The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

This document is part of an archive of postings on Political Correctness Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written. My Home Page. My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. My Blogroll. Email me (John Ray) here. NOTE: The short comments that I have in the side column of the primary site for this blog are now given at the foot of this document.

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

The picture below is worth more than a 1,000 words ...... Better than long speeches. It shows some Middle-Eastern people walking to reach their final objective,to live in a European country, or migrate to America.

In the photo, there are 7 men and 1 woman.up to this point – nothing special. But in observing a bit closer, you will notice that the woman has bare feet,accompanied by 3 children, and of the 3, she is carrying 2.There is the problem,none of the men are helping her,because in their culture the woman represents nothing.She is only good to be a slave to the men. Do you really believe that these particular individuals could integrate into our societies and countries and respect our customs and traditions ????


31 March, 2019

Asian-Americans do better at university, but lag in top-level managerial positions
This is no surprise and may be temporary.  Top level positions usually go to "good old boys" -- but as individual Asians get better known, they may  get included in that.  Jews are a good example there.  They were once excluded but now are often themselves the "good old boys"

Asian Americans graduate from university at far higher rates than white Americans, but despite this are no more likely to hold professional or managerial jobs, according to a new study.

The findings suggest that Asian Americans face additional barriers and discrimination when trying to climb the career ladder at work, a phenomenon known as the 'bamboo ceiling', an invisible barrier akin to the 'glass ceiling' faced by women.

It has long been known that the US-born children of Asian immigrants--a population known as the "Asian second generation" are not only more likely to be college-educated than the US general population, but are also more likely to graduate from the nation's elite universities. While Asian Americans make up only 6.3% of the US population, they account for about a quarter of all students in the Ivy League institutions in the US. However, until now, it has not been known if these advantages crossover into the workplace.

In the Ethnic and Racial Studies article, three researchers--Van Tran, Jennifer Lee and Tiffany Huang--from Columbia University, New York City pooled over a decade of data from the Current Population Survey (2008-2016), a monthly survey of about 60,000 US households conducted by the United States Census Bureau. They then used this dataset to analyse graduation rates among the five largest Asian groups in the US - Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans. Together these groups account for 83% of the country's Asian population. They found that all five groups are more likely to have graduated from college with a bachelor's degree than white Americans.

The highest attaining group are Indians, who are eight times more likely to graduate with a degree than white students. Chinese are six times more likely, Koreans and Vietnamese almost three times more likely, and Filipinos almost twice as likely to graduate.

However, despite this educational advantage, Asian Americans are less likely to secure positions in top-tier professional jobs than white Americans with the same qualifications as them. The only exception was second-generation Chinese graduates, who are one and a half times more likely than whites to be in a professional or managerial position, after controlling for age, gender, education and region of the country.

"Despite their exceptional educational credentials, we found clear evidence that Asians professionals are overcredentialed in education to achieve parity with whites in the labor market," says Van Tran, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Columbia University who led the study.

"To be clear, Asians are not under-represented in the managerial and professional occupations--three quarters of second-generation Chinese and Indians report being in a managerial and professional occupation. However, second-generation Asians are significantly under-represented in senior-level leadership positions, considering how well-credentialed they are, even after accounting for many demographic factors."

According to the authors, there are a few factors that could explain Asian Americans' lack of career progression.

"The same stereotypes that help Asians succeed in the educational domain (i.e. being smart, competent and hardworking) may actually hurt them in the labor market, where Asian Americans are sometimes perceived to be less vocal, less assertive, lacking in social skills and leadership potential," says Professor Jennifer Lee.

"Asian American professionals are also often excluded from the informal power networks in the workplace, which sometimes matter more than competency when it comes to being promoted into the leadership ranks."

Another potential reason is that second-generation Asian professionals often lack Asian role models and effective mentors in the workplace.

Whatever the reasons, the findings are especially timely, as Harvard University has been accused in a high-profile legal case of discriminating against Asian American applicants. A conservative advocacy group, Students for Fair Admissions say that Harvard artificially suppress the number of Asian American students by holding them to higher academic standards than whites, and rating them poorly on personal characteristics.

"We hope that our findings will spark a broader conversation about the disadvantages faced by Asian American professionals across the country, and more importantly, about what policies might be put in place to help promote more equal treatment and opportunities to all groups, including not just Asians, but also whites, blacks and Latinos in the US," says Professor Van Tran.


Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Jussie Smollett Case: ‘This Is a Whitewash of Justice’

It must be gross for Rahm Emanuel to take exception to it

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson expressed outrage Tuesday at the news that the case against “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett was dropped.

“I’m sure we all know what occurred this morning. My personal opinion is that you all know where I stand on this. Do I think justice was served? No. What do I think justice is? I think this city is still owed an apology,” Johnson said.

He said if someone accused him of doing something that would call into question his honor, reputation, or integrity, he would want his day in court to clear his name.

“I’ve heard that they wanted their day in court with TV cameras so America could know the truth, but no, they chose to hide behind secrecy and broker a deal to circumvent the judicial system. My job as a police officer is to investigate an incident, gather evidence, gather the facts, and present them to the state’s attorney. That’s what we did. I stand behind the detectives’ investigation,” Johnson said.

Emanuel called the prosecution’s decision to drop all charges against Smollett “a whitewash of justice.

“This is a whitewash of justice. A grand jury could not have been clearer,” Emanuel said. He said the $10,000 bond that Smollett forfeited doesn’t cover the cost of the investigation.

“Where is the accountability in the system? You cannot have because of a person’s position one set of rules apply to them and another set of rules apply to everybody else,” the mayor said.

Emanuel complained of “the ethical cost” to Smollett allegedly faking a hate crime.

“Second, is what I would call the ethical cost, and the ethical cost is as a person who was in the House of Representatives when we tried to pass the Shepard legislation dealing with hate crimes, putting them on the books that President Obama then signed into law,” the mayor said.

“To then use those very laws and the principles and values behind the Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation to self-promote your career is a cost that comes to all the individuals – gay men and women who will come forward and one day say they were a victim of a hate crime who now will be doubted, people of faith – Muslim or any other religious faith who will be a victim of hate crimes, people that have also—of all walks of life and backgrounds – race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,” he said.

“Now this casts a shadow of whether they’re telling the truth, and he did this all in the name of self-promotion, and he used the laws of the hate crime legislation that all of us collectively over years have put on the books to stand up to be the values that embody what we believe in,” Emanuel said.

The mayor also compared the outcome of the Smollett case to the recent cases of celebrities using their money and influence to get their kids into college.

“In another way, you’re seeing this play out in the universities, where people pay extra to get their kids a special position in universities. Now you have a person because of their position and background who’s getting treated in a way that nobody else … that would ever get close to this type of treatment,” he said.

Emanuel said the city’s reputation was “dragged through the mud,” and he added that the grand jury made the decision to charge Smollett based on “a sliver of the evidence” from the police investigation.


Denmark will strip jihadists' CHILDREN born abroad of their Danish citizenship under new laws

Danish politicians plan to strip the children of jihadis who were born overseas of their citizenship.

The minority government announced the policy after reaching a deal with the populist Danish People's Party and it will put it to a vote, which it is expected to pass.

It is not yet clear how the law will be worded, but activists say it will raise 'complex' legal issues around statelessness and children's rights.

The news comes after Britain stripped Shamima Begum, who ran away from her London home in 2015 to marry an ISIS fighter and live in Syria, of her citizenship.

Home Secretary Sajid Javid said the move was legal because Begum holds dual Bangladeshi citizenship, despite having never been to the country.

Begum also had a son who would have been a British citizen by law, but it is thought the baby has since died.

Under international law, countries are not permitted to strip citizens of their citizenship if it would leave them without a home country, or 'stateless'.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Denmark and Britain are signatories, also states that 'the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration' in any legal decision involving children.

UNICEF Denmark said the new law could amount to 'punishing children for their parents' sins' and would therefore be illegal.

Since 2016, it has been a criminal offence under Danish law to have fought in conflict zones for a terrorist group.

The courts have already convicted 13 people for having joined or tried to join a terrorist organisation.

Nine of those were stripped of their Danish nationality and deported, but the other four remained in the country because they did not hold dual nationality.

The new rules would make the process of removing nationality simpler, using an administrative order.

'Contrary to current rules, children who will be born in regions prohibited to Danes... will not automatically receive Danish nationality,' the immigration ministry said in a statement.

'As their parents have turned their back on Denmark, there is no reason for the children to become Danish citizens,' Immigration Minister Inger Stojberg was quoted as saying in the statement.

The fate of foreign fighters with the Islamic State group and their families has become a major international headache since the fall of the last vestige of its so-called caliphate in Syria.

Most are being held in refugee camps in northern Syria by US-backed Kurdish forces, but risk being turned loose when US troops withdraw.

Donald Trump has called on European countries to bring their citizens home and put them on trial.

There are around 40 jihadists with links to Denmark in what used to be territory held by the Islamic State group in Syria, 10 of whom have been captured, according to the government.

The exact number of Danish children born there remains unknown.


Australia: Left’s racism claims ‘silence border debate’

Former deputy PM John Anderson.

Senior Coalition figures are warning that legitimate debates over population levels, refugees and border protection are being hijacked­ by claims of racism and argue that left-wing policies — includin­g ending offshore processing — are more likely to stoke racist sentiment than any of the immigration policies implemented by Scott Morrison.

In the wake of the Christchurch massacre in which an Australian shot dead 50 Muslim worshippers, former deputy prime minister John Anderson told The Weekend Australian it was essential for honest debates to be held about complex issues such as the social integration of migrants and refugees. The Nationals leader from 1999 to 2005 expressed concern that, among the intelligentsia, there was a “loathing of Western culture and an idea that it is to blame for everything”.

“The Australian people are not mugs. I don’t believe they are particularly racist,” he said. “I don’t think Australians think all belief systems are the same or that we should not be discerning about what those belief systems might allow.”

Mr Anderson warned that open-border policies were far more likely to result in social issues arising from the settling of a “large number of new people from a number of cultural backgrounds” — a problem he suggested German Chancellor Angela Merkel was still grappling with but which he said the Coalition had avoided by properly managing the migrant and refugee intake.

Labor immigration spokesman Shayne Neumann warned yesterday that the Morrison government had engaged in dog whist­ling by saying rapists, murderers and paedophiles were being held in offshore detention and suggesting that refugees would take jobs and hospital beds from Australians. “Leaders have a responsibility to be truthful, not misrepresent the facts or stoke fears for political gain,” said Mr Neumann. “Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton often fall short of this standard.”

Howard government immig­ration ministers Philip Ruddock and Amanda Vanstone, while not commenting on the rhetoric used by the Prime Minister or Home Affairs Minister, strongly rejected suggestions that tough border protection­ policies were racist.

Mr Ruddock told The Weekend Australian: “Border integrity is not about discrimination. It’s about ensuring you have the capacity to help those who need it the most.” The NSW Liberal Party president also took aim at critics suggesting Australia should “only help those who are free enough to travel, with money to pay people-smugglers”.

“I think in relation to these matters there are some people who believe the only people we should help are asylum-seekers who say, ‘Look at me, look at me. I’m the most important person you should be helping’,’’ Mr Ruddock said.

“And having come to that view they go out of their way to essential­ly demonise those who are wanting to manage the process and manage it sensibly and approp­riately.’’

Ms Vanstone said former Labor immigration minister Mick Young had argued that, as a major ­migrant nation, it was important to keep the intake at a level with which Australians were happy.

“If you overstep that you will put one of the key elements of our national character at risk. And I think, to me, that is such an obvious point to make … That’s not a racist remark,” she said.



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


29 March, 2019

Bible verse scrawled on a tribute wall to victims of the Christchurch mosque terrorist attack sparks outrage - as mourners call for it to be removed immediately

Since nobody else seems to be offering an exegesis of Luke 19:27, perhaps I should.

For a start, it is part of a parable in which Jesus is emphasizing that deeds have consequences and that good deeds are expected. And as a parable it is not meant to be taken literally.  So saying that it commands that non-Christians should be slain is wrong.

The first part of the parable tells us that we should use our abilities for good.  So those who contributed something got a reward.  And doing nothing was insufficient.  The man who had simply locked away the money he had was penalized.

And then we come to actual opponents of the good.  They were to be slain -- as the wicked would be at the last day

A Bible verse scrawled on a tribute wall for the Christchurch mosque massacre victims will be removed after it sparked outrage among members of the public.

The message, which simply read 'Luke 19:27', was spotted by Duncan Lucas as he made his way past the wall on a development site in Auckland on Tuesday.

Mr Lucas decided to look up the gospel verse, and was shocked to find it was a reference to enemies being killed in front of a king.

'Not being somebody well versed in biblical studies, it struck me curious someone would write it up with no reference,' Mr Lucas told Stuff.co.nz.

'Without any surrounding context, it [the verse] shows a particular standpoint and indicates that anyone of one particular faith is not deserving of equal treatment,' he added.

In the King James version of the Bible, the verse reads: 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.'

While Mr Lucas didn't think the reference needed to be removed he did say it was a 'bit sick' that someone had appeared to deliberately leave out any context.

'I just think whoever put it up there knew they avoided context and knew it would speak to people who looked it up. I think that's a bit sick,' he said.

The marketing manager for Precinct Properties, which erected the tribute wall, confirmed the company were 'making steps' to remove the reference.

She said the company were happy to hear from any members of the public who might deem a message on the wall as inappropriate. 

But she added that in the main the wall had been filled with 'overwhelmingly positive' content.

Since the message board was created many well-wishers have taken the time to write touching tributes and inspirational words.  


Muslim campaigners condemn New Zealand women for donning headscarves in solidarity with mosque shooting victims, saying: 'The hijab is NOT empowering for us'

New Zealand women who wear a headscarf in solidarity with Muslim women have faced a backlash from campaigners who say it is not 'empowering'. 

Some women including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern have covered up in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings which killed 50 people on March 15.

Ardern won widespread praise for putting on a headscarf when she met members of the Muslim community after the terror attack.

But women's rights advocates said it was a sensitive issue for many women who campaign against the obligatory wearing of headscarves. 

Critics pointed out that women in conservative Muslim countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia were forced to cover up for the sake of modesty or risk public rebuke, fines or arrest. 

'When we see non-Muslim women wear the hijab in solidarity of Muslim women it is very ironic and contradictory because our experience with the hijab is not empowering or uplifting in the political sense,' said Maryam Lee, a Muslim women's rights advocate and author in Malaysia who chooses to not wear a hijab.

'I wish [Ardern] hadn't but I understand where she is coming from because she is not a Muslim and not from a Muslim majority country.'

Women across New Zealand donned headscarves last Friday as part of a Head Scarf for Harmony campaign.

It was started by a doctor who heard about a woman too scared to go out as she felt her headscarf would make her a target for terrorism. 

Lee, who has written a book called 'Unveiling Choice' about the hijab, said women in Malaysia opting not to wear headscarves would now receive more harassment and pressure to wear the hijab by Muslims citing Ardern's actions.

Women in Muslim-majority Malaysia, which has a large population of ethnic and religious minorities, have been barred from government offices in the past for attire that officials deemed as indecent, such as skirts or shorts.

Masih Alinejad, an Iranian activist and journalist who hosts the website My Stealthy Freedom where women in Iran post photos without headscarves, had mixed feelings about the campaign.

Alinejad has lived in self-imposed exile since 2009 and received death threats for her campaigning against the obligatory wearing of headscarves.

'I felt admiration that a prominent leader and women in New Zealand showed compassion to the Muslim community, but I also felt that you are using one of the most visible symbols of oppression for Muslim women in many countries for solidarity, and it also broke my heart,' said Alinejad.

'That is why I call on them to show their sisterhood and solidarity with us, who are being beaten up, imprisoned and punished for fighting against compulsory hijab as well.'

But Mutiara Ika Pratiwi, national secretary of Indonesian women's rights group Perempuan Mahardhika backed Ardern.

'Giving sympathy to a victim's family is part of a feminist position, and the veil is a symbol for a community that is currently a victim,' said Jakarta-based Pratiwi.

'Although there are those who criticize her, the majority respect the move. What is important is that Jacinda is able to build a movement of New Zealanders who sympathize with the victims.'


China’s ‘deadbeats’ barred from planes, high-speed trains because of bad credit

This seems an excellent idea to me.  There is no morality in failing to pay back what you have borrowed.  It is a form of theft

For this class of people in China, dubbed “discredited individuals” or “deadbeats”, daily life is a series of inflicted indignities.

Being designated a ’discredited individua’ — referred to as laolai in Chinese — often stems from acquiring bad credit and too much debt.Source:Supplied

Daily life has become pretty slow and sticky for the 13 million Chinese citizens deemed “deadbeats” by their Communist ruling party.

But despite little being known about the mysterious national database, curated by China’s Supreme Court, information has been trickling out as to the punishments inflicted on the black-listed.

According to the South China Morning Post, those 13 million are prohibited from taking aeroplanes or high-speed trains, meaning they are sometimes forced to take cross-country expeditions in cramped and crowded slow trains that can take days.

Some individuals have also reportedly had a special ringtone applied to their phones so as to shame them in front of their family and friends, according to the report.

The “discredited individuals” list was concocted in 2013 as a means to motivate Chinese people into good monetary behaviour.

According to data from the National Public Information Centre, by the end of 2018 more than 17.5 million people had been stopped from taking flights and more than 5.5 million were prohibited from high-speed train travel.

Being designated a “discredited individual” — referred to as laolai in Chinese — often stems from acquiring bad credit and too much debt and comes with a slew of other grievances beyond the scope of “luxury” travel.

Unlike time spent behind bars for a crime, this list has no term limit. Until you can pay your debts, life will be far from lush. But some argue they can’t pay their debts because their ability to run successful businesses or hold down good jobs is impeded by the restrictions and stigmas that come with being classed a “deadbeat”.

Speaking to SCMP, 47-year-old David Kong is banned from spending on “luxuries”, which include air travel and fast trains.

“It’s even worse than doing time because at least there’s a limit to a prison sentence,” Mr Kong said in a phone interview. “Being on the list means that as long as you can’t clear your debts in full, your name will always be there.”


Fake charges of racism deepen our divisions

The intake of Lebanese Muslims into Australia in the '70s WAS poorly conceived and executed

Our history — in its good and bad aspects — is deeply compromised by the culture wars as exemplified by the media campaign unleashed against the “racist” Liberal Party for its many sins, one of the most conspicuous being the issue of Lebanese Muslims allowed here by the Fraser government.

In his celebrated interview with Scott Morrison, host Waleed Aly presented this as a primary item in his accusation: “Does your party and your Coalition have a problem of Islamophobia?” The essence of Aly’s critique was Peter Dutton’s suggestion “that Lebanese immigration in the 70s was a mistake or that mistakes were made around it”.

This was condemned as unacceptable and dangerous. A number of journalists took up the same theme. They pointed to Dutton’s 2016 remarks that Fraser had made a mistake in the entry of Lebanese Muslims fleeing the civil war and nominated this as evidence of Liberal racism or Islamophobia, or both. Aly, highlighting the Coalition’s anti-Islamic problem, asked Morrison: “Why single out the Lebanese community in that context?”

The first point to be made is that politicians from all sides should do better in canvassing ­racial and religious issues. The second point is that this arena is loaded with hypocrisy, with most politicians and media adopting one side or the other in the culture war and running polemics to suit their cause.

Asked for his view on this issue, former immigration minister Philip Ruddock, known for his ties with the Lebanese community, said: “The Lebanese Concession was recognised to have been a policy mistake and it was closed down in a relatively short time. The only test required was to have relatives in Australia, but even that could not be adequately enforced and there is no doubt it was abused.

“Malcolm Fraser properly insisted that the entry be based on non-discriminatory grounds but the entry criteria were such that the policy did not meet the normal Australian standards of integrity that should characterise our immigration program.”

Fraser initiated the policy through his immigration minister, Michael MacKellar, given the plight facing many Lebanese who fled their country. Prominent Christian Lebanese business leaders had approached Fraser and urged him to take action — in short, to bring Christian Lebanese to this country.

The entry criteria were exceptional. People did not have to qualify as refugees and were given no assessment to this effect. Nor did they have to meet normal immigration entry standards in relation to skills, qualifications, language or resources. The only alleged test applied was having relatives in Australia — and there was plenty of scope for this to be manipulated and abused.

On January 1, 2007 the cabinet documents for this period were released. Advice from the Immigration Department had been that too many Lebanese Muslims were being accepted without “the required qualities” for successful integration, a lethal conclusion violating the principles governing the success of Australia’s immigration program.

The Fraser cabinet was told many of the entrants were unskilled, illiterate and had questionable character and health standards. This was a collapse in normal entry standards. The cabinet documents explicitly confirm the humanitarian decision to accept entry was made on conditions that fell far short of Australia’s normal entry criteria. MacKellar said most applicants were sponsored by relatives living in Sydney’s southwest and many settled around Lakemba. Officials reported that many were misrepresenting their background during interviews in “deliberate attempts to conceal vital information”.

In a November 2016 column the Sydney Institute’s Gerard Henderson said: “Immigration Department staff sent to the region to administer the program had no way of checking whether the applicants had a relative in Australia.” Officials have privately confirmed this to the writer. One said: “We lost control over what was happening.”

Interviewed at the time by The Australian’s Matthew Franklin, Fraser confirmed the government’s relaxed entry criteria on humanitarian grounds. The submission said that as many as 90 per cent of the entrants were Muslims, suggesting many Christians, ironically, were not interested. In his memoirs, co-authored with Margaret Simons, Fraser wrote that of those who came “nine out of 10 were Muslim” and conceded this represented a significant change in the nature of immigration from Lebanon because previously “migrants from Lebanon had been mainly Christian”.

In his book Fraser said there had been a mistake but claimed it was in resettlement and planning. This is undoubtedly true. But his understandable effort to deny any mistake on entry policy cannot be sustained given the facts, cabinet documents, chaos surrounding the process and admissions by the minister and department about the flawed entry criteria.

Indeed, this is worse than a mere mistake. The evidence suggests it is one of the most significant failures in the immigration intake over the past several decades. While cause and effect are hard to directly prove, the southwest of Sydney was subsequently the location of Islamic gangs, crime, violence and racial and religious baiting. Do people believe that when you abandon the integrity of the intake — even for a short time — there are no consequences?

It is morally and intellectually dishonest to raise this 70s episode as evidence of Liberal Party Islamophobia, as Aly did, along with criticising any minister who calls it a mistake while ignoring, concealing or seeking to deny what really happened.

The next question is: Should Dutton have made these comments in 2016? His remarks were provocative because he drew the link between the 70s entry and the high number of second and third-generation Lebanese Muslims charged with terrorist-related ­offences, saying they constituted 22 out of 33 people.

Dutton made clear he did not seek to discredit an entire community. He called it “a particular issue” and told parliament he would not allow the community “to be defined by those people doing the wrong thing”. This, however, was the exact charge against him — by Bill Shorten, the Greens and much of the media.

Dutton was branded a racist and a bigot and much of the media agreed — as they agreed with Aly last week. At the time Shorten accused Dutton of engaging in “lazy disrespect, wholesale labelling of entire communities for the actions of a tiny minority”.

In his defence Dutton said Australia had a highly successful humanitarian program of 18,750 people and an immigration intake of 200,000, but when things were not working “we should own up to our mistakes”.

That justification is far too convenient. Greens senator Nick McKim clarified the paradox, saying: “Just because something is fact doesn’t mean it is reasonable or productive to talk about it.” That can be right — but, on the other hand, outright suppression of core realities cannot help anybody. Dutton, however, was unwise in his language given the intelligence agencies’ rely on the co-operation of the Muslim community. He should not have linked the 70s intake with the problem of foreign fighters in 2016, despite being factually correct in that Lebanese Muslims were manifestly over-represented among terrorism offenders.

This leads, however, to the final question: how much damage is being done by the progressive forces as they parade their manic virtue branding and hang the accusation of racism and Islamophobia on every hook they see? This is not helping the country; it is exacerbating, not repairing, our divisions. At the time Malcolm Turnbull as PM held Dutton’s critics to account for the consequences of what they were doing — saying they sought to “inflame unrest, animosity and racial hatred”.

Turnbull was right. We need to understand that branding our political leaders as racists and agents of Islamophobia constitutes its own form of counterproductive extremism; witness the unjustified comments that Morrison had contributed to the atmosphere leading to the New Zealand massacre. Consider the historical method at work. The progressive quest is to lay on the table every sin of the White Australia policy, every racial, colonial and sexual injustice since European settlement — and that constitutes a multitude — yet when there are historical issues that do not suit the progressive agenda, they must be hidden, disguised or suppressed. Spare us the hypocrisy.



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


28 March, 2019

Trump Signs Proclamation: ‘Golan Heights Are Part of the State of Israel’

President Trump on Monday signed a proclamation recognizing “that the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel,” challenging decades of largely unquestioned convention that the strategic ridge is occupied Syrian territory, to be returned as part of a future peace deal between the warring neighbors.

With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Vice President Mike Pence, and senior administration officials looking on, Trump signed an order at the White House citing “unique circumstances” making it appropriate to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

They included Israel’s capture of the ridge in 1967 “to safeguard its security from external threats,” aggressive actions by Iran and Hezbollah in Syria that “continue to make the Golan Heights a potential launching ground for attacks on Israel,” and the fact that “[a]ny possible future peace agreement in the region must account for Israel’s need to protect itself from Syria and other regional threats.”

Netanyahu called the decision “historic.”

“Your recognition is a two-fold act of historic justice,” he told Trump. “Israel won the Golan Heights in a just war of self-defense, and the Jewish people’s roots in the Golan go back thousands of years.”

(Jewish links to the Golan go back to the conquest of Canaan as recounted in the Old Testament (Joshua 20:8 and 21:27). The remains of one of the world’s oldest synagogues were excavated in the 1970s at Gamla, scene of a costly battle during the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the 1st century AD.)

In the years leading up the Six Day War the Syrians frequently launched artillery attacks from the Golan on Israeli communities in the Galilee valley to the west.

One week after Israel captured the territory in June 1967 it offered to return it in exchange for a peace treaty with Syria. The Arab states rejected the offer that September, declaring there would be no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations with Israel.

Israel formally annexed the Golan in 1981, although from the early 1990s, several Israeli governments mulled relinquishing it in return for a full peace agreement with Damascus.

A deal never materialized, and the Golan’s future has not featured meaningfully in peacemaking efforts since 2008, when Turkey tried to mediate between its then ally, Bashar Assad, and Israel.

Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the notion of Israel surrendering the Golan has looked increasingly remote.

“Your proclamation comes at a time when the Golan is more important than ever for our security, when Iran is trying to establish bases in Syria to strike at Israel,” Netanyahu told Trump. “From across the border in Syria, Iran has launched drones into our airspace, missiles into our territory.”

Trump’s decision brought praise from supporters of Israel inside and outside Congress.

“This show of support is a blow to Iran & its terrorist puppets who want to wipe Israel off the map,” tweeted Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), while Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) voiced hope the Senate would take up his recently-introduced legislation to enshrine the move in U.S. law.

“Words have power and meaning when those words are linked to action,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said earlier.

“In the recent past, the words of America’s leaders have meant little to the international community because their words often stood alone without a commitment to action. Under President Trump, the world sees and understands that the United States is a true friend and ally of Israel as his words of support are followed by meaningful and historic action.”

‘Departure from the international consensus’

Condemnation was fast in coming, too. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a phone call that the move “leads to a flagrant violation of international law, impedes the settlement of the Syrian crisis, aggravates the situation throughout the Middle East.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation called the move “a serious departure from the international consensus and a violation of the international legitimacy that recognizes the Golan as an occupied Syrian territory since 1967.”

Protests also came from the European Union, Iran, Turkey, and others.

The latest scapegoat:  British newspapers

This afternoon, Corbynistas and other activists will protest outside News UK in London. Their beef? They think the newspapers produced in that building, primarily the Sun and The Times, are ‘Islamophobic’ and therefore bear some responsibility for the barbaric racist slaughter in Christchurch last week. This is a new low for the censorious PC left. It is not five years since nine journalists and cartoonists (and three non-journalists) were massacred in France for the crime of being ‘Islamophobic’, shot to death at their desks simply because they mocked Muhammad and were stinging critics of radical Islam. To gather outside the offices of journalists and brand them ‘Islam-haters’ so soon after journalists were murdered for being ‘Islam-haters’ strikes me as quite repulsive. This is the definition of a dodgy protest.

The finger-pointing at the media in the aftermath of Friday’s slaughter has been chilling. No sooner had the killer carried out his heinous deed than the Twitterati and sections of the commentariat were blaming certain columnists for contributing to this horror. Everyone from loudmouth alt-right agitators to established newspaper writers who have questioned the validity of the term ‘Islamophobia’ were named and shamed as facilitators of the mosque massacres.

The chairman of Finsbury Park Mosque said the media have to be more ‘responsible’ when writing about Islam. Press TV, the Iranian state channel Jeremy Corbyn once worked for, says the ‘Islamophobic media’ are ‘responsible for the deadly shootings at two mosques in New Zealand’. Online, leftists have been sharing actual lists of journalists who apparently have blood on their hands. These are like McCarthyite lists, lists of the undesirable, lists of people whose words apparently cause murder. Again, to draw up such lists in an era when journalists have been murdered for criticising Islam strikes me as incredibly callous.

There are so many problems with this rush to blame the media for the barbarism in New Zealand. The first is that it lessens the moral responsibility of the killer himself. It dilutes his evil through implying, or outright arguing, that certain journalists who have never said anything racist, far less called for violence, must burden some of the responsibility for what he did. Guardianistas have expressed more anger with Melanie Phillips than with the NZ killer himself in the days since the massacre – it is perverse.

The second problem is the plain censoriousness of it. Many of the journalists being named and shamed and listed and protested against have not expressed anti-Muslim bigotry – they are simply concerned about radical Islam and some of them are also concerned about Muslim immigration. Whether you agree or disagree with these concerns is immaterial – they are legitimate talking points. To argue that certain views and opinions directly give rise to murderous violence is a form of censorious blackmail. It says: ‘Silence yourself or else people will die.’

And thirdly there’s the double standard. Today’s protesters should answer this: if journalists who criticise Islam bear responsibility for the New Zealand massacre, do journalists who love and defend Jeremy Corbyn bear responsibility for the anti-Semitic slaughter at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in October, when 11 Jews were killed? After all, the Corbyn movement has a pretty bad problem with anti-Semitism. It has supporters and members who have promoted actual racist views of the Jews. Corbynista journalists have continually tried to downplay the seriousness of anti-Semitism. They can’t get a handle on this crisis of prejudice. Did their words create the conditions for the Tree of Life barbarism? If not, why did other journalists’ mere criticisms of Islam cause the New Zealand horror? It doesn’t add up. Unless, of course, this media-bashing is just ghoulish opportunism rather than a properly thought-through analysis of the bigotry that fuelled the mosque massacres.

That is what we have here: ghoulish opportunism. It is really unfair to target journalists at News UK over what happened in New Zealand. These are decent reporters and columnists who cover world events as they understand them and who happen to have different political and moral opinions to the PC left. That is really why they are being protested against: because they deviate from ‘correct thinking’ as defined by the self-righteous left. These protesters are essentially exploiting the horrors that occurred in New Zealand to put pressure on certain journalists and editors to silence themselves and their ‘problematic’ opinions. These journalists have done nothing to facilitate terrorism; the protesters, on the other hand, come across like the unwitting heirs to the Charlie Hebdo barbarism with their targeting and demonisation of journalists who have committed the ‘crime’ of criticising Islam.


Justice in Chicago is political

On Tuesday, the Cook County State's Attorney's office announced it had dropped the 16 counts against Empire star Jussie Smollett. State's Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself from the case, but the prosecutor who dropped the case reports to her. A Chicago police union rep told PJ Media that Foxx was behind the decision to drop the charges, and this represents merely one more example of her throwing the Chicago police "under the bus," following the lead of former president Barack Obama.

"Once again, she's throwing the Chicago Police Department completely under the bus, which she's been doing for the last two years in office," Martin Preib, second vice president at the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), told PJ Media on Tuesday. He argued that Foxx had never truly recused herself from the case, since her "underlings" remained involved.

"What's the difference between her recusing herself and her underlings having the case? What really has been recused here? Nothing," Prieb declared.

Smollett told police that on January 29, masked white attackers wearing MAGA hats had screamed, "This is MAGA country!" before seizing him, putting a noose around his neck, and pouring an unknown bleach-scented liquid on him. His story fell apart as no video evidence of the alleged attack was captured, and two black men came forward, telling police Smollett paid them to orchestrate the hoax.

Smollett was eventually charged with 16 felony counts after reporting a hate crime hoax.

After the charges were dropped, he claimed, "I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one. I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of."

Last week, Prieb told PJ Media many police doubted Smollett's story from the get-go. Even so, he said he was not surprised when prosecutors dropped the charges on Tuesday, even though the evidence against the Empire star seems crystal clear.

"The weaponization of the criminal justice system that we saw under the Obama administration through to this Mueller investigation, this attack on Trump, Foxx falls right in line with that — undermining the criminal justice system and turning it into a political advocacy outpost for the left," Prieb said.

The FOP has called for investigations of Foxx many times in the past. Just last week, it renewed those calls, highlighting Foxx's early interference in the Smollett case.

Just days after Smollett gave his story to police, Michelle Obama's former chief of staff, Tina Tchen, asked Foxx to contact the FBI and get the feds involved in the hate crime investigation. Foxx told Tchen she had reached out to Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, telling him to get the FBI involved.

"It seems a totally inappropriate thing to do, to ask a prosecutor to get involved in a case that early on," Prieb told PJ Media last week.

Yet Foxx has a notorious history of letting criminals off the hook.

One particularly egregious example involved the vacating of two felony convictions for high-ranking Spanish Cobra gang member Ricardo Rodriguez in February. Eliminating the 20-year-old convictions paves the way for Rodriguez to avoid deportation and remain in the country, FOP representatives argued.

Prieb also mentioned two cases early in Foxx's administration. Arturo DeLeon-Reyes and Gabriel Solache confessed to stabbing Mariano and Jacina Soto, murdering them and kidnapping their children. Yet Solache and DeLeon-Reyes claimed, like so many convicts, that they were victims of police misconduct, even though they pleaded guilty and confessed to the murders. The two were later released after Foxx's office granted immunity to a police officer who testified against the department.

According to FOP's reporting in 2017, Foxx received hefty political contributions from Arthur Loevy, one of the most powerful wrongful conviction law firms in Illinois.

Prieb also noted that one of the attorneys for Smollett, Patricia Brown-Holmes, also prosecuted three Chicago police officers for an alleged conspiracy against 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. Foxx relentlessly attacked her predecessor, Anita Alvarez, for failing to charge the police involved, even though the officers were later acquitted.

Prieb argued that Foxx's crusade against police to free criminals echoed the efforts of the Department of Justice under Barack Obama. Obama himself intervened in many high-profile cases of alleged police abuse against black men.


Top cop wants to edit Britain's national news

Neil Basu’s lecturing of the press is a worrying sign of the times.

We are told that assistant commissioner Neil Basu, Britain’s top counterterrorism cop, has ‘the toughest job in UK policing’. Yet somehow AC Basu has found time to take on an extra job – as the self-appointed editor of our national news.

Basu has published what the sympathetic Guardian calls ‘an open letter to the media on how to report terrorism’, which sounds like a top cop issuing orders to newspapers and TV broadcasters on what they can and can’t publish. Anybody might think we lived in a PC police state.

AC Basu blames the mainstream news media for ‘radicalising’ far-right terrorists such as the New Zealand mosque murder suspect. He attacks the tabloid press for publishing clips of the carnage in Christchurch and for making ‘the rambling “manifestoes” of crazed killers available for download’.

The accumulated wisdom of Britain’s head of counterterrorism, backed by the sophisticated hi-tech methods of modern policing, basically boils down to: ‘I blame the meejah.’

Basu even claims that the racist who rammed a van into worshippers outside London’s Finsbury Park mosque was ‘driven to an act of terrorism by far-right messages he found mostly on mainstream media’. Some of us might naively have assumed the murderer was responsible for driving his vehicle at the crowd. But no, he was ‘driven’ to it by the media, apparently with no more personal responsibility for his actions than an unthinking van with somebody’s foot on its accelerator.

Amid the confused discussion that follows any act of terrorism these days, one official message always rings out loud and clear: that the problem is we have ‘too much’ freedom of speech and of the press. Thus AC Basu declares that ‘society needs to look carefully at itself’: ‘We cannot simply hide behind the mantra of freedom of speech. [I]t is not the freedom to cause harm – that is why our hate-speech legislation exists.’

If there is a ‘mantra’ being repeatedly chanted in Britain today, it is certainly not in defence of free speech. It is the mantra that free speech means ‘hate speech’, that freedom does ‘harm’, that words are as dangerous as weapons, and that society needs even more restrictions on what we should all be allowed to say, hear or read.

Remarkably, in the new free-speech wars, a top cop like AC Basu is on the same side of the barricades as the radical press-haters who picketed the offices of News UK – publisher of the Sun and The Times – after Christchurch. Both the police establishment and the Corbynite left loathe freedom of speech and of the press, largely because of their shared contempt for the ‘ordinary people’ who they fear are ignorant and gullible enough to be turned into racists and terrorists by a ‘hateful’ word or image.

Free speech and a free press are not excuses we ‘hide behind’. We should shout upfront that they are the most precious liberties of all in a civilised society. Free speech is never the problem, but the potential solution to political crises. Some of us do not believe the scaremongering about a far-right ‘upsurge’ across the West. But if you want to plant the seeds for one, keep lecturing people on what they are permitted to think or say about Islam or anything else.

The hard truth is that free speech has to be for the self-styled ‘eco-fascist’ suspect in the Christchurch massacre as much as for the imam of Finsbury Park mosque or assistant commissioner Neil Basu.

Of course, that freedom does not give any Islamist or far-right terrorist the ‘right’ to have their manifesto published or linked to via the mainstream media. Those decisions are judgement calls, matters of editorial discrimination which the rest of us are free to endorse or criticise. But the last thing we need is those judgement calls on what should be published being made by police chiefs or judges.

If it can now be deemed in the public interest for a top cop to try to edit the news, then, to quote AC Basu, our supposedly free society surely does ‘need to look carefully at itself’.



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


27 March, 2019

Mayor of London to face questions over arrest of street preacher

Questions over how police treated a [black] street preacher arrested in Southgate last month will be put to the Mayor of London on Thursday.

Sadiq Khan will be asked why officers detained 64-year-old Oluwole Ilesanmi and why they changed their version of events.

The questions have been tabled by London Assembly member David Kurten. A Christian, Mr Kurten said he was "concerned" by footage appearing to show the evangelist being handcuffed and led away.

The UKIP politician said: "I've received a lot of comments about this video and they're all supportive. "Even people who aren't Christians say 'this is terrible, that someone seems to be having their freedom of speech impinged'".

Premier has learned Mr Ilesanmi plans to attend tomorrow's 'Mayor's Question Time', alongside representatives of the Christian Legal Centre which has been supporting him.

Mr Kurten continued: "I want to raise attention to Sadiq Khan about Olu's case. "I want to highlight what's happened and I want to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again to street preachers who are within their rights of freedom of speech.

The Metropolitan Police said Mr Ilesanmi was arrested outside Southgate Underground station in North London on Saturday 23rd February after concerns were raised about a man's behaviour.

He was later de-arrested and told he faced no further action. The preacher said he was taken to a "very remote place", with no way of finding his way back.

The force later acknowledged its claim he was taken to another location only 200 metres away was false. The Met said he was taken 3.5 miles away to Hadley Wood.

The Christian Legal Centre says he was taken even further away than that - 5.2 miles away to Wrotham Park.

Mr Kurten continued to say: "I'm obviously concerned, like a lot of people, that freedom of speech is being gradually eroded. Olu's a Christian street preacher but [this is happening] for many other groups of people as well."

Earlier this month, the Met said its local professional standards unit was investigating what happened.

In the video, which has been seen more than 2.4 million times, Mr Ilesanmi is accused of "being racist" but it's unclear what he said while preaching which caused the police to intervene.


Trump put more women in top roles than Obama, Bush, Clinton

It’s no secret that President Trump can be brash about women. He described porn star Stormy Daniels as a “Horseface,” and mocked Rosie O’Donnell as a fat pig and “total loser.”

Trump also fessed up to “locker room talk” about how he likes to “grab them by the pussy.”

But the president’s actions speak much louder than his words.

Despite a few crude comments, Trump put more women in top advisory roles in his administration than any of the last three presidents, a powerful statement some believe is overshadowed by the media’s relentless focus on vilifying the president’s every move.

