Rutgers University Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies Brittney Cooper.
Awhile back, Cooper showcased the jaw-dropping ignorance of leftist academia when she blamed Trump supporters (many of which happen to be women) for COVID-19 on Twitter:
“I am saying some obvious things this morning because as a country we are too good at skipping over the audience and we might as well say this to people as often as we can. F*ck each and every Trump supporter. You all absolutely did this. You are to blame.”
As I wrote in a previous column, Cooper’s comments made me question if competence is no longer a prerequisite for professors at certain universities. Maybe they get points based on the size of their coloring book collections. Or possibly they answer a one-question employment test like: “A purple-haired feminist on a three-wheeled electric bike has 40 candy bars. She eats 35. What does she have now?”
Leftist answer: “Coronavirus. Because of Trump.”
We all know the real answer is five candy bars, three flat tires and diabetes. And the only reason the purple-haired feminist can buy 40 candy bars and an electric bike (to save the planet and maintain social distancing) is thanks to Trump’s economy before the Wuhan virus hit.
Fast-forward to September 27, 2020. Lifesitenews.com reports an Amy Coney Barrett supporter was punched in the face by a pro-abortion activist in front of the Supreme Court Building. Lovely.
The alleged victim, Autumn Schimmer, who works for Students for Life, was holding a sign saying, “I can’t believe these ‘feminists’ are protesting a woman.” Apparently, she was having a conversation with a pro-abortion woman about what it means to be a feminist. Schimmer said, “So the woman basically got mad at me that I didn’t answer one of her questions, hit me in the face and ran into the crowd to hide like a coward.”
Law enforcement arrested the alleged perpetrator, and leftist-run media remained mostly silent. Silent, because Democrats are about as pro-female as they are pro-choice. They say they are pro-choice, but try to legislate everything including guns, fossil fuels, soda sizes, God, free speech, school choice, bathrooms, cake baking, salt and cigarettes.
For them, pro-choice is reduced to two options: Whatever they demand and abortions.
Otherwise, they run around like crazed lunatics. That, folks, is the ugly face of feminism as defined by a Democrat Party so controlled by extremists, it’s become the party of hate and oppression. Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation means it’s time to pull out the earbuds, folks.
SOURCE
Intelligence, Feeling, and Critical Thinking in the Age of the Great UnReason
About six months ago, the Age of the Great UnReason began to dawn. It brought with it the COVID Internment of America; the unabashed imperialism of Mask Empire, with its mandates that are as oppressive as they are ineffective; and the Corona Walker, a phenomenon that is at once as tragic as it is repellent.
The result has been incalculable devastation of every conceivable kind.
Recently, I had two conversations, one with a woman with whom I at one time had more than a platonic relationship, the other with my first cousin, who had always been more like a brother to me than a cousin. For reasons, I strongly suspect, that have less to do with a genuine fear of contracting a virus than either would be willing to admit, they were quick to dismiss my (demonstrably true, scientifically-based) claims that the hazardousness of COVID-19 has been wildly overblown and that masks for the general public are, at best ineffective and at worst, dangerous.
Despite my differences in worldview with both, I nevertheless had always respected their intelligence. I suppose I still do.
Yet intelligence, which is a raw, native endowment, and intellectual prowess, which is every bit as much a developed skill set as any other, are most emphatically not one and the same thing.
What is critical thinking and how can one become a critical thinker?
For starters, and most fundamentally, critical thinking is tough. It is eminently laborious, demanding thousands and thousands of hours, over the span of years and decades, of reading; writing; introspection; reflection; and analyzing, rigorously analyzing, arguments, both those that support one’s own point of view and, crucially, those that are designed to counter it.
Perhaps as important as any other requirement, critical thinking demands courage, the guts to risk defying the conventional wisdom, the prevailing dogma.
The critical thinker, though, because he is all about following the argument, must know the differences between the various species of discourse with which it is typically conflated. This, of course, demands that he first be familiar with the basic structure of an argument. He needs to further know the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning, between the concepts of validity and invalidity; soundness and unsoundness; strong and weak; cogent and uncogent.
The critical thinker should as well be acquainted with at least some of the more common logical fallacies that Aristotle, “the Father of Logic,” identified over 2300 years ago.
Take, for just one instance, a specific variety of the ad hominem attack known as “circumstantial.” This fallacy is routinely committed by the True Believers of the Mask Imperium against those who dare challenge both its decrees as well as “the Science” in the name of which those decrees are rationalized: “Well, you’re not a doctor!” Or, if the person actually is a medical doctor, the very fact that he or she dissents from the orthodox position of Big Science (government-funded, bureaucratic and quasi-bureaucratic hacks with doctorate degrees) is taken as proof that he or she is a quack.
This is flagrantly fallacious reasoning, for a person’s circumstances are logically irrelevant to whether their point of view is correct or not (And we can, for now, sidestep the fact that the Mask Imperialists aren’t deterred in the least from speaking with the authority of an Old Testament prophet by the fact that neither are they doctors!).
Most obviously—or at least it should be—the critical thinker needs to appreciate the basis of all thought, the Principle or Law of Contradiction. He must know, in other words, that a thing can’t both be and not be in the same sense and at the same moment. “A and not-A” is a necessarily false statement, false in every conceivable world, for it is a logical impossibility and whatever is logically impossible is unthinkable.
The critical thinker knows, then, that the statement, “Masks shouldn’t be worn by the public because they are essentially ineffective in preventing people from contracting ‘The Virus’ and masks must be worn by the public because they are effective in preventing people from contracting ‘The Virus’” is no less self-contradictory than the proposition, “She is pregnant and she is not pregnant.”
Critical thinking is not for the faint of heart. In the next installment of this series, we will delve more into this subject by considering the differences between the Critical Thinker and…the Feelers.
SOURCE
Good Jews and Bad Jews
Following-up on my article, Good Catholics, Bad Catholics, and White Colonizers, I didn't realize it, but there are also good Jews and bad Jews. The recently-departed Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a very good Jew. Although nearly all of her judicial opinions were in direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution, nothing written about her points to her being a bad Jew.
Bernie Sanders, without question, is a good Jew, perhaps one of the best Jews on Earth. Sander leans so far to the left, that he would have been welcomed among Vladimir Lenin’s brain trust. That earns him high accolades with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the rest of the mainstream media. If Sanders ever crosses the line, never to occur, and admits that even with all its faults free-market capitalism is the best economic system in the world, he will become a very bad Jew, and we don't want that to happen. Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Blumenthal, Wyden, are all excellent Jews. And Rep. Adam Schiff, well, he's special!
Joseph Lieberman, when he was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 was a good Jew. Later, when he became more independent and outspoken, he became less than a good Jew. Suddenly, mainstream media outlets that once hung on his every word were no longer interested much of what he had to say. I wonder how he fell from grace?
Some very bad Jews in politics right now are too close to Donald Trump. This is a thorny problem. Jared Kushner, for example, who married the president's daughter, Ivanka, and influenced her to convert to Judaism, is not a good Jew. He deserves bad press in The New York Times or The Washington Post, despite being off-the-scale brilliant, and having done yeoman's work in helping to achieve historic Middle East peace agreements.
Ivanka Trump, who converted to Judaism, is a bad Jew: She converted and married a bad Jew. Worse, she's the daughter of Donald Trump. Either way, it's apparent that she's not a good Jew and her three children will not grow up to be good Jews.
Attorney and best-selling author Alan Dershowitz has vacillated back and forth between being a good Jew and a bad one, depending on what opinions he espouses on current topics. Dennis Prager, who launched Prager University, is definitely a bad Jew. After all, his five-minute, illuminating videos about capitalism, liberty, history, politics, the U.S. Constitution, and foreign relations somehow miss the mark each and every time! Worse, the videos unduly influence a brainwashed generation to come back to reality. How dare the bad Jew Dennis Prager seek to win back these wayward souls.
Israeli Jews Are Bad
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel is an exceedingly bad Jew. Every other day, Israel's Leftist press tells us so, proclaiming that Netanyahu is a menace to Israel and that he bears responsibility for everything bad that happens to Israelis. One recent editorial, in Nancy Pelosi-type fashion, proclaimed that Netanyahu might need to be "incapacitated" over his abuse of office.
The Jews in America, who reflexively vote Democrat in election after election, are good Jews, while ironically, most of the Jews in Israel are bad Jews. Maybe it's because they're surrounded by hostile neighbors on all sides and have successfully defended themselves for many years. Perhaps, it's because they're the best U.S. ally in the region, if not in the world.
Maybe it's because Jews in Israel are so damn smart they deserve some kind of comeuppance. The breakthroughs they've achieved in science, medicine, literature, and the arts are outstanding. The number of Nobel prizes that they receive, per capita, boggles the imagination. In any case, Israeli Jews are mostly bad Jews.
