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.
This is a backup copy of the original blog
With particular attention to religious, ethnic and sexual matters. By John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
30 November, 2021
Dems Are Using 'Invented Insurrection' to Create 2nd War on Terror Targeting Americans
Much like its George W. Bush-era counterpart, this new campaign is the product of an alliance of politicians and government officials as they seek to gain additional federal powers to fight terrorism.
Unlike its previous iteration, however, this new war on terror is to be fought domestically.
Its enemy is not the Islamic State group, al-Qaida or any other foreign threat. Rather, under the direction of the Biden administration, this new effort seeks to end the supposed threat of homegrown, far-right, white supremacist terrorism.
In order to further this domestic war on terror, politicians and federal bureaucrats have spread false and exaggerated claims regarding the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion, painting it as some sort of armed terrorist insurrection — as if the few hundred unarmed protesters and rioters were part of a premeditated plot to overthrow the entire U.S. government.
While inflated rhetoric is often the norm within the realm of government and politics, this specific instance is a calculated act with a specified goal, according to one national security expert.
In his view, efforts to push this supposed “insurrection” are nothing more than a ploy to “institutionalize the use of state power to implement the woke agenda.”
“It is a classic example of ‘never let a crisis go to waste,'” Jim Hanson, president of the Security Studies Group, told The Western Journal.
Before joining the Security Studies Group, Hanson served in the Army Special Forces and conducted counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations as well as diplomatic, intelligence and humanitarian operations in more than a dozen countries.
Consequently, Hanson has seen his fair share of insurgencies — and, in his opinion, the Capitol incursion was anything but.
“It is a riot. You know, it was definitely a tiny group of people who may have had some insurrectionist ideas, but they didn’t even bring guns,” Hanson said. “You know? I mean, how intense of an insurrection are you having if you didn’t even bring anything beyond bear spray?”
Nevertheless, Democratic politicians and left-leaning media outlets (and even a select few Republicans) continue to forward a number of false claims and exaggerations to support this “insurrection” narrative.
Inventing an Insurrection
The first of these claims involves Eric Munchel, a rioter seen carrying zip-ties within the Capitol. A photo of Munchel was used by various outlets — including Politico, The Washington Post and The New York Times — as evidence that rioters had entered the Capitol with premeditated plans to kidnap members of Congress.
However, according to the very lawyers who prosecuted Munchel’s case, this was nothing more than a media fabrication. A Jan. 21 court filing submitted by the prosecutors found that Munchel had not brought the zip-ties with him. Rather, he found them within the Capitol and was merely attempting to keep them away from Capitol Police officers.
Another claim — that the so-called insurrectionists entered the Capitol bearing firearms — was found to be similarly dubious.
On March 3, Jill Sandborn, the FBI’s director of counterterrorism, admitted as much during a joint hearing of the Senate Rules and Homeland Security committees.
“How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on the Capitol grounds that day?” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin asked the FBI official.
“To my knowledge, we have not recovered any on that day from any of the arrests at the scene at this point,” Sanborn answered.
Perhaps the most egregious Jan. 6 falsehood was the assertion that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick had been murdered by pro-Trump rioters who beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. This claim was forwarded by multiple New York Times reports and even President Joe Biden himself.
Washington’s chief medical examiner found that Sicknick had suffered two strokes on Jan. 7 — after the riot — and had died of natural causes unrelated to the previous day’s events.
As journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out in his breakdown of false claims regarding the riot, “Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate violence by pro-Trump protesters.”
In addition to the many false claims, Johnson’s team made another finding that dismantles the insurrection narrative. According to security footage unveiled by the senator on June 10, as many as 300 unauthorized individuals (roughly 38 percent of the total rioters) were allowed to enter the Capitol through the upper West Terrace doorway while five Capitol Police officers stood by. One officer was even gesturing toward the door as these individuals walked past him.
Conventional wisdom would suggest that violent insurrections would not begin with police officers peacefully ushering the so-called insurrectionists inside.
In spite of all this, the Biden administration has used its influence to “create the appearance of a conspiracy to commit an insurrection,” according to a June 5 report in Human Events by Hanson. Titled “An Invented Insurrection,” it details an indictment filed by the Biden administration on May 30.
The federal indictment claimed that members of the Oath Keepers — a group of “current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'” according to their website — had conspired to commit illegal acts on Jan. 6.
As Hanson points out in his piece, however, the indictment proves the opposite. Evidence provided in the filing shows that the only action these Oath Keepers had “conspired” to take was to “petition the government for redress of grievances where citizens who believed an investigation into the election was needed gathered to say so.”
So then, why spread so many false claims?
In Hanson’s view, the answer is simple: Claiming that an “armed insurrection” led by “domestic extremists” is looming empowers the state with seemingly unlimited authority.
Infringing on the Rights of Rioters and Protesters
Already, it appears that this false “insurrection” narrative is giving federal agencies authority that would otherwise be seen as an infringement of constitutional rights.
“They have arrested pretty much anybody who took a selfie in the Capitol for federal crimes. They’re overcharging everything. They’re keeping people in solitary confinement, no bail, and basically abusing state power in a very scary way,” Hanson told The Western Journal.
The federal crackdown on those present on Jan. 6 has indeed been extensive. As of March 13, 312 people had been charged in relation to the incursion, The Washington Post reported.
In many cases, it appears that those arrested for being present at the Capitol had little or nothing to do with the violence.
One couple present at the rally preceding the incursion — who never entered the Capitol — had their house tossed, their electronic devices seized and even a pocket Constitution taken from them by FBI agents.
Additionally, according to a report from Politico, one defendant housed in the D.C. jail was allegedly beaten by guards. The report also found that those being held in connection with the incursion “have been placed in restrictive housing” and have been subjected to “23-hour-a-day isolation.”
Many such defendants are being held indefinitely.
According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn L. Rakoczy, the sheer number of cases requires “postponement” and “moving too fast will make prosecution ‘impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice,'” The Post reported.
In the same story, the outlet admits that prolonged imprisonment is “threatening defendants’ constitutional rights to a speedy trial.”
These abuses may very well extend far beyond the events of Jan. 6 and those involved, Hanson warns.
********************************************
AT&T Gets Woke: 'White People, You are the Problem'
In Christopher Rufo's latest article for City Journal, he exposed the communication company for teaching ideas that “racism is a uniquely white trait” and that white people are “the problem.”
Rufo is a leading reporter on the CRT-takeover of American companies and education.
He reported that AT&T’s CEO John Stankey launched a CRT-based program last year that sought to teach employees that the company has an “obligation to engage on this issue of racial injustice” and to agitate for “systemic reforms in police departments across the country.”
“According to a senior employee, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, managers at AT&T are now assessed annually on diversity issues, with mandatory participation in programs such as discussion groups, book clubs, mentorship programs, and race reeducation exercises. White employees, the source said, are tacitly expected to confess their complicity in “white privilege” and “systemic racism,” or they will be penalized in their performance reviews.
As part of the overall initiative, employees are asked to sign a loyalty pledge to “keep pushing for change,” with suggested “intentions” such as “reading more about systemic racism” and “challenging others’ language that is hateful.” “If you don’t do it,” the senior employee says, “you’re [considered] a racist.” AT&T did not respond when asked for comment," Rufo wrote.
He also exposed the program's internal portal, which insists that white people are to blame for racism. It tells employees, “White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror.”
The portal also says, “White people, you are the problem. Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.”
Rufo also reports that the portal tells employees that “American racism is a uniquely white trait,” “Black people cannot be racist,” “ [white women} have been telling lies on black men since they were first brought to America in chains,” and that all whites “enjoy the opportunities and privileges that white supremacy affords [them].” Someone named Dahleen Glanton authored that page in the portal.
I am glad I have Verizon right about now.
https://dailypatriotreport.com/att-gets-woke-white-people-you-are-the-problem/
********************************************
States Defying Biden Mandate by Carving Out ‘Natural Immunity’ Exception
Florida has joined the ranks of GOP-led states that are requiring employers to carve out an exemption to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for those who have recovered from prior infection.
CBS News reported Wednesday that West Virginia and Arkansas also have this policy in place.
Additionally, “Republicans in Idaho, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming are also pursuing bills seeking to protect unvaccinated employees who can show they survived a prior infection, among other excluded groups,” according to the news outlet.
The move comes as President Joe Biden continues to push employers to require all employees to get vaccinated.
At an event in Brandon, Florida, last week, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation aimed at upholding individuals’ rights to make their own decisions regarding receiving the COVID vaccine.
Recognized exemptions for employees under the new Florida law include health or religious concerns, pregnancy or anticipated future pregnancy, and past recovery from COVID-19.
“Unlike what you see going on with some of the federal proposed mandates, other states, is we’re actually doing a science-based approach,” DeSantis said.
“For example, we recognize people that have natural immunity. … You have natural immunity, whatever a private employer wants to do, you’re automatically exempt because of natural immunity,” he said.
**********************************************
How the pandemic changed Australia's population
The article below clearly favours high levels of immigration. But why? The claim is that there is a shortage of workers in some occupations -- such as care of the elderly. But there is only a shortage at current pay rates. Pay more and you will get more workers. The only valid reason for immigration that I can see is to enable family reunions.
It is true that paying more for services to children and the elderly will increase the costs to users of those services but that could usually be prevented by reducing the burden of regulation on such services. Requiring that people tasked with the care of little children have a university degree is one example of the towering stupidity in current regulations.
And traffic congestion and the price of housing can only be worsened by an increased population. And both of those things are already hugely problematical in Australia -- mainly as a result of past high levels of immigration
Disputes over population are a staple of Australian politics. So, it’s no surprise there are plenty of views about what to do about immigration policy now that pandemic restrictions on international borders are being lifted.
Some urge a rapid catch up. A leaked briefing prepared by bureaucrats for new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet suggested he push for “an aggressive resumption of immigration levels”. It proposed Australia welcome 2 million migrants over the next five years. That’s 400,000 annually or nearly double the pre-pandemic rate.
High rates of migration have been blamed for worsening traffic congestion and other urban challenges
High rates of migration have been blamed for worsening traffic congestion and other urban challengesCREDIT:NICK MOIR
Others want a much more gradual build-up in migration numbers following the economic upheaval caused by the pandemic. This would help drive up demand for local labour and revive wages growth which has been sluggish for nearly a decade, they argue.
And as always there are those calling for much lower migration levels, or even none.
On Monday Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that from next week eligible visa holders including overseas students, skilled work visa holders and working holidaymakers will be allowed to enter Australia for the first time in almost two years. The government anticipates this will pave the way for around 200,000 new arrivals in coming months.
“The return of skilled workers and students to Australia is a major milestone in our pathway back,” Morrison said.
The Federal Government appears to have rejected the idea of an immigration catch-up period. But nor will there be a go slow. The May budget forecast net overseas migration to bounce back to pre-COVID levels (235,000 per year) by mid-decade and remain around that level into the early 2030s.
That strategy will have far-reaching consequences.
Since the 1970s Australia’s population has been expanding at an average rate of 1.4 per cent a year which is relatively fast compared to other developed countries. But growth has come to a virtual standstill thanks to COVID-19 travel restrictions.
In the year before the pandemic hit Australia added 357,000 people, but that plunged to 36,000 in the year to March 2021. According to official estimates the national population increased by just 0.1 per cent last financial year and is forecast to grow by 0.2 per cent in 2021-22.
AMP chief economist Shane Oliver says the hit to population growth delivered by COVID-19 means that Australia “will be 1 million people smaller than expected pre-coronavirus”. Longer range forecasts show Australia is now expected to have 35.3 million people in 2050, which is 2.5 million less than forecast in 2015. The population will also be older than otherwise would have been the case.
The pandemic has affected another important population driver – the fertility rate. The number of babies born per woman in Australia is expected to fall temporarily because of the economic uncertainty created by COVID-19.
Official forecasts for Australia’s long-term fertility rate have also been subject to major downward revisions, largely unrelated to the pandemic. Back in 2015 the federal government assumed women would have an average of 1.9 babies over the next 40 years but this year it was cut to 1.62 babies per woman.
Australian National University demographer Liz Allen says the pandemic’s simultaneous disruption to both net overseas migration and the fertility rate will be noticeable for many years. Things as basic as family formation have been interrupted by the way COVID-19 put a stop to the way we normally mix socially.
“What’s happened to Australia’s population during the pandemic is nothing short of extraordinary,” says Allen. “We’ll be able to look back in generations to come and actually see the impact on the composition of our population.”
Even the way population is distributed across Australia has been affected. Terry Rawnsley, a demographer and urban economist at KPMG, says population growth in many regional areas, especially those relatively close to capital cities, will be much stronger than expected before the pandemic.
“The surge in people working from home has made a move to a regional area much more attractive,” he says.
Dr Allen says overseas migrants will form an essential part of Australia’s post-pandemic recovery and is fundamental if Australia is to maintain a healthy population profile in the longer term.
“What’s really concerning is that the composition of the population’s age structure has become more problematic during the pandemic,” she says. “Prior to COVID we were struggling with an age structure that meant we had insufficient people for our workforce needs, and that’s even more pronounced now. That’s going to put pressure on the nation in the post-pandemic recovery phase.”
Migrant labour is crucial to many services industries including the care of the young, the elderly and the disabled. A recent study found just over 37 per cent of paid frontline care workers were born overseas in 2016, up from 31 per cent in 2011. Another survey found 60 per cent of migrants in caring occupations were on temporary visas, and around 38 per cent arrived on student visas.
Australia is facing a shortage of at least 110,000 aged-care workers within the next decade according to research published in August by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA). The study concluded Australia is unlikely “to get anywhere close” to meeting its aged care workforce needs without migration.
“We require a workforce to sustain the nations needs and at present that means we require immigration to help us,” says Allen.
“Because of our age structure we don’t have a sufficient number of people ageing into the workforce to fill the gaps left by those ageing out, that’s the reality.”
Australia’s permanent migrant intake is capped at 160,000 per year, down recently from 190,000 a year. Skilled workers are favoured for permanent migration, although a growing share of places has been allocated under a program designed to boost business investment. Australia grants a further 13,750 permanent visas under a separate humanitarian program to resettle refugees and others overseas who are in humanitarian need.
A separate temporary migration program is largely uncapped (except for limits on working holiday visa grants for some countries) and demand driven. The stock of temporary migrants - which includes overseas students, working holidaymakers, skilled temporary residents, seasonal workers, and others - has increased by about 50,000 each year over the past decade.
Economic change along with Australia’s increasing integration with global trade and commerce has helped make population flows more complex. Knowledge-based industries which make up a growing share of our economy require skilled foreign workers to be able to come and go much more than in the past. The rise of the international education sector has added to this complexity. During the past 20 years it has emerged as Australia’s biggest services export. But overseas students are also part of the temporary migrant labour workforce (and are sometimes blamed for suppressing wages). They also increase demand for local housing and other services.
“Population can be a complicated issue,” says Allen.
Immigration is routinely blamed for a clutch of problems including traffic congestion, crowded trains, high-rise property developments and rising property prices.
A survey conducted for The Age and the Herald by research firm Resolve Strategic found 58 per cent favour restarting migration at a lower level than before the coronavirus while 20 per cent supported a return to the pre-pandemic rate.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
29 November, 2021
Notre Dame Cathedral May Get a Stomach-Turning New Design During Its Post-Fire Rebuild
Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris is one of the oldest and most revered landmarks of the Western world.
Completed in 1345 after almost 200 years of construction, the cathedral is a monument to both the Christian faith and the history of Europe.
But after the fire of April 16, 2019, the restoration of the medieval wonder may be taking a sad 21st-century twist.
The Telegraph reported this week that instead of returning Notre Dame to its original glory, officials are considering a proposal to modernize the interior.
Modern art and sound and light effects would replace classical sculptures, confessional boxes and altars to give the cathedral “emotional spaces.”
There would also be a “discovery trail” of 14 chapels emphasizing Asia and Africa. Biblical quotes would be projected on the walls in different languages.
The final chapel would be dedicated to “reconciled creation” — i.e., environmentalism.
One source familiar with the renovation harshly criticized the plans.
“Can you imagine the administration of the Holy See allowing something like this in the Sistine Chapel?” the source said. “It would be unimaginable. We are not in an empty space here.
“This is political correctness gone mad. They want to turn Notre Dame into an experimental liturgical showroom that exists nowhere else whereas it should be a landmark where the slightest change must be handled with great care.”
That is correct. Notre Dame is not just a venue to be redecorated according to the latest fashions. It is a historic and sacred place of worship.
To disregard its original design would be to throw out the history of generations and deface a work of art. Some of the greatest architects in history had a hand in building and restoring Notre Dame. Altering their work would be like spray-painting a Michelangelo.
Maurice Culot, a highly regarded French architect, has seen the plans and was disgusted.
“It’s as if Disney were entering Notre Dame,” he said. “What they are proposing to do to Notre Dame would never be done to Westminster Abbey or Saint Peter’s in Rome. It’s a kind of theme park and very childish and trivial given the grandeur of the place.”
But the push to modernize the cathedral is strong.
In June, Archbishop Michel Aupetit of Paris said the interior changes would “bring the cathedral into the 21st century while preserving its own identity in the spirit of the Christian tradition.”
On top of that, the French government is in a hurry to have the restoration complete, according to another report from the Telegraph. President Emmanuel Macron wants to reopen the cathedral in 2024, the year the Olympics will be hosted in Paris.
Culot would like to see the restoration done “in the spirit of the original and not in a sort of ridiculous rupture that will go out of fashion in three years.” He noted that even the modern architects who restored Notre Dame in the past were careful to honor its history.
The Telegraph reported that there is skepticism about the modern designs among members of the committee overseeing the restoration. Hopefully, they will stop the proposal in its tracks and give back to the world one of its most iconic treasures.
***********************************************
Renowned Civil Rights Leader Exposes the Rotten Lies in Nikole Hannah-Jones’ ‘1619 Project’
Legendary civil rights leader Robert Woodson is an American hero who champions excellence. Woodson has taken on the villainous Nicole Hannah-Jones, who recently released an expanded version of her anti-American essay collection, “1619 Project,” which emphasizes horror over heroism in its depiction of American history.
“Nikole Hannah-Jones’ latest iteration of the controversial ‘The 1619 Project’ once again proves itself untrustworthy, and in some cases just as guilty of revisionism as the false histories it seeks to correct,” Woodson wrote in an article in the Daily Mail.
Woodson is a realist. He grew up fatherless in a low-income black neighborhood in Philadelphia. His experiences with segregation and racism led to his involvement with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Although he had dropped out of high school, Woodson overcame the difficulties of his childhood and earned an Ivy League master’s degree.
His story is heroic. Woodson is no victim; he is an embodiment of excellence. He is a virtuous man.
The ‘1619 Project‘ is rather easily refuted. The claim, for example, that preserving slavery was the real cause of the American Revolution, which was a central point of the original publication, is demonstrably false and ignores issues like taxation without representation, the Stamp Act, and the list goes on.
As a realist, Woodson is fully aware of evil episodes in American history and past attempts to cover them up. The Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, “required that American slavery be taught to school children as a benign institution in which happy and carefree bondsmen were grateful recipients of free food and housing,” Woodson noted. “This was not 150 years ago but as recently as the 1970s.”
The real problem, according to Woodson, is “the story of blacks in America as told in American classrooms is too often the tale of what has been done to us, not what we have done in response.”
Having spent his career helping low-income people of all races overcome poverty, Woodson has witnessed “countless Americans overcome homelessness, abuse, addiction, the loss of loved ones, and so much more to become successful, productive, and redeemed.”
Instead of focusing exclusively on the evils that men do — the oppressors who would do anything to keep the oppressed under their control — Woodson champions everyday heroes who have overcome incredible odds to succeed.
We need more heroes, not more victims.
Hannah-Jones is not a victim, though she, and many like her, would teach students that all minorities are victims of white men bent on their domination.
“There is something particularly tiresome to me about middle and upper class educated blacks who never picked cotton or sat on the back of any bus being so aggrieved about wrongs they never even experienced,” Woodson writes. These are the same people who sow discord by obscuring the truth.
It is not only the bourgeois blacks who peddle false narratives for profit and fame. Woodson Center‘s scholar Delano Squires noted, “We are now beset by white liberals who are looking for absolution from sins they didn’t commit and black liberals who are looking to be affirmed for injustices they didn’t suffer.”
There is something surreal about it all. These people are either irrevocably cynical or dangerously delusional. Whatever the case, they are unbalanced in their treatment of history.
************************************************
The Consequences of Leftist Crime Policies
In the middle of heated political battles in Washington, D.C., it can become easy to forget the real, human toll that America’s porous border takes on United States citizens. The family of Francisco Javier Cuellar, however, is unlikely to ever forget.
The 46-year-old Cuellar was killed in Jacksonville, Florida, last month, allegedly murdered by an illegal alien from Honduras.
The alleged assailant, 24-year-old Yery Noel Medina Ulloa, was released into the country several months ago after lying to border authorities about his age. Ulloa reportedly told border authorities that he was a 17-year-old named Reynel Alexander Hernandez. Ulloa was released into the country, and was given a notice to appear in court.
After entering the country illegally, Ulloa was taken in by Cuellar, and was given a job at the family business before allegedly murdering Cuellar. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Ulloa on Oct. 13, days after he was found covered in blood following the alleged murder. On the surface, Cuellar’s death seemed to have been entirely preventable.
We don’t know how Ulloa got from the Texas border to Florida, but we do know that the Biden administration has been flying illegal aliens to states across the country, including Florida.
State and local officials have warned the Biden administration that its anti-border policies pose a grave danger to the security of their state, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, blamed the administration’s secretive flights for Cuellar’s tragic death.
“That individual who was murdered was in fact murdered by an illegal alien who was on one of [President Joe] Biden’s flights, these midnight flights. Unannounced,” DeSantis said in a recent interview. “If Biden had not been doing that, if he’d been doing his job, that individual would be alive today.”
At the very least, Ulloa appears to have exploited the Biden administration’s immigration policies in order to gain entry into the U.S.
Weeks after taking office, Biden reinstated the Obama-era “catch and release” rule, which allows for the release of detained migrants into the U.S., before a court hearing. There is still a policy in effect called Title 42, which allows the U.S. to turn away migrants in order to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is one Trump-era policy that Biden has technically kept on the books, but has still managed to gut.
During the Trump administration, Title 42 was applied to all migrants seeking to enter the U.S., but the Biden administration has made broad exemptions for certain classes of migrants, including unaccompanied minors.
Ulloa was able to obtain entry into the U.S. because he falsely claimed to be an unaccompanied minor. One can’t help but wonder how many other adult migrants have been allowed into the U.S. after lying about their age, and how many other crimes have been committed as a result.
The Biden administration has not discussed how it is verifying the ages of these migrants, but comments made by White House press secretary Jen Psaki earlier this year gave a window into the administration’s thinking.
When asked about how the administration was verifying the claims of pregnant women, another group exempt from Title 42, Psaki responded with her trademark condescension and dismissiveness.
“Are you suggesting you don’t believe when women say they’re pregnant? Is that a big issue, you think, at the border? You think pregnant women are posing a big threat to the border, to the border communities? Is that a big issue?” Psaki said.
If the White House was this dismissive about the possibility of women faking pregnancies to get into the country, it’s a good bet that it has the same stance on people claiming to be minors.
The Biden administration appears intent on bringing as many unvetted migrants into the country as possible, regardless of the consequences. Cuellar is far from the first victim of America’s unsecured border, and likely won’t be the last. This time, the blood is on Biden’s hands.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/11/17/the-white-houses-border-policies-bring-death-and-misery/
***********************************************
New words for Australian national anthem?
The proposed second verse is a rather clumsy reference to Aborigines so is hardly appropriate for general use. The proposed third verse, by contrast, refers to common Australian phenomena so is reasonably appropriate.
The real issue is why one population group is being singled out in what is supposed to be a NATIONAL anthem. Rather confused thinking.
There is also a Christian verse to the anthem that is widely sung in church circles. Christians so far have been content to use the verse only on their own occasions but if we are going to recognize special groups, the Christian version should also be recognized. There are more Christians than Aborigines
The Australian national anthem could be rewritten under proposed changes to make the words better reflect indigenous history.
Non- profit group Recognition in Anthem is pushing for a new second verse to Advance Australia Fair titled 'Our People' and a third verse 'Our Values'.
The group already had one victory when Prime Minister Scott Morrison made a one-word change from January 1 this year that altered the line 'we are young and free' to 'we are one and free'.
Cathy Freeman - who carried both the Australian and Aboriginal flags during her Sydney Olympics gold medal lap of honour in 2000 - is backing the move.
Her support was instrumental in the one word change - with Mr Morrison personally calling her to let her know - but now she wants to 'finish the job'.
The revised anthem has already been sung at high profile events including most recently at the Sydney Opera House during National Reconciliation Week in May 2021, attended by Ms Bulger.
She said the change to the lyrics made on New Year's Eve was a small step and the new verses 'would mean that we could truly celebrate our anthem because it would include us, the First Nations people, and the special places that are around Australia'.
Advance Australia Fair was chosen as the de facto national anthem in a 1977 plebiscite by just over 8.4 million voters who picked the song over God Save the Queen, Waltzing Matilda and Song of Australia.
It was officially adopted as the national anthem on April 19, 1984 on the recommendation of the federal government.
The song was composed by the Scottish-born Peter Dodds McCormick, first performed in 1878 and was sung in Australia as a patriotic song.
PROPOSED SECOND AND THIRD VERSES:
Verse 2 - Our People
For sixty thousand years and more
First peoples of this land
Sustained by Country, Dreaming told
By song and artist's hand.
Unite our cultures from afar
In peace with those first here
To walk together on this soil
Respect for all grows there.
From everywhere on Earth we sing, Advance Australia Fair.
Verse 3 - Our Values
In times of drought and flood and fire
When all but hope is gone
Australians join with helping hands
And wattle blooms again.
Tomorrow may this timeless land
Live for our young to share
From red-rock heart to sun-filled shore
Our country free and fair.
Beneath the Southern Cross we sing, Advance Australia Fair.
Beneath the Southern Cross we sing, Advance Australia Fair.
Christian verse:
With Christ our head and cornerstone,
We’ll build our nation’s might,
Whose way and truth and light alone,
Can guide our path aright.
Our lives, a sacrifice of love,
Reflect our Master’s care.
With faces turned to heaven above,
Advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
28 November, 2021
The Salvation Army Has Gone Woke Too Now, and They're Losing Support
How is the anti-white racism of CRT or any form of racism consistent with the repeated Biblical assertion that we are all one in Christ -- e.g. Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Salvos are now clearly post-Christian. They ignore Bible teachings on homosexuality too. If you want a guide to the Christian afterlife, you will not find it from them. They now teach conventional "worldly" ideas only
The Salvation Army is losing some long-time support this holiday season in light of the organization picking up on anti-racism and Critical Race Theory (CRT) teaching. Reporting from Carly Mayberry with Newsweek highlights the problematic teaching document in question, "Let's Talk About Racism," which aims to address "racism and the Church."
As Mayberry reports:
Definitions of institutional and systemic racism are included while real or perceived differences in life outcomes ("inequities") are attributable not to individual effort and other circumstances, but to discrimination. Sections address topics including police brutality, health care and Black unemployment linking such topics to "racial inequity."
That's troublesome for those who note The Salvation Army has been a leader in confronting racism long before the rest of the country and over five decades before the civil rights movement. And they're asking why then should members of an organization built by the Christian faith to actually assist people of all races in need, be repentant of behavior they never perpetuated?
One can find the document through a simple Google search. The question asked above is a worthwhile one, since one of the things the document hopes to achieve is to "Lament, repent and apologize for biases or racist ideologies held and actions committed." There's an entire section on "Lamenting and Repenting," which is a theme throughout the teaching document.
Of particular concern, and what is a theme of CRT programs, is the idea of rejecting colorblindness. The document makes several suggestions for white Americans for "challenges... to overcome and address," so as to "begin the process of creating lasting racial reconciliation and healing."
They include:
"Denial of racism."
"Education about racism and inequality"
"Defensiveness about race."
"Little or no exposure to People Of Color."
"Become aware of your bias."
"Stop denying that White privilege exists and learn how it supports racial inequity."
"Racism is not an individual act, it is systemic and institutional."
"Stop trying to be ‘colorblind’"
One long-time donor who has called it quits is Greg Koukl, who issued an open letter to the Salvation Army on November 1 shared over Facebook, as highlighted by Mayberry.
"I am not going to fall for the CRT “Kafka trap” that my protestations are actually evidence of my racism, and neither should you. There is a massive number of academics—black and white, Christian and non-Christian, atheist and theist—who have raised the alarm against the aggressive indoctrination and, frankly, bullying of CRT—not to mention the racial essentialism inherent in the view, the false witness it bears against virtuous people, and the general destruction it continues to wreak on race relations in this country. CRT has set us back 50 years," his letter writes in part.
Koukl makes other points clear, such as how he does acknowledge there is racism, but that CRT is not the way to go about it. "To be clear, I am not claiming there is no racism to be dealt with or are no racist Christians who need to repent. What I am saying is that critical race theory is not an accurate characterization of contemporary racial dynamics in America (as many have argued). Therefore, since its analysis is faulty, it offers a faulty solution, one that creates a whole set of new racial tensions and provides no productive resolution to them," he writes later in the letter.
The letter also closes by inviting people to come to their own decision on whether or not to donate. "I spoke at length about this turn on my radio show this week, inviting my audience to read your material for themselves and make their own judgments. I told them, though, that as for me, I was redirecting my giving elsewhere. I am not “cancelling” you, as many in the CRT movement would gladly do to me. Rather, I am carefully investing my resources in organizations that I fully trust will serve Christ in truth and only in truth, and I no longer trust The Salvation Army to do that," Koukl also writes.
While the preamble to the teaching document claims that it "is a voluntary discussion guide," Mayberry also wrote that training took place "in matters of racial equity in a compulsory manner in January" and that the "agenda for the Territorial Virtual Officers' Councils on Racial Equity workshop mirrored the "Let's Talk About Racism" resource put out by the Commission and was required of current officers."
********************************************
Stephen Colbert Wants Self-Defense Laws to Change Since Rittenhouse Was Found Not Guilty
Note those fists. A clenched fist is the traditional emblem of the Left. It is a boiling over of the anger and hatred within them
Late-night host Stephen Colbert said that since Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder charges because he was defending himself from aggressors during the Kenosha riots, self-defense laws must change.