“I don’t think it’s gotten as much attention as the fact that he’s said things that are sexist,” Augusta University professor Mary-Kate Lizotte, an expert on women in politics, told The Washington Examiner. “It might not have as much of an effect because of negative coverage.”

The Examiner reports:

At the beginning of the third year of his first term as president, Trump has seven female top advisers, as compared to five for Obama, three for Bush, and five for Clinton at that point. He had eight as of December 2018, when United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley departed the administration.

The top advisers are White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway; CIA Director Gina Haspel, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, senior adviser Ivanka Trump, Director of Legislative Affairs Shahira Knight, and Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp.

Those in Trump’s inner circle are only some of the women that have served in the administration, with others including Haley and former communications director Hope Hicks playing key roles early on.

Last May, the president appointed Gina Haspel as the head of the CIA, the first woman to ever hold that post, Fox News reports.

There’s also women serving in important cabinet positions, such as Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, as well as women moving up through the ranks.

“Trump reportedly will also nominate more women to powerful positions soon, such as U.S. Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft for U.N. ambassador and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jessie Liu for associate attorney general, a key post currently held by Rod Rosenstein,” according to the Examiner.

Schlapp said it’s obvious Trump “surrounds himself with very strong women with strong voices” and he respects their opinions on all types of issues.

An unnamed former senior White House official contends the president cares more about results than gender. “He treats people equally,” the official said. “He values merit and quality of work, regardless of any other attributes including gender.”

Schlapp dismissed the relentless allegations Trump is a misogynist as “outrageous.” “I have always felt respected by the president,” she said. “He is someone who values my opinion and insight. Those of us who work with him get to see his compassion.”

Despite the progress for women, some of the president’s critics remain devoted to spinning the issue into a negative and allege Trump’s female advisors are nothing more than “tools for his benefit.”

Boston University professor Tammy Vigil, a self-professed expert on gender in politics, told the Examiner it belittles women to work for the president because they’re allegedly forced to “work around the truth.”

“It compromises their integrity,” she said. “They have to sort of give up their own honesty and integrity in order to serve the male president, which is not a good look for women, even if they are in positions of power.”

“Why is he hiring these women?” she questioned. “He’s getting something out of it.”


San Antonio Airport Bans Chick-fil-A Over Anti-Gay Accusations
Chick-fil-A will not be allowed to open a planned restaurant inside the San Antonio International Airport because the city council is packed with anti-Christian bigots.

The city council voted to ban the nation’s most popular fast-food chain over accusations the family-owned company donates to anti-LGBT organizations.

According to Think Progress, the “anti-gay” organizations Chick-fil-A supports include the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home:

“The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is a religious organization that seeks to spread an anti-LGBTQ message to college athletes and requires a strict ‘sexual purity’ policy for its employees that bars any ‘homosexual acts.’ Paul Anderson Youth Home, a ‘Christian residential home for trouble youth,’ teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is ‘rage against Jesus Christ and His values.’”

Think Progress basically has a problem with Christian organizations requiring members and employees to follow Christian teachings on sexuality. It seems to believe any Christian who supports traditional marriage is a homophobic bigot.

City Councilman Roberto C. Treviño led the charge to block Chick-fil-A from opening a franchise in the airport. He accused the company of having a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.

“With this decision, the City Council reaffirmed the work our city has done to become a champion of equality and inclusion,” Treviño said in a statement. “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we don’t have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

Councilman Trevino either knowingly lied about Chick-fil-A or he is woefully ignorant. Chick-fil-A has never discriminated against gay employees or gay customers. Period.

“This is the first we’ve heard of this. It’s disappointing,” Chick-fil-A said in a statement. “We would have liked to have had a dialogue with the city council before this decision was made. We agree with Councilmember Treviño that everyone is and should feel welcome at Chick-fil-A. We plan to reach out to the city council to gain a better understanding of this decision.”

First Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s top religious-liberty firms, condemned the city council’s decision.

“This decision is exactly the kind of government hostility to religious liberty that the First Amendment abhors,” said attorney Keisha Russell. “Chick-fil-A has a long history of being a great place to work, customer service beyond reproach, and is an exceptional member of the community. All Americans should agree that tolerance and inclusion are necessary in our diverse and pluralistic society. Fortunately, one bigoted city council member does not represent the Great State of Texas or its values. Texans and San Antonians should not stand for such intolerance and bigotry by their elected officials.”

Let’s be clear — the only reason Chick-fil-A has been banned from the San Antonio airport is because the city council is packed with a bunch of anti-Christian bigots.


Do we really want to glorify political violence?

Or is the NZ shooter not a problem?

Australia: The Project co-host Lisa Wilkinson has defended an interview with 'Egg Boy' Will Connolly after fans criticised his appearance on the show.

Connolly, 17, egged right-wing Senator Fraser Anning in Melbourne in response to the politician's comments on Muslim immigration in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings.

In his first public appearance on The Project on Monday night, Connolly said although his actions were 'not the right thing to do' he had 'united people' and raised money for those affected by the massacre.

Unhappy viewers took to social media to voice their disapproval of Connolly:

'[Lisa Wilkinson] so you think it's okay to smash eggs on someone in public view? If he did it to you because [he] disagreed with your views would you still make him a hero for his behaviour?' one person commented underneath a post by The Project on Instagram.

'What does this teach our young about respectful behaviour? I don't care what was said by Anning we should not be promoting this kind of behaviour.'

Wilkinson took to the comments section herself to defend the programme, saying they had not made 'Egg Boy' a 'hero'.

'We are news program. He has been a huge news story. He has been hounded for interviews by just about every TV, online and radio show in the world,' Wilkinson said.

'As well as every major publication you could imagine. He approached us because he felt we would be fair and balanced in presenting his story. And I believe we were. That's it. Cheers, Lisa.'

Another unhappy watcher said 'Egg Boy' did not deserve attention.

'Fraser Anning is an idiot no doubt about that - but it is not OK to hit someone you disagree with with an egg or anything else - imagine the furore if this was done to a female politician or the Prime Minister or anyone that you disagreed with!' they said.

The 17-year-old shot to internet fame after he was captured on video smashing an egg on Queensland Senator Fraser Anning's head in Melbourne on March 16

The controversial incident was captured on video at the Conservative National Party meeting in Moorabbin, Melbourne on March 16 and later went viral.

After the egging, Connolly was smacked in the face twice by Senator Anning and was tackled to the ground and put in a choke-hold by four of the senator's supporters.

Senator Fraser Anning later defended physically lashing out at the teenage boy who publicly egged him saying it's what 'most sensible people would do'  



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


26 March, 2019

Proof that girls and boys are born to be different: Study finds that brain differences between the sexes begin in the womb

Feminists undergo all sorts of gyrations to dispute findings such as this but the fact remains that differences between the neural networks in  male and female brains are detectable BEFORE BIRTH (using MRI). 

I interpret the finding "the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males" as a preparation for  males to be more active and athletic, which is unsurprising

Journal abstract appended.  Note that Moriah Thomason is a female

In a scientific first, researchers claim to have found that differences between men’s and women’s brains start in the womb.

The conclusion is likely to be controversial, with some experts claiming social influences are more important.

But scientists who did brain scans of 118 foetuses in the second half of pregnancy to analyse the links between gender and the connectivity of a developing brain believe the differences are biological.

Professor Moriah Thomason, from New York University Langone, said one of the main differences was in connectivity across distant areas of the brain.

According to the US study, published in the journal Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, female brains growing in the uterus produced ‘long-range’ networks.

Professor Thomason said this was less true of boys, who were ‘more susceptible to environmental influences’.


Sex differences in functional connectivity during fetal brain development

M.D.Wheelock et al.


Sex-related differences in brain and behavior are apparent across the life course, but the exact set of processes that guide their emergence in utero remains a topic of vigorous scientific inquiry. Here, we evaluate sex and gestational age (GA)-related change in functional connectivity (FC) within and between brain wide networks. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging we examined FC in 118 human fetuses between 25.9 and 39.6 weeks GA (70 male; 48 female). Infomap was applied to the functional connectome to identify discrete prenatal brain networks in utero. A consensus procedure produced an optimal model comprised of 16 distinct fetal neural networks distributed throughout the cortex and subcortical regions. We used enrichment analysis to assess network-level clustering of strong FC-GA correlations separately in each sex group, and to identify network pairs exhibiting distinct patterns of GA-related change in FC between males and females. We discovered both within and between network FC-GA associations that varied with sex. Specifically, associations between GA and posterior cingulate-temporal pole and fronto-cerebellar FC were observed in females only, whereas the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males. These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 36, April 2019, 100632

UK: Seven police officers sent to remove four women from 'inclusive' talk on transgender issues featuring CEO of Mermaids

More non-inclusive "inclusivity

An academic was forcibly removed by police from a 'transgender visibility' event after organisers complained she made members of a panel discussion ‘feel uncomfortable'.

Dr Julia Long was carried out of the Accenture International Transgender Day of Visibility Panel Event on Thursday night after seven officers from City of London police responded to a complaint from organisers about the presence of a group of four women.

The women were asked to leave after being told they were not welcome at the ‘inclusive’ event at consultancy firm Accenture’s head office in London.


Middle East Forum Defends the Right to Discuss Islam in Europe

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was just rejected. Pursuing the principle that publicly discussing Islam and related matters should not lead to arrest and jail, the Middle East Forum had helped fund her important case with its implications for all of Europe.

Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff has been criminally convicted under Austria's "defamation of religion" law for "publicly denigrating" the Islamic prophet Muhammad "in a way likely to arouse justified indignation." Her crime? Asking in a private seminar: "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?" She was referring to Islamic texts stating that Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine.

"Since the Rushdie affair thirty years ago, criticism of Islam has become hazardous throughout the West," said Marc Fink, director of the Forum's Legal Project, which protects the public discussion of Islam in the West. "It has become fashionable to ban and even criminalize 'hate speech' and 'defamation of religion,' but these terms are poorly defined and the attendant laws are inconsistently applied.

"The survival of liberal democracy depends on the freedom to discuss controversial subjects, including Islam and Islamism. Censorship of these topics leaves the public ignorant of the threats it faces. The ECHR ruling is a preview of things to come in the U.S. should the First Amendment be weakened."

The Forum has recently been criticized for this principled stand – for example, from The Guardian (UK), The Times of Israel and Vice News. But MEF has offered a vital lifeline to many authors, researchers and commentators victimized by Islamist lawfare.

"The Legal Project has stood by my side since the day I was reported to the Austrian police," said Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff. "I could not have come so far without its assistance. It is my hope that one day there is no need for the Legal Project, for it would mean the rule of law has returned."

In another Legal Project case, a Quebec Superior Court found feminist author Djemila Benhabib not guilty of defamation for criticizing a Montreal Islamist school. "From now on freedom of expression will be better off in our democratic society," said Ms. Benhabib. "In helping me, the Middle East Forum's Legal Project has played such an important part in that matter."

The Forum has also helped UK counter-Islamism activist/journalist Tommy Robinson. Author Bruce Bawer provides perspective on the Robinson case: "I've benefited from the Forum's principled largesse myself, when my outspokenness about Islam has landed me in legal or financial quandaries. As an American, I'm extremely proud that the Forum has stepped in to cover Tommy's expenses."


The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

By Bob Moser

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”

The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie.

When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself. On a hill in downtown Montgomery, down the street from both Jefferson Davis’s Confederate White House and the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where M.L.K. preached and organized, the center had recently built a massive modernist glass-and-steel structure that the social critic James Howard Kunstler would later liken to a “Darth Vader building” that made social justice “look despotic.” It was a cold place inside, too. The entrance was through an underground bunker, past multiple layers of human and electronic security. Cameras were everywhere in the open-plan office, which made me feel like a Pentagon staffer, both secure and insecure at once.

But nothing was more uncomfortable than the racial dynamic that quickly became apparent: a fair number of what was then about a hundred employees were African-American, but almost all of them were administrative and support staff—“the help,” one of my black colleagues said pointedly. The “professional staff”—the lawyers, researchers, educators, public-relations officers, and fund-raisers—were almost exclusively white. Just two staffers, including me, were openly gay.

During my first few weeks, a friendly new co-worker couldn’t help laughing at my bewilderment. “Well, honey, welcome to the Poverty Palace,” she said. “I can guaran-damn-tee that you will never step foot in a more contradictory place as long as you live.”

“Everything feels so out of whack,” I said. “Where are the lawyers? Where’s the diversity? What in God’s name is going on here?”

“And you call yourself a journalist!” she said, laughing again. “Clearly you didn’t do your research.”

In the decade or so before I’d arrived, the center’s reputation as a beacon of justice had taken some hits from reporters who’d peered behind the façade. In 1995, the Montgomery Advertiser had been a Pulitzer finalist for a series that documented, among other things, staffers’ allegations of racial discrimination within the organization.

In Harper’s, Ken Silverstein had revealed that the center had accumulated an endowment topping a hundred and twenty million dollars while paying lavish salaries to its highest-ranking staffers and spending far less than most nonprofit groups on the work that it claimed to do.

The great Southern journalist John Egerton, writing for The Progressive, had painted a damning portrait of Dees, the center’s longtime mastermind, as a “super-salesman and master fundraiser” who viewed civil-rights work mainly as a marketing tool for bilking gullible Northern liberals. “We just run our business like a business,” Dees told Egerton. “Whether you’re selling cakes or causes, it’s all the same.”

Co-workers stealthily passed along these articles to me—it was a rite of passage for new staffers, a cautionary heads-up about what we’d stepped into with our noble intentions. Incoming female staffers were additionally warned by their new colleagues about Dees’s reputation for hitting on young women.

And the unchecked power of the lavishly compensated white men at the top of the organization—Dees and the center’s president, Richard Cohen—made staffers pessimistic that any of these issues would ever be addressed. “I expected there’d be a lot of creative bickering, a sort of democratic free-for-all,” my friend Brian, a journalist who came aboard a year after me, said one day. “But everybody is so deferential to Morris and Richard. It’s like a fucking monarchy around here.”

The work could be meaningful and gratifying. But it was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam.

For the many former staffers who have come and gone through the center’s doors—I left in 2004—the queasy feelings came rushing back last week, when the news broke that Dees, now eighty-two, had been fired. The official statement sent by Cohen, who took control of the S.P.L.C. in 2003, didn’t specify why Dees had been dismissed, but it contained some broad hints. “We’re committed to ensuring that our workplace embodies the values we espouse—truth, justice, equity, and inclusion,” Cohen wrote. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

Dees’s profile was immediately erased from the S.P.L.C.’s Web site—amazing, considering that he had remained, to the end, the main face and voice of the center, his signature on most of the direct-mail appeals that didn’t come from celebrity supporters, such as the author Toni Morrison.

While right-wingers tweeted gleefully about the demise of a figure they’d long vilified—“Hate group founder has been fired by his hate group,” the alt-right provocateur Mike Cernovich chirped—S.P.L.C. alums immediately reconnected with one another, buzzing about what might have happened and puzzling over the timing, sixteen years after Dees handed the reins to Cohen and went into semi-retirement. “I guess there’s nothing like a funeral to bring families back together,” another former writer at the center said, speculating about what might have prompted the move. “It could be racial, sexual, financial—that place was a virtual buffet of injustices,” she said. Why would they fire him now?

One day later, the Los Angeles Times and the Alabama Political Reporter reported that Dees’s ouster had come amid a staff revolt over the mistreatment of nonwhite and female staffers, which was sparked by the resignation of the senior attorney Meredith Horton, the highest-ranking African-American woman at the center.

A number of staffers subsequently signed onto two letters of protest to the center’s leadership, alleging that multiple reports of sexual harassment by Dees through the years had been ignored or covered up, and sometimes resulted in retaliation against the women making the claims. (Dees denied the allegations, telling a reporter, “I don’t know who you’re talking to or talking about, but that is not right.”)

The staffers wrote that Dees’s firing was welcome but insufficient: their larger concern, they emphasized, was a widespread pattern of racial and gender discrimination by the center’s current leadership, stretching back many years. (The S.P.L.C. has since appointed Tina Tchen, a former chief of staff for Michelle Obama, to conduct a review of its workplace environment.)

If Cohen and other senior leaders thought that they could shunt the blame, the riled-up staffers seem determined to prove them wrong. One of my former female colleagues told me that she didn’t want to go into details of her harassment for this story, because she believes the focus should be on the S.P.L.C.’s current leadership. “I just gotta hope your piece helps keep the momentum for change going,” she said.

Stephen Bright, a Yale professor and longtime S.P.L.C. critic, told me, “These chickens took a very long flight before they came home to roost.” The question, for current and former staffers alike, is how many chickens will come to justice before this long-overdue reckoning is complete.

The controversy erupted at a moment when the S.P.L.C. had never been more prominent, or more profitable. Donald Trump’s Presidency opened up a gusher of donations; after raising fifty million dollars in 2016, the center took in a hundred and thirty-two million dollars in 2017, much of it coming after the violent spectacle that unfolded at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that August. George and Amal Clooney’s justice foundation donated a million, as did Apple, which also added a donation button for the S.P.L.C. to its iTunes store. JPMorgan chipped in five hundred thousand dollars.

The new money pushed the center’s endowment past four hundred and fifty million dollars, which is more than the total assets of the American Civil Liberties Union, and it now employs an all-time high of around three hundred and fifty staffers.

But none of that has slackened its constant drive for more money. “If you’re outraged about the path President Trump is taking, I urge you to join us in the fight against the mainstreaming of hate,” a direct-mail appeal signed by Dees last year read. “Please join our fight today with a gift of $25, $35, or $100 to help us. Working together, we can push back against these bigots.” ....

In recent years, the center has broadened its legal work, returning to some poverty law; around eighty attorneys now work in five Southern states, challenging, among other things, penal juvenile-justice systems and draconian anti-immigration laws. But the center continues to take in far more than it spends. And it still tends to emphasize splashy cases that are sure to draw national attention.

The most notable, when I was there, was a lawsuit to remove a Ten Commandments monument that was brazenly placed in the main lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building, just across the street from S.P.L.C. headquarters, by Roy Moore, who was then the state’s chief justice.

Like the S.P.L.C.’s well-publicized 2017 lawsuit against Andrew Anglin, the neo-Nazi publisher of the Daily Stormer, it was a vintage example of the center’s central strategy: taking on cases guaranteed to make headlines and inflame the far right while demonstrating to potential donors that the center has not only all the right enemies but also the grit and know-how to take them down.



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


25 March, 2019

Jim Jefferies EXPOSED by Avi Yemini using hidden camera

Jim Jefferies is an Australian comedian who is very popular in the US and is a rabid Lefty and anti-gunner. He has his own talk show and goes out of his way to pander to the left.

So he set his sights on Avi Yemeni, an Australian of Israeli origin who frequently publicizes Muslim abuses.  Jefferies aimed to discredit Yemeni.  The interview took place before the Christchurch massacre but Jefferies broadcast it after the Massacre in an effort to blame Yemeni for the massacre.

Yemeni is an old hand at handling Leftist dishonesty, however, so he made his own hidden recording of the interview. The recording reveals Jefferies making grossly "Islamophobic" statement in an effort at getting Yemeni to agree with them.  The recording also shows how Jefferies edited his broadcast by attaching Yemeni's answers to different questions, thus making Yemeni look bad

The broadcast was a total fraud.  Leftists NEED lies.  Reality suits them so badly.

The War on Red Hats Roars On

The beatings will continue until MAGA hats are removed.
Three recent prosecutions suggest that President Trump’s supporters who have endured abuse and violence for wearing “Make America Great Again” hats will receive justice.

Police arrested Ryan M. Salvagno, 19, of Somerset, N.J., on February 27. Two days earlier, authorities say, he hounded an unidentified 81-year-old man who wore a MAGA hat. Salvagno allegedly confronted the senior outside a Shop Rite in Franklin Township. Prosecutors say that Salvagno argued with the man about the hat, grabbed it, shoved the octogenarianto the ground (causing minor injuries), and toppled his grocery cart. Salvagno faces assault and harassment charges.

On February 25, Kenneth Dewayne Jones, 18, knocked a MAGA hat off of a 17-year-old classmate at Santa Fe High School in Edmond, Okla. “Are you proud of what you are wearing?” Jones asked his male victim. Jones forcibly removed the teen’s hat and yanked away his pro-Trump banner. Jones was cited for municipal assault and battery, requiring a $560 fine.

Zachary Greenberg, 28, was arrested for sucker-punching Hayden Williams, 26, at U.C. Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza, birthplace of the 1960s Free Speech Movement. Williams, a Leadership Institute employee, volunteered to help Turning Point USA register conservative students. On February 19, Williams manned a recruitment table bearing two signs: “Hate Crime Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims” and “This is MAGA Country.”

Cellphone videos show Greenberg, a software engineer, knocking over the table and signs. Greenberg hits Williams once, screams obscenities at him, and then cold-cocks him in the face. His swollen, black eye darkened subsequent TV interviews. Six days after Williams’s beating, he told Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney, “I still have ringing in my ears and other symptoms of a concussion.”

University cops arrested Greenberg on March 1. He is accused of felonious assault, bodily injury, and criminal threats, plus misdemeanor vandalism.

“This is the very epitome of fascism,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon, Williams’s attorney. “The use of violence to silence your opponents and making people afraid of expressing their views.”

Alas, these are not isolated incidents. Despite the Left’s relentless moans that Trump supporters are hateful bullies, this type of mayhem flows from Left to Right, as Trump haters force Trump fans to pay for their beliefs with physical injuries. And — think of the children! — they typically involve older people brutalizing younger Americans in MAGA hats.

February 16: Terry Pierce and his wife were shopping at a Sam’s Club in Bowling Green, Ky., when they encountered James Phillips, 57, of Cottontown, Tenn. He greeted their MAGA hats with his middle finger. Pierce, 52, told WBKO-TV that, after he returned the salutation, Phillips “pulled a .40 caliber out and stuck it in my face, backed up, and said, ‘It’s a good day for you to die.’” Police say Phillips’ Glock had one chambered bullet, and he had two ammunition clips in his pocket. He was jailed and faces wanton endangerment charges.

“I have as much right to wear that hat and support my country and my president as he has not to,” Pierce said. He told Newsweek that this episode inspired some of his Democratic friends to re-register as Republicans because they did not want to “identify with a party that has so much hate.”

February 15: Rosiane Santos, 41, a Brazilian illegal alien, approached Bryton Turner, 23, as he sampled Casa Vallarta’s Mexican cuisine in Falmouth, Mass. Turner says Santos tried to shove his head into his food. Cellphones captured Santos knocking off Turner’s MAGA hat. According to Police Officer Newton Cardoso, Santos then “began to verbally assault him.” She called him a “motherf***er” for backing President Trump and said he should be barred from a Mexican eatery while wearing a MAGA hat. As Cardoso and three officers arrested Santos, Cardoso says she “hit him [Turner] over the head again in front of us.”

“It’s just a hat,” Turner told WBZ-TV. “I don’t really understand why people can’t just express themselves anymore. Everybody has to get mad.”

Falmouth police charged Santos with assault and disorderly conduct. ICE spokesman John Mohan later said, “Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil.” She was caught and released. Deportation proceedings await.

February 11: Gunnar Johnson, 14, and other pupils who supported the March of Dimes earned permission to wear hats at Hidden Oaks Middle School in Palm City, Fla. So Johnson donned his MAGA cap, “to show my pride in Trump America.”

“Boy, if you don’t take that hat off,” school-bus aide Delores Matheny, 64, yelled at Johnson en route to campus. “Take it off.” Matheny “yanked my hat off,” Johnson said. “It was crazy.”

Prosecutors decided Thursday not to press charges against Matheny. According to assistant state attorney Nita Denton, “while the bus aide’s behavior is inappropriate and unprofessional, it doesn’t rise to the criminal level.”

November 3, 2018: Jonathan Sparks, 34, walked through Tucson, Ariz., on Saturday before the midterm election. He wore his MAGA hat and carried a sign: “Vote Jobs Not Mobs — Vote Republican.” Someone suddenly grabbed Sparks’s hat and the back of his head.
“The assailant had jumped onto my ankle from behind and so I, not knowing my ankle was broken into four pieces, I turned around to grab and take the hat back,” Sparks told KVOA. “Then, I heard the words ‘Hitler,’ ‘Nazi,’ and ‘Trump.’ He was shouting things like that,” Sparks added. “He came over the top of me and over and over again, he hit me.” Sparks required surgery.

“I’m struggling with range of motion in my ankle,” Sparks told iHeartRadio’s Garrett Lewis. Sparks has undergone physical therapy. “I’m off my cane,” he said. “I’m really happy about that.”

Police charged Daniel Zaroes Brito, 42, with aggravated assault and robbery, for stealing Sparks’s MAGA hat. Brito is a former legislative aide to U.S. Representative Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.). April 9 is Brito’s next court date.

August 27, 2018: Jo-Ann Butler, 17, was arrested after she snatched a MAGA hat off the head of an unidentified fellow student at Union Mine High School in El Dorado, Calif. “That’s a racist and hateful symbol,” Butler said.

She received a week’s suspension and faces two counts of battery: One involving her classmate and the other against her teacher who, police say, she slapped as she was arrested.

July 4, 2018: Hunter Richard, 16, and a few friends were minding their own business at a San Antonio Whataburger on America’s 242nd birthday. Richard says that Kino Jimenez, 30, then pulled the teen’s MAGA hat so hard that some of his hair got yanked out. Jimenez then yelled profanities at Richard and said the hat would “go great” in his fireplace. He threw a soft drink in Richard’s face and swiped his hat.

Police arrested Jimenez and charged him with theft.

Hunter Richard told NBC News that he supports President Trump. “And if you don’t, let’s have a conversation about it instead of ripping my hat off.”

May 14, 2018: Last Mother’s Day, Eugenior Joseph, 22, and his girlfriend’s family visited a Miami Cheesecake Factory. Upon seeing his MAGA hat, the staff abandoned any sense of customer service. The Daily Wire cited patrons who saw some dozen workers abuse Joseph, who is black.

“Her finger was literally on top of his head,” one diner said about a female employee who taunted Joseph and pointed at his headwear. One witness heard an employee say, “I’m going to knock his head in so hard his hat’s going to come off.” One customer claimed that several employees called Joseph a “n*****.”

Joseph said that one worker began “balling his fists, smacking his fists, trying to scare me.” After he returned from the restroom, Joseph said the staffers were “screaming things at me.”

The ferocious bullying drove a little girl to tears, and an old lady had to calm herself with medication.

The Cheesecake Factory says it apologized to its guests. As their May 16, 2018, statement continued: “Two individuals are no longer employed by the company, and we are continuing to investigate.”

So how do leftists explain their hooliganism? Lacking any self-awareness, they hold themselves blameless for this carnage and, instead, identify the MAGA hat itself as the culprit. Much as Toledo, Ohio, voters last month granted Lake Erie the same rights as a human being, the Left has declared the MAGA cap morally culpable for immeasurable evil.

“The red MAGA hat is the new white hood,” actress Alyssa Milano declared on Twitter. She called the headgear “synonymous with white nationalism and racism.” Milano was part of the notorious Covington Catholic High School pile-on, in which liberals excoriated several MAGA-hat-clad teenage boys for threatening a helpless Native American Indian at the Lincoln Memorial on January 18. Subsequent exculpatory videos proved, in fact, that these lads did nothing wrong.

Twenty-six Republicans in Arizona’s House of Representatives asked state attorney general Mark Brnovich to investigate Perry High in Gilbert. In a March 4 letter to Brnovich, the lawmakers addressed the school’s March 1 “Party in the USA” spirit day. The legislators wrote that “school administrators demanded that several students remove hats, clothing, and signs supportive of President Donald Trump. The students were reportedly asked to leave campus, and one student was suspended for 10 days.” The letter adds that “parents of the students in question say that they were told that the clothing was ‘offensive, and that the kids were being disrespectful by wearing it.’”

Last month, students at central California’s Clovis North High School were forbidden to wear their MAGA hats, because administrators considered them unsafe. “Bottom line for us, our dress code is really about allowing our kids to come to school, to feel safe at school . . . and to be free of distractions,” school-district spokeswoman Kelly Avants told KSEE-24. “Here we are closer to shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
So, severely neurotic Trump foes want to ban MAGA hats as intimidating and violent, even as Trump foes intimidate and violently attack Trump fans in MAGA hats.

The circle of psychological projection is complete.


Never Forget: CAIR's Dirty Deeds

The Council on American-Islamic Relations is having a banner month. The militant Muslim group never lets a crisis go to waste. That means Americans should beware. When unappeasable CAIR is ascendant, our free speech rights, religious liberty and national security are at risk.

Following the horrible massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, CAIR flacks were out in full force decrying "Islamophobia" and calling for crackdowns on "hate speech" (by which they mean any and all negative thoughts or words about CAIR or Islam). CAIR executive director Nihad Awad was first out of the gate to blame President Donald Trump; target Fox News hosts Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson, whom the left wants to silence; and renew opposition to White House efforts to tighten our immigration and entrance policies, including the travel ban affecting terror-sponsoring countries upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the most vocal critics of policies to guard American sovereignty is radical Somali-born Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. CAIR leaders and members poured thousands of dollars into her campaign. This weekend, the America-bashing, Israel-deriding congresswoman will headline a sold-out fund-raising banquet in Southern California. It will be a triumphant celebration, no doubt, of Rep. Omar's escape from Democratic leadership sanctions (with an invaluable assist from the CAIR lobby) for her nasty swipes at Republicans, Jews, and, of course, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

While they drape themselves in the mantle of "civility," the CAIR brigade speaks viciously and cavalierly about their enemies. Omar says Trump is not "human." On an Arab-American talk show, she mocked a college professor who treated terrorist organizations al-Qaida and Hezbollah with gravity. She cackled at how he named them with a sternness in his voice and questioned why the words "Army" and "America" are not uttered with equal contempt. I can hear the ululations of agreement at the CAIR banquet now.

Let's not kid ourselves about these exploiters and sowers of division. They thrive on violence whether Muslims are the victims or the perpetrators. CAIR operatives are first to claim systematic oppression and fear of a "backlash" if bloodthirsty Islamic jihadists slay innocent Americans. It's always our fault and it's always our responsibility — to curtail our speech, give up our gun rights, undergo sensitivity training, accept inflated statistics about "hate crimes" and apologize for everything. CAIR wants to shut up its critics in the name of "stopping the hate" because it doesn't want us talking about its dirty, dangerous deeds.

Never forget: The federal government designated CAIR an un-indicted terror co-conspirator in 2007 in the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation and others for providing support to violent Hamas jihadists. Investigators tied CAIR's founders to the Islamic Association for Palestine, founded by a senior Hamas jihadist to serve as the terrorist group's public relations and recruitment arm in America. The Holy Land Foundation, a terror-financing charity, provided seed money for CAIR's Beltway office.

Never forget: CAIR is a designated terror organization in the United Arab Emirates.

Never forget: Federal law enforcement investigators banned interactions with CAIR to "prevent CAIR from publicly exploiting such contacts with the FBI."

Never forget: Ghassan Elashi, a founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted of laundering money for Hamas terrorism. CAIR's civil rights director Randall Todd Royer trained with the al Qaeda-linked jihad group Lashkar-e-Taiba and was convicted of conspiring to engage in terror activities. Bassem Khafagi, former CAIR community affairs director and a founder of the sharia-promoting Islamic Assembly of North America, was deported back to his home country of Egypt after being convicted for bank and visa fraud.

Never forget: CAIR officials in California rushed in front of cameras after the San Bernardino jihad attack in 2015 to blame American foreign policy instead of the killers. CAIR provided aid, comfort and legal assistance to the mass shooters' families.

Never forget: Last summer, CAIR stoked a fake hate crime perpetrated by an Odessa, Texas, waiter who falsely claimed he received a customer's receipt with the message: "We don't tip terrorist."

Never forget: CAIR disseminated the fake claims of a deranged Muslim New York teenager who lied about having her hijab ripped off by Trump supporters.

Never forget: CAIR helped manufacture the "Clock Boy" fake hate claim in Texas — after which, Clock Boy jetted off to Qatar to cash in on a Muslim Brotherhood-linked educational scholarship.

Never forget: CAIR has flexed its censorship muscle by squelching critics of Somalia-based jihad group al-Shabab in Minnesota and smearing them as "anti-Muslim" — even if they were Muslim.

Never forget: CAIR works every day to silence Muslim reformers, apostates, Christians, Jews, infidel scholars, border security advocates, anti-sharia activists and investigative independent journalists, on college campuses, TV airwaves and the internet, to prevent us from exposing the truth about Islamic supremacism.

To quote the late and dearly missed Italian journalist and fierce lioness Oriana Fallaci, who faced trial and death threats for "insulting Islam:"

Lan astaslem. "I will not surrender."


Shooters party, who want to ease Australia's strict gun regulations,  take two country seats in the lower house with MASSIVE swings in State election - just one week after 50 people were killed in Christchurch mosque massacre

Clearly, country people are worrying about what IS happening rather than what MIGHT happen

A minor party that wants to weaken gun laws has tripled its number of lower house seats in Australia's biggest state - just one week after 50 people were shot dead in the Christchurch massacre.

The Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party retained Orange with a 37 per cent swing towards them and picked up two more seats, Barwon and Murray, with massive double digit swings against the National Party.

They now have the same number of seats in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the Greens following Saturday's state election, with more than 100,000 voters backing them.

Third-time Shooters party candidate Helen Dalton resoundingly defeated Nationals candidate Austin Evans in the seat of Murray, which stretches along the Victorian border.

She secured a swing of 27.8 per cent against the Nationals, more than overcoming a 3.3 per cent margin in a seat previously held by former state education minister Adrian Piccoli.

Ms Dalton confirmed her victory on Saturday evening, writing on Facebook that Mr Evans had called to concede defeat.  

'I'd like to congratulate him on a gruelling and hard fought campaign,' she said. 'This has been an amazing performance by all of you. I'd like to offer my sincere thank you to every volunteer and every person who voted for me. 'I'm extremely honoured to be able to end 35 years of National rule and look forward to representing you as YOUR member for Murray.'

The Shooters are also on track to grab the state's largest seat, Barwon, which stretches from Walgett, Narrabri and Coonabarabran in the east to Broken Hill and the South Australian border.

Shooters candidate Roy Butler led the race on Saturday night with a 21.5 per cent swing against the Nationals.

The Shooters party won the seat of Orange in a 2016 by-election. Philip Donato retain that seat on Saturday with a 37.2 per cent swing. His primary vote of 50.6 per cent was double that of his National Party opponent Kate Hazelton.

The Nationals, previously known as the Country Party, had held this seat in the state's Central West from 1947 until the 2016 by-election.

The Shooters want the government to stop recording ammunition sales and are pushing a controversial plan to allow former police and army officers to grant gun licences and exempt them from paying any fees.  

Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, who was also a state Country and National Party MP for 13 years, said the Shooters party was influenced by the American National Rifle Association and presented a real threat to gun laws in NSW.

'It's not helped if the Shooters party were to win an outright balance of power and multiple seats in both houses,' Mr Fischer told Daily Mail Australia on Friday.

'The National Rifle Association in the USA is still a presence on the internet.'

Mr Fischer, who championed national gun laws in 1996, said 'any wholesale chipping away of the gun laws' was a risk to 'children's safety and community safety' in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre.

Outgoing Shooters MP Robert Brown hit back at Mr Fischer's suggestion his party was influenced by the NRA and downplayed the possibility of them securing changes to gun laws.

'Bulls***. You can quote me on that,' he told Daily Mail Australia. 'Tim Fischer is telling lies.'

The massive swings come just one week after 50 Muslim worshippers were gunned down during Friday prayers at two mosques in Christchurch.



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


24 March. 2019

NZ Mosques reopen amid nationwide mourning

If you want to know how much of this below was genuine grief and how much was virtue signalling, try to recall a similar outpouring of grief for the many victims of Jihadi atrocities

The best of humanity was on display at the site of last week’s massacre in Christchurch. New Zealand today showed its true colours.

Members of Christchurch’s heartbroken Muslim population have returned to the site where their friends and family members were taken from them so violently a week ago.

At two mosques on New Zealand’s South Island, where 50 people were murdered last week, the Muslim call to prayer was recited for not just worshippers but for an audience around the world.

It was broadcast on national television in New Zealand and in Australia at 1.30pm local time — a moment accused killer Brenton Tarrant and those like him would never have wanted.

The call to prayer was followed by two minutes of silent reflection.

Outside the Al Noor mosque, where 42 people were killed, thousands of New Zealanders gathered. Among them were survivors and the wider Christchurch community.

Al Noor mosque imam Gamal Fouda spoke outside the mosque, telling New Zealanders that they are “unbreakable”.

“Last Friday, I stood in this mosque and saw hatred and rage in the eyes of the terrorist who killed and murdered 50 innocent people, wounded 42 and broke the hearts of millions around the world,” he said.

“Today, from the same place, I look out and I see the love and compassion in the eyes of thousands of New Zealanders and human beings from across the globe.

“This terrorist sought to tear our nation apart with an evil ideology ... but instead we have shown that New Zealand is unbreakable and that the world can see in us an example of love and unity.

“We are broken hearted, but we are not broken. We are alive, we are together. We are determined to not let anyone divide us.

“We are determined to love one another and support each other. This evil ideology of white supremacy did not strike us first yet it did strike us hardest.”

He said “hate will be undone and love will redeem us”.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has been celebrated around the world for her swift and heartfelt response to the terror attack, is expected to speak shortly.

Ms Ardern yesterday announced sweeping changes to the country’s gun laws including a buyback scheme similar to the one introduced in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre.

She banned all assault rifles, all semi-automatic weapons and all military-style weapons in a move seen as strong, progressive and necessary.

The head of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Mustafa Farouk, said he was “so happy” the world would be a part of this afternoon’s call to worship.

“We appreciate the support that the people of New Zealand have given to us at this time, and the opportunity to do this,” he said.

The mourning will continue long after today, as more of the victims are buried. Among the dozen who were buried on Wednesday and Thursday were teenagers from local schools and 71-year-old grandfather Haji-Daoud Nabi, who reportedly told the gunman “Hello, brother” before he was shot and killed.

Students from Cashmere High School returned to the Memorial Park Cemetery in the city’s east for a second time to farewell their 14-year-old schoolmate Sayyad Ahmad Milne a day after the burial of another friend, Hamza Mustafa, 15.

More than 10,000 people marched silently on Thursday through the New Zealand city where the alleged shooter in last week’s massacre had lived, as the country paid its respects to the 50 victims of the tragedy.

Marchers made their way through Dunedin to a rugby stadium where a total of about 15,000 people eventually gathered for a sombre vigil.

The accused killer had lived for the past two years in Dunedin after moving from Grafton in New South Wales.

The marchers were joined by thousands more who had made their way there for ceremonies that included Maori incantations and Muslim prayers.

Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull called on New Zealanders to come together in support of those left bereft by the tragedy.

“We need to examine what needs to change so that this does not happen again,” he said, according to the newspaper.

“To my Muslim brothers and sisters … you are a precious part of us and we embrace you.” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Thursday announced an immediate ban on the military-style semi-automatic weapons used in the slayings.


Fox Caves to Islamist Sensibilities

The network bumped Judge Jeanine's show because she dared to question sharia.    

“This is not who your party is. Your party is not anti-Israel; [Ilhan Omar] is. Think about this. She is not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran, 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which is antithetical to the U.S. Constitution?” —Judge Jeanine Pirro, “Justice With Judge Jeanine,” Fox News

Ordinarily, one might reasonably assume that the host of an opinion show expressing an opinion, followed by a question designed to elicit debate, would be firmly inside the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

These are not ordinary times. Fox initially pulled Pirro’s show last Saturday, airing a repeat episode of its documentary series “Scandalous” in Pirro’s time slot. When asked why Pirro’s show wasn’t being aired, Fox refused to answer. “We’re not commenting on internal scheduling matters,” a spokesperson stated last Saturday. On Sunday, CNN’s Brian Stelter reported that Pirro had been suspended for two weeks.

That same day, Fox released a statement denouncing Pirro’s remarks. “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar,” it stated. “They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.” Fox also released a statement from Pirro. “I’ve seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from Saturday night’s show and I did not call Rep. Omar un-American. My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution,” Pirro said. “I invite Rep. Omar to come on my show any time to discuss all of the important issues facing America today.”

Thus, Fox joins the coordinated effort to delegitimize one of the more important realities of our time. In a 2016 column, Andrew McCarthy — a key prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case — didn’t ask what Pirro asked about Sharia law and the Constitution. He stated it in no uncertain terms. “Sharia is antithetical to the Constitution, to the very foundational American principle that the people may make law for themselves,” he asserted.

Why? “Sharia is not religion,” he expounded. “Sharia is a totalitarian societal structure and legal corpus that anti-American radicals seek to impose.”