Hollywood Has Good Jews
Hollywood is loaded with good Jews, in fact almost nothing but good Jews. Most of them are committed virtue-signalers, but who cares? Whether you're talking Barbra Streisand, Sarah Silverman, Rob Reiner, Richard Dreyfuss, Steven Spielberg, or Seth Rogen there's simply no end to the number of good Jews in Hollywood.
Steven Spielberg is both a good Jew and a non-colonizing parent of black children. TV talk show hosts of Jewish origin such as Seth Meyers, Jon Stewart, and Bill Maher are routinely good. In fact, it is hard to find a bad Jew on the big screen or on your TV set.
Those of us who lean right are blessed!
SOURCE
Australia: Pauline Hanson calls for a 'Minister for Men' to tackle soaring male suicide rates as she claims blokes are 'overwhelmingly disadvantaged' and targeted by feminists
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson says a new office needs to be established in the government to deal with high rates of suicide and homelessness among men.
The Queensland-based politician called for the appointment of a 'Minister for Men' on Friday.
'Political parties have long called for equality across both genders, but only a Minister for Women exists across all levels of government,' she said.
'But as we focus on strengthening women’s economic security, their involvement in leadership positions, and ensure that women and their children are safe from violence, the plight of Australian boys and men is on the decline.'
Ms Hanson cited a 2019 report that compared the rates of suicide, homelessness and workplace deaths between men and women.
The number of men dying in workplaces outpaced women by more than 1,000 per cent.
For every 100 women who die at work there are 1,294 deaths among men.
There are more than 240 men living rough on the streets for every 100 homeless women.
There are also 1,000 men living in adult correctional facilities for every 100 women.
'On the subject of alcohol, drug addiction, overdoses, suicide, murder, violent crimes, and incarceration, boys and men are again overwhelmingly disadvantaged,' Ms Hanson said.
'As a mother of three boys and one girl, this raises significant concern for my own children, let alone my young grandchildren.'
The study also showed an imbalance between the number of school boys and girls who are expelled and who suffer from emotional trauma.
For every 100 girls who are expelled, 291 boys are turfed out.
Around 355 boys also report an emotional disturbance for every 100 girls.
'If we truly want equality in society, it’s time to drop the hardline feminist attack on men and start treating each other with the same level of support, based on need,' Ms Hanson said.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
************************************
5 October, 2020
Here we go again: Trump supporters are "lonely">
Below is just the latest iteration of a repeated Leftist stratagem: An attempt to find something psychologically wrong with people who disagree with them.
It goes back at least as far as that great example of psychological projection by some Berkeley Marxists led by Theodore Adorno in 1950. The Berkeley authors claimed that conservatives were "authoritarian", despite the glaring fact that the great authoritarian regimes of the time were socialists -- Stalin's Communists, Hitler's National Socialists, China's Maoists etc etc. In that case it was clearly the Marxists who were pychologically warped.
Below is a small excerpt from a long and rambling article that is too long to reproduce in full here -- but I give the link for those who want to read it all. The article marshalls a long series of mostly anecdotal evidence in support of the author's contention that people flock to Trump to alleviate their loneliness.
I don't doubt that there are some people who fit that description. I remember some individuals like that from my studies of the extreme Right back in the '70s. But they were exceptions. The more central members of the extreme Right were in fact highly social and socially skilled. So the examples of lonely people described by the author below were probably accurately described. But the author's implicit claim that they were typical is the problem. It is the old argument from example fallacy. You can "prove" anything that way. She has no evidence that her interviewees represented any group. Only a randomly sampled social survey could show that
And I really do have to laugh at that point. The Left are so consistently crooked and selective when discussing evidence of any kind that I found what I expected when I looked up the survey evidence she does quote. She puts up an impressive-looking graph that is evidently supposed to support what she says. I looked up its source. It appears to come from here or some related site. It proves nothing whatever about how Trump supporters feel It is just about how Americans in general feel. What a hoax!
Leftists are great projectors so you can be sure that it is really Leftists who are lonely and need support from shared political activity. I observed something of that recently when Leftist demonstrators were active near where I often have breakfast. The demonstration was clearly a great social occasion for the central figures. They spent a lot of time chatting to one another and were clearly in a high and friendly mood.
That's just anecdote too but what is food for the goose is food for the gander.
Noreena Hertz
As early as 1992, researchers began to pick up on a correlation between social isolation and votes for the far-right Front National’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Across the Atlantic, a 2016 poll by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy revealed Donald Trump voters to be significantly more likely to report having fewer close friends, fewer acquaintances and to spend fewer hours a week with both than supporters of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
Similarly, in my conversations with far-right voters across the globe, isolation was a recurring theme. Eric in Paris told me of the loneliness of urban living, and of the joy he derives from his regular Wednesday Rassemblement National (RN, formerly the Front National) gatherings, of afterwards going out for group drinks, of handing out posters and flyers together. He’d checked out other political parties on the road to Le Pen, the populist left included, but found RN’s community particularly welcoming.
Giorgio in Milan shared how thankful he is to the League led by Matteo Salvini for the dinners and parties he had started going to: “They’re called committees, they’re like get-togethers for people in the party. And they’re very nice, actually. You can meet a lot of people. We sing, and there’s a really strong feeling of tradition.”
Think too about the success of Donald Trump’s election rallies in 2016 and you can see why he has been so desperate to get them going again for his 2020 campaign. The sea of red-clad folk, sporting matching “Make America Great Again” hats, badges and T-shirts — these are communal events that make people feel part of something bigger. They provide a sense of identity, a kind of kinship that many of his supporters find increasingly hard to get elsewhere.
Salvini uses similar tactics in Italy, invoking intimate words such as “mamma”, “papà” and “amici” (friends). It may be a cynical co-opting of family, but it’s successful. So too are the Belgian festivals sponsored by rightwing populist party Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest). Here, supporters split their time between anti-immigration speeches indoors and an outside festival that includes face-painting and bouncy castles.
But it’s not just their emphasis on nearly tribal experiences that explains why today’s rightwing populists have proven so successful at appealing to those for whom the traditional bonds of the workplace, religious institutions and the wider community have broken down.
Their success also lies in this: an appeal to the feeling of exclusion and marginalisation that many citizens have come to experience in recent years, a sense of being ignored, even abandoned, by those who hold political and economic power. Think of Trump’s rallying cry that “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer” or Marine Le Pen’s oath to serve “a forgotten France, a France abandoned by the self-appointed elite”. It’s an appeal that lands strongest with those who feel newly forgotten and abandoned.
More HERE
UK: 'Let us make our own minds up!': Those at high risk from coronavirus should decide for themselves if they shield
By DR ELLIE CANNON:
If we keep distancing, washing our hands, and wearing masks (I'm loath to say 'following the rules', as the rules are getting increasingly impossible to fathom), I am confident there will be no need to panic, let alone lock down the country again.
But for the two million Britons with high-risk health problems who were advised to shield from March to August, I know the figures are more alarming.
A few weeks back, I asked people who fall within this group – who adhered to the strictest of lockdowns, not venturing out of the house at all – to get in touch.
Many of my own patients had been asking if they need to isolate again, if it is too dangerous to return to life as they knew it.
And, of course, some never stopped shielding, despite the official advice saying it was safe to go out again.
Having seen calls from fellow medics for shielding to start again, I wanted to hear how you were feeling and what you thought should happen as we deal with the continuing threat from Covid-19.
I've since received hundreds of emails – and the verdict was, almost universally, that people want to be able to make up their own minds.
One wrote: 'Having type 2 diabetes and heart failure, I shielded till August. But I won't do it again.'
Rather than get another letter instructing them to lock the doors and not venture out for the foreseeable future, most said that they were happier making their own risk assessments.
The 12 weeks in total isolation had been incredibly challenging, was the general consensus – but at least finite.
Now, rather than simply trying to stay alive by avoiding the virus, people were thinking about what made their life worth living.
One wrote: 'The thought of another period of shielding fills me with total dread. 'I have two granddaughters and drop them off at school two days a week. This time is so precious to me and I can't bear the thought of not being able to see them again.'
This sentiment was particularly acute in those with life-shortening illnesses. One, who lives with muscle-wasting motor neurone disease, said: 'I understand the reason behind shielding but I want the chance to enjoy what time I have. I feel risking my health should be my choice.'
Of course, shielding was always voluntary. If vulnerable people had wanted to follow normal lockdown rules – even going back to work when everyone else did – they could have.
And from the letters I received, it seemed many did, taking exercise at safe times of day. 'I was advised to shield but I continued to go out for walks with my wife, usually later in the afternoon or evening to avoid crowds,' explained one man.
'People should take responsibility for their own health. I fully accept that some people may feel that they need to stay indoors but I am not one of them.'
There was also a sizeable group who said they'd keep on shielding regardless of what health chiefs recommended – that they'd carry on until there was a vaccine, or longer if needed. One such reader wrote: 'I've had cancer treatment this year. Prior to this I was active – shopping, walking the dog, looking after my grandchildren.