"Of course, the big news on Friday was that, after being accused of crossing state lines, killing two people, and wounding another, last year, during a Black Lives Matter protest, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Okay, cards on the table, I’m not a legal expert, so I can’t tell you whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law, but I can tell you this: if he didn’t break the law, we should change the law. That seems simple. That seems simple," Colbert said on Monday to cheering applause from the audience.
"If Emily...said it was perfectly proper to go to Thanksgiving, drop trou and leave your a** print in the pumpkin pie, I’d be like, okay, not illegal, but the system is broken. So, Rittenhouse was found not guilty, but only a complete moron would celebrate this tragedy by making this guy a hero," he added.
As the trial, eyewitnesses, and video evidence proved, Rittenhouse only shot people who were actively attacking him during the August 25 riot. He was not in violation of carrying the AR-15 while being 17-years-old at the time and despite what Colbert said, he did not cross state lines on August 25 until after the shooting as he was already in the Kenosha area when the riots started.
********************************************
Leftmedia Bemoans Boston’s Election of Asian Mayor
Long have we noted that, despite all their rhetoric, those most guilty of promoting genuine racism are those who claim to be fighting for “social justice.” The city of Boston’s recent election of a new mayor provided yet another example to add to the pile of the Leftmedia’s racial hypocrisy.
Earlier this month, voters in Boston went to the polls and elected the city’s first-ever woman and Asian, Michelle Wu, as mayor. Wu, a Democrat, defeated fellow Democrat Anissa Essaibi George, a black woman. That the mayoral race ended up being a contest between two Democrats testifies to just how far left the city’s politics are.
However, with the Left’s growing embrace of identitarian victimology hierarchy (a.k.a. intersectionality), skin color clearly matters more than policy positions. And leave it to taxpayer-funded NPR to make this point loud and clear. The Leftmedia outlet reported on the historic election outcome this way: “Michelle Wu, an Asian American, is the first woman and first person of color elected to lead the city. While many are hailing it as a turning point, others see it as more of a disappointment that the three black candidates couldn’t even come close.” Talk about a backhanded compliment.
The report continued not by celebrating Wu’s historic accomplishment but by further lamenting the fact that a black person did not win. NPR focused its reporting around comments from black civil rights activist Danny Rivera. “I got home, and I cried,” Rivera said. “I cried my eyes out because I don’t know the next time we’ll see a black mayor in our city. … I believe that it is lived experience that matters most and what separated [former acting Mayor Kim Janey, who is black] from every other candidate. That’s all super powerful, and I thought we missed the moment.”
NPR also interviewed another individual who blasted Bostonians for choosing an Asian candidate over a black one: “It’s just one of those things where it feels like, ‘What else is new?’” But NPR wasn’t done. It also found former Democrat State Representative Marie St. Fleur, who opined: “I mean the data speaks for itself, and it’s troubling. For those of us born or raised in Boston and who lived through some of the darker days, the fact that we blinked at this moment is sadness. At what point in the city of Boston will we be able to vote, and I’m going to be very clear here, for a black person in the corner office?”
Well, Mayor-elect Wu is likely no stranger to this kind of genuine racism. She is a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, after all. The Ivy League school has an ugly history of discriminating against Asians in favor of blacks.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/84427-leftmedia-bemoans-bostons-election-of-asian-mayor-2021-11-24
*********************************************
If You Like Stagflation, You Will Love Build Back Better
Stagflation is a combination of steep price rises and high unemployment
On November 18, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the single-largest spending bill in American history: President Biden’s Build Back Better Act.
Now, the only thing standing between Build Back Better becoming the law of the land is the U.S. Senate, but more specifically, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).
As of now, both Manchin and Sinema have expressed their misgivings about voting in favor of Build Back Better.
“By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation to the American people is not 'transitory' and is instead getting worse," Manchin recently stated. "From the grocery store to the gas pump, Americans know the inflation tax is real and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day.”
Manchin, unlike those in the Biden administration bubble, has his finger on the pulse of the American people.
Moreover, Manchin understands that Biden’s Build Back Better boondoggle would increase inflation while simultaneously reducing employment.
Hence, Manchin is well aware that if the Build Back Better bill is signed into law by Biden, Americans should prepare for a second stretch of Jimmy Carteresque stagflation.
The likelihood that Build Back Better would usher in an unwelcome bout of stagflation is rather simple.
First, Build Back Better is projected to cost somewhere from $1.75 trillion to $5 trillion, based on the budget model used to estimate the bill’s cost.
In October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation rose at a 30-year high of 6.2 percent, as measured by the consumer price index.
If Build Back Better becomes law, the U.S. economy would be overwhelmed with a toxic infusion of trillions of more dollars.
This would further spike inflation by diminishing the value of existing dollars.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic hit U.S. shores in the spring of 2020, the federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree. To date, the U.S. government has allocated nearly $5 trillion in so-called COVID-19 relief funds. And this comes on top of the federal government’s annual budget, which now stands at more than $6 trillion.
Making matters even worse, President Biden just signed a $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill.
At what point will the federal government’s pandemic-induced spending spree end?
Build Back Better, if passed, would also reduce employment because it includes a plethora of new cash giveaway programs that will almost assuredly not incentivize Americans to return to the workforce. Even worse, if Build Back Better becomes law, it would likely drive more Americans out of the workforce because they would become eligible to receive all sorts of goodies courtesy of Uncle Sam.
For instance, Build Back Better includes $400 billion for universal pre-K, $200 billion for child tax credits, $200 billion for paid leave, $165 billion in health care subsidies, and $150 billion in housing subsidies.
At a time when the U.S. economy has nearly 11 million vacant jobs, paying people not to work is literally the last thing we should be doing. After all, the U.S. labor participation rate remains far lower than in recent history.
However, this is all lost on Democrats.
Before the House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared, “We have a Build Back Better bill that is historic, transformative and larger than anything we have ever done before. We are building back better. If you are a parent, senior, child, worker, American — this bill is for you.”
House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), on the other hand, described the bill as “the single most reckless and irresponsible spending bill in our nation’s history.”
McCarthy’s dire description of Build Back Better is much more accurate than Pelosi’s pie in the sky assessment of the bill.
Unfortunately, at this point, Pelosi and the progressives have steamrolled the bill through the House.
Fortunately, Build Back Better faces a steep uphill climb in the U.S. Senate. Like many Americans, I hope that Manchin and Sinema continue to courageously oppose Build Back Better.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
26 November, 2021
The Democrats are the party of snobs
That's it. It's over. Bill Maher is going to be tossed into the white nationalist camp, though I'm sure some "woke" morons have already done so. This streak is bound to end soon. I'm sure he'll have a closing segment that sparks the ire of conservative America as he has done so many times before. Until then, let's just enjoy him taking a katana to the "woke" left and how if Democrats don't change course soon—yes, they're in for a brutal 2022 election cycle.
Why are people fleeing from the Democrats? It can be summed up in four words: no one likes a snob. For the better part of this decade, the Democratic Party has been the party of the elites, the rich (yes, they have more money), and the educated. The urban-based professional elites that consider places like South Carolina and even Morris County, New Jersey, as Jupiter and Mars have done a bang-up job telling the rest of us that a) they hate us, b) they hate we're not educated like them, and c) they care about everyone else but us.
If you're not wealthy, white, and progressive—you can't be part of this club. If you're pinched by inflation or the grocery store, it's your fault. Maher may speak of the average white voters with some of the talking points used by the "woke" left to make his point, but his commentary was clear: you cannot win if you denigrate most voters in this country who are white and don't hold a college degree. He rehashed how Hillary Clinton didn't have a rural voter outreach or data person until it was too late, and that person's office was based…in Brooklyn. You can't trust the young Democratic operatives to run elections because they don't know how to win. You can't with a generation that's been smothered by participation trophies.
James Carville, a hardcore liberal and the architect of Bill Clinton's 1992 win, said that wokeness cost Democrats in 2021. It's not the first time he's said this, aptly noting that normal people don't talk like the college faculty in the break room. Carville also said that Democrats focus on dumb issues that only speak to the elite, like college debt forgiveness. No one wants to hear it. No one, except rich white liberals who want the hundreds of thousands of dollars they've spent to earn their "whine like a little b****" degrees taken off their books. Yes, let's ask the tens of millions of Americans who don't have college degrees, along with those who have just paid off their loans, to finance a massive bailout for the most privileged in this country in higher education. It's a recipe for a generation of Trump-like candidates.
As Maher put it, "White people suck 2024" isn't a winning message. Also, when did "woke" become a pejorative? That's a key question since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to think that only old people use that term when she was asked about its impact on the Democratic Party. She was slapping down those on her side of the aisle that know her brand of politics doesn't resonate outside of the cities. You can't win that way. It went from rallying cry to pejorative and shows yet another way the "woke" treat people who they find deplorable. If you're not with us, then you might be a neo-Nazi. Offending three-fourths of the electorate is not smart.
Maher said they should do the math, but that would be entertaining white supremacy.
The Democrats are the party of snobs. They're proud to be, which is fine. But the snobs never last. Just ask the ruling French class c. 1789. The French people sure found a way to excise this snobby element from their societal ranks. Now, I'm not saying we should wheel out the guillotines…yet. I want to see the endless stream of liberal tears after the GOP picks up 80-125 seats after Democrats ignored advice from Maher and others who saw the writing on the wall.
************************************************
Will the Mob Veto the Bill of Rights?
Leftists routinely threaten conservatives with censorship and violence in order to intimidate and silence.
Rittenhouse were understandably worried whether the jury would be intimidated by the mob. After all, someone working for NBC tried to follow the van carrying the jury. There had been attempts to film the jury. Rittenhouse’s lawyer has revealed he received death threats.
In just about any other case, this would be recognized for what it was: the deprivation of a fair trial by trying to intimidate the jury and defense lawyers. That campaign failed in this case — Rittenhouse was acquitted by the jury, and his lawyers stayed on. But grassroots Patriots cannot rest easy.
This isn’t the only time these threats have turned up. There is an open question whether these tactics succeeded in the trial of Derek Chauvin or during the legal battles after the 2020 election.
Put it this way: Can anyone be sure of a fair trial when Maxine Waters can threaten riots over the “wrong” verdict and not face repercussions? What are your chances when a group like the Lincoln Project can threaten to doxx lawyers who decide to represent you with the intention of forcing their withdrawal?
If these are allowed to continue, then the right to a fair trial is a dead letter, at least for those in deep-blue parts of the country who are down the pecking order in the minds of the Left. Over the years, grassroots Patriots have developed a rational basis to believe that the Left views them as deserving less than the full panoply of rights.
You don’t need the word of your Patriot Post team: Just watch Joy Reid or others on MSNBC. Outlets like CNN and MSNBC, which have lost viewers to conservative networks, now regularly target their right-of-center competition, either through hosts like Brian Stelter or contributors like Malcolm Nance (who regularly compared Donald Trump and his supporters to ISIS).
It wasn’t just Trump who has been targeted over the years with these smears. Ask Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan about how the Left lied about them. Remember how John McCain was smeared? All of those happened before Trump ever ran for office.
Ask what that long record of lies and hatred might provoke someone receiving a steady diet of that sort of talk to do if they were an ordinary person. Then ask yourself what might happen if they had actual power. Might they decide that it was a moral obligation to “fortify” elections in one way or another in order to save America’s soul?
Keep in mind, the Left has, over the last decade, gone after the First Amendment through a variety of methods, including abuse of power, corporate redlining (whether coerced by government or not), and plain-old mob violence targeting events.
The fact is, steps must be taken to preserve our rights. Part of it may involve using our First Amendment rights to have state and local officials take the logical steps to prevent intimidation, like sequestering juries. But much will have to come from grassroots Patriots convincing their fellow Americans to act despite the threats. Because if our fellow Americans are intimidated by the mob, our rights are as good as gone.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/84398-will-the-mob-veto-the-bill-of-rights-2021-11-23
********************************************
Can the FBI Be Salvaged?
The Washington, D.C.-based FBI has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids’ schools.
In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news—and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.
The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s email leaks.
In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Clinton’s own private computer contractor—CrowdStrike—to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike’s point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.
During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cellphones had mysteriously disappeared.
It was also under Comey’s directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Donald Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.
The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy—the Clinton-bought dossier—to Obama government officials and the media.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussman.
Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.
In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own “Russian Collusion” investigation.
Comey’s replacement, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.
McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.
Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical “Russian collusion” plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier—the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.
FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller’s investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of “Russian collusion,” while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.
Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.
When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a huge quasi-SWAT team—to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.
The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when it stormed the home of Project Veritas Director James O’Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden’s daughter.
The FBI—an apparent retrieval service of lost Biden family embarrassments—also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.
O’Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.
The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI’s ongoing monitoring of O’Keefe’s communications.
Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts.
The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.
One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat.
We can also cite the agency’s inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.
For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation’s heartland—perhaps Kansas—far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/11/18/can-the-fbi-be-salvaged/
*********************************************
The Pilgrims’ Progress – Honoring Our Forefathers on the 400th Anniversary of the First (and Most Expensive) Thanksgiving
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first Thanksgiving celebrated by our Pilgrim fathers and mothers in 1621.
If this fact is news to you, I’m not surprised. After all, there was very little fanfare last year to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth, Massachusetts, in 1620, an event which President John Quincy Adams described as the “birthday” of our nation. But that seminal moment in world history passed with barely a mention.
This year, you’ll see more about the inflated price of Thanksgiving dinner than about the 400th anniversary of the holiday. And while it’s true that Bidenflation has made this year’s turkey feast the most expensive in living memory, no one who knows the true history of the first Thanksgiving can ever doubt that the Pilgrims paid a greater price for their meal than anything we ever will.
But you would have to know their story to understand that. And these days, the Pilgrims are being airbrushed out of our cultural memory.
The Pilgrims’ Progress from Heroes to Villains
The same wokesters who are busy removing Thomas Jefferson’s statue from New York City Hall have unfairly maligned our Pilgrim fathers and reframed the history of the nation they founded.
“There appear to be few commemorations, parades, or festivals to celebrate the Pilgrims this year, perhaps in part because revisionist charlatans of the radical left have lately claimed the previous year as America’s true founding,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said last year.
The “revisionist charlatans” he was referring to are the authors of the New York Times’ “1619 Project,” which commemorates the year that the first ship arrived in the Virginia colony carrying African slaves. Recognizing the significance of the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery is certainly worthwhile, but the 1619 Project’s authors went beyond recognition and sought to “reframe” all of American history around the events of 1619. For this, they have been roundly criticized by historians who decry their many inaccuracies and revisionist interpretations (including, for example, their claim that the American Revolution was fought in order to preserve slavery in the colonies).
Most of the criticism has focused on the Project’s controversial claim (which was later scrubbed from the New York Times’ website) that 1619 is the year of “our true founding,” not 1620 when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth and planted the seed of our democracy that ripened in 1776.
In a Times op-ed rebutting the critics, Nicholas Guyatt argues that “the 1619 Project radically challenges a core narrative of American history” by refuting the notion that “the story of the United States [is] a gradual unfolding of freedom.” Instead, the Project’s authors “describe a nation in which racism is persistent and protean. White supremacy shapeshifts through the nation’s history, finding new forms to continue the work of subjugation and exclusion.”
In other words, they think Abraham Lincoln got it wrong when he said our nation was “conceived in Liberty.” They think it was conceived in racism.
The new book by New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, “The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story” is displayed at a New York City bookstore on November 17, 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
And with the push to incorporate the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory into school curriculums, these woke revisionists are hard at work rewriting our history one school kid at a time, just as they’ve been busy for years “reframing” the history of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving.
Ann Coulter gave an excellent summary of the woke interpretation of Thanksgiving: “As every contemporary school child knows, our Pilgrim forefathers took a break from slaughtering Indigenous Peoples to invite them to dinner and infect them with smallpox, before embarking on their mission to fry the planet.”
She’s not joking. America’s teachers have “begun a slow, complex process of ‘unlearning’ the widely accepted American narrative of Thanksgiving,” according to Education Week. To unlearn the “myth” of Thanksgiving, educators are seeking ways “to help students appreciate colonial oppression of Natives and the violence that ensued from it.” The article helpfully includes a video of PBS NewsHours’ Judy Woodruff explaining that the “quintessential feel-good holiday” of Thanksgiving actually “perpetuates a myth and dishonors Native Americans.”
The story of Thanksgiving fares even worse on college campuses, where students are taught that it should be commemorated as a “National Day of Mourning,” not a day off for food, family, and football.
“It’s kind of just based off the genocide of the indigenous people,” one student at Minnesota’s Macalester College told the College Fix. “The history of the holiday is obviously not the best. It’s very violent and oppressive,” said another.
That is malicious and historically inaccurate garbage! It’s a flat out lie.
We know who the Pilgrims are and what they did because they meticulously documented their history for posterity.
Our knowledge of the Pilgrims comes from two primary sources. The earliest account is from Edward Winslow, whose report on the founding of the Plymouth settlement was published in London in 1622, just two years after the Pilgrims arrived in the New World. The more detailed and authoritative account comes from the Pilgrims’ second governor, William Bradford, whose poignant and eloquent history Of Plymouth Plantation, written between 1630 and 1651, tells the story of the community from their formation in England to their exile in Holland and their eventual founding of the Plymouth Colony.
Any fair reading of the primary source documentation will give you all the evidence you need to understand why we chose the Pilgrims’ arrival at Plymouth as the date of “our true founding” and as the basis of our founding myth.
There is a reason why we chose the Pilgrims and their establishment of the Plymouth Colony in 1620 as our origin story, not the Virginians who settled in Jamestown over a decade before that date. Our reasoning had everything to do with the Pilgrims’ lack of racism. Americans have always aspired to be on the right side of history, and the Pilgrims were nothing if not righteous.
Their story embodies our most sacred American values. Like Aeneas fleeing the fall of Troy, the Pilgrims saw themselves as fleeing a cataclysmic conflagration about to engulf Europe. And like the Roman hero, they too hoped to forge a new civilization with a spark from the dying embers of the old one.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
25 November, 2021
International Olympic Committee Says Biological Male Trans Athletes Should Not Have to Lower Testosterone to Compete in Women’s Events
The International Olympic Committee recommended that sports organizations allow biologically male, transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports without lowering their testosterone levels.
The committee stated that no athlete should be excluded from competition based on unverified, alleged, or perceived unfair competitive advantage due to biological sex in a Tuesday report. The report says athletes should compete in sports based on their self-determined gender identity and should not be subject to “targeted testing” to determine biological sex.
“Athletes should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage due to their sex variations, physical appearance and/or transgender status,” the report said.
The International Olympic Committee went on to state that athletes should never be pressured to undergo “medically unnecessary treatments,” including hormone therapy, which some transgender people use to lower their testosterone to the level to that of a biological female.
A Sports Councils’ Equality Group report released in September found that biologically male athletes have unfair advantages over female athletes retained even after a biological male undergoes testosterone suppression to affirm a female gender identity.
The Sports Councils’ Equality Group report found that “transgender women are on average likely to retain physical advantage in terms of physique, stamina, and strength.”
The International Olympic Committee report is not legally binding, but it replaced the committee’s own 2015 guidelines that limited athletes’ testosterone levels, NBC News reported. Before 2015, the International Olympic Committee’s guidelines would, in some cases, require genital surgery prior to eligibility for competition.
********************************************
Christian florist settling with same-sex couple after nearly a decade fighting iconic religious liberty case
Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman has agreed to settle with the same-sex couple that sued her for refusing to serve their wedding – capping off nearly a decade of litigation in one of the most iconic First Amendment cases this century.
On Thursday afternoon, Stutzman's attorneys sent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) an agreement to withdraw her Supreme Court petition in exchange for them declining to pursue further legal action. The 76-year-old grandmother told Fox News that she's retiring and leaving her business, Arlene's Flowers, to its employees.
The settlement, obtained by Fox News, shows that both parties have agreed to its terms.
As part of the agreement, Stutzman will pay the couple – Rob Ingersoll and Curt Freed – $5,000 and they will cease pursuing damages against her business and personal assets.
In an exclusive interview Wednesday, Stutzman said that her faith was "not for sale" and that it was time for her to step aside as other religious liberty cases made their way through the courts.
"We're all in trouble – whether we're religious or not – when we don't have the freedom to live consistent with our faith and our beliefs, when I don't have the freedom to run my business according to my beliefs, live my life according to my beliefs," she told Fox News.
"Rob and Curt have every right to live the way they do and the way they feel with their beliefs, and I'm just asking for that same [right]."
Meanwhile, advocates like the ACLU have held up cases like Stutzman's as being part of an ongoing struggle for civil rights. "No one should walk into a store and have to wonder whether they will be turned away because of who they are," Ria Tabacco Mar, an ACLU lawyer representing the couple, said in July. "Preventing that kind of humiliation and hurt is exactly why we have nondiscrimination laws."
On Thursday, Ingersoll and Freed released a statement that read: "We took on this case because we were worried about the harm being turned away would cause LGBTQ people. We are glad the Washington Supreme Court rulings will stay in place to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination and should be served by businesses like anyone else. We are also pleased to support our local PFLAG’s work to support LGBTQ people in the Tri-Cities area. It was painful to be turned away and we are thankful that this long journey for us is finally over."
Starting in 2013, Stutzman's case was litigated amid a heated debate over same-sex relationships as well as the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Eight years later, the court declined to hear Stutzman's appeal – leaving in place a lower court decision that required religious creative professionals to serve same-sex ceremonies in Washington state.
Stutzman, along with Colorado baker Jack Phillips, have become heroes for religious conservatives seeking Christian examples of flouting cultural pressures. Besides public backlash, Stutzman also faced potentially crippling financial consequences as the ACLU targeted her personal assets in its lawsuit.
Thursday's settlement amount is significantly lower than Stutzman's attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) feared she might pay. But the intensely personal nature of this case will likely leave long-lasting impacts on the parties involved and the nation as a whole.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christian-florist-settles-same-sex-couple
***********************************************
What Is It with Hollywood’s Love Affair with Child Abusing Perverts?
The Rittenhouse affair
Hollywood's brightest stars are shining their love down on disgusting perverts for all to see. When it comes to choosing between a convicted child rapist and a normal citizen, they go all Lincoln Project. And we normal people should respond accordingly.
There's reliably pinko star Mark Ruffalo, who tweeted: "We come together to mourn the lives lost to the same racist system that devalues Black lives and devalued the lives of Anthony and JoJo. #ReimagineKenosha." Who is "we," sucker? You mean both Bruce Banner and the Hulk? Because you can count the rest of us out. And can someone explain how it would be possible to "devalue" the likes of a convicted child rapist? What was his value? Cute nickname, too – JoJo.
America's sweetheart, Reese Witherspoon, was outraged that normal people had the ability to prevent convicted child rapists from killing them: "No one should be able to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, cross state lines and kill 2 people, wound another and go free. In what world is this safe ... for any of us?" Actually, citizens should be able to do all these things in conformity with the law regarding self-defense against convicted child rapists. I'm sure a "JoJo" would totally get by her armed security; she at least has the excuse that she might have just been being a jerk again.
And then there is the Mandalorian himself, Pedro Pascal, with his pronouns in his bio, mourning the loss to humanity that was Kyle's lawful exercise of the right to self-defense against a convicted child rapist attacking a minor: "Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 27, murdered August 25th, 2020. Rest In Peace." You know, Disney is supposed to be targeted toward kids – I guess Pedro misunderstood the concept. Perhaps we can all look forward to a pretty dark plotline involving Baby Yoda next season – if any of us watch.
Maria Shriver, a Kennedy kid once married to withered Hollywood action star Arnold Schwarzenegger, had to explain to her adult son – presumably not the one Ah-nuld spawned after impregnating his maid – how it was somehow possible for normal people to defend themselves against convicted child rapists: "I'm trying to take a beat to digest the Rittenhouse verdict. My son just asked me how it's possible that he didn't get charged for anything. How is that possible? I don't have an answer for him."
Maybe a Kennedy is not the right person to decry folks getting away with murder. And apparently, the only people who should have guns are the armed guards defending your family compound. Look, I don't blame the Kennedys for using people with guns to protect themselves – two of them were murdered by leftists. But I do resent that they don't seem to think the rest of us get to protect ourselves from being murdered by leftists, too.
On the plus side, at least Alec Baldwin seems to have had nothing to say publicly about Kyle. But, of course, he probably will.
Oh, and as of early the next morning after the Waukesha massacre, want to guess if any of them had spared a tweet for the crushed kids and run-over dancing grannies? Maria Shriver did, and good for her. She seems more clueless, cloistered, and entitled than evil. Mark, Reese, and Pedro seemed not so chatty about this latest atrocity. Hey, gotta support the narrative!
In any case, how totally on-brand this all is.
Why is the constellation of Hollywood stars so all in on backing the pedos? And these aren't edgy artists but mainstream actors who put out what is purportedly family entertainment. Ruffalo does comic book movies. Pascal does Disney junk. Witherspoon does big-budget Hallmark movies. What gives?
I consulted with acting legend Nick Searcy, who does not play the pinko game, and whose new film on the fake insurrection, "Capitol Punishment," comes out Thanksgiving Day. He observes that the studios, in league with publicists, often make sure all the stars get the memo on the right take on the issue du jour. And few stars push back because a lot of Hollywood people come to Tinseltown young. They have little life experience, and then they get some attention and they never grow up. Many dropped out of high school and are extremely sensitive about that because all the executives they deal with have Ivy League degrees.
Adopting leftist poses is an easy way to get in the in-club, to be treated like their views matter, to be taken seriously. That's really what they want; the only needier people than actors are stand-up comics. They have this huge emotional void and they fill it with leftist nonsense because they get rewarded for doing it. And the fact that people expressing normal views – conservatives – get blacklisted is yet another incentive to go along and get along.
So, what do we normal people do? Well, we probably shouldn't be giving money to people who hate us. If you are still shelling out bucks for Marvel movies and woke Star Wars, you are empowering and paying for the culture war against you. Does it seem adverse to conservative principles to avoid alleged entertainment put out by people just because they hate us? It was once, but if there's a line to be drawn, it's supporting convicted child rapists.
Time to draw the line.
********************************************
Cancel Culture Claims Another U.S. President
In 2020, cancel culture claimed scores of victims, from statues and monuments to food brands and more. But the push to continue removing culturally and historically significant items from society continued unabated in 2021.
Take what happened in New York City on Monday, for example.
After standing in city hall for 187 years, a statue of Thomas Jefferson was removed following a vote from a mayoral commission to take it down because the third president was a slave owner.
About a dozen workers with Marshall Fine Arts spent several hours carefully removing the painted plaster monument from its pedestal inside the City Council chambers and surrounding it with sections of foam and wooden boards.
They then lowered the massive structure down the stairs leading to the building’s first-floor rotunda with a pulley system and ushered the Founding Father out the back door.
The 1833 statue will be on a long-term loan to the New York Historical Society, which plans to have Jefferson’s model survive in its lobby and reading room.
Keri Butler, executive director of the Public Design Commission that voted to banish the statue, at first tried to block the press from witnessing its removal. Butler relented after members of the mayor’s office and City Council intervened.
The commission also attempted to vote on the statue’s removal without a public hearing on the controversial move until The Post revealed the plan. (New York Post)
As Mollie Hemingway pointed out last year, former President Trump warned in 2017 this would happen and was mocked for believing the cultural Marxists would move on from Confederate statues to former presidents.
Rep. Thomas Massie shared the story, likening it to George Orwell's "1984."
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
24 November 2021
Amazing: Murderous black driver suddenly becomes white
Below is how Darrel Brooks initially appeared:
Since then some media outlets have deleted his image entirely, other have lightened his skin colour and some have gone the whole hog and rendered him as white. Photo editing software has a lot to answer for. Identifying criminals as black is politically incorrect. The lie prevails over the truth that blacks are a very troublesome population segment.
See:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10234383/Darrell-Brooks-shot-nephew-fight-cell-phone.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16813784/darrell-brooks-waukesha-parade-rapper/
********************************************
Progressive Elites: Who Needs Them?
Grammar schools indoctrinate our young children, teaching them to hate America. District attorneys let hardened criminals out of jail. Crowds rioting in the streets are described by the libstream media as ‘peaceful protesters.’
When you contemplate what has occurred in the U.S. over the last 18 months, incredibly, it no longer even seems like our own nation.
Lunatics on the Loose
The lunacy is without end: Thousands of off-the-wall assertions, end runs around the law, and media flights of complete fantasy. The illegal, creepy, unpatriotic, absurd positions of the Left are unfolding at an increasingly faster pace. Whether it’s renaming schools, defaming Dr. Seuss, defacing property, pulling down statues – even of Gandhi, Grant, and Lincoln – desecrating church symbols, or re-assigning the sex of a plastic toy potato, the Left know no bounds.
take our poll - story continues below
Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?
The vital voices, our elected representatives, in positions to call them out, too often say little or nothing.
A presidential administration, run by who knows who, undermines Donald Trump’s “1776 Project” — which offered a balanced perspective on American history — while supporting the misdirected “1619 Project.” Launched in 2017 by New York Times, ‘1619’ asserts that the ‘true’ founding of the U.S. began when slaves were first shipped across the Atlantic Ocean.
Tomfoolery
Exactly what sort of tomfoolery is occurring? Can there be a common denominator to the wide variety of heartless and heart-sickening behaviors that we’ve now witnessed for months on end, and, on a lesser level, for years? Actually, the answer yes, a common denominator to it all does exist.
The common denominator of Leftist behavior is to thoroughly quash the opposition, ignore due process, vanquish the U.S. Constitution, overturn the right of habeas corpus, contort ‘one person one vote,’ and much more, so that we are left in tatters as a nation. Each and every activity of the Left, from tiny to gargantuan, in one form or another, is designed to diminish the strength, status, and sovereignty of the United States.
Whether it’s seeking to pack the Supreme Court, smear conservative Supreme Court nominees, besmirch local officials, overrun the nation with illegal immigrants, cancel the careers of people who’ve made one offensive statement, even made 40 years ago, and so on, all such activities have the same common denominator.