Not just radicals. As the National Center for Constitutional Studies explains, “shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities — not to be confused with ‘radical,’ ‘extremist’ or ‘political’ elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam — to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims’ lives, irrespective of when or where they live.”

So, is questioning one’s religious dogma as it relates to one’s constitutional fealty out of bounds? As columnist M. Catharine Evans reminds us, it depends on who’s doing the asking. During the confirmation hearing for Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called Barrett’s Catholic beliefs “controversial.” “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein asserted. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

Of course, Feinstein was defending one of the Left’s foremost “religious” dogmas, better known as abortion on demand — now apparently including post-birth abortion on demand. If Barrett’s “dogma” is fair game, why not Feinstein’s?

And why not Ihan Omar’s?

As Evans asserts, “When the popular Judge Jeanine gets removed from her show for confronting Jew-hatred by an elected representative, yet Omar, who had to delete anti-Semitic tweets, and who is coddled by an Islamic extremist organization known as CAIR, gets an apology, something is insanely upside-down over at Fox.”

Upside down, or indicative? In 2015, conservative-leaning Rupert Murdoch turned over control of the network to his left-leaning sons, James and Lachlan. Ever since then, the network — in what The New York Times described in 2017 as “generational change at one of the globe’s most powerful media conglomerates” aimed at ridding the network of its of “roguish, old-guard internal culture” (read: conservative) — has moved steadily leftward.

The future? Uncertain: Fox News will be spun off as a separate entity from Fox’s merger with Disney.

What is certain is that while Pirro was getting suspended, former CNN contributor and interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile was getting hired. “You can be darn sure that I’m still going to be me on FOX News,” Brazile stated. “I’m going to do what I always do: and dish it out straight, exactly as I see it, with just as much New Orleans hot sauce as folks expect.”

Dish it out straight? Brazile was tossed off CNN for collusion with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to furnish verbatim questions that would be asked during the Clinton’s 2016 primary debate with Bernie Sanders. And when Brazile was confronted, she initially lied about doing so.

Fox’s rationale for hiring her? According to an employee who spoke on condition of anonymity but claimed to know the details of her contract, Brazile will not have anything to do with campaign debates or town halls.

So what? Furthermore, considering the legions of leftists who would undoubtedly jump at the chance to work for Fox News, why would the network choose to employ a documented cheater and liar?

In the meantime, the usual suspects are playing familiar roles. “Fox News must clearly state that Jeanine Pirro will not be allowed back on the air after her long history of Islamophobic hate rhetoric, and the network must also take similar action against other Islamophobic hosts like Tucker Carlson,” declared Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR) executive director Nihad Awad in a statement.

That would be the same CAIR that remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case — and the same Nihad Awad who declared his support for Hamas in 1994, despite its designation as a terrorist group by the federal government.

As for the term “Islamophobia,” Muslim American reformer Shireen Qudosi aptly describes it as “a term that has no tangible meaning and has extended from initially meaning ‘fear of Islam’ to being any perceived criticism toward Islam or Muslims (even if it comes from other Muslims).”

She also has a warning for those who embrace the contemptible political correctness intended to shut down that criticism. “Omar is part of a growing legislative arm of the Islamist body, a body that was already well-formed with lobbies, cultural icons, and academics,” she writes. “Yet, as a Muslim reformer, my concern is less with Omar and more so with the debilitating chaos, controversy, and polarizing communication breakdown she brings. That is what Islamists do. They create chaos because they thrive in chaos.”

Fox News is abetting that chaos. Shame on them.


Rampant dishonesty in response to the NZ massacre

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has unleashed a barrage of openly anti-Semitic commentary. She suggested that Israel had “hypnotized the world.” She recently suggested that Jewish money lay behind American support for Israel. Finally, she suggested that American Israel supporters are representatives of dual loyalty. Her fellow Democrats shielded her from blowback by subsuming a resolution that condemns her anti-Semitism within a broader resolution that condemns intolerance of all types. Many of them suggested that labeling Omar’s anti-Semitism actually represents a type of censorship — an attempt to quash debate about Israel, though none of Omar’s comments even critiqued the Israeli government, and though many on the left have made anti-Israel arguments without invoking anti-Semitism.

Now Omar’s defenders have come out of the woodwork to suggest that criticism of her anti-Semitism was somehow responsible for the white supremacist shooting of 50 innocent people in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. Two protesters, New York University students and best friends Leen Dweik and Rose Asaf, confronted Chelsea Clinton, who had gently chided Omar for her Jew hatred. “After all that you have done, all the Islamophobia that you have stoked,” Dweik screamed, “this, right here, is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words you put out in the world. … Forty-nine people died because of the rhetoric you put out there.” Dweik, it should be noted, has called for the complete elimination of Israel.

Her message was parroted by terror supporter Linda Sarsour, who tweeted: “I am triggered by those who piled on Representative Ilhan Omar and incited a hate mob against her until she got assassination threats now giving condolences to our community. What we need you to do is reflect on how you contribute to islamophobia and stop doing that.”

Meanwhile, mainstream commentators attempted to use the New Zealand anti-Muslim terror attack to blame critics of radical Islam. Omer Aziz, writing for The New York Times, slammed Jordan Peterson for calling Islamophobia “a word created by fascists” and Sam Harris for calling it “intellectual blood libel.” Bill Maher has come in for similar criticism; so have I, mostly for a video I cut in 2014 in which I read off poll statistics from various Muslim countries on a variety of topics, concluding that a huge percentage of Muslims believed radical things.

Here’s the truth: Radical Islam is dangerous. The Islamic world has a serious problem with radical Islam. And large swaths of the Muslim world are, in fact, hostile to Western views on matters ranging from freedom of speech to women’s rights. To conflate that obvious truth with the desire to murder innocents in Christchurch is intellectual dishonesty of the highest sort. If we want more Muslims living in liberty and freedom, we must certainly demolish white supremacism — and we must also demolish radical Islam, devotees of which were responsible for an estimated 84,000 deaths in 2017 alone, most of those victims Muslim.

And here’s another truth: Anti-Semitism is ugly, whether it’s coming from white supremacists or Ilhan Omar. Making that point has nothing to do with the killing of Muslims in Christchurch.

So long as the media continue to push the narrative that criticism of Islam is tantamount to incitement of murder, radical Islam will continue to flourish. So long as the media continue to cover for the dishonest argument that criticism of anti-Semitism forwards the goals of white supremacists, anti-Semitism will continue to flourish. Honest discussion about hard issues isn’t incitement.


An outpouring of irrational Leftist hate comes to Australia

Last Friday, when the news broke that a gunman had killed dozens of people praying in mosques in New Zealand, ABC presenter Patricia Karvelas logged on to Twitter. In one of her tweets, she praised [PM] Scott Morrison for making an "incredibly strong" statement at a press conference after the massacre.

"He rightly described it as a right-wing terror attack," she wrote. "That is what this is."

Karvelas was impressed Morrison had highlighted the ideological nature of the attack. His response was altogether different from Trump's insistence, following the deadly 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, that there "were very fine people on both sides" of the protest.

She was instantly hit by a deluge of criticism.

"It was just one tweet about a press conference, not a dissertation about everything the Prime Minister has said about Muslims in his career. Yet it became this pile on," Karvelas says.

"People were accusing me of excusing his alleged past Islamophobia. A former ABC employee told me I should get out of journalism."

Ian Mannix, the former manager of ABC local radio Victoria, tweeted: "She fails to put it in context the years of hatred and racism against other people. If you can’t get this right, get out of the media."

Karvelas' conclusion: "We have lost the ability to be civil."

Craig Emerson, a senior cabinet minister in the Rudd-Gillard years, also praised Morrison's response - as well as the statements by Jacinda Ardern and Bill Shorten.

At an intensely upsetting and anxious moment for the Muslim community, Emerson believed all three leaders provided the strength and reassurance the moment demanded.

"I was just giving credit where it was due," he says. "I copped an avalanche of criticism."

The fact Emerson himself had taken a strong stand against white supremacy didn't matter. (Emerson quit as a Sky News commentator last year when the network hosted a soft interview with far-right leader Blair Cottrell.)

Like Karvelas, Emerson isn't precious and doesn't want pity. He doesn't even believe tribalism is inherently wrong or dangerous - political parties, after all, are tribes and so are our favourite sporting teams.

What concerns him is "mindless tribalism", the notion that you should never break with orthodoxy or give credit to a political opponent.

"This was just one isolated incident, but I do think it shows how hyper-partisan and tribal we have become," Karvelas says.

"I think most people, who are busy getting on with their lives, still value civility. But there is a noisy minority that floods the internet and skews the debate."

A similar point was made by Morrison in a speech this week when he said he was worried Australians are demonstrating "less understanding and grace towards others that we do not even know, making the worst possible assumptions about them and their motives, simply because we disagree with them".

"If we allow a culture of 'us and them', of tribalism, to take hold ... we will lose what makes diversity work in Australia," he said.

The extreme responses following Christchurch were not limited to anonymous trolls with a handful of followers.

Twitter, all too often, rewards the snarky putdown, the dogmatic over-reach, the bad-faith misinterpretation of someone's argument. Empathy won't get you much traction, and neither will nuance.

Only hours after the attack, former independent MP Tony Windsor said Morrison's "dog-whistling" had "borne fruit ... not here but on a softer target".

Marcia Langton, the chairwoman of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne, went further, saying the Prime Minister and most of his government were "complicit in mass murder".

Across the Atlantic, it wasn't only Trump, who famously called for a complete and total ban on Muslims entering the US, facing similar claims.

At a vigil in New York, Chelsea Clinton was confronted by activists who said she had helped cause the massacre. "The 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there," one protester told her.

How so? Clinton had recently criticised Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar for remarks that she, and many others, believe perpetuated anti-Semitic tropes.

Last month, US author Kosoko Jackson, who is black and gay, withdrew his forthcoming novel, A Place for Wolves, from publication.

Before his book had even hit shelves, Jackson had attracted a backlash for making two non-Muslim Americans the main characters in a story about the Kosovo War.

New York Times columnist Jennifer Senior argued that Jackson's book "should have failed or succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. But it was never given the chance. The mob got to it first."

After the Christchurch attacks, comedian Adam Hills was pilloried when he tweeted that he was "not OK" with Anning being egged as it would embolden his supporters.

One user's succinct response: "Adam Hills is cancelled."

Unlike the US, Australia's political discourse hasn't yet been carried away on a wave of toxic tribalism. But we're swimming in the same waters and it's worth thinking about whether we want to venture any further from the shore.



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


22 March, 2019

Brainless Leftist opportunism

All jihad is local, but all "Islamophobia" is global. So, if a Muslim of Afghan origin shoots up a gay nightclub in Florida and kills 49 people, that's just one crazed loner and no broader lessons can be discerned from his act. On the other hand, if a white guy shoots up two mosques in New Zealand and kills 50 people, that indicts us all, and we need to impose worldwide restraints on free speech to make sure it doesn't happen again. I'm ecumenical enough to mourn the dead in both gay clubs and mosques, but I wonder why we are so conditioned to accept Islamic terror as (in the famous words of London mayor Sadiq Khan) "part and parcel of living in a big city" that it is only the exceptions to the rule that prompt industrial-scale moral preening from politicians and media. [UPDATE: Utrecht isn't that big a city - 350,000 - but it's today's designated "part and parcel".]

The Christchurch killer published the usual bonkers manifesto before livestreaming his mass murder on Facebook. Brenton Tarrant purports to be an environmentalist - indeed, a self-described "eco-fascist" - who admires Communist China (notwithstanding, presumably, its indifference to environmentalism). He wants to massacre Muslims in order to save the planet:

The environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by so doing save the environment.

Does he mean this? Or is it a giant blood-drenched leg-pull?

No matter. For the the politicians stampeding to the nearest camera to dust off their tropes, what counts is that, if you're American, Donald Trump pulled the trigger; and, if you're British or European and you're not prepared to say that Google-Twitter-Facebook should silence anybody to the right of Trevor Noah, then you're part of the problem. Here's the rather less homicidal environmentalist Catherine McKenna, Canada's Climate Change Minister, getting it pitch-perfect in two steps. First, visit a mosque (although obviously not to kill everyone to "save the environment", like Mr Tarrant); second, blame those whose exhibitionism isn't as gung ho as yours:

I spoke to parents at Ottawa Main Mosque today whose kids are too scared to pray & go to school. In Canada.

Meanwhile Andrew Scheer has to be called out before he can call out Islamophobia.

For non-Canadians, Mr Scheer is the Conservative Opposition Leader. But the point is you can call him out and, as Maxime Bernier noted of his former colleague, like many jelly-spined Tories he will instantly squeal, "No, wait, hold that last seat on the bandwagon for me." Even more disturbingly, the broadcaster Charles Adler denounced the Governor General for not "calling out" Islamophobia.

The Governor General of Canada is the Queen's vicereine. As the old joke has it, she is obligated to speak in governor-generalities - as, indeed, Her Majesty is. That is what is expected of an apolitical monarch. So, when there is an act of mass murder, the Crown and its viceroys express shock and sympathy and revulsion - and leave the politics to the likes of Ms McKenna and the hapless Scheer.

I would be interested to know why Mr Adler thinks it is in the national interest to lend the imprimatur of the Crown and the state to as specious and opportunistically deployed a conceit as "Islamophobia". One of our Antipodean Steyn Club members, Kate Smyth, drew my attention to a fine example of that: After the Islamic terror attack in Melbourne four months ago, Muslim community leaders refused to meet with Aussie Prime Minister Scott Morrison because of all the systemic Islamophobia. After the Christchurch attack, the same Muslim community leaders are demanding a meeting with Morrison because of all the, er, systemic Islamophobia. To say Terror Attack A is something to do with Islam is totally Islamophobic; to refuse to say Terror Attack B is Islamophobic is even more totally Islamophobic.

Were the Queen or the Governor General to pull an Andrew Scheer and sign on to this somewhat selective view of the world's travails, it would necessarily imply that "Islamophobia" is now beyond and above politics, and in that sense beyond criticism. The use of "Islamophobia" in the Melbourne attack is, in fact, its standard deployment: it is an all-purpose card played to shut down any debate.

Not, of course, that there's much debate as it is. And there's likely to be even less in the future. Facebook, which is unable to devise algorithms preventing a depraved psychopath livestreaming mass slaughter on its platform, is busy fine-tuning its controls to expel the most anodyne dissenters from the social-justice pieties. Less speech inevitably means more violence - because, if you can't talk about anything, what's left but to shoot up the joint?

Thus the revolution devours its own. It goes without saying that right-wing madmen like Donald Trump and Andrew Scheer are to blame for Christchurch, but did you know that, when you peel back the conspiracy and discover who's really pulling the Trump-Scheer strings, you find Islamophobic white supremacist Chelsea Clinton?

Muslim students have berated Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the victims of the New Zealand mosques massacre, saying she is to blame for the attack...

'This right here is the result of a massacre stoked by people like you and the words that you put out into the world,' says Dweik, gesturing to the vigil for the 49 who were killed in Christchurch when a white nationalist shooter stormed two mosques.

'And I want you to know that and I want you to feel that deeply - 49 people died because of the rhetoric you put out there,' Dweik continues, jabbing her index finger toward Clinton as other students snap their fingers in apparent approval of her words.

All poor Chelsea was doing was trying to cut herself a piece of the grief-signaling action, and suddenly she finds herself in one big unsafe space:

According to NYU student Rose Asaf, who posted the video on Twitter, students at the vigil were angry about Clinton's accusation last month that Rep Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, used 'anti-Semitic language and tropes' while criticizing Israel...

Clinton was one of many who condemned Omar's remarks, writing in a tweet: 'We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism.'

It's hate-filled Islamophobic statements like that that will get us all killed, Chelsea. Personally I blame Christchurch on Nancy Pelosi's recent House resolution condemning the Dreyfus Affair.

But I'm sure Chelsea's learned her lesson. How eager do you think she'll be to criticize Ilhan Omar's next outburst?

Things are changing faster than you think. The urge to change New Zealand's gun laws might be politely excused as a reflexive response to the means by which an appalling attack was carried out. But the demand throughout the west to restrict both private gun ownership and free speech are indicative of a more calculated clampdown, and of broader assumptions about control of the citizenry on all fronts. In the transition to the new assumptions, we are approaching a tipping point, in which the authorities of the state (as in the average British constabulary's Twitter feed) are ever more openly concerned to clamp down on you noticing what's happening rather than on what is actually happening.


Democratic Party Fails to Condemn Antisemitic Democrats Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi

Perhaps the most remarkable and disquieting aspect of the revelation that 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders is employing three senior advisers with records of involvement in anti-Semitic incidents is the disinterest it has engendered in Democratic circles across the board.
First, it emerged that Senator Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, and his senior foreign policy adviser, Matthew Duss, while both serving previously at the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) think tank, had in 2012 been involved in the use of antisemitic tropes about Jewish dual loyalty and domination of money and politics on CAP’s blog and website.

Then it emerged that Sanders’ national deputy press secretary, Belén Sisa, had participated in a recent Facebook discussion in which she used the antisemitic trope of Jewish dual loyalty.

The anti-Semitic incidents involving Shakir and Duss created such a furore at the time that it led the Obama Administration –– an sdministration that was often deeply critical of, and in conflict with, Israel –– to criticize those involved and cease contacts with them.

Given that history, it is astonishing that a Democratic presidential candidate feels entirely at ease with having these three figures tainted with antisemitism within his inner circle of advisers.

The Sanders non-controversy is occurring in a wider context of Democratic Party drift towards the vociferously anti-Israel positions of the hard left, as well as the election to Congress in last year’s midterms of proponents of these positions: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY), Ilhan Omar (D–MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D–MI).

These new legislators support anti-Israel campaigns, such as the Boycott, Sanctions & Divestment (BDS) movement — a position that, until now, had enjoyed no support from a sitting member of Congress.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is critical of Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) even though they comprise less than 2% of JudeaSamaria, and there has not been a single new community built since 1993. She also asserted her support for BDS and is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which opposes Israel’s existence.

Rep. Omar, in a 2012 tweet reacting to Israeli military operations in Gaza that followed 150 rockets fired by terrorists into Israel, said, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” She staunchly defended her tweet before finally conceding its offensiveness, belatedly deleting it.

Since arriving in Congress, Omar has made further, false antisemitic statements, like asserting that supporters of Israel are urging American lawmakers to have “allegiance to a foreign country,” and tweeting that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) bribes legislators to support Israel.

Rep. Tlaib calls Israel a “racist country” on the basis of the lie that Israel discriminates against those “darker skinned,” ignoring the country’s diversity and the fact that Israel has brought in huge numbers of black Ethiopians and dark-skinned Yemenites. She supports BDS and the destruction of Israel in favor of an Arab-dominated state (“It has to be one state”), absurdly claiming Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a consistent, outspoken supporter of Israel, as inspiration for her views. Rep. Tlaib also “absolutely” backs withholding U.S. aid from Israel.

When Tlaib was elected, she attended her primary victory party draped in the flag of the Palestinian Authority, and posed for a photo with Abbas Hamideh, a supporter of the terrorist Hezbollah group, after her official swearing-in ceremony.

What has been the reaction of senior Democrats?

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, initially declared that he didn’t “accept” that Omar and Talib are anti-Semitic. House Democratic Caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) described them merely as “thoughtful colleagues.” Democratic presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D–CA), leapt to Omar’s defense when Omar accused Israel’s supporters of dual loyalty. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) legitimized Rep. Omar by elevating her to the House Foreign Relations Committee. (Pelosi subsequently criticized some of Omar’s statements, but then absolved her of harboring deliberate antisemitic intent and refused to remove Omar from her committee assignments.)

House Democrats as a whole have performed little better. Initially, they prepared a resolution prompted by Omar’s anti-Semitic statements. But many were less interested in condemning Omar’s antisemitic outbursts than in producing a resolution condemning diverse forms of racism in the abstract. In the end, that is what the Democrat-controlled House passed, without even a mention of Omar.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said earlier this year that unless Republicans condemned Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and removed him from his committee assignments after he made racially insensitive remarks (which they did), the GOP would be guilty of “tacit acceptance of racism.”

Yet Bass refused to subject Omar to the same equal standard, saying she “absolutely would have a problem” if the House resolution were to call Omar out specifically.

The message is clear, dangerous and bleak: antisemitism’s introduction into political discourse by a member of Congress incurs no cost and perhaps yields rewards. Omar is already a hero in Jew-hating corners of America: neo-Nazi David Duke has gushed: “Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!”

In short, a party whose legislators support the elimination of Israel, indulge in antisemitism and hire anti-Semitic advisers while incurring no penalty; who receive, at best, anemic criticism from their senior colleagues, and at worst, promotion to Congressional committees; is a party that is normalizing antisemitism, not marginalizing it.


California Rep. Devin Nunes filed a lawsuit against Twitter on Monday, claiming the social media site has “shadow banned” conservatives

Nunes, a Republican, also accused Twitter of publishing defamatory content — including from a handle that purported to be Nunes own mother, according to the complaint filed in Virginia state court.

The suit accuses Twitter of “knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory… thereby facilitating defamation on its platform.”

Nunes claimed Twitter “shadow banned” his account, purposefully blocking the content he posted and limiting his reach on the site.

He alleges that the social media site did this purposefully to elevate the alleged defamatory statements made against him.

“Twitter shadow-banned Plaintiff in order to restrict his free speech and to amplify the abusive and hateful content published …,” the complaint reads.

Nunes is seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

Federal law typically exempts social media platforms from facing charges of defamation, but Nunes argues that because Twitter actively curates the content on its site, it should be held accountable for defamatory content.

As evidence of the apparent abuse, Nunes’s legal team included a number of tweets posted by the user @DevinNunesMom.

“Between February 2018 and March 2019, Twitter allowed @DevinNunesMom to post hundreds of egregiously false, defamatory, insulting abusive, hateful, scandalous and vile statements about Nunes that without question violated Twitter’s Terms of Service and Rules,” the complaint, which was first reported by Fox News, reads.

The Twitter account, which has since been disabled, posted missives like: “Devin might be a unscrupulous, craven, back-stabbing, charlatan and traitor, but he’s no Ted Cruz,” according to the lawsuit.

The Nunes legal team also pointed to another account, “Devin Nunes’ Cow,” which called him things like “treasonous cowpoke.”

The account also wrote about Nunes: “He’s udder-ly worthless and its pasture time to move him to prison.”


Another enemy of Free Speech

Sounds like he gets his ideas from Chairman Mao

"I kind of miss the days of 3 major networks and a few news programs that said the same thing," he said.

"While we can't get back there, we need to establish some rules of the road and standards so that our national discourse doesn't degenerate into a million incoherent news bubbles," he added.

Who will make and enforce these "rules of the road" for American speech?

"I will appoint a new News and Information Ombudsman with the power to fine egregious corporate offenders," he said. "One of the main purposes of the Ombudsman will be to identify sources of spurious information that are associated with foreign nationals. The Ombudsman will work with social media companies to identify fraudulent accounts and disable and punish responsible parties. The Ombudsman will be part of the Federal Communications Commission."

Who is this "I" who would appoint a new federal bureaucrat to watch over the nation's online communications?

You may not have heard of Andrew Yang yet, but he is a Democratic presidential candidate. The statements above are posted on his campaign website.

Yang, a New Yorker who founded the nonprofit Venture for America, says he believes in a "free press" — but that the government needs to "start monitoring and punishing bad actors" in this realm.

If not, he argues, "foreign actors" — such as the Russians — might exploit the "freedom of information" in the United States.

"We need a robust free press and exchange of information," Yang says on his campaign website.

"But we should face the reality that fake news and misinformation spread via social media threatens to undermine our democracy and may make it impossible for citizens to make informed decisions on a shared set of facts," he says. "We need to start monitoring and punishing bad actors to give the determined journalists a chance to do their work."

Will the "determined journalists" given a "chance to do their work" by the government monitors envisioned in this plan be those who believe in the principles of limited government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution? Will they be those who respect the laws of nature and nature's God cited in the Declaration of Independence?

On a page entitled "Media Fragmentation," Yang's campaign website reiterates that he favors "freedom of the press" but laments that the press is not united by one set of "shared values."

"Outside of extreme cases of malicious libel, the freedom of the press is inviolate," the page reads. "However, the fragmentation of our media is a growing problem. Different communities are receiving their news exclusively through different channels, resulting in world views with different 'facts' that rarely overlap. We can't decide on shared values if we don't agree on basic facts; we can find shared solutions if we don't even agree what the problems are."

The page lists as a goal of this plan: "Reunify the press."

Around what values does Yang hope to "reunify" the press?

What about life? "As President," he says elsewhere on his website, "I will ... Support a woman's right to choose in every circumstance and provide resources for planning and contraception."

Does he value a "right to choose" in other health care decisions?

"We need to provide high-quality healthcare to all Americans and a single-payer system is the most efficient way to accomplish that," he says.

Recognizing the financial difficulties local newspapers face in this era, Yang also presents some plans for revitalizing local journalism.

The main driver for this? Government.

Government will fund local news organizations. "I will initiate the Local Journalism Fund, a dedicated $1 billion fund operated out of the FCC that will make grants to companies, non-profits and local governments and libraries to help local newspapers, periodicals and websites transition to sustainability in a new era," he says.

And government will fund local journalists. "I will initiate the American Journalism Fellows, through which reporters from each state nominated by a body of industry professionals and selected by a nonpartisan commission will be given a 4-year grant of $400,000 ($100,000 per year) and stationed at a local news organization with the condition that they report on issues relevant to the district during the period of their Fellowship," he says.

In other words, American journalism would become exactly what it should not be: a subsidiary of government.

Journalism's highest calling is to protect individual liberty against unjust government intrusion. Thus, great journalistic institutions fight to protect the rights to life, liberty and property against overreaching government. Those that join with government to infringe on our rights do exactly the opposite of what they ought to do.

They are not defenders of freedom; they are its enemies.

Yang's campaign already has more than 65,000 contributors, the minimum threshold the Democratic Party has set for the maximum of 20 candidates who will be allowed to participate in the first presidential debates scheduled for June and July.

If Yang joins those debates, how many of his rivals will challenge his plan to empower the government to regulate speech?



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


21 March, 2019

Flag Waving California Trump Supporter Gets Pelted In The Head With A Can “Full Of Bong Water”

Only in the land of “tolerance” would a Trump supporter be assaulted with a can “full of bong water.”

Vlogger Ben Bergquam and a number of Trump supporters took to a street corner in Temecula, California on Saturday to wave American flags and rally for the President.

As Bergquam was speaking into his camera, he was hit in the back of the head with an object.

“We drive all around town with these flags,” one of the Trump supporters said. “We get a lot of positive feedback.”

“You know it’s funny, people think of California as all crazy liberals that have lost their minds—” Bergquam was adding just as he got hit. “Well, there’s one of them right there!” he exclaimed, bouncing back from the head shot.

“So a guy just threw a soda can at me and hit me in the back of the head,” Bergquam continued line an intrepid reporter.

He then walked back to the evidence laying on the sidewalk. “This is the left there, guys, perfect example of the left, right there, full soda can,” he continued as the camera showed the crushed can on the cement.

“That’s not soda,” a woman said in the background. “No, it’s like bong water,” Bergquam responded as he smelled the liquid.

“This is how pathetic these guys are, guys. So this guy just came by, had this bong water in his car…” Bergquam said as someone added, “Threw it at kids.”

“This is the kind of disrespect we have in our country,” Bergquam said. “You know what thought? It doesn’t stop us. “It only gives us courage to keep going.”

Bergquam said he was keeping the cherry 7UP can to remind himself how “pathetic” the left is. “A perfect illustration: an empty can full of bong water,” he said.


Covington Teen Could Win His Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN

First Washington Post, now CNN

Nicholas Sandmann and his parents have followed up their defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post with one filed Tuesday against CNN. Sandmann, you’ll recall, is one of the Covington Catholic High School students savaged by the left after attending this year’s March for Life in Washington.

Can Sandmann prevail against the Cable News Network? Just as with The Washington Post, the answer is “yes.”

The suit charges that CNN “has maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president.” This is significant because his lawyers are alleging that CNN targeted Sandmann simply because he was “wearing a souvenir Make America Great Again cap.”

For seven days in January, says the lawsuit, CNN “brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.”

The lawsuit accuses CNN of at least four defamatory TV broadcasts and nine defamatory online articles falsely accusing Sandmann and his fellow students of “engaging in racist conduct by instigating a threatening confrontation with several African American men (‘the Black Hebrew Israelites’) and subsequently instigating a threatening confrontation with Native Americans who were in the midst of prayer.”

Moreover, CNN asserted that Sandmann and his fellow students displayed a “racis[t] mob mentality” and “looked like they were going to lynch” the Black Hebrew Israelites who were merely “preaching about the Bible nearby” because “they didn’t like the color of their skin” and “their religious views.”

The lawsuit also claims that CNN falsely accused Sandmann and his classmates of surrounding Native American activist Nathan Phillips, creating “a really dangerous situation” that caused Phillips to “fear for his safety and the safety of those with him” as the teenagers “harassed and taunted” him.

Full-length videos of the scene showed that none of this was true. In fact, as the lawsuit points out, it was the Black Hebrew Israelites who “bullied, attacked, and confronted” the students with racist and homophobic slurs and threats of violence.

The videos also show that it was Phillips who forced his way into the student group and then “proceeded to target” Sandmann, not the other way around.

The lawsuit says CNN defamed Sandmann because it “elevated false, heinous accusations of racist conduct” against him “from social media to its worldwide news platform without adhering to well-established journalist standards and ethics, including its failure to take the required steps to ensure accuracy, fairness, completeness, fact-checking, neutrality, and heightened sensitivity when dealing with a minor.”

Sandmann’s lawyers call CNN’s coverage “agenda-driven fiction” that “created an extremely dangerous situation by knowingly triggering the outrage of its audience and unleashing that outrage” on Sandmann and his classmates with “patently false accusations.” They even cite CNN political analyst Bakari Sellers as “openly” calling for “physical violence on Twitter.”

Moreover, the suit notes that, as of the date of filing, CNN has never “issued a formal retraction, correction or an apology” for its false coverage.

The lawsuit asks for $75 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to “deter CNN from ever again engaging in false, reckless, malicious, and agenda-driven attacks against children in violation of well-recognized journalist standards and ethics.”

The complaint is almost 60 pages long and describes in great detail the disparities between CNN’s reporting and what actually happened on Jan. 18 in front of the Lincoln Memorial. And that is the key to winning a successful defamation suit—showing false factual claims as opposed to expressions of opinion, no matter how unfair or unjustified.

When compared to the mistakes The Washington Post made, Sandmann seems to have an even stronger case against CNN, which seemed to go all out to vilify Sandmann.

Since Sandmann would not be considered a “public figure” under applicable Supreme Court precedent, he doesn’t have to prove that CNN knew the statements were false, just that they were false. Sandmann’s lawyers make a strong case, though, that CNN acted with “actual malice” and that the network’s behavior was so “outrageous and willful” and such a violation of basic journalistic standards that punitive damages should be awarded.

Interestingly, one of the lawyers representing Sandmann is Lin Wood, the same lawyer who represented Richard Jewell. Jewell was the security guard at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics who was wrongly accused by CNN and other media companies of bombing the city’s Olympic Park. When CNN was sued for defamation, it agreed to pay Jewell an undisclosed amount. That settlement came shortly after NBC agreed to pay Jewell a reported half-million dollars.

Pursuing one media giant after another as Sandmann and his family are doing is the very same strategy that Wood followed in the Jewell Olympic bombing case. CNN may lawyer up and spend a great deal of time and money fighting this case. On the other hand, it may decide to quickly settle, just as it did after defaming Jewell.


Hungary for More: ‘Making Families Great Again’

On Thursday, it was my honor to speak at an event here in Washington called, “Making Families Great Again: The Role of Family and Marriage in Modern Society.” This was not unusual for a pro-family group. What was unusual was the sponsor — the Embassy of Hungary.

The relatively small nation of Hungary (population 10 million) has emerged in recent years, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as an international leader in promoting pro-family policies. FRC’s Travis Weber and Peter Sprigg attended the World Congress of Families held in Budapest in 2017, and that began a relationship which has continued with several subsequent meetings at the Embassy and at FRC with visiting Hungarian dignitaries.

Thursday’s event brought together both Hungarian and American thought leaders on these issues for further discussions. I participated in a panel asking, “What is the role of governments and civil society in supporting families?” Hungary’s policies were described by Katalin Novak, Hungary’s Minister of State for Family Affairs, who was a chief organizer of the World Congress in Budapest and has been a guest on the “Washington Watch” radio show. Hungary, like many developed countries, faced a demographic crisis brought on by declining birth rates. However, in less than a decade they have turned the trend around with a range of subsidies and policies to encourage couples to have children.

I noted that in the U.S., we are more likely to use indirect measures such as the child tax credit, rather than direct subsidies, to accomplish such goals. I commended the Hungarians for putting in their constitution the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the recognition of human life as beginning at conception. As a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, I also praised Hungary for its commitment to religious liberty and the defense of persecuted Christians around the world. We look forward to continuing to work with Ambassador Laszlo Szabo, the government of Hungary, and our other pro-family, pro-religious freedom allies around the world.


Australia: Egg Boy is no more a hero than the NZ gunman is

Who benefits from violence?

Joe Hildebrand

One of the rare moments of beauty amid the brutality of the Christchurch massacre was the universality of the response.

The chorus of condemnation across the planet was swift and sure. Every mainstream political leader and media outlet was unequivocal in branding the atrocity a clear act of terrorism by a right-wing extremist. Every decent heart broke and bled for the victims and Muslim people everywhere.

And yet it didn’t take long for the wounds to be infected with the nastiness and pettiness of opportunists once more using dead bodies as political pawns.

First came the nutters and neo-Nazis on the right trying to blame the left or immigration levels or Muslims themselves for the massacre — as though it was the victims’ fault for simply being there or some governmental or social fault for pushing this madman to become a murderer.

On the matter of the broader political issue, they are simply wrong — factually, rationally and demonstrably. On the matter of the specific criminal issue, they are both wrong and repugnant — utterly, utterly, utterly so.

And then came the keyboard warriors of the hard left who sought to blame it on Scott Morrison or John Howard or whoever else is in the grab-bag of conservative bogeymen they reflexively dip into.

I am usually deliberately coy about my political leanings but today I am going to break that golden rule as a reward for anyone with the temperance to read this far: I have never voted conservative in my life.

However to accuse conservative politicians or commentators of being complicit in mass murder — let alone a sitting prime minister who has been unwavering in his condemnation of it as an act of right-wing terrorism — is not just absurd, it is ugly.

At a time when we should be seeking common ground it is the ultimate act of narcissism to sow further division for the sake of a few retweets.

And then there is Egg Boy.

For what it’s worth, I have a pretty long and public history of exposing racists, white supremacists and associated f**kwits.

Anyone who genuinely cares about such issues would probably know this.

And I have also been pretty clear and public in my condemnation of the likes of Fraser Anning, who holds the rare and soon to be short-lived position of being perhaps the first elected politician who is too right-wing for One Nation.

But I am also pretty sure that the solution to Mr Anning’s particular brand of idiocy is not to smash eggs into the back of his head.

For one thing, it doesn’t take much for Mr Anning’s rambling nonsensical world view to fall apart, nor that of the nutbag white nationalists he is now desperately trying to court.

Both disintegrate at the first stiff breeze of a rational argument.

Indeed, the only language they can engage with is that of dumb slogans and street clashes.

They cannot and don’t want to engage with mainstream political debate because they are simply not intellectually equipped to.

Instead, their whole modus operandi is twofold, each of which is contradictory to the other.

The first is to provoke a violent response from the left so they can paint themselves as good old fashioned Aussies speaking up for the silent majority but being attacked and shut down by crazy PC left-wing extremists.

The second, because they are such an infinitesimally small minority, is to get any publicity they can at all costs.

Egg Boy gave them both of those things in one hit. Literally.

I’m sure he’s not a bad kid — indeed, when I was exactly his age I was out protesting neo-Nazis too, just without the ovoid ammunition.

But the idea he is a national hero is at best silly and at worst an insult to the families of 50 dead Muslims whose suffering is unlikely to be soothed by a teenager smacking a right-wing douchebag on the back of the head.

Indeed both the episode itself and the social media celebrations that followed seem a grotesquely cheerful sideshow to such a dark and dangerous tragedy.

Moreover, it will only excite far-right extremists further and fuel their perverse sense of victimhood.

Instead of being frozen out of the mainstream and consigned to impotence and irrelevancy they are now riding high on a wave of publicity thanks to this dumb stunt and re-equipped with the figleaf argument that it is they who are under attack.

It also demeans the gravity of the threat we face.

Is this really how we’re going to combat terrorism and extremism? A fight between good and evil determined by which side can throw the most food at the other?

Worse, it’s exactly the same type of dumb logic the terrorists and extremists use.

Of course it’s at the opposite end of the spectrum but it’s still the same spectrum. If egging Fraser Anning is the act of a hero then who else is fair game? Pauline Hanson? Peter Dutton? Tony Abbott? Malcolm Turnbull?

Bill Shorten criticised Egg Boy so does he deserve to be egged as a result?

Michael Daley has just been accused of making racist comment so should he be egged in the back of the head?

And what other weapons are permissible in this war? Tomatoes? Potatoes? Potato guns? BB guns?

Where do we draw the line? And who draws it? As the man in the joke said, we already know what this is. It’s just a matter of degrees.

The good news is that democracy will do its job on Fraser Anning.

Even amid the crude and volatile primordial soup of politics we are now drowning in he will almost certainly be excommunicated at the next election.

Ironically, his only hope for political survival is getting the sort of publicity and sympathy the egging gave him.

But as for the rest of liberal democracy you can almost set your watch to its self-destruction.

As long as the people who suppose themselves as the saviours of humanity keep casting anyone they don’t agree with as a neo-Nazi and as long as what was once the sensible centre keeps tearing itself apart then we don’t have to worry about the terrorists winning — they will have already won.

Because when we are reduced to stupid acts of violence and surprise attacks, however seemingly mild they might be, we are reduced to their language. We are reduced to their playing field. We are reduced to their level.

Is that really what we are?



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


20 March, 2019

Waging War Against the Dead
The 21st century is in danger of becoming an era of statue smashing and historical erasure. Not since the iconoclasts of the Byzantine Empire or the epidemic of statue destruction during the French Revolution has the world seen anything like the current war on the past.

In 2001, the primeval Taliban blew up two ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan on grounds that their very existence was sacrilegious to Islam.

In 2015, ISIS militants entered a museum in Mosul, Iraq, and destroyed ancient, pre-Islamic statues and idols. Their mute crime? These artifacts predated the prophet Muhammad.

The West prides itself in the idea that liberal societies would never descend into such nihilism. Think again.

In the last two years there has been a rash of statue toppling throughout the American South, aimed at wiping out memorialization of Confederate heroes. The pretense is that the Civil War can only be regarded as tragic in terms of the present oppression of the descendants of Southern slaves — 154 years after the extinction of the Confederate states.

There is also a renewed crusade to erase the memory of Italian explorer Christopher Columbus. Los Angeles removed a Columbus statue in November based on the premise that his 1492 discovery of the Americas began a disastrous genocide in the Western Hemisphere.

Last month, the Northern California town of Arcata did away with a statue of former president William McKinley because he supposedly pushed policies detrimental to Native Americans.

There have been some unfortunate lessons from such vendettas against the images and names of the past.

One, such attacks usually revealed a lack of confidence. The general insecurity of the present could supposedly be remedied by destroying mute statutes or the legacies of the dead, who could offer no rebuttal.

The subtext of most current name changing and icon toppling is that particular victimized groups blame their current plight on the past. They assume that by destroying long-dead supposed enemies, they will be liberated — or at least feel better in the present.

Yet knocking down images of Columbus will not change the fact that millions of indigenous people in Central America and Mexico are currently abandoning their ancestral homelands and emigrating northward to quite different landscapes that reflect European and American traditions and political, economic and cultural values.

Two, opportunism, not logic, always seems to determine the targets of destruction.

This remains true today. If mass slaughter in the past offered a reason to obliterate remembrance of the guilty, then certainly sports teams should drop brand names such as “Aztecs.” Likewise, communities should topple statues honoring various Aztec gods, including the one in my own hometown: Selma, Calif.

After all, the Aztec Empire annually butchered thousands of innocent women and children captives on the altars of their hungry gods. The Aztecs were certainly far crueler conquerors, imperialists and colonialists than was former President McKinley. Yet apparently the Aztecs, as indigenous peoples, earn a pass on the systematic mass murder of their enslaved indigenous subjects.