'Now I go nowhere. My only outings are hospital visits. I don't feel confident with the thought of going out and I can't see this changing any time soon, although I do miss my old life desperately.'
We GPs will keep doing everything we can to support this kind of choice – our huge, collective shift toward remote and digital services means we can keep in touch with patients, even with those who are staying at home. But I worry when reading these emails that tell of patients' crippling fear of the outside world, that something may have gone awry.
Public health campaigns need to get across risk but they shouldn't be terrifying. It's no good saving people from infection, only to send them spiralling into a pit of depression because they're scared to leave the house.
This is a serious problem. Last week, University College London published a study of 5,800 Britons aged 70. Shockingly, a third of those who'd been shielding were suffering symptoms of depression and anxiety – double the number found in non-shielders.
They were far less physically active, which is also increasingly damaging as we age, increasing the risk of some of the UK's biggest killers.
The study author, Professor Andrew Steptoe, pointed out: 'The advice [to shield] saved lives… but it came at a cost.'
More broadly I feel, as this goes on, fewer and fewer people will be told what to do. Instead, they'll be left to inform themselves of the risks and make their minds up about whether they want to take that risk, themselves.
It's like the boy who cried wolf: if you keep piling on rules that, scientifically speaking, are perhaps not necessary, you lose trust. Then, when you ask them to do something that really is vital… well, we all know how that story goes.
We know that, in England, at least eight in ten people don't isolate fully when told to.
Patients have told me they're unable or unwilling to keep small children inside the entire time.
Other countries' governments have said, even when instructed to quarantine, that their children are allowed to go outside to exercise if they stay away from others.
A reasoned, or subjective, approach by the Government could make us more likely to stick to the rules, and therefore could even be safer for everyone.
To doctors calling for a return to mass shielding, I'd suggest a better approach would be a personalised risk assessment. A patient's age, sex, background health and other factors are important.
We do this daily in general practice with heart health and it would be an easy computer program for someone to develop quickly.
It would give people what they need to make an informed choice – rather than putting in place a blanket policy that seems unlikely to work again anyway.
SOURCE
It’s remarkable how much the so-called ideology of “anti-racism” itself sounds racist
At one time, racism was generally defined as hatred or bigotry toward people of other races. Now, to hear the woke tell it, providing children of a different race and nationality a loving adoptive home is the real racism, and just another example of colonizing and stripping people of their humanity.
Given the gutter politics employed by the left in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle in 2018, we shouldn’t be surprised that President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court is being attacked with personal and malicious smears.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, was nominated Sept. 26 by Trump for elevation to the Supreme Court. It didn’t take long for progressive detractors to attack her Catholic faith, of course.
We got a preview of that in her circuit court confirmation hearings back in 2017.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said to Barrett that “the dogma lives loudly within you”—as though it’s problematic for a person to be a serious Catholic and still serve on the Supreme Court.
But now Barrett’s children are coming under attack, and she is being called a “racist.” She is the mother of seven children, two of them adopted and originally from Haiti.
Haiti has struggled through political turmoil and poverty for much of its history. Despite immense amounts of foreign aid, it’s still the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
Starvation is common in Haiti, and many children suffer under deplorable conditions virtually unheard of in the United States. Child slavery continues to be a huge problem as desperate mothers sell their children to survive.
But a white mother adopting two Haitian children is problematic, according to Ibram X. Kendi.
Kendi is the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University and the author of “How to Be an Antiracist.”
He’s been elevated by the media, especially in the past year, as a leading intellectual of the “anti-racist” movement. Fairfax County, Virginia, schools in August paid Kendi $20,000 to have him speak for an hour via teleconference to school leaders and administrators.
Kendi said this of Barrett on Twitter:
It should perhaps come as no surprise that Richard Spencer, a white nationalist, agrees with Kendi.
“This is where racial identitarianism gets you,” wrote conservative columnist Rod Dreher for The American Conservative, adding:
The fact that Richard Spencer, the white supremacist who advocates for a white ethnostate, agrees with Ibram Kendi tells you something important about the malign roots of Kendi’s ‘anti-racist’ philosophy.
These guys are two sides of the same coin—except one is a pariah, and the other runs an endowed center at Boston University and has become the most influential public intellectual in American life today.
Kendi’s ideology—not Barrett’s adoptions—is what strips people of their humanity.
As I wrote in a review of Kendi’s book, the anti-racist movement isn’t really about eliminating racism. It’s about redefining it. It’s about making every issue in American life boil down to racial identity. It’s about solving “inequity” through discrimination.
Every issue is to be viewed through the lens of racism or anti-racism, and there’s no room for nuance or even debate.
Kendi’s ideas, like those of white nationalists, stand in opposition to the principles of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” His policy proposals would utterly destroy liberty and self-government under the Constitution, and would put the country under the yoke of absolute tyranny.
Yet, despite the malignancy of those views and their radical conclusions, they are being elevated by corporate titans and media giants, such as Twitter.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Kendi’s center at Boston University to “fuel needed and overdue policy change.”
What sort of “policy change” can we expect from a man who lambastes mixed-race adoption and supports creating an unaccountable federal agency with the power to disenfranchise our representatives (which is what his proposed anti-racist constitutional amendment would do)?
Still, it’s unsurprising that Barrett is facing the most vile and malignant attacks, given the importance of the now vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
While many of the assaults on Barrett’s faith and character will be nothing more than personal mudslinging for political purposes, it’s important to understand the deeper ideology behind the attacks by Kendi and others.
Our most powerful media and cultural institutions have facilitated the rise of a minority of radical left-wing intellectuals to create the moral framework for how Americans are judged in the public square.
That, among other things, is why the culture war has become so intense in 2020, and why it’s unlikely to calm down anytime soon.
It’s not just about a single Supreme Court seat. It’s a conflict over how to define the very nature of America and the future of our society and institutions.
SOURCE
Trump is fighting the culture wars
By James Allan, a Canadian who has made aliyah to Australia
Earlier this month the president of Princeton one Christopher Eisgruber, a former constitutional law professor of exquisite progressive lefty sensibilities, published a declaration saying that racism was embedded in the structures of the university he led – Princeton being perhaps, student-for-student, the greatest of the Ivy League American universities and one-time home of Albert Einstein.
Eisgruber’s declaration included the claim that ‘anti-black racism has a visible bearing upon Princeton’s campus make-up’. This is just the sort of thing you expect from the virtue-signalling ‘wokerati’ who infest the upper echelons of virtually all Anglosphere universities (most definitely including here in Australia too). And in Britain, Canada and here that sort of bumper sticker moralising declaration would be allowed to pass uncontested. Certainly no Coalition government would do anything about it. Nor would Boris in Britain.
Not so in the US where President Trump seems to understand that ultimately everything is downstream of the culture and that fighting the culture wars is by far the biggest battle that matters. So in response to the president of Princeton the federal Department of Education said, in effect, ‘if that’s true, then Princeton has been receiving tens of millions of dollars of federal funding in violation of the Race Discrimination Act.’ The department also announced it is opening an investigation of Eisgruber and of Princeton. It has sent a formal records request, which means the president and all his top people will have to produce every single email and communication they’ve sent. Ouch! The Princeton president and other head honchos will likewise have to give evidence under oath. And what the Department of Education will be looking for is what, if any, evidence there was that Princeton relied on to claim the university is racist.
It has also demanded a spreadsheet identifying each person who has, on the ground of race, colour or national origin, been excluded or discriminated against as regards any program or activity at Princeton. Oh, and Princeton must also respond to all written questions regarding the basis for claiming that racism is embedded in the university.
To quote the Bard in Hamlet, Eisgruber has been hoist with his own petard. All sentient beings know that there is no racism on any university campus, at least none against the usual minority groups portrayed as victims. (There may well be some against Asian Americans who require much higher marks to get into top US universities than blacks, but that is patently not what Eisgruber meant as these are university-imposed roadblocks.) But there is no way Eisgruber can now come out and say ‘Nothing to see here folks. Just kidding. A little bit of harmless virtue-signalling on my part.’ Nor can he admit there is real, actual racism. This is just wonderful. And from what I’m hearing behind the scenes some of the (extremely) large Princeton donors are fuming mad at Eisgruber and threatening to withhold the big bucks. The only palatable play Eisgruber has is to try to run out the clock in the hope of a Biden win when he, and everyone else, knows that this will be quickly dropped.
But notice what happened here. Trump adopted the street fighting tactics of the Left and fought back. This is basically unheard of amongst right-of-centre politicians around the rest of the Anglosphere.
Seven years of Coalition governments have not fought back on a single front of the culture wars – not on free speech, not on the universities, not on the ABC, not on appointing a few real conservatives to important posts. Nada, nothing, zippo, zero. Sure, with Trump you’re buying a brawler who’s a vulgarian. But you know what? For a long time now I’ve been ready for anyone who’ll fight back. Give me a brawler any day! Lord knows there is not a scintilla of evidence of any fight in the dog in any Coalition party (federal or state) in this country.