“What is Best for You”
As the U.S. declines, the global elite believe that they move closer and closer to their goal of having a ‘one world government.’ Led by global elites – Leftist multi-million dollar career politicians and Leftist billionaires, who pull the strings around the world – such a government, allegedly, will produce the utopian society that Left urgently desires.
Utopias don’t exist. They could not work if they did exist, and would end up enslaving their citizens. Study Utopia by Sir Thomas More, The Republic by Plato, Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, or any other treatise on supposedly ideal societies. You will rapidly understand that the elite inexorably regard the citizenry with disdain, nothing more than serfs – worker drones – who need to act according to how they are manipulated and who will do exactly what they are told.
By any measure, the global elite’s decades-long quest for a one-world government is quite far from Americans ideals. It is so distant from what our Constitution guarantees, and so far from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, that it is beyond chilling.
The Quest for Dominance
If America falls, the whole world goes down, except for the Chinese Communists. They will control at least half of the globe, and their form of government is going to be worse than what the global elites have in mind. The Chinese Communists are already experimenting with creating biologically enhanced ‘super soldiers’, more powerful than the average soldier.
The Chinese Communists have imprisoned thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in slave labor camps. They already have surveillance cameras in their larger cities to a degree that you cannot imagine. In time, it might be shown that they intentionally released the Wuhan virus on the world. Who can say right now?
The global elites, and the Chinese Communists, must be contained and, in time, stopped. It will be a monumental task, but we stopped Hitler and Mussolini, we overcame the monolithic Soviet Union, and we can prevail now if we can reach the rising generations. We need for Gen Xers and Millennials to somehow break away from the Left’s cultural stranglehold. And as they do, they will find that least 75 million Trump voters will be on their side.
https://flagandcross.com/progressive-elites-who-needs-them/
******************************************
Rise of Black Supremacy
“The biggest terror threat in this country is white men, and we have to start doing something about them,” said Don Lemon on CNN. For his daily anti-white rants, Lemon reportedly earns $4 million per year. He is not the only TV “journalist” who hates white people. “[Kyle Rittenhouse is] being prosecuted in front of a nearly all-white jury, before a white judge in a country where white vigilantism is often excused, if not worshipped,” said Joy Reid on MSNBC. “This country was built on the idea that white men have a particular kind of freedom that only they have.”
Lemon and Reid typify a new breed of black TV reporters who specialize in overt racial attacks on White America, accusing it of being the number one problem facing the nation. “Joy Reid is a racist sociopath,” wrote Miranda Devine in the New York Post. “Every night she spews hatred against white people. Shame on MSNBC for elevating such a hate-filled racist to prime time.”
If white reporters made similar attacks on Black America, they would be convicted of white supremacy and fired immediately. How is Reid getting away with her attacks on White America without losing her job? “For some unfathomable reason,” says Devine, “she has Teflon protection at the network.” That protection derives from a new element in the American social landscape, black supremacy. The acceptance of anti-white slurs made by Lemon and Reid serve as proof that black supremacy has more clout than white supremacy.
Not only do we have nonstop reporting from the media about white supremacy, even the president has complained about it. The reality is just the opposite. For at least ten years, we have been witnessing open season on white people. A big scandal occurred when a New York Times editorial board member tweeted “cancel white people.” Political commentator Bill O’Reilly said the racist tweet was consistent with the Times’ editorial philosophy that “white men have destroyed the country.” It comes as no surprise to anyone who has been watching current social trends. Today’s Caucasians, especially males, are being demonized and marginalized by the Left and its media enablers. The Left, says author Ben Shapiro, wants to portray America as “an incurable mass of bigoted whites.” If white supremacy existed, this would never happen.
The tables have turned. Instead of whites being accorded special privileges as in the past, what we are witnessing now is black supremacy. “More whites have begun talking about themselves as a racially oppressed majority,” reports CNN. “In a widely publicized 2011 survey, white Americans said they suffer from racial discrimination more than blacks.” African-Americans are accorded special treatment across the board. “Blackness has become a tremendous asset in contemporary America,” says Ben Shapiro. “Victim status is treasured in America, and black skin guarantees automatic victim status.”
Being black today, Shapiro concludes, grants privileges ranging from landing coveted college scholarships to affirmative action hiring quotas to corporate diversity training that portrays blacks in a positive light and whites negatively…and to the toleration of racist TV reporters like Lemon and Reid. It even applies to the White House, says David Horowitz, author of Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream. “Barack Obama was an inexperienced presidential candidate,” says Horowitz, “who wouldn’t be elected dogcatcher if he wasn’t black.”
A blaring example of black supremacy can be found in today’s television commercials. Blacks comprise 12 percent of the population but appear in 90 percent of commercials. It has been suggested that a person arriving from another planet would assume after watching the tube that most of the U.S. population must be black. Diversity is one thing, but this is overcompensation driven by black supremacy.
A more insidious example of black supremacy arose after a number of Asians were assaulted in New York, San Francisco, and other cities. An attempt was made by the Left to blame the attacks on white supremacy, despite the undisputed fact that all of the reported assaults were perpetrated by blacks. One might reasonably ask, how can this be white supremacy if blacks were responsible? An answer was offered by Colorado college professor Jennifer Ho: “Anti-Asian racism has the same source as anti-black racism: white supremacy. So when a black person attacks an Asian person, the encounter is fueled perhaps by racism, but very specifically by white supremacy. White supremacy does not require a white person to perpetuate it.”
Really? When a black person commits a crime, black supremacy often succeeds in relieving that person of responsibility by blaming white people who had nothing to do with it. A similar argument has been offered as proof that the Rittenhouse shootings were motivated by white supremacy, despite the fact that all of the victims were white. Biden himself called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist. If whiteness were supreme, no one would dare to point a finger at Rittenhouse regardless of his motives.
The notion of white supremacy gained currency because leftists have blamed whites for most of the problems afflicting the black community. Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley, who is black, has accused civil rights leaders of being more interested in “blaming the problems of blacks on white racism” than getting to the real causes. If we wanted to be truthful about the causes of social disruption in the U.S., we would have to point a finger not at White America but rather at the African-American community itself. In spite of a continuing history of violence, blacks are not being held accountable for their behavior. It is not politically correct to criticize African-Americans, and if you attempt to do so, you are automatically labeled a racist. There is no question that blacks lag behind other groups in economic success, safe neighborhoods, education, and family cohesiveness. The question is, who or what is responsible?
The Left insists that the blame belongs squarely on the shoulders of white people. Not so, says David Horowitz. It is not white privilege that’s preventing blacks from doing better, Horowitz argues. It is African-American behavior, such as the propensity to commit violent crimes, the inability to build more intact families, and the unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. Black women do not take responsibility for having children out of wedlock and black fathers do not take responsibility for supporting their children. Many teenagers in the black subculture hold themselves back by deliberately rejecting mainstream “white” values. This self-destructive behavior—not white privilege—is ruining the lives of millions of black kids, says Horowitz. So far, black supremacy has succeeded in hiding this reality under the radar.
“A doctrine of black supremacy,” said Martin Luther King, “is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy.” It would be nice to get rid of both of them. How to do it is the difficult question.
https://flagandcross.com/the-rise-of-black-supremacy/
*********************************************
UK: Offenders who kill emergency services workers to be given mandatory life sentences
Mandatory life sentences will be introduced for offenders who cause the death of emergency services workers while committing a crime, the government has announced.
The law change is a triumph for Lissie Harper, who began campaigning after the death of her husband PC Andrew Harper in the line of duty.
Ms Harper has said the sentences given to the three teenagers responsible for her husband’s death were “despicable”.
PC Harper, 28, died after he was caught in a strap attached to the back of a car driven by the teens and dragged for a mile down a country road as they fled the scene of a quad bike theft on the night of 15 August 2019.
Henry Long, 19, was sentenced to 16 years, and 18-year-olds Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers got 13 years, for manslaughter. They were all cleared of murder by the jury.
The sentences prompted Ms Harper to lobby the government to better protect emergency services workers on the front line.
Her campaign was supported by the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank-and-file officers.
She said her late husband would be proud of the law change, which has been called Harper’s Law.
Ms Harper said: “Emergency services workers require extra protection. I know all too well how they are put at risk and into the depths of danger on a regular basis on behalf of society. That protection is what Harper’s Law will provide and I am delighted that it will soon become a reality.”
The law is expected to be added to the existing Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, meaning it is likely to get Royal Assent and become law early next year.
Announcing the change, Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, said: “This government is on the side of victims and their families and we want our emergency services to know that we’ll always have their back.”
He added: “I pay tribute to Lissie Harper’s remarkable campaign.”
Priti Patel, the home secretary, said she was shocked by PC Harper’s killing and thanked Ms Harper for her “dedication”.
“Those who seek to harm our emergency service workers represent the very worst of humanity and it is right that future killers be stripped of the freedom to walk our streets with a life sentence,” she said.
Police officers, National Crime Agency officers, prison guards, custody officers, firefighters and paramedics are all defined as emergency services workers.
The courts are already bound to impose life sentences for murder, and can also give them for violent offences.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/andrews-law-life-sentence-murder-b1963140.html
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
23 November, 2021
Far-right ideas are gaining a renewed respectability in France
Liking your country as it is is apparently "far Right". Can anyone deny that Muslim immigration degrades the civility of a country?
“Nationalism is the safeguarding of all those treasures that are at threat without a foreign army crossing the border, without the physical invasion of territory. It is the defence of the nation against the stranger from within.” Thus wrote Charles Maurras, a reactionary and anti-Semitic French author, in “My Political Ideas” in 1937. After the disgrace and trauma of Vichy France, which officially branded Jews the stranger within, such thinking was for most of the post-war period banished to the fringes of French intellectual life. For decades it was intellos from the political left who dominated the salons and newspaper columns of Paris.
Today, however, France is seeing a disconcerting revival of ultranationalist thinking, and with it the rehabilitation of once-ostracised reactionary writers. Robert Laffont, a respected Paris publisher, reprinted the collected works of Maurras in 2018. This year a right-wing French publisher reissued “The Great Replacement”, which first came out in 2011; its author, Renaud Camus, is a hard-right writer currently appealing a conviction for incitement to racial hatred. As some nativists allege of America, Mr Camus argues that France is undergoing a demographic “conquest”, in this case involving the relentless replacement of the “French people” with those from its former colonies.
Assorted micro-movements and individuals on the extreme and ultra-Catholic right have long claimed to be the inheritors of reactionary fin-de-siècle thought. But these peripheral voices were dignified with neither serious scrutiny nor polite debate. Now, outlets such as Valeurs Actuelles, a right-wing magazine, and CNews, a French 24-hour news channel likened to Fox News, discuss little else. Mr Camus has turned from recluse to television-studio guest. Eric Zemmour, a pundit and polemicist, doubles as a populist radical hoping to stand in next April’s presidential election. His latest bestseller, “France Has Not Had Its Final Word”, is a lament for “the death of France as we know it”. Dressed in an intellectual veneer, the book identifies at every turn a threat to “the French people, their customs, their history, their state, their civility, their civilisation”.
Two sinister underlying obsessions link this contemporary discourse to the earlier reactionary and nationalist French essayists. The first is a belief in an immutable “eternal France”. Maurras, who was a leading figure in Action Française, a political movement that was founded in 1899 to defend “true France”, termed this le pays réel (the real country): a land of church spires, ancestral soil and family tradition. It was to be distinguished, in his view, from le pays légal (the legal country), or the artificial structures of the anticlerical republican administration.
Old enemies and new
Identity in this sense is not a fluid multiple construct, but rather is fixed and rooted in the earth. “The land gives us discipline, and we are the extension of the ancestors,” declared Maurice Barrès, another influential nationalist writer who was close to Maurras, in 1899. The iconography of Vichy France later embraced this blood-and-soil identity, celebrating rural life, church, family and work on the land. Indeed, Mr Zemmour entitles a chapter of his latest book “The Land and the Dead”, after a speech of that name by Barrès. In it, Mr Zemmour declares that the three members of a French family who were murdered in a terrorist attack at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, and who were buried in Israel, did not belong to France.
The second obsession is paranoia about decline, and the failure of elites to protect French identity. For Maurras, the chief menace to it was that enemy within: Jews, Protestants, Freemasons and foreigners. For Barrès, the enemy was principally without: Germany, and its military might. For Mr Camus and Mr Zemmour, it is above all Islam. Echoing the “great replacement theory”, Mr Zemmour claims that, in today’s France, “an Islamic civilisation is replacing a people from a Christian, Greco-Roman civilisation”. “Veiled women”, Mr Camus recently told a tv interviewer, “are the flags of conquest, of colonisation”.
Today’s reactionaries tap into a deep undercurrent of fear and paranoia in France, but also of anti-Semitism. An unapologetic anti-Semite, Maurras defended the French army’s accusations against Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French captain wrongly convicted by the French army of high treason in 1894. That was a time, among the Catholic and military French elite, of intense anxiety about spies and traitors, and of conspiracy theories about Jewish financiers. In “Jewish France”, a virulent anti-Semitic tract published in 1886, Edouard Drumont had warned of the threat of a “Jewish conquest” of France, led by a “hateful, gold-hungry” people bent on bringing about the “painful agony of a generous nation”.
Himself of Jewish and Algerian descent, Mr Zemmour occupies an ambiguous place in this tradition. By hinting today that Dreyfus may not have been innocent, or defending Vichy for “protecting” French Jews—because it deported foreign ones first—Mr Zemmour is confecting not a serious historical assessment but a studied provocation. As well as distorting history, this is a way of “signalling his link to a pillar of French society, which is the army, and to a particular set of right-wing values”, suggests Jean Garrigues, a historian at the University of Orléans.
That such views are given a legitimate airing is new, and disquieting. Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the hard-right party that his daughter, Marine Le Pen, rebranded and now leads, appalled the salons of Paris and was treated accordingly. Mr Zemmour, who is well-read and flatters the French regard for the cultivé, is handled with respect. Aspiring presidential candidates are invited by debate moderators, with scarcely a blush, to offer their perspective on the “great replacement theory”.
Moreover, France lacks the counterbalancing intellectual voices of the past. “At the time of Maurras, Émile Zola and republicans fought back. But the intellectual left and radical left in France have been swept away,” says Sudhir Hazareesingh, a political scientist at Oxford University and author of “How the French Think”. Today, no French thinker has the towering stature of Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Michel Foucault or others in turtlenecks and trench coats on the left bank whose influence lingered well beyond their lifetimes.
No left-wing political leader has a commanding influence, either. In this void, toxic theories are resuscitated, and used to frame discussion, without robust or persuasive rebuke. As elsewhere, reason and rationality seem, like contempt, to be fragile tools against the potent narrative force of populist reactionaries. The decline of the public intellectual on the French left removes one more line of defence.
*******************************************
Black killer suported by evil Leftist woman
So much hate
The hater
The killer
A woman has resigned from her job after a sarcasm-laden rant following the deaths of five people in a Christmas parade rampage.
An Illinois Democrat has been blasted for describing the deadly Christmas parade rampage in Wisconsin as “karma” for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Mary Lemanski has now resigned from her position with the Democratic Party in DuPage County after her comments were widely shared, Anne Sommerkamp, the organisation’s executive director, told Fox News in an email.
The social media director began her online tirade by snarkily dismissing the tragedy as “just self-defence.”
“It was probably just self-defence,” Ms Lemanski wrote in a tweet that appears to have since been deleted, the New York Post reported.
“Living in Wisconsin, he probably felt threatened,” another tweet read — referring to the driver, Darrell E Brooks, who is facing five counts of first-degree homicide over the Waukesha incident, which left five people facing and dozens hurt.
“I’m sure he didn’t want to hurt anyone. He came to help people,” she added in her sarcasm-laced missive.
Ms Lemanski appeared to be mocking Mr Rittenhouse’s self-defence claim before the 18-year-old was acquitted Friday of charges of homicide, attempted homicide and reckless endangerment in the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, on Aug. 25, 2020.
Her comments were blasted online.
“Seriously how does it feel to completely flush your career down the toilet via tweet? Was it fun?” one user wrote.
“What career. She’s yeah and will always be. The entire country will see her tweets tomorrow and she will never recover,” another said.
A third user wrote: “I hope you never know the pain of losing a child. I hope the parents of those lost today in Waukesha never know you. I feel sad for both you and them.”
*******************************************
Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts
When my mom was 90, she was hospitalized for a procedure and started sundowning every night. For those who haven’t dealt with an elderly person, “sundowning” occurs when night falls and the older person starts hallucinating. Being in an unfamiliar environment triggers it, even in people who are not generally suffering from dementia.
What fascinated me about my mom’s hallucinations was how real they were to her. She told me that “the Germans” had entered her hospital room through the window, surrounded her bed, and been conversing with her. I took her to the window and showed her that (a) it was a non-opening window and (b) she was on the third floor. Mom was unable to accept this irrefutable evidence that her nighttime escapades with “the Germans” could not have happened. The experience was so real to her that it transcended all countervailing facts.
With that anecdote in mind — about a failing mind struggling with transitory dementia — I’d like you to look at this meme that’s popping up on leftist social media:
The meme repeats a tweet from Santiago Mayer. Who is Mayer? He’s an Act Blue operative who identifies himself on Twitter, not by the American flag, but by the Mexican flag.
So, Mayer made this statement and it’s being wildly shared all over social media. What’s important about it is that every fact within it is wrong.
Allow me to break it down:
1. The implication that Kyle committed a crime by crossing state lines. In America, we citizens can freely cross state lines. There is no penalty in America for doing so. It’s part of our constitutional system. When I left California for the Southeast, I did not have to report myself to the local police station. And of course, the whole “crossed state lines” mantra is ludicrous coming from the party that disavows national borders.
2. The “illegally” acquired gun. The reason the judge dropped the gun charge against Rittenhouse is that the rifle was neither illegally-acquired nor was Rittenhouse underage. The rules are different for long guns, and the measuring tape established that, when Rittenhouse entered Wisconsin (a mere 20 minutes from his home), and his friend loaned him the rifle, neither broke the law.
3. The “assault rife.” There is no such thing as an “assault rifle.” The “AR” in the name comes from the 15th model that Armalite Rifle manufactured in the 1950s. It’s now the industry standard.
I’ve also seen people refer to the weapon Rittenhouse was carrying as an “automatic weapon.” That’s not true either.
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, meaning that you have to pull the trigger for every shot. If it were automatic, pulling the trigger would release an unending stream of bullets until either the magazine emptied itself or the user took his finger off the trigger. Indeed, Rittenhouse showed exemplary trigger control at all times.
The AR-15 is beloved because (a) it has minimal kick and (b) it can be blinged out like crazy. The bling seems to be what scares lefties. This cartoon, about a chihuahua’s self-image, shows how lefties view an AR-15, compared to a less fancy rifle:
4. “Attended a MAGA rally.” Nothing that happened in Kenosha was comparable to a MAGA rally. No MAGA rally has ever involved burning a whole city down. People are cheerful, behave well, and clean up after themselves.
I know that leftists will point to January 6 as proof that what I just said is untrue but that is not a working analogy. First, of the more than 100,000 people who appeared in D.C. that day, upwards of 90% were far from the Capitol and were behaving in typical MAGA fashion: Cheerful and lawful.
Second, there’s good reason to believe that the FBI, as is its wont, had provocateurs, agitators, and agents in the crowd trying to entrap people.
Third, those arrested on January 6 were not armed.
Fourth, even at the height of the protest, nothing was burned or broken.
Fifth, the only violent death occurred when a Capitol police officer shot an unarmed woman in cold blood.
5. “Picked a fight.” Kyle did not “pick a fight.” The undisputed evidence at the trial, from the prosecution’s own witnesses and video footage, showed that Rittenhouse offered first aid, shied away from any conflict, ran as fast as he could away from Rosenbaum’s intended assault, and was also trying desperately to run away from Huber’s and Grosskreutz’s assaults.
When it comes to picking a fight, that same testimony showed that those whom he shot attacked Kyle first. We also know, even though the jurors didn’t, that the three whom Rittenhouse shot were people with long records of violence and perversion. While their conduct was not on trial, their records were consistent with their behavior their night.
6. Racism! And of course, the implication that this is about race is wrong, too. Not only is Kyle White, so are/were the people he shot. (See image, above.)
So, as I said, every “fact” in that meme is wrong. And here’s something else to chew on: If a Black teen had been in exactly the same situation as Rittenhouse — a young man who, seeing rioters destroy his father’s town, drove 20 minutes to try to protect businesses, armed himself with a legal rifle, and fired back when three felons attacked him with intent to kill — MAGA people would have been as strongly supportive of that teen as they are of Rittenhouse.
For conservatives, the principle at stake isn’t race; it’s the right to self-defense that is an integral part of being a citizen in a free society.
Another principle is that if the adults don’t act, children and teens who have been raised right and believe in a law-abiding system, will bravely step up and try to do what the adults refuse to do.
Oh, and another principle is that leftists are not only flogging the Rittenhouse case to stir up racial hostilities, they’re also using it to try once again to end the Second Amendment, not through a constitutional process, but by stirring up enough citizen outrage to ignore the Constitution.
The media feel their power. Their goal, as I’ve written before, is to replicate Charles Manson’s Helter-Skelter tactic: Sow dissent between America’s different races to create a race war. Once that war has leveled America, in the case of the media and their water carriers in Congress (the Squad and other morons), they imagine themselves as the leaders of a brave new socialist world. Racism will be over because everyone, Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Purple, and Green, will be firmly under the jackbooted feet of our new totalitarian leaders.
It is up to us to confront the lies, and to help those who have not become so demented that they cannot see the truth: And the truth is that we are being lied to and used so that ordinary Americans become the hate-filled engines of their own destruction.
I have a suggestion for confronting them. A wise man I knew used to say of interpersonal squabbles, “Don’t get furious; get curious.” E.g., if your spouse says something you see as an insult, before you get angry, ask an open-ended question to ensure that your spouse really meant to insult you. It’s a good policy, it prevents fights, and it makes you look like the mature peacemaker.
In this post, because it’s a monologue I called out the lies for what they are. However, if you’re conversing with leftists, in person or via social media, all that you must do is politely ask them to direct you to the facts supporting their conclusions.
Yesterday, although I normally never engage on Facebook, I couldn’t resist playing this game. Someone commented on a friend’s post that Judge Schroeder wore a black robe to hide his white robe. I posted a polite (albeit slightly dishonest) reply. “I haven’t been following this much (that was the dishonesty). I assume you’re saying this about the judge because Kyle Rittenhouse is a White supremacist, so the judge, by making rulings in his favor, must also be a White supremacist. Can you give me the facts about Rittenhouse’s White supremacy so I can understand what happened?”
The person who called Judge Schroeder a KKK member deleted his comment without even attempting to answer
Don’t get furious; get curious. Politely push them to share with you the facts supporting their claims. And if they return with provably incorrect “facts,” politely respond with irrefutable truth. Lots of them are going to be sundowners who cannot recognize the truth but others will be like Bari Weiss and realize that they’ve been the victims of a giant con.
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/11/20/a-meme-sums-up-90-of-the-lefts-kyle-rittenhouse-lies/
************************************************
Why The Left Always Projects
The Left is addicted to projection—the psycho-political syndrome of attributing all of one’s own sins to one’s opponents. The woke apparently do this out of some Freudian effort to square the circle of their own guilt or sense of privilege, by fobbing off their own fearful realities onto others. It is the atheist version of confession or medieval penance. In addition, in the spirit of “always being on the offense,” wokists know that those who slander do so most successfully when they lodge exactly those charges most familiar and applicable to themselves.
The Privileged Damn Privilege
Take for example, the worn-out charge of “privilege,” as in the phrase “check your privilege.” This trope originates exclusively from the Left. Purportedly, it signifies a rigged system in which white males have gained, unfairly and undeservedly, “privilege” to exercise cultural, economic, political, and social control over the “other”—occasionally defined as women, more often “people of color,” and most frequently African Americans.
How odd, given that by any indicator the political Left is the party of wealth and privilege. The wealthiest ZIP codes are found in blue states such as California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. Twenty-six of the 27 wealthiest congressional districts, gauged by per capita incomes, are represented by liberal Democrats.
Registered Democrats on average have higher incomes than their Republican counterparts. Democratic presidential candidates have vastly outspent Republicans over the last 20 years. Note that the old liberal saw about “dark money” has steadily disappeared from the left-wing lexicon (nothing is darker than Mark Zuckerberg’s infusions of cash to warp particular voting precincts). Likewise, in the once trendy academic trifecta of “race, class, and gender,” class” has been dropped quietly.
The most elite and wealthy institutions in America are predominantly liberal bastions: Silicon Valley, entertainment, universities, professional sports, Wall Street, the mainstream media, and foundations. Most “people of color,” who are the loudest about focusing on the evils of privilege and lack of equity, are themselves multimillionaires or multibillionaires, such as the Obamas, Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Jay-Z, or Meghan Markle.
Accusing an entire group—white people, or conservatives, or Trump supporters—of being privileged deflects the apparent shame of elitism away from oneself on the cheap. After all, accusing some part-time lecturer or Trump deplorable of “white privilege” is a lot easier, both psychologically and materially, than giving up a nanny, trading in the gas-guzzling big Mercedes, or just saying no to private jets.
The elite accuser knows especially how to level such charges given his own intimacy with what wealth, power, and influence bring. Worse still, the projectionist feels he is making the greatest sacrifice of all by his empty confessions—even as he is a beneficiary of the rigged system that he demands be ended.
When Barack Obama flies to Glasgow to lecture the western world’s climate-wrecking middle class that it is going to have to be content with less—while acknowledging that his own wealth and privilege mean he will suffer less than others—one wonders why Obama simply does not, right now pledge to live in just one mansion rather than two?
After all, if Obama urges the middle to class to cut back on energy use and to forfeit lifestyle privileges, why wouldn’t Obama himself set the moral example, given his huge carbon footprint. Why would he be so cynical to warn the world that our shores will soon be inundated shortly after he himself bought a shoreline estate?
The answer, of course, is that by constantly projecting their covetousness onto others, the woke feel that they can enjoy their own privileges with diminished guilt, claim the psychological higher moral ground, and, as performance artists, show they suffer on our behalf as “traitors to their class.”
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13871&omhide=true
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
22 November, 2021
More British troops deployed to guard Polish border amid Belarus migrant crisis
What the devil are British troops doing on the borders of Belarus in the heart of Europe? Can Europe not look after its own problems?
More British troops will be deployed to Poland's border with Belarus to help address the migrant crisis.
Thousands of migrants, mainly from the Middle East, have sought to cross into the European Union at the frontier between Poland and Belarus in recent weeks.
The UK and allies have accused Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko of engineering the crisis, with defence secretary Ben Wallace saying the migrants were being used as “pawns”.
The Daily Telegraph reported that about 100 soldiers from the Royal Engineers will be sent to help physically reinforce the Polish border although details of the deployment are still being worked out.
Mr Wallace, who visited British troops training in Poland, told the newspaper: “Can you imagine going from Iraq, to here, onto a border, not much clothes, not much food, not much money, and then being a pawn in the Belarusian leader’s game? I think that’s heartless and I think it is cruel.”
Western governments have accused Mr Lukashenko, a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, of deliberately encouraging the migrants to breach its borders in retaliation for sanctions the EU has imposed in response to his repressive rule.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-troops-belarus-poland-migrants-b1960514.html
*********************************************
Britain outlaws Palestinian militant group Hamas, bringing UK stance in line with US, EU
Britain's interior minister Priti Patel has banned the Palestinian militant group Hamas in a move that brings the UK's stance on Gaza's rulers in line with the United States and the European Union.
"Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry, as well as terrorist training facilities," Ms Patel said in a statement. "That is why today I have acted to proscribe Hamas in its entirety."
The organisation will be banned under the Terrorism Act.
Anyone expressing support for Hamas, flying its flag or arranging meetings for the organisation would be in breach of the law, the Interior Ministry confirmed.
Ms Patel is expected to present the change to parliament next week.
Hamas — full name the 'Islamic Resistance Movement' — has political and military wings.
Founded in 1987, it opposes the existence of Israel and peace talks, instead advocating "armed resistance" against Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Hamas is on the US list of designated foreign terrorist organisations. The European Union also deems it a terrorist movement.
Based in Gaza, Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, defeating nationalist rival Fatah. It seized military control of Gaza the following year.
Hamas and Israel clashed most recently in a deadly 11-day conflict in May.
Until now Britain had banned only its military arm — the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.
Hamas political official Sami Abu Zuhri said Britain's move showed "absolute bias toward the Israeli occupation and is a submission to Israeli blackmail and dictations".
In a separate statement, Hamas said: "Resisting occupation by all available means, including armed resistance, is a right granted to people under occupation as stated by the international law."
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett welcomed the decision, saying in a Twitter post: "Hamas is a terrorist organization, simply put. The 'political arm' enables its military activity."
Ms Patel was forced to resign as Britain's international development secretary in 2017 after she failed to disclose meetings with senior Israeli officials during a private holiday to the country, including then-opposition leader Yair Lapid.
Mr Lapid, now Israel's Foreign Minister, hailed the decision on Hamas as "part of strengthening ties with Britain".
**********************************************
'This is treating trained officers like children': London Police's ABC handcuff guide
Crime and victim campaigners have savaged the Met Police's new 44-question handcuff policy, calling it 'embarrassing' and treating trained police officers like children'.
The Centre for Crime Prevention said crooks would not give PCc the luxury of the time to mull over the near-50 considerations in the guidance.
And it suggested the document would raise yet more of its own questions - but this time about the leadership of under-fire Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick.
David Spencer, research director at the centre, told MailOnline: 'Plenty of people are of the view that police priorities tend to be the wellbeing of criminals rather than the law abiding public and this will go some way to reinforce that perception.
'It is also quite simply treating trained police officers like children and is hugely patronising to the vast majority of police officers who are arresting potentially dangerous suspects every single day.
'Most arrests will not give police the luxury of considering 44 questions before apprehending a suspect. They are working on instinct and applying their training and this is where such questions should be, and are, drummed into them.
'It is difficult to imagine how Cressida Dick’s time as Commissioner could get much more embarrassing for the Met, but this policy is certainly doing its best.
'There are already serious question marks about whether Cressida Dick is the right person to be leading the Met and proclamations like this are only going to undermine her authority still further.'
The policy on handcuffing tells officers to ask themselves 44 questions before arresting a suspect and details the procedure in a child-style ABC guide.