Stanford University has changed the name of two buildings and a mall that had been named for Father Junipero Serra, the heroic 18th century Spanish founder of the California missions. Serra was reputed to be unkind to the indigenous people whom he sought to convert to Christianity.

Stanford students and faculty could have found a much easier target in their war against the dead: the eponymous founder of their university, Leland Stanford himself. Stanford was a 19th century railroad robber baron who brutally imported and exploited Asian labor and was explicit in his low regard for non-white peoples.

Yet it is one thing to virtue-signal by renaming a building and quite another for progressive students to rebrand their university — and thereby lose the prestigious Stanford trademark that is seen as their gateway to career advancement.

Third, in the past there usually has been a cowardly element to historical erasure. Destruction was often done at night by roving vandals, or was sanctioned by extremist groups who bullied objectors.

So too in the present. Many Confederate statues were torn down or defaced at night. City councils voted to change names or remove icons after being bullied by small pressure groups and media hysteria. They rarely referred the issue to referenda.

Four, ignorance both accompanies and explains the arrogance of historical erasure, past and present.

Recently, vandals in North Carolina set fire to a statue of General Lee. But they got the wrong Lee. Their target was not a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, but a statue of World War II Maj. Gen. William C. Lee, who campaigned for the creation of a U.S. Army airborne division and helped plan the invasion of Normandy.

The past is not a melodrama but more often a tragedy. Destroying history will not make you feel good about the present. Studying and learning from it might.


Abortion: New Mexico Exposes Big Canyons on Left

New Mexico’s bill was supposed to be a slam dunk. But after New York, nothing on abortion is a sure thing — not anymore. In a country that saw a 17-point jump in the number of pro-lifers since January, it’s no wonder that state Democrats are taking a good hard look at their positions, especially on late-term abortion. Americans have changed — and it looks like smart politicians are changing with them.

No one was more surprised by Thursday night’s vote than Governor (and abortion extremist) Michelle Lujan Grisham (D). After the House had sent the bill on with a 40-29 vote, the Democrats’ stranglehold on the Senate was supposed to mean that the New York-style H.B. 51 was a done deal. But despite the party’s 26-16 edge, the vote fell far from party lines. In a stunning victory for pro-lifers, eight Democrats crossed over — killing a bill that would have legalized infanticide and given abortionists the right to destroy babies up to the moment of birth.

Governor Grisham, who hadn’t counted on the intense lobbying from pastors and state conservatives, was astounded. “That… it was even a debate, much less a difficult vote for some senators, is inexplicable to me,” she told reporters. By a 24-18 tally, Democratic Senators Pete Campos, Carlos Cisneros, Richard Martinez, George Muñoz, Senate President Pro Tem Mary Kay Papen, Ramos, Clemente “Meme” Sanchez, and John Arthur Smith proved what a complicated issue abortion is becoming — even in liberal states.

During an emotional debate, some Democrats struggled to come up with a reason why New Mexico should leave perfectly healthy babies on a hospital table to die. Senator Ramos of Silver City told his chamber, “This is one of the toughest decisions any of us will ever have to make.” But, he went on, “I stand unified against legislation that weakens the defense of life and threatens the dignity of the human being.” While others sometimes spoke through tears, the tension inside the Democratic caucus was obvious.

In one strained exchange, two Democrats squared off against each other. Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino of Albuquerque quoted St. Antoninus to justify why Catholics should feel free to vote for the bill. “The importance of individual choice is what the church has always taught,” he said. Senator Ramos demanded to know which Catholic Church he was talking about. “Mine does not approve of abortion,” Ramos said. Then, to his colleagues he said simply, “Vote your conscience.”

Thank goodness many did. Their courage dealt one of the most significant blows of the year to the extreme abortion camp. When she was asked, one dazed senator could only say, “We did expect more to be voting in favor — and it didn’t turn out that way.” Deep blue states like Maryland and Virginia share her surprise. There, similar proposals have been shelved because of the intense divides on late-term abortion. Even in Illinois, whose governor is vying to be the “pro-abortion state in the union,” a New York-style measure stalled after four cosponsors asked to be removed from the bill.

The landscape is shifting — and fast. In a country where outlawing third-trimester abortion is a 70-percent issue for pro-choicers, it would appear that Hill Democrats aren’t just outside the mainstream. They’re in no man’s land. These Members of Congress need to hear from you! Check out EndBirthdayAbortion.com and tell them to take action.


Public policy should support mothers who choose to stay at home


LET’S start behind a veil of ignorance, knowing nothing about the resources, abilities, or social position of your children. You must pick, based on nothing but your knowledge of a country’s economic and political system, one of the world’s 196 nations in which to bring up a family. Is the United States the country where you would choose to be a parent? Through much of the 20th century, I suspect, the answer would have been a quick yes. But the threads of our economic system, based on an outmoded male-breadwinner model, are becoming worn.

We see the strain everywhere, from the dual earners in the exurbs trying to keep up with the Joneses to the worker who could never dream of supporting a family on his stagnant paycheck. America, as we frequently hear bemoaned, is the only OECD country without a federal paid-leave program. The average cost of child care here now exceeds that of in-state college tuition in many states. Universal pre-K has been rolled out from New York City to Washington, D.C., with more cities and states interested in following suit.

These ideas, and others like them, often focus on the needs of working parents who are trying to balance the competing demands of workplace and children. As a result, our discussions often seem unsatisfyingly one-size-fits-all. People who set the agendas at think tanks or cable networks tend to be the kind of hard-charging types who did well in school and then found a career they derive meaning from; they try their best to advance professionally while being there for children on the home front.

But for most American parents—those who have a job, not a career, those who scrape to make ends meet but wish they didn’t have to—paid leave and child-care subsidies are answers to questions they’re not asking. Our political class studiously contemplates how to help women “have it all.” What if we made it easier for moms to lean out?

AS of the 20th century, the percentage of stay-at-home moms concurrently dropped before leveling off in the early 1990s. Since then, Census Bureau statistics show that the fraction of households with a mom at home has stayed fairly steady, perhaps even increasing over the past decade. Today, 5 million moms (just under a quarter of married mothers in America, and about 11 percent of all mothers) meet the traditional definition of a stay-at-home mom—out of the work force while their spouse works as the breadwinner.

(There are also 209,000 stay-at-home dads. In the interest of full disclosure: I was one myself for a year. But such fathers are, in effect, a rounding error, so throughout this piece I’ll refer to stay-at-home moms.)

These mothers tend to be white, with a high-school diploma or less, but they’re not homogeneous; Hispanic moms are more likely be at home, and roughly a quarter of stay-at-home moms in 2012 were college graduates. They tend to be younger—42 percent are younger than 35. And they have younger kids—60 percent of married mothers with children under three are in the labor force, compared with 76 percent of those with children ages six to 17.

In 2014, Pew found that fully one-third of stay-at-home moms live in poverty, though as NATIONAL REVIEW’s Robert Verbruggen and Wendy Wang have pointed out for the Institute for Family Studies, that is partially a consequence of having only one income to support the family.

Verbruggen and Wang find a “U-shaped curve between a mother’s chances of being out of the labor force and her husband’s earned income,” so families with male earnings that are both higher and lower than the median have higher rates of moms staying at home.

Some of this is probably due to what sociologists call “assortative mating,” with individuals marrying partners who have similar potential earnings in the labor market. Women married to high earners might stay at home at higher rates because additional income is not vital for the household to make ends meet, just as moms weighing a low-wage job might decide the work’s not worth it when they calculate the crippling cost of child care.

But the high fraction of moms in the work force at the middle of the income distribution could be a result of our economic system’s forcing parents into what some have called a “two-income trap,” in which both must work if they are to maintain their desired standard of living.

BELTWAY and Wall Street types seem to believe that it’s best for a family to have two working parents. Surveys of the general population tell a much different story. In a 2015 Gallup poll, 56 percent of women with a child younger than 18 said they would ideally like to stay home and care for their house and family. Even among mothers who were currently working full- or part-time, 54 percent wished they could stay home, but couldn’t. In a 2013 Pew poll, only 7 percent of mothers of young kids said they believed that the “ideal situation” was for mothers in their position to work full-time, and nearly half of working moms (47 percent) said their “ideal” would be to work part-time.

Most Americans agree that kids would do best with a parent at home. Clearly, there are many moms whose vision of “having it all” does not include a full-time job, although they are forced into the work force through economic necessity. In our economic system, continuous employment is expected, full-time work is prioritized, and benefits are tied to unbroken longevity.

That arrangement is uniquely unsuited to the desire of women—and some men—who want to balance the demands of early parenthood with career advancement or with just putting bread on the table. Many women are pursuing both a high-power career and a meaningful family life, and they deserve more support from industry and society.


Australia. At last! Scott Morrison is set to slash Australia's immigration intake by 30,000 people a year

Still too high

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is preparing to slash Australia's immigration intake. A cap of 160,000 people per year is expected to be introduced, setting an official limit for the first time and dropping the average annual intake from 190,000.

The government's Expenditure Review Committee has approved the Coalition's broader population policies, The Australian reported.

Mr Morrison has also defended reviving the population debate so soon after the Christchurch terror attacks, where the alleged gunman is accused of harbouring hate against Muslim immigrants.  

The prime minister said discussions about population should not be 'hijacked' by other debates on race or tolerance.  

Mr Morrison said he did not agree with people calling for less migration because of fears about immigrants causing terrorist attacks. 'This debate about population growth and migration has nothing to do with those other issues that have been the subject of recent focus.'

The prime minister said discussions about population should not be 'hijacked' by other debates on race or tolerance. 'We've seen what happens when these important practical debates are hijacked by these other extremist views, which occur from both the right and from the left,' he said.

'I'm determined to not see the serious population growth management issues taken off course, to be hijacked by those who want to push other agendas. 'I have no purchase in those agendas, I have no truck with those agendas, and I denounce them absolutely.'  

'The worst example being the despicable appropriation of concerns about immigration as a justification for a terrorist atrocity,' he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

However, he also said calling for limits on immigration levels did not make someone a racist. 'Such views have rightly been denounced. But equally, so too must the imputation that the motivation for supporting moderated immigration levels is racial hatred,' he said. 

Mr Morrison said debate about the number of migrants moving to Australia each year was not related to the value of immigration to the country.

'Just because Australians are frustrated about traffic jams and population pressures encroaching on their quality of life, especially in this city, does not mean they are anti-migrant or racist,' he said.

A regional settlement policy - which will require people in the general skilled migrant scheme to live in cities other than Sydney and Melbourne for at least five years - has also been approved by cabinet.  

Labor frontbencher Mark Butler said the policy appeared to be the status quo. 'If Scott Morrison has some detail he wants to show to us or the Australian community, obviously we'd be willing to look at it,' he told ABC Radio National.

The government has also been hinting at spreading migrants across the states and territories to ease pressure on infrastructure, without outlining any concrete details about how this would work.

Its policies are expected to centre on forcing skilled migrants to live for at least five years in cities other than Sydney or Melbourne, and enticing university students into regional towns.



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


19 March, 2019

Why the left is blaming Trump, whites for New Zealand shooting

At least 50 people were killed at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and dozens more injured in a mass shooting. Brenton Tarrant, 28, has been charged with murder.

President Trump condemned the “evil killings.” The president also took to Twitter to extend his condolences: “My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!”

But the president’s words weren’t enough to satisfy the corrupt liberal media and Democrat sycophants who desperately want to tie Trump to this evil act. Immediately after the shooting, the liberal media, led by CNN, got their talking points and started blaming Trump for the massacre. It was an orchestrated media frenzy to scapegoat Trump instead of the actual perpetrators of this heinous crime, just as they falsely accused him of defending white nationalists at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

In a manifesto posted online, the New Zealand shooter reportedly expressed support for Trump as “a symbol of renewed white identity,” but he strongly disapproved of Trump as a policy maker and leader. Yet the liberal media picked the one line that mentions Trump and are using it to push a false narrative, while omitting extensive quotes which show that the shooter is not a conservative, not a Trump supporter, not a Christian, and not a capitalist. In fact, he has far more in common with the likes of Obama and Clinton than with Trump.

Democrats, in conjunction with radical Muslim groups and their allies in the media, are setting the stage for a scorched-earth campaign to destroy President Trump ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Nihad Awad, the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), blamed President Trump for a “sharp rise” in Islamophobia after the mosque attacks in New Zealand.

CNN analyst, Kirsten Powers – who turned on Fox News and Bill O’Reilly after using the network to build her career – also blamed Trump. Powers said on CNN that Trump chooses to encourage and inspire “white nationalism.” CNN anchor John Berman also tried multiple times to get Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Iowa, to pin part of the blame on Trump.

Hollywood liberals didn’t waste any time piling on.

“F*** that pathological liar/criminal,” declared “Say Anything” star John Cusack in response to the president’s words. The actor also tweeted, “The only way democracy survives him [Trump] – is if he rots in prison. Let’s get on with it.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., – who lied about serving in Vietnam – blamed the president’s tough words against illegal immigration for the shootings.

As reported by Paul Sperry, America averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on Obama’s watch. Yet, liberals didn’t blame Obama for the terror attacks committed by Muslims on his watch: In 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a mass shooting inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In 2015, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building and killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. In 2009, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan – a devout Muslim – opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.

Christians were attacked on a regular basis during Obama’s presidency and the media didn’t blame him, even though Obama did very little to defend Christians.

In addition to discrediting Trump ahead of 2020, the liberal media and Democrats want to ban guns and take away our Second Amendment rights. Their lies and misinformation are changing gun laws in New Zealand. In the wake of the Christchurch mosque shootings, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinta Ardern promised to tighten gun laws.

The liberal media and Democrats don’t want the president to be tough on illegal immigration. They recoil when he refers to himself as a nationalist who puts America first. I too am a nationalist. I love my country and I want the big beautiful border wall, and I want these illegal aliens to be shipped back to their country.

If you are white – especially a conservative Christian straight male – leftists will call you everything but a child of God to silence you. There is no such thing as “racism,” “sexism,” “islamophobia-ism,” or “deadbeatdad-ism.” These are labels created by the children of the lie to intimidate and control. We can’t adopt their language. Stop using their words, and drop your resentment (anger) so words and name-calling will cease to control you.

Our battle is spiritual: right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. President Trump understands this better than any president or public figure that I have seen in my lifetime.

The media and the Democrats are relentless in their efforts to destroy Trump and enslave us by taking away our freedoms. The children of the lie serve their father the devil, and it’s their nature to lie and destroy good. Christians must understand this and be bold in speech and action in defense of freedom and support for this president.


Denmark gets it

New legislation providing for what has been described by its proponents as a ‘paradigm shift’ in Denmark’s refugee and asylum policy was passed by parliament on Thursday.

The government, the Danish People’s Party and the Social Democrats all voted in favour of the legislation, which has been the subject of criticism by humanitarian organisations.

A key aspect of the bill is its shift in focus from integration to future repatriation in Denmark’s approach to those who seek refuge in the country, including UN quota refugees and others who do not have permanent status.

Minister for Immigration and Integration Inger Støjberg said that she did not know how many refugees would be sent to home countries as a result of the new legislation.

“We expect a tangible effect. But this is obviously not something we can put a figure on,” she said in parliament.

The Social Democrats, the largest opposition party, voted in favour of the bill despite having stated they did not agree with parts of it, such as a reduction in a social welfare benefit, integrationsydelsen, which people granted asylum are given.

Mattias Tesfaye, who is the party’s spokesperson for immigration, said he supported the general concept of moving towards a temporary status for all refugees.

“People will be given the more honest message that their stay in Denmark is temporary,” Tesfaye said.

Other opposition parties were critical of the new rules.

“The essence of this is about making life harder and more unpleasant for people who have come here to escape Assad’s barrel bombs and the sex slavery and terror of Islamic State,” Red-Green Alliance spokesperson Pelle Dragsted said.

Støjberg compared disagreement between opposition parties over asylum and refugees to an “abyss”.

“It is utterly clear that, if there is a (left wing) majority after the (general) election [to be held no later than June this year, ed.], then immigration will become a battlefield and risks sinking into chaos,” the minister said.

The ‘paradigm shift’ is a term used to describe government and Danish People’s Party policy and law changes which have sought to reduce the number of refugees who remain in Denmark permanently. Around 90 percent currently do so after being given asylum, Ritzau writes.

Refugees should be sent home when conditions in their countries of origin are deemed safe enough for this to occur, according to the policy.


Liberal Protestors Say They Would Rather Have Venezuelan Dictator Maduro Than President Trump

On Saturday, hundreds of far Left protesters gathered in Washington D.C to show their support for the Venezuelan Socialist dictator Nicolas Maduro.

These protesters, who are known as the “Hands Off Venezuela” group, not only think the radical socialist is a good leader, but also stated that they would rather have Maduro as president than Donald Trump. Keep in mind that Maduro is the reason why Venezuela is in a financial and humanitarian crisis and also the reason why the citizens of Venezuela are resorting to eating their pet animals so they don’t starve.

The group’s website accuses the Trump administration of attempting to “engineer a coup” and “create a war in Venezuela,” despite the fact that most Latin American countries are backing the opposition leader Juan Guaido.

The “Hands Off Venezuela!” protests have been happening in cities across the country, including in New York City and Los Angeles.

It’s no secret that the Left is becoming more and more unhinged and the fact that they support a leader like Maduro is appalling. The fact is, the Trump administration is NOT trying to create a war in Venezuela. The Trump administration has made it clear that they are trying to help the nation by sending in supplies (which were intercepted by Maduro’s forces) for the dying Venezuelans.

It’s shocking that this group wants Maduro as president considering the socialist dictator can’t even keep the lights on in his country. Last week, we reported on the nationwide blackout in Venezuela:

The absence of electricity has sent the country into total chaos and 17 people have been announced dead.

Of these 17 people, 9 were waiting on emergency medical attention which was hindered by the blackout.

“The outage is by far the longest in decades. In 2013, Caracas and 17 of the country’s 23 states were hit by a six-hour blackout, while in 2018 eight states suffered a 10-hour power outage, government officials said at the time,” Reuters reported Sunday. Of the 23 states in Venezuela, six are completely without energy. Imagine if 25% of America didn’t have electricity!

The outage started at the Guri damn which is where much of the country’s electricity comes from. Maduro originally called the blackout “sabotage” even though it is unclear exactly how the blackout started in the first place.

Many suspect it is because of the eroding infrastructure. Just some good ole socialism for you!

This blackout was responsible for many deaths and the suffering of innocent babies in the hospitals who had to be hand fanned by nurses so they didn’t die from over-heating.

This is what America has to look forward to if we decide to elect more socialists to office. It’s appalling that a group like “Hands Off Venezuela” not only doesn’t want to help the collapsing country, but also would rather have Maduro as president instead of Trump. Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to be getting worse!


Man Awarded 1.8 Million After Being Falsely Accused Of Rape

Justice can be really sweet… and in some cases, lucrative. That’s the case for Vladek Filler, who was recently awarded almost 1.8 million dollars for false rape allegations.

As reported by the Daily Wire:

Vladek Filler was accused of sexually assaulting his wife, Ligia, in April 2007, who told police he had attacked her repeatedly since 2005. At the time of this accusation, and Vladek’s arrest, he and his wife were going through a divorce and battling for custody of their children.

During the divorce, Vladek told his wife he planned to move to Georgia with their two sons to be closer to his mother. After that, according to the University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations (NRE), Ligia “ran into the street from the family home holding one of the boys, yelling that she wanted to kill her husband for molesting and abusing their children and that she feared he would kill their 12-year-old son.”

That’s a whole lot of evidence, without a whole lot of evidence. In a #metoo world, though, a lot of evidence isn’t really needed. And unfortunately, this doesn’t usually turn out well for the male that finds himself falsely accused. Be as it may, Vladek was wrongfully convicted.

As reported by the Daily Wire:

Vladek’s case wouldn’t go to trial until January 2009, and by that time, a social services investigation found no evidence of child abuse. Ligia testified at trial that Vladek would become angry and force her to have sex with him, one time allegedly because she used his bank account to pay for her haircut. She also claimed Vladek physically assaulted her.

“A physician testified that he could find no signs of sexual abuse. A police officer testified that Ligia had a bruise on her arm which she said was the result of Filler’s abuse,” it says on the NRE.

During trial, Vladek’s defense attorney argued that Ligia only made the claims when it became clear there would be a custody battle, but prosecutor Mary Kellett claimed there was no evidence of such.

Vladek was found guilty of one count of gross sexual assault and two counts of misdemeanor assault.

It’s no shocker that this was allowed to happen, since we’ve created a world where false allegations go unpunished. Don’t believe me?

As reported by Quartz:

Furthermore, in the most detailed study ever conducted of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000’s, out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false.

So how did Vladek Filler get so lucky?  What exonerated him?

As reported by the Daily Wire:

Defense attorneys argued for a new trial, claiming Kellett made improper arguments to the jury. A new trial was granted, over prosecution objections.

Prior to the new trial in 2011, Vladek’s divorce was finalized. The divorce court found no evidence that Vladek raped his wife or abused his children, but did find that Ligia abused the children, made false accusations that they were molested, and publicly threatened to kill her husband.

Vladek was tried again in May 2011, and this time found guilty on one misdemeanor assault charge and sentenced to 21 days in jail. After this conviction was upheld, Vladek filed a complaint to the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, alleging Kellett had broken bar rules.

It turns out Kellett had objected to the evidence that would show the custody battle. She also withheld exculpatory evidence of interactions Ligia had with police around the times she claims she was assaulted and made no mention of abuse. Kellett also withheld evidence where Ligia admitted to police that the bruise on her arm had appeared three days after Vladek allegedly abused her.

Kellett admitted in 2013 that she violated rules by making an improper argument and withholding exculpatory evidence. She was suspended for one month, but that was vacated and she was allowed her to go through six hours of legal education instead. She’s one of the few prosecutors — and the first in the state of Maine — to be sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct.

Vladek was finally exonerated in 2015, and he filed a federal lawsuit against those that handled his case, after he discovered more evidence was withheld. A nurse who interviewed Ligia told her to cry during testimony to make her claims more believable. This part was edited out of a recording of the interview.

In the end, Vladek settled out of court for $375,000 and was also able to get justice from the evil nurse that knowingly lied about him, even after watching him serving 21 days in jail.

As reported by Red State:

In light of Vladek’s “living nightmare,” a district judge in Maine has now ordered the noxious nurse to fork over $1.77 million in damages.

Justice is sweet, at least in this case. But what about all the other 8% that don’t get justice?  Are we content to leave men at the mercy of the #metoo mob?



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


18 March, 2019

New Zealand: the barbarism of identity politics

The relentless reduction of people to cultural beings is unleashing terrible conflict.

The obscene act of racist mass murder in New Zealand has shocked the world. The massacre of 49 human beings will always be a deeply disturbing act. But the fact that these human beings were shot to death in their place of worship feels especially horrific. Mown down in their religious sanctuary, as they cowered in corners, desperately trying to avoid being murdered, according to press descriptions of the shooter’s livestream of his heinous deed. This is an attack on Muslims, on religious freedom, and on humanity, and every decent person will want to offer their condolences and solidarity to the people of New Zealand.

As we offer our solidarity, we also want to try to understand why things like this happen. Understandably, there has been a rush to locate this barbaric act within a broader political framework. Sadly, this has given rise to a speedy and ghoulish exploitation of the atrocity to make political mileage. Already observers are pinning the blame on certain right-wing commentators, or on the Western media more broadly, claiming that criticism of Muslim immigration or of Islam generates this kind of violent hatred. Already some are calling for clampdowns on Islamophobia and for the expunging from the internet of certain hard-right voices. It will strike many of us, especially those of us who are humanists, as perverse and disturbing that people would so swiftly use a bloody act to further their own narrow agendas of social control and censorship; that they would use a massacre almost as an exclamation point to their already existing demands for the demonisation and punishment of particular opinions. It is cynical and inhuman.

Furthermore, it feels wrong. To fold this barbarism into a narrative about a surging threat of white supremacy or even Islamophobia overlooks what feels terrifyingly mainstream about the ideas that appear to have energised and inspired this racist mass murderer – namely, the politics of identity. To read the killer’s alleged manifesto, as currently being covered by CNN, the New York Times and others, is to gain a horrible glimpse into the cultural fragmentation and racial paranoia unleashed by the relentless rise of identitarianism. Increasingly, it feels like the New Zealand atrocity is what happens when the politics of identity, the reduction of everyone to cultural or racial creatures whose relationship with other cultural and racial cultures must be monitored and managed, comes to be the only game in public life.

The killer seems to see himself as little more than a cultural being. In his seeming manifesto he professes commitment to the warped ethos of ethno-nationalism and continually refers to himself as white. He can see no identity for himself beyond the one he inherited by birth. Strikingly, the killer appears to say that his attack was done in the name of diversity – he says he wants ‘diverse peoples to remain diverse’, meaning identity groups must remain ‘separate, unique, undiluted, unrestrained in… cultural expression’. This sounds chillingly similar to the separatist ethos of the identitarian outlook, in which ‘cultural appropriation’ is a sin and anyone who seeks to speak up for other races or cultures risks being reprimanded with the words, ‘Stay in your lane’. The killer’s belief in cultural purity is of a piece with the identitarian worldview.

Most striking is the manifesto’s hatred for democracy. It describes democracy as ‘mob rule’. Echoing the fashionable contempt of the liberal elite for democratic engagement, it says ‘the mob itself’ is ‘ruled’ by the ‘global and corporate-run press’. It seems very possible that we are dealing with an anti-democracy fanatic, not dissimilar to the Islamist mass murderer of Nice in 2016 who chose Bastille Day, the celebration of the birth of French democracy, to mow down hundreds of people, killing 86. Democracy is anathema to identitarians and Islamists alike for the simple reason that it holds out the promise of an identity that rises above narrow cultural, racial, religious and gender identities. It holds out the promise of an identity based on collective and civic virtues, of commonness over separatism. From the mainstream to the violent underbelly of the terroristic outlook, the unifying dynamic of the democratic worldview is considered a threat to the preciousness of one’s own narrow cultural identity.

The alleged manifesto says one of the worst values in the modern West is tolerance. It says we’re too tolerant. This also echoes an utterly mainstream view that says certain ways of life or ways of thinking should not be tolerated. Indeed, in their speedy, exploitative, post-massacre cry for less tolerance of certain political opinions, the increasingly identitarian mainstream of Western public life echoes what appears to be a view of the mass killer himself: that tolerance, like democracy, is overrated, and all that we really have are identities.

The identitarian impulse has catastrophically divided society. It has nurtured cultural and racial conflict. It has given rise to a grotesque game of competitive grievance. It has had an inexorably fragmentary impact, ripping the social fabric. We are now actively invited to think racially, behave racially, conceive of ourselves as little more than white men or black women or whatever, and to engage with people through a racially and culturally heightened perspective: check your white privilege, watch your microaggressions, stay in your cultural lane, etc. It would be remarkable if such a depraved culture did not help to nurture new forms of violence. New Zealand confirms that identitarianism is now a scourge of the violent right as well as the woke left.

The only person to blame for the massacres in New Zealand is the man who carried them out. No identitarian politician or activist or commentator is responsible for this. But if we want to limit the attraction of such violent identitarian thinking, such vicious cultural paranoia, we must urgently make the case for a new humanist politics in which your character and humanity count for more than your skin colour and your heritage. The war of identities must end, whether it’s in public life or bloodstained places of worship.


Lord Steel suspended following admission about Cyril Smith

British Liberals are a sort of wishy washy Leftists, usually middle class. They affect a high moral tone.  Leader David Steel appears to have covered up the paedophilia of one of his senior party members

Former Liberal leader Lord David Steel has been suspended from the Liberal Democrats following his evidence to the Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse about Cyril Smith.


The former Liberal leader this week told an inquiry of a conversation he had with the MP in 1979, in which Smith admitted his behaviour was investigated a decade earlier.

An article in Private Eye had accused him of spanking boys and conducting intimate medical examinations at a Rochdale hostel, but he insisted police took no further action.

Giving evidence at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse on Wednesday, Lord Steel said he “assumed” Smith had actually committed the offences - but mentioned his confession to no-one.

In a statement, the Liberal Democrats said: "Following the evidence concerning Cyril Smith given by Lord Steel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse on 13th March 2019 the office bearers of the Scottish Liberal Democrats have met and agreed that an investigation is needed. The party membership of Lord Steel has been suspended pending the outcome of that investigation. That work will now commence.

"It is important that everyone in the party, and in wider society, understands the importance of vigilance and safeguarding to protect people from abuse, and that everyone has confidence in the seriousness with which we take it.

"We appreciate the difficult work that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse is doing on behalf of the victims and survivors of abuse, and the country as a whole."

Lord Steel was the final leader of the Liberal Party before it merged with the Social Democratic Party, at which stage he became the first leader of the Lib Dems.

Last year’s report by the inquiry - examining Smith’s activities in Rochdale - said there was an "unwillingness” at the highest level to accept the politician could be a predator.

Lord Steel said he “knew nothing” about the wider allegations at the time, but defended his failure to act on the revelations made by his party colleague.

Pressed on his logic, he told the hearing: “It was before he was an MP, before he was even a member of my party. It had nothing to do with me.”

The inquiry’s top lawyer, Brian Altman QC, replied: “He could, for all you knew, still be offending?”

Lord Steel responded: “I have to admit, that never occurred to me, and I'm not sure it would occur to me even today.”

His evidence came as the inquiry holds three weeks of hearings into alleged abuse committed by the Westminster elite.

Today it emerged dozens of honours had been stripped from recipients in the past decade for sex crimes against children.

Between 2004 and 2018, 29 people were forced to forfeit awards such as CBEs, MBEs and OBEs after being convicted of child sexual abuse and related offences.

It accounted for roughly half of all honours annulled by a Cabinet Office committee and included Rolf Harris, the disgraced entertainer.


Croatians don't like Muslim "refugees" either

BIHAC, Bosnia-Herzegovina — A leading rights group has accused European Union states of complacency in the ‘‘systematic, unlawful, and frequently violent pushbacks’’ by Croatian border guards of thousands of asylum-seekers to squalid and unsafe refugee camps in Bosnia.

Amnesty International said in a report released Wednesday that ‘‘European governments are not just turning a blind eye to vicious assaults by the Croatian police, but also funding their activities.’’

The report said that ‘‘in doing so, they are fueling a growing humanitarian crisis on the edge of the European Union.’’

Croatian authorities have repeatedly denied such reports in the past.

In a response to the Amnesty International report on Wednesday, Croatian Interior Minister Davor Bozinovic said that the ministry has received more than 200 complaints issued by international rights groups of alleged illegal and violent pushbacks of migrants, but that after investigations no foul play was detected.

‘‘Migrants in most cases falsely accuse police officials of violence, hoping that this will help them enter the Republic of Croatia the next time they try,’’ he said in a statement.

In Brussels, European Commission spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said that the EU’s executive body is concerned about the allegations made in the report and is taking them seriously.

Thousands of migrants have been stuck in Bosnia as they seek to move on toward Western Europe.


LGBTQ Indoctrination in Canada, UK: A Barometer for America–Unless Christians Take a Stand

Unfortunately, all too often, if you want a glimpse of the dark and dystopian future looming on the horizon in America unless there is another great spiritual awakening, look north to Canada or across the pond to England. Once again, this has proven to be all too true.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent and over parental objection, according to The Federalist. The court further decreed that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or called her by her given birthname, they would be charged with “family violence.”

When this young lady was 13, her school counselor encouraged her to identify as a boy even though she is biologically a girl, and she began taking testosterone injections at 13. Her father objected, believing that her gender dysphoria was more a mental health issue than a biological one. He also believes she should wait until she is older before she began to undergo such irreversible medical treatments.

The court ruled that the 14-year-old daughter was free to begin treatments and continue with them. Her father has appealed to the Canadian Supreme Court. While the case is on appeal, his 14-year-old daughter has started hormone treatments.

Much farther down the road in its post-Christian decline than either Canada or the United States is Great Britain. The latest horror story there? A primary school in Birmingham, England, was teaching children as young as 4 years old about LGBT lifestyles. The brainwashing propaganda was in a curriculum known as “No Outsiders” with children’s books titled “King & King” and “Mommy, Momma and Me.”

The assistant headmaster, Andrew Moffat, who is a homosexual, designed the programs and said the curriculum was “preparing children for modern Britain,” The Christian Post reports. The program has been temporarily suspended after hundreds of parents, many of them Muslims, complained that the curriculum was undermining parental rights and aggressively promoting homosexuality.

A mother of students at the school, Fatima Shah, told the BBC that what was being taught is “promoting homosexuality” and “confusing children.” She explained, “Children are coming home, girls are asking whether it is true they can be boys, boys as young as 4 asking whether it is true we can be girls. There is no need for it.”

The suspension may be only a temporary victory, however. The United Kingdom’s Department for Education is fully behind this kind of emotional and spiritual child abuse and violation of parental rights and has announced that starting in 2020 such curricula will be in all state schools and will be mandatory.

Under these guidelines, school officials can “overrule” parents who would like to opt their children out of such sex education classes. The guidelines apparently also prod the teachers to encourage children to challenge their parents’ religious beliefs about homosexuality. This is a clear violation of parental rights, and it is emotional and spiritual child abuse of young children.

What happens in Great Britain today happens in America in the near future. Great Britain is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine.” Miners took canaries down into the mineshaft with them. If the canary died, they knew deadly poisonous gas had filled the shaft, even though it didn’t have any aroma. Miners would have to evacuate immediately or die.

In America, we must be very vigilant to stop similar efforts when they appear in our society. Know that there are increasingly radical efforts by members of the LGBTQ community who are trying to coerce parents into having children brainwashed about LBGTQ issues at wildly inappropriate ages.

If you think this is not where the LGBTQ community of activists and radicals want to take America, then you are a human ostrich with your head buried in the sand. This is the future unless we as Christians stand up and call upon God to send a great revival, as well as pray for spiritual awakening and reformation, and that God intervenes to save us all, and especially our children, from this dark future.



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


17 March, 2019

What do you think about "white privilege”?

Below is the answer (with updates) to that question given by Rik Haines on Quora.com.  He is a college employee in IT

I think “white privilege” is an excuse to be racist against white people.

Last year I applied for a promotion. I passed all the tests with nearly perfect scores, completed the classroom training with nearly perfect scores, and was moved into my new position for the probationary period. My supervisor was a black woman. With the exception of a couple of white female supervisors, I was the only white male in the whole office. My performance throughout the probationary period was outstanding, no complaints.

During the last week of my probationary period, my supervisor recommended me be demoted back to my previous position because I didn’t “fit in” with the “culture” there. I never had any issues with anyone there. I made quite a few friends. I showed up on time every day, did my work, and left along with everyone else. The only issue here was my supervisor had some “unspoken” problem with me being there.

At the end of that week, I was demoted back to my previous position. A few months later, I reapplied for the position hoping to get a different supervisor. Once again, I passed all the tests with even better nearly perfect scores. I was invited to the interview. Because of my previous demotion, not only was I rejected for the position, but banned from being able to apply again for 2 years. The ban for me ends at the end of November this year.

I went to the union and they told me it was an HR issue. I went to the Human Relations Commission to file a complaint of discrimination based on me being white. They told me because I wasn’t a member of a “protected class” there was nothing they could do for me. The law says that because I’m white, I can be discriminated against. I can be excluded from non-white groups. My career can be undermined. I am not afforded all the luxuries of special treatment that non-whites get. And I have to suck it up.

“White privilege” my ass.

Edit: 6.5k upvotes! Thank you very much!

I wanted to share this because every time someone slings around the phrase “white privilege” I have to call BS. It’s an excuse to tear some people down in order to raise other people up. That concept in itself is racist, no matter what color someone is. It isn’t just non-whites who suffer from discrimination and racism. Each one of us is responsible for our own actions. Each one of us is responsible for our own lives. I am a grown up. No one gives me anything. I make my own way in life. If I don’t find what I need to move forward in one place, I move on to another place until I find what I need. That’s exactly what I’m doing. No other person is responsible for holding us back. We hold ourselves back. If we want to move forward, we have to change the way we think, and accept responsibility for ourselves.

These are the kind of conversations we need to have in order to move forward together in society. There’s no such thing as an African American, a Mexican American, an Indian American, an Asian American, etc. We are all just plain Americans. The sooner we stop dividing ourselves, and letting people categorize us by our looks, by our race, by our gender, by our culture, the sooner we can all move forward as a united people.

Edit 2: 7.4k upvotes! Thank you again!

There have been a lot of great responses here, some giving advice, some pointing out flaws in my perspective, and I appreciate your responses whether you agree or disagree with me, or even partly. But most of all, I am glad that a bad experience can open up meaningful conversation and self-reflection. Thank you all for your support and criticisms.


SPLC implodes

It sounds like Dees developed into quite a bully

The discredited “anti-hate” group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) fired its co-founder and chief litigator Morris Dees for a “personal” issue that didn’t reflect “the mission of the organization” or its values.

A statement from the organization’s president, Richard Cohen, published by the Montgomery Advertiser, states that Dee’s employment was terminated “effective yesterday.”

“Effective yesterday, Morris Dees’ employment at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was terminated. As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world. When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action,” the statement said.

The SPLC has become in recent years an organization seemingly dedicated to labeling as “hate” anything that doesn’t align with its radical views. In 2018, the organization paid Maajid Nawaz $3.375 million for falsely labeling him an “anti-Muslim extremist” for his criticism of radical Islam.

At least 60 other organizations filed lawsuits against the organization after this settlement.

More of the organization’s failures were detailed last year by The Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

The group also labeled former neurosurgeon, Republican presidential candidate and current secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as author and American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray as extremists among white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

In 2017, Murray’s designation on the website led to angry protests at Middlebury College while he spoke, and a liberal professor who stood up for Murray's right to free speech was sent to the hospital.

The organization also labeled the Christian organization Family Research Council on its “hate map,” and two years later a man went to their office to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.” The man told FBI agents he picked FRC from the SPLC website.

It is still unknown what Dees did to get fired, but that will certainly be revealed eventually. In the meantime, the SPLC said it would bring “in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices, to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment that they deserve – one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected.”


Italian appeals court finds victim ‘too ugly to be raped’

I am sure it is very incorrect of me but I must admit that I find this very Italian verdict amusing

Italy's justice ministry has ordered a preliminary inquiry into an appeals court ruling that overturned a rape verdict on the grounds that the victim was too ugly to be raped.

The ruling has sparked outrage in Italy, including a demonstration on Monday outside the Ancona court where protesters shouted "Shame!" and held up signs saying "indignation".

The appeals sentence was handed down in 2017 - by an all-female panel - but the reasons behind it only emerged when Italy's high court annulled it on March 5 and ordered a retrial.

The Court of Cassation said on Wednesday its own reasons for ordering the retrial will be issued next month.

The Justice Ministry says two Peruvian men convicted in the 2015 assault successfully argued the woman was too "masculine" to be a victim.


Cardinal Pell And Australian Conservatism

John Tomlinson is a welfare academic.  In the far-Left "New Matilda" he writes:

"I have always had a grudging tolerance for the classical conservative position with its defence of the established order, a belief in the imperfection of human beings, the necessity of privilege and leadership. Associated with the conservative position is adherence to traditional values (such as the primacy of the extended family), the importance of work and of sexual restraint, the sanctity of private property and an abhorrence of utopian social change." 

That's not a bad definition of conservatism.  The thing he leaves out of the definition, however, is the key to his whole attack on Australian conservatism.  He leaves out the importance of individual responsibility.  He clearly believes instead in social responsibility.  He sees no problem in taking money off people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. Conservatives do see a moral problem there but in a classical conservative way resort to compromise:  Do it but limit it as far as possible.  Tomlinson is clearly uninterested in limits to redistribution.

He seems in fact to be uninterested in balance of any sort. Take his comments on Cardinal Pell.  That anybody might take a nuanced view of His Eminence fills him with rage.  He writes:

"Amongst those who gave court character references there was a ‘Craven’ vice chancellor of the Catholic University, an ex-‘socially conservative’ prime minister who had a track record of being reluctant to sack ex-Governor General, Peter Hollingsworth (who had previously been an Anglican Archbishop, who was, at the time, enmeshed in his own scandal).

It takes a particular style of myogenous, misanthropic troglodyte, with a total commitment to turning away from the obvious towards the promotion of arch-conservatism to stand where these men found themselves. They can’t claim to have been blinded by God, and fear and light – it is just that they have lost sight of any sense of right.

Then, of course, there were the trainee galahs in the media such as Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen who despite, the twelve and true finding Pell guilty of five counts of child molestation, declared the Cardinal innocent.