Or take appointments to the top court in the US. No other right-of-centre anglosphere leader would have stood by Brett Kavanaugh, the man Trump nominated for the Supreme Court and who the Left then attempted to destroy based on, well, zero evidence. Or take the Supreme Court vacancy that has just come up with the death of Ruth Ginsburg. All the Vichy Never-Trumpers urged the president to wait to make a nomination. Nope, Trump said he’ll make a nomination and he expects the Senate, controlled by the Republicans, to confirm the nominee before the election. This puts incredible pressure on these Republican senators, most of whom need the Republican base much more than they need a few inner- city Christopher Pyne type voters.
It gets better. Trump opted to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, the person most hated by the left wing of the Democrats because she is solidly interpretively conservative, a practising, devout Catholic (with seven kids, five her own and two adopted from Haiti). There were others on the shortlist less inflammatory to the Left. Trump went for the most inflammatory pick. He did this in direct response to what the Democrats shamelessly did to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. Now we have two High Court of Australia openings coming up here. In the aftermath of the woeful Love judgment, where Coalition Brandis appointees were way to the left of Labor appointees, who is confident that A-G Porter and Mr Morrison will make two solid, not-inner-Melbourne-progressive type picks? Not me, I can tell you.
Last point worth making. You won’t hear this on the ABC or any mainstream US media. Ginsburg, darling of the Left who insulted candidate Trump before the 2016 election, spent 27 years on the Supreme Court. Each US top justice hires about five top law student law clerks each year. So that’s about 150 clerks hired by Ginsburg over the years. How many blacks did this darling of the Left hire during all that time? If you guessed ‘one’ (and zero in her 13 years as a federal appeals court judge before that), you’re a winner.
Now don’t get me wrong. If Ginsburg hired based solely on what she saw as merit I applaud that. I am stridently opposed to affirmative action. The trouble is that in her judicial decision-making Ginsburg consistently voted to uphold affirmative action type requirements that stopped all sorts of others from doing what she did. One out of 150 would be deemed, by her (not me), to constitute solid evidence of systemic racism.
What’s the word I’m searching for in describing that sort of behaviour? Ah yes, ‘hypocrisy’.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
4 October, 2020
How coronavirus is linked to an increase in complex mental illness, including psychosis, in young adults and older people
So I did fall into a depression, which is always dangerous. But with the help of friends and family I survived. And amid all the restrictions I have actually found a new lover. So my depression has vanished. Amazing what can happen in your 70s.
A counselling psychologist I know has also sent me some remarks on the matter. See following:
Church on Sunday, followed by lunch with the church ladies, then Monday lunch with the Monday lunch ladies, water aerobics Tuesday morning followed by bingo at the RSL in the afternoon, Wednesday morning is the appointment with the handsome physiotherapist, the afternoon is the card playing group, Thursday is lunch with the Thursday lunch ladies, Fridays is shopping and cuppa with Myrtle, Agnus and Ethel at the cafe, and Saturday is RSL lunch.
During the covid lockdown many elderly ladies have been getting disoriented, losing their sense of what day of the week it is.
Men and younger people too, benefit mentally from socialising and getting out doors. Just walking and getting out of the house can be greatly therapeutic. Outdoor scenery and distractions break the in-home thinking patterns and ruminations. And walking activates the brain both sides and overall, and so emotion can be more easily subject to reason when walking and thinking, and when walking and talking."
However you look at it, the lockdowns have been a foolish and evil thing. The jurisdictions where there have been no lockdowns show a death rate that is in the middle of places that did have lockdowns. Lockdowns were originally a Chinese idea, well suited to a Communist country but inappropriate in a democracy
Back in March, that question was playing on the minds of mental health researchers such as counselling psychologist Ellie Brown.
Dr Brown and colleagues at Orygen Youth Health and the University of Melbourne wanted to know whether the numbers of people presenting with psychosis would increase either from coronavirus itself or from social isolation, and how people with complex mental health issues would cope.
"We wondered what was out there in the evidence, and what could we pick out that might help us understand what was coming down the track," Dr Brown says.
Early studies warn COVID could increase psychosis
While it was still very early days in the pandemic, evidence from a handful of papers from other viral diseases, including SARS and MERS, and studies from the unfolding situation in Asia suggested coronavirus might actually lead to an increase in people experiencing psychosis.
What is psychosis?
Psychosis describes a group of experiences that relate to the loss of contact with reality.
This can include one or more of the following:
Feeling confused about what is real and what is not real (psychosis)
Hearing voices when no one is there (hallucinations)
Seeing, tasting or smelling things that other people do not (hallucinations)
Believing things that others find strange (delusions)
Feeling that people are going to hurt you when this is not the case (paranoia)
Speaking in a way that others find hard to follow (thought disorder)
An episode of psychosis describes a time when someone has these symptoms lasting for more than a week, which negatively affects their day-to-day life.
The onset of psychosis is usually seen in people in their late teens to early 20s.
But the data coming out of China suggested there was also a significant increase in people in their 50s and 60s experiencing psychosis for the first time.
"It's really the older people who were more isolated who were presenting with a first episode, which was very unusual," Dr Brown says.
But it's not just the pandemic's potential to trigger a first-time episode that health professionals are worried about.
Isolation, the mass psychology of fear, and other stressors can exacerbate symptoms or cause relapses for vulnerable people already living with chronic illness.
While the numbers are hard to pin down, months down the track there is a sense that there has been a rise in the number of people accessing mental health services.
According to Orygen there has been a 17 per cent increase in referrals to youth mental health services in north-west Melbourne over the past four months, up 8 per cent from the same time last year. There has also been a 14 per cent increase in contacts with clinicians compared to the months before the first lockdown began.
"We're just getting the data in the increase in the number of people presenting with psychosis. And that's just going to be the young people," Dr Brown says.
Carmel Pardy, who oversees the telephone and online support centre for mental health charity SANE Australia, which supports people 18 and upwards, has also noticed an increase in people accessing the service since the pandemic began.
"We have had an interesting cohort of people who've come to us for the first time during COVID," Ms Pardy says.
The charity is also seeing an increase in the number of carers calling.
But, she says, we won't truly see the fallout of COVID on mental illness until next year.
The impact of isolation and anxiety
Isolation, disrupted routines, and lack of access to care are some of the themes emerging.
"A lot of people we work with struggle with relationships, so a relationship with a therapist might be the one constant and safe relationship in their life and if they can't do that it's been really, really problematic," Ms Pardy says.
When SANE set up new services for COVID-19, they found many people needed a daily chat.
"You have to remember some of the people we work with may not get incoming calls, so this is an opportunity for someone to call and just check in on them."
Increasing anxiety is a common report.
SOURCE
A Suspect Has Finally Been Found for the Shooting of Two Los Angeles Sheriffs Deputies
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey announced on Wednesday they have arrested a suspect in the shooting of two LASD deputies in Compton earlier this month.
Deonte Lee Murray, who has an extensive criminal history, was arrested two weeks ago in connection with a carjacking and shooting of a man in Compton. Murray was hit with two felony attempted murder charges and he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Murray is already prohibited from possessing a firearm since he is a prior convicted felon and a control substance registrant. When he was arrested for the carjacking and shooting, it was unknown at the time that he was the suspect for the shooting of the two LASD deputies.
LASD made the connection when they compared the ballistics to the gun he tossed away as he attempted to flee officers when they tried to apprehend him. LASD said they do not have an exact motive for the shooting, other than the observation that Murray "obviously hates policemen and he wants them dead."
The two deputies who were shot are expected to have a long road to recovery. The female deputy, who was shot in the jaw, was able to provide medical aid to her partner and radio for help.
SOURCE
Anti-discrimination commissions have tyranny built into their design
God deliver us from the hands of zealots.
They exist in different guises in every age, lay claim to being the era’s moral guardians and demand no more than complete obedience to their ordained order. They only burn heretics in sorrow, for their own good and that of society.
Zealots know those who defy them are sinners. So, any means is justified in the restless hunt for evil.
Arthur Miller explained it in The Crucible: “… the necessity of the Devil may become evident as a weapon, a weapon designed and used time and time again in every age to whip men into a surrender to a particular church or church state.”
Now the bureaucratic state dictates morality and the devil is discrimination, in all his endlessly evolving forms. The crime is giving any perceived offence. The weapon is the law.
There is now a witch hunt afoot in Tasmania.
The witch is Liberal Senator Claire Chandler. On July 17 she wrongspoke in the pages of The Mercury: “You don’t have to be a bigot to recognise the differences between the male and female sexes and understand why women’s sports, single-sex change rooms and toilets are important.”