Its mammoth decision process is laid out in full in the new 25-page document published by Scotland Yard.
It puts into official policy nearly 50 questions officers should consider when they are using the police-issue restraints.
The questions include, 'What could go wrong (and what could go well)?', 'What is happening?', and, 'What do I not know?'. Other advice to mull over also includes, 'Do I need to take action immediately?' and 'What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?'
Most are from the College of Policing's National Decision Model but are now enshrined in the official equipment policy.
It is not clear what the Met's previous policy on the police restraint tactic had been. But the new rules have been drawn up after complaints from the black community they had been disproportionately targeted in stop and search.
The 44 questions police should consider in Met handcuff policy:
1. Is what I am considering consistent with the Code of Ethics?
2. What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?
3. What does the police service expect of me in this situation?
4. Is this action or decision likely to reflect positively on my professionalism and policing generally?
5. Could I explain my action or decision in public?
6. What is happening?
7. What do I know so far?
8. What do I not know?
9. What further information (or intelligence) do I want/need at this moment?
10. Do I need to take action immediately?
11. Do I need to seek more information?
12. What could go wrong (and what could go well)?
13. What is causing the situation?
14. How probable is the risk of harm?
15. How serious would it be?
16. Is that level of risk acceptable?
17. Is this a situation for the police alone to deal with?
18. Am I the appropriate person to deal with this?
19. What am I trying to achieve?
20. Will my action resolve the situation?
21. What police powers might be required?
22. Is there any national guidance covering this type of situation?
23. Do any local organisational policies or guidelines apply?
24. What legislation might apply?
25. Is there any research evidence?
26. If decision makers have to account for their decisions, will they be able to say they were proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
27. Reasonable in the circumstances facing them at the time?
28. Does anyone else need to know what you have decided?
29. What happened as a result of your decision?
30. Was it what you wanted or expected to happen?
31. How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?
32. What information or intelligence was available?
33. What factors (potential benefits and harms) were assessed?
34. What threat and risk assessment methods were used (if any)?
35. Was a working strategy developed and was it appropriate?
36. Were there any powers, policies and legislation that should have been considered?
37. If policy was not followed, was this reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances?
38. How were feasible options identified and assessed?
39. Were decisions proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
40. Were decisions reasonable in the circumstances facing the decision maker?
41. Were decisions communicated effectively?
42. Were decisions and the rationale for them recorded as appropriate?
43. Were decisions monitored and reassessed where necessary?
44. What lessons can be learnt from the outcomes and how the decisions were made?
Also featured is an alphabet-themed guide to handcuffing that warns to, 'Always ask the suspect if the cuffs are too tight'.
It includes the advice to 'always double-lock the handcuffs'.
The Met publicised the new policy yesterday morning, which came after a review by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist.
Industry insiders and former police officers have slammed the alphabet-style guide, with former Detective Chief Superintendent Kevin Hurley warning it was indicative of the 'weakness of senior police leadership'.
He told GB News: 'Frankly, it's an example of the ineptitude, the pusillanimous, the weakness of decision-making that we now see with senior police leadership.
'Police officers, when they decide to use force or apply handcuffs, need to run through in their mind a lot of different things which comes down to: "Is this the right thing to be doing, and can I defend my options?"
'What we've now see happen is something that's going to affect three groups of people.
'First, it is going to put off the cops using force or arresting people. There's nothing more difficult than trying to get some officers to deal with confrontation.
'It's very easy to back down. The hard thing is to motivate a police officer to be nosy.
'The second thing is, the public are going to think: "What on earth is going on here?"
'The third point really is that those who are "baddies", it's going to give them an opportunity for an outer.'
Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said of the force's new policy: 'My number one priority remains tackling violent crime and keeping people safe from street crime – which is blighting the lives of too many young people.
'Alongside that, I have set out to increase the trust and confidence of communities in their police service.
'We know that not all communities have the same level of trust in us – I am determined to change that.
'The handcuffing review could not have taken place effectively without the input and contribution of many front line police officers and members of the public. I thank them all for their time, effort and valuable honesty.'
The policy follows a review commissioned by the Met Commissioner Cressida Dick in 2019 into the use of handcuffs before an arrest has taken place.
It came after complaints from black communities they were being disproportionately targeted.
The Met said the review would make sure the tactic, for which there is a sound legal basis in some circumstances, was justified and recorded on each occasion.
It fed in consultation responses from young black men aged between 16 to 25 years-old.
A Met spokeswoman said: 'The launch of the policy, which covers all aspects of the use of handcuffs, is the final recommendation from the 2020 review to be implemented.
'Officers are already receiving additional legal training, more public and personal safety training, with further emphasis on de-escalation; and more community input to understand the respective experiences of the public and police officers during encounters on the streets of London.'
Last October a highly criticial review of the Met's use of stop and search powers has revealed officers stopped two black men after they were seen 'fist bumping,'.
The review by the Independent Office for Police Conduct revealed the officers thought the pair had just completed a drug deal, in one of a number of issues raised by the watchdog.
It found handcuffs were used in nearly all instances where other tactics could have de-escalated an encounter, while officers also failed to use bodycam video from the outset of their interaction with some members of the public.
The IOPC said their review 'mirrors concerns,' already raised by communities in the Capital.
Regional director Sal Naseem said: 'We saw a lack of understanding from officers about why their actions were perceived to be discriminatory.'
************************************************
Now a ban on boiling live lobsters is a step closer as ministers recognise crustaceans as sentient beings
A ban on boiling lobsters alive came closer yesterday after the Government recognised crabs, octopus and lobsters as sentient beings. An amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill currently going through Parliament was tabled which makes it illegal to cause needless harm and suffering to invertebrate animals.
It came after a report for ministers by the London School of Economics confirmed there is strong scientific evidence of sentience in decapod crustaceans, such as crab and lobster, and cephalopod molluscs, octopus and squid.
It recommended that they should be included in animal protection legislation.
There had previously been much debate over whether lobsters and crabs have feelings similar to vertebrates – animals that have a backbone – as they have different nervous systems.
The amendment published on the Government’s website read: ‘This amendment adds cephalopod molluscs and decapod crustaceans to the definition of “animal” for the purposes of the Bill.’
This would make it an offence for any person who is responsible for a kept animal – including crabs and lobsters – to cause it unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the animal’s welfare needs.
Though the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) insists this will have no impact on restaurant kitchens, campaigners could use the new law to argue in court for a ban on boiling the animals alive in eateries as they say there are less painful ways to kill them.
It is currently illegal to do this in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.
Stunning lobsters with an electric gun or by chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling is a more humane method, according to animal welfare charities.
But restaurateurs are unlikely to be impressed by the new law, which may make them subject to checks by Defra and, if a ban does come into effect, could criminalise those who kill the lobsters in a traditional way.
The move has been pushed for by animal welfare minister Lord Goldsmith and the Prime Minister’s wife Carrie Johnson – who are patrons of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation (CAWF).
Lord Goldsmith said: ‘The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill provides a crucial assurance that animal wellbeing is rightly considered when developing new laws.
‘The science is now clear that crustaceans and molluscs can feel pain and therefore it is only right they are covered by this vital piece of legislation.’
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
21 November, 2021
Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t convicted because, in America, white reasoning rules
Michael Harriot below is perfectly correct. America IS ruled by legal notions that people of European descent see as reasonable. Such people are a big majority in the USA. And majority rules.
Ideas of proper behaviour do differ as between different ethnic groups. If you want to see what black ideas produce, just look at the egregiously high rate of interpersonal violence prevailing in any African country.
And European ideas of proper behaviour do very much hold that you are entitled to defend yourself if attacked -- which Rittenhouse was
Before sending a Kenosha, Wisconsin, jury to deliberate if Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer, Judge Bruce Schroeder informed Rittenhouse’s hand-picked jury that his fate rests on the “privilege” of self-defense.
Neither side disagreed that the 18-year-old intended to shoot Anthony M Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz. They don’t disagree that the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 is a dangerous weapon. However, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine.
Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two demonstrators during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was acquitted of all charges on Friday.© Photograph: Getty Images Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two demonstrators during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was acquitted of all charges on Friday.
Related: Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal: five key takeaways from the courtroom drama
“A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken,” the jury instructions read. “In determining whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinate intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant’s position.”
Before former Kenosha alderman Kevin Mathewson summoned “patriots willing to take up arms and defend our city from the evil thugs”, no one else had died during the unrest in his city. Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?
The “reasonable man” test derives from the description of a nondescript English character called the “man on the Clapham omnibus” – a reasonably educated, but average, hypothetical passenger on a London bus route whose thoughts and actions are defined as “ordinary”. The US supreme court case Graham v Connor enshrined this concept into law. The reason police are often acquitted of killing unarmed citizens is that they can argue that a “reasonable” police officer would have used deadly force, even if the officer turned out to be wrong and the victim was unarmed. When I first heard this principle, the first thing I thought was: “A white person came up with this.”
Because all of our opinions are shaped and colored by our experiences, “reasonable” is a subjective notion. Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.
While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.
In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.
Understanding the innate fear of Blackness embedded in the American psyche does not require legal scholarship or a judge’s explanation. This belief shapes public perception, politics and the entire criminal justice system. And it is indeed a privilege only afforded to whiteness.
Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by.
Researchers have found that Americans perceive Black men as larger, stronger and more threatening than white men the same size. A 2016 paper found that Black boys are perceived as older and “less innocent” by police officers. Black girls as young as five years old are viewed as older, less innocent and more aggressive than white girls. In real life, 35% of gang members are Black, but in Hollywood, 65% of the roles described as “gangsters” are played by Black actors.
The idea of the “scary Black person” manifests itself in every segment of the US criminal justice system. It’s why police are more likely to stop Black drivers, even though – according to the largest analysis of police data in the history of the world – white drivers are more likely to be in possession of illegal contraband. It’s why unarmed Black people are killed by cops at three times the rate of whites, in spite of the fact that most on-duty police fatalities are committed by white men. After controlling for factors that include education, weapon possession and prior criminal history, the US sentencing commission found that federal judges sentence Black men to prison terms that are, on average, 20% longer than white men with similar circumstances.
It’s why 5,000 people responded to Mathewson’s Facebook call-to-arms. It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officers from the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.
That privileged loophole extends past the borders of Wisconsin. It is on display in the trial of the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia. The impromptu lynch mob hunted Arbery down based on an 1863 law that allows citizens to arrest anyone based on “reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion”, referred to by Cornell professor Joseph Margulies as a “catching-fleeing-slave law”. This explains how a court could seat only one Black juror in a county that is 26.6% Black.
Knowing how this belief has shaped reality for every Black person in America explains why white people are the only group who doesn’t think “attention to the history of slavery and racism is good for society”. It is reasonable to assume that Black history is as scary as the people in it. It is reasonable to assume that police fear for their lives when they detain Black suspects. It is reasonable for conservatives to assume that Black voters will upset the political equilibrium if they are not systemically suppressed. And yes, it was reasonable to believe that Kyle Rittenhouse’s white jurors would grant him the privilege of self-defense.
The Rittenhouse verdict is proof that it is reasonable to believe that the fear of Black people can absolve a white person of any crime.
*****************************************
Virginia cop who was fired for anonymously donating $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's defense fund after being outed by hackers demands his job back
A Virginia cop who was fired for anonymously donating $25 to a Kyle Rittenhouse defense fund after being outed by hackers and the media is now demanding his job back from the woke, 'hypocrite' police chief who fired him.
Speaking to DailyMail.com on Friday, as the Rittenhouse verdict came in on Friday, Norfolk Police Lieutenant William 'Bill' Kelly explained why he thought Rittenhouse deserved his help back then, and why he stands by the decision now.
Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all counts on Friday after a two week trial. He buckled in tears as the verdict was read aloud and is now a free man.
Seven months ago, long before the trial had even started, 42-year-old Kelly was fired for donating anonymously to the teenager's then-growing defense fund.
Kelly, a 19-year veteran and father-of-three who had moved into the internal affairs division at the time, made a $25 donation to a Give Send Go online campaign for Rittenhouse's legal team after watching social media videos and journalists' footage from the August 2020 Kenosha riots.
He wrote alongside his donation: 'God Bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank-and-file police officer supports you.'
He thought nothing else of it, until his name appeared in an article by The Guardian among the names of other cops who gave to the fund. Their details had been hacked by a group and provided to the media. Kelly was fired and vilified by the police chief and city manager in Norfolk, who called his actions 'egregious'.
In an interview with DailyMail.com, he explained why he thought Rittenhouse was innocent from the beginning.
'Everything I'm saying is just my personal opinion. I've been a homicide detective, a violent crimes investigator for years. I have a background. I watched the video of the shooting and I'd seen the video of the journalists of Mr. Rittenhouse before the shooting and the protesters before the shooting and I thought it painted a pretty clear picture that Mr. Rittenhouse had a very strong claim for self-defense.
'I was very surprised when he was charged soon after the shooting with these murders and the shooting of the third victim,' he said.
Kelly, a self-confessed 'news junkie', saw that a GoFundMe account for Rittenhouse had been canceled, and a site called Give Send Go had set up another page for him.
He logged on and donated, making sure to leave out personal details because he says he didn't want to associate himself with the police department.
'I was interested in giving him the chance to defend himself in front of a jury. I know that lawyers are expensive, and it's hard sometimes to get the message out there. I wanted to make sure that he had the means necessary to make his claim in court.
'It mattered. The comments I made, my belief that he has a strong claim for self-defense was a personal opinion. I didn't want my city or police department to be associated with it, so I chose to donate anonymously.
'It was only after the hackers broke into it that they were able to connect those dots,' he said.
A hacker group called 'Distributed Denial of Secrets' obtained his name and email address from the fund and provided it to The Guardian, which published a story including his name. The Daily Dot followed.
Within a day of it coming out, the Norfolk Police Department was receiving widespread calls to fire Kelly from all over the world.
'It wasn't people local, it was people from all around the country who read an article and sent a nasty tweet. In the absence of that outcry, there would not have been any kind of disciplinary action against me, I'm confident,' he said.
The city decided that the comments 'eroded' the public's trust in the police and Kelly was fired in April.
He has since filed a grievance, but the process is ongoing and in the meantime, he's had to survive on his savings.
Speaking from his home in Norfolk, he said he wishes the city officials had waited at least until tensions surrounding the case had calmed, if not until the trial.
'If people consumed as much information as I did about the case they may have come to a different conclusion. And honestly even if they did consume as much information as I did and they came to a different conclusion - that's fine.
'This is America. You can agree with your neighbors and other people in your community and you can disagree with them. Just because someone has a different opinion than you, it doesn't mean you should destroy their lives, take their job away.
'My opinion on the self-defense claim of Mr. Rittenhouse has no impact on my ability to do my job as a police officer.'
He says the only reason he was fired was because he supported the teenager.
'If I had a different opinion and I donated to a fund for the victims and made comments about how Mr. Rittenhouse was a murderer, nobody would have cared or tried to get me fired.'
In his grievance, he points to the fact that the police chief Larry Boone attended a BLM protest in May last year in full uniform, while on duty.
In the photo, Boone is holding a sign that reads Black Lives Matter, with the names of people who have been shot by cops - including some in Norfolk - around it.
'The hypocrisy is dumbfounding. For the leader of our organization to be able to advocate support for a movement that is at the very least divisive in America today, in uniform while on duty... he was holding carried the name of a person who had recently been shot by a Norfolk police officer.
'The sign demanded justice for that person, but that shooting was still under investigation to determine whether or not that officer should be charged criminally. It's very inconsistent.
'Yet I cannot, off-duty, on my own time make a donation and some comments that are well within the realm of public, acceptable discourse?'
The bigger issue, he says, is that he was fired for daring to have an opinion that went against woke officials and public pressure to condemn the teenager.
'The outcome of the trial has nothing to do with my vindication - right or wrong, an American has the right to express their opinion within the realm of public discourse.
'That same freedom exists regardless to the outcome.'
Now, he says the censorship of right-wing political views is 'chilling' police officers all over the country. They feel 'disposable' unless they submit to a liberal ideology.
'It made me feel disposable. Not only how it affected me, how it affected other officers. I was contacted by others who said they immediately deleted their social media accounts after I got fired out of fear that they would go through them and find something innocuous to use against them.
'I've been contacted by officers who say, "what if Trump runs in 2024 and I put a sign for him in my front yard, can media get a hold of that? If enough people complain, will I lose my job?"
'The effects of this kind of censorship are wide. It ripples through the entire department. It's a chilling effect.'
Kelly and his wife have been surviving on her salary as a school teacher and his savings to get by, but he is hoping he will be reinstated soon and given backpay. The couple have three kids, the oldest of whom is 18.
He is desperate to return to work and was just ten months away from vesting for his pension when he was fired. If he doesn't get his job back, he'll lose the pension he worked almost 20 years for.
'I love being a cop, it's a part of me and who I am. It was a huge hit to me to lose my job. If I got the chance again, I'd jump on it,' he said.
Kelly said that even though Rittenhouse has now been acquitted, he does not believe public discourse will change because people have 'dug in' to their opinions.
'I don't think the discourse will change. People are dug in on their heels... they'll point to some other boogie-man as an excuse as to why he was acquitted. They won't be forced to look at the facts of the case. I don't think they'll change their mind.
'Honestly, most of America is pretty polarized. People on both sides who seem to be ideologically dug in to their position.
'They try to view fact patterns through it and it's hard to break free from it,' he said.
The City of Norfolk did not respond to inquiries about whether it intended to give him his job back.
He is hoping for a hearing date at the end of January, but wants to resolve the issue privately before then.
*******************************************
Biden Takes Aim at Religious Freedom
Biden continually subjected us to cruel and unusual punishment with his continual vaccine mandates. Now, the demented clown wants to shred religious freedom as if it’s not a fundamental piece of the Bill of Rights.
FNN explains:
The Health and Human Services Department (HHS) is considering revoking authority the former Trump administration delegated for the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to prevent violations of religious liberty – prompting concerns about conscience protections under Secretary Xavier Becerra.
A draft memo obtained by Fox News targets two actions related to the the First Amendment from earlier this year, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits federal infringements on the free exercise of religion.
The RFRA delegation came on Dec. 7, 2017, in response to the administration’s broader efforts to beef up religious liberty protections. Citing President Trump’s executive order on the issue, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided executive agencies with a long list of guidelines on RFRA, free exercise claims, contraception in insurance plans and other issues.
HHS followed by granting OCR authority to, among other things, conduct RFRA compliance reviews and “initiate such other actions as may be necessary to facilitate and ensure compliance with RFRA.”
HHS’ internal memo is expected to be rolled out this week, according to a source familiar. It argues that the former administration may have over-expanded OCR’s authority and signals intent to repeal Trump-era initiatives.
The memo is addressed to Becerra and comes from OCR Director Lisa Pino, a political appointee announced in September.
https://theblacksphere.net/2021/11/biden-takes-aim-at-religious-freedom/
*************************************************
An "indigenous voice" for Australia?
The Proposal: A national body made up of elected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that could provide advice to the Australian Parliament and Government on relevant laws, policies and programs and could engage early on with the Australian Parliament and Government in the development of relevant policies and laws
Peta Credlin
The PM and key ministers (such as the Health Minister and the Treasurer) have been preoccupied by Covid, but not so other ministers. The pandemic is no excuse as to why these significant proposals haven’t been openly discussed with the community, rather than sprung on them just before an election.
Take the Indigenous “voice”. Of course, our Aboriginal heritage should be honoured and respected, and Aboriginal people should fully participate in Australian society. And obviously there’s been past discrimination, injustice and racism against them. But how do we become a colourblind society? How do we become a country, in Martin Luther King’s immortal words, that judges people “by the content of their character not by the colour of their skin” by setting up a special body, with members elected on the basis of race, to give laws meant for all Australians special race-based consideration for just some?
Yes, it’s meant to atone for past racism, but isn’t making racial distinctions wrong? Certainly, that’s what we were asked to think, until Critical Race Theory came along, with its insistence that white people are inherently racist unless they manifest in their lives a kind of permanent, institutionalised apology.
As the First Australians, Aboriginal people could perhaps claim a special status, but this would be much better done through some form of acknowledgment in the constitution – such as Tony Abbott’s suggestion that we include, in the preamble, that Australia is a country with “an Indigenous heritage, a British foundation, and an immigrant character”. Such words would include everyone who has helped build Australia – now and in the past – by defending our flag and freedoms, creating our prosperity, and shaping our institutions as well as those who, in race terms, have been here for thousands of years.
I’m inherently cautious about any institutionalised special treatment for particular groups, especially as Aboriginal people are certainly not the only ones who’ve had a raw deal in the past and continue to face issues: what about women, migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds, some religions, and people with disabilities?
If every group with a claim for special consideration needs its own special representation to parliament, soon there’ll be a multitude, indeed a babble of “voices” to parliament, and governmental decision-making will be even more gummed up with special pleading, and the overall national interest even more drowned out.
Already, at almost every official event, there’s a “welcome to country”, in a special nod to the 3.3 per cent of Australians who identify as Indigenous, which the 96.7 per cent who don’t normally accept as the courtesy due to the people who were here first.
There are now six (out of 226) members and senators in the federal parliament who identify as Indigenous, with more standing as candidates at the next election. Surely continuing to elect Aboriginal people to parliament (which, after all, is the voice of the whole Australian people) is the best way to ensure that they get the hearing they deserve and is further demonstration that Australian voters are colourblind when it comes to choosing the people best able to represent them?
With its pandemic-driven spending spree, softly softly approach to authoritarian state governments, and commitment to net zero emissions (even though there’s no new policy to deliver it), the Morrison government has already sorely tested the goodwill of its political base.
One Nation, the reconstituted Liberal Democrats and the cashed-up Palmer party are already trawling for first preference votes among the “Howard battlers” who used to be the Coalition’s strongest supporters.
Maybe if the government had better addressed the concerns of conservative voters, via vetoing the incorrigibly politically correct national school curriculum or by supporting nuclear power on land as well as at sea, this wouldn’t matter so much because the splinter party votes would return in preferences.
But legislating a “voice” especially, rather than risking defeat by having a referendum, looks sneaky. Given the pressures on the parliamentary timetable, the only way a “voice” could be legislated before the election is with Labor support.
Asking people to support something they inherently mistrust, and a Labor version of it at that, would be a bitter pill to swallow – and for many could be the last straw.
If there’s an argument for a separate Aboriginal body, then it should be put to the people to decide, not the politicians.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
19 November 2021
Why must every man on TV today be a monster?
Bel Mooney
At my home there’s a shelf of books three metres long (I kid you not) stuffed with books about feminism, women’s history and related subjects.
I even have the first British edition (1971) of Valerie Solanas’s charming little classic: ‘SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. So, I’ve always counted myself a 1960s feminist — with countless articles and public debates to prove it.
Why, then, do I feel so disturbed about the new wave of man-hating pervading our TV screens that seems to be engulfing my sex?
It seems you can’t turn on the television without encountering women victimised by men, psychologically as well as physically.
Sunday-night viewing, which used to be the home for family friendly favourites, now seems to be dominated by domestic dystopia.
Take the ITV series Angela Black, about a woman who is the victim of domestic abuse.
My husband and I watched one episode then gave up. There was something about actress Joanne Froggatt’s pinched, victimised face, not to mention the close-up of her tooth on the floor, knocked out by her abusive, gas-lighting husband, that turned us both off. ‘Do I need this on a Sunday night?’ my husband asked, and I agreed.
She’s not the only tortured leading lady leading me ever closer to the ‘off’ button.
When we first meet amnesia sufferer Jo in Close To Me (Channel 4), she is lying at the bottom of the stairs in a pool of blood. Was she pushed by her creepy, cheating husband, played by brilliant Christopher Eccleston? What is the truth behind her memory loss?
Watching these shows starts to feel like voyeurism. Which, incidentally, is the central theme to another hit show, You, a Netflix series about a bookshop manager who stalks women and kills them.
However, the most vulnerable young woman grabbing a cult female audience is Alex, the heroine of another Netflix hit, Maid. Based on a bestselling book about a young woman who takes her child away from an abusive partner and is forced to work as a cleaner, the series subjects Alex to every setback you can imagine, with no one to help her.
Critics have accused it of being ‘poverty porn’ — and there’s some truth in that. Every episode I’ve seen has been powerful, compulsive, moving — and deeply depressing. Because every single man Alex encounters is horrible.
Our lovely young heroine is utterly oppressed by the male sex — her father is a wife-beater and there was a string of odious stepdads.
Women watching become judge and jury, condemning all men to eternal perdition.
Of course, there’s a need for good drama depicting tough issues. That said, every modern cop drama seems to star a feisty aggressive female Chief Inspector in charge of a bunch of gormless men. It feels as though programme commissioners relish tapping into a new wave of what can only be called misandry. Meaning hatred of men.
For years, I’ve been ‘calling out’ (as the current phrase has it) misogyny — and quite rightly, since hatred and fear of women goes back centuries. After all, if it wasn’t for vain, stupid, bossy Eve, we’d all still be without sin.
Women have plenty of reasons to be angry — but I am not going to pile on statistics here. Suffice it to say that, as I wrote in a recent Mail article, real advancement remains out of reach for the majority.
The backlash against real freedom for my sex is like waves of scummy filth on a polluted shore. But all that accumulated knowledge and experience convinces me that we do not help women by demonising all men.
The arguments have become dangerously skewed in the direction of prejudice. And prejudice against any person simply on the grounds of what he/she is remains disgusting.
Were all the males, young and old, who took part in last weekend’s moving Remembrance Sunday parade at the Cenotaph all sexist pigs? What about all the decent men who love their families, work hard and do their best?
Are all our lovely partners somehow ‘responsible’ for domestic violence, rape and murder?
According to the prejudice, because they were born male they are de facto guilty. I was told that my blameless husband ‘must have friends who make sexist or racist jokes’ — and therefore be as guilty as they are, by association.
Listen, sisters — he doesn’t and he damn well isn’t!
It shocks me that such women (all educated and articulate) choose to view life through the latest narrow prism of oppression and victimhood. But it’s easy to get why TV show makers seek to capitalise on a fashionable sense of angry vulnerability and outright misandry.
It feeds on itself, so any potential for masculine goodness is denied and prejudice on the grounds of identity is exploited when it comes to men. Why is it wrong for men to state, ‘All women are b******’ — yet acceptable for women to shout, ‘All men are s****’?
Of course, it’s not acceptable at all. But just as casual misogyny used to be the stock-in-trade of comedians (oh, those dreadful mother-in-law jokes), so casual misandry is a phenomenon I’ve been noticing more and more.
I can report one example. The occasion was the 100th anniversary of the excellent charity Gingerbread — once for the ‘Unmarried Mother and Her Child’ but now for single parents in general. As a young journalist, I dealt with the charity, so I went to London to celebrate with them.
The party was held in the fine 18th-century surroundings of London’s Foundling Museum, set up by the great Thomas Coram who was horrified children should be abandoned by mothers too poor or shamed to care for them. The guest speaker was Jane Garvey, then a presenter of Woman’s Hour on Radio 4. She stood on the podium and began with the scornful jibe that there we were, in that room, ‘surrounded by portraits of fat, old, white men in bad wigs’.
Now if Ms Garvey had arrived early enough to explore, she’d have discovered that those mocked men were the brave philanthropists who defied the culture of the time to assist Thomas Coram in 17 hard years of fundraising to help pitiful women and their babies.
Of course, it was just a joke, wasn’t it? Only a bit of banter. Let’s laugh at the old guys in wigs who did good things but obviously ate too many good dinners.
Similarly, we can dismiss and deride television presenters (for example) for being ‘pale, male and stale’ — and that’s perfectly OK. Can you imagine the furore if such prejudiced comments were used about women in this current climate of rapid ‘offence’?
Many women say that sexist comments and man-hating TV storylines are regarded merely as ‘payback’ — another popular term to justify misandry — for all the sexist jokes women have heard over the years. But it doesn’t work that way, does it?
The common-sense idea that ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ itself dates back to the 18th century, and is a reminder that when two angry people fight a duel they’re both likely to end up wounded or dead.
By all means demand that both men and women ‘call out’ toxic masculinity wherever it occurs, but if you tar all men with that brush it loses any real meaning. How can you muster to defend the rights of abused women and girls across the globe if you foam with rage about some perceived slight overheard in a pub?
The phenomenon we call ‘toxic masculinity’ certainly exists and should always be challenged — but these days I’m sensing ‘toxic femininity’, too, and it’s pretty unpleasant.
What happened to the belief in the moral equality of people based on their actions and not on colour, creed, race or sex? Surely writing ‘All men are s****’ might be considered ‘hate speech’?
In this divided, quarrelsome age, the last thing we need is more division — this rekindling of the old battle of the sexes.
There is plenty in this world for good men and women to be equally angry about, but not if we are encouraged by harridans and opportunistic television bosses to see each other across the lines as hateful enemies.
******************************************
The inflation hawks have been right all along
by Jeff Jacoby
FOR THE better part of a year, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has been warning that pumping trillions of dollars into the economy in the name of pandemic relief and economic stimulus was likely to have a dangerous side effect: reawakening the sleeping dragon of inflation.
In a February column for The Washington Post, for example, Summers expressed concern about the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was then making its way through Congress and would soon be signed into law by President Biden. The measure authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to state and local governments and provided 85 percent of American households with direct payments of $1,400 per person. That much stimulus, wrote Summers, was apt to "set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation."
A month later, Summers warned again that Democrats were "taking substantial risks" by injecting such massive amounts of money into the economy.
"I know the bathtub has been too empty," he said, "but ... think about what the capacity of the bathtub is and how much water we're trying to flow into it."
Summers, a former Harvard president and director of the National Economic Council under President Barack Obama, is a liberal Democrat, but liberals and Democrats sneered at his forebodings. Biden's top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, told reporters that Summers's inflation alarms were "flat-out wrong." The New Republic pronounced Summers "finally, belatedly, irrelevant." Paul Krugman, the progressive economist, Nobel laureate, and New York Times columnist, said that to worry about inflation amid the pandemic was to miss the forest for the trees. "Think of it as disaster relief or like fighting a war," Krugman told Summers in a debate. "When Pearl Harbor gets attacked, you don't say, 'How big is the output gap?' "
Krugman has spent the past year downplaying the prospect that Washington's unprecedented spending binge would trigger a surge in inflation. "How Not To Panic About Inflation," he headlined a March column, one of many he has written in 2021 on that theme; among the others were "The Week Inflation Panic Died" in June and "History Says Don't Panic About Inflation" last week.