Howard, Craven, Albrechtsen and Bolt are all part of a right-wing putsch determined to drive out decency and humanity from our nation. But are they conservatives in the classical meaning of the term? In Howard’s court reference for Pell he writes:

“I am aware he has been convicted of those charges; that an appeal against the conviction has been lodged and that he maintains his innocence in respect of these charges. None of these matters alter my opinion of the Cardinal.

“Cardinal Pell is a person of both high intelligence and exemplary character. Strength and sincerity have always been features of his personality. I have always found him to be lacking hypocrisy and cant. In his chosen vocation he has frequently displayed much courage and held to his values and beliefs, irrespective of the prevailing wisdom of the time.”

I suppose that when Pell was rabidly denouncing gay sex, same sex marriage, abortion, divorce, adultery and environmentalism Howard considered him to be “displaying much courage and holding to his values and beliefs, irrespective of the prevailing wisdom of the time”. Clearly as the same sex plebiscite established, Pell was neither reflecting the general will nor the wisdom of the time.

The schmozzle of ideas professed by Pell, Howard, Craven, Albrechtsen and Bolt seem to have little to do with sexual constraint or conservatism generally but rather more to do with a particular reading of a neoliberal, protofascist conception of conservatism.

That anyone should doubt the guilt of His Eminence can only be due to foul motives in Tomlinson's view.  The thought that His Eminence might be the victim of a wrongful conviction cannot apparently be allowed into Tomlinson's mind. If Tomlinson had any kind of balance in his mind he might have considered the prosecution ongoing in Britain at the moment of the fantasist "Nick" -- a man who did immense damage with his lies.  His Eminence was convicted on one count by one accuser.  Could that accuser also be a fantasist?  His story was certainly replete with improbabilities

And wrongful convictions generally are a dime a dozen.  Black men are exonerated of serious crimes in the USA on an almost weekly basis.  Are Catholics seen as negatively to some people in Australia as blacks are in America?

We have certainly seen other instances of wrongful convictions that seem to have arisen from a jaundiced view of a group to which an innocent  person belongs.  Take the notorious case of Welsh footballer Ched Evans.  Evans spent a couple of years in jail and had a couple of unsuccessful appeals before he was finally exonerated.  So how come?  Evan was convicted of rape under the leadership of a gaggle of feminist officials even though the alleged rapee had consented and had never lodged any complaint about Evans.  The big mistake Evans made appears to have been being a typical footballer -- a type anathema to feminists.  The one male involved in the prosecution thought Evans had no case to answer.

The two examples I have just given are from Britain but Australians will remember the quite notorious case of Lindy Chamberlain -- where a devout Christian woman -- wife of a Pastor -- was convicted of murdering her baby -- on precisely zero evidence.  She was however a Seventh Day Adventist and a redneck jury apparently saw that as "weird" and making the woman capable of anything.  She spent some years in prison before she was finally exonerated.

So conservatives -- such as myself -- are simply being cautious until we know the outcome of his Eminence's appeal. Could he have been convicted not because of anything he did personally but because of the evil deeds of others in his church?  Being cautious is very conservative, after all.  It may even be definitional of conservatism.  The foul motives that Tomlinson attributes to conservatives in relation to Cardinal Pell in reality reveal the foul and bigoted mind of John Tomlinson.


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


15 March, 2019

Quotas and Gender Parity on Boards

Quotas PROVE that few women can make big it on their own in business.  Other disadvantaged groups -- Chinese, Japanese, Indians, surge ahead without need for outside help -- and most do not even speak good English.  And their cultural handicap is much greater

By Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi

IN THE UNITED STATES, WOMEN ARE STILL heavily under-represented in corporate leadership positions. Over the past 14 years, the percentage of female directors at the largest U.S. companies has increased by a meager 0.5% per year, and amounted to 26.3% in 2018, according to the most recent report of Corporate Women Directors International. If this growth rate remains unchanged, it will take nearly half a century to achieve gender parity at U.S. corporate boards.

In other countries with similar gender disparities in corporate leadership, legislators have responded by adopting mandatory board quotas. The first country to act was Norway, which introduced a quota of 40% female representation 2003. Belgium, in France, Germany, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, and Spain have now all established similar quotas.

When California’s Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 826 into law on Sept. 30, 2018, California became the first U.S. state to adopt a mandatory gender quota. This law requires that all national and foreign companies headquartered in California have at least one female director on their board by the end of 2019. By the end of 2021, two female directors must be appointed to boards with five members; three female directors will be required to sit on boards of six or more members. The statute is non-criminal, but penalties include a payment of $100,000 for the first violation, and $300,000 for each subsequent violation.

Are gender quotas an efficient way to help women break the glass ceiling? In research I conducted with my colleagues Felix von Meyerinck, Markus Schmid, and Steven Davidoff Solomon, we found that already by the end of December 2018, California firms had increased the fraction of women directors by 0.5 percentage points more than firms located in other states.

Compared to the annual average growth rate of women directors of 0.5%, the quota thus speeds up the process significantly.

However, there also is a downside of using gender quotas as a policy tool to promote gender equality: At least in the short term, the gender quota reduces the value of affected firms.

Specifically, firms headquartered in California underperformed relative to a group of control firms matched on size and industry by 0.45% on the first day after the quota announcement. This number may seem small, but given the median market capitalization of publicly listed firms in California in our sample, it reflects roughly $3.7 million in shareholder value destroyed per firm. These findings confirm an earlier study which documents a sharp drop in shareholder value after a mandatory gender quota was announced in Norway. That study found firms lost an average of 3.5% in the days surrounding the announcement (the penalty of non-compliance in Norway was also much steeper — the firm would be liquidated). Another example comes from Germany, where researchers found firms experienced an average loss of 0.44% over a three-day period and 1.91% over a 10-day period.

The negative valuation effect is particularly pronounced for firms with fewer female directors at the time of the law’s passage—in other words, firms that will be required by the new law to appoint relatively more women. But we even find negative spillover effects on firms not directly affected by the quota if they are located in states that are likely to follow California’s lead and adopt female board quotas. These are states that lean towards the Democratic Party and have previously followed California’s legislative example.

Why do stock prices drop in anticipation of more female directors being appointed? This finding may seem surprising given that various other studies find gender diversity has a positive impact on firm performance.

Investors may worry that the pool of qualified female candidates is not large enough to satisfy the increased demand for female directors under a gender quota system. And indeed, we find that female directors who were appointed to California companies after the gender quota was introduced are on average six years younger, have four years less industry experience, and are more likely to be in lower-ranking management positions (for example, vice presidents) than incumbent male directors.

A mandatory gender quota may thus produce backlash against other women if female directors hired under quota programs are (perceived as) less qualified. In line with this hypothesis, our results also show that firms with better access to female director networks see less severe stock price drops. These firms may find it much easier to access the pool of qualified female candidates, which facilitates the appointment of additional female directors and thus compliance with the quota.

In that sense, gender quotas may be most beneficial to those women who are newly promoted to board seats, but not to women more broadly.

To reduce the cost of mandatory female board representation, companies need to increase the pool of qualified female candidates. Based on my other research in this area, one way to do this would be to address the “motherhood penalty”—still a major derailer of women’s careers—by introducing familyfriendly policies that benefit both men and women. If women are allowed to advance in their careers throughout their child-bearing years, we should see an increase in the number of female senior executives, which in turn means a larger number of women that firms can appoint to their boards—either voluntarily, or if a quota mandates them to do so.


Hungary's PM: 'Hungary Has Christian Roots ... There Is No Place For Multiculturalism'

In an interview for a book published last week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stressed that Hungary has been a part of Europe for 1,000 years and that its critics in the European Union are upset because Hungary's constitution states that the country has "Christian roots," that it rejects "multiculturalism," that every child has "a right to a mother and a father," and that the country has a right to "defend its borders," especially against the threat of Islam.

The book, I Pulled the Thread of Lies and Everything Unravelled, is by Phillippe de Villiers, an essayist and a former Secretary of State for Culture in France. In a chapter about Budapest, Villiers discusses a conversation he had with Prime Minister Orban.

Concerning criticism from EU headquarters in Brussels, Orban said, “I am not concerned about the Brussels trials .... My grandmother taught me to be humble in adversity. I must put up with all of this. I can do nothing but place myself in God’s hands.”

“What outrages our opponents the most," he said,  "is the fact that in our Constitution we have written that Hungary has Christian roots; that here there is no place for multiculturalism; that a child has the right to a mother and a father; and that our nation has the right to defend its borders – which are also the borders of the European Union.”

The prime minister expressed concern about the divisive nature of Islamization in certain EU countries. “If they leave us alone and do not force Islamisation upon us, Europe can live on as a club of free nations," he said.  "If, however, they force us to accept the U.N.’s migration compact or the decisions of the European Commission, thereby aligning us with their permissive Western policy, disintegration cannot be ruled out.”

"For us the accusation that we are not fully European is a cruel joke," said Orban. "When after half a century of Soviet occupation and communist oppression we finally regained our freedom, when the West opened its arms to embrace us, we thought we had returned to our own kind. After all, Hungary has belonged to Europe for a thousand years. We are Europe."

"We have always remained European – even when we were sold down the river at Yalta, or let down in 1956," he continued.  "After the withdrawal of the Soviets, we believed we could regain our place in Europe, in this family of free nations resting on the pillars of Christian culture, national identity and human dignity."

"Not even in our worst nightmares did we think that, 29 years after our enchained nations gained freedom and the continent reunited, Europe would again be vulnerable to imperial ambitions – those which this time do not originate outside its borders, but within them," he said.

Orban added that "Europe is not a melting pot, but the home of nations," stated the website of the Hungarian government.


Captain Marvel: The New Politically Correct Superhero Fighting for “Intersectional Feminism”

Throughout the years masked crime fighters have faced some pretty scary enemies, though Marvel and the stars of the studio’s latest blockbuster (maybe — time will tell) Captain Marvel, may have outdone themselves in presenting an even more terrifying uber-baddie. In 2019, enter civilization’s greatest foe … sexism. According to an Entertainment Weekly article, “Intergalactic odd couple Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson return to 1995 to fight aliens,” and “Sexism.”

A joke? You wish. Marvel has officially stepped into the realm of PC politics, marketing its new Marvel entry as an opportunity to get in on 2019’s spirit of “intersectional feminism.” Of course, the film is Marvel’s first ever solo-female superhero so it’s a great opportunity for the studio and its media friends to jabber on about how much of a watershed moment it is.

EW’s interview with the actress behind Captain Marvel demonstrated how quickly the movie studio wants to flow down into the PC sewer.

Interviewer Devin Goggan got into the female-centric gaze of the movie, tiptoeing lightly with a soft question about the movie’s themes of female friendship. He asked, “This film is Carol Danvers’ [Captain Marvel] story, but it’s also a story about female friendship… What was it about that theme you wanted to explore?”

Larson moved into full “woke” mode with her answer. The actress started off with the classic, it’s 2019, man. The future is female. She stated, “What 2019 is about really, is intersectional feminism. There’s just no question that we would have to show what it means to be all different kinds of women, that we don’t have just one type.” Yeah these narcissistic Hollywood types really believe we were born yesterday, and that we’ve never seen tough women heroes before. I vaguely remember Ellen Ripley from Aliens, but I must be mistaken.

Anyways, Larson hammered on the PC themes, claiming that the intersectional “opportunity” inspired them to make the movie’s love story about two female friends. She continued, “It became a great opportunity, even with things like the love story. We wanted to make that big love… to be with [Carol’s] best friend.” Brie added, “To me that’s a part of what the meditation of this movie is: It’s female strength, but what is female strength? What are the different ways that can look?”

You know, that’s fine and all if you’re trying to be earnest with your story. But if your comic book plot hinges on marketing to the chaotic whims of the PC crowd, you’re bound to alienate genuine movie lovers, who, unlike their purple-haired counterparts, aren’t obsessed with deconstructing every facet of traditional storytelling.

Larson even became more extreme with her agenda, arguing that she’s only satisfied with the new film because it pushes past the “strong-woman” trope. Because apparently that’s tired now. She stated, “But that’s a huge part of why I felt comfortable doing this, because originally I was like, “I’m not interested in portraying perfect strong women that never make the wrong choice, because I consider myself a risk taker.”

Well we can’t argue with that considering there’s already a strong pre-release boycott of this film due to Larson’s PC pulpit. She has certainly gambled with Captain Marvel’s box office returns.


Man-Hating and the Grievance Studies Hoax

Bettina Arndt

My video this week is an interview with Helen Pluckrose, one of the scholars who pulled off the extraordinary Grievance Studies hoax. Helen, with two other scholars, James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian, wrote 20 fake papers and managed to get them published in high-profile peer-reviewed journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies.

What really interested me in this great coup was not just that it exposed the corruption at the heart of so much of what passes for academic literature today, but it revealed the appalling anti-male bias in the academe and the really dangerous ideas about men being promoted in universities which have found their way into mainstream culture.

The classic was their paper about dog-humping as evidence of a rape culture which was published in the prestigious journal, Gender, Place and Culture. This paper, which was honoured for excellence as one of 12 exemplary pieces in feminist geography, included discussion of whether we could train men the way we train dogs, to prevent rape culture. How frightening that this misandrist rubbish is held up as exemplary scholarship.

In another of Helen’s fake articles, “Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Non-consensual Masturbation,” she argues that men who masturbate while thinking about a woman without her consent are perpetrators of sexual violence. Just think about the implications of that. In her literature search she had no difficulty finding a wealth of feminist literature to support this notion that an everyday act for many men is proof they are prone to sexual violence.

My interview with Helen reveals many pernicious ideas about men being promoted in our universities which then seep through into our society. I hope you enjoy the interview. Please like it and help me promote it. Unfortunately, the picture of Helen is very blurry due to internet problem at her London home but what she has to say is really important.


Email from Bettina. bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au


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


14 March, 2019

Dangerous pissing?

I generally get up about twice a night, which is normal for an elderly gent such as I am -- so I now feel properly chastened over it.  I have been given the all-clear for diabetes, kidney function, liver function, prostate problems and even polyps in the colon so I think the reason for my trips might have something to do with the fact that I usually have around four gins a night.  Many other trips by elderly gents may have a similar cause.  Gin was once known as mother's ruin but I think it is better known these days as a consolation for the elderly

Those who make two or more trips to the lavatory in the night are costing the economy £4.5bn a year, research suggests.

The study warns that “nocturia” - waking up at least twice in the night to pay such a visit - is causing such fatigue that it is disrupting work productivity.

The research suggests that around 14 per cent of Britons suffers the plight - costing them an average of seven working days a year in abseenteism, or being at work while in suboptinal health.

Researchers said those whose sleep was disturbed by regular trips to the lavatory should turn to their GP, and check there was no underlying health problem which could be treated.

Repeated visits can be a sign of chronic health conditions such as kidney disease, diabetes and heart disease, and are most common in older men, where they can signal an enlarged prostate, or prostate cancer.

The international study by Rand international suggests that 9 million people in the UK suffer from nocturia. Among them are 5.7 million people of working age.

The authors of the report, commissioned by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, estimated that the impact of lost sleep as a result of such trips amounts to £4.5 billion a year.

Marco Hafner, lead researcher and senior economist said the findings should be treated as a “wake up” call for patients and medics.

He said: “Doctors and health practitioners often overlook nocturia as a potential health problem associated with sleep loss, and patients can delay reporting the condition until it becomes unbearable and substantially affects their wellbeing.”

More than half of of men and women above the age of 50 complain of frequently needing the toilet in the middle of the night, leading to fatigue, irritability and a groggy feeling in the morning.

Some scientists believe that lowering salt intake can reduce the number of bathroom trips.

A study of Japanese volunteers found that when they were asked to cut their salt by 25 per cent, from 10.7g to 8g a day, their average night time toilet expeditions fell from an average of 2.3 trips to 1.4 times.


Federal Court Says Ohio Can Defund Planned Parenthood

As the Ohio General Assembly considers the Heartbeat Bill, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a sweeping ruling today protecting Ohio tax dollars from flowing to abortion providers.

In an 11-to-6 decision, today’s ruling overturned a lower court ruling that had declared a 2016 law unconstitutional because it barred organizations from receiving public funds to perform abortions.

According to the opinion written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, “Two Planned Parenthood affiliates challenged the [2016] statute, claiming that it imposes an unconstitutional condition on public funding in violation of the Due Process Clause. The affiliates are correct that the Ohio law imposes a condition on the continued receipt of state funds. But that condition does not violate the Constitution because the affiliates do not have a due process right to perform abortions.”

In other words, the state has the right to decide the parameters for who gets public funding and there is no such thing as a right to perform abortions.

“Elections have consequences,” said Aaron Baer, President of Citizens for Community Values. “Because Ohioans elected a president and Senate who appoints judges that uphold the law, instead of playing politics with the law, millions of Ohio tax dollars will not go to abortion providers.”

Ohioans also elected Governor DeWine, who told The Dispatch, “We’ve always felt the state had the right to set policy on who is funded and who is not funded. I’m pleased with the decision.”

 As Ohio’s Family Policy Council, Citizens for Community Values seeks the good of our neighbors throughout Ohio by advocating for public policy that reflects the truth of the Gospel. We endeavor to create an Ohio where God’s blessings of life, family, and religious freedom are treasured, respected, and protected.


First Legally Recognized 'Non-Binary' American Advocates Against Gender Transitioning

In June 2016, Jamie Shupe became the first American to have his gender legally recognized as "non-binary," by order of an Oregon court. Shupe, born male, had already started taking female hormones when the court, at his request, ordered that his sex be changed from female to non-binary.

Now the former Army sergeant says he's been shunned by the LGBT community because of his outspoken disagreement with transgender surgeries and the transitioning of children.

He spoke to Fox News's Laura Ingraham Monday night about what he's learned from his own experience:

"Regret, unfortunately, is very common, but again, the media doesn't want to talk about these surgeries that go wrong and the host of health complications. And it's really wrong to even call this transition because gender identity is essentially -- it's legal fiction.

“You know, first they claimed that I was a woman, and then they claimed that I was a combination of male and female, and everybody went along with this. But as I said, it's nothing but legal fiction.”

Shupe told Ingraham he took estrogen and progesterone and now has "irreversible breast growth." He did not undergo surgery.

"I have a number of health problems -- bone density, kidney problems," Shupe said. "At one point my mental health was so destabilized by the hormones that I had two stays in a psychiatric ward because of it."

Shupe tweeted this past February that he has now reclaimed his male birth sex.

In a November 2018 essay published at Medium, Shupe wrote, "This is a difficult thing to admit because of the ridiculousness of it, but I legally transitioned from male-to-female because I lacked permission in this society to be a feminine male."

He is now advocating against the transitioning of children, who, he said, should be able to "safely and successfully express their gender and uniqueness" without surgery and hormones.

Transgender children need "societal change," Shupe wrote. "They don't need surgical procedures. They don't need cross-sex hormones. And they certainly don’t need to be sterilized because of their gender nonconformities. These trans and gender non-conforming kids most need to be able to safely and successfully express their gender and uniqueness. That’s what I needed as a child and what I still need as a 55-year-old adult."

Shupe says he's "flat-out against" surgical transitioning for transgender children kids to "make them more cosmetically appealing in a sex classification that’s false. It’s all legal and medical fiction," he wrote. "It hasn’t helped them, and it didn’t help me. These kids are just younger versions of me."

He said he wants to use his fame to shut down the gender clinics and the "Porsche driving surgeons that are cutting healthy body parts off."

Shupe argues that activists have made transitioning too easy: "People and institutions have essentially been bullied or shamed into accepting us and letting us have our way with things, regardless of whether those things are healthy for us or not. I readily admit to getting sucked in hook, line, and sinker into all things transgenderism and was convinced that I could actually change my sex."

He said transgender children should be treated like "mixed-sex kids."

"That's what we are," he wrote at Medium. "We’re the equivalent of mixed-race kids. And everybody at the gender clinics is doing the equivalent of trying to make us black or white depending on the color of our parents."

He concluded his long essay this way:

"Cutting off penises and breasts isn’t fixing society. It’s not even medicine. It’s a little shop of horrors that’s running out the dark wings of America’s medical centers and the insurance companies have been hoodwinked into paying for it by a bunch of mentally ill people who have cut their penises or breasts off. It has to stop. I’ve done my part to stop it. Now the rest of you need to get busy."


Australia: Why aren't the politicians listening? Newspoll shows eight in 10 New South Wales residents DON'T want a population increase - as immigration soars to a record high

Residents in Australia's most overcrowded city are skeptical of high immigration with eight in 10 opposed to a faster rate of population growth.

A Newspoll of more than 1,000 voters in Sydney and regional New South Wales found 25 per cent of respondents wanted Australia's immigration pace to be slashed.

Another 55 per cent wanted immigration to stay where it is, meaning 80 per cent of people surveyed in Australia's most populous state didn't want the pace of population growth to accelerate beyond a recent record high.

Just 16 per cent of those participating in the Newspoll survey, published in The Australian, favoured a higher immigration rate.

In 2018, a record 832,560 permanent and long-term migrants decided to call Australia home, marking a 7.1 per cent increase compared with 2017, official statistics released in February showed.

With the number of people leaving Australia for good taken into account, the nation's annual net immigration rate stood at 291,250, the highest in four-and-a-half years.

The vast bulk of new arrivals settled in already overcrowded Sydney and Melbourne.

High population growth from skilled migrants and students has been credited with stopping Australia's economy from slowing down.

Australia's population growth
1881: 2.3 million

1918: 5 million

1959: 10 million

1981: 15 million

1991: 17.4 million

2004: 20 million

2013: 23 million

2016: 24 million

2018: 25 million

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics; House of Representatives Standing Committee for Long-Term Strategies, December 1994

When immigration was taken out of the equation, Australia last year fell into a per capita recession for the first time in almost 13 years.

Economic output, or wealth generated by every Australian, shrunk by 0.1 per cent in the September quarter and by another 0.2 per cent during the final three months of 2018, Australian Bureau of Statistics national accounts data released this month showed.

This was the first per-capita recession since 2006, when interest rates rose three times.

NSW Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian has called on her federal Coalition government counterparts to reduce Australia's net annual immigration rate.

Over-development in Sydney has been a key issue during the state election campaign, with voters in NSW heading to the polls on March 23.

Sydney is already home to more than 5.5million people, making it Australia's most overcrowded city.

Australia's net annual immigration rate averaged 70,000 during the 20th century but soared above 100,000 in 2002.

It climbed above 200,000 in 2012.



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


13 March, 2019

Minnesota Pastor: Mall Shook up

For Christian Pastor Ramin Parsa, a trip to the Mall of America ended up being a lot more than he bargained for. When two Muslim women asked him to answer some questions about his faith, the conversation seemed harmless. That all changed when mall security arrived, convinced the police to book him for trespassing, and locked him up.

Now, after seven months of fighting the charges, Parsa had good news. “Praise the Lord! The prosecution is suspended, no more criminal charges, pleaded not guilty! Thank you so much for your prayers. We have resolved the criminal case and the city is not going to prosecute me further, so the city is out of it. The mall’s conduct still needs to be addressed. There are many options available that we are considering. Stay tuned! And please continue praying for more victories ahead!”

With the help of his attorneys, Parsa is considering his legal options, especially since there was no basis for putting him in “mall jail” for hours on end — without food, water, or access to a restroom. Intolerant people, he believes, have to be held accountable. Especially, he told PJ Media’s Tyler O'Neil, here — in America — where our liberties are our most sacred possessions. “When I became a Christian,” he explained, “‘I was stabbed [and] ran away from Iran. I went to Turkey for two years as a refugee. We had a church and we were passing out Bibles. I was arrested [there].’ When at last he came to America, he was relieved. ‘With tears in my eyes, I was so thankful to be in America, where I can express myself, nobody can stop me or oppress me for my faith… and then this happened to me.’”

There comes a time, and Pastor Parsa agrees, when fighting injustice like this isn’t just about standing up for yourself. It’s about defending the rights that affect other people. “If we don’t wake up, our cities, states, country will be lost,” he warned. Talking to two shoppers about Christ isn’t a crime, no matter how offended someone else may be by his religious expression. This pastor and Christians like him have a responsibility to share the gospel, especially when they’re asked to explain the faith they have. “As Christians, we must lay aside lukewarmness, and foolish arguments and shake the dust of religion and legalism and get on fire for Jesus and share the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ with boldness.”

That’s what he did — and he’s determined to pave the way for everyone else in Minnesota to do the same. If Christians don’t make it clear that we won’t tolerate this kind of discrimination, what will stop these activists from coming after other people of faith? We have to use the law as a deterrent for this kind of religious hostility — especially since it’s on our side!


BRAIN IN REVERSE! Joe Scarborough States Anti-Semitism Is Less About Dems, More About Trump

It’s always fun to see how the Leftists will deal scandal within their realm. As they now begin to emerge as the party of antisemitism, Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” took a shot at saving face and doing what Dem’s do best; finding a way to turn the issue around on President Trump.

As reported by Newsbusters:

MSNBC’s Morning Joe kicked off the week by discussing President Trump’s reaction to the controversy surrounding Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and how House Democrats have responded to her dual loyalty comments. Co-host Joe Scarborough asked Jake Sherman of Politico if Trump, as part of his 2020 re-elcection campaign, would, “Continue to paint Democrats as the anti-Jewish party, despite his own checkered past.”

Sherman agreed, saying that Omar has provided Republicans an opportunity that they have been seeking for years: a chance to show how the Democratic Party has drifted away from Israel in recent years coupled with a resolution “that was a bit too light for their liking.” Sherman described the controversy as “a convenient punching bag” and that Trump is putting “one of the first Muslim females in Congress… on a pedestal in a sense and then knocking her down and saying she’s emblematic of all Democrats, which is obviously not the case.”

It would be fair to ask why, if Omar’s issues aren’t “emblematic” of the Democrats, why they corporately decided against removing her, or at least reprimanding her. Wouldn’t one of those penalties have shown that they thought her actions were inappropriate?  But no, they actually defended her! 

Yet after all of this evidence, Scarborough later goes on to imply that it’s the Republicans, not the Democrats, who are the antisemitic ones.

Newsbusters continues:

Scarborough likes to say that Trump is a chronic liar, but has spent the better part of the last month lying about Kevin McCarthy’s tweets warning of progressive money. He then led Confessore with more of a statement than a question, “Again, if we want to add up anti-Semitic tropes, Nick, Republicans, they’re going to win this one by a landslide.”

It wouldn’t surprise me that the brainless followers of “Morning Joe” would believe this narrative without actually needing proof. Some of the validation used focused on people that Trump doesn’t even know, or claim to associate with.

Newsbusters continues:

Confessore began by adding to Scarborough’s list, reminding the morning show co-host of David Duke’s support for Trump and Trump refusing to distance himself by saying he was unfamiliar with Duke’s views. Confessore, and the media at large, have not bothered to take notice of Duke saying that Omar, “By Defiance to Z.O.G. Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!” Confessore declared that, “If there is a repository for anti-Jewish sentiments in politics today, it is chiefly on the right.”

Confessore’s statement that anti-Semitism is “chiefly on the right” may be contrasted with anarticle from his own employer in October entitled, “Is It Safe to be Jewish in New York?,“ where the commanding officer of the Hate Crimes task force told Ginia Bellafante in the previous 22 months, “not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group.”

So if not a single antisemitic hate crime in New York has been associated with a FAR RIGHT WING GROUP, does that imply the FAR LEFT WING GROUP? Methinks so. Regardless, only a nincompoop would say that Pelosi and the Democrats are speaking out against antisemitism.

Newsbusters continues:

Despite lambasting Democrats for cowardly hiding behind their “anti-hate resolution” on Friday, Scarborough on Monday declared that, “Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, man, they are shoulder to shoulder, strong, speaking out against anti-Semitism.”


Should Women Be Expected To Know How To Change A Tyre?

A failure of feminism?

What happens when a Millennial breaks down on the side of the road? New research reveals very few will get out their tyre-changing kit — or even know what that is.

Drivers under 25 are more likely to post about their situation on social media, as Gold Coast friends Leah Heritage and Molly McMahon did when they chronicled their recent flat tyre experience.

Leah was in that situation when her dad texted her back saying he warned her to check her tyres a week earlier. The girls had been trying to get to a picnic with friends and had no idea what to do.

The data from Driver Safety Australia shows three in four drivers under 25 are driving a car more than a decade old, but most of them don’t undertake regular checks on it, either leaving it to someone else or naively believing a warning light will alert them to any safety issue.

Young drivers are two times more likely to blow $50 on a meal out with friends than fix a broken headlight or worn windscreen wiper.   They’re even more likely to spend money cleaning their car than they are fixing a critical safety issue. Alarmingly, the research also shows two in five drivers under 25 have knowingly driven a car with a safety issue.

Driver Safety Australia boss Russell White said the frightening research was not only endangering the lives of young drivers but road users more generally.

“Car crashes happen in an instant, and in that moment having a car in safe condition can be the difference between life and death,” Mr White said. “Every driver has a responsibility to ensure they’re taking precautions to keep themselves and those around them safe.

“Whether that’s tyre tread and being able to brake in time or having adequate vision in different weather conditions with working wipers or headlights.

“On top of these safety concerns, there’s also the added risk of being stranded when broken down on the side of the road. We continue to see serious injuries and fatalities as a result of being struck in high-traffic areas, which can often be avoided.”

The research shows attitude isn’t the problem but a lack of skills and knowledge.

While a third of young drivers said they didn’t know anything about basic car checks, almost the same amount believed being able to maintain their vehicle was an important skill that every driver should know.

Most were willing to learn, which is why Driver Safety Australia has teamed up with Supercheap Auto in a new campaign to educate young drivers.

“Check It” is an Australia-wide initiative that will raise awareness around the importance of undertaking regular vehicle safety checks.

On March 30, free training will be provided across Supercheap Auto’s 278 Australian stores, and tutorials are also available online.


Australians claiming to be Aboriginal will be forced to undergo DNA testing to prove it under a One Nation proposal to crack down on welfare fraud

There are Australian versions of Elizabeth Warren

One Nation's New South Wales leader Mark Latham has taken aim at people who identify as indigenous, when they are not of Aboriginal heritage. 'Everybody hates a welfare rorter, especially in Aboriginal affairs,' he said.

'Australians are sick and tired of seeing people with blonde hair and blue eyes declaring themselves to be indigenous, when clearly they have no recognisable Aboriginal background and are doing it solely to qualify for extra money.'

In Australia, people can identify as indigenous to be given special treatment when applying for jobs in the public service or the ABC, as part of an affirmative action policy designed to promote one minority group.

They also qualify for special benefits, including Abstudy to fund university study or an apprenticeship, and can join an Aboriginal land council.

Mr Latham has proposed a law which would require Aboriginality to be determined by a DNA test showing someone has at least one full-blood Aboriginal grandparent, ending a system where Australians can self-identify as indigenous.

'The system of indigenous self-identification, declaring Aboriginality without any bloodline or DNA proof, has been open to widespread abuse,' he said. 'It is being used as a fraudulent way of cashing in on welfare benefits, special Aboriginal programs and land council largesse.'

Mr Latham said genuine indigenous people continue to live in poverty. 'Any waste of taxpayer funds in this area is highly disrespectful to genuine indigenous,' he said. 'It weakens the integrity of their racial group and takes money away from people in genuine need.

'We believe in an honest and fair welfare system. 'First Australians deserve the respect of stopping rorters and opportunists from masquerading as indigenous.'

While indigenous recognition is largely a federal issue, the NSW public service has an Aboriginal employment strategy and administers indigenous land councils.

As federal Labor leader in 2004, Mr Latham backed then Prime Minister John Howard's dismantling of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.

Almost 15 years later, as One Nation's leader upper house candidate in the NSW election, he has savaged his former party for failing to tackle fraudulent claims of being Aboriginal. 'It's surprising that Labor and The Greens, who pretend to respect Aboriginality, have not introduced this policy already,' Mr Latham said.

Indigenous people were not counted in the Census or even regarded as citizens with voting rights until a 1967 referendum passed with 90.77 per cent support. A few years later during the early 1970s, Gough Whitlam's Labor government introduced a policy of indigenous self-determination.

Indigenous land rights activist Noel Pearson has criticised the prevailing system of 'passive welfare' which originated under Mr Whitlam, who Mr Latham worked for as a former prime minister during the 1980s.



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 March, 2019

2020 Dem Candidate Goes On CNN, Apologizes For Being Straight White Male

Jay Inslee is the governor of Washington state. He is a Democrat candidate for president, hoping to remove President Trump from the Oval Office. But Inslee has a big problem.

He’s straight. He’s white. And he’s a male. And he’s sorry about it.

From Free Beacon:

Washington governor and 2020 candidate Jay Inslee (D.) said on Sunday he thinks he has humility about being a straight white male, saying he recognizes the advantages he’s received as a result of that identity.

“Our new CNN/Des Moines Register poll shows only 38 percent of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa say they would be satisfied with a straight white male nominee,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper said. “So why are you as a straight white male the right person to lead the Democratic party if there’s so much skepticism from Democrats in Iowa?”

“I think I have a humility about being a straight white male that I have never experienced discrimination like so many do. I’ve never been pulled over as an African-American teenager by an officer driving through a white neighborhood. I’ve never been a woman talked over in a meeting,” Inslee responded.


Identity obsession makes its way from the campus into mainstream politics

Since the turn of the century, universities in the Anglo-American world have been riddled with the bitter controversies that surround the weaponisation of identity.

Identity politics has become institutionalised to the point that some universities have acquiesced to the demand for racially segregated dormitories. Higher education ­institutes have adopted censorious language codes, supposedly to protect the sensibilities of ethnic minorities and gender and sexual minorities. Students have been warned not to wear clothes that might offend ethnic groups. Never-ending accusations of “cultural appropriation” almost always lead to a humiliating apology by the accused.

Until recently, the controversies and conflicts that surround the ­politicisation of identities tended to be confined to university campuses. But now identity politics has gone totally mainstream. In the US, the battle lines between different factions in congress are often drawn according to the dictates of rival identity activists. It seems every identity group has its own congressional caucus. What ­divides them is not ideology or political principle but the aim to gain influence for one’s identity group.

Identity activists jealously guard their patch. That they are unwilling to share their territory was discovered by Elizabeth Warren, a leading contender for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidacy. Warren took the decision to ­enhance her identity ­appeal by claiming to be part Cherokee in the belief her association with a Native American identity would prove to be a vital political asset and widen her support among Democrats. To demonstrate this, she published a DNA test that suggested she may have had some genetic links with the Cherokee nation.

Unfortunately for Warren, the very public announcement of the results of her DNA test provoked an immediate backlash from ­Native Americans who were not prepared to accept this white woman as one of their own. Chuck Hoskin, the secretary of state of the Cherokee Nation, reminded Warren that it is the tribal authorities, and not a DNA test, that ­decide who can claim to be part of that nation. He denounced the carpetbaggers who seek to hijack Cherokee identity for their own benefit.

He wrote that every day “people make claims of native heritage and Cherokee ancestry across the country” and added that these claims, “made for personal advancements by profiteers, are like a guest at my table saying they’ve had a seat there all along”. Predictably, Warren had no choice but to issue a grovelling apology for her shortsighted behaviour.

Hoskins’ response to Warren illustrates the absence of the generosity of the human spirit that characterises identity politics. Its petty and possessive impulse was clearly articulated last October by Jacqueline Maley in The Sydney Morning Herald. In her column, she took exception to the behaviour of NSW Corrections Minister David Elliott for using parliamentary privilege to make allegations of sexual harassment against then opposition leader Luke Foley.

What angered her was not so much the misuse of parliamentary privilege but that a man took it upon himself to raise an allegation of sexual harassment against a woman.

Pointing her finger at men who “cloak themselves in care for women while throwing them under the bus”, she declared that “they take on the mantle of the #MeToo movement while missing its main point: women get to tell their own stories. No one else.” ­

Apparently, women own a patent on their stories and no one else can have a piece of the action.

Possessiveness of an identity is paralleled by a disposition ­towards cultural tribalism. One feature of identity politics that is often overlooked is that not all identities ­depicted are worthy of celebration. In the US, the identity of white men, especially older heterosexual ones, is regarded with disdain. According to the prevailing ideology of identity politics, a white man must defer to the sensibilities of other identity groups and “watch their privilege”. From this perspective, men may be seen but should not be heard.

In more ­recent times, Asian-Americans and white females have lost some of the prestige attached to their identity status. Jewish identity is just about acceptable as long as those who embody it distance themselves from any form of support for Israel. Australian iden­tity has also lost out in the identity stakes. From the standpoint of identity advocates, the role assigned to Australians is to apologise and continue to apologise for the misdeeds of their ancestors centuries ago.

For the moment trans identity enjoys top spot in the identity stakes. It has even succeeded in silencing those feminists who have questioned or criticised gender self-identification.

That identity politics has gone mainstream is vividly demonstrated by the speed with which all the main British parliamentary party leaders, from the Conservatives to the Greens, have united to silence critics of gender self-identification. Women officials, activists and party members have been investigated, denounced and, in some ­instances, expelled for their supposed bigotry. Leading parliamentarians have adopted the intol­erant language of campus culture warriors. A prominent member of the Liberal Democratic hierarchy, Lynne Featherstone, condemned critics of gender self-identification and warned: “You are not feminists. Your views are not welcome in the Liberal Democrats.”

One of the most corrosive ­dimensions of identity politics is its insistence that the personal is political. Identitarians contend that since what matters is identity, people’s personal and private behaviour is of political import, no less than their actions in public life. From this standpoint, people’s private behaviour is a legitimate target of public scrutiny and of political criticism.

Savvy politicians understand that a culturally sensitive or “inappropriate” remark or act of misbehaviour, even in their youth, will come back to bite them. Take the case of Tulsi Gabbard. She is a Democratic Party member of congress from Hawaii who is a potential candidate in the coming presidential elections. An Iraq War veteran, she made history in 2012 when she became the first Hindu elected to congress. A powerful communicator, she seemed to tick all the right identity boxes — except that her past ­became weaponised. She has had to apologise for working with her father in his anti-gay rights organisation when she was a teenager.

Identity activists are not prepared to excuse youthful misbehaviour. On the contrary, they regard the sins of youth as a rightful target of political condemnation. Ralph Nor­tham, the Democratic Governor of Virginia, should have known what to ­expect. He is fighting calls for his resignation after a photo of him sporting blackface at a college party went viral.

A person’s entire life can be turned upside down when the personal becomes political. The mere allegation of personal impropriety can have devastating consequences for the individual concerned. Carl Sargeant, a former Welsh communities secretary, committed suicide after he was suspended from the Labour Party following allegations of improper personal conduct. Acting on the assumption that there is no smoke without fire, an allegation of personal ­impropriety unleashed a chain of events that ended in a tragedy.

Far too many politicians are prepared to embrace and legitimise the politics of identity. Some actually believe that there is something positive about the politicisation of identity. Unfortunately, they confuse the positive struggles for equality by feminists and civil rights activists in the past with the narrow-minded practices of contemporary identity politics.

Identity activists constantly claim to be fighting for justice but they seem to devote most of their energy towards gaining cultural authority. Whereas previously activists campaigned against ­racism, today they are in the business of discrediting and marginalising what they call “whiteness”.

Just being white or the display of “white attitudes” is condemned as a secular equivalent of original sin. In a similar way, women’s inequality, which used to be the target of feminist activists, is frequently displaced by a campaign against masculinity.

Regrettably, mainstream political life has proved a fertile terrain for the flourishing of identity politics. No doubt there are many sensible political figures who are disturbed by this development. However, they have opted to keep their opinions to themselves in the hope it will all go away. It will not. Unless the politicisation of identity is actively challenged, prepare for a perpetual war of identities.


The BBC’s cowardice over Count Dankula

He was convicted for telling a joke. Now he is being No Platformed.

‘BBC gives TV job to Nazi hate criminal’, thundered the Mail on Sunday, Scotland edition, reporting that YouTuber Markus Meechan, aka Count Dankula, had recorded appearances on two episodes of The Collective, a panel show on BBC Scotland.

Meechan is best known for a joke video in which he taught his girlfriend’s pug to perform a Nazi salute and respond to the phrase ‘gas the Jews’. The joke led to his arrest and conviction for posting ‘grossly offensive’ material online.

Politicians called on the BBC to sack Meechan. ‘It would be astonishing if the BBC, in any capacity, was to give a platform to someone convicted of a hate crime’, said Scottish Conservative Rachael Hamilton. The campaign group, Hope Not Hate, said it was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘incredible’ that Meechan had been invited on to the BBC. It labelled him a ‘symbol of the far right’.

Under pressure from politicians, campaigners and the press, the BBC has pulled the plug on the infamous pug-trainer and the two episodes that feature Meechan will now not be broadcast.