This elicited a response from an unnamed Hobart man who emailed the senator confronting her crimethink. The senator doubled down: “I do understand the difference between sex and gender. That’s why I’ve made the point in my article that women’s toilets and women’s change rooms are designed for people of the female sex (women) and should remain that way.”
The article and email were referred by the constituent as a complaint to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt. Ms Bolt then wrote to Senator Chandler, noting that the complainant was not a member of the trans-community and dismissing the argument that the article had offended the law.
But Ms Bolt determined the complaint about the email had merit. She found, “a reasonable person is likely to anticipate that a person who is a member of the LGBTIQ+ and gender diverse community would be humiliated, intimidated, offended and insulted”.
Having identified the possibility of an anticipated offence Senator Chandler has been called to a hearing before the commission on October 1.
The senator made a fuss in the media. This drew a second missive from the commission. It noted that it was also an offence to “hinder” or “use insulting language” against the commissioner.
A few issues arise.
First, Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commission, and all such commissions, have tyranny built into their design. It is meant to be a mediation service – and often is – but can also be advocate, prosecutor, judge and jury in one. This invites quasi-judicial bodies to become star chambers. They now deny a keystone democratic right of a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. The right to freely complain about this injustice has also been removed by law.
Second, the senator is expressing what was, until recently, a pretty conventional worldview. What has changed is a new protected group has evolved, the trans community, whose advocates demand that those who self-nominate a gender must be accepted as male or female.
Laws are being made about this so debate is demanded, starting with when should someone be considered to have transitioned? Is it after reassignment surgery or just on the strength of nominating the change? This is no small difference and both are claimed.
In a free society, an individual’s right to make personal choices about the course of their lives should be respected and defended. But why should someone else’s subjective truth become an objective reality for the whole of society and the law used to enforce it?
This highly contestable, and evolving, space runs far deeper than a fight over public toilets. It involves questions of truth and identity, which concern us all. There has been little community debate, yet bureaucracies everywhere are conforming with demands in fear of being branded transphobic, the latest in a long list of identity crimes.
But here there is also a clash of ideologies, on what it means to be a woman. Some old-school feminists fear their homeland is being colonised by strident activists. The author J.K. Rowling is one. For defending her truth she has been vilified and “progressive” bookshops have banned Harry Potter from their shelves. And how are these book burners morally superior to the many who marched before them through history?
There is much to debate but that is being silenced in the name of defending human rights, and who dares mount an argument against such a righteous cause?
Because, above all, it is forbidden to question a victim, as Miller wrote, “Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God's fingers? I'll tell you what's walking Salem – vengeance is walking Salem. We are what we always were in Salem, but now the little crazy children are jangling the keys of the kingdom, and common vengeance writes the law!”
SOURCE
Women know all about pushing men's buttons
It is good to see that the Federal Government now seems likely to force the universities to address academic freedom issues raised following the violent protests against me at Sydney University. Many of you will remember that the riot squad was needed to remove protesters blocking the entrance to the venue where I was speaking out about the campus kangaroo courts.
That led to Education Minister Dan Tehan appointing former Chief Justice Robert French to enquire into free speech on campus. French originally suggested legislation guaranteeing the rights of staff and students to engage in free-flowing commentary and discussion and enjoy freedom of association. But he backed down after pressure from the sector and ultimately promoted a voluntary code which has led to little discernible change in the culture of our universities– as the Drew Pavlou fracas clearly demonstrates.
Now the courageous Pauline Hanson is horse-trading for her One Nation votes that the government needs to pass its new tertiary education bill by demanding the government include legislation on the free speech issue – as explained in the SMH today, which reports the predictable whining from the universities.
Although Hanson’s controversial views attract a barrage of criticism from our captured media, she is a rare politician in speaking out about important issues like this and also the impact of false violence accusations in family law matters. She was the one who pushed for the current Family Law Inquiry and is prepared to use her political muscle to ensure real change on key issues – so don’t write off this inquiry yet.
Mark Latham and the looming coercive control battle.
Her equally brave One Nation colleague Mark Latham is heralding that he proposes a fight-back against efforts to introduce coercive control laws into law in NSW.
See how Mark Speakman is playing lackey to the feminist groups demanding this change. Speakman is the NSW Attorney General who earlier this year regurgitated all the manufactured feminist bile against me, whilst demanding my award be rescinded.
Coercive control is all about psychological abuse – manipulation, surveillance, degrading putdowns, humiliation, threats – that perpetrators use to dominate their partners. Over the last few years coercive control laws were introduced into England and Wales and more recently Scotland, with predictable results.
The laws are supposed to be gender neutral which made the feminists rather nervous. This ABC article spells out there were initial concerns that “women might be misidentified as the perpetrator of abuse” but quotes reassuring research from Deakin University reporting that in England and Wales males comprised 106 out of the 107 offenders convicted of this new crime.
Now if I was to interview ordinary folk about which gender is more skilled at psychological manipulation, what’s the bet most people would say the fair sex are past masters at this tactic? Women are the ones who tend to show up in psychology research as more tuned into their partner’s vulnerabilities. We know exactly which buttons to push to drive our partners crazy.
There’s no question that any objective study of this issue would conclude that women are more likely than men to exert this type of control in destructive relationships. But laws like this will never result in large numbers of convicted female offenders because men are reluctant to put themselves forward as victims and they know they won’t be taken seriously if they report a coercive partner to the police. The feminists have the justice system sewn up and everyone knows it.
That’s all the more reason to do our bit to help Mark Latham stop this pernicious legislation from being introduced in NSW next year. Last week Latham was busy on social media spreading the word about what is happening. "The NSW Orwellian Liberals are now aiming to put marriages and families on trial for the newly invented DV offence, coercive control," he tweeted. "A shocking, misleading grab for power." Latham pointed out that under the proposed legislation husbands could be jailed for 14 years for withdrawing money from a joint bank account and driving the family car without permission.
As a starting point we are gathering a group of clinical psychologists and other experts to conduct a literature review, gathering evidence that women are just as likely as men to exhibit behaviours characterizing perpetrators of “coercive control”. We’re looking to launch a campaign, hopefully recruiting eminent social science experts and academics as well as practitioners – psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors – who will speak out about this effort to further tilt laws to demonise men, denying the reality of couple relationships. Please contact me if you’d like to come on board.
Violence orders dominate small-town justice systems
Recently I was contacted by a lawyer who works in small town on the South Coast of NSW. Neill McCarthy was briefly a public prosecutor but then went into private practice working mainly in criminal law. He wrote telling me that the working life of a small-town lawyer is now consumed by protecting men from false accusations of violence, which are generally being used to gain advantage in family law battles.
I’m doing a live chat on thinkspot with Neill on Wednesday Oct 7 morning, at 11 am AEST. Here’s the link to book in – https://www.thinkspot.com/products/GyuK9a?category=Event (Don’t worry if you can’t make it at that time. You can watch a recorded version on thinkspot, probably later that day, and eventually I’ll have it on YouTube)
Neil will talk about some of his recent cases. He has fascinating tales to tell of a broken justice system where police are given no option but to take action against accused men, even when there is no evidence and they suspect the woman is lying. Magistrates and prosecutors don’t dare speak out about the miscarriage of justice occurring every day in their courts. And women bear no consequences from perjuring themselves in court.
Amy Coney Barrett on campus due process rights.
Now for some fascinating news about Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s new Supreme Court nominee. I was delighted to discover that Judge Barrett has spoken out about lack of due process for college students accused of sexual assault.
Ruling in a lawsuit against Purdue University, which has been accused of discriminating against a student suspended from the college after sexual assault allegations, Barrett condemned Purdue’s 'fundamentally unfair' adjudication of sexual assault claims. Barratt said that it was plausible Purdue officials chose to believe the female accuser "because she is a woman" and to disbelieve the male student accused "because he is a man".Barratt’s truth-telling on this issue is one more reason for the Democrats to oppose the nomination of this conservative judge, particularly as Joe Biden is the major architect of the campus kangaroo court system.
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
2 October, 2029
Is a Desalination Plant “Systemic Racism”?
“California American Water withdrew its application to the California Coastal Commission for a permit to construct a desalination plant in the Monterey Bay,” reported Josh Copitch of KSBW, so the Commission canceled its September 17 meeting. Opponents of the desalination plant hailed the Commission’s new policy on “environmental justice” for nixing the project.
Marina city planning commission member Kathy Biala told KSBW “disadvantaged communities, communities of color in specific, are often victimized by larger organizations that often build environmentally damaging projects in those areas.” Marina mayor Bruce Delgado said his city would have received no water from the project but been saddled by “all the adverse impacts.” Delgado claimed 66 percent of his constituents are “non-white,” and “it doesn’t get any more textbook perfect of an example to exemplify what systemic racism looks like.” To say the least, that charge is highly dubious, unlike the water needs on the Monterey Peninsula.