But while Krugman, President Biden, and others on the left kept insisting there was no reason to be worrying about inflation, inflation grew steadily worse. Last week, the Labor Department confirmed that consumer prices had risen 6.2 percent in October compared with a year ago, the fifth consecutive month in which the increase had been above 5 percent. The United States is experiencing its biggest inflationary spike in 31 years, and it's going to get worse for American households before it gets better: The inflation rate for wholesale goods — a fairly reliable indication of where consumer prices are headed — rose even faster in October than the retail rate.
Everything costs more than it did a year ago. The price of gasoline, motor fuel, eggs, used vehicles, beef, fresh fish, furniture, and televisions are all up by double-digit percentages. New cars and trucks experienced the biggest jump in prices the federal government has ever recorded. With Thanksgiving around the corner, turkeys cost 22 percent more than they did last year.
As prices climb, the purchasing power of salaries falls. After adjusting for inflation, real wages today are 2.2 percent lower than they were in 2020. That's the flip side of inflation: The number on your paycheck may be unchanged, but you can afford less and less. Even if you shop at Dollar Tree.
This is what happens when the government unleashes an avalanche of spending, flooding the economy with trillions of dollars it can't afford, and insisting against all evidence that it won't lead to inflation, or that the higher prices will only be temporary, or — as Biden claimed recently — that more government spending will somehow reduce inflation. Or even, as some in the media are now contending, that rising inflation is something to celebrate. There was a time when you had to tune in to a comedy show to hear something like that.
Millions of Americans still recall the inflation of the 1970s, when the country was whipsawed by double-digit inflation and painfully high interest rates. It was a "terrible period," [No%20one%20wants%20to%20see%20that%20happen%20again.]Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in May. "No one wants to see that happen again."
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/25836/the-inflation-hawks-have-been-right-all-along
*******************************************
Producer Selling Prices Hit Record High in New York as Higher Business Costs Translate Into Inflation
A Fed report on manufacturing in New York state shows that the prices received index—which measures prices manufacturers are paid for the goods they produce—rose to a record high in early November, reflecting how input cost inflation is filtering down through the supply chain and pushing up prices for end consumers.
The New York Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey (pdf), published Nov. 15, showed that the prices received index hit a record high of 50.8, up 7.3 percentage points from October’s reading.
The prices paid index, which reflects input costs for manufacturers, edged up four percentage points to 83.0—just slightly below its record high of 83.5 reached in May, “signaling ongoing substantial increases in both input prices and selling prices,” the report said.
Based on a poll of around 200 manufacturers in New York state, the survey measures price movements from the perspective of industry or producers of products. Economists typically look to manufacturing prices as an early predictor of consumer price inflation, which surged to an annualized 6.2 percent in the 12 months through October, the fastest pace of consumer price growth in nearly 31 years.
***********************************************
Democrat Hypocrites Censure a Republican
The fight over Paul Gosar posting a cartoon shows that Congress is run by lunatics
On Wednesday, House Democrats censured a member for the first time since 2010, subjecting Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) to official rebuke and stripping him of all his committee assignments for a cartoon tweet.
Granted, that now-removed anime cartoon was in poor taste — it reportedly featured him killing Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and swinging a sword at President Joe Biden. But if there’s anything that truly reveals the utter lack of seriousness among our elected representatives, it’s fighting over a cartoon.
The video “was not meant to depict any harm or violence against anyone portrayed in the anime,” Gosar claimed. “The video is truly a symbolic portrayal of a fight over immigration policy.” Moreover, he insisted that he’s in the same company as Alexander Hamilton, “the first person attempted to be censured by this House.” Make of that what you will.
Gosar behaved foolishly in posting a stupid video, and Republicans should have been quick to rebuke his poor choice. Just because Democrats routinely engage in sophomoric behavior doesn’t mean Republicans should.
That said, it’s hard to tell from Democrats what’s truly outrageous. They are a humorless lot who scream and cry over jokes and memes all the time, so when one actually does cross a line, they’ve been crying “wolf” for so long that no one believes them. This video deserved an eye roll and a rebuke, not censure and lectures about civility from those who don’t know how to practice it themselves.
Speaking of crying “wolf,” Ocasio-Cortez fantastically and falsely claimed to have nearly died during the Capitol riot. (That alone should have made Gosar think twice about making her a martyr again.) She is a charlatan whose primary mission in DC, aside from pushing socialism, is building her own brand as a melodramatic social media diva. Democrats hugging her on the House floor after the vote prove it. Memo to Republicans: Don’t help her.
The bigger point here is that Democrats are a bunch of shameless hypocrites. Ilhan Omar regularly spews hateful and anti-Semitic things. Democrats circled the wagons. Maxine Waters has on multiple occasions incited violence. Democrats ignore it. Eric Swalwell, a member of the Intelligence Committee, slept with a Chinese spy, spilling who knows what secrets. He remains on the Intel Committee. Democrats also shielded Pelosi herself from accountability over her own race-baiting against Donald Trump.
That’s barely scratching the surface of the history of a party that specializes in what the Clintons always called the politics of personal destruction. Democrats say mean and hateful things about Republicans all the time, casting them as the absolute worst of villains.
When it comes to Gosar, there is only one reason Democrats got up off the fainting couch to censure him, and their propagandists in The Washington Post tell us as much in the first sentence of their report: It’s “a move that comes amid growing worries about violent political rhetoric 10 months after a mob of former president Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol.”
Democrats want to spend the next year telling voters that Republicans are a “threat to democracy.” It might be all they’ve got to stave off or mitigate what most observers expect will be an electoral shellacking akin to 2010. Gosar deserves chastisement for making their narrative easier.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi lectured, “Disguising death threats against a member of Congress and a president of the United States in an animated video does not make those death threats any less real or less serious.”
Do you remember the last time real violence — actual attempted murder — was committed against members of Congress? It was when a Bernie Sanders fan shot at a bunch of Republicans practicing baseball, nearly killing Representative Steve Scalise. That wasn’t a cartoon.
As for where this petty tit-for-tat will lead, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy condemned the Democrats’ “rules for thee, but not for me” approach. “What [Democrats] have started cannot be easily undone. Their actions today and in the past have forever changed the way the House operates,” he warned. He named several Democrats who, if they want to keep committee assignments in a future GOP-controlled House, “will need the approval of a majority.” He concluded: “The House is weaker, more partisan, and more self-focused today than when Speaker Pelosi became speaker less than four years ago. Future Congress will suffer for it.”
Then again, Americans have always been a rowdy lot, and, as the saying goes, perhaps we’re getting the government we deserve. From a higher vantage point, remember this: The real damage being done in Congress isn’t fighting over videos, tweets, and committee assignments. It’s foisting unconstitutional socialist totalitarianism on the nation, a few trillion dollars at a time.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/84313-democrat-hypocrites-censure-a-republican-2021-11-18
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
18 November, 2021
“My body is a temple”: Vaccine hesitancy, religious exemptions, and the integrity of Christian witness
This is a fairly competent bit of theology below but it seeks to apply a broad context to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20. That may be convenient but it ignores the specific context of the passage. The passage is primarily about fornication (illicit sex). Paul regards fornication as unnatural and hence defiling the body.
But it is precisely unnatural things that some Christians object to: Vaccinations, blood transfusions, smoking, consumption of coffee and alcohol etc. A "pure" body would not have those things within it is the conclusion
One can argue about what is unnatural but if illicit sex is unnatural, a fairly broad definition is obviously intended by Paul.
So I think the avoidant stances of some Christians are well justified by the "temple" reference
As governments and businesses implement COVID-19 vaccine mandates, increasing numbers of people are seeking exemption on religious grounds. As such, mainstream social and political discourse has begun to stray into theological territory, with uninspiring results. One common refrain among those seeking exemption from vaccination is the assertion, “My body is a temple”. Given the near ubiquity of this phrase in the sphere of health and wellness, most people are likely to have forgotten that it comes from the apostle Paul.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes, “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians6:19-20) Here, Paul is repeating a refrain from earlier in this same letter: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (3:16)
It has become common for Christians to claim that being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine is a violation of their religious convictions because their body is a temple, and they are commanded to keep it pure. They make this argument for a variety of reasons. For example, some believe the vaccine has dangerous side-effects; others think it contains microchips; and some have suggested that it can alter your DNA or cause infertility. Each of these, it seems, would violate the purity of their bodily temple, making it unsuitable as a vessel for the Holy Spirit.
It is worth stating unambiguously that there is no evidence that any of these things are true of the available COVID vaccines, beyond some extremely rare and typically mild side-effects. Nonetheless, the question I would like to consider is whether a vaccine could, in theory, go against Paul’s exhortation in this passage.
“A temple of the Holy Spirit”
Let’s begin with Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians itself. Most commentators agree that the purpose of the letter is to urge unity among the Christians in Corinth. In the third chapter, Paul addresses the elephant in the room. The Corinthians have been drawing lines of separation based on who brought them to the faith. Some have been saying “I belong to Apollos” (which is to say, “I’m a member of Apollos’s faction”), while others say “I belong to Paul”. And yet, Paul sees no reason for this to cause strife: “We are God’s servants, working together; you are … God’s building.” Paul and Apollos cooperate in building on the foundation that Christ himself laid. And this leads him to ask: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person” (3:16-17).
Paul says that the Corinthian church as a whole is God’s temple, and those who cause division among them are threatening to destroy it. Paul’s warning is not about the pollution of their individual physical bodies, nor any threat from outside. He is warning them about the effect of their own divisive actions on the community. Paul follows this with fitting words for our time: “So let no one boast about human leaders” (3:21).
Three chapters later, Paul returns to the image of the temple, this time with individual Christians in view. Now he is discussing specific sinful habits that are causing division among the Corinthians. In particular, he commands them not to engage the services of prostitutes, and in general to “shun fornication” (6:18). And why should they do this? Because their body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19). Far from suggesting that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a body that is physically contaminated by illness, microchips, medicines, or other substances, Paul is urging them to keep themselves free from sin.
Paul is repeating a central theme of the New Testament, which is that the purity laws found in the Torah no longer hold for those who are in Christ, because he has fulfilled them (Matthew 5:17). Christian notions of purity are not about food laws and physical cleanliness, but about the heart. As Jesus explains, “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth.” He goes on to explain that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.” (Matthew 15:11, 19-20)
Paul has something similar in view in his second letter to the Corinthians: “let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1). He explains that the sins of sexual immorality and idolatry defile the body and the spirit, and he urges them to free themselves of it (see also 1 Thessalonians 5:19-24).
Grounds for exemption?
It is worth considering the implications of Paul’s words if they did mean what those seeking exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine take them to mean. If the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a body that has been contaminated by chemicals or debilitated by injury (let alone in a body injected with a safe and effective vaccine), then countless people who have fallen victim to natural or manmade disasters would be bereft of the presence of God. Similarly, if physical cleanliness was in view, then surely the COVID-19 virus itself would do at least as much to contaminate one’s body. After all, natural illness is one of the main causes of impurity in Leviticus.
Furthermore, it is central to the Christian faith that we may well be called to sacrifice our bodies for the sake of others (see John 15:13; Philippians 2:3-4; 1 John 3:16). We witness this most acutely on the cross. Jesus’s body was made impure by his crucifixion — in fact, that’s a considerable part of the point. It is worth repeating that there is no reason to think that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine involves bodily sacrifice. Regardless, the theological principles here do not support those seeking exemptions. There is no Christian belief that the body must be kept free from physical contamination in order to be a fitting vessel of the Holy Spirit.
In reality, what those seeking exemptions are arguing is that they believe the vaccine will harm them, and therefore they shouldn’t be forced to take it. There is nothing distinctly religious about the fear of bodily harm involved in vaccine hesitancy. In general, non-religious people fear bodily harm just as much. This should lead us to question why religious exemption is being sought here. The answer, it would seem, is that there is a long-standing precedent for exempting religious communities from government mandates, so people have reached for religious exemption as a ready-made solution for their fears.
This should give Christians pause. Freedom of religion plays an important role in our society, but it is always in danger of being abused and misused. As Christians, we have a vested interest in ensuring that it is not. If our non-Christian neighbours come to see us as people who think the rules don’t apply to us, or as people for whom the well-being of the wider community is irrelevant, their tolerance for our beliefs is likely to wane. At the same time, if our theological beliefs are sacred, then we should be unwilling to let people twist them for political or legal purposes. The truth of what Paul wrote should matter more to us than the use to which it can be put in court. A vaccine cannot go against Paul’s exhortation, because it is not what goes into us that defiles us, but the sin that emerges from our hearts.
Paul warns the Corinthians not to deceive themselves, but to have true wisdom (1 Corinthians3:18). James describes such wisdom as “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy” (James 3:17). Especially in the United States, the belligerent response on the part of many Christians to the public health efforts of the past two years looks rather different from this vision of wisdom. If we take Paul’s words seriously, our main concern shouldn’t be the physical purity of our own bodies, but the purity of our witness to the world around us. After all, the Christian witness has always been grounded, first and foremost, not in individual political liberty, but in self-sacrifice for the well-being of others.
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/vaccines-religious-exemptions-and-christian-witness/13580026
*************************************************
Brutal numbers for Biden if midterms were held today
When you botch everything from the moment you’re sworn in as President of the United States, you can expect that eventually Americans will take notice. Joe Biden hasn’t done a single thing right since stealing his way into the White House.
Every Biden policy has been a train wreck. Some insist his administration’s decisions have all been on purpose. There is an ulterior motive to everything the liberal-controlled Washington, D.C. machine is doing. Regardless of the motives, the American public is not happy.
Joe Biden’s abysmal performance is reflective of recent approval polls. His numbers have been tanking since the moment he put his lying right hand on the Bible. It hasn’t stopped his penchant for making poor decisions or flat out lying to the American people.
Approval numbers for Biden, and liberal Democrats in general, are brutal. One poll asked registered voters which party they would vote for if the midterm elections were held today. Over half insisted they would cast a vote for the Republicans on their ticket.
Barely 40 percent said they would vote for a Democrat. This is the largest margin for the GOP in such a poll in history. There are strong indications the numbers will grow increasingly worse for Democrats.
The off-year election on November 2, 2021, showed how disappointed Americans are with Joe Biden. In statistically blue states, Democrats were either swept out of power, or narrowly won races in which they were heavily favored.
In New Jersey, a 25-year truck driver unseated the sitting NJ Senate President. Radical liberal ballot initiatives were struck down all across the country. Americans spoke with their votes, and they spoke loudly.
The biggest reason for this dramatic shift is because of Joe Biden. His overall approval has sunk below 40 percent in some polls. His disapproval rating is one of the worst in history. Nearly every national poll has Joe Biden’s disapproval numbers well over 50 percent.
If it’s “all about the economy, stupid”, Joe Biden is in even worse shape than any President in decades. Over 70 percent of Americans feel the economy is in bad shape because of Biden’s boneheaded policies.
It is a clear case of “buyer’s remorse”. Americans are witnessing the fruits of a very bad decision. The 2020 election was rigged. Media coverage was rigged, and votes were stolen. Because of a mainstream media driven hatred for President Trump, Biden was able to steal the election.
The degree of disappointment in America is extremely strong among independents. Moderate Americans, who were coerced by lies insisting Joe Biden would be a moderate president, are kicking themselves for being duped by the fake news.
They are mostly responsible for Biden’s horrific approval ratings. Conservatives knew what we were getting. Moderate independents were fooled into thinking the Biden/Harris ticket would be a welcome change. They were wrong. We are all paying for this ignorant decision.
While individual Americans must be held responsible for their voting behavior, the blame for our nation’s problems falls at the feet of the mainstream media. Their bitter hatred of President Trump has driven the United States to the edge of the cliff.
Americans were tricked into voting for a dunderheaded old fool. They are witnessing the error of their ways. However, the polls indicate voters are mad about what’s going on. They realize they have elected a corrupt career politician who lies virtually every time he opens his mouth.
Furthermore, his second-in-command is a weak and ineffective cackling hyena. Americans are even angrier over Kamala Harris’ abominable performance. She is an abject failure, just like her boss. Too bad the midterm elections aren’t being held today. Liberals would lose, and lose big.
Unfortunately, America must survive another whole year of Joe Biden and Democrat control of Capitol Hill. The first year has been a fiasco. We can only hope that a handful of moderate liberals in Congress will show some common sense; keeping us afloat until a massive red wave sweeps the GOP back into control in 2022. Let’s hold our breath.
***********************************************
College of the Ozarks: Defending religious liberty in higher education
Today, ADF attorneys are arguing a crucial case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (one step below the U.S. Supreme Court).
The court will decide whether a Christian college can be forced to violate its faith by allowing men and women to share dorm rooms, showers, and private spaces. Join us in prayer today for our attorneys and for those who will hear and decide the case.
The Biden administration, through the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), issued a new directive this year that intends to remove any distinctions between the two sexes. The directive was clearly designed to target religious schools, organizations, and churches simply because of their beliefs about marriage and biological sex. A small, Missouri-based Christian college, College of the Ozarks, decided to stand up for biblical values and challenged the administration’s directive.
Christian students and families choose faith-based higher education opportunities specifically to deepen their religious values and to live in community with others who share those principles.
But if College of the Ozarks (or any faith-based college or university) maintains single-sex dorms and locker rooms, they could face six-figure fines, unlimited damages, intrusive investigations, government lawsuits, and even criminal penalties.
Bottom line: this policy (if upheld by the courts) could force Christian colleges to choose between violating their faith or closing their school
info@adflegal.org
***********************************************
Conservative-Majority Court Chosen to Decide on Biden’s Private Employer Vaccine Mandate
An appeals court dominated by Republican-nominated judges was chosen at random Tuesday to deal with the flurry of lawsuits against the Biden administration’s private business COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was the winner of a lottery that was triggered by multiple appeals courts receiving challenges to the mandate, which was promulgated at the behest of President Joe Biden and would affect every business with 100 or more workers if it’s allowed to take effect.
Thirty-four petitions for review, or suits, were filed against the mandate. At least one petition was filed in every single court of appeals in the nation.
Federal law says that challenges to a rule in multiple appeals courts shall lead to a lottery, from which one court is picked. That court then handles the cases, which are consolidated.
The Sixth Circuit oversees Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Active and senior status judges include six nominees of former President Donald Trump, eight nominees of former President George W. Bush, three nominees of former President George H. W. Bush, three nominees of former President Ronald Reagan, five nominees of former President Bill Clinton, and two nominees of former President Barack Obama. That means 20 of the 27 judges were nominated by Republican presidents.
“It’s not good news for Biden,” Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, wrote on Twitter.
A Sixth Circuit panel will decide whether to keep in place a stay of the mandate that was ordered on Nov. 6 by three Republican-nominated judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The judges said the mandate raised “grave statutory and constitutional issues.”
In a longer opinion reaffirming the stay, the panel said the mandate imposes a financial burden on businesses, “exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.”
Three judges in the newly chosen circuit will be randomly picked to hear the case. Their decision can be appealed to the full court.
The Supreme Court is expected to ultimately rule on whether the mandate is legal.
Plaintiffs argue the mandate is outside the authority of the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which issued it earlier this month. They say the Biden administration failed to explain why such a mandate is needed now, when the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020 and vaccines have been available since late last year.
“This mandate represents the greatest overreach by the federal government in a generation. It is illegal and unconstitutional and we are committed to ensuring it never sees the light of day,” Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center, and one of the lawyers fighting the mandate, said in a recent statement.
Biden administration officials have defended the vaccination requirement, arguing OSHA can impose measures to keep workers safe.
“If OSHA can tell people to wear a hard hat on the job, to be careful around chemicals, it can put in place these simple measures to keep our workers safe,” Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, said on NBC over the weekend.
***********************************************
Australia: Religious discrimination bill overhauled
Schools would receive legal protection to hire staff on the basis of faith under a bill expected to go to federal parliament as early as next week.
However, Education Minister Alan Tudge says the religious discrimination bill will not allow a school to reject a teacher based on their sexuality or other trait.
The draft bill will be presented to a joint coalition partyroom meeting in Canberra on Tuesday and could be introduced to parliament as early as Wednesday.
It is understood a contentious part of the bill - known as the "Folau clause" - has been scrapped from an earlier version.
The section would have protected organisations from indirect discrimination claims if they acted against employees for misconduct for expressing their religion.
There had been a push from conservative groups for the bill to allow individuals and organisations the freedom to make statements of belief, such as Israel Folau's controversial social media posts saying homosexuals would go to hell.
Folau, who was sacked by Rugby Australia in 2019 over the posts, later received an apology from the body and a confidential settlement.
Also believed to be axed is a section in the bill allowing healthcare providers to "conscientiously object" to providing a service on religious grounds.
Mr Tudge told Sky News on Wednesday the bill would uphold the right of a religious school to employ teachers of their own faith. "This is a critical principle at stake here ... you can't be a Catholic school if you can't employ Catholic teachers, you can't be a Muslim school without employing Muslim teachers."
Asked if it also meant a Catholic school could reject a gay teacher, Mr Tudge said: "That wouldn't be lawful under our bill."
But Equality Australia chief executive Anna Brown labelled his comments "breathtakingly misleading". "Nothing in this religious discrimination bill acts to fulfil the federal government's previous commitment to protect LGBT students," she said.
"In fact, the Morrison government's bill licences more discrimination against all our communities, by overriding existing protections for women, people with disability, LGBTIQ+ people and even people of faith."
Mr Tudge said while there had not been a significant problem to be resolved by the bill, the laws would enable schools to "provide a good education consistent with the values which they articulate".
The bill was an election promise by the Liberal-National coalition but has sat in the too-hard basket since then as conservatives and moderates disagree on how far it should go.
Labor is awaiting the detail before determining its position.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
17 November, 2021
Florida’s DeSantis Takes Aim at America’s ‘Ruling Class’
President Joe Biden and the “entrenched political class” are ruining America with the help of a corrupt and partisan corporate media, says Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who promised to lead the fight against the current regime.
In a 40-minute speech Thursday to about 800 conservative supporters of The Heritage Foundation and its grassroots partner, Heritage Action for America, the Florida governor tackled a range of issues where Biden and his left-wing allies want to transform America. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)
DeSantis reserved some of his strongest criticism for the “elites” and “globalists” who he said have led America astray.
“Biden really represents potentially the culmination of—or, I mean, hopefully, the coup de grâce of—this entrenched political class that has really ruined a lot about our country over the last generation. It’s not limited to just Democrats,” DeSantis said. “There’s a uni-party in Washington, D.C., and they look out for themselves more than the rest of the American people.”
He added: “Our ruling class doesn’t think [there’s] anything distinctive about American citizenship. That’s why they would consider paying reparations to people that came across our border illegally, because they think people have a right to come, regardless of the laws and Constitution of the United States.”
Biden recently acknowledged his administration was considering payments to illegal immigrants who were caught illegally entering the United States. The Wall Street Journal reported the payments could be as much as $450,000 per illegal immigrant.
“You deserve some kind of compensation, no matter what the circumstance,” Biden said Nov. 6, while disputing the $450,000 figure. “What that will be, I have no idea.”
DeSantis cited Biden’s open border policies, rising gas prices, soaring inflation, supply chain crisis, Afghanistan withdrawal disaster, and COVID-19 failures as some of the “daily humiliations” confronting the current administration.
“He’s failing across the board,” he said, “and I think it’s causing more and more people to look and recognize the failures of leftist governance.”
Despite Democrats’ having control of the White House and Congress, Biden’s party is struggling to enact its agenda. DeSantis said it’s a blessing their numerical margins are so narrow in both the House and Senate. Otherwise, lawmakers would be attempting to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College, federalize our elections, and grant D.C. statehood.
“If we go to kitchen tables throughout Middle America, and think about what the families are talking about, they’re not talking about making D.C. a state,” the Florida chief executive said. “They’re not talking about federalizing election procedures. They’re talking about inflation. They’re talking about gas prices. They’re talking about all these other things that are so important.”
The disconnect between the American people and their representatives in Washington has far-reaching consequences, DeSantis warned, and not just domestically. He said Biden’s policies would embolden our foreign adversaries, particularly China.
“These elites have done more than anybody to facilitate the rise of China,” he said. “You look at the next three years. What’s China’s going to do? They watch Biden floundering around. These people are really tough. They’re going to make sure that they exact a huge amount of price based on Biden’s failures.”
Unfortunately, DeSantis said, there’s no accountability in Washington, D.C.—a problem he blamed on media outlets. He singled out Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“If you’re in the club in D.C., there’s no accountability. How the hell else does Fauci still have a job?” DeSantis said. “Part of the reason that’s true is because we have a very corrupt and partisan corporate media in this country, and they really serve as the Praetorian Guard for these elites.”
Several years ago, conservatives could turn to social media to bypass these media outlets. Today, some of those companies—particularly, Facebook, Google, and Twitter—now routinely censor alternative viewpoints.
As governor, DeSantis worked with state lawmakers to hold those companies accountable. The law, signed May 24, gives Floridians the power to sue technology platforms.
“Big Tech is something we have to take head-on, and I’m not somebody who believes that because they’re private, they can do whatever the hell they want to,” he said. “They are hurting our country, and they’re hurting our society.”
DeSantis promised more action to counter the Biden administration and other left-wing politicians. He vowed to stand up for traditional American values and against the teaching of critical race theory in schools.
“We’re not spending tax dollars to teach our kids to hate our country, or to hate each other,” he said. “That is not going to happen here.”
And when Florida enacted election reforms earlier this year, DeSantis made clear he wouldn’t be intimated by the left’s threats or corporate protests. He told CEOs they could become political actors, but would face pushback for doing so.
“The result was the Legislature passed the bill. I signed the bill. The left had a spasm; the media had a spasm. But the businesses didn’t say anything in Florida, because they understood I’m not going to let them smear my people, my legislators, or me with these false narratives,” he said. “Virtue signaling has a cost in the state of Florida, and the cost is me fighting back.”
DeSantis said the results have been positive for Florida—and politically positive for conservatives.
“When I got elected governor November of 2018, there were almost 300,000 more registered Democrats in the state of Florida than Republicans,” he said. “As I stand here before you today, three years later, for the first time in the history of the state of Florida, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/11/15/floridas-desantis-takes-aim-at-americas-ruling-class
********************************************
Only the Rich and Powerful Can Thrive in Lawless San Francisco
In “progressive” San Francisco, safety is for the rich. That’s the reality of what’s happening in the San Francisco Bay Area as bad policy and anti-police attitudes have created a haven for criminality. Like many other urban parts of America, the Bay Area has been hit with a historic surge in violent crime in the last few years.
However, unlike many other parts of the country, the Bay Area has also been hit by a huge uptick in car theft, property crimes, and shoplifting.
One would think that this would necessitate a massive response by city leaders and the police department to counter the crime surge.
Instead, San Francisco attempted to defund the police following the death of George Floyd in May of last year. Unsurprisingly, it now has a major deficit of police personnel and can’t find replacements for a department where over a third of its officers have retired.
I wonder why? Truly, a mystery.
On top of that, San Francisco has a district attorney, Chesa Boudin, whose plan for “radical change” and equality has been mostly to release criminals and not prosecute repeat offenders of serious crimes.
Boudin has been so extreme that dozens of his mostly left-wing prosecutors have quit.
“Chesa has a radical approach that involves not charging crime in the first place and simply releasing individuals with no rehabilitation and putting them in positions where they are simply more likely to re-offend,” prosecutor Brooke Jenkins said to Bay Area NBC affiliate. “Being an African American and Latino woman, I would wholeheartedly agree that the criminal justice system needs a lot of work, but when you are a district attorney, your job is to have balance.”
The result of this slew of policies has been rampant criminality and lawlessness.
In October, CBS San Francisco reported that a group of families in the Marina District, a wealthy San Francisco neighborhood, has banded together to pay for private security in their neighborhood.
“We don’t feel safe in our neighborhood,” said resident Katie Lyons, according to CBS San Francisco. “And we have an alarm, we have cameras on our property, but we want the extra security of having someone have eyes on our place.”
People are understandably trying to protect themselves. Given the level of crime, private security seems like a good investment.
“It’s a nice area down here, people are afraid of what’s been going on,” said special patrol officer Alan Byard. “They want a safe place to raise their kids. In the last year, I’ve had 10 of my clients move out of the city.”
This is not an isolated problem in the Bay Area, which is filled with leaders of the same ideological bent as San Francisco.
My parents, who live in Oakland, have had the same car stolen twice in the last six months, and their neighborhood has been hit with constant burglaries and property crimes. The number of “for sale” signs in front of houses on their street is notable.
It’s not just homeowners, businesses are getting hit hard, too.
Walgreens, a major pharmacy chain, has decided to pull up stakes and will be closing its doors in San Francisco, on account, it says, of rampant unchecked robberies by organized thieves.
The San Francisco Chronicle, which is seemingly eager to tell Bay Area residents that their lying eyes deceive them, ran a “fact check” claiming that “data” doesn’t support the claim that theft is up. The numbers it cited were reported robberies, which at some store locations weren’t elevated compared to previous years. Though at some locations they were, according to the Chronicle’s numbers.
Of course, the Chronicle’s graphs don’t show the unreported robberies. What incentive do stores have to report crimes if nothing gets done to stop them?
According to The New York Times, Walgreens said that in San Francisco, the company spends on security “46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment.”
There could certainly be other factors in Walgreens leaving San Francisco—hardly a business-friendly environment—but typically businesses don’t just waste money on security or close stores en masse for no good reason.
Also, Walgreens has hardly been alone. Other retail stores have been ravaged and are also closing stores in the area.
Despite these attempts to make all seem well, the Chronicle tipped its hand about Bay Area crime when it asked readers if they should just accept high crime as a part of criminal justice reform and focus on barricading their homes.
Somehow, this wasn’t satire.
San Francisco’s mess highlights one of the biggest issues with the anti-police movement. Truly, the middle class, poor, and minorities suffer most. Wealthy people and neighborhoods will find a way to buy their own private security, but everyone else will be left to fend for themselves in a state of fear.