And for what? As Meechan told spiked in our film about the case, The Curious Case of the Nazi Pug, the police found zero evidence of him having any far-right leanings, of anything to suggest his video was anything other than a joke. He also made this clear at the beginning of the video. But he was convicted regardless.

Meechan’s case was bizarre and terrifying. And now his conviction is being used by politicians and campaigners to justify further censorship. The BBC’s decision to cave in to that pressure is wrong and cowardly.


Australia: The #MeToo movement’s demand for instant belief is a threat to the ideals of justice

One of they key slogans of the #MeToo movement has been ‘believe women’. It is a challenge to the traditional ideals of justice. It effectively says, ‘You must believe all allegations, even those that are untested and unproven’. The dangers of this mantra were highlighted during a recent court case in Canberra.

In 2014, a former prison guard found himself the target of a false rape allegation. Sarah-Jane Parkinson had been in a relationship with the man she accused of rape for two years. She was engaged to him. She then broke it off and proceeded to stage a violent rape scene, fabricating evidence and accusing her former fiancé of raping her in her home.

The accused was arrested. He spent four months on remand at Goulburn Correctional Centre, a maximum-security prison. He lost his job, his financial security and his reputation. As a former prison officer he was at daily risk of assault while he was incarcerated. Parkinson’s lies were eventually exposed and she was charged with making a false rape allegation. She’s now serving three years in jail.

This isn’t the only questionable case that has played out in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) recently. There have been trials of Australian Defence Force cadets, in 2017 and 2018, that have raised serious questions about how rape allegations are handled. Again, two men had their lives, careers and futures put on the line, only to be acquitted later on. The acquittals made the #MeToo crowd angry. They seem to believe that every allegation of sexual assault should be taken as true.

The ACT police and courts have had serious questions to answer in relation to these cases. Yet politicians seem keen to keep on watering down the legal definition of sexual consent, which means that more men could find themselves falsely accused of serious crimes.

Consider Caroline Le Couteur, the Greens’ member of the legislative assembly in the ACT. Le Couteur is a vocal advocate of reforming the criminal law around consent. Her proposal, made to the ACT assembly, is for a ‘more affirmative definition of consent’, in order to ‘shift the focus from no means no to yes means yes’. Sexual encounters would require ‘enthusiastic consent’. In short, it wouldn’t be enough for men to say that the woman they slept with did not say ‘no’ and actually consented – they would have to show that she consented enthusiastically. How many sexual encounters could be swept up in this new definition of sexual crime?

The ACT’s director of public prosecutions dismissed Le Couteur’s proposal. It was a very welcome dismissal, because the proposal, if enacted, would effectively have institutionalised ‘believe women’ into law. Undeterred, Le Couteur continues her crusade to bring the patriarchy to heel, as she sees it.

Not content with using social media and public forums to trash men’s reputations, now some supporters of #MeToo want to bend the law itself to the insistence that we believe all women who make accusations. We have to resist this. The right to a fair trial must be defended.



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 March, 2019

The party of Braying Jackasses is squabbling over a resolution condemning anti-Semitism

It seems like only yesterday that House Democrats were going to steadfastly rebuke the racist face of anti-Semitism in their ranks once and for all.

Oh, wait; it was yesterday. And they declined to do so amid intra-party squabbling over identity politics.

The recurring theme of freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism brought Democrats to the brink of introducing a resolution condemning such anti-Semitism, though avoiding actually naming Omar. In fact, Nancy Pelosi even offered the asinine assessment that Omar’s comments were not “intentionally anti-Semitic.” But an uprising led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez forced an expansion of that resolution to include “all forms of hate,” including “Islamaphobia.” It’s no coincidence that Omar is Muslim. The Latina Ocasio-Cortez even wants anti-“Latinx+” statements to draw a rebuke.

Several 2020 presidential contenders from the Senate, including Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, jumped to Omar’s defense.

Pelosi even reportedly grew so frustrated that she dropped her microphone and walked out of a closed-door Democrat meeting, bitterly complaining, “Well if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking.” Perhaps all she needed to do was sleep on it, as Democrats will reportedly vote on the watered-down resolution later today.

The Wall Street Journal aptly notes, “An exercise that began with trying to distance Democrats from an anti-Semitic slur has evolved into a display of political cowardice that equates smears against Jews that have a horrific historical meaning with generalized ‘hate.’ Thus does a specific hatred get consumed, and trivialized, in today’s Democratic identity politics. And Ms. Omar can keep her Foreign Affairs Committee seat.”

Moreover, while Ocasio-Cortez wants to deflect this hate problem to Republicans, it is Democrats who are trafficking in hatred these days — especially hate for Donald Trump. In fact, that’s what’s so ironic about this whole thing. As PowerLine’s John Hinderaker points out, “Ilhan Omar hates like a Democrat, and she openly expresses that hate like a Democrat. The problem is that she hates people who mostly support the Democratic Party.” I.e., Jews. As long as the hate is directed at groups leftists deem worthy of it, especially on the Right, Democrats are pleased. But you have to hate the “correct” people.


Federal judge lifts last of injunctions against transgender military ban

The last injunction blocking President Trump’s transgender military ban from taking effect was lifted by a federal judge Thursday, moving the administration closer to being able to enforce the policy.

In a six-page order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge George Russell III wrote that he was lifting his injunction because “the court is bound by the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the preliminary injunctions in their entirety."

Though courts have now ruled to lift all four injunctions that had been placed on the policy, advocates for transgender troops say one remains in effect due to a stipulation in that court’s ruling.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the existing policy allowing open service by transgender people will stay in place until “further guidance” is issued in the “near future.”

"The department is pleased with the district court's decision to stay the final injunction against the department's proposed transgender policy,” Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said in the statement. “The 2016 policy will remain in effect until the department issues further guidance, which will be forthcoming in the near future."

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January to stay two of the injunctions. That followed a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier in January that lifted another of the injunctions.

Transgender troops have been serving openly since June 2016 when the Obama administration lifted the previous ban on their service.

In July 2017, President Trump tweeted he would reverse the open service policy, saying he would “not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

Four lawsuits were filed against the ban, and lower courts in all four had issued injunctions blocking the policy from taking effect while the suits work their way through the court system.

In March 2018, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis released a policy that would allow transgender people to serve if they do so in their biological sex.

Transgender people and their advocates argue the Mattis policy is still effectively a ban akin to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

The ruling issued Thursday stemmed from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six transgender service members.

The ACLU called Thursday’s decision “deeply disappointing” and vowed to continue fighting the Trump policy.

“Each and every claim made by President Trump to justify this ban can be easily debunked by the conclusions drawn from the Department of Defense’s own review process,” Joshua Block, senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project, said in a statement. “Our clients are brave men and women who should be able to continue serving their country ably and honorably without being discriminated against by their own commander in chief.”

The injunction ruled on by the D.C. Circuit Court is still in place, though. Advocates say it remains in force for the time being to allow the plaintiff’s lawyers time to decide whether to request a rehearing by the appeals court’s full bench.

The lawyers in the case have not said yet whether they will request a rehearing. But in statements, the organizations leading the suit expressed confidence they would ultimately prevail in striking down the Trump policy.

“The Trump administration keeps pushing to enforce a senseless and harmful ban,” Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project director, said in a statement. “There is no question this ban weakens our military by excluding from service transgender people who meet all of the military’s rigorous readiness and medical standards. With the Doe injunction still in place, we will continue fighting this discriminatory ban.”


Muslim evil

Muslim values are barbaric

A man who was jailed for a sickening plot to throw acid at a toddler, three, has been attacked three times in prison, it emerged today. Jabar Paktia, 42, was battered by inmates after he was arrested for his part in the assault on child, which took place on July 21 last year.

The young victim had suffered serious burns to his face and arm and screamed: ‘I hurt, I hurt!’ after being doused with acid at a Home Bargains store in Worcester.

Dad-of-four Paktia was sentenced to 12 years in prison at Worcester Crown Court on Wednesday for his role in the depraved plot. The group was charged with conspiring to throw sulphuric acid with intent to ‘burn, maim or disfigure’ the boy in July last year.

He had been friends with the boy’s 40-year-old Muslim father, who organised the attack in a bid to smear his estranged wife to make her look like an unfit mother.

Balraj Bhatia, defending Paktia, told the court his client had been left with ‘significant injuries’ after being attacked by fellow prisoners since being behind bars. He said: ‘He has been attacked on three separate occasions in custody, receiving significant injuries as a result. ‘He accepts he has been injured and may continue to be injured.’

Paktia, of Wolverhampton, and his five co-conspirators, including the child’s father were caged for a total of 78 years. Judge Robert Juckes QC described the case as ‘unique’ and added: ‘I have never come across a case in which there are so many people involved in targeting a child.

‘Even battle hardened crown court judges were sickened when they heard the news that someone had attacked a three-year-old boy with sulphuric acid. ‘It became increasingly apparent how well-planned this was, with links going back to the man at the heart of this attack, who was the boy’s own father.’

Adam Cech, 27, who squirted the acid on the boy and Jan Dudi, 25, both of Handsworth, Birmingham were jailed for 12 years. Saied Hussini, 41, of Harlsden, West London was sentenced to 14 years in prison, whereas Norbert Pulko, 22, of Tottenham, North London received 12 years.

The dad, from Wolverhampton, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was jailed for a 16 years and was branded ‘monstrous’ by the judge.

The court heard Cech, Dudi and Pulko had followed the three-year-old boy, his brother, sister and their mother into the shop at the Srub Hill Retail Park.  Cech then squirted the youngster with sulphuric acid as he looked at a display of footballs with his older brother.

The child suffered a 10cm burn injury to his left forearm, and a 3cm burn on his forehead, which needed specialist hospital treatment.


Right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos is set to be granted an Australian visa with the Immigration Minister about to rule there's no reason he can't come here

Right-wing poster boy Milo Yiannopoulos is set to be granted an Australian visa with the Immigration Minister saying there's no reason he should be banned.

Minister David Coleman is understood to not be convinced by the Department of Home Affairs' reasons for denying Yiannopoulos a visa, The Australian reported.

Some fear his controversial views would spark violent protests during his planned speaking tour across five Australian cities.

The Department of Home Affairs warned the 33-year-old it was likely to deny him entry following riots during his 2017 Australian tour and an unpaid $50,000 bill issued by Victoria police.

The claim Yiannopoulos is about to be granted a visa comes after weeks of pressure from conservative MPs such as One Nation's Pauline Hanson.

The conservative provocateur's supporters clashed with protesters who chanted 'f*** off Nazi', which led to seven arrests during his 2017 Sydney tour.

His Melbourne leg of the tour was even more violent, with police forced to use sticks to keep the demonstrators at bay.

The 33-year-old had initially organised a 'Deplorables' speaking tour with convicted criminal Tommy Robinson and self-described 'western chauvinist' Gavin McInnes in December.

The tour was rescheduled to February 2019 but was cancelled for the second time because visa applications were still being considered by government authorities.

Yiannopoulos intends to tour before the expected May federal election, although there isn't a clear date when he will arrive

Victorian MP and former human rights commissioner Tim Wilson said Yiannopoulos was 'self-absorbed' and was an 'attention-seeker'.

'But free speech is for everyone, hence I was surprised by the news and have raised it with the minister,' he said.

Pauline Hanson said she had contacted Mr Coleman through numerous letters, texts and phone calls – urging the government to grant Yiannopoulos a visiting visa in the past few weeks.

Yiannopoulos is known for his commentaries mocking left-wing political correctness and feminists.



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


10 March, 2019

Media Magic — How a Democrat Pedophile Became a ‘Trump Scandal’

Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2005, the Palm Beach police were told by the mother of a young girl in West Palm Beach that her daughter had been brought to the Democratic donor’s mansion and asked to have sex with him for money. This kicked off an intensive, one-year undercover investigation.

The police sifted through Epstein’s garbage and interviewed 17 witnesses, including the housemen, who told of sex toys and dildos left behind after the underage girls left. One of Epstein’s procurers, a 20-year-old local woman named Haley Robson, who was paid $200 for every teenaged girl she brought to Jeffrey, was cooperating with police, telling them she was like “Heidi Fleiss.” They obtained statements from five of Epstein’s young victims, who said they’d been paid $200 to $300 to engage in various sex acts with him. Police raided Epstein’s home, finding explicit photographs of teenaged girls, incriminating phone records — and one girl’s high school transcript.

But when the police chief brought this mountain of evidence to Palm Beach County’s Democratic prosecutor Barry Krischer, he punted, charging the Democrat child molester with only one count of soliciting prostitution — yes, the child victims were labeled “prostitutes” — and offered Epstein probation.

Perhaps Krischer was exhausted, having just spent three years hounding Rush Limbaugh for abusing back pain medication.

Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter exploded in rage. (Meanwhile, Epstein claimed to be the victim of an anti-Semitic conspiracy on Palm Beach.) Chief Reiter wrote an open letter to Krischer asking the Democrat to remove himself from the case. Then he turned to the Bush administration to seek justice against a Democratic donor/accused child rapist.

As stories go, a child sex case involving a Palm Beach billionaire was pretty big. It was covered in the British press, in Florida media, at The New York Post, and at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly led with the story on his Fox News show.

But CNN and MSNBC did not breathe a word about a Democratic prosecutor refusing to hold a Democratic child rapist accountable.

Epstein had given more than $145,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. He was a big Israel backer. Bill Clinton and Democratic activist Ron Burkle were frequent guests on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” And Krischer was a hero for his dogged pursuit of Rush Limbaugh! Why bring up all this unpleasantness?

Thanks to Chief Reiter, President Bush’s U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, did take the case, despite the fact that only Epstein’s child rapes on his plane, on his private island, or with girls brought across state lines would make it a federal case.

As a result of the (Republican-led) federal investigation, Epstein was finally required to plead guilty to two state felony charges, accept a sentence of two years in prison, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to his victims.

Still no coverage by MSNBC or CNN.

Inasmuch as Epstein was pleading guilty to a state charge, the matter of his confinement was out of the U.S. attorney’s hands. It was Democratic county prison officials — not the feds — who placed Epstein in a private wing of the county jail and allowed him to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week at his Palm Beach mansion throughout his 13-month “imprisonment.”

In 2014, the brilliant conservative lawyer Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards brought suit against the federal prosecutors for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act in the Epstein case.

As bad as the U.S. attorney’s office was, at least it did something. Democrat Krischer gave Epstein a walk. But no matter how appalling Krischer’s behavior was, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act only applies to federal prosecutions.

When Cassell and Edwards filed their case, they included the claims of various Epstein victims, who reported that the men at “Orgy Island,” where underage girls were being used as “sex slaves,” included Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew.

CNN gave extensive coverage to the celebrity-filled allegations, inviting Dershowitz on to defend himself and lavishing attention on the irrelevant prince. Amazingly, but characteristically, not once did CNN mention that Bill Clinton was named in the pleadings.

Only one show on MSNBC, “All In With Chris Hayes,” so much as acknowledged the bombshell case, also without letting on that Clinton had been named as a frequent Epstein guest by the child victims.

But recently, the very news outlets that spiked any news about this case for the past 13 years are suddenly hot on the trail of Jeffrey Epstein. Why the newfound sense of decency?

The answer is: Because they found a Trump connection. There’s a 2002 quote from Donald Trump saying nice things about Epstein and photographic proof that Epstein was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been to Mar-a-Lago. (There are rumors he has also been to the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building.)

This is how the modern American media work: I’ll tell the same story that we’ve been frantically suppressing for a decade, connect it to Trump — and win a Pulitzer Prize!

Here is MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell describing Epstein a few weeks ago in a single segment:

“… a friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… child sex trafficker and child rapist and friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… a billionaire friend of Donald Trump’s …”

Epstein was a “friend” of Donald Trump’s the same way he is a “friend” of Pinch Sulzberger by virtue of reading The New York Times. He’s been to Trump’s club. (That is, until Trump barred him for propositioning the underage daughter of a member.)

But pay no attention to Jeffrey Epstein and his roster of Democratic enablers — this is a Trump scandal!

It seems that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the federal prosecution, Alex Acosta, is currently Trump’s Labor secretary. Trump didn’t know Acosta’s name during the Epstein prosecution, but liberals think they’ve unraveled Trump’s decade-long scheme to reward Acosta for being lenient on Epstein –- aka “friend of Donald Trump’s.”

The silver lining is that we finally have a way to make Hillary Clinton pay for her crimes. Trump has to appoint her to his Cabinet. Then we’ll see the entire American press corps chanting, “Lock her up!”


NHS transgender clinic accused of covering up negative impacts of puberty blockers on children

An Oxford University professor has accused the NHS’s only specialised clinic for transgender children of suppressing negative results while undertaking experimental treatment on adolescents.

Dr Michael Biggs, an associate professor at Oxford’s Department of Sociology claims the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) has been giving puberty blocking hormones to children, without robust evidence as to the long-term effects.

It comes after the governor of the clinic based in London with the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust resigned last month in protest at its “blinkered” response to doctors who had raised the alarm about “woefully inadequate” care. There is also another centre in Leeds.

Declaring the trial a success, the clinic has continued to treat over a thousand children with the hormones but Dr Biggs’ research suggests that after a year of treatment “a significant increase” was found in patients who had been born female self-reporting to staff that they “deliberately try to hurt or kill myself”.

Parents also reported “a significant increase in behavioural and emotional problems” and a “significant decrease in physical wellbeing” in children born female, he claims. According to his research, there was no positive impact on “the experience of gender dysphoria”, the diagnosis given to those who are described as feeling intensely uncomfortable with their biological sex.

Parents did report their children suffering less “internalising behavioural problems”, however.

Dr Biggs said: “Puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria. Yet the study has been used to justify rolling out this drug regime to several hundred children aged under 16.”

His findings are derived from a 2015 report to the directors of the Trust and an abstract from a presentation to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in 2015 by Dr Polly Carmichael, the director of GIDS - based on the first 44 children to have been treated.

Full results of the trial remain unpublished.

In announcing the study in 2011, the Trust said treatment with the hormones - known as Gonadatropin-Releasing Hormone agonists or GnRHa - was reversible. Yet a Freedom of Information request to the NHS Health Research Authority showed the study’s own research protocol stated: “It is not clear what the long-term effects of early suppression may be on bone development, height, sex organ development and body shape and their reversibility if treatment is stopped during pubertal development”.  In an interview with the Guardian in 2015, Dr Carmichael admitted: “Nothing is completely reversible.”

By acting on the pituitary gland, the drugs prevent the release of chemical signals which stimulate the production of estrogen and testosterone, halting the changes of puberty caused by these sex hormones.

In a four-year period, 61 children were recruited, with puberty blockers administered to 50 aged between 10 and 16.  By 2017, 800 patients under the age of 18 had been enrolled on the trial, including 230 under 14, according to the professor’s research published on the website of Transgender Trend, an organisation that campaigns for policies regarding children who identify as transgender to be based on scientific and clinical evidence. According to the BBC, 300 prescriptions were issued last year.

Before 2010, the clinic prescribed blockers to over 16s only. But Dr Biggs claims the clinic’s caution was opposed by Mermaids, a charity that supports children who identify as trans and their families and the Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES), whose purpose is to improve the lives of trans and gender non-conforming people.

A spokesman for GIDS said fewer than half of those referred to the service go on to access physical interventions.

“It is important that data is presented in peer-reviewed journals. Analysing and extrapolating from different data sets out of context can be misleading and does not do justice to the complexity of the issues. GIDS is actively contributing to the evidence base to inform the best way to support gender-diverse young people.”

The Trust recently secured £1.3 million to conduct research with the University College London and the Universities of Liverpool and Cambridge into the long-term outcomes for young people who use the service.


Who Will Guard the Social Media Guardians?

Creepy people at massive corporations imagine themselves as the policemen of public content, except they would never use such as gendered term as policemen to describe themselves.

A former Facebook worker revealed evidence to Project Veritas that the online platform secretly uses a “deboost” function to suppress conservative speech on the social media platform. “The ‘deboost’ tag appears after the word ‘Sigma,’ which Project Veritas has learned is an artificial intelligence system used to block potential suicide and self-harm posts,” the exposé explains.

Does this mean Facebook analysts rationalize the suppression of conservative speech on the grounds that it induces self-harm? The corporate behemoth refuses to say. Facebook responded to the Project Veritas revelations by noting that it had fired the whistleblower, as though this discredits her instead of credits her story of a company fixated on controlling information.

Online Goliaths that deny suppressing speech strangely openly boast of banning it.

Amazon just pulled Tommy Robinson’s book, "Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam." The UK Independence Party advisor and activist points out that although the online retailer suppressed his book it sells Mein Kampf. The book ban follows Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter permanently exiling Robinson.

Others enduring permanent bans on various social media platforms include Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Meghan Murphy, and Anthony Cumia.

Murphy wrote this week, “The social media behemoth has been suspending accounts, not because users break Twitter rules, but because they break rank. Despite repeated claims that the platform exists as a space for free speech, and the company’s professed public commitment to refrain from banning users for ideological reasons, Twitter is now doing just that.”

Murphy, it’s worth noting, generally supports liberal causes and identifies as a feminist. She objects to suspending scientific truths to placate transgender activists, which put her in Twitter’s doghouse.

“Does Fedex have the right to open packages and refuse delivery if they determine that a book inside is homophobic or Islamophobic just because they are not the post office?” asks John Zmirak, senior editor at the Stream and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration. “Does your cell phone company have the right to disconnect calls that it finds to be politically or religiously obnoxious?”

Zmirak notes that social media giants depict themselves as neutral platforms to avoid libel suits. But at the same time, they act as publishers in editing content.

“Currently, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram pretend that they are not publishers to avoid lawsuits involving libel law,” Zmirak tells The American Spectator. “But they are acting like editors of magazines. If they are editing content based on it not being illegal but it being objectionable to them, they should lose their exemption. They have to pick, either they are neutral platforms or they are publishers.”

Given that a massive amount of people receive information from social media, the censorship presents a handicap to conservatives in the marketplace of ideas. One obvious solution would involve a billionaire introducing an alternative to Twitter or Facebook the way that Rupert Murdoch started Fox News Channel as an alternative to CBSNBCABCCNNMSNBC. Zmirak notes that compelling social media to behave as other media responsible for what they publish unless they agree to act strictly neutral in not editing anything for political content seems another possible solution.

A third solution involves antitrust violations. In the 1940s, the government forced NBC to break off its Blue Network, which became ABC. One of the many issues motivating the move involved the Blue Network’s policy of not selling airtime for “controversial” subject matter, a word many regarded as code for political advocacy to which the network objected.

The breakup of MaBell, for holding a monopoly over telephone communications, seems another precedent. While nobody accused MaBell of disconnecting calls based on the content of conversations, its stranglehold over one form of communications struck the government as monopolistic. Facebook owns Instagram, and its long-ago competitor MySpace no longer cracks the top thousand sites in the U.S. in terms of traffic. Leaving aside its questionable role as arbiter of what can and cannot be said, Facebook enjoys a monopoly not unlike MaBell. This, independent of its behavior as censor, could justify antitrust action.

A fourth, less popular option (my own) requires those objecting to the Orwellian thought control to refrain from tweeting, making any Facebook friends, or oversharing through Instagram. Increasingly, this strikes as impractical, particularly for one in media, as forgoing a telephone did a half century ago.

A few communications companies in the San Francisco Bay Area seek to at once attract users from across the world and impose the narrow mores of their place on as diverse a body as humanity. The goals appear in conflict. The world is not San Francisco — at least not yet.


Allah deserts a Jihadi

Her hatred of the West killed her babies

The newborn son of jihadi bride Shamima Begum died from lung infection, a Kurdish Red Crescent paramedic has confirmed. Jarrah was taken to the doctor yesterday after suffering breathing difficulties and died from pneumonia at 1.30pm the same day, the medical worker told the BBC.

Begum has since returned to the camp and her child was buried there yesterday. The newborn is the third child she has lost, with two others previously dying of illness and malnutrition.


Horror! Australian PM rejects affirmative action for women

He thinks women can advance without holding men back. It doesn't show much confidence in women to deny that.  But the Left who are always up in arms against discrimination encourage  discrimination against men

Mr Morrison said while he supported women's empowerment, he didn't believe men should have to make way for their female counterparts to succeed.

'We want to see women rise. But we don't want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse,' Mr Morrison said.

The PM also said Australians shouldn't be setting people against each other so they lift some people up to feel empowered, while pushing others down.

Shortly after making the unusual remark, the PM took to social media to share a follow-up message for International Women's Day.

'Today is about appreciating all the women in our lives and our nation - celebrating their value and achievements,' Mr Morrison wrote on Twitter.

Despite his inspirational Tweet, the PM's speech still made headlines across the globe, with many media outlets taking to social media to share their thoughts.

American news network CNN was one of the first outlets to slam the PM for his so-called female empowering comments.

'Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has provoked outrage on International Women's Day by saying that men should not have to make way for women's empowerment,' the media outlet Tweeted.

Several politicians, journalists and media personalities also took to social media to take a swipe at Mr Morrision's controversial speech.

Earlier on in the week, Mr Morrison addressed the subject of getting more women into parliament, saying his party was 'just getting on with it,' news.com.au reported.

Former Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop also stated at a separate International Women's Day event there had been renewed effort to get more women elected. 'Unless there is a pool of talented women to choose from, women don't put themselves forward in the same way as men,' she said



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 March, 2019

China’s all-seeing social credit system stops actresses and academics

This seems pretty reasonable and unobjectionable as it stands. People SHOULD be embarrassed into paying their debts.  One can easily see, however, that the system could at a later time be used to oppress political dissent

Beijing: The vast scale of China’s evolving social credit system has been detailed by the government, with officials revealing on Wednesday that 3.59 million people had been forced to repay debts after being “restricted everywhere”.

Academics at universities who have plagiarised others' work have been blocked from promotions or receiving awards, and an actress was prevented from boarding a plane at Beijing airport because of an unpaid fine from a defamation case she lost in court, in just two examples to come to light.

Lian Weiliang, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission, which is overseeing the project, said all Chinese individuals and organisations now have a unique social credit code.

He said that "untrustworthy behaviour" had fallen by 60 per cent after 19 government departments began sharing the information on their black lists and enforcing punishments.

In the past year, reports on the social credit of individuals had been accessed two billion times.

The debts owed by blacklisted people totalled 4.4 trillion yuan ($931 billion). Of this, 10 billion yuan in unpaid taxes had been recovered, and 16 billion yuan in unpaid wages for migrant workers had been paid by employers after they were blacklisted.

First conceived in 2014, China's social credit system aims to harness data to reward good behaviour and punish rule breaking. Trials of the scheme have focused on punishing tax evasion, fraud, fine defaulters and unpaid court debts.

“Let the trustworthy travel smoothly and let the untrustworthy be restricted everywhere,” Lian told reporters on Wednesday, adding that implementation of the system would accelerate this year.

The Paper, a Shanghai newspaper, reported that actress Michelle Ye had been prevented from leaving China last month by border authorities after a Shanghai court put her on a blacklist in December for failing to pay a fine in a social media defamation case.

Ye was ordered back to Shanghai to submit an apology letter to the court and pay the 80,000 yuan fine, after being intercepted at Beijing airport.

Lian said academic misconduct was also covered by the system.

The National Development and Reform Commission, the Chinese government’s economic planning agency, has previously revealed that by the end of 2018, 5.4 million people had been banned from buying high-speed rail tickets, and 17 million people had been stopped from buying air tickets, because they were put on a black list by a court, the tax office or another government department.

Another 12,920 people have had financial restrictions imposed.

Lian told reporters on Wednesday that the “intensity of joint disciplinary action against the dishonest” will increase this year.

In a sign the Chinese government believes the system is working, incidents of migrant workers - commonly labourers who have travelled from rural China to the city to work - not being paid had fallen 40 per cent because of the social credit system, he said.

This year, incentives for good behaviour, such as lending credits and tourism credits, will be given.

The task of building the social credit system was arduous, but this year it would be perfected to “make trustworthiness valuable and trustworthiness useful”, he said.

Personal information would be protected under the system, he added.

The social credit system is due to be implemented nationally next year, under a pledge made in 2014, but is being used in different ways in various cities during its trial period.

Human rights groups have pointed out that people incorrectly placed on a blacklist have found delays and difficulties in having travel restrictions removed.


Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity

Bigotry against men

When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.

The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men, is done every year, but the latest findings arrived as Google and other companies in Silicon Valley face increasing pressure to deal with gender issues in the workplace, from sexual harassment to wage discrimination.

Gender inequality is a radioactive topic at Google. The Labor Department is investigating whether the company systematically underpays women. It has been sued by former employees who claim they were paid less than men with the same qualifications. And last fall, thousands of Google employees protested the way the company handles sexual harassment claims against top executives.

Critics said the results of the pay study could give a false impression. Company officials acknowledged that it did not address whether women were hired at a lower pay grade than men with similar qualifications.

Google seems to be advancing a “flawed and incomplete sense of equality” by making sure men and women receive similar salaries for similar work, said Joelle Emerson, chief executive of Paradigm, a consulting company that advises companies on strategies for increasing diversity. That is not the same as addressing “equity,” she said, which would involve examining the structural hurdles that women face as engineers.

Google has denied paying women less, and the company agreed that compensation among similar job titles was not by itself a complete measure of equity. A more difficult issue to solve — one that critics say Google often mismanages for women — is a human resources concept called leveling. Are employees assigned to the appropriate pay grade for their qualifications?

The company said it was now trying to address the issue.

“Because leveling, performance ratings and promotion impact pay, this year we are undertaking a comprehensive review of these processes to make sure the outcomes are fair and equitable for all employees,” Lauren Barbato, Google’s lead analyst for pay equity, people analytics, wrote in a blog post made public on Monday.

To set an employee’s salary, Google starts with an algorithm using factors like performance, location and job. Next, managers can consider subjective factors: Do they believe the employee has a strong future with the company? Is he or she being paid on a par with peers who make similar contributions? Managers must provide a rationale for the decision.

While the pay bump is helpful, Google’s critics say it doesn’t come close to matching what a woman would make if she had been assigned to the appropriate pay grade in the first place.

Kelly Ellis, a former Google engineer and one of the plaintiffs in the gender-pay suit against the company, said in a legal filing that Google had hired her in 2010 as a Level 3 employee — the category for new software engineers who are recent college graduates — despite her four years of experience. Within a few weeks, a male engineer who had also graduated from college four years earlier was hired for Ms. Ellis’s team — as a Level 4 employee. That meant he received a higher salary and had more opportunities for bonuses, raises and stock compensation, according to the suit. Other men on the team whose qualifications were equal to or less than hers were also brought in at Level 4, the suit says.

The claim could become a class-action suit representing more than 8,300 current and former female employees.

The pay study covered 91 percent of Google’s employees and compared their compensation — salaries, bonuses and company stock — within specific job types, job levels, performance and location.

It was not possible to compare how racial minorities fared in terms of wage adjustments, Google said, because the United States is the only place where the global company tracks workers’ racial backgrounds.

In response to the study, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a higher percentage of the money. The exact number of men who got raises is unclear.

The company has done the study every year since 2012. At the end of 2017, it adjusted 228 employees’ salaries by a combined total of about $270,000. This year, new hires were included in the analysis for the first time, which Google said probably explained the big change in numbers.

Google’s work force, especially in leadership and high-paying technical roles, is overwhelmingly male and mostly white and Asian. Its efforts to increase diversity have touched off an internal culture war. In 2017, James Damore, a software engineer, wrote a widely circulated memo criticizing the company’s diversity programs. He argued that biological differences and not a lack of opportunity explained the shortage of women in upper-tier positions.

When Google fired Mr. Damore, conservatives argued that the company was dominated by people with liberal political and social views. Mr. Damore sued Google, claiming it is biased against white men with conservative views. The matter has been moved to private arbitration. Its status is unclear.

Google’s parent company, Alphabet, said it had 98,771 employees at the end of 2018. The company declined to provide the number of Google employees, but Google is by far the largest part of the company.


Kamala Harris' Crusade Against Freedom of Religion

Do you have a right to run your business in keeping with your moral and religious values? Or can the federal government force you to act against your conscience and the teachings of your faith?

Can the government force you — because you own a for-profit enterprise — to cooperate in the taking of an innocent human life?

Sen. Kamala Harris of California believes the government ought to have that power. She has made it one of her crusades.

After President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, his Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring all health insurance plans to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved "contraceptive methods."

Some of these so-called contraceptives acted post-conception — aborting the life of a newly conceived human being.

Catholic moral teaching, of course, opposes sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion. Thus, no faithful Catholic could conscientiously obey this regulation.

Many other Christians objected to at least the abortifacients it required.

The controversy the regulation caused should have been settled by simply looking at the First Amendment.

It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Clearly, a regulation that forces Christians to act against their faith violates the First Amendment.

Yet Congress had enacted a law in 1993 that expressly authorized the government to violate the free exercise of religion.

The ironically titled Religious Freedom Restoration Act says: "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person ... 1) is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

In 2014, Hobby Lobby, a family-owned corporation, brought a case to the Supreme Court arguing that the Obamacare abortifacient mandate violated the free-exercise rights of its Christian owners by forcing them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and devices.

Harris was then the attorney general of California. She believed Hobby Lobby should be forced to cover abortion-inducing drugs and devices.

She wrote a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the case and, when it did, joined with the attorney general of Massachusetts to write an amicus brief arguing that the court should force Hobby Lobby to cover abortifacients.

This premise lurked at the foundation of her argument: When people start for-profit corporations, they must leave their "personal" religious beliefs behind.

In her amicus, Harris suggested that the free exercise of religion is a right created by manmade statutes — not God — and is a "personal" thing that should be kept in an "inner sanctum."

"Rights to the free exercise of religious beliefs, whether created by statute or by the Constitution, likewise protect the development and expression of an 'inner sanctum' of personal religious faith," she wrote. "Free-exercise rights have thus also been understood as personal, relating only to individual believers and to a limited class of associations comprising or representing them."

"Unsurprisingly," she continued, "there is no tradition of recognizing or accommodating the exercise of such inherently personal rights by ordinary, for-profit business corporations."

It would be better, in her view, to keep the "free exercise of religion" within the boundaries of "religious institutions."

"Individuals commonly practice their religions at least in part collectively, in or under the auspices of religious institutions," she wrote. "The term 'religion' itself connotes a 'community of believers.'"

"Religious organizations," she argued, "act as 'critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State,' giving individuals a space in which to exercise faith without state intrusion."

With the pro-Roe Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court's exceedingly narrow opinion. It concluded that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Obamacare abortifacient mandate did in fact "substantially burden" the free exercise of religion by Hobby Lobby's owners. It then assumed — without conclusively deciding the issue — that the regulation also furthered a "compelling government interest" in the distribution of contraception.

The regulation failed, however, because the five justices determined it was not the "least restrictive means" of advancing that interest. The government, the court said, could give private businesses the same accommodation it gives nonprofits — and have their insurance companies provide the contraceptives directly rather than through a company's insurance plan.

Sen. Kamala Harris was outraged. In 2017, she introduced the disingenuously named Do No Harm Act, which would, among other things, completely nullify any First Amendment protection for Christian business owners who do not want to be forced to act against their faith in providing abortion-inducing drugs and devices.

Last week, Harris re-introduced the bill in this Congress.

It says that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would not apply "to any provision of law or its implementation that provides for or requires ... coverage for, any health care item or service."

In a press release promoting this bill last week, Harris indicated the First Amendment protects something she calls "freedom of worship."

"The freedom to worship is one of our nation's most fundamental rights," she said.

But she apparently will not tolerate American families who own businesses freely exercising any religion that teaches them it is evil to cooperate in the taking of an innocent life.


Double standards? Right-wing poster boy Milo Yiannopoulos is banned from Australia only DAYS after Muslim sheik who described September 11 as a 'comedy film' toured the nation

Right-wing activist Milo Yiannopoulos has been banned from Australia only days after a visiting Muslim cleric who described September 11 as a 'comedy film' toured the nation.

The 34-year-old British-born campaigner against radical Islam, feminism and political correctness had his visa rejected by the Department of Home Affairs on 'character grounds'.

Yiannopolous learnt earlier this week he had been barred from entering Australia, only days after Egyptian Muslim cleric Dr Omar Abdelkafy had toured Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney.

In 2015, Dr Abdelkafy described the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States as comedy. 'This play to which Muslims are subjected to ad nauseum across the world is the sequel to the comedy film of 9/11,' he said in a video translated from Arabic by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

'The first part took place in New York and the sequel is taking place in Paris.'

He made the comments in January 2015 shortly after 12 staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed in Paris after it published a front-page cartoon mocking the Prophet Mohammad.

The 67-year-old sheikh with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood had described the French terrorist attack four years ago, by Muslim extremist brothers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, as a sequel to September 11.

Controversial figures banned from Australia

English right-wing commentator Tommy Robinson denied a visa to enter Australia in January 2019

Canadian right-wing agitator Gavin McInnes, the founder of the Proud Boys and Vice Media, denied a visa in November 2018

American singer and songwriter Chris Brown barred in September 2015 over his 2009 conviction for assaulting his then girlfriend Rihanna, another singer

World champion boxer Floyd Mayweather banned in February 2015 over his history of domestic violence

American pick-up artist Julien Blanc forced to leave Australia in November 2014 following complaints he had advocated abusive behaviour towards women

U.S. rapper Snoop Dogg was banned from Australia in April 2007 because of drug and firearms convictions

Extremist Muslim sheikh Bilal Philips, a Canadian citizen based in Qatar, banned in April 2007 on the grounds he was linked to the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing in New York

English Holocaust denier David Irving denied a visa multiple times since 1993

Czech-born anti-fascist campaigner Egon Kisch prevented from disembarking from a ship in 1934 because of his communist views. He won a High Court appeal presided over by judge Herbert Evatt, who later became federal Labor leader

Despite that, he toured Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney between February 22 and March 1, and was a guest of the Australian Egyptian Society.

The Department of Home Affairs declined to comment on his individual case but said it respected free speech.

'Any application lodged with the Department by visitors who may hold controversial views will be considered, balancing any risk they may pose with Australia's well-established freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs,' it said in a statement.

'All applicants are required to be assessed against and to meet identity, security, character and health requirements.' 

The 'well-established freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs' did not appear to apply to Yiannopoulos, who received a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal in regard to his visa application, and was given 28 days to appeal.

His ban on entering Australia followed violent protests in Melbourne in 2017, as he embarked on a national speaking tour which required a significant police presence.

Disgruntled Liberal voters have expressed their displeasure on the party's Facebook page. 'For refusing Milo Yiannopoulos, my whole family will never vote Liberal Party again,' one woman said.  'NEVER. We will not forgive and forget. We wanted you to win the election, but now, will do a lot to prevent it.'

A self-described 'lifelong Liberal voter' and party member was also outraged at Prime Minister Scott Morrison. 'I cannot believe that you have denied Milo Yiannopoulos entry into Australia,' one man said. 'I truly though ScoMo had the goods but apparently not. I am disappointed and outraged beyond belief.'

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson was also outraged at Yiannopoulos being banned from Australia and has asked Immigration Minister David Coleman to reconsider.

'You may not agree with everything that they say as long as they don't go out there and advocate violence,' Senator Hanson told on Sky News Australia on Tuesday.

'If you actually want to stop someone, stop the protesters with their violence.'

Adelaide-based Shia imam Mohammad  Tawhidi, who campaigns against Islamic extremism, said he condemned the double standard of Yiannopoulos being banned as Dr Abdelkafy was allowed to preach in Australia.

'Extremist Pro-Jihad and 9/11 preacher Omar AbdelKafi banned from entering Australia? Nope, he’s still on tour,' he told his 171,000 Facebook supporters.

'Milo got the ban. I disagree with Milo on many, many issues, but this is very wrong. 'This country is called Australia, not Saudi Arabia.'



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 March, 2019

More States Consider Protecting Parents Who Give Kids the Chance to Grow

South Carolina and Connecticut are among two of the latest states that might soon allow kids more opportunities to step out on their own for some time at the park or a walk to school. Following the example of Utah, Lawmakers in South Carolina and Connecticut are two of the latest states to consider changes in state law to protect parents’ ability to allow their children a bit more independence, without worrying that such allowances will be seen as criminally “neglectful” by local authorities. This is good news for parents interested in helping their kids prepare for the real world and an incredible opportunity for kids to develop and hone skills that could help them succeed later in life.

To many adults, such a law might seem unnecessary, as most of us undoubtedly have memories of playing outside unsupervised all the time (at least until the streetlights came on) or walking alone to a corner store. But times have changed, and the culture has changed with them. Child protection has become an all-encompassing dogma that has been stretched to ridiculous proportions. In 2014, a mother in South Carolina was charged with a felony for allowing her nine-year-old to play at a park while she was working nearby. A Connecticut mother was arrested in 2015 when her eight-year-old stepson attempted to walk the two miles to school by himself. These cases are hardly isolated incidents. Constant parental supervision is all the rage and parents looking to provide their kids a little independence often find themselves brushing up against concerned onlookers or even the police.