“For over a century, the Monterey Peninsula relied on the Carmel River as its primary source of water,” former California real estate commissioner Jeff Davi wrote in January. “But the State Water Board has issued orders that will preclude most of that use in the future.” Last September, the California Public Utilities Commission “unanimously granted approval” for the desalination plant and found no significant environmental impacts.
In September of 2019, Coastal Commission staff recommended denial of the permit. Foes then doubled down on the “environmental justice” angle, and now the plant is off the table. So are $260 million in new economic output for the region and some 1,800 jobs, and as Davi told KSBW, “There’s a lot of things that would benefit from the peninsula having a normal amount of water.” Housing would surely be one of them, and the state is currently experiencing a housing crisis.
The real back story here is the California Coastal Commission, an unelected body that overrides scores of elected governments on land-use issues. For decades, the Commission has run roughshod over property rights and its regulatory zealotry now blocks improvement of the water supply. Monterey Peninsula residents have a case that the Coastal Commission, not a desalination plant, is the true injustice inherent in the system.
SOURCE
Why 2020 is so important
What happened this year in Virginia should scare every conservative into voting November 3
Scot Faulkner
Anyone still doubting what will happen if the Democrats take the White House and the Senate this November needs to look at what happened this year in Virginia.
In November 2019, Democrats won the governorship and control of both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1993. While they had a 10-seat majority in the House of Delegates, their margin in the State Senate was a razor-thin two seats.
As 2020 dawned, the newly sworn-in Democrats moved with lightning speed on a broad legislative front. It was a relentless Leftist Juggernaut.
During the 60-day legislative session, Democrats passed 1,900 bills. The governor signed every one of them into law. Nearly every Leftist dream came true.
First they eviscerated gun rights. The gun control bills were so groundbreaking that Governor Ralph Northam held a special signing ceremony. The bills expanded background checks to include private sales, created severe penalties for leaving firearms near children, including inside a private home, and limited handgun sales to one a month. They also created laws that will let anyone “red flag” others as being a “threat” to public safety and having their guns confiscated.
More importantly, as Virginia is a “commonwealth,” other new laws empowered local governments to regulate the possession, carrying, storage or transport of firearms, ammunition, components or any combination of those things, and to ban guns in public spaces, including public buildings, parks and recreation centers, and during permitted events.
Local governments are even authorized to establish stricter gun control laws than exist at the federal and state level.
The Democrats and Northam ignored the reality that gun-free zones ensure that only law-ignoring criminals will be armed in public places – giving killers time to maim and murder numerous law-abiding, innocent parents and children before police arrive. The Democrats did nothing to increase penalties for using guns in committing crimes.
A second wave assailed Virginia history and culture. Lee-Jackson Day was eliminated as a state holiday. All protections for Confederate monuments ended, even for soldiers who died during the Civil War.
Then came social legislation. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was ratified decades after its ratification deadline, providing the 38th state needed for final adoption, though court challenges may thwart attempts to force the ERA into the Constitution.
The “Virginia Values Act” added sexual orientation and gender identity to all Virginia anti-discrimination laws. It grants the attorney general the power to take action against anyone “engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance” to rights guaranteed by the new laws.
Abortion rights were dramatically expanded. New laws rolled back existing provisions, eliminated the 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, ended a requirement that women seeking an abortion undergo counseling and an ultrasound, eliminated the requirement that abortions be provided by a physician, allowing nurse practitioners to perform them, and abolished building code requirements on facilities where abortions are performed.
Virginia’s felony larceny threshold was raised from $500 to $1,000. Sponsors stated this will lead to fewer Virginians with felony convictions on their records.
Possession of marijuana was decriminalized and replaced with a $25 civil penalty.
The minimum wage went to $9.50 per hour. This will increase to $11 in 2022, $12 in 2023 and by another $1.50 in 2025 and 2026. The increases will likely cost thousands of jobs.
Virginia also increased its gasoline tax 5 cents a year for two consecutive years, while electric cars will continue getting subsidies, free use of highways and free access to HOV lanes.
The Democrats also established a new tax on plastic bags – just before businesses of every description began requiring them to prevent the spread of COVID from reusable bags.
They also imposed the Virginia Clean Economy Act, which will cover seascapes with hundreds of 850-foot-tall wind turbines and landscapes with hundreds of square miles of solar panels, backed up by thousands of half-ton batteries – all built with raw materials from China.
Finally, they changed the rules for voting. Virginians no longer need to show a photo ID to vote, and no longer need to provide a reason for wanting an absentee ballot.
Virginia also became part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, awarding the state’s electoral votes to the national winner of the presidential popular vote, instead of the state’s own popular vote.
Democrats have an even longer wish list at the national level: a “Green New Deal” that would replace all fossil fuels with wind, solar, biofuel and battery power; higher taxes; higher minimum wages; national gun control measures; and more.
They are invoking racism and advancing the “1619 Project,” which asserts “America is a slave nation,” to promote reparations and other laws that will eliminate America as we know it. The Left wants to erase freedom of speech in favor of “woke” sensibilities and political correctness and, of course, erase the right to bear arms and protect ourselves and our families from rampant, growing violence.
The biggest national movement of all is ending “systemic, institutional racism” and “white privilege.” But they also want to eliminate the Electoral College, make U.S. Senate seats based on population, grant statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and pack the Supreme Court.
Every one of these “reforms” is designed to solidify the Left’s power forever.
The only thing standing in the way of Democrats recreating the Virginia Juggernaut at the national level is the U.S. Senate’s filibuster. That’s why they are already crusading to end the filibuster. Even though it has been integral to the Senate since its founding, it is being portrayed as a recent racist manifestation.
The filibuster is the only protection for minority rights in Congress. Up to now, both parties have embraced it, as they know one day they may be out of power and need it.
The Left is banking on the November election giving them eternal power.
What happened in Virginia gives them profound hope that they will succeed. It should also scare every American who believes in this country to vote this year to defend our proud history, traditions, promises and opportunities.
‘Further evidence’ Tony Abbott influencing UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson on asylum seeker plan
Britain has looked to house asylum seekers on volcanic outcrop island refugee centres 6500km away from their shores, in what some officials have blamed on Australia’s unwanted influence on its former mother country.
Home Office officials were asked to explore building asylum processing centres in the South Atlantic on Ascension Island and St Helena, to discourage the annual 34,000 migrants registering for asylum on the UK.
According to Whitehall, the idea of using remote islands, that sit between the coast of Africa and Brazil, was based on Australia’s boat stopping program using Nauru and Papua New Guinea centres to discourage arrivals.
No decision has been made but the request by the British Home Secretary Priti Patel for her department to scope the option has been cited as “further evidence” of former prime minister Tony Abbott’s influence on British PM Boris Johnson.
Mr Abbott was recently appointed as trade adviser to the Johnson government and met with Ms Patel recently although her departmental scoping began prior to the meeting.
Mr Abbott’s unpaid appointment as a trade envoy earlier this month has already attracted criticism from both sides of UK politics, with the outspoken former Australian politician branded an unwanted “agent of foreign influence” by the British press. This is despite his expertise in negotiating tricky trade circles in the Asia Pacific, something Mr Johnson has said was desperately needed by his government in a post-Brexit world.
Mr Abbott’s strong stance on immigration are well known both in Australia and in Britain where he made headlines as prime minister 2013-2015 as are his connections in the conservative politics in both the UK and the US.
Britons are now reacting with fury at the “illegal migrant” centres being proposed and again blaming Australia for instilling the idea.
There were no such protests when the British government cited Australia’s successful Medicare as a model being considered for its ailing NHS public healthcare system.
The British press has confirmed Whitehall had been looking at the option at the directing of Ms Patel but she now appeared to be going cold on the idea.
This was in part due to scoping by the Foreign Office unable to mirror the Royal Australian Navy’s ability to assist in re-directing ships, mainly because the British islands were so far away from the UK.
SOURCE
UK: Why won’t the opposition oppose this Covid authoritarianism?
MPs, judges and much of civil society are as committed to curtailing our freedoms as the government is, if not more so.
The lockdown has destroyed our freedoms, decimated the economy and done extraordinary damage to the public’s health. It represents the single greatest policy failure of the millennium so far. And today the government wheeled out its scientists – equipped with the Covid version of the dodgy dossier – to prepare the ground to do it all over again. The first question that springs to mind is: where is the opposition to this madness going to come from?
Certainly not from the official opposition, that’s for sure. At the weekend, on The Andrew Marr Show, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said something rather astonishing: ‘Whatever measure the government takes, we will support it.’ You heard that right. Whatever measure the government takes. Even in advance of hearing what they might be. Has a leader of the opposition ever been so trusting and deferential to his supposed opponent?