In an article for The Wall Street Journal, columnist Jason Riley perfectly laid out why this catastrophe strikes at the heart of left-wing policies, which are sold as countermeasures to “inequality”:
Tempting though it may be to blame the social dysfunction in poorer communities on heartless business owners or racist cops, the bigger blame surely lies with public policies that condone counterproductive behavior and make successful businesses much more difficult to operate. The fallout from antipolice protests in recent years has been all too predictable, as has the left’s response to it. Large employers quit urban areas after the riots of the 1960s as well, and some of those communities still haven’t fully recovered. Until the rule of law is restored and enforced, they probably never will.
Well said. It appears history is repeating itself.
As I’ve written before, when law and order breaks down—as it has in the San Francisco Bay Area—apart from criminals, only the wealthy and powerful can thrive.
A landscape dotted by wealthy, gated communities surrounded by lawlessness, poverty, and crime is typical in plenty of banana republics. Sadly, we will increasingly have it in the United States if this continues.
What’s happening in San Francisco is a prime example of how to turn something that is very good—a beautiful city in a picture perfect and economically prosperous location—into an undesirable, dangerous environment where residents dream to escape to pretty much anywhere else.
Alas, amid this catastrophe, San Francisco leaders have bigger priorities than making the city a livable place for all residents.
They are too busy looking for people to blame, statues to tear down, and school names to change.
Don’t worry, all will be well. It’s for equality, or something.
********************************************
The Supreme Court Tactic That Aims to Kill Affirmative Action
The plaintiffs who filed lawsuits accusing Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill of racial discrimination in their admissions policies are asking the Supreme Court to hear both cases together, potentially increasing the chances that the justices will issue a sweeping ruling that strikes down affirmative action across higher education.
A group known as Students for Fair Admissions sued both schools on the same day in 2014. Its targeting of both a private and a public university was part of a long-term legal strategy that seeks to overturn a practice that the Supreme Court has upheld in some fashion for more than four decades, as colleges have worked to admit a more racially diverse student body.
The Harvard case has already been heard by a federal appeals court, while the North Carolina case has only reached the district level — with rulings against the plaintiffs in both. But Students for Fair Admissions argues in a petition filed to the Supreme Court on Thursday that the justices regularly fast-track cases where similar issues are already pending before them and should hear the two suits together.
That is what happened almost two decades ago in a ruling that affirmed the very precedent that Students for Fair Admissions seeks to overturn. The court decided to hear two affirmative action challenges at the University of Michigan — one at the law school and one at the undergraduate level — at the same time, bypassing the appeals court in the undergraduate case.
In 2003, those cases, known as Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, resulted in decisions striking down the college’s system for admitting a more racially diverse student body as too mechanical, but affirming the law school’s consideration of race in admissions, allowing affirmative action to continue.
The Supreme Court has tilted more conservative in recent years with the addition of three justices nominated by former President Donald J. Trump. They are considered potentially receptive to arguments against race-conscious admissions practices, emboldening opponents of affirmative action.
But the court has put off a decision on whether to accept the Harvard case until it hears from the Biden administration, whose brief is expected soon. If the justices take the Harvard case, it would make sense for them to consider the North Carolina lawsuit at the same time, some legal experts said — especially as there might be greater public interest in the use of affirmative action at a taxpayer-supported institution.
“It’s possible that the court would feel more comfortable with a case involving a public university,” said Justin Driver, a Yale law professor and expert in constitutional law, adding, “I think this can be seen as trying to force the hand of the Supreme Court to issue a decision invalidating affirmative action sooner rather than later.”
Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional law expert at the Cato Institute, threw some cold water on the strategy. He said he did not believe it would make any difference whether North Carolina was added to the Harvard case because the court was unlikely to treat public universities differently from private ones that accept federal funds. But he said that if he were in the plaintiffs’ position, he would probably pursue the same maneuver to remind the court that if it did not review Harvard’s policy, there was another case coming behind.
The strategy of filing against both North Carolina and Harvard was orchestrated by Edward Blum, a financial adviser who founded Students for Fair Admissions. He has spearheaded more than two dozen lawsuits challenging affirmative action practices and voting rights laws, including a case against the University of Texas at Austin that led to the Supreme Court’s most recent decision supporting race-conscious admissions policies in 2016.
The plaintiffs accused Harvard of using a subjective personal metric to discriminate against high-performing Asian Americans and to create an unspoken ceiling for them in admissions. The argument in North Carolina was more conventional, contending that the university discriminated against white and Asian applicants by giving preferences to Black, Hispanic and Native American applicants. The universities denied those accusations and defended their admissions practices.
The two-pronged attack faltered when the North Carolina case fell behind the Harvard case by about two years. A federal judge ruled for Harvard in 2019, and the appeals court affirmed that ruling in 2020, while a judge did not rule in the North Carolina case until last month — also in favor of the university.
If the justices choose to hear both cases, the court could rule in a narrow way, either upholding the admissions systems at one or the other university or both, or asking for specific fixes, which would have little relevance to higher education as a whole. Or it could rule more broadly, taking on the bigger topic of race-conscious admissions in a decision that would apply across the land.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/affirmative-action-harvard-unc.html
*********************************************
The sad reality of gender quotas
Bettina Arndt writes from Australia:
My firefighter quota story has attracted a lot of attention and prompted all manner of interesting correspondence. I thought I would send an update, showing you some of the comments and intriguing news about ongoing battles on the gender quotas front.
First a wonderful story about a fracas currently taking place over the National Jazz Awards. This year this major award focused on jazz pianists and the ten finalists have been announced. Take a look at them here. Horrors, they are all men!
All hell has broken loose at this politically incorrect outcome, particularly since, due to COVID, the competition was judged through blind online auditions. All ten best candidates just happened to be men. Naturally, the very active women in today’s jazz world immediately started complaining, saying it needed to be made “fairer” by removing the blind audition and including a gender quota. Isn’t that pathetic? But, oh, so typical.
Science caves to gender warriors
Scientific American has just published an intriguing story about the most prestigious award given by the world’s largest earth and space science society, the American Geophysical Union. The AGU’s fellow’s award recognizes members who have made exceptional contributions to their fields through scientific innovation, breakthroughs and discoveries.
The list of the top five candidates, all nominated by peers after a rigorous process, came in – and they were all men. So, the committee charged with making the final decision about the fellowship wimped out. The fellowship was not awarded.
Gender battles in the police force.
Plenty of policemen have been in touch with me, talking about the impact of gender quotas on the police service. Here are comments from some of them:
“At the police academy back in 1978 all recruits had to pass an aerobic course in a limited time in order to graduate. We all had to train early in the morning for months to get through, unless you were one of the 50% female recruits who weren't required to complete the same standard. Later, after graduating, I was badly beaten by a huge drunk driver I was trying to arrest; the policewoman who was my partner had locked herself in the police van.”
Another one who has been in the force for 12 years talked about declining physical standards:
“We used to have large fences in the obstacle course but a lot of the girls trying to join did not have the upper body strength to get over the fence, so they just removed the fence from the course. Hmm, I’m pretty sure they will have to jump fences in real life and the bad guys run just as fast if it’s a female officer chasing them.”
He also mentioned other ways the training has changed:
“The actors who play the role of bad guys at the academy used to call us horrible names and really go to town on us during scenarios because that's what happens in real life. But a few of the girls complained about being called "a cunt" or being told that they were going to be raped. So, the actors are not allowed to say things like that anymore. Well. I’m sorry but on the road, you’re going to have the worst things said to you and you need to get over it! It’s your job to take it and remain professional.”
Various people alerted me to the interesting fact that six months ago Queensland’s corruption watchdog, the Crime and Corruption Commission found thousands of men had been discriminated against as a result of the Qld police department’s 50 per cent gender target. Different standards were found to apply to male and female applicants with men forced to reach “artificially high” cut-off scores and female applicants approved despite failing physical and cognitive tests. Funnily enough, the gender quota was introduced under a male police commissioner Ian Steward, but scrapped by a female one – Katarina Carroll, when she was appointed in 2019.
Thoughts from the trenches
Finally, random thoughts/comments from a variety of people, including many dealing with these gender issues in their workplaces - mostly gathered from my YouTube channel where I posted the firefighter video:
“A couple of decades ago I was a controller in the Rural Fire Service. It was notable that two occasions I had to call ambulance to female firefighters who had either collapsed or were close to collapse. In a crew returning from a hazard reduction a lightly built young woman of about 18-22 was very faint, lost muscle tone, went deathly pale. The whole crew and truck were out of the game while the group captain responded to the ambulance. Very embarrassing for her but potentially dangerous on the fire ground with half a dozen strong fit young men withdrawn.”
“Early this year, near our local shopping centre carpark, my husband noticed two female ambulance officers obviously struggling to lift patient up into their ambulance. They were grateful when he went across the road and helped them lift the stretcher (with a strapped on fairly solid male) up and over the deep gutter and up into the ambulance. He said the two youngish women were of rather slight builds and quite obviously just did not have the combined physical strength to get the stretchered patient up into their vehicle.”
“I've been a firefighter for 23 years. In reality, half the guys on my department have a hard enough time doing the job when it comes to a serious working fire. And as you get older it gets harder to perform. In my younger years it was exciting fighting fires but the past couple I have been on were taxing on my stamina. You have to have a maniacal attitude and be in shape to be able to get the job done when the sh*t hits the fan. This ain’t no reality show or TV series.”
“Women will be killed by this change in rules, or members of the public. Will there end up being civil suits against the government for allowing people that aren’t competent to do the job? I am a woman & have worked in the fishing, plumbing, and manual labour industries and I know I am unable to do physical tasks that men can do. Does that mean because I am a woman all of us should be put at risk by attempting a task that I cannot safely do? That is a blatant OHS issue that as an employer I could be prosecuted for, but the government is allowed to breach it because it’s woke.”
“It's also about camaraderie. The other firefighters want to make sure they can trust the capabilities of the other members of their team. They're trusting those people with their lives.”
“About time! I've noticed a huge gender gap in the statistics between men and women killed on the job. More women in dangerous jobs should close that gap significantly.”
“The women won’t be in dangerous jobs- they will be in admin, communications, etc, because they will be too much of a liability to their colleagues and themselves to be actually on the front line. They will, however, get paid the same, if not more.”
That’s it, folks. I hope you enjoyed reading this lively correspondence, often from people who told me they wouldn’t dare talk publicly about these taboo topics.
https://thinkspot.com/discourse/OJuqOX/post/bettina-arndt/the-sad-reality-of-gender-quotas/bvZtjy
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
16 November, 2021
'Woke' church leaders at odds with congregations on political issues
This finding would appear to refer to the Catholic and Anglican churches only
'Woke' church leaders are at odds with their congregations on key political issues such as taxation and the role of the market, a new opinion poll has found.
While more than half – 51 per cent – of the clergy support the imposition of high taxes to redistribute wealth, only 34 per cent of regular churchgoers feel the same way.
And while only 30 per cent of clerics say that they trust large multinational corporations, that rises to 73 per cent among their flocks.
The poll, conducted by Savanta ComRes for the Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics (CEME), is likely to reinforce the perception that Left-wing ‘woke’ clergy are out of touch with worshippers.
Church leaders were also more in favour of ‘wage-shaming’ well-paid business leaders, with 82 per cent backing publicising the pay gap between businesses’ highest-paid and lowest-paid employees; but just 66 per cent of regular churchgoers support the idea.
In addition, 89 per cent of Church leaders want businesses to take an active role in tackling climate change, versus 64 per cent of their congregation.
The poll also reveals a generational divide over attitudes to business, with 88 per cent of the over-55s regarding wealth-creation as its key role, compared with only 65 per cent of 18-to-34-year-olds.
Dr Richard Turnbull, director of CEME, said: ‘Church leaders are out of touch with Christian opinion.
'Church leaders convey a lack of understanding of key aspects of business, display excessive reliance on the power of taxation and government, lack confidence in larger and global businesses and indeed in Britain as a nation.
‘A message is being preached that is not believed by most of its recipients. Committed church-goers have a considerably more positive view of the market, business and society in a number of key respects.
This tells us then that church congregations may have a more informed view of business than those that purport to teach them.’
Savanta ComRes polled 3,400 people between May and August 2021 and interviewed ten Anglican and Catholic bishops.
***********************************************
Texas Man Denied Monoclonal Antibodies Because He’s White
Twitter users Harrison Smith posted a viral video to Twitter showing how he was denied the life-saving monoclonal antibody treatment because he’s white. Some states are more broad with their criteria for the treatment, but others have strict guidelines, one includes race. (Yes, really)
The nurse can be seen telling the man that you either need to be older than 65, have some sort of medical condition, or be black/hispanic.
It is important to note that he is a young, relatively healthy male. However, if this young, healthy male was a different race, he would have received treatment, according to the nurse.
One of Smith’s followers even called the hotline to confirm the story, and they admit that Smith would have gotten the treatment if he was a minority.
Welcome to Biden’s America
https://patriotfetch.com/2021/11/watch-texas-man-denied-monoclonal-antibodies-because-hes-white/
***********************************************
The Left Always Defends the Real Criminals
Last summer, as Black Lives Matter and Antifa were rioting in the streets of America, Democrats and their allies in the leftist media described their behavior as "fiery but mostly peaceful" and justified the damage for the sake of "racial justice."
Two billion dollars in damage later, making them the most expensive riots in U.S. history, they haven't changed their opinion. In fact, they've doubled down and regularly defend the violence.
Americans were reminded of the left's summer of rage this week as they focused on the trial of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.
On August 23, 2020, police were called to the scene of a confrontation after a woman dialed 911. Upon their arrival, 29-year-old Jacob Blake — who had multiple warrants out for his arrest, including third-degree sexual assault and criminal trespassing — was refusing police orders and was shot. The media immediately claimed Blake was shot because he was a black man, not because he had a knife, was refusing police orders and was attempting to kidnap his two children.
Seizing an opportunity, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden piled onto the false claims and said Blake's shooting was a product of systemic racism in policing. Kamala Harris visited Blake himself, saying she was "proud" of him. Their positions were then amplified as righteous by CNN and MSNBC.
Because of these lies, chaos quickly descended on the small town of Kenosha, Wisconsin, and rioters started burning down the city. The media had sided with Blake, a criminal with a long history, and fanned racial flames built on falsehoods.
During the rioting, Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, was chased and physically attacked by adult males Anthony Huber, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz. As a last resort, Rittenhouse shot them, killing two. Grosskreutz, who pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse's head, survived after being shot in the arm. Again, the left and their allies in the media took the side of the "victims" and painted Rittenhouse as a "murderer" and "white supremacist."
But once Rittenhouse was able to tell his story, it became increasingly obvious those defending Huber, Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz, were cheering for the bad guys.
"I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself," Rittenhouse explained during testimony this week. "I didn't want to have to shoot."
"If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it…and probably killed more people," he continued.
Joseph Rosenbaum was a multi-time pedophile who anally raped a child and sexually assaulted a number of boys ages 9-11 years old. He spent ten years in prison and was on lifetime probation. Anthony Huber was a convicted felon and repeat domestic abuser. Gaige Grosskreutz was convicted of a misdemeanor for carrying a firearm while intoxicated.
The men who chased Rittenhouse, attempting to kill him, are the real criminals. Predictably, the left and the media took their side. Kenosha burned because corrupt media and leftist activists lied about Jacob Blake being an "unarmed" black man shot by police. The same people proceeded to smear Rittenhouse, who was in town to help protect the community and ended up fighting for his life. The left never misses an opportunity to root for the lawbreakers and to destroy the lives of the honorable.
******************************************
The Absurd Side of the Social Justice Industry
From the NYT
If you follow debates over the strident style of social justice politics often derided as “wokeness,” you might have heard about a document called “Advancing Health Equity: A Guide to Language, Narrative and Concepts.” Put out by the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Health Justice, the guide is a long list of terms and phrases that some earnest people have decided others in the medical field should avoid using, along with their preferred substitutes.
Some of these substitutions make sense; health care professionals shouldn’t be referring to people who’ve been in prison as “ex-cons.” Some are a matter of keeping up with the times, like capitalizing Black when talking about Black people. Some, however, are obnoxious and presumptuous and would impede clear communication. For example, the guide suggests replacing “vulnerable” with “oppressed,” even though they’re not synonymous: it’s not oppression that makes the elderly vulnerable to Covid.
My guess is that very few people will follow these recommendations. As Conor Friedersdorf points out in The Atlantic, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, still talks about “those who are most vulnerable” when discussing vaccination. “Advancing Health Equity” advises steering clear of words with “violent connotation” like “combat” or “target,” but last week the president of the American Medical Association gave a speech calling doctors “an army against the virus.” At one point the document itself critiques how, in health care, diseases “become the main target rather than the social and economic conditions that produce health inequities.”
Like most other reports written by bureaucratic working groups, “Advancing Health Equity” would probably be read by almost no one if it did not inadvertently advance the right-wing narrative that progressive newspeak is colonizing every aspect of American life. Still, the existence of this document is evidence of a social problem, though not, as the guide instructs us to say instead of “social problem,” a “social injustice.” The problem is this: Parts of the “diversity, equity and inclusion” industry are heavy-handed and feckless, and the left keeps having to answer for them.
Consider the endless debate over critical race theory in public schools. In certain circles, it’s become conventional wisdom that even if public schools are not teaching graduate-school critical race theory, they’re permeated by something adjacent to it.
“The idea that critical race theory is an academic concept that is taught only at colleges or law schools might be technically accurate, but the reality on the ground is a good deal more complicated,” wrote Yascha Mounk in The Atlantic. Across the nation, he wrote, “many teachers” have started adopting “a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.”
In truth it’s hard to say what “many teachers” are doing; school curriculums are decentralized, and most of the data we have is anecdotal. But there was just a gubernatorial election in Virginia in which critical race theory played a major role. If the right had evidence of Virginia teachers indoctrinating children, you’d think we’d have heard about it. After all, school there was almost entirely online last year, offering parents an unprecedented window into what their kids were learning.
Instead, the Republican candidate for governor, Glenn Youngkin, ran commercials featuring a woman aggrieved that her son was assigned Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” as a high school senior. But if conservatives couldn’t find useful examples from the classroom, they discovered a rhetorical gold mine in materials from a training session for administrators, including a slide juxtaposing “white individualism” and “color group collectivism.”
“Teachers and administrators said that conservative activists had cherry-picked the most extreme materials to try to prove their point,” The New York Times reported. I’m sure that’s true, but it’s also true that school districts should avoid using training documents that will embarrass them if they’re made public.
For Arab Americans, It’s Not Thanksgiving Without Hashweh
Such training would be worth fighting for if it had a record of success in changing discriminatory behavior, but it doesn’t. As the scholars Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev wrote in The Economist, hundreds “of studies of anti-bias training show that even the best programs have short-lived effects on stereotypes and no discernible effect on discriminatory behavior.” Instead of training sessions, they suggest that employers should focus their diversity efforts on concrete efforts like recruitment.
But substantive change is hard; telling people to use different words is easy. One phrase you won’t find in “Advancing Health Equity” is “universal health care”: The American Medical Association has been a consistent opponent of Medicare for All. The word “abortion” isn’t in there either, though it would advance health equity if more doctors were willing to perform one.
In The Washington Post, the columnist Matt Bai described the document as an ominous development. “I’d argue that it’s actually a powerful testament to where we are at the moment — and it should frighten you as much as it does me.” It doesn’t frighten me: In a truly Orwellian situation, people would actually have to follow new linguistic edicts instead of being able to laugh at them.
But it does irritate me, because it’s so counterproductive. “It’s not scary, it’s just ridiculous,” is not a winning political argument.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/opinion/diversity-equity-inclusion.html
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
15 November, 2021
UK: Low taxes and levelling up: the great freeport experiment comes to Teesside
Teesside is a built-up area around the River Tees in the north of England, split between County Durham and North Yorkshire
There is demolition work at every turn on Teesside, from the increasingly regular explosions heard across Redcar, as the old steelworks is blasted to pieces, to the cranes taking down nearby Wilton International’s coal-fired power plant.
“The site has seen better days,” said Andy Koss of Sembcorp Industries, which manages the Wilton International complex. “For the region as a whole it has been a tough time, with the gradual erosion of industry at Wilton. And then the closure of the steelworks was a massive blow.”
On what is Europe’s largest brownfield site, work is gathering pace as Teesside prepares for the launch of the government’s new freeport, with hopes that the designation as a low-tax special economic zone will reboot the local economy.
With 11 sites planned across the UK, offering tax breaks and streamlined customs for businesses, freeports are a pet project for Rishi Sunak; the chancellor is selling them as a key advantage of Brexit and central to the Tories’ “levelling-up” agenda.
For the first of the sites to open – Teesside, Humber and Thames – tax cuts worth millions of pounds will be enabled by legislation on Friday. However, the jury is still out on whether freeports will generate the boost the chancellor promises.
On Teesside, there are hopes for as many as 18,000 new jobs, alongside benefits for the economy worth £3.2bn over the coming years. At Wilton, according to Koss, the looming launch date had brought a flurry of interest. “We are getting lots of inquiries. Every plot of land we can develop here has at least one inquiry,” he said. “Some have more than one.”
Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen at the Teesside Freeport site with Treasury minister Helen Whately.© Photograph: Jason Brown/Rex Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen at the Teesside Freeport site with Treasury minister Helen Whately.
Sembcorp, headquartered in Singapore and a listed firm half-owned by the Singapore wealth fund, is now managing 562 acres of development land. It is available to businesses Sembcorp hopes will be lured by the tax breaks and by cheap electricity to be produced on site by four reactors, amid ambitions to turn Wilton into a green industrial hub.
Central to the Teesside freeport project is the Conservative mayor of the Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, a rising star of the party who has caught national media attention for his “red wall” brand of interventionist Toryism. Vast swaths of land on the freeport site are under public control, and overseen by Houchen.
He intervened this year to buy the local airport and keep it open, and has a bid in for Teesport itself, amid a sale process being run by PD Ports, its current owner.
This idea of bringing the public sector and private enterprise together represents a tussle at the heart of modern Toryism, as a model both of Thatcherite low-tax dogma and of state interventionism. Singapore on Tees, with central planning.
Under the freeport model, imports will be exempt from customs duties, but experts believe the more powerful incentive is a plethora of tax reliefs, that will be available on a site of up to 600 hectares in size within the special economic zone. From this week, there will be reliefs on business rates and stamp duty, and enhanced capital allowances to encourage building work and investment. There is also relief on national insurance contributions for staff employed in the zone, to spur job creation.
On Teesside, the outer boundary of the freeport will stretch for 45km, encompassing Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, Hartlepool and Redcar, as well as swaths of Tees valley countryside, including Houchen’s home town of Yarm.
*********************************************
Seattle boy, 13, watches dad die of a heart attack while waiting 20 MINUTES for help to arrive after firefighters refused to enter apartment without police
A 13-year-old Seattle boy watched his father who was suffering from cardiac arrest die while waiting more than 20 minutes for help to arrive - in a tragedy that critics say was caused by a shortage of cops and medical personnel staff resulting from the woke mayor's vaccine mandates and defund the police movement.
The unidentified boy called 911 earlier this month when his 45-year-old father began struggling to breathe in the city’s Crown Hill neighborhood.
Firefighters arrived at the scene within 15 minutes, but an outdated note on file mistakenly indicated that the apartment occupant was aggressive, slowing their response as they waited on a police escort.
‘He’s conscious but he’s not OK,’ the boy told 911 in an incident report obtained by The Jason Rantz Show on KTTH. He added during the November 2 call, lodged at 1:24 p.m., that his dad was ‘making a moaning noise.’
As firefighters waited for a police escort, the boy called 911 again at 1:37 p.m. ‘He wasn’t like this before,’ the teen told a dispatcher. ‘I’m just really worried.’
The fire crew broke protocol and entered the unit without police at 1:39 p.m. – 15 minutes after the first call for help was made.
One medic told KTTH that ‘had it been addressed early, his chance of survival would have been 60 percent.’
Police and medics arrived at the scene at 1:45 p.m. – more than 20 minutes after the initial call for help – and despite attempting CPR for an hour, couldn’t save the man, the outlet reported.
The Seattle Fire Department said it was following procedure when it initially held off on entering the unit.
Firefighters rely on ‘premise notes’ inputted into the dispatch system to alert them of any potential dangers or provide building access information, spokesperson Kristin Tinsley told DailyMail.com.
One premise note is intended to warn responders headed toward buildings where a tenant previously had acted aggressively toward emergency crews.
The unit firefighters responded to November 2 was flagged for being occupied by an aggressive man and a note advised firefighters to request police before entering.
‘We had a “cautionary” premise note entered into the system for that address due to experiences with a patient who had lived there that was known to be combative towards SFD and SPD,’ Tinsley said. ‘Unfortunately, we learned during the most recent emergency response that the cautionary note was for a previous tenant.
Conservative radio talk show host Jason Rantz blamed the sluggish response on Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which he said 'crippled already understaffed police and fire departments.'
'They do not have enough employees to respond to emergency calls,' Rantz said in a 770 KTTH column. 'And through no fault of Seattle police or Seattle fire, a man is dead when he might have been saved.'
Tinsley said the department is now reviewing the incident and added that it is working to verify its premise notes more frequently.
The apartment where the man died as his son called 911 twice is inspected every two years, however the fire departments only have jurisdiction to inspect common areas, not individual units.
‘Premise notes are entered in response to emergency runs or during inspections,’ Tinsley said. ‘They are re-approved or removed during follow-up emergency responses or inspections.’
Staffing at the Seattle Police Department is at lows not seen since the 1980s.
In July, it was revealed that the department had already lost at least 280 officers since the start of 2020 due to what they called an 'anti-police climate' in the city amid Black Lives Matter protests and calls to defund the police.
The Seattle Police Department’s 1,125 officers are tasked with protecting more than 724,000 people.
Its force took another hit after vaccine mandates were introduced that required officers to get the jab or risk losing their job by October 18.
Last month, the department utilized its ‘stage-3 mobilization plan,’ which puts all officers on standby to respond to 911 calls.
‘We used a couple of detectives in one of the precincts that were short on their staffing minimums, but otherwise we haven't had any issues,’ Huserik said.
Seattle Police Officers Guild President Mike Solan said in October the vaccine mandate could worsen the understaffing.
'If we lose what appears to be over 300 people because of this mandate, this public safety crisis we're experiencing will look like child's play,' Sloan told CBS58.
As of October 18, just 24 - or two percent - of Seattle Police Department officers had not shown proof of inoculation, a city spokesperson told Dailymail.com.
Meantime, some Washington State troopers called it quits over the mandate. Last month, a veteran trooper who was forced out of the job by the state's vaccine mandate released a video of his final sign-off and ended it by saying 'Governor Jay Inslee can kiss my a**.' The unidentified trooper told how he had served in the department for more than 22 years in Yakima County.
A staff shortage is being coupled by a spike in crime in Seattle, which has become so dangerous that the city can no longer protect its own employees, with security guards now escorting them after they finish work.
Crime in the Pacific Northwest city has seen a recent 35 per cent spike in shootings this year compared to last, and a 76 per cent increase compared to 2019.
So far in 2021, 73 people have been killed and another 283 have been injured by shootings in the city.
********************************************
Home Depot Co-Founder Ken Langone Praises ‘Gutsy’ Manchin, Says He’s Throwing Him a Huge Fundraiser
The Democrat who has battled to keep the Biden administration and far-out liberals from spending their way off an inflationary cliff can count on a Republican to back him in the next election.
Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, a Republican and a billionaire, said Wednesday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that he will raise funds for Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
For weeks, Manchin has rejected multiple elements of the spending plan proposed by the Bidenistas in Congress, saying last week, “I for one won’t support a multitrillion-dollar bill without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects of inflation,” according to WDJT-TV.
Langone praised Manchin’s stand on Wednesday on CNBC. “You know my politics, but … I don’t see leadership any place in this country,” Langone said. “Thank God for Joe Manchin. The guy’s got guts and courage.”
Although Langone has never supported Manchin before, he will now. Manchin is up for re-election in 2024. “He’s a Democrat, I’m a Republican; I’m going to have one of the biggest fundraisers I’ve ever had for him,” Langone said. “He’s special. He’s precious. He’s a great American.”
But Langone was far more somber as he turned to a subject that vexes him and Manchin – inflation. “Let me give you a warning — this inflation is a lot worse than people think. It is not transitory. The little people … they’re going to suffer,” Langone said.
Inflation rose 6.2 percent in the 12 months that ended in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Wednesday. That’s the biggest monthly increase in 30 years, according to CBS News.
Fuel oil prices are up nearly 60 percent, gas is up about 50 percent, and average food costs are up over 5 percent. Beef is up about 20 percent, and pork is up approximately 14.
*********************************************
Australia: NSW Just Had A Major Change In Sexual Consent Law — Here's What That Means And What Comes Next
A lot will depend on what the courts make of this. A sexual encounter is often initiated by touch (kisses etc) rather than by words. So are such encounters now illegal?
Maybe if the law applied only to people who had not previously had sex, it might make some sense
Last night in the Legislative Assembly of NSW, a model of affirmative consent was approved. This means that NSW is one step closer to changing sexual consent laws for the better.
Under the new Bill, proposed by NSW Attorney-General and Minister for Prevention and Sexual Violence Mark Speakman, a person only gives consent if "at the time of the sexual activity, they freely and voluntarily agree to the sexual activity", and if it is communicated clearly.
Jenny Leong, the Greens spokesperson for Women's Rights in the NSW Parliament, excitedly announced that the State Parliament voted an "enthusiastic yes" to the Bill.
Jenny Leong and Lucinda Hoffman stand outside NSW Parliament representing sexual assault victims© Provided by Are Media Pty Ltd Jenny Leong and Lucinda Hoffman stand outside NSW Parliament representing sexual assault victims
What does the affirmative consent bill mean?
This Bill recognises that:
(i) every person has a right to choose whether to participate in a sexual activity,
(ii) consent to a sexual activity must not be presumed,
(iii) consensual sexual activity involves ongoing and mutual communication, decision-making and free and voluntary agreement between the persons participating in the sexual activity.
Jenny has been particularly instrumental in driving this change. This morning, in light of the news, she reflected on how revolutionary the Bill would be if it were to become law.
"The Bill puts victim-survivors at the heart of the law, and removes rape myths and assumptions from the Crimes Act. It removes the patriarchal assumption that anyone is entitled to sex without the active, enthusiastic consent of the other person," she said.