While keeping kids safe is important, some perspective is helpful. Despite the rise of safety culture and helicopter parenting, kids today are safer than ever. Violent crime is down across the board and the chances of a child being kidnapped are incredibly small. In fact, the crime rate in the United States today is far lower than it was in the 1990s. The real danger now facing kids is not from strangers, but from the unintended consequences of this overprotection.

Rates of depression and anxiety among America’s youth have been increasing for the past 50 to 70 years. While only about one in ten college students in the 1980s could be characterized as needing, wanting, or using mental health services at a given point in time, today the figure is about one in three, and growing. While it’s hard to pin down the exact causes of this increase, some experts have warned that the lack of childhood free play and independence are a major part of the problem. Peter Gray, a psychology professor at Boston College and author of Free to Learn, notes that, “By depriving children of opportunities to play on their own, away from direct adult supervision and control, we are depriving them of opportunities to learn how to take control of their own lives.”

Allowing kids more independence and time for unsupervised play not only mitigates the risks of various psychological issues, but it can actually help them develop skills that are necessary for personal and economic success later in life. For decades now, researchers have touted the value of soft skills, such as socioemotional self-regulation, perseverance, and the ability to work well in teams, in helping individuals achieve greater long-term economic success.

The modern labor market increasingly values soft skills, and as automation continues to disrupt traditional and routinized occupations, these skills are only likely to become even more important. According to research from David Deming, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School, “Between 1980 and 2012, jobs requiring high levels of social interaction grew by nearly 12 percentage points as a share of the U.S. labor force.” Such skills are often developed at an early age and form the basis for future learning and academic success.

Given what we now know about mental health risks among young adults and the importance of developing soft skills, it is clear that overprotecting kids today has real costs for their future. While a broader cultural shift is needed to better prepare kids for success later in life, parents hoping to grant mature kids a bit more independence should be encouraged. Going it alone is challenging for parents but changing the law to prevent prosecution for such decisions is a great place to start.


The most politically intolerant americans are older white liberals

Research commissioned by The Atlantic Magazine shows that older white liberals may just be the most politically intolerant group in the country.

The article by Amanda Ripley, Rekha Tenjarla and Angela Y. He, published Monday and titled “The Geography of Partisan Prejudice,” utilized polling and analytics firm PredictWise to “create a ranking of counties in the U.S. based on partisan prejudice.”

While its findings showed “significant variations in Americans’ political ill will from place to place, regardless of party,” it also found that groups the authors expected to display partisan animosity, such as immigrants, paled in comparison to “the most politically intolerant Americans,” who “tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves.”

While the piece did not explicitly label this group as “liberal,” several indications bear this out, such as the “highly educated” description (54 percent of college graduates at least lean Democratic), the fact that the vast majority of “urban” voters tend to be Democrats, and the known political leanings of the areas the research itself draws from, such as Massachusetts.

From the article:

We see this dynamic in the heat map. In some parts of the country, including swaths of North Carolina and upstate New York, people still seem to give their fellow Americans the benefit of the doubt, even when they disagree. In other places, including much of Massachusetts and Florida, people appear to have far less tolerance for political difference. They may be quicker to assume the worst about their political counterparts, on average.

Nationwide, if we disregard the smallest counties (which may be hard to pin down statistically, since they have fewer than 100,000 people), the most politically intolerant county in America appears to be Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which includes the city of Boston. In this part of the country, nine out of every 10 couples appear to share the same partisan leaning, according to the voter-file data. Eight out of every 10 neighborhoods are politically homogeneous. This means that people in Boston may have fewer “cross-cutting relationships,” as researchers put it. It is a very urban county with a relatively high education level. All these things tend to correlate with partisan prejudice.

The piece contrasts that with other areas, such as several parts of North Carolina and upstate New York, where people seem to be “more accepting of political differences.”

“In these places, you are more likely to have neighbors who think differently than you do,” the authors write. “You are also more likely to be married to someone from the other side of the aisle. It’s harder to caricature someone whom you know to be a complicated person.”


Colorado ends crusade against Jack Phillips

It’s been six and a half years since the Colorado Civil Rights Commission set its sights on a local cake artist named Jack Phillips.

The commission targeted Jack because of his Christian faith.

That was clear when it allowed other Colorado cake artists—but not Jack—to decline to create custom cakes that expressed messages they considered objectionable.

And it was even clearer when some members of the commission made hostile statements against Jack. One called his religious-liberty defense “despicable” and compared him to perpetrators of the Holocaust.

The hostility toward Jack’s faith was so obvious that the United States Supreme Court rebuked the commission. In a 7-2 decision, the high court condemned Colorado’s “clear and impermissible hostility toward [Jack’s] sincere religious beliefs.”

The Colorado government should’ve learned its lesson then. It didn’t. Less than a month after the Supreme Court decision, the Colorado government targeted Jack again. Thankfully, it seems to have learned its lesson—well, at least for now.

Today, the state of Colorado dismissed its most recent case against Jack. Praise God!

Email from Alliance Defending Freedom: info@adflegal.org

Canadian Court Rules Parents Can’t Stop 14-Year-Old From Taking Trans Hormones

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that a 14-year-old girl receive testosterone injections without parental consent. The court also declared that if either of her parents referred to her using female pronouns or addressed her by her birth name, they would be considered guilty of family violence.

As previously reported, Maxine* was encouraged by her school counselor in BC’s Delta School District to identify as a boy while in seventh grade. When Maxine was 13 years old, Dr. Brenden Hursh and his colleagues at BC Children’s Hospital decided that Maxine should begin taking testosterone injections in order to develop a more masculine appearance.

Although Maxine’s mother was ultimately willing to support hormone injections, her father Clark* was concerned about the permanent ramifications of cross-sex hormones. Suspecting that his daughter’s mental health issues might be more the cause than the effect of her gender dysphoria, he ultimately decided that it would be better for her to wait until she was older before she embarked on any irreversible course of treatment.

At that point, Hursh informed Clark that he would begin testosterone injections on the basis of Maxine’s consent alone, claiming that he had a right to do so under the BC Infants Act. Clark promptly sought an injunction to prevent this. On Wednesday, however, a judge deemed Maxine “exclusively entitled to consent to medical treatment for gender dysphoria,” regardless of the opinions of either of her parents.

Further, the court stated that “Attempting to persuade [Maxine] to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria; addressing [Maxine] by his birth name; referring to [Maxine] as a girl or with female pronouns whether to him directly or to third parties; shall be considered to be family violence under s. 38 of the Family Law Act.”

Late Wednesday evening, Clark was strongly disappointed by the court’s ruling. “The government has taken over my parental rights,” he said, “They’re using [Maxine] like she’s a guinea pig in an experiment … Is BC Children’s Hospital going to be there in 5 years when she rejects [her male identity]? No they’re not. They don’t care. They want numbers.”

In the past, the majority of children diagnosed by sex-change clinics with gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder) have ended up embracing their natal sex as adults. Clark referenced recent reports from England indicating that some transgender clinics have bowed to intense pressure from trans activists to fast-track children into hormone treatments.

Clark felt that he could not trust BC Children’s Hospital’s diagnosis: “These activists are taking over,” Clark said, “and it’s not in the interests of our kids.  It’s in the interests of self-promotion and the things that they want to do and accomplish.”

Throughout our interview, Clark continued to refer to his daughter as a girl, “because she is a girl. Her DNA will not change through all these experiments that they do.” Clark understood that this statement might be construed as a violation of the court’s interdict against “referring to [Maxine] as a girl … to third parties,” but felt that he could not honestly take any other stand. While he has long been tolerant of his daughter’s transgender identity, he was unwilling to regulate his objective statements to media outlets by a misattribution of his daughter’s sex.

“We’re gonna fight this right up to the Supreme Court of Canada,” he said.  “We’re not quitting.”

Kari Simpson, head of the Canadian pro-family organization Culture Guard, which has helped raise awareness and support for Clark’s case, agreed that the case had to be appealed. “To leave this unchallenged” would have dire consequences for “other youth who are trying to survive in an increasingly hostile and dangerous society,” she said.

For now, and for Maxine, however, the judge’s decision stands: the 14-year-old will begin taking testosterone against a parent’s wishes on the sole basis of her own consent.



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 March, 2019

Pope Francis announces opening of Secret Archives on 'Hitler's Pope'

It's deplorable to describe Pacelli as 'Hitler's Pope'. It's a remnant of Soviet disinformation.  His Holiness did more to save Jews from the Nazis than anyone else

Pope Francis has announced that he will open up the Vatican’s secret archives on the papacy of Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of failing to speak up about the Nazis’ persecution of the Jews.

Historians have for decades been calling on the Holy See to let scholars study the archives, in order to determine whether Pius XII failed to use his moral authority to oppose the Holocaust.

The argument that Pius should have been far more vocal in condemning the Nazis’ annihilation of six million Jews was put forward most forcefully in the 1999 book Hitler’s Pope, by John Cornwell, a British writer and academic.

Pope Francis announced his decision during a meeting with staff from the Secret Archives, part of the Vatican’s vast repository of documents and records, declaring that “the Church is not afraid of history”.

He said the archive would be opened on March 2 next year to mark the 81st anniversary of the election of Pius XII in 1939.

Francis acknowledged that there had been “moments of grave difficulty and tormented decisions” for the wartime pontiff, saying he had been treated by posterity with “some prejudice and exaggeration”.

Without referring directly to Pius’s actions towards the Jews of Europe, Francis said his predecessor had engaged in “hidden but active diplomacy” in order to pursue “humanitarian initiatives”.

He thanked archive historians for having worked, since 2006, to catalogue and organise the huge body of documentation relating to Pius’s papacy, from 1939 to his death in 1958.

Mr Cornwell, the author of Hitler’s Pope, said he could not wait for the archives to be revealed.

“It should be really interesting. It might show that he did fantastic things to help the Jews. Or it might shed light on whether he had anything to do with the Nazi rat-run, when some Catholics helped Nazis escape to South America at the end of the war,” he told The Telegraph.

He said he called his book Hitler’s Pope largely because of what the future Pope Pius did before the war, when as Vatican secretary of state he drew up an accord in 1933, the Reichskonkordat, that protected the Catholic Church’s rights in Germany but in exchange helped give moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime.

He said Pius was, like many Catholics at the time, anti-Semitic, but conceded that he had little scope for limiting the scale of the Holocaust.

“He didn’t have much room for manoeuvre. He was very much a prisoner inside the Vatican, which was dependent for its light, gas and water on Mussolini’s Italy and then on the German regime. Although I still think he didn’t do enough when the Jews were being rounded up in Rome.”

Hitler even plotted at one time to kidnap the Pope, Mr Cornwell said.

The Vatican insists that by using discreet means, Pius instructed Catholic clergy to give help to the Jews, quietly saving tens of thousands of lives.

“The archives will hopefully shed light on the actual possibilities that were open to Pope Pius in condemning the genocide and to what extent he could have made a difference, and at what cost,” said Austen Ivereigh, a British expert on the Vatican and the author of The Great Reformer: Francis and the making of a radical pope.

While some historians have accused Pius of complicity in the persecution of the Jews because of his decision not to speak out, others insist he did all that he could in the circumstances.

They argue that to have criticised Hitler and the Nazi regime more strongly would have imperiled Catholics across occupied Europe.  “Had he spoken out, it could have been an excuse for Hitler to turn on the Catholic Church. These were very, very difficult moral choices,” said Mr Ivereigh.

The planned opening of the archives was welcomed by Jewish groups around the world. “We greatly appreciate Pope Francis’s decision,” said Noemi Di Segni, the president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities. It would enable historians “to reconstruct with greater clarity the Church’s position regarding the Shoah.”

“It’s shame that we’ll have to wait until 2020, but better late than never,” said Ruth Dureghello, the head of the Jewish community in Rome.

More than 1,000 Italian Jews were rounded up in Rome and deported to concentration camps in October 1943.

The Pope’s decision was also welcomed by Israel. "We are pleased by the decision and hope it will enable free access to all relevant archives," foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon wrote on Twitter.

It normally takes the Vatican 70 years from the end of a pontificate to open up its archives relating to the period, but there has been intense pressure to make an exception for those of Pius XII.

“Part of the problem is that simply cataloguing the stuff takes a lot of time, especially given that there aren’t many staff in the Secret Archives,” said Mr Ivereigh. “It’s a huge archive because it was a very long papacy.”


It’s grotesquely unfair for transgender women to compete in women’s sports, and outrageous for trans people to bully and vilify LGBT heroine Martina Navratilova for stating the obvious

 Serena Williams is the greatest female tennis player to ever lift a racquet. She’s dominated her sport in such a spectacular manner that it’s made her one of the richest, most successful sports stars in America. In 2017 alone, she earned $27 million from prize money and endorsements.

One of the major contributors to her triumphant career has been her extraordinary physique: Serena’s a tall, powerful woman. She’s 5ft 9in, weighs 155lbs and can bench press 225lbs.

When she was just ten years old, she beat US men’s champion Andy Roddick 6-1 when they were both junior players in Florida. But if they had played each other again when he was Men’s World No1, Roddick wouldn’t just have won, he’d have annihilated her.

To be honest, Serena Williams would be lucky to pick up even a couple of points

And it would likely be exactly the same outcome if she played any of the 1000 best male tennis players in the world.

(John McEnroe said 18 months ago that he thought Serena would rank 700th in men’s tennis, but other experts said he was being very generous)

This has got nothing to do with her incredible talent, and everything to do with her physiology. Male tennis players are just bigger, stronger, faster than her. And Serena is one of the biggest, strongest, fastest female tennis players in history.

So it’s not ‘sexist’ to say the top 1000 men would beat Serena – it’s a cold, hard, statistical fact.

Now imagine a scenario where a 25-year-old male player ranked say, No200 in the world, and earning around $100,000 a year, suddenly decides he wants to identify as female – either for genuine transgender reasons or for duplicitous, fraudulent, cynically commercial reasons – and now wishes to compete against women.

That player, if he underwent hormonal treatment to reduce his testosterone levels to the required levels, could spend the next 3/4 years playing as a woman on the women’s tour. He, now she, would instantly be the best female tennis player that’s ever lived.

She would destroy Serena Williams, and every other woman player.  She would win every major tournament, break every women’s tennis record, and win tens, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

And she would kill women’s tennis forever.

Oh, and if she then wished to, she could retire, and announce she was now identifying as male again.

That is the potentially ruinous scenario tennis legend Martina Navratilova recently articulated in a newspaper op-ed that promptly made her the most hated LGBTQ woman in America.

‘A man can decide to be female,’ she wrote in the Sunday Times of London, ‘take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to making babies if he do desires. It’s insane and it’s cheating.’

Yes, it is. And to those who scoff at the notion sportspeople might go to that kind of length to cheat, I scoff back: some sportspeople, as the likes of Lance Armstrong sadly reminded us, will go to ANY lengths to cheat if there is big money to be made.

Within hours of the column appearing, Navratilova was dropped as an ambassador for Athlete Ally, a US-based organisation that campaigns for LGBTQ sportspeople. They said her comments ‘perpetuate dangerous myths’. She was viciously vilified on social media, and accused of being ‘transphobic’.

Yet Navratilova, who herself faced huge amounts of abuse when she courageously came out as gay in 1981, has been one of the loudest and most loyal ‘allies’ to the LGBTQ community for decades. She even hired Renee Richards, the first transgender tennis star, as her coach.

That though counted for nothing. For daring to challenge the undeniable inequality created by transgender women participating in women’s sport, she had to be brutally attacked and punished.

Yesterday, Navratilova posted a new response to the growing furore, apologising for using the word ‘cheating’ but reiterating her concerns. ‘I am not trying to exclude trans people from living a fully, healthy life,’ she said. ‘All I am trying to do is make sure girls and women who were born female are competing on as level a playing field as possible within their sport.’

She has been widely supported by other athletes including former British Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies who said transgender women should not be permitted to compete in female competitions.

‘There is a fundamental difference between the binary sex you are born with and the gender you may identify as,’ Davies said. ‘To protect women’s sport, those with a male sex advantage should not be able to compete in women’s sport. Every single woman athlete I’ve spoken to, and I have spoken to many, all of my friends in international sports, understand and feel the same way as me. It’s not a transphobic thing. We have no issue with people who are transgender.’

Davies was also promptly accused of being a ‘transphobe’ and ‘sharing hate speech’ by transgender cyclist Rachel McKinnon who recently became UCI Masters Track World Champion despite having a vastly superior size advantage (she is 6ft and 200lbs) over female rivals.

It’s the go-to weapon to silence anyone these days – just call them a ‘phobe’ even when they respectfully suggest something is self-evidently unfair.

I’ve watched all this with astonishment. First, at the fact we are even having this debate when Martina Navratilova is so obviously right. Second, that anyone like her who dares to say this is being subjected to the most appalling bullying in a bid to silence an opinion the notoriously aggressive transgender lobby doesn’t want to hear.

(I was on the receiving end of transgender activists’ social media vitriol after conducting a perfectly sympathetic interview with leading trans spokesman Janet Mock a few years ago - and it was deeply unpleasant. I’m sure I will be again for this column.)

Amid all the debate-suppressing fury though, the facts speak for themselves. As more and more transgender women compete in women’s sport, so their performances grow more and more dominant.

In Connecticut, two transgender girl sprinters Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood just demolished all-comers in the sprinting races in the state’s outdoor championships, running way faster times than the nearest biological female runner.

One of their competitors, Selina Soule, said: ‘We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralising.’

She was keen to stress that she too is not remotely bigoted towards transgender people. ‘I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.’

In Brazil, Tiffany Abreu became the first transgender player in the top-flight women’s volleyball league in 2017, after a lengthy career as a male competitor.

Her record performances since have enraged some female players. Ana Henkel, a four-time Olympian for Brazil in volleyball and beach volleyball, wrote an open letter to the IOC saying: ‘This rushed decision to include biological men, born and built with testosterone, with their height, their strength and aerobic capacity of men, is beyond the sphere of tolerance. It represses, embarrasses, humiliates and excludes women.’

Of course is does.

The irony of this debate is that the transgender community has rightly fought for years to win equality and fairness. Yet now they are fighting equally ferociously for the right to have an unfair and unequal advantage over women in sport who were born biological females.

I, too, have no issue with transgender people and want them to have the same rights as everyone else. But it’s not ‘transphobic’ to believe that transgender women have an unfair edge in women’s sport that is purely down to their biological male bodies.

It’s just common sense.


Landmark report blows popular anti-vaxxer myth out of the water

Anti-vaxxers have clung to this conspiracy for decades and it has haunted the medical community. A new report exposes it for what it is

A major new study has revealed no link between autism and a childhood vaccine used by millions - but researchers fear myths spread by anti-vaxxers over decades means the “conspiracy” will be impossible to defeat.

A supposed link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine has caused angst for years and has fuelled claims by anti-vaxxers the vaccine - which is widely used in Australia and throughout the world - was unsafe.

This has led to a slower uptake in the vaccine than doctors would like and has contributed to the explosion of the anti-vaxxer movement.

A major Danish study published today shows the MMR vaccine does not increase the risk of autism, trigger autism in susceptible children and isn’t linked with clustering of autism cases following vaccination.

MMR vaccine requires two doses and protects against the three diseases. Its use has led to a dramatic fall in rates of measles in Western countries.

The nationwide study, by researchers from Copenhagen’s Statens Serum Institute, looked at all Danish children born between 1999 and 2010; more than half a million in total.

US and Australian experts has been quick to embrace the findings - and they all worry that even this study won’t be enough to finally smash the myth that MMR can cause autism.

“In an ideal world, vaccine safety research would be conducted only to evaluate scientifically grounded hypotheses, not in response to the conspiracy du jour. In reality, hypotheses propagated by vaccine sceptics can affect public confidence in vaccines.,” wrote Dr Saad Omer and Dr Inci Yildirim of the Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta.

That had obvious challenges, and led to questions about how much time and energy should now be spent on trying to convince people the vaccine was safe.

“Continuing to evaluate the MMR-autism hypothesis might come at the expense of not pursuing some of the more promising leads. Even in the face of substantial and increasing evidence against an MMR–autism association, the discussion around the potential link has contributed to vaccine hesitancy.

“Therefore, generating evidence on MMR vaccine safety may be useful but is certainly not sufficient. It has been said that we now live in a ‘fact-resistant’ world where data have limited persuasive value.”

Professor Katie Flanagan, an infectious diseases and clinical professor at the University of Tasmania, said all studies since a controversial Lancet article by a discredited UK doctor, Andrew Wakefield, had failed to find a link between autism and MMR.

Mr Wakefield, the former British doctor and researcher, birthed the modern anti-vaccination movement with widely discredited research, which was withdrawn by The Lancet medical journal and renounced by its co-authors, The Independent reported.

His medical licence was revoked in 2010.

“The (Wakefield) paper was subsequently withdrawn but the damage had been done. An increase in vaccine hesitancy and refusal since then has been associated with repeated outbreaks of measles in industrialised countries in recent years, including Australia, with cases doubling in Europe in the last year.”

Dr Flanagan said the latest study was the “largest study yet” to try and finally banish the supposed link.

“Perhaps it is time to finally lay to rest the false information that MMR causes autism and get on with the important goal of eradicating this deadly disease once and for all,” he said.

Dr Hannah Kirk, of Monash University, welcomed the news, but noted it was more time and money spent on refuting conspiracy theories.

“Although it is fantastic to see another high-quality study refute the myth of an autism and MMR vaccine link, it is disappointing that substantial research efforts, time and funds have to continue to be directed toward disproving something that we already know to be incorrect; rather than investigating more accurate causes of autism.”

But some experts believed not everyone would be convinced.

“Sadly, there will still be those who cling to conspiracy theories or coincidental evidence that confirms their fears or suspicions. The scientific method is not always applied perfectly and not all findings tell the whole story but it is the best tool we have for testing our guesses about how things work,” said Dr James F. Donnelly, a lecturer at Southern Cross University.

“Helping parents and the general public become informed consumers of research findings as they advocate for children is a key role for academics and clinicians across all healthcare disciplines.”


Senator slams Australian government as 'gutless and weak' for not granting Milo Yiannopoulos an Australian visa over protest fears

Senator Pauline Hanson has slammed the Scott Morrison government for not immediately approving a visa for right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos.

The One Nation leader said she has contacted Minister for Immigration David Coleman through letters, texts and phone calls - urging the government to grant Yiannopoulos a visiting visa ahead of his second Australian tour. 

'You may not agree with everything that they say as long as they don't go out there and advocate violence,' Ms Hanson told on Sky News Australia on Tuesday. 'If you actually want to stop someone. Stop the protesters with their violence.'

The conservative provocateur and anti-feminist had initially planned a speaking tour to Australia with far-right commentator Ann Coulter in December but was cancelled 'due to unforeseen circumstances'.

Outraged ticket-holders who demanded a refund, were instead offered to attend the 'Deplorables' speaking tour with Yiannopoulos, convicted criminal Tommy Robinson and self-described 'western chauvinist' Gavin McInnes.

The Deplorables tour was rescheduled to February 2019 but has been cancelled for the second time because the visa applications were still being considered by government authorities.

Ms Hanson claims Mr Coleman had told her he would have an answer regarding Yiannopoulos' visa by Monday when she contacted him on Friday. 'I rang him on the Monday. Still haven't heard anything,' she said. 'They're trying to keep me at bay and they still wouldn't make an answer.'

'I think that is weak. I think it's gutless. He has no reason for keeping Milo not coming into the country or Tommy Robinson.'

Robinson was jailed for endangering the trial of a group of sex attackers last year, then freed when his conviction was quashed on appeal. 

Mr McInnes' visa was refused, with the denial being appealed.

Yiannopoulos' is known for his commentaries mocking left-wing political correctness and feminists.

His Sydney speaking tour in 2017 attracted about 100 protestors who chanted 'f*** off Nazi', which led to seven arrests.

His Melbourne leg of the tour was even more violent, with police forced to use sticks to keep the demonstrators at bay.

Ms Hanson has blamed protesters for being the ones who instigate violence.

A statement from the Immigration Department to Yiannopoulos warned it is likely to deny him entry because there was a 'risk' he would 'incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community'.

The letter outlined the protests at his Sydney and Melbourne events as one reason for his likely ban, the Herald Sun reported.

'You were issued a bill of $50,00 by Victoria Police for the cost of your policing event,' the letter read. 

'They're the ones that should be stopped but they're reluctant to do it because the police are told not to do anything about them,' she said.

'I blame state governments and I blame local authorities.'



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 March, 2019

Prominent Australian conservative stands by Cardinal Pell

The testimony on which his Eminence was convicted was most implausible and was clearly unsafe.  Many Australian conservatives are therefore disturbed that a prominent conservative churchman was sent down on such evidence. They do not believe in his guilt at all and think he will be exonerated on appeal.  Miscarriages of justice often come to light

A common claim is that the jury must have seen Pell as guilty of SOMETHING in order to convict but an alternative hypothesis is that Pell was penalized not for anything he did personally but rather as a scapegoat for the foul deeds of many others in the church

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has defended his decision to stand by George Pell after the Cardinal's conviction for child sex offences, but says he does not recall whether he was asked to provide a character reference.

Mr Abbott, who phoned Pell last Tuesday when the guilty verdict became public, told Sydney shock jock Ray Hadley on Monday morning that the Cardinal "has been a friend of mine for a long time, and at a time like this you've got to feel for people".

"You've got to feel for the victims, who have been dreadfully betrayed by an institution they should have been able to trust, you've got to feel for the people who are dismayed at this verdict against someone they put up on a pedestal," he said.

Hadley last week excoriated former prime minister John Howard for the glowing character reference he gave Pell following the conviction, saying it showed a "a complete lack of understanding" of the victims of paedophiles, and on Monday demanded to know whether Mr Abbott had also provided a reference.

"Look, Ray, I honestly don't know if I was asked to provide a reference or not," Mr Abbott said. "I have no recall of providing a reference but, just, when it comes to the phone call, look, I'm not a fair-weather friend. This was someone who was obviously going through a very, very bad experience.

"I'm not saying he's the only one who is going through bad experiences, but he has been a friend of mine for a long time, and at a time like this you've got to feel for people ... These are tough times for a lot of people."

The interview comes after Hadley issued a fiery diatribe on air last week, in a rare moment of criticism against Mr Abbott, who is a regular guest on his show.

Hadley said that he found himself "at odds" with Mr Howard's decision to give a reference in which no mention was made of the victims of Pell's crimes, saying it was highly unusual for a convicted paedophile to receive such unwavering support.

"I consider it to be a gushing reference, considering it's for a convicted paedophile," he said, noting that the jury must have found the evidence from the unidentified victim "compelling".

"Everyone has a right to seek an appeal, but usually that doesn't dominate a discussion after a conviction."

Hadley said Mr Howard had made "a very poor error of judgment".  'You don't get references provided by a former prime minister portraying someone as a saint given he's just had a conviction for paedophilia."

Mr Abbott declined to comment on Mr Howard's decision, saying he could not speak for the man who had been "my colleague and mentor for many years".

He suggested the reason the conviction had been so thoroughly dissected was that it was "very unusual for someone of Cardinal Pell's seniority and substance to be on trial like this and, as we all know there's a sense that the church as been on trial in all this".

Hadley said the church, along with other institutions where paedophiles had access to children, had "rightly" been exposed after the problem was "for too long ... swept under the carpet and ignored".

The shock jock, who has long used his radio program to draw attention to the crimes of paedophiles, last week implied Mr Abbott's actions could cost him his seat in Federal Parliament at the election.

He asked this morning if Mr Abbott felt "compromised" by having someone close to him convicted of being a paedophile, after having supported the Gillard government's royal commission into institutional responses to child sex abuse as opposition leader.

"Well I don't believe so, Ray, I supported the royal commission because I thought it was the right thing to do," he replied.  "There's a verdict that's been delivered, a damning verdict against a friend of mine. It is subject to appeal, but I absolutely accept that the courts and their judgment are the best means we have of coming to the truth."

Mr Abbott said he took Hadley's point about victims having been "disbelieved for far too long", prompting the 2GB morning host to interject: "And it appears one is being disbelieved by some here as well, Mr Abbott!"

"I mean without knowing what the victim's said, there are people who have not given one sense of thought to this person," he said.


Nick Sandmann’s Lawyer Responds PERFECTLY After WAPO Issues “Correction"

It appears that the Washington Post is starting to get a bit nervous over the $250 million defamation lawsuit that has been filed against them by the high school student who they smeared as a racist and who fought back.

Nick Sandmann of Kentucky’s Covington Catholic HS was vilified by the media over a fake news story that the 16-year-old teen and his classmates harassed an elderly Native American Vietnam “combat veteran” during the March For Life in Washington D.C.

Given the WaPo’s influence as one of the preeminent newspapers in the country despite its fanatical anti-Trump bias, it was an essential component of the false narrative that resulted in the lives of Sandmann, his family and his fellow students being upended and the targets of celeb-led doxing campaigns as well as threats from unhinged individuals.

So Sandmann’s family retained the services of high-powered attorney L. Lin Wood to sue the bastards and the first on the list was the Washington Post which more than a month after running with the fake news, issued a lame “editor’s note” on Friday admitting that it’s reporting was flawed.

Nick Sandmann’s attorney fired back at the Washington Post Friday, saying that the outlet’s attempt at correction via an editor’s note was “barely worth comment.”

There is a good reason why Wood was not impressed. All of the correct information was available within two days of the initial false reportage and yet the WaPo neither retracted, apologized nor appended their wishy-washy editor’s note to the story until Friday.

Another of Sandmann’s lawyers Todd McMurtry was similarly unimpressed and in a comment provided to the libertarian website Reason he also blasted The Post.

“What The Washington Post put out is barely worth comment,” Todd McMurtry, an attorney for Sandmann, told Reason. “WaPo committed gross journalistic malpractice and cannot undo its deeds with an editor’s note that purports to correct the record over a month after it led a frenzied mob in trashing a minor’s reputation. The Sandmanns would never accept half of a half-measure from an organization that still refuses to own up to its error.”


Britain's first transgender hate crime trial is halted after one day as judge says 'there is no case and never was a case'

Britain's first transgender hate crime prosecution has been halted by a judge who declared: ‘There is no case and never was a case.’

Miranda Yardley, 51, was put ‘through ten months of hell’ after being accused of harassing a transgender activist on Twitter. But District Judge John Woollard dismissed the case after a one-day hearing, saying there was simply no evidence.

Campaigners called the decision a victory for free speech, while the accused claimed police were being used to ‘enforce a political ideology’.

The hearing at Basildon Magistrates’ Court in Essex last Friday brought into sharp focus the complex and often rancorous divisions within the transgender community.

On one side was Yardley, an accountant, who describes himself as a transsexual and identifies as a man, even though he underwent gender reassignment to become a woman ten years ago.

Despite his own experience, his contention is that individuals cannot change sex – and this has drawn fierce criticism on social media.

Giving evidence via video link was his accuser, Helen Islan, who is married with children and works with the trans advocacy group Mermaids, which campaigns for children who want to change gender.

The court heard that one of her teenage children is transgender.

The spat began with a discussion – joined by other Twitter users – about self-identification, which allows people to be recognised as transgender simply by declaring themselves male or female.

Concerns were also expressed about how the powerful trans lobby was allegedly eroding women’s rights by allowing transgender women, born male, into female-only spaces. This, it was argued, was a threat to women.

But using a pseudonym, Ms Islan accused her opponents of ‘spreading hysteria’ and it was at this point the exchanges grew increasingly aggressive.

In response, she was unmasked by Yardley who tweeted a picture and a link to her real identity. The tweet also referenced her transgender child, which Ms Islan argued effectively ‘outed’ him.

She said it led to them both being harassed adding that the post made her feel ‘stressed and sick’.

Initially, Ms Islan’s complaint was dealt with by West Yorkshire Police before being passed to colleagues in Essex, who decided it was a hate crime.

But when the case reached court the defence referred to pages of social media posts in which Ms Islan herself was regularly tweeting about her trans child, about him taking blockers, that he had ‘come out’ at school.

The court heard that a simple search on Google brought up Ms Islan’s personal details, including a family photograph that she had herself posted.

At one point during the hearing, Judge Woollard said: ‘Where is the evidence [of harassment] taking into account the need for free speech? You have to show a course of conduct and at the moment we have one tweet. Where is the evidence for Miranda Yardley outing Ms Islan’s son?’

Later he threw out the case and awarded costs to the defendant.

Yardley told The Mail on Sunday afterwards that he was ‘horrified’ by the decision to charge him, saying: ‘I faced losing everything I worked for.’

Barrister Amanda Jones, who has represented clients accused of ‘anti trans’ comments, said: ‘The police and the CPS routinely ignore rape threats, death threats and abusive material targeted at women online.

The entire criminal justice system is falling apart from underfunding and this case appears to have been a complete waste of public funds.’

Comedian Graham Linehan, who has been publicly critical of trans activists for attempting to ‘close down’ freedom of speech, said: ‘This is about an ideology and everyone who has tried to speak up against it is shut down and the activists are using every means they can to do this, including the courts.’

Essex Police said yesterday: ‘We take all reports of hate crime incidents seriously.’

Ms Islan said: ‘The decision to prosecute was made by the CPS, not me personally and I accept the verdict of the court.’


Arrest Made in Case of Brutal Berkeley Attack on Conservative Activist

Police arrested a 28-year-old man in connection with the Feb. 19 attack on a conservative recruiter at the University of California at Berkeley.

Zachary Greenberg was arrested Friday by university police after a judge issued a warrant for his arrest, Fox News reported. The arrest came a week after officials had closed the investigation, which they reopened Friday.

UC-Berkeley spokeswoman Diana Harvey said Greenberg worked for the college from May 21 to July 9, 2010 as a Department of Psychology lab assistant, according to Campus Reform. He was also “briefly” a non-degree seeking student at the school, Harvey said.

Greenberg faces charges of assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to cause great bodily injury.

California law enforcement officials arrested 28-year-old Zachary Greenberg on a felony warrant Friday afternoon for allegedly assaulting a conservative activist with Turning Point USA on the...

The attack on 26-year-old Hayden Williams, which was recorded on cell phone videos, took place Feb. 19 while Williams, a field representative for The Leadership Institute, was recruiting for the conservative college group Turning Point USA.

Williams was standing next to a table with a sign that read, “Hate Crimes Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims,” in reference to the Jussie Smollett case, KPIX reported. Williams said he was approached by two men who were angered over the signs.

Williams, 26, was punched in the face repeatedly by one of the men, whom the police later identified as Greenberg, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

“While every America should be afforded their due process, we believe that the video evidence in this case is incontrovertible,” Charlie Kirk, founder and President of Turning Point USA, said in a statement.

“We hope 28-year-old Zachary Greenberg is prosecuted to the full extent of the law for assault with a deadly weapon, which should be considered an act of hate. Hopefully, this dark chapter will act as a wake up call to those concerned about actual politically motivated hate crimes in America,” he said. “Berkeley and all college campuses across American should be safe havens for free thought and opinions – especially for a targeted conservative minority.”

The delayed response from Berkeley concerning the attack was blasted on social media as indicative of the attitude of colleges toward conservatives.

Conservatives call out Berkeley police for lack of arrest one week after campus assault on activist

The head of Turning Point USA says it is shocking that no arrest has been announced in connection to an alleged assault last week on a conservative activist at the University of California-Berkeley.

College officials have pushed back against claims that the investigation received lower priority because the victim was a conservative.

“Let there be no mistake, we strongly condemn violence and harassment of any sort, for any reason,” Chancellor Carol Christ and Vice Chancellor for student affairs Stephen C. Sutton wrote in a statement, The Washington Post reported. “That sort of behavior is intolerable and has no place here. Our commitment to freedom of expression and belief is unwavering.”

Greenberg is scheduled to appear in court on Monday. He is currently being held on $30,000 bail.



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 March, 2019

Tony Abbott mocks ‘neurotic anxiety’ of Brexit opponents

The authoritarian element in British politics is very strong -- only marginally less so among the Conservatives -- so the popular wish for Britain to cast off the shackles of Europe has been heavily resisted by the political class.  The result has been no agreement about how to move forward with Brexit -- Britain's exit from the EU.  In the circumstances, I have mostly left their interminable debates about it without comment.  I totally agree with Tony Abbott's comments about it however.  Some excerpts below.

Because Abbott is still influential in conservative circles, there have been a couple of rejoinders to his remarks.  I have not reproduced those rejoinders because it seems to me that they prove Abbott's point. They are just ‘neurotic anxiety’, as Abbott calls them.  The link below does lead to them if you want to evaluate them yourself.

Britain in fact has nothing to fear from the EU.  Britain buys a lot more from Europe than vice versa so a trade war would rapidly lead to EU capitulation.  Mrs May hasn't got the stones to do it but Britain would just have to put a complete embargo on the importation into Britain of French and German motor vehicles for the EU to come begging, with M. Macron in the lead and Mrs Merkel not far behind.

Mr Trump is unhappy with the European motor vehicle manufacturers at the moment so a combined Anglo American embargo on them would not take much organizing.  It would be quite hilarious and devastating in its effects and would show France and Germany up as the petulant children that they currently are

Tony Abbott has waded into the contentious debate about Britain’s looming exit from the European Union.

The former prime minister of Australia wrote a piece for The Spectator, titled No deal? No problem, in which he mocked the “neurotic anxiety” of politicians worried about the possibility of implementing Brexit without an official deal with the EU.

“Britain, we’re led to believe, is heading for the worst catastrophe in its history,” Mr Abbott said.

“Apparently the country that saw off Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and the Spanish Armada is now paralysed with fear at the very thought of leaving the EU.”

Britain is due to exit the EU in less than a month, on March 29.

Prime Minister Theresa May has spent the last two years trying to negotiate an agreement both sides can support, but when her proposed deal was put to the UK parliament in January, it was rejected by a huge margin.

She has promised MPs another vote on March 12. If they shoot down her deal again, she will call votes to determine whether they support a no deal Brexit, or whether they want to extend the deadline past March 29.

Mr Abbott believes Britain would be better off crashing out of the EU with no deal than procrastinating or agreeing to a “bad deal”.

He argued a disorderly Brexit would mean “at most a few months of inconvenience”.

“Perhaps some moderate transition costs. But these difficulties would quickly pass,” Mr Abbott wrote.

“By far the more serious threat comes from Britain caving in and agreeing to a bad deal that imposes most of the burdens of EU membership but with few of the benefits. Or, almost as bad, a Brexit delay that would keep the UK as a tethered goat — while the EU shows how it will humiliate any country with the temerity to leave.

“For Britain to lose its nerve now would represent failure on an epic scale.”

Mr Abbott said the EU, not Britain, would “clearly be the loser” in any sort of spiteful no deal scenario.

“As a former prime minister of a country that has a perfectly satisfactory ‘no deal’ relationship with the EU, let me assure you: no deal would be no problem. Or at least no problem that Britain couldn’t quickly take in its stride,” he said.

“A no deal relationship with the EU has not stopped Australia doing about $US70 billion worth of trade with the EU in goods and services.

“It must baffle pundits, but Australia trades with the EU (and with Britain) without being part of any customs union.

“Theresa May was quite correct two years ago when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal. What she should have known even then was that a bad deal was all that Britain was ever going to get from an EU with a vested interest in ensuring that no country ever leaves.”

He said the real difficulty with Brexit all along had not been negotiating an agreement, but dealing with “the neurotic anxiety of the official political class”, which he said sees the EU as a “civilising force”.

This is of course a highly charged debate — Britain has spent years arguing about practically nothing else


Wisconsin Man Sentenced for Threatening Jewish Community Center

Chadwick Grubbs, 33, was sentenced yesterday by United States District Judge Pamela Pepper to 36 months in prison for charges related to threatening letters he wrote on three separate dates in May 2018 to the Harry and Rose Samson Family Jewish Community Center (JCC) in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin. Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Matthew D. Krueger for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Acting Special Agent in Charge Michelle Sutphin of the FBI’s Milwaukee Division made the announcement.

“All people have the right to practice their religious beliefs without fear of threats or violence,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband. “Mr. Grubbs’ anti-Semitic actions have no place in our society today and the Department of Justice will continue to prosecute anyone who threatens to harm a community because of their faith.”

“The Department of Justice’s commitment to civil rights includes protecting faith communities from threats of violence,” said United States Attorney Matthew D. Krueger for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. “This prosecution should send a clear message that hate crimes like Mr. Grubb’s vile threats will not be tolerated.”