And what about our parliamentarians, who usually carp on endlessly about their duty to ‘hold the government to account’? On the one hand, the government has more or less absolved itself of any parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the virus measures – suspending parliament back in March (to no recorded protest whatsoever from MPs) while introducing sweeping new laws via ministerial decree, sometimes publishing their content just 30 minutes before they come into force. But on the other hand, it’s not clear that many MPs are up to the task of seriously questioning the government’s approach.
Many MPs – including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus – think that the lockdown did not go far enough. It has become common to hear MPs recommend a ‘Zero Covid’ policy, meaning that restrictions should remain until the virus is eliminated entirely.
In fact, the Labour Party and the left have been among the most ardent defenders of lockdown. Anyone who raises concerns about civil liberties is dismissed as a right-wing libertarian. Meanwhile, anyone who raises concerns about the economy is condemned as greedy. This is despite the fact that lockdown is impacting most severely on the working class in the developed world and on the poorest of the poor in developing countries, while enriching the world’s wealthiest. Though many so-called left-wingers once hysterically condemned the Tory government as ‘fascist’, they are leading the clamour for it to be given more repressive powers.
And what of the supposedly ‘pro-freedom’ Tories? Some backbenchers have started to raise questions about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny as well as the extraordinary powers conferred to police and ministers in the Coronavirus Act. But clearly, most MPs of every party are as committed to lockdown as the government is, if not more so.
What about the judiciary? Over the past several years, judges have tried to position themselves as the defenders of the British constitution and of our representative democracy. But the contrast between our judiciary’s keenness to hear Gina Miller and Jolyon Maugham QC’s attempts to overturn Brexit with its reluctance to hear Simon Dolan’s legal challenge against the lockdown could not be more evident. Dolan’s legal challenge was refused at first, and though its appeal has been successful, it was delayed until October. The legal challenges our judges were keen to hear set out to overturn the largest democratic vote in British history. The one they don’t particularly want to hear has set out to overturn the greatest removal of our freedoms in history. Though former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has been heroically challenging the virus restrictions, the actual courts have little interest in defending our hard-won liberties.
Aside from the judges, Britain has an entire industry of human-rights lawyers and human-rights NGOs who, with some honourable exceptions, appear to have taken a Trappist vow of silence. Though many on ‘legal Twitter’ were aghast at a clause in the government’s Internal Market Bill potentially breaking international law, the abuse of Covid powers by both ministers and police has barely raised an eyebrow. Arguably, civil society more broadly has been found wanting.
The lesson from all this is that our democratic institutions, our political parties and our civil society are simply not interested in defending our freedoms. If we want the endless threat of lockdowns to end, we will have to fight for this ourselves. Who’s with me?
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
`
************************************
1 October, 2020
Barrett's Life Refutes Leftists' 'Oppressed Women' Narrative
Leftists hate Amy Coney Barrett because she thoroughly debunks their feminist empowerment dogma. As Joy Pullmann, executive editor at The Federalist and a mother of six children in her own right, insightfully notes, “Barrett is a walking rebuke not only to the narrative but to the powers that be. And she looks great while she does it. Her very existence repudiates the left’s binary thinking about womanhood, that women have to deny what makes women different from men to achieve professionally. And that’s why they hate her.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) practically said as much yesterday when he blasted Barrett as a threat. “Just about everything that America believes in and stands for when it comes to issues like healthcare and labor rights and LBGTQ rights and women’s rights, Judge Barrett stands against all of that,” Schumer thundered in his best imitation of Ted Kennedy’s disgraceful “Robert Bork’s America” defamation. “Justice Ginsburg must be turning over in her grave up in heaven to see that the person [Republicans] chose seems to be intent on undoing all the things that Ginsburg did. I will strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this nomination.”
Given that Ginsburg held pretty irreligious views, Schumer’s assertion that she’s “in her grave up in heaven” (whatever that means) is clearly intended as a dig at Barrett’s sincerely held Catholic faith. After all, the anti-religious dogma lives loudly in the Democrats.
This feminist narrative explains leftists’ hateful smear campaign against a highly successful and inspirational woman when it comes to healthcare. They attempt to turn her into a sub-human monster who essentially wants to endanger the lives of millions of Americans by removing their ObamaCare healthcare coverage, as The New York Times ridiculously claims. Or as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) falsely insisted, Barrett’s nomination “threatens the destruction of life-saving protections of 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions.”
Never mind the fact that Trump just this week signed an executive order ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are assured access to health insurance, demonstrating the truth of his repeated statements that he agreed with that provision of ObamaCare.
The truth is that Barrett blows up the Left’s resentment-based narrative of religious conservatism equating to oppression of women. Barrett stands as a shining example refuting the Democrats’ primary manner of appealing to suburban women voters. Democrats insist that under President Donald Trump and Republicans, women are suffering under a misogynistic “patriarchy” akin to “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, as Trump’s presidency has actually led to greater individual Liberty and less government encroachment into people’s lives.
The root objection Democrats and the Left have against Barrett is that they see her as a serious threat to their ultimate religious sacrament: abortion rights.
Indeed, Barrett’s comments on abortion defy the Democrats’ dubious caricature of her as some oppressed “handmaid.” She said, “Motherhood is a privilege, but it comes at a price. … A woman who wants to become pregnant accepts this price, but in an unplanned pregnancy the woman faces the difficulties of pregnancy unwilling. … [Then] I think supporting poor, single mothers would be the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.”
To Democrats, abortion is viewed as the primary means of female empowerment. It is the litmus test for determining the “fairness” of society, as they assert that women cannot compete equally in the marketplace without abortion. Such a view, of course, is fundamentally anti-woman and anti-mother. And that’s why they can’t stand the thought of a pro-life, pro-family woman like Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the most powerful court in the land.
SOURCE
Tim Davie: BBC boss 'prepared to fire stars who break impartiality rules'
BBC director general Tim Davie has said he would be prepared to sack presenters who make major breaches of impartiality guidelines on social media.
Mr Davie, who became DG earlier this month, said new social media rules would be announced in the coming weeks, and would apply to all staff. "I am prepared to take the appropriate disciplinary action, all the way to termination," Mr Davie said.
He said he would also be able "to take people off Twitter" if necessary.
His comments come after criticism of stars such as Gary Lineker, who has courted controversy in the past for sharing his political views on Twitter.
Responding to Mr Davie's comments on Tuesday, the Match of the Day host said: "I think only Twitter can take people off Twitter."
'Hard action'
Mr Davie told MPs on the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee: "Enforcement actions will be very clear, we will be able to take disciplinary action, we'll be able to take people off Twitter. I know people want to see hard action on this."
Pressed on how people could be removed from Twitter, he clarified that in some cases he would ask staff to suspend their Twitter accounts if they wanted to continue working for the BBC.
He told the MPs he wouldn't rush into far-reaching action. "I know some people would like me to fire [people] immediately [when] there is a foot fault," he said.
"I'm sure over your career and my career, sometimes we have not acted perfectly. So there will be a range of enforcements. Sometimes someone just needs a talking to. Other times there will be more serious matters."
The action taken would not depend on the stature of the star involved, but there would be a distinction between occasional contributors and those who are "the face of the BBC", he said.
"Social media guidelines will make clear where the lines are. If someone is a face of the BBC, I think entering into party politics seems to me not the right place to be."
Asked specifically about Lineker, Mr Davie said the former footballer had "always got a flavoursome turn of phrase", but "understands his responsibilities as a person within the BBC".
He said: "We will issue the social media guidelines which will be clear. I would note that Gary Lineker has been very clear in his statements recently, saying, 'I understand I have responsibilities while working at the BBC'.
"Those responsibilities will be clearly laid out. I am the director general so I am now running the show, and in my view, party political statements are not the right thing for people to be making if they are part of an impartial news organisation."
'Not about banning people'
In the past, there have been "a few tweets and a few incidents" from BBC staff and presenters that "in my mind have not furthered the BBC's reputation for impartiality", Mr Davie said.
The new social media guidelines will cover people working in all areas of BBC programming, Mr Davie said.
"The bar will be higher for news and current affairs, but there will also be a bar for those people working as BBC talent across the organisation, across genres," he said.
"I don't think this is about banning people on social media, by the way. We must be up there. I passionately believe that impartial reporting can be flavoursome. The idea that it's dull is wrong."
Lineker topped the BBC's most recent "star salaries" list with £1.75m in the 2019-20 financial year, but has announced he will take a 23% pay cut, amounting to £400,000.
The second highest earner was Zoe Ball, who was paid £1.36m to host the Radio 2 breakfast show.
MPs asked Mr Davie why Ball is paid more than triple the salary of the station's mid-morning presenter Ken Bruce, despite attracting fewer listeners than him.
Ball has lost around a million listeners since taking over from her predecessor Chris Evans, who was paid around £240,000 more than her.
Mr Davie referred to "the historical rate for the Radio 2 breakfast show" and said such leading presenters were able to look at "entertainment options across television and radio".
"Don't get me wrong," he added. "I've inherited some of this. You've seen what we've done with Gary. I want to make sure that we are getting as best value as we can in the market, and better value where we can.