"This is a significant moment. This is a very significant reform," Ms Leong said. "It means that it can no longer be assumed that someone consents to having sex. The person who wants sex must be able to demonstrate that they took steps to ensure that the other person also enthusiastically consents to this," she continued.
What needs to happen now?
While this is a huge step forward, it's not the final step. Now, the Bill will be passed to the Legislative Council to be debated, either later this week or early next week. Once it passes through (assuming there are no amendments), the Bill will become state law.
If, however, the Legislative Council decides to make amendments, it will be passed back down to the Legislative Assembly to be debated again.
While the Bill is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle, Jenny reminds us that there are other crucial factors to consider.
"The law change in and of itself is not enough. Around that law reform there needs to be really strong education and training to ensure that the police, judiciary and agencies around the justice system are all aware of the reforms and are implementing them in line with those laws," she told ELLE this morning.
"We need to ensure that there is sufficient resourcing, policy changes and education in place, so that when this law comes into effect, we see a change in society," she continued.
how does affirmative consent differ to our current laws?
As the law currently stands, a person has committed sexual assault if they know the other person is not consenting, if they are "reckless as to whether" they consent, or there are no reasonable grounds for believing there was consent.
In 2017, NSW consent laws fell under intense scrutiny following the acquittal of a man accused of raping Saxon Mullins outside a Sydney nightclub. While the Judge agreed that Saxon had not consented to sexual intercourse, she ruled that her 'freeze response' had provided 'reasonable grounds' for the man to believe he had gained consent.
Following his acquittal, Saxon bravely came forward to tell her story and was the subject of a major Four Corners investigation. Here, after staying anonymous for the entirety of the trial, she told the entire world, "I am that girl." In doing so, she hoped to spark a wider conversation about the current consent laws in NSW, and how they were failing sexual assault victims.
Over the past few years, we have seen a major societal shift in our approach to sexual consent and the way in which we understand it, which means our laws need to be updated to reflect those attitudes. The affirmative consent Bill is a pivotal change, which if passed, will be instrumental in ensuring that cases like Saxon's do not happen again.
It is hoped that it will also encourage victims of sexual assault to come forward and report their experiences with the knowledge that they will receive a just outcome. Our low reporting rates are a reflection of the mistrust people have in the current system, and it's something we desperately need to change.
If one thing is clear after last night's decision, it's that change is coming. It may have been a long time coming, but it's finally here. And, though they may not be inside parliament, we can never forget that it is the incredibly brave work of sexual assault survivors and advocates that continues to drive this change forward.
"While it's important to acknowledge the Attorney General in bringing the Bill, and the multi-partisan support for this Bill — it is critical that we acknowledge that credit for this reform sits with some incredibly strong survivor-advocates, feminists, experts and activists who have been through so much and who have never given up — and in particular survivor-advocate Saxon Mullins," Jenny said, in a statement this morning.
For now, we will patiently await the decision of the Legislative Council as the Bill moves into their hands, and soon, the interest of victims and survivors will be at the centre of our consent laws.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
14 November, 2021
Billionaire investor’s warning as inflation skyrockets
Billionaire investor Ray Dalio is warning that skyrocketing inflation is driving down real wealth.
The hedge fund manager said “raging inflation” was eroding people’s wealth – particularly those who have their money in cash.
On Thursday the US Labor Department reported a 6.2 per cent increase in the cost of living in the world’s biggest economy over the past year.
That’s the highest jump in inflation since December 1990 and more than economists were expecting.
Much of the surge was in energy prices, with petrol spiking 6.1 per cent last month, and fuel oil jumping 12.3 per cent. The price of food and cars also increased markedly.
In a LinkedIn post, Mr Dalio said the government was printing more money, people were getting more money and that in turn was leading to more buying. He said that was to blame for much of the inflation.
He also warned some people were making the mistake of thinking that they were getting richer because their assets were increasing in price. But he said many didn’t realise their buying power was being eroded.
“Inflation is running super-hot,” Neil Wilson, chief markets analyst at Markets.com said, pointing to multi-decade highs of key gauges in the US, Japan and China.
Friday saw yet more evidence with German wholesale prices jumping 15.2 per cent year-on-year in October, the fastest clip since March 1974 and an acceleration from the previous two months, he said.
“Ultimately, the market remains fairly comfortable with fundamentals” and with central banks keeping rates -- and with them, bond yields — artificially low, “equities remain the only game in town”.
While inflation headwinds are clearly spooking some, persistently low interest rates are leaving yield-hungry investors with few options other than to keep their faith in stocks — a scenario analysts dub TINA — there is no alternative.
“Equities can’t continue to hold firm against this backdrop but in a TINA (there is no alternative) world, stranger things have happened,” said Oanda analyst Craig Erlam, pointing to surging gold prices and the strengthening dollar.
Gold futures in New York were little changed at a five-month high of US$1,864.3 per ounce as the precious metal’s traditional value as protection against inflation meant “investors turned to an old friend in time of need”, Mr Erlam said.
Markets are looking to see if the global inflation spurt will ease as supply chain disruptions and wage hikes normalise and businesses recover from their pandemic hit.
*************************************************
LOL - Pete Buttigieg Claims Infrastructure Bill Will Fix 'Racist Highways'
Welcome to 2021, where Democrats have managed to make even roadways "racist" and find a way to spend money to make them less racist.
On Monday, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg praised President Joe Biden's $1.75 trillion infrastructure bill, claiming that it will swiftly fix "racist infrastructure" with the Reconnecting Communities Initiative.
“I’m still surprised that some people were surprised that when I pointed to the fact that if a highway was built for the purpose of deciding a white and a black neighborhood,” Buttigieg attempted to explain. “Sometimes it was federal dollars that divided a community often along racial lines.”
He added that “racism that went into those design choices.”
Breitbart reports:
After a reporter asked Buttigieg how he could “deconstruct racism that was build into the roadways,” the secretary said the administration would “get to work right away” on the project.
“I don’t think we have anything to lose by confronting that simple reality and I think we have everything to gain by acknowledging it and then dealing with it.”
Buttigieg has a history of talking about racist infrastructure, beginning in his campaign and continuing through his Senate confirmation hearings for the cabinet level position.
“There is racism physically built into some of our highways, and that’s why the jobs plan has specifically committed to reconnect some of the communities that were divided by these dollars,” he told the Grio in April.
What a joke....just another waste of Americans' tax money.
*******************************************
Why are people crossing the English Channel in small boats and how dangerous is it?
Australia had a similar "boat people" problem but stopped it by sending them back to their ports of origin
With the topic of English Channel crossings high up the news agenda again after a flurry of arrivals, the PA news agency has looked at some of the key questions on the topic.
Most small boat journeys set off from the northern French coast near Calais and Dunkirk, but the stretch of coastline being used is getting longer.
Those attempting the crossing have been noted to be from a diverse list of countries including Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia Sudan South Sudan Yemen, Guinea, Mali, Chad, Somalia, Niger, Libya and Albania.
– Why are they coming to the UK?
Some are fleeing war-torn nations and forced military service, while others have faced persecution for their beliefs or sexuality in their home countries.
Many want to pursue a better life and feel a connection to Britain, whether through knowledge of the English language and culture or because they have family and friends living in the UK.
– Why not stay in France as it’s a “safe country”?
Migrants living in Calais are often forced to live rough in fields and scrubland and have faced frequent police evictions in recent years following the destruction of The Jungle camp.
A popular refrain in the debate over immigration is that people should seek refuge in the “first safe country” they come to – this is incorrect and there is no such requirement under the UN Refugee Convention.
– How are people crossing to the UK, and is it dangerous?
With limited safe and legal routes open to them, those gathered on the northern French coast can feel compelled to resort to very dangerous methods to reach the UK.
Historically many have attempted the journey hidden in the backs of lorries, but recent years have seen a sharp rise in small boat crossings.
Crossing the busy shipping lanes of the English Channel in dinghies is fraught with peril and the journey has claimed several lives in recent years, including children.
– How many people have crossed to the UK in small boats so far this year? How does it compare with last year?
Around 23,000 people have reached the UK in small boats this year, according to data compiled by PA. This is nearly triple the 8,417 PA recorded arriving in 2020.
– What UK resources are available in the Channel?
Border Force only has a limited number of cutters and patrol boats – the vessels it uses to intercept boats and bring people ashore.
When a surge of crossings happen all at once, Border Force, RNLI and Coastguard teams can be overwhelmed and cannot address all the incidents at the same time.
– Can UK Border Force turn them away in the Channel?
So-called “pushbacks” of small boats in the Channel are very difficult and there is heated debate over their legality.
Charities fear that seeking to turn boats away while on the water could put lives at risk and the Home Office has not confirmed when or if the tactic will be put into practice.
– What happens when people reach UK waters?
A large proportion – perhaps the great majority – of boats are intercepted by Border Force or the RNLI once they reach UK waters, while some land on beaches.
Contrary to some reports, the vast majority (98% for January-September 2020) of people reaching the UK in small boats claim asylum, rather than seeking to “disappear”. The asylum process can be lengthy, with some waiting months or years for a decision.
– How do numbers of arrivals in the UK compare to the rest of Europe? Are asylum claims going up?
The UK continues to see far fewer boat arrivals and asylum claims than many of its European counterparts. At least 100,907 people have arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean by land and sea so far this year, according to data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Asylum applications in the UK have remained steady over the last few years despite the rise in small boat arrivals, with 14,670 claims lodged in the first six months of 2021, compared with 13,370 in the same period in 2020 and 16,619 in the same period in 2019.
– What does the UK Government say about the crossings?
In 2019, Home Secretary Priti Patel promised to make migrant crossings an “infrequent phenomenon” by spring 2020 and then pledged in August last year to “make this route unviable”.
The Government says its new New Plan for Immigration will “fix the system” but its Nationality and Borders Bill has been criticised by charities.
– What do charities say about the issue?
Charities and aid organisations have long called for the Government to set up more safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum in Britain.
Currently the law means that people can only claim asylum in the UK if they are physically present in the country, which some people fear encourages the dangerous journeys.
**********************************************
Adam Schiff's disgraceful legacy
The most recent indictment by Special Counsel John Durham has fully exposed the notorious Steele dossier as nothing more than a collection of lies designed to drive the phony narrative that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia.
But beyond Hillary Clinton and her cronies who invented and disseminated the hoax, there were plenty of other remorseless liars who contributed to the fiction.
The most flagrant huckster of hysteria was Rep. Adam Schiff, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He was instrumental in fueling the feeding frenzy over the dossier fabricated by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele. Schiff promoted it and defended it in hundreds of televised appearances.
Incredibly, he is still at it. Appearing this week on "The View," the congressman was confronted by guest co-host Morgan Ortagus who offered him the chance to come clean by admitting he was culpable for spreading a big lie and devising a few whoppers of his own.
Instead of a sincere mea culpa, Schiff bobbed and weaved as Ortagus skillfully pressed him with direct questions that could only be answered with the unadorned truth. Sadly, truth is meaningless to a guy like Schiff, who was torched afterwards by journalist Glenn Greenwald as an "amoral sociopath."
In the interview, Schiff awkwardly dodged the fact that he had spent three long years spreading lies and misleading the American public by relentlessly vouching for the dossier. At one point, he was so confident of its veracity that he read it verbatim into the congressional record.
When Ortagus accused him of spreading destructive disinformation for years, Schiff answered by saying that he "couldn’t have known" if people were lying to Steele. But that’s not remotely true. Lots of people knew that the dossier was a pack of lies, myself included. All you had to do was read it. It was poorly written and laughable on its face.
The FBI discredited Steele’s dossier within months of its composition. The bureau fired him as a confidential source for lying. Schiff’s own intelligence committee conducted an exhaustive investigation led by then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, and found no evidence of collusion. The dossier was noxious junk.
Yet, Schiff continued to frequently claim that he had corroborated its contents. He declared publicly that he had "smoking gun" documents and had personally "seen ample evidence of collusion in plain sight." He never did, of course, because that purported evidence never existed. Schiff just made it all up.
As Ortagus persisted, Schiff grew noticeably uncomfortable. He tried to change subjects and shift attention to Trump. Out of nowhere, he brought up the "January 6th insurrection," except he called it an "erection" before correcting himself.
One of the main reasons the hoax worked so well for so long is that people like Schiff were willing to misrepresent the (lack of) proof they claimed to be holding in secret. News outlets like CNN and MSNBC invited the congressman to go on air and promise, week after week, that we were just on the edge of a big reveal, of a scandal too horrible to even detail.
Journalists allowed themselves to be played for fools by a con artist extraordinaire. Reporters became Schiff’s witting dupes, never bothering to challenge him or attempting to verify his sensational claims with something called credible evidence.
Schiff got away with his deceit by hiding behind the supposedly "classified" nature of the evidence he claimed to have seen. "I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now," he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. There was little push back.
He consistently trumpeted that he had personally examined incontrovertible evidence of collusion, but he failed to produce any of it. He told ABC News that the illicit Trump-Russia conspiracy was of "a size and scope probably beyond Watergate."
You could fill pages with Schiff’s venomous canards, which I did in my book "Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History." One of the most shameful episodes occurred when he questioned former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, during a congressional hearing, which he managed to transform into a theater of the absurd.
Armed with no evidence whatsoever except the dossier that he read aloud, Schiff portrayed Page as a Kremlin spy. The evidence cited? A courteous handshake during a chance encounter that lasted less than ten seconds. The congressman proclaimed that it was proof positive of an agreement to steal the presidency. Ridiculous? Sure.
In one lengthy harangue, Schiff contended that the Page (an unpaid, junior volunteer who never even met the candidate nor spoke with him) had been offered the equivalent of an $11 billion bribe by the Russians to unduly influence Trump in the event that he won the 2016 election. It was another extravagant dossier fable. Page sat there flabbergasted that anyone, much less a US congressman, would even consider such drivel. But it was classic Schiff.
When finally afforded a chance to respond during the hearing, Page denounced the dossier as "totally preposterous." It most certainly was. Covert meetings described in the document never happened. He insisted that he did not discuss the Trump campaign with any Russians and had never colluded with them, as the dossier wrongfully asserted.
Schiff was undeterred. He was convinced that he had cornered the hobgoblin of a grand conspiracy. But his only evidence was the dossier itself, which was no evidence at all.
The Mueller report later exonerated Page confirming that none of the damning accusations against him—and cited by Schiff—were true. Not surprisingly, the congressman has never had the decency to apologize to Page for his unconscionable smears.
Instead, he continued to propagate the lies despite declassified documents showing that he knew all along that there was no plausible evidence of a collusion conspiracy.
Now, revealed as a thoroughly disreputable fraud, the Schiff refuses to accept responsibility for nourishing the wild accounts of treasonous acts that never occurred.
The Editorial board of the Boston Herald best described the damage that Adam Schiff’s dishonesty has caused when it wrote, "The effect was to frighten and alarm millions of Americans, sowing division between neighbors, toxifying our discourse and raising anxieties."
That is the disgraceful legacy of Adam Schiff.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/opinion/adam-schiffs-disgraceful-legacy/ar-AAQCE19?ocid=chromentpnews
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
12 November, 2021
Nazis on the beach: How Spain’s Costa Blanca became a safe haven for SS officers after war
Not sure of the truth of this. It could be a fantasy. The Argentina refuge is well established but Spain?
The Costa Blanca is today almost a second colony for British expatriates and tourists but a new film has revealed how this part of Spain was once the favoured refuge of Nazis hiding from the reach of law.
The Substitute tells the story of how after the Second World War former SS officers used Spain as their personal fiefdom, helped in no small measure by General Franco’s sympathetic regime.
Even after the Spanish dictator’s death in 1975, the Spanish secret service and police ensured that the country remained a safe haven for loyal followers of Adolf Hitler who were hunted by international prosecutors and Mossad, the Israeli secret service.
Though General Franco’s sympathetic attitude to the Third Reich and its loyal servants has been documented in a number of books, few Spanish films have dared tackle this subject – until now.
Oscar Aibar, director of The Substitute, only sought to tell this story after a chance encounter in a bar in Calpe, a resort in southeastern Spain where British expatriates make up nearly 14 per cent of the population.
“Ten or 15 years ago, I spent my summer in Calpe. There were photos of famous people who had eaten there on a bar wall. There was one of six people in SS jackets. I asked if there was a film being made and they said “no, no, these are the Germans from Denia, a village nearby’,” he told The Independent.
“I became interested. The mayor of Denia told me they used to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, they all wore their uniforms from the Second World War and played Wagner.”
Mr Aibar, whose film has received critical acclaim in Spain, said when he started research on the film four years ago he spoke to two former agents from Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.
They related two plots to kidnap wanted ex-Nazis who were hiding out in Spain.
“In 1967 during the Six-Day War, Mossad believed that an expert in missile technology lived in (southeastern) Spain. They tried to kidnap him but this failed,” Mr Aibar said.
The other operation was to try and capture Dr Aribert Heim, the so-called “Dr Death” of the Mauthausen concentration camp who injected prisoners with unknown substances.
In 1982, when democracy had returned to Spain, Mossad tried to kidnap Heim who was also believed to be hiding out in Spain, Mr Aibar said.
“Heim liked to dive and to go sea fishing. They wanted to kidnap him at sea but it failed.”
Heim was later said to have escaped to Uruguay where he was reputed to have set up a clinic. In 2005, Spanish police mounted an operation to arrest Heim after it was reported that he was living in the Costa Brava. Reports suggest he died in Egypt in 1992, but no trace of his body has been found.
“For any fascists in Spain, these men were like rock stars for them,” said Mr Aibar.
These stories of the Nazis hiding under the Spanish sun had all the elements for the thriller which later became The Substitute.
The film tells the story of a police officer who settles on the Costa Blanca hoping for a quiet life but who comes across a web of former Nazis.
It recreates how even in the early 1980s Spain was struggling with the forces of Francoism even after the dictator’s death as the officer tries – and fails – to bring the wanted men to justice.
Among the best known refugees from the Third Reich in Spain was Otto Skorzeny, an SS lieutenant colonel who took part in an 1943 operation to rescue the deposed Italian Benito Mussolini from the partisans.
He escaped from the Allies after the Second World War and settled in Madrid where he was allegedly later recruited by Mossad to work for them. He later died in 1975 from lung cancer.
Leon Degrelle, known as the “Belgian Fuhrer” who led a pro-Nazi party in his own country and served with the SS, escaped to Spain in 1945.
Under the protection of the Franco regime, he lived under the name José León Ramírez Reina, until his death in Malaga in 1994.
Less well known is Clarita Stauffer, who was born in Madrid to a German family before the Second World War. She helped Nazis hide in Franco’s Spain.
Peter Besas details in his 2015 book Nazis in Madrid how Stauffer would help provide fugitives with new clothes, jobs and false identity papers.
She was said to have helped Walter Kutschmann, a former Gestapo officer who was wanted for the massacre of 2,000 Jews in Poland in 1941, to escape arrest. He was later arrested in 1985 in Buenos Aires and died in hospital in Argentina the following year.
*******************************************
In Midst of Drug Pricing Debacle, Americans Are Choosing An Alternative Path to Traditional Medical Insurance
As tends to be the way Congress handles things, the lowering of prescription drug prices as been rather slow as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tries to corral members. But Congress isn't the only one getting involved in the issue of prescription drug prices.
At the start of the month, Solidarity HealthShare announced that they are partnering with online search tools from Drexi to offer sharing with prescriptions. They are the first, and currently only, health share that offers sharing in prescriptions and medications, according to Solidarity HealthShare President, Chris Faddis. CEO Bradley Hahn pointed out that "[m]embers can now receive prescriptions that are far below industry average prices."
Health share ministries, including those like Solidarity HealthShare, are also particularly attractive for Americans who want to be at peace knowing that their medical care costs will not go towards funding medical procedures that they find morally or religiously objectionable, such as abortion or surgery to change one's sex.
One might even find a sense of community with their health insurance in turning to Solidarity HealthShare, as opposed to a more traditional health insurance company, as Faddis and Hahn emphasized in a conversation with Townhall. For example, members can see where their costs are going, such as how families are helping each other out. They expanded to the public about six years ago, and have about 10,000 families as part of the program.
When asked how he sells Solidarity to members, Hahn mentioned that "the health care system is broken, and there's got to be other solutions in there." He explained that when it comes to this "better solution" they aim for, it amounts to "a fair and just pricing approach to healthcare," with members knowing that they "joiningg a community" and that they "have an advocate," so that they will be "protected" by Solidarity, which will "be by at side" while they "try to get fair and reasonable pricing."
He also emphasized that members also pay a discount.
What sets Solidarity apart from other, more traditional health insurance companies, is the "transparency" prescription drug costs as well, which is something Hahn explained to Townhall they really "address head on" so as to provide "a comprehensive solution for our members."
Previously, Solidarity shared in the cost of incidental prescription costs, such as antibiotics. It's through the new platform that they're able to offer cost sharing with recurring prescription drugs.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2021/11/10/solidarity-health-share-n2598916
************************************************
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton ripped President Joe Biden’s remark that labeled Kyle Rittenhouse a “white supremacist”
Cotton shared the comments during a “Fox & Friends First” interview Thursday morning.
“I want to focus on what Joe Biden said last year, which is calling this young man a white supremacist based on a few seconds of video,” Cotton said.
“As I often say, when there’s a shooting like this, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions based on some video circulating on social media. You should allow all the facts to be collected and make a reasoned judgment,” he added.
Cotton also commented that Biden’s critical response has become the “go-to” move of Democrats.
“When Joe Biden called Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist last year, it really was just the go-to move of the Democrats,” Cotton said. “They do this all the time when they’re losing an argument on the merits,” the senator argued.
Cotton then applied the attitude by Democrats to the left’s response to school board issues where parents are viewed as enemies for protesting policies like closures or critical race theory.
“They don’t like parents going to school boards to protest what their kids are learning or school closures, so those parents are called racists,” he said.
“They don’t like that Virginians elected Republicans last week, they condemn Virginia voters as racist,” Cotton added.
The senator argued Democrats even apply the same approach to the Constitution when it fits their agenda. “They don’t like the United States Constitution or the norms and the customs of the United States Senate, so they call it racist,” Cotton said.
Cotton noted the name-calling is a losing approach and said it’s “not a sign” of a strong party.
“They are constantly losing arguments with the American people, and then they just revert to name-calling towards their opponents. It’s not a sign of a party that is strong or healthy,” he said.
*****************************************
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s Black Privilege
When NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar retired from basketball in 1989, his farewell tour included lengthy standing ovations and gifts ranging from framed jerseys to a Persian rug to a yacht emblazoned with “Captain Skyhook.” But some fans, no doubt many of them, were left to wonder why the NBA was honoring this man, given that he’d spent his entire career being a petulant jerk. Had the league run out of humans?
Apparently, the Abdul-Jabbar apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Kareem’s son Adam, 29, was sentenced Tuesday in Southern California to six months in jail. His crime? He stabbed his 60-year-old neighbor seven times with a hunting knife. Prosecutors said the victim, Ray Winsor, was stabbed in the back of the head, suffered a fractured skull, and nearly died of blood loss after collapsing outside of the emergency room.
As Fox 5 San Diego reports:
Abdul-Jabbar pleaded guilty to three counts of assault with a deadly weapon and a count of carrying a dirk or dagger, all felonies, while admitting sentencing enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury on the victim. He could have faced up to nine years and eight months in prison if convicted as charged at trial, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.
Six months for seven stabs with a hunting knife? Is it just us, or does that sentence seem a bit, oh, light? What’s more, as part of his plea deal, Abdul-Jabbar’s sentence was stayed until January 7, which the DA’s office said will allow him to apply for home confinement instead of incarceration.
“This slap on the wrist is an absolute miscarriage of justice,” said District Attorney Todd Spitzer after the sentencing. “This man nearly bled to death in front of the emergency room doors after being stabbed so violently over and over that his skull was fractured.”
Wow. We’re not sure whether it’s “rich privilege” or “black privilege” or a combination of both, but that’s some serious privilege. Abdul-Jabbar must’ve had a sterling legal team in his corner, because there’s no way a public defender could’ve worked out such a sweet plea deal. One wonders whether his dad’s name, or his millions, helped him here.
One also wonders whether his son’s stunningly light sentence will cause Kareem to reconsider his comments from last year, when, at the height of the George Floyd riots, he wrote in an LA Times op-ed: “The black community is used to the institutional racism inherent in education, the justice system, and jobs. … We die at a significantly higher rate than whites, are the first to lose our jobs, and watch helplessly as Republicans try to keep us from voting. Just as the slimy underbelly of institutional racism is being exposed, it feels like hunting season is open on blacks.”
Poor Kareem. Especially if he doesn’t understand that blacks and whites both die at the exact same rate: 100%.
To be fair to young Abdul-Jabbar, though, residents in the area described him as a “good kid” and were shocked by the then-alleged violence. The 6-foot-8-inch lad even walked over to the victim’s house the next day and apologized to his wife.
Sorry about the multiple stab wounds, ma'am. He just kinda caught me at a bad time.
And isn’t that the way it always works? They’re all such nice young men until they pull out the ol’ hunting knife and start stabbing away at their elderly neighbors. As Winsor himself put it: “I sort of got on him because the lady who takes care of him is 83 years old, he doesn’t do anything for her, and it just bums me out. She’s in a walker taking her trash cans down.”
According to Winsor, he started to walk away from Abdul-Jabbar and “felt punching.” As it turns out, then, the assailant in this case isn’t just any thug; he’s a backstabbing thug. “I thought he punched me a couple of times,” said Winsor, “but then I saw blood.”
So the old white guy nearly got stabbed to death in a dispute about garbage cans — a dispute about the proper treatment of the elderly.
Next time, maybe he’ll check his privilege and mind his own business
https://patriotpost.us/articles/84141-kareem-abdul-jabbars-black-privilege-2021-11-11
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
11 November 2021
American Medical Association goes Communist
Pushes CRT and warns the word 'vulnerable' is offensive, while blasting individualism and pushing Marxism
The American Medical Association has come under fire for publishing an 'Orwellian' guide to 'equity' that promotes critical race theory and pushes Marxism.
AMA bosses published Advancing Health Equity on October 28, complete with a list of 'problematic' words physicians should stop using such as 'vulnerable,' 'high risk' and 'minority.' The document also criticizes meritocracy and individualism.
Bizarrely, in multiple instances the suggested replacements still include the words deemed offensive. Instead of calling a patient or patients 'vulnerable' and 'marginalized', medics have been told to use the phrase 'groups that have been historically marginalized or made vulnerable.'
The 54-page guide argues that physicians are obligated to eliminate 'health inequities' by considering their language and the political circumstances behind certain groups, rather than focusing on individuals.
It explicitly references critical race theory on page six, describing the controversial set of beliefs as part of a 'rich tradition of work' that 'gives us a foundation for an alternative narrative, one that challenges the status quo, one that moves health care towards justice.'
The document has caused waves of consternation online, given the AMA's position as one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States. It has 240,000 members - all physicians and medical students - and raises around $330m annually in revenue, with $20m spent each year on lobbying.
Matt Bai, a columnist for the Washington Post, called the AMA guide 'Orwellian' in a piece titled 'Paging Dr. Orwell. The American Medical Association takes on the politics of language.'
He wrote, 'Let's leave aside for the moment the obvious question of why it's the AMA's business to lecture anyone about what counts as acceptable language. As far as I know, the folks at Fowler's Modern English Usage have never issued a guide to performing thyroid surgery.'
Its guide also describes Marxism under the headings 'class conflict' and 'class consciousness'. Those terms attack 'those who own and control capital'. The guide goes onto highlight 'the recognition by workers of their unity as a social class in opposition to capitalists and to capitalism itself,' with the seemingly admiring tone coming despite the AMA's annual nine-figure revenue total.
The woke guide goes on to describe individualism as 'problematic,' because it 'obscures the dynamics of racism.'
Explaining its multiple instances of language policing, the guide states , 'Given the deep divides that exist between groups in the United States, understanding and empathy can be extremely challenging for many because of an inability to really 'walk a mile in another's shoes' in a racialized sense. Collectively, we have an opportunity and obligation to overcome these fissures and create spaces for understanding and healing.'
The AMA guide also touts critical race theory as a means of reaching 'equity' in the medical field and cites the organization Race Forward and a document the advocacy group published on how to defend CRT, titled, 'Guide to Counter-Narrating the Attacks on Critical Race Theory.'
'Equity' has become a new buzzword closely-linked to CRT. It states that equality - when everyone is given the same opportunity - is unfair and persecutes marginalized groups, and instead touts 'equity' to ensure everyone reaches the same outcome.
The AMA lists commonly-used phrases like 'white paper,' 'blacklist' and 'blackmail' and refers to them as 'terms in the English language that indicate white privilege.' It says to reconsider the need for phrases that use white or black in the name and instead refer to them by the literal meaning, like calling a blacklist a 'deny list.'
It stipulates that 'Black' should be capped-up in reference to race. It continues that while it currently also uses an uppercase W for 'White,' when discussing race, 'pressure may mount for this to change,' in an apparent indication some at the AMA wish for 'white' to receive a small 'w.'
The AMA's guide comes amid contentious culture wars over critical race theory in education and concerns that 'woke' ideology is encroaching on professional spaces as seemingly cut-and-dry as the medical field, for example.
Meanwhile, Eric Miyamoto, whose describes himself in his profile as a pathologist from California, said that the guide does not reflect the medical field and wrote, 'The AMA does not represent me or the majority of physicians. They are controlled by Big Pharma & the Democratic agenda. American Medical Association pushes pro-critical race theory materials in 'Health Equity' guide.'
AMA President Gerald Harmon wrote in a blog post accompanying the guide that 'As with science, our language must change and evolve over time based on new revelations and a deeper understanding.'
He added, 'The dominant narratives in American medicine and society reflect the values and interests of the historically more privileged socioeconomic groups—white, heterosexual, able-bodied, cisgendered, male, wealthy, English-speaking, Christian, U.S.-born.'
'These narratives have been deeply rooted in value systems and ingrained in cultural practices that have given preference to the interests of society's most powerful social groups. But they can also be wielded as a weapon to oppress others,' Harmon added.
He also referred to adjectives that he says dehumanize patients by 'reducing them to their diagnosis,' like calling a patient a 'diabetic' instead of a 'patient with diabetes,' and warned against calling groups 'vulnerable' to a chronic disease instead of acknowledging the societal power structures that put such groups at a disadvantage.