“It is every American’s right to exercise the religion of their choice. The FBI will vigorously pursue those who target faith based communities with threats of violence and intimidation, violators will face justice,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Michelle Sutphin of the FBI’s Milwaukee Division.

Grubbs pleaded guilty in November 2018 to two counts of mailing threatening communications and one count of threatening to injure and destroy property by fire and an explosive.  Information presented during the plea hearing established that Grubbs sent three letters to the JCC in which he threatened to use firearms to cause “maximum carnage” and explosives to destroy the JCC.  Grubbs used numbers and symbols associated with white supremacist ideology in the letters.

The FBI led the investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Gregory Haanstad of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Trial Attorney Kathryn Gilbert of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division prosecuted this case.

For more information about the Department of Justice’s work to combat and prevent hate crimes, visit www.justice.gov/hatecrimes: a one-stop portal with links to hate crimes resources for law enforcement, media, researchers, victims, advocacy groups, and other organizations and individuals.


Feminism Seems Intent on Signing Its Own Suicide Note

Giddier than a child on Christmas morning, American progressives have been obnoxiously active in celebrating a handful of menial victories this past week.

From the supposedly damning testimony of convicted perjurer Michael Cohen before the House Oversight Committee to the House’s passage of a universal background check bill that would do tremendous damage to private firearm sale, the American left is getting comfortable again.

Another win for the progressive movement came out of Connecticut this past weekend when two transgender females, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, achieved 1st and 2nd place in the girl’s 55-meter dash with record-breaking finishes at the state’s high school indoor track and field championship.

Like trained seals, progressives took to the airwaves and their social media feeds to applaud and take aim at anyone with the gall to suggest that the increasing number of victories of trans-women over biological women may prove this direct competition to be a questionable idea.

Hardly surprising considering establishment media headlines like ABC News’ “Transgender teens outrun track and field competitors but critics close behind” were par for the course when the very same concerns arose last spring as Miller and Yearwood medaled in the girl’s 100-meter at the State Open Finals.

Just as they were when professional trans athlete Rachel McKinnon was crowned a women’s cycling World Champion last Fall. Or when trans female Mack Beggs won two consecutive women’s high school wrestling championships. Or when a top-ranked NCAA track and field athlete switched from male-identified to female-identified in the middle of his collegiate career and kept competing.

Or when… You get the point.

One Bad Social Experiment

Progressives are employing their typical empathy traps and cries of bigotry to force Americans, in nearly every facet of their lives, into participating in a series of experiments to test their latest baffling hypothesis: Gender is a social construct detached from biological sex. Men can be women and women can be men.

Make no mistake, the experiment is a gigantic disaster.

And it is being carried out almost entirely at the expense of women — a group American leftists frequently claim to support, empower and protect. All the while they use the other side of their mouths to advocate for biological men’s God-given right to use the women’s restroom and compete against already under-supported female athletes.

Far more concerning is the fact that progressives are receiving record buy-in on their transgender platform issues from biologically female citizens and activists — particularly women identifying with “intersectional feminism.”

What on Earth is Intersectionality?

If you pay attention to recent trends in politics, chances are you have seen signs at rallies like the Women’s March claiming that “The Future is Intersectional.”

Intersectionality, the creation of Kimberlé Crenshaw, is a sociological theory that augments the left’s oppressor-oppressed class-conflict model, as laid out by figures like Noam Chomsky, by focusing on the way victims of “oppression” struggle in America based on their membership in more than one victim group.

Crenshaw, a professor at UCLA and Columbia Law School and an African-American female that came of age in the late 1970s and early 1980s, began her formulations on intersectional theory as she attempted to bridge the gap between her efforts to “demarginalize” both women and blacks early in her career.

As defined by the Oxford Dictionary, intersectionality is “the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.”

The theory believes it to be manifest that white, cisgender males are the least oppressed class in American society — which must mean they are the oppressors — while people like homosexuals, women and those of non-Caucasian ethnicity are oppressed.

Thus, it stands to reason that if you hold membership in more than one oppressed group, you must be exponentially more disadvantaged.

Intersectional advocates ask that society’s marginalized communities recognize one another not for their differences, but for the idea that they are all victimized. Minority groups should meet at the intersection of their identities — where they are all marginalized — and come together to advocate as one large group.

Initially, the idea was to get first, and second-wave feminists, who were predominantly white and upper-class, to recognize that women of color were more disadvantaged than them and that they could achieve more by joining together as a larger force with one thing in common: their victimhood as females.

Feminism Goes the Way of Ophelia

Aside from the clunky academic jargon it employs, the theory is not devoid of merit. Obviously, at the time it was beneficial and right for women of all races to come together for their own common good.

Unfortunately, however, this theory has been carried out well past its logical ends — to the point of absolute insanity.

As Ben Shapiro said in a Prager University video last June, intersectionality is the reason one may now see feminists and homosexual activists at pro-Palestinian rallies or things of that nature.

“They’re so united by their victim status that it doesn’t matter that Islamists throw gays off buildings or murder female family members who defy their father’s wishes,” Shapiro said.

In its success, the left has made these “structurally disadvantaged” groups — particularly women — so hyper-focused on their collective victimhood that they are willing to throw in their lot with groups whose cause is not only antagonistic but downright antithetical to their own in order to fight some indefinable and impalpable “oppressor.”

Their effort to weaponize modern feminism has resulted in women linking themselves at the hip with Islamic or transgender activists regardless of the fact that these groups do nothing but incidentally, or in some cases purposefully, set back the cause of women. So pervasive is this new ideology that biologically female feminists even fear being ostracized by their fellow feminists should they dare speak out against the conception that biological men can suddenly be women.

Feminism has entirely lost its identity. In fact, it seems modern feminism is intent on going the way of William Shakespeare’s Ophelia.

But Ophelia had every intention of killing herself, where feminists seem to think they may just be going for a quick swim. And so long as the modern women’s movement signs on with the intersectional left, it may as well be signing its own suicide note.


Warrencare: A Brainwashing Babysitter

Were the United States of America transformed to conform to the vision that Sen. Elizabeth Warren embraces, many government agencies — such as those charged with enforcing the Green New Deal she co-sponsors — might resemble Big Brother.

But the most insidious element would be a brainwashing babysitter.

To Warren, parents who take care of their own preschool children are victims of a class war.

"Right now, high quality child care is a privilege for the rich," Warren said in a tweet last week. "I believe it should be a fundamental right for everyone."

"Child care should be a fundamental right. Period," she said in a follow-up tweet.

Do not be confused: Warren is not saying children have a right to parents who take care of them.

She is saying parents have a right to have someone else take care of their children for them.

Why should parents take care of their own children? To Warren, it is an outrage that some are forced to do that.

To illustrate her point, she has described the hardships she herself endured as a law school professor with children.

She makes clear: Caring for children interfered with her career.

"I had been teaching for just a few weeks when the babysitter quit, and from then on, I was just on a treadmill," Warren said in a 2017 speech to the National Women's Law Center. "We cycled through one child care arrangement after another and every transition sent me into a near-panic. Every time, it represented a failure."

"I was failing," said Warren. "I was failing my kids, I was failing my family, I was failing my teaching. I was doing laundry at 11 o'clock at night and class preps after midnight, and I felt like I was always behind."

Ironically, it was family — not government — that saved Warren.

Her Aunt Bee came and lived with her and took care of her children while she continued working as a law professor. "I'm a United States Senator today in part because my Aunt Bee rescued me on that Thursday in 1979," Warren said.

But Warren is not advocating that other families emulate her experience. Aunt Bee may have been her answer, but for the rest of America she is offering another answer: government.

Warren has proposed the Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act.

"My plan will guarantee high-quality child care and early education for every child in America from birth to school age," Warren wrote in a commentary posted at Medium.com.

Yes, she is proposing a guarantee for every child from birth.

Her Senate website includes a summary of the plan.

"This plan provides a mandatory federal investment to establish and support a network of locally-run Child Care and Early Learning Centers and Family Child Care Homes so that every family, regardless of their income or employment, can access high-quality, affordable child care options for their children from birth to school entry," it says.

According to Warren's summary, "the federal government would partner with sponsors — states, counties, cities, school districts, tribal organizations, or other nonprofit entities — to administer the program ..."

The federally funded centers and homes would be run by "child care workers" given "wages and benefits" that are "comparable to those of similarly-credentialed local public school teachers."

Parents making less than 200 percent of the poverty level could pay nothing to deposit their children there, the summary explains. No parents would be charged more than 7 percent of their income.

What would children do there? The facilities "would provide pre-K curriculum and educational services for children before they enter school," says the summary.

What would children be taught? "Providers would receive support and time to meet new requirements, which would focus on early learning and social-emotional development," says the summary.

The centers and homes, it says, would provide "a safe and nurturing environment that promotes children's holistic growth and development."

Is it reasonable to conclude that the "social-emotional development" and "holistic growth" future generations of Americans would experience in these federally funded, federally regulated, starting-from-birth child care centers would nurture the values and independent spirit needed to keep America a free and independent nation?

Where would you prefer to spend your preschool days: in a traditional family with a loving and attentive mom and dad? Or in an Elizabeth Warren Center under the watch of unionized workers "comparable" to "local public school teachers"?

Who would do a better job teaching you right and wrong? Faith and patriotism? Love and compassion?

Warren says she would not mandate that parents surrender their children to these centers. "Nobody would be required to enroll in this new program," she says.

In other words: If you like raising your own children, you can keep raising your own children.

This is not Obamacare. It is Warrencare.



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


3 March, 2019

A most politically incorrect man

A woman dressed as a nun is standing outside the London Palladium with a placard, warning about ‘an evening with a religious extremist’. She refers to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who sold all 2,300 seats at the venue in a fortnight — a feat that enraged his critics all the more.

The nun eventually found a loudspeaker to address Spectator subscribers, who waved cheerfully as they filed in to the theatre. This stage has played host to entertainers like Bruce Forsyth, Marvin Gaye, Tommy Steele and Jimmy Tarbuck — and now, the backbench MP for North East Somerset, offering an evening of political discussion. We live in strange times.

He arrives late, fresh from a meeting with the European Research Group of Tory Brexit MPs, where they had to accept their game was up. He says he’s ready for no deal. ‘But I don’t think we’ve got the votes in parliament for it,’ he admits. So he has changed tactics, and is ready to back an extension of Article 50 in the hope of improving Theresa May’s deal. ‘If three months’ delay is the price we have to pay to get out properly… well, three months in the history of our great nation is a mere bagatelle. We can live with that. So we are very optimistic and we will make sure that Brexit succeeds.’

I put it to him that, right now, Brexit looks like a mess — and one made worse by his botched attempt to depose the Prime Minister, further diminishing her authority. ‘I think perhaps you have a kindly view of the authority that the Prime Minister had earlier in this process,’ he says. So that’s his defence: that her authority couldn’t have got any lower? ‘Broadly: yes,’ he replies. Her deal was a dud, so he felt he had to act. ‘You can snipe from the sidelines, you can give anonymous briefings, you can feed poison into people’s ears. Or you can stand up and say: “Actually, this isn’t good enough — we need a change.” That’s what we said. It didn’t work and therefore we had to accept that result.’

The debacle over the leadership challenge seems to have done nothing to dent his popularity — not just with Brexiteers, but also with those struck by his cheerful defence of unpopular positions. The protestor dressed as a nun (later thwarted in an attempt to smuggle stink bombs into the theatre) had a point often made by his critics: that his religious views — he opposes gay marriage and abortion, even in cases of incest and rape — are illiberal and extreme. He replies that this is simply the teaching of a Catholic church with a billion members. ‘So me and a billion extremists. Even more than the 17.4 million I agree with on Brexit. And I get accused of being an extremist for that as well. I think it’s a term that gets bandied about by people who don’t want to engage in any intellectual argument.’

But, he’s asked from the floor, what about Tim Farron, who quit as the Lib Dem leader saying it wasn’t possible to be a Christian and lead a mainstream party? You can’t be a Christian and lead the Liberal Democrats, he says. ‘But that’s hardly a mainstream party nowadays. They hounded out Tim Farron. The Conservative party, in this sense, is much more liberal. I’m very lucky, I do appreciate that.’ And the reaction his religious views so often draw? ‘I only get the reaction from a nutter who dresses up as a nun. I’m not appealing to the nutter vote.’

So who does he appeal to? When I stood at the door on the way in to see who turned up, I was struck by how many members of the Rees-Mogg family were coming through the doors, nanny and all. Gillian, his mother, told me that she helped kick-start his investment career when he inherited £50 aged ten, and was given the choice to spend or invest it. He chose the latter, and a year later turned up to the GEC annual meeting to complain about the dividend policy. In his late twenties, he set up Somerset Capital Management, which manages £5.3 billion of funds. He works there one day a week, paying himself a cool £500 an hour.

Excessive? ‘You wouldn’t get a lawyer for that,’ he laughs. ‘If you create a business that employs 50 people, has an office in Singapore and an office in London I think you deserve to be paid for it. I’m a capitalist,’ he says. ‘When I set up Somerset Capital Management with my partners we operated from the basement of my house in London. We didn’t have an office. The first few months’ salaries were paid from my own bank account. You are entitled, when you take that risk of setting up a business, to make money out of it. If people don’t, we have no prosperity in this country.’

The audience loved it, but one dissenter asked if £500 an hour was a bit much when he’s voting for nurses and doctors to have pay freezes. ‘Completely irrelevant comparison,’ he snaps back. ‘It’s nothing to do with being worth anything. It’s what is produced by the company that you have and therefore the value that comes from that company.’

There have been so many rumours about the Moggster that it’s very hard to discern fact from fiction. Is it true that, as a father of six, he has never changed a nappy? Yes: ‘I don’t think Nanny would think I was competent at it.’ ’ That he has never washed up the dishes? ‘Well, there’s a washing machine!’ But is he in the habit of stacking or emptying it? ‘Not routinely, no’. And is it true that he said Theresa May was ‘absolutely brilliant and will do a fabulous job’? He beats his breast. ‘Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.’

The final question from the floor: how will he celebrate Brexit day? ‘The problem with the 29 March is it’s in the middle of Lent,’ he says. ‘But the great thing about the Catholic church is that there is usually some dispensation. So I must find out which saint’s day it is on the 29 March. If we have really left, then that saint will be so honoured. With Pol Roger, with Bollinger — you name it, that saint will be honoured.’


Boys Will Be Girls?

A kerfuffle over two boys competing in track as girls highlights the insanity of "transgenderism."   

“Clearly that can’t be right. You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.” —a tweet by former women’s tennis star and current LGBT activist Martina Navratilova

On Feb. 7, “transgender” athletes finished first and second in the 55-meter dash at the state of Connecticut’s open indoor track championships. The winner was Terry Miller, a boy who set a girl’s state indoor record of 6.95 seconds. Second place finisher, Andraya Yearwood, is also a boy who completed the dash in 7.01 seconds. The third-place competitor, who is female, finished in 7.23 seconds. Miller and Yearwood also ran first and second in last year’s 100-meter state championship race, and Miller won the 300 meter this season as well.

According to Transathlete.com, a website that insists transgender athletes “should be allowed to use locker room and bathroom facilities without harassment and discrimination,” Connecticut is one of 17 states that allow transgender high-school athletes to compete without restrictions. In seven states, athletes are required to compete under the gender on their birth certificate, switching only after undergoing sex-reassignment procedures or receiving hormone therapy. The remaining 26 states have no policy, or handle the issue on a case-by-case basis.

The common denominator with regard to coverage of this story? Walking on eggshells, lest “progressive” sensibilities be offended. The Associated Press typifies that approach, stating, “Critics say their gender identity amounts to an unfair advantage, expressing a familiar argument in a complex debate for transgender athletes as they break barriers across sports around the world from high school to the pros.”

There is no “complex debate.” There is the simple biological and chromosomal reality that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, men are stronger and faster than women — and transgenderism is engendered by a psychological condition known as gender dysphoria. Yet as Dr. Paul McHugh, the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School, warns, challenging progressive dogma elicits hysterical blowback. “Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle,” he asserts.

Tragically, vested interests currently prevail. “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” said female competitor Selina Soule. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Not anymore. Because Soule finished eighth in the 55 meter dash, she missed qualifying for the New England regionals by two spots. Thus if Miller and Yearwood had not run, she likely would have been on her way to a meet where her talents would have been seen by more college coaches — possibly eliciting scholarship offers.

Regardless, Glenn Lungarini, executive director of the Connecticut’s high-school-sports governing body, toes the politically correct line. “This is about someone’s right to compete,” he insists. “I don’t think this is that different from other classes of people, who, in the not too distant past, were not allowed to compete. I think it’s going to take education and understanding to get to that point on this issue.”

Really? Then why not openly allow boys to compete in the same races? If the sole determinant of one’s gender comes down to nothing more than the assertion of such, there is no substantial difference between the two positions, other than the aforementioned — and seemingly automatic — surrender to progressive dogma.

Joanna Harper, a medical physicist and “transgender” runner from Portland, Oregon, suggests that there should be a standard based on hormone levels. “The gender identity doesn’t matter; it’s the testosterone levels,” she asserts. “Trans girls should have the right to compete in sports. But cisgender girls should have the right to compete and succeed, too. How do you balance that? That’s the question.”

(“Cisgender” is the near-pejorative term “transgender” advocates assign to people who still “identify” with their birth sex.)

Navratilova answered the balance question in an op-ed published on Feb. 17 by the UK’s Sunday Times. After reiterating her position that allowing men to compete as women “simply if they change their name and take hormones is unfair — no matter how those athletes may throw their weight around,” she addressed such “solutions.”

“Simply reducing hormone levels — the prescription most sports have adopted — does not solve the problem,” she wrote. “A man builds up muscle and bone density, as well as a greater number of oxygen-carrying red blood cells, from childhood. … Training increases the discrepancy. Indeed, if a male were to change gender in such a way as to eliminate any accumulated advantage he would have to begin hormone treatment before puberty. For me, that is unthinkable.”

For the dedicated dogmatists of progressivism, nothing is unthinkable. Despite extensive data collated by Dr. James Cantor revealing “60-90% of trans-kids turn out no longer to be trans by adulthood,” Boston Children’s Hospital endocrinologist Norman Spack revealed in 2013 that his idea of industry practice “is to prevent pubertal progression in the first place.” He advocated “biological clock-stopping drugs” for boys as young as 12 and girls as young as 10, lest the biological immutability of testicular development and breast development, respectively, make it harder to transition.

In short, members of an ostensibly “first do no harm” medical community are advocating for life-altering procedures that will ultimately be rejected by a minimum of six in 10 who received such procedures in the preadolescent stage of their lives.

That’s not medicine. It’s child abuse.

Regardless, Navratilova’s candidness has cost her. Homosexual advocacy group Athlete Ally has cut ties with the tennis champion because she perpetuated “dangerous myths” about “transgender” women. “As an organisation dedicated to addressing root causes of homophobia and transphobia in and through sport, we will only affiliate with those committed to the same goal, and not those who further misinformation or discrimination in any way,” the group stated.

Where are the so-called feminists? Likely calculating the political costs of championing the genuine victimhood of real women forced to compete against biological males over that of yet another “protected class” whose arrogance is exceeded only by their militancy. The parents of short-shrifted biological females? Also walking on eggshells due to that same militancy.

The female athletes themselves? Force-fed a transgender agenda as early as kindergarten, all the attendant propaganda included.

Why do Americans tolerate this government-sanctioned, tyranny-of-the-minority insanity? Insanity epitomized by the reality of a dominant, record-setting NCAA track star competing as a woman — one year after competing as a man at the same level? Moreover, why shouldn’t a majority of parents, as opposed to ideologically driven school officials, have the ultimate say with regard to dissemination of transparently political agendas in classrooms?

Americans need to understand that if biological and chromosomal reality is “negotiable,” every aspect of reality is equally negotiable.

Is the nation ready for “two plus two equals five” — and other equally totalitarian permutations?


Smollett Lies Expose a Culture of Lying to — and About — the Police
Lawyers representing Jussie Smollett, the actor who apparently lied to the Chicago Police Department about an alleged hate crime, called him a “man of impeccable character and integrity.”

Before Smollett’s tale of being of a victim of an attack by two men yelling pro-Trump slogans fell apart, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., one of many who vouched for his character, blamed President Donald Trump for creating an atmosphere that encouraged such an attack. Waters said: “I know Jussie. I love him. His family’s a friend of mine. I know his sisters, I met his mom, and I called already to Jazz, one of the sisters, to talk to her about what’s happening, what’s going on.”

This “man of impeccable character and integrity” appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” two weeks ago, where an oh-so-sympathetic Robin Roberts interviewed him. Smollett, at times tearing up, described the pain of being attacked by racist Trump-supporting homophobes. But he also described his second painful experience, that of being doubted. “It feels like if I had said it was a Muslim or a Mexican or someone black,” Smollett told Roberts, “I feel like the doubters would’ve supported me a lot more, and that says a lot about the place that we are in our country right now.”

Smollett’s alleged hoax raised many interesting questions, one of which is this: How often do people lie to or about the police?

In 2012 in the city of Rialto, California, with a population of approximately 100,000, cops were randomly assigned body cameras based on their shifts. Over the next year, a follow-up analysis showed use-of-force incidents on the shifts with body cams were down 59 percent compared to those without cameras. But something else rather extraordinary also happened. Complaints against all Rialto police officers — with or without body cams — were down 87.5 percent from the prior year.

Why? It was not because officers changed their behavior. They applied the same training they used before body cams. It was the civilians who changed their behavior. It turned out that when civilians knew they were being recorded, they behaved better and stopped making false accusations. Civilians — aware that they might be taped — became less confrontational, followed officers’ instructions more readily and did not engage in the kind of resistant behavior as before random cops were required to use body cams. As a result, officers did not have to use the kind of force previously needed.

A 20-year veteran Rialto police officer told me: “Newspapers make you think that the cameras made us change what we did and how we went about our business ‘because the cops were being watched.’ That’s not true. The cameras made the civilians stop lying about us, reduced the mouthing off and the kind of resistance we used to see.”

The city of Rialto is not alone in experiencing an almost 90 percent drop in officer complaints as a result of body cams.

A 2016 Cambridge University study of five police stations in the U.K. (in England and Northern Ireland) and two in the U.S. (including Rialto) found the same result. Complaints against the police fell 93 percent when some officers were randomly assigned body cams. Jayne Sykes of the West Yorkshire Police Department said: “Anecdotally, in terms of bringing offenders to justice, our Crown Prosecution Service have said to us on numerous occasions that the video footage has tipped the ballot in favor of prosecution, whereas without it, they may not have been able to prosecute. And also, again anecdotally, we’re getting more early guilty plea from suspects which saves the victim the trauma of having to go to court and give evidence.”

Barack Ariel from Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology, one of the authors of Cambridge’s study, says that in the original Rialto study, the drop in complaints against police translated into a savings of $4 in complaint litigation for every $1 spent on the installation of body cams.

In the last two years, there have been several hate crimes later exposed as hoaxes. Nikki Joly, a Michigan LGBT activist lost his house in a 2017 fire, which killed his two dogs and three cats inside the home. Two days later, the activist exhorted his followers “to be angry, be very angry.” The police quickly determined it was arson, while the FBI investigated it as a hate crime. As a result of his “plight,” the activist, called “citizen of the year” by a local newspaper, received $58,000 in donations. But a year later, the police charged the activist with setting the fire.

When Smollett’s hate crime claim imploded, Roberts called Smollett’s story “a setback for race relations.” About the assertion made by many blacks that cops engage in “systemic” or “structural” or “institutional” racism, one must ask this question: What impact do false accusations against cops play in pushing the “cops are out to get us” narrative?


Another criminal Mexican illegal opens fire on an American police officer

As the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week, Napa County sheriff’s deputy Riley Jarecki stopped to examine a red Honda in a parking lot. She was speaking with the driver when the man pulled out a handgun and shot the officer. The cop then pulled her service weapon and fired “at least 15 shots” into the vehicle, all captured on her body camera.

Jarecki was not yet aware that the driver, Javier Hernandez-Morales, 43, also had a loaded rifle in the Honda. The “undocumented immigrant” died at the scene, but there was more to the story.

Hernandez-Morales, a Mexican national, had been deported three times, twice in 2007 and once in 2010.  ICE had issued four separate detainers related to arrests on suspicion of driving under the influence, battery on a peace officer, selling liquor to a minor and unknown probation violations. As the Chronicle reported, “none of the detainers was honored by jail staff.”  If these and other detainers had not been refused, according to immigration officials, “this incident may have been prevented.”

Jon Rodney of the California Immigrant Policy Center, which fights deportation, did not decry the Mexican criminal’s attack on a female American police officer, any other crimes Hernandez-Morales had committed, or his unlawful presence in the country. As Rodney told the Chronicle,  “We have seen how ICE and the president politicize tragedy, and I think that is irresponsible and wrong.”

Napa County Undersheriff Jon Crawford went on record that by pulling a loaded pistol and firing at officer Jarecki, the Mexican intended to kill her. Crawford did not speculate on other goals the violent Mexican criminal might have had in mind. At this writing, pro-sanctuary California governor Gavin Newsom has not weighed in on the case, and Californians might watch how attorney general Xavier Becerra responds.

The pro-sanctuary Becerra is unconcerned about the immigration status of the MS-13 gang members who have murdered 14 during a reign of terror in Mendota, near Fresno. So former congressman Becerra, once on Hillary Clinton’s short list as a running mate, is not likely to side with officer Riley Jarecki.

California’s Democrat attorney general has also been rather quiet about the murder of police officer Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant from Fiji, by Mexican gang member Paulo Virgen Mendoza, also known as Gustavo Perez Arriaga and other names. The Mexican killed Singh in Newman, California, on the day after Christmas, and new developments in the case are proving educational.

Sanctuary advocates proclaim that illegals commit fewer crimes that legitimate citizens. And without sanctuary laws, Californians are endlessly told, the “undocumented” will not call the police. None ever called the police on the murderer of Ronil Singh. In fact, they helped him escape.

As the Modesto Bee notes, last week a federal grand jury returned a nine-count indictment against Erik Razo Quiroz, Adrian Virgen Mendoza, Conrado Virgen Mendoza, Erasmo Villegas Suarez, Ana Leydi Cervantes Sanchez, Bernabe Madrigal Castaneda, Maria Luisa Moreno. Their aid to the fugitive Mendoza, “included transporting and housing him, providing him with clothes, money and a cell phone, and wiring money to smuggle him out of the country.” And the indictment adds “ID fraud to previous charges.”

Mendoza’s brothers, Conrado Virgen Mendoza and Adrian Virgen-Mendoza, are “charged with using a false Social Security number and possessing a false lawful permanent resident card, or green card, to secure employment.” Another relative, Erasmo Villegas-Suarez, is charged with “using a false Social Security number to gain work.”

As this confirms, the Mexican nationals who aided the fugitive cop killer were not “undocumented.” They were false-documented, like virtually all foreign nationals who violate U.S. immigration law and continue to live and work in the United States. Document fraud is a serious crime but when committed by Mexican nationals in the country illegally, California takes no action. That applies whether or not the false-documented illegal is a previously deported criminal.

Repeatedly deported felon Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, was not handed over to federal official and proceeded to gun down Kate Steinle in San Francisco. In similar style, gang member Paulo Virgen Mendoza, or whatever his real name is, had previous encounters with the law but enjoyed protection from federal immigration officials.

That’s why officer Ronil Singh, who came to the United States to become a police officer, is dead. Mendoza returns to court on April 8. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek the death penalty.

Meanwhile, Javier Hernandez-Morales, or whatever his real name is, also enjoyed protection from immigration authorities. That’s why he was able to commit crimes and attempt to kill Napa County sheriff’s deputy Riley Jarecki. Had the Mexican been successful, other false-documented illegals would surely have helped him flee.

Fortunately, the quick-acting Jarecki was able to take down the shooter, who had other loaded weapons in the vehicle. Napa County is investigating the incident, and Californians should not be surprised if Jarecki winds up disciplined for deploying excessive or, the current favorite, “disproportionate” force.



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 March, 2019

Enough moral panic. Mobile phones are life-enhancing

I suppose it makes a change from Brexit, obesity and plastic bags. Recent weeks have seen a litany of hand-wringing about the time people spend on their mobile phones. So severe is the apparent crisis that even my colleague, the great and iron-willed Tim Harford, has been chronicling his efforts to shake off the mobile curse.

I am slightly surprised we have not seen this modern calamity captured in heart-tugging news pictures akin to the environmental catastrophe tropes of seals trapped in plastic bags. Perhaps some terrifying pictures of frazzled toddlers clutching Huaweis, or children gazing at their tablets and singing “They’re here”, like the little girl in front of the TV in Poltergeist.

Now, I do not wish to dispute the valid societal concerns raised by the overuse of mobiles, but surely some perspective is needed. This is not an epidemic of homelessness or a flu pandemic. Indeed, it feels rather more like the kind of middle-class moral panic that followed the invention of the television.

It is time to stand up for the smartphone, surely one of the most wondrous, useful, boredom-battling devices ever created. Perhaps my equanimity in the face of this crisis is a sign of my age, of the fact that I was born into a pre-internet and even pre-PC era. The notion of owning a computer you could put in your pocket was the stuff of science fiction, of Captain Kirk, phasers and “Beam me up, Scotty”.

Everyone we know now has a computer, film- and music-streaming service, iPod, newsagent, telephone and stack of books in their pocket. Of course we spend a lot of time on it. Almost everything you want aside from physical activity can be accessed via a smartphone. It is our contacts book, our entertainment and our general transmitter to the world. How many other devices would you turn around and go home to get if you left them behind? This is not addiction, it is mere good sense. Americans may cherish their guns; for me it’s my phone. If only there was a constitutional amendment enshrining my right to bear data.

People often complain that this time could be so much better used — spent with friends and loved ones instead of on social media, for example. Well, that’s great, but the 7.45pm from Waterloo is not exactly crammed with my friends and family. There is no nightly Shrimsley Express jam-packed with people I would like to see in person.

I love the fact that I can zone out of a tedious meeting, although it would be nice to be less obvious about it. I am delighted the spawn have an app on their phone that allows them to work out how to get anywhere on public transport. Although I admit I liked it less last weekend, when a snafu told the girl her bus to Sunday school wasn’t running and I had to get up unspeakably early to give her a lift, only to see the aforementioned double-decker trundling towards me as I dropped her off.

If we choose to fiddle away our time on a screen rather than doing something more “useful”, it is because we are enjoying it more. It reminds me of a TV series from my childhood called Why Don’t You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go and Do Something Less Boring Instead? It was full of “fun” things to do, like making cheese and pineapple sticks. The reason we eschew more worthy things is because they are not actually less boring. Have you ever made a cheese and pineapple cocktail stick? Believe me, diminishing returns on enjoyment set in pretty fast.

Of course, there are downsides. Wander into a restaurant and you will see people sitting at tables ignoring each other and playing with their devices. It can be hard to switch off. Pedestrians tap in messages when they should be looking where they are going; teenagers spend too long on chat apps. We are still struggling towards a behavioural equilibrium. But the phone does not stop anyone going for a run, meeting friends or reading a book if they want to.

There is a reason why we only worry about other people’s phone use and rarely our own. Mobile phones are life-enhancing devices and, deep down, we all know it. So if you are reading this on yours, I salute you.


Michelle Malkin: I've Been Silicon Valley Sharia'd

Last week, the little birdies in Twitter's legal department notified me that one of my tweets from 2015 is "in violation of Pakistan law." It seems like ancient history, but Islamic supremacists never forget — or forgive.

My innocuous tweet featured a compilation image of the 12 Muhammad cartoons published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. It also linked to my Jan. 8, 2015, syndicated column on the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre in Paris. There's no hate, violence, profanity or pornography, just harmless drawings and peacefully expressed opinions about the Western media's futile attempts to appease the unappeasable enforcers of sharia law, which bans all insults of Islam.

The Twitter notice assured me that the company "has not taken any action on the reported content at this time," yet advised me that I should "consult legal counsel about this matter" in response to complaints from unnamed "authorized entities."

Don't worry, lawyer up? Gulp.

I'm used to getting threats directly from bloodthirsty cartoon jihadists. In 2006, I spearheaded a "Mohammed cartoons blogburst" in support of the Danish cartoonists at Jyllands-Posten. After posting all 12 of the drawings to educate the public about the publication's brave stand against sharia-enforced self-censorship in the West, death and rape threats from radical Muslims around the world poured into my email inbox. Vengeful thugs based in Turkey and Germany called me a "whore" and "prostitute," vowing "We will kill you" unless I deleted the pictures from my server. My website was targeted by jihadist hackers who launched a week of denial-of-service attacks.

Thirteen years later, however, who knew that using an American company's microblogging service from my secluded mountaintop in Colorado could get me in hot water with foreign Muslim stone-age goons 8,000 miles away still hung up on the cartoons.

Who knew Twitter would act as dutiful messenger pigeons for the oppressive anti-blasphemy police squad that sentences people to death for disparaging Islam.

Welcome to Silicon Valley sharia.

Over the past few months, several other prominent critics of Islamic extremism have received similar warning letters from Twitter's legal department, including Saudi-Canadian activist Ensaf Haidar, the wife of imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi; Imam Mohammad Tawhidi, an Iranian-born Muslim scholar and reform advocate from Australia; Jamie Glazov, a Russian-born Canadian columnist who just released a new book called "Jihadist Psychopath"; and Pamela Geller, an anti-jihad blogger and activist.

Jacob Engels, another conservative activist and blogger, was suspended from Twitter this weekend without explanation. His last tweet linked to video of a black Christian street preacher being arrested for "breaching the peace." Engels opined that the scene depicted "America's future thanks to (Rep. Ilhan Omar). Roaming rape gangs ... cops do nothing. Massive terrorist attacks."

There's no violence, hate, profanity or pornography, just an informed opinion about the consequences of open borders and capitulation to Islamic extremism. So why was Engels censored for condemning violent Muslims? Jack Morrissey, the Disney film producer who publicly called for the falsely accused Covington Catholic high school students to be fed into a woodchipper "screaming, hats first," was allowed to retain his verified Twitter status without any punishment for his bloody death wishes.

This is all of a piece. As I reported in December, citizen journalist Laura Loomer was banned from Twitter for stating true facts about radical Muslim Rep. Ilhan Omar's embrace of sharia laws that threaten gays, Jews and women. Loomer has since been deplatformed from PayPal and just learned she can no longer sell T-shirts protesting Twitter's ban with the hashtag #StopTheBias on Teespring.

Paypal's CEO admitted this week that he relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center's powerful smear machine for input on which conservatives to blacklist in order to uphold the company's alleged values of "diversity and inclusion." SPLC's de-Paypal'd victims include Tommy Robinson, an English anti-jihad activist; VDARE, a nationalist immigration news and commentary site that publishes my syndicated column; and Gavin McInnes, a humorist, social critic and media entrepreneur whose fans have raised nearly $140,000 at DefendGavin.com for his powerful defamation lawsuit against the SPLC. McInnes was also de-Twittered and temporarily de-YouTube'd.

Among others targeted by SPLC, which collaborates with credit card companies and banks to silence influential thinkers and activists on the right: David Horowitz, a venerable scholar and investigative author who successfully beat back Mastercard's attempt to drop him over his organization's opposition to Islamic radicalism and illegal immigration, and the Center for Immigration Studies, which is suing the SPLC for labeling its mainstream think tank a "hate group."

Deplatforming dissenting voices is a ruthless, bizarre and unprogressive way to achieve "diversity and inclusion." So is conspiring with repressive regimes that are hell-bent on destroying the West. Twitter has become America's version of Islam's morality police — the dreaded "mutaween."

I will not. As an American citizen who is subject to America's laws — not Pakistan's or Mohammed's — I'll retweet my harmless little Mo cartoons to my 2.1 million followers every day from now on and stand with other targets on the side of free speech and free thought. How about you, Twitter?


United Methodist Church votes to maintain opposition to  homosexual marriage, homosexual clergy

Dissident bishop accuses the Bible of a "punitive, exclusionary mentality". He is right about that.  See Leviticus 20:13.  But he sees it as a condemnation. He is clearly not a Christian.  Maybe Buddhism would suit him better

In a contentious meeting years in the making, the United States’ third-largest faith community voted to emphasize its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay clergy — a decision that was cheered by conservatives in the global church, especially in Africa, but was deeply disappointing to many Americans who had hoped the church would change.

Many American ministers in the United Methodist Church already perform same-sex marriages and approve of the ordination of LGBT people as clergy, although the Protestant church’s rules officially forbid these marriages and ordinations. Many Methodists hoped the church would amend those rules this week. Instead, a group of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders from around the world voted to affirm the church’s traditional view of sexuality — and to punish disobedient clergy more harshly than before.

"The United Methodist Church will very soon lose an entire generation of leadership in the United States," lamented Kimberly Ingram, speaking at the meeting on behalf of Methodist seminaries and theological schools, who argued that their students strongly approve of including LGBT people fully in the church. "The future of the United Methodist Church in this country is at stake."

But presented with several options during a four-day special session on the future of the church in St. Louis, the delegates picked the "traditional plan."

Other options would have allowed local churches to choose their stance on sexuality for themselves, or would have split the church into separate denominations.

The choice raises the question of whether churches that hoped for a different outcome will leave the denomination. The United Methodist Church is the largest mainline — meaning nonevangelical — Protestant church in the United States. Most other mainline Protestant churches do perform LGBT marriages, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Each of those denominations lost some churches to more conservative faith groups when they decided to affirm same-sex marriage.

The United Methodist Church, unlike those denominations, is worldwide, not almost entirely American. Nearly one-third of the church’s membership is in Africa, and speakers from outside the United States — including Liberia and Russia — were among the most vocal proponents of the traditional plan.

Jerry Kulah, head of the UMC Africa Initiative, said he was sorry the church had even spent so much time and money debating questions about homosexuality. "The progressive groups are loud, but they don’t have the numbers," he said. If the church had voted to affirm LGBT inclusion, he said, it would have become a "laughingstock" in Africa.

"I’m happy to go back to old ladies and old men in villages who received the Bible from missionaries and let them know that the Bible hasn’t changed," he said.

But Will Willimon, a retired Methodist bishop and a prominent theologian at Duke Divinity School, said that preaching to the "old" is a failure of the church.

"We’re sending a signal we are here to minister to the spiritual needs of the elderly," he said, adding that he has trouble explaining this debate to his adult children.

Willimon had advocated for the "one church plan," which would have allowed local ministers to choose their stance.

"The traditional plan is a misnomer," he said. "We really have nothing in our tradition to justify this sort of punitive, exclusionary mentality."


'Take it off or I'll rip it off': Black high school student confronts a white classmate for wearing a MAGA hat and Trump 2020 flag as a cape and then rips them off

Leftist violence again

A black Oklahoma student is facing a possible criminal charge after he was filmed confronting a white classmate who was wearing a MAGA hat and Trump 2020 flag as a cape.

The incident occurred in the hallway of Edmond Santa Fe High School, north of Oklahoma City, on Monday. Cellphone footage of the incident has since gone viral on social media.

The video shows 18-year-old Kenneth Dewayne Jones confronting an underage student who was wearing a red MAGA hat and had a Trump 2020 flag draped around his shoulders.

'Take it off or I'll rip it off… do you want me to rip it off?' Jones, who was wearing a yellow vest, could be heard saying as he blocked the other student from walking by.

He then grabbed hold of the Trump flag before knocking the MAGA hat off the other student's head.

The video shows the 18-year-old ripping the flag out of the student's hand and throwing it to the ground as another teenager tried to intervene.

Jones was issued with an assault and battery summons by a school resource officer. He has not been charged.

Police said the family of the boy wearing the MAGA hat has several days to meet with authorities if they wish to pursue the assault complaint.

The 18-year-old told KOCO 5 that he plans to apologize to the student, while the family of the victim say they plan to purse the charges. 

A school spokesperson said the incident occurred when students were allowed to wear headgear to class as part of a fundraising effort.

'Given that hats were allowed at school yesterday as part of the week-long fundraising events, there was no specific dress code violation,' the spokesperson said.

'The student's choice to grab a classmate's property and knock his hat off did, however, violate the school's discipline policy. In response, Edmond Santa Fe High School administrators, working simultaneously with Edmond Police, addressed the incident with swift and immediate disciplinary action.

'The school district honors students' First Amendment rights, but must at the same time be vigilant in teaching and supporting students as they learn how best to respectfully express their opinions.'



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


HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Leftist tolerance


JFK knew Leftist dogmatism

-- Geert Wilders

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

Bible references on homosexuality: Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:32; Leviticus 20:13

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans

Index page for this site


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism"
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel
Pyszczynski et al.

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:

OR: (After 2015)