"I've spent a lot of the last few years working in the international market, fighting for talent. There is an element of hyper-inflation, as all these services pile in, and people with TV personality and profile will be difficult to get.
"I'm all for developing young talent and taking more risk or opportunity with developing talent coming through. But I absolutely think that with a few people, and it is a very small number of people, we are in a bit of a market."
"With Zoe in particular, she's an outstanding broadcaster, we are in a renegotiation and we'll be looking where we go forward," Mr Davie said.
Mr Davie also addressed the departure of political interviewer Andrew Neil to become the face and chairman of new TV channel GB News. The director general said the issue was not the amount he had offered Neil to stay, but "what he wants to do with his life".
He said: "Andrew's an outstanding broadcaster. We had a good conversation, I made a good offer, he had a better one. We move on. He's been brilliant."
SOURCE
Americans’ Right to Worship Is Being Denied by Governments. I Won’t Be Silent Anymore
I never expected that the most basic religious freedom, the right to worship—protected so robustly in our Constitution’s First Amendment—would be unjustly repressed by an American government.
But that is exactly what is happening in San Francisco. For months now, the city has limited worship services to just 12 people outdoors. Worship inside our own churches is banned. The city recently announced it will now allow 50 for outdoor worship, with a goal of permitting indoor services up to a maximum of 25 people by Oct. 1—less than 1 percent of the capacity of San Francisco’s St. Mary’s Cathedral.
This is not nearly enough to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Catholics in San Francisco. In imposing these restrictions, the city is turning a great many faithful away from their houses of prayer.
People can freely go to parks here, as long as they stay six feet apart. If they follow proper social distancing and wear masks, people can eat on an outdoor patio with no hard numerical limit. Indoor shopping malls are already open at 25 percent capacity. Catholics in San Francisco are increasingly noticing the simple unfairness. As one of my parishioners asked recently, “Why can I spend three hours indoors shopping for shoes at Nordstrom’s but can’t go to Mass?”
And it is not just San Francisco. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, six states with a combined population of 67 million Americans single out religious worship for unfavorable treatment compared to similar secular activities: California, New Jersey, Maine, Virginia, Connecticut and Nevada.
We Catholics are not indifferent to the very real dangers posed by covid-19. This is one of the reasons Catholic churches have developed rigorous protocols to protect public health in our facilities. We submitted our safety plans to the city in May along with other faith communities, and while indoor retailers had their plans approved and went into operation, we are still waiting to hear back.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence from other jurisdictions is clear: These safeguards are working. As three infectious-disease specialists who reviewed the evidence on more than 1 million public Masses over the past few months concluded, there have been no documented outbreaks of covid-19 linked to church attendance in churches that follow the protocols. We have demonstrated that we know how to hold Mass safely. There is no reason not to allow us to put that knowledge into practice.
Nor do our concerns stem from hostility toward government. We Catholics respect legitimate authority, and we recognize that the government has a right to impose reasonable public health rules, just as we recognize its right to issue safety codes for our church buildings. But when government asserts authority over the church’s very right to worship, it crosses a line. Our fundamental rights do not come from the state. As the authors of our Declaration of Independence put it, they are “self-evident,” that is, they come from God.
Even this injustice, though, is not as hurtful as the simple lack of compassion. I sometimes wonder whether the increasingly secular elites imposing these restrictions understand the pain they are unnecessarily inflicting. The sacraments as we Catholics understand them cannot be live-streamed. People are being denied the religious worship that connects them with God and one another. For hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans facing the simultaneous challenges of a pandemic and economic downturn, the church is their key source of spiritual, emotional and practical help. I worry about the poor, the jobless and especially the addicted whose major access to community help is the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings formerly held in churches all over the city and the country.
As one of my parishioners, Kathryn Reese, wrote recently in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Even more than food for my body, this is food for my soul. I need it. My faith is what got me through all these years, raising my kids, going through a divorce, working as a correctional officer and correctional counselor in San Quentin, and volunteering for my community.” And the Rev. Moises Agudo, who pastors the overwhelmingly Latino churches in the Mission District, echoes the sentiment, saying that his people have lost many things because of the pandemic but “the consolations of the Mass should not be one of those things.”
We want to be partners in protecting the public health, but we cannot accept profoundly harmful and unequal treatment without resisting. This is why I and other Catholics from across San Francisco will join in a public demonstration this Sunday calling on the city’s mayor, London Breed, to treat religious believers fairly.
At our demonstration, we will not be asking for special treatment. We just don’t want religious worshipers singled out for unfavorable treatment relative to people participating in activities with comparable risk profiles. All we are seeking is access to worship in our own churches, following reasonable safety protocols—the same freedoms now extended to customers of nail salons, massage services and gyms. It’s only fair, it’s only compassionate, and, unlike with these other activities, it’s what the First Amendment demands.
SOURCE
From RBG to Mask Mandates, the Dems Beg for Authoritarian Rule
Imagine living in a country where your basic rights are subject to a single individual's whim and decree. That this individual could die at any moment and her replacement will make a new decree removing those basic rights. Is this the country you want to live in?
Imagine in the late 18th century telling Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington that 240 years after the revolutionary war, millions of Americans would be mourning the death of a single individual with lamentations that their basic rights, freedoms, and even our system of government are endangered.
Imagine telling these patriots who were pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to facing down the most powerful monarch on the face of the planet that these Americans would be screaming and wailing at the sky over the death of this single individual who they often referred to as a "queen."
Is there any doubt that our Founding Fathers, knowing that millions of their fellow Americans would vest such faith, power, and control in a single individual - a "queen" - would look at each other and say, "Oh, why bloody bother? We have our wealth and property; let's go get an ale."
I wouldn't blame them, and neither would you.
This is not the America our Founders envisioned or expected for us, their posterity.
And those Americans who crave, yearn and plea for such a nation should be looked upon with suspicion.
There is a common theme in the fervent lamentations hurled upon the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the Left in this country: That she was the last standing protection in this country from multitudes losing their basic rights and now that she is gone, these rights are facing an existential crisis.
How obscene.
To think that our basic rights are in the hands of an 87-year-old woman with several bouts of cancer is terrifying and antithetical to everything our country was supposed to stand for. But this is the country the Left has created by lifting the Supreme Court to the level of some kind of super-legislature with its limited members enjoying lifetime appointments.
The basics of your constitutional rights are not supposed to be determined by one tie-breaking vote on the Supreme Court. Your constitutional rights are determined in the Constitution. And if you want to modify the Constitution to recognize and protect more rights, then there is a mechanism to do just that. They are called amendments. We've used it many times in our 240 years.
Instead of following James Madison and Alexander Hamilton's recipe, the Left has used the courts to inject newfound rights and protections with unelected judges who are never accountable to the American people. This has been a recipe for disaster, which has now led us to this revealing moment.
The Left has not been circumspect about their strategy to remake our Constitution through judicial fiat. Instead, they are threatening violent revolution if they can't have a hand in selecting their new, replacement monarch in Queen RBG's place.
It's telling. They actually like this arrangement.
This tendency toward authoritarianism is also revealed in their singular criticism of President Donald Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
If Joe Biden and other Democrats are ever properly pressed on their hyperbolic attacks on Trump of coronavirus, the only real policy they point to that they'd have done differently is to have a national mask mandate. Now, let's set aside some of the dubious science behind many of the mask mandates we've seen pop up in Democrat states. Let's instead think through their real criticism of Trump in this regard.
Think about it: The one thing they'd do that Trump didn't do is implement a nation-wide mandate to wear a mask. This mask declaration is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but they don't care. They insist that not only is the mandate necessary, but any president who does not implement one is neglectful of his duties to the American people.
Their biggest criticism of Trump in this pandemic is that he has not been authoritarian enough.
"How dare the president not command what we should and should not wear in public and how we should or should not behave!!!"
It doesn't end there. From the Green New Deal, mandates on your car, your travel choices, your diet, your choice of gun for self-defense, your income, your energy options, your income level, your medical choices, your doctor, your children's school, and on and on and on... the Democrats have a plan to fix this country, as long as you just let them tell you what to do and fine or throw you in jail if you disobey.
They want their monarch to sit on the thrown in the Supreme Court to grant or deny you your rights and they want the head of state to mandate your behavior and life choices so that it serves the state.
Imagine, we used to get upset in this country over a tax on tea.
SOURCE
********************************
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. Email me (John Ray) here.
************************************
For the notes appearing at the side of the original blog see HERE
Pictures put up on a blog sometimes do not last long. They stay up only as long as the original host keeps them up. Some newsapers keep their published pictures online for as little as a week. I therefore keep archives of all the pictures that I use. The recent archives are online and are in two parts:
Archive of side pictures here
Archive of this year's pictures in the body of the blog. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and reflects the date on which the picture was posted. See here