The guide also features nearly a full page at its beginning of a 'Land and Labor Acknowledgement,' which lists the Native American tribes that lived in Chicago – where the AMA is headquartered – and adds that the organizations recognizes 'the extraction of brilliance, energy and life for labor forced upon millions of people of African descent for more than 400 years.'
Critical race theory has become a hot-button topic in politics and widely criticized by Republicans and some Democrats, while touted by progressives.
Georgia Republican Representative Jody Hice shared the AMA guide in a tweet that read, 'Democrats and the liberal media have the audacity to gaslight the American people by claiming #CriticalRaceTheory doesn't exist — all while they shove it down our throats. #CRT is racist and incompatible with the American dream, and we must reject it!'
One-quarter of voters in Virginia's race for governor cited the CRT debate as the single most important factor on their minds when they cast their votes, according to a Fox News voter analysis. Among those voters, 71% voted for Republican Glenn Youngkin, who won the election.
*********************************************
Proposed Bill Would Require Drunk Drivers to Pay Child Support if Parent is Killed
A proposed bill in Missouri would make offenders pay child support if they kill a parent while driving drunk.
The bill was introduced by Cecilia Williams and named "Bentley's Law" after her 5-year-old grandson, following the death of her son at the hand of a drunk driver. "The main aspect of Bentley's law is financial responsibility by the offender," she declared.
KMOV reports:
Williams began working on new the legislation that targets drunk drivers, after an accident in April on Highway 30 in Byrnes Mill that claimed the life of three loved ones. Her son, Cordell Williams, his fiancé Lacey Newton and their 4-month old son, Cordell Williams II, were killed when the car they were in was rear-ended and went off the road and crashed.
David Thurby, of Fenton, is charged with three counts of DWI death of another. His blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit, and according to court documents, he told a trooper he'd had "seven shots of Crown and water."
Williams is now raising the couple's two other children, 3-year old Mason and 5-year old Bentley, whom the legislation is named after. She wants to see a new law that would require drunk drivers who cause the death of a parent or parents to pay child support to a surviving spouse or the relatives raising the victim's children, until the children turn 18-years old.
"They deserve to get that compensation because you're talking about raising children that their parents are no longer here," Williams explained.
Missouri State Representative Mike Henderson is set to introduce the bill at the next legislating session. He said, "I do firmly believe that these people who are driving drunk and take away the parents of these children, there's got to be some help for these children. It comes down to that."
According to Williams, a Tennessee state lawmaker is also planning to introduce the bill. Perhaps it will take off nationwide.
I think this is a perfectly plausible bill. Drunk driver often walk away from the scene of an accident, while the person they hit aren't always as fortunate. If they kill a parent due to their own selfish actions, then they should most certainly be responsible for helping to care for the children left behind.
************************************
Oklahoma court overturns $465 million opioid judgment against J&J
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a $465 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit by the state alleging the drugmaker fueled the opioid epidemic through the deceptive marketing of painkillers.
The decision marked the latest setback for states and local governments pursuing lawsuits to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for a drug abuse crisis the U.S. government says led to nearly 500,000 opioid overdose deaths over two decades.
The court ruled https://tmsnrt.rs/3bSrnrj that the state's public nuisance law does not extend to the manufacturing, marketing and sales of prescription opioids and that a trial judge went too far in holding the company liable under it.
"However grave the problem of opioid addition is in Oklahoma, public nuisance law does not provide a remedy for this harm," Justice James Winchester wrote.
New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J in a statement said it sympathized with those affected by the epidemic but that the court "appropriately and categorically rejected the misguided and unprecedented expansion of the public nuisance law."
A spokesperson for Oklahoma Attorney General John O'Connor did not respond to requests for comment. His office had on appeal sought $9.3 billion from J&J to fund treatment and other programs to address the epidemic.
The Oklahoma lawsuit was the first of the more than 3,300 lawsuits over the opioid crisis against pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors and pharmacies to go to trial.
The trial pre-dated an agreement this year by J&J and the three largest U.S. drug distributors - McKesson Corp, Cardinal Health Inc and AmerisourceBergen - to pay up to $26 billion to settle thousands of opioid-related cases against them.
PUBLIC NUISANCE LAWS
Tuesday's decision came days after a similar trial in California pitting several large counties against J&J and three other drugmakers resulted in a tentative ruling in the companies' favor.
Cleveland County District Judge Thad Balkman ruled in August 2019 that J&J had engaged in misleading marketing about the benefits of painkillers Duragesic and Nucynta, and concluded that their addictive risks caused a public nuisance.
J&J had argued that there was scientific support for the marketing claims and said that Duragesic and Nucynta accounted for a tiny fraction of the opioids sold in Oklahoma.
The company, which no longer promotes the drugs, also argued the state's public nuisance law should not apply.
In Tuesday's ruling, Winchester agreed that the law only applied to discrete, localized problems involving criminal or property-based conflicts, not policy problems.
"The district court's expansion of public nuisance law allows courts to manage public policy matters that should be dealt with by the legislative and executive branches," Winchester wrote.
Paul Geller, a plaintiffs' lawyer at the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd who helped draft the $26 billion nationwide settlement proposal, said the Oklahoma ruling could lead to increased participation in the settlement.
"Perhaps the realization that, despite the gravity of the epidemic, trials are inherently risky and appellate courts are largely unpredictable will ultimately help increase participation," he said.
Eight states have declined to sign-onto the deal with J&J, which agreed to pay up to $5 billion. Local governments in states that did join the have until January to sign-on. The ultimate payout is contingent on participation.
The Oklahoma ruling, coupled with the California decision, could prompt states and localities who have not backed the proposed nationwide settlement to re-think their positions, said Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, a University of Georgia law professor.
"To the extent folks are on the fence about going into that settlement, this definitely changes the risk profile," Burch said.
*************************************
Australia: Zoe's Law bill introduced to NSW Parliament to punish crimes that cause loss of unborn child
A bill proposing harsher penalties for crimes that result in the loss of an unborn baby has been introduced to the NSW Parliament.
Zoe's law has been controversial among pro-choice groups, who have argued it could be used to weaken abortion rights
The legislation, known as Zoe's Law, has been 12 years in the making.
It was first proposed after a drunk driver hit Brodie Donegan, who was 32 weeks pregnant, and caused the loss of her foetus, Zoe, on Christmas Day in 2009.
"The police came and spoke to me about the charges that would be laid, and I just didn't understand how my daughter, who didn't survive, wasn't being accounted for in the charges, that she would just be listed in my injuries," she said.
"We wanted a separate bill to reflect and acknowledge the loss of the child rather than just be counted as an injury to the mother."
Under current laws, the loss of a foetus through a criminal act is considered grievous bodily harm to a pregnant woman. There is no separate offence for the unborn baby.
Since 2014, there have been multiple attempts to introduce Zoe's Law to parliament without success but today, during the second reading of the bill, NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman said he was confident the current iteration struck the right balance.
"Each amendment has been carefully developed to take into account the range of views held by stakeholders and the community," he said.
"They acknowledge the gravity of the loss of a foetus without abrogating ... the rights of the pregnant woman."
He apologised to Ms Donegan for the time it had taken for the law to be introduced.
"As a legislator, as a minister, I am part of the collective responsibility for the delay. I apologise," he said.
Zoe's Law has been controversial among pro-choice groups, who have argued it could be used to weaken abortion rights and affect access to late-term abortions.
Mr Speakman said that was not possible in the bill's current form.
"This bill does not in any way affect a woman's ability to obtain a lawful abortion under existing NSW legislation," he said.
The most significant parts of the bill propose adding two offences to the Crimes Act, which each add up to three years onto a sentence where a woman has been killed or inflicted with grievous bodily harm and loses her pregnancy.
In both cases, the foetus must have reached at least 20 weeks gestation or weigh 400 grams.
Other proposed amendments to the bill would allow the name of the unborn baby to be included on an indictment when charges are laid.
They would also allow families to claim funeral costs and include a provision for family members of a woman who has lost a foetus of any gestational age as a result of a criminal act to provide victim impact statements.
Ms Donegan said prior to the the driver being sentenced, she had been the only one allowed to provide a victim impact statement to the courts.
"It's a loss that affects everyone in the family," she said.
She said she hoped to finally get some closure on a difficult chapter in her life.
"I think I'll rest a bit easier just knowing there's something there to help anybody who might find themselves in the same situation."
Mr Speakman said the NSW government was also developing a scheme to provide bereavement payments to families who lose a foetus due to third party criminal acts.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-10/zoes-law-bill-introduced-to-nsw-parliament/100608538
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
10 November 2021
New Inflation Numbers Are Here and They’re Really Bad
At 8.6% pa, people's savings will rapidly become worthless. It is wholesale theft caused by government over-spending. And it looks like getting worse with current big spending plans
New wholesale inflation numbers from September are in and once again prove the rapid increase in prices for everyday items isn't "transitory" as President Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed.
Wholesale prices rose by 8.6 percent compared to September 2020, matching the largest increase on record.
"The Labor Department reported Tuesday that its producer price index — which measures inflation before it hits consumers — rose 0.6% last month from September, pushed higher by surging gasoline prices. Excluding volatile food and energy prices, wholesale inflation was up 0.4% in October from September and 6.8% from a year ago," the Associated Press reports. "More than 60% of the September-October increase in overall producer prices was caused by a 1.2% increase in the price of wholesale goods as opposed to services. A 6.7% jump in wholesale gasoline prices helped drive goods prices up."
In recent weeks, Biden administration officials have essentially told Americans to get used to price increases and that there's nothing they can do to mitigate costs.
****************************************
Conservatives Are Happy, Leftists Are Angry
This shows up repeatedly in surveys
The New York Times recently featured an opinion analyzing the happiness levels of conservatives and leftists. The headline says a lot: “Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals. Discuss.” There is definitely plenty to discuss.
Showing extensive social science review over a long period of time, the studies reviewed by Thomas Edsall found that one’s beliefs, moral compass, and subsequent actions determine an individual’s level of happiness and unhappiness. Several of the studies even found that there is a sense of accomplishment from one’s own work and that secular attitudes and habits have loosened the tight knit fabric of our society.
Edsall intellectually meandered over his own opinion that conservatives are happier because they are protected from the inequities of society. He also credited social inequities for leftists’ low scores on self-directed goals, ability to adapt, and personal responsibility and achievement.
Though mainstream and politically correct for the most part, the editorial did have one significant revelation. Edsall observed that this “wide range of scholars” may have missed a broader question of “whether liberals and conservative function on fundamentally different moral planes.”
Without knowing it, Edsall hit upon a brilliant truth: Those on the political Left approach life on a fundamentally different level of morality than those on the political Right.
First, the political Left has redefined life itself. The militant cry for abortion on demand, with some even asserting that life’s value is based on viability, would permit some of our most vulnerable to be in jeopardy on both ends of the age spectrum. The embrace of gender fluidity also discredits the beautiful uniqueness of each human and serves as an absolute rejection of any belief in a Creator.
This foundation of secularism — worshipping Me, Myself, and I — starkly contrasts with the respect of life, living a purposeful life beyond self, and understanding that our best days can be ahead … not lost to some revisions of our past.
For more than three decades, Dr. Carol Dweck, professor of psychology at Stanford University, has researched the study of growth mindset versus fixed mindset, and her studies are accepted and embraced in education, business, and high-performing teams. Reinforcing self-esteem with praise, deserved or not, is characteristic of a fixed mindset. Growth mindset praises children for their hard work in order to encourage them to pursue challenges and develop their skills. The latter group is heralded, even by Harvard Business Review, in the best classrooms and the best boardrooms.
Those with a growth mindset embrace risks and challenges and work to avoid failure. Believing that greater effort will result in greater achievement, mastery, and attainment, those with a growth mindset embrace challenge, view others’ success as inspirations, and accept feedback to be constructive for improvement.
The latter group, in contrast, is resistant, is threatened by the successes of others, takes feedback as criticism, and doesn’t equate greater effort with greater attainment.
These two mindsets line up nicely with the morality levels of the Right versus the Left.
Along with redefining life, leftists tend to deify fairness and shift blame instead of encouraging hard work and persistence. All of culture right now tends to use the fixed mindset or leftist mentality to tell our future generations that they are just fine and don’t have to work for their privileges. We should not be surprised to see little effort in schools or occupations, with poor performance and giving up easily.
In this worldview, it’s always someone else’s fault. Rewriting American history, dividing humanity into oppressed and oppressors (think Critical Race Theory), and blaming today’s problems on past events are all examples of this mindset.
In contrast, the political Right features a work ethic of grit and growth coupled with a worldview that embraces the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Does all of this equate with happiness or unhappiness?
Subjective metrics are difficult to measure. However, it’s not difficult to see that ideological differences evident in partisan politics are indeed associated with one’s moral values and worldview.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/84045-conservatives-are-happy-leftists-are-angry-2021-11-09
************************************
President Joe Biden returned the morning of Nov. 3 to a nation that no longer supports him or his party
Virginia, which he carried 55% to 44% in 2020, has elected Republican Glenn Youngkin as governor, Republicans for lieutenant governor and attorney general, and recaptured a majority in the House of Delegates.
Even more startlingly, in New Jersey, which Biden carried 57% to 41%, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is currently leading Republican Jack Ciattarelli by about 29,000 votes, with a few more to be counted. New Jersey, as part of the New York and Philadelphia media markets, has long been a low-information state politically, and Murphy seems headed to the 50.5% he’s been averaging in polls, with the rest all going to his little-known ex-legislator challenger.
Some Democrats did win. Eric Adams was easily elected mayor of New York City (76% Biden), and Democrats captured a state House district (population 8,333) in Maine.
But that’s about all the good news for the party that one year ago won the Electoral College by 42,000 popular votes and congressional majorities of 51-50 and 222-213. Geographically, Republican wins ranged from a Supreme Court seat in marginal Pennsylvania to a pickup in a 72% Hispanic Texas state House district (population 164,436) that is 72% Hispanic to a city council seat in immigrant-heavy Brooklyn and Queens.
The Democrats’ “progressive” wing fared especially poorly. Voters in Minneapolis (86% Biden), where George Floyd died in May 2020, rejected a ballot proposition to replace the police force with a “public safety” department by 56% to 44%. So much for defunding the police.
And in Buffalo (80% Biden), socialist Democratic primary winner India Walton was beaten by write-in votes for the incumbent mayor she had defeated for the nomination, 59% to 41%. So much for socialism.
The results in Virginia and elsewhere are, as Cook Political’s David Wasserman tweeted at 9:34 p.m. Eastern, “consistent w/ a political environment in which Republicans would comfortably take back both the House and the Senate in 2022.”
In an environment where Donald Trump is no longer the central figure, despite Terry McAuliffe’s constant mentions of him, Youngkin managed to improve on Trump’s numbers with noncollege-graduate white voters while making substantial inroads in affluent suburbs.
Republican victories came despite—actually, because of—two supposedly disabling trends. One is that turnout was up 27% over the last governor race in Virginia, and at least 11% in New Jersey. The rise was 30% to 40% in exurban areas heavy with young families, but only 10% or less in central cities with many minorities and hip singles.
The other trend is that the Virginia race was fought out over cultural issues. Youngkin seized on McAuliffe’s Sept. 29 debate statement, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” That’s holy writ among teachers union members and school administrators, who believe they have special expertise in enlightening the children of backward parents.
But in the Virginia exit poll, 84% said that parents should have a lot of or some say in what schools teach, and only 13% said little or none. And after teachers unions shut down schools for months (a full year in Fairfax County, the nation’s 11th-largest school district), parents have gotten a better view of the sexually explicit materials that supposed experts have put in the hands of even grade schoolers.
Similarly, Youngkin was not afraid to criticize public schools’ use of materials championing critical race theory—the idea that whites are irremediably racist. Children should learn the good and the bad about our history, he said, and to judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
That predictably prompted charges of racism. Barack Obama, campaigning for McAuliffe, insisted, “We don’t have time to be wasting on these phony, trumped-up culture wars.” Youngkin, he said, was avoiding “serious problems that actually affect serious people.”
But for parents, the education of their children is a serious matter, not a “phony, trumped-up” issue. More generally, cultural issues are more important to Americans, on both sides of the cultural divide, than economics. Although Biden Democrats have argued their economic policies would help the little guy, an ABC/Ipsos poll found that only 25% believe his reconciliation bill would help people like them, while 32% say they would hurt.
That leaves nearly half, 43%, not seeing much difference. A similarly pervasive skepticism explains polls showing majorities against passing Obamacare in 2010 and against repealing Obamacare in 2018. In contrast, attitudes on cultural issues are more firmly rooted in personal experience and moral principles.
Liberals and progressives are vulnerable on cultural issues because their search for the latest underdog cause to champion, while sometimes producing results widely accepted, sometimes puts them in lasting opposition to large majorities of voters. That’s what happened in Virginia. The advice of Democrats’ MSNBC and CNN cheering squads—to double down on accusing voters of racism—is not helpful.
So, for the moment at least … the nation Biden returned to in the wee hours of the morning on Nov. 3 no longer supports him or his party.
*****************************************
The Jobs Report Actually Isn’t Great
President Joe Biden used the October jobs report to brag about his supposed accomplishments on Friday. In reality, the report was not nearly as encouraging as Biden would have people believe.
According to Yahoo, there were some reasons to be excited about the report. It said a total of 531,000 workers were added to nonfarm payrolls in October. Unemployment also fell to 4.6 percent, the lowest number since the coronavirus pandemic began.
Eager for a much-needed win, Biden took the opportunity to brag about himself in a news briefing Friday morning.
“Americans are getting back to work. Our economy is starting to work for more Americans,” he said. “Thanks to the economic plan we put through in Congress earlier this year and a successful vaccine deployment, America continues to add jobs at a record pace.”
While it is true that 531,000 more people are on payrolls than a month ago, Yahoo said the number was misleading. That is because there are still millions fewer Americans employed today than before the pandemic.
“The ongoing decline in the unemployment rate and strong wage growth suggest labor market slack is diminishing rapidly,” Bank of America analysts wrote, according to Yahoo.
“That said, there are still 4.2 million fewer people employed today than in February 2020 and the labor force participation rate was unchanged at 61.6%.”
Even with his so-called “historic” progress, Biden still faces an unemployment rate that is a full 1.1 percentage points higher than it was in February 2020.
The numbers also suggest that Biden’s progress is largely still a recovery from an artificial downturn created by COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdowns.
In order to claim his economy is better than former President Donald Trump’s, Biden would have to improve upon Trump’s pre-pandemic numbers, not just get back to where things were.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
9 November 2021
The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial
In another place and time, Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn’t be on trial. Instead, he’d be back in school like any other 18-year-old. Or in college, or working at his job. And he’d be hailed as a hero — as an American kid who took up arms on behalf of a desperate community, and took a stand against anarchy, mayhem, and wanton destruction of private property.
Today, though, Rittenhouse is on trial for his life in a Kenosha, Wisconsin, courtroom. He’s charged with six crimes related to the events of August 25, 2020, the third night of a Black Lives Matter protest-turned-riot that had already wrecked the city and its downtown businesses.
Those crimes? First-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, and misdemeanor possession of a weapon by a person under age 18. Cumulatively, they’re more than enough to put him away for life.
The trial is a litmus test for a deeply divided nation, and its outcome will have a monumental impact on those who believe they’re free to riot and destroy private property, and those who believe they have a right to protect that property and, if necessary, to defend themselves with deadly force.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, was an aspiring law enforcement officer. He was a lifeguard, had trained in advanced life support, and had done hundreds of hours of volunteer work in the Antioch community. In Kenosha, he carried an AR-style rifle and a first aid kit. Earlier that day, he’d helped remove graffiti from the walls of a local high school, and he’d befriended a local businessman, a car dealer desperate for help defending his property against the rioters.
Did Rittenhouse make a mistake by getting involved in the unrest of Kenosha, the town where the criminal Jacob Blake had disobeyed a policeman’s lawful order and reached for a knife, thereby forcing that cop to shoot him multiple times in self-defense? Yes. And he’d probably agree were he asked that question. Did he make a mistake by toting a semiautomatic rifle across state lines as a 17-year-old? Yes. But when he shot those three attackers, did he believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm? For those who understand the facts of the case, it’s all but impossible to argue otherwise.
Rittenhouse crossed the border from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha, which is about 20 miles away. He brought with him an AR-style weapon — a weapon that a friend had bought for him because, as a 17-year-old, Rittenhouse wasn’t legally allowed to own it or carry it in public.
It’s difficult to appreciate the charged and chaotic environment that Rittenhouse found himself in that night, but this 11-minute video, which was produced by his defense attorney from available footage that night, gives us a sense of it. It also tells a more complete story of the two separate deadly altercations than the brief, cherry-picked footage of the mainstream media reports. This 23-minute video, compiled by The Washington Post, provides plenty of additional background into the lives of Rittenhouse and one of the two men he killed. Both videos contain graphic language and footage.
Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, had been released earlier that day, August 25, from a psychiatric hospital in nearby Milwaukee. Rosenbaum had engaged in arson and rioting that evening, and he might’ve mistaken Rittenhouse for a guard who’d earlier put out one of his dumpster fires with a fire extinguisher. The deeply troubled Rosenbaum’s drug abuse and his multiple prior convictions — which included sexual misconduct with a minor and crimes against children — have no bearing on the case. But his pursuit of Rittenhouse and his threats to kill him most definitely do.
Just before midnight, Rittenhouse was being chased by a maniacal Rosenbaum across a parking lot when he heard gunshots nearby. Fearing he himself may have been under fire, Rittenhouse spun to face Rosenbaum and fired four shots at him as he reached for the barrel of his weapon. One of those shots was fatal.
Shortly thereafter, as a frightened Rittenhouse was trying to make his way out of the area, a group of Rosenbaum’s fellow rioters began chasing him. Rittenhouse, running down the middle of the street, tripped and fell, and was quickly set upon by the mob. First, an unidentified man — the luckiest man in Kenosha — attempted a flying kick at Rittenhouse’s head. Rittenhouse fired his weapon at the man but missed, and the man ran away.
Then came Anthony Huber, 26, whose priors include domestic abuse, use of a dangerous weapon, battery, strangulation and suffocation, and 2nd-degree reckless endangerment. Huber swung his skateboard edgewise at Rittenhouse’s head while he was still down on the ground. Rittenhouse fired once, hitting Huber with a fatal shot to the chest.
And then came Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, who had a phone in one hand and a pistol in the other. He appeared to put his hands up as if surrendering, then he lunged at Rittenhouse, who fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the right biceps. Grosskreutz told a friend later that his “only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him.”
Rittenhouse, having defended himself against his attackers, then got up and continued his retreat, eventually making his way to a police line to surrender. The Kenosha cops, though, were not aware of his involvement in what had taken place, told Rittenhouse to keep away, and he eventually returned home and turned himself in to Antioch police. He’s since been called a far-right radical, a vigilante, a militia member, and a white supremacist by the mainstream media. There’s no proof of any of that — indeed, there’s a conspicuous absence of it.
Were Rittenhouse’s actions reckless? Probably so. The situation in which he put himself quickly overwhelmed him. But did he act reasonably in self-defense when a man who’d threatened to kill him kept pursuing him, even as shots were being fired nearby? And did he act reasonably in self-defense when one man tried to take his head off with a skateboard and grab his weapon, and when another man, brandishing a pistol, also tried to take his rifle? Those are the questions that will determine the course of Rittenhouse’s life.
Prominent Colorado attorney and author Andrew Branca believes Rittenhouse should be acquitted based on the facts. Then again, he noted that the high-profile case is not entirely predictable, adding, “Innocent people get convicted all the time.”
As the Associated Press reported, “Rittenhouse’s motives for being in Kenosha are irrelevant to whether he had a legal right to shoot when threatened, some legal experts say. What matters is what happened in the minutes surrounding the shooting.”
Of Rittenhouse’s decision to go to the rioting area to help business owners, Branca put it this way: “If I had a 17-year-old-son, I would not encourage him to engage in this kind of behavior. But poor judgment is not a crime.” He noted that the defendant has a “strong case for self-defense.”
As jury selection got underway last week, presiding Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder stressed repeatedly that jurors must decide the case solely on the facts, solely on what they hear in the courtroom, and he cautioned: “This is not a political trial.”
No, it’s not a political trial. But it might just as well be. The gun-grabbing Left wants to send a message, and they want 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse’s scalp. Regardless of the outcome, though, the verdict will be of monumental importance to the doctrine of self-defense, and monumental importance to the essential and time-honored belief that an American citizen may use deadly force when he believes his life is in danger.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/83973-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-2021-11-05
*******************************************
Actor Alleges He Was Fired Over His Christian Faith, Files Lawsuit Against Producer
Tony Award-nominated Broadway performer Chad Kimball has filed a lawsuit that alleges his bosses fired him from a hit show because he is openly Christian.
The actor, 45, had been working on the production of the show “Come From Away” for several years when he publicly criticized COVID-19 policies in his home state of Washington for preventing choirs from singing in limited church services on social media.
In a post on Twitter late last year, he accused Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee of behaving tyrannically over a policy which targeted church choirs.
“Respectfully, I will never allow a Governor, or anyone, to stop me from SINGING, let alone sing in worship to my God. Folks, absolute POWER corrupts ABSOLUTELY. This is not about safety. It’s about POWER. I will respectfully disobey these unlawful orders. #inslee #Tyranny #truth,” Kimball wrote online last November.
The tweet was not well received by many, Kimball said.
“I was confused as to why people would be so egregiously vitriolic in their responses,” he told the New York Post. “Some people told me to take the [first] tweet down or apologize. But I wasn’t going to do that. I did nothing wrong.”
When “Come From Away” returned to the stage this year, the Christian actor was no longer a member of the cast.
He told the Post he was fired because the tweet aimed at Inslee outed him as a Christian.
Kimball said his tweet created a ruckus online, and that by the time he contacted show producer Susan Frost to inform her of the online controversy, she was already aware of it.
After the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion in Washington two months after the tweet, he said Frost told him there were “concerns” that the “events at the Capitol, Josh Hawley and the Conservative Christian movement were tied together and implied a connection between Mr. Kimball, by virtue of his faith, to the ideas and actions of the January 6, 2021 events at the US Capitol.”
Frost, according to the lawsuit, told Kimball on Jan. 22 that he was being let go.
He also spoke of a conversation he said happened with “Come From Away” director Christopher Ashley after his termination: “Chris is a friend who has a brilliant theatrical mind. I asked him if the termination was because of the feelings within the cast or because of my religious beliefs. He said it was everything.”
But Kimball has vowed to fight.
“Jesus never commanded us to not defend ourselves,” he told the Post. “As Christians, we are commanded to seek out justice, truth and restoration. The law gives us opportunities to do all of those things.”
Kimball has filed a lawsuit through the firm Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, and he said he was discriminated against for his faith. His legal filing partially states he was “unlawfully terminated … because [his] religious beliefs simply made [his employers] uncomfortable.”
The lawsuit, which seeks an undisclosed sum of money, is directed at “Come From Away” production company Kiss The Cod Broadway and its parent firm Alchemy Production Group.
The actor is currently not having any luck finding work in his field, but said he prays for those he worked with on Broadway.
****************************************
Why Did F-22 Pilots Suddenly Walk Off the Job?
Never in my lifetime did I think any of us would see fascism spread like wildfire in our country. Many of us learned in high school the dictators that rose to power and took control of nations, but we could not fathom how that happened. How did these people rise to power and then were so easily able to transform a nation into total control?
It seemed farfetched and impossible at the time, but today we are seeing just how it works firsthand, and it is terrifying.
People are begging to give over their freedom just for a small snippet of security. Our friends and family are willing to turn on those they are close to just to keep their lives comfortable, and how did this occur?
Fear.
The government and mainstream media worked hand in hand to create such panic and fear over this virus that people are begging for a medical takeover.
Everything our brave men and women have sacrificed for in ensuring our freedom is now for nothing and that is just not alright with me or anyone else who respects our service members.
Joe Biden’s speech yesterday crossed the line for many people in our country and for all the right reasons, and now we are seeing people stand up to medical tyranny.
Upon hearing Dictator Biden’s mandate, 12 F-22 pilots immediately walked off the job.
Twenty-seven active-duty U.S. Air Force pilots have resigned their commissions over the unconstitutionality of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s mandate requiring all Armed Forces members to at once receive a Covid-19 vaccination, Real Raw News has learned.
The exodus began on August 27, with 12 pilots from the 1st Fighter Wing at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, submitting to their commanding officer letters of resignation only hours after they received a 4:00 a.m. text message instructing them to submit to mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations by 10:00 a.m. that same day. It’s unknown whether the pilots collaborated ahead of resigning, but all 12 resignations were handed in within a 90-minute period.
One officer, a 29-year-old F-22 Raptor pilot, said of the situation, “We undergo routine physicals and must meet rigorous fitness standards to stay on flight duty. I think it’s safe to say all Air Force pilots are in good physical condition. We must be to endure extreme G-force stress on our body. There is no reason we should be at risk of Covid-19 or becoming sick from it. I know I’m not alone in rejecting this potentially dangerous and soundly untested shot.”
Pilots at other airbases apparently joined him in solidarity.
A day later, 15 pilots of the 2nd Bomb Wing in Barksdale, Louisiana tendered letters of resignation after they, too, received orders to get the jab. The orders stated explicitly that any officer refusing a Covid-19 vaccination would lose his flight status and be subject to disciplinary action, including a potential dishonorable discharge from the service.
A pilot with the 2nd Bomb Wing told RRN that he and his fellow pilots marched into their commanding officer’s office and dropped the resignation letters on his desk. He added that airmen and maintenance crews—enlisted persons who cannot simply resign from the service—are also furious about the mandatory vaccination requirement. Several of them, he told RRN, have sent hardship letters asking for early dismissal from the Air Force, mainly because they don’t have faith in a vaccine that has killed thousands of healthy people, military and civilians alike.
“This is only the beginning. A lot more of us will be turning in our wings,” he said.
https://dailyheadlines.net/why-did-f-22-pilots-suddenly-walk-off-the-job/
***********************************
Democrats up to old tricks in New Jersey – republican winning largest county with 100% of votes counted then vote magically flips
Anyone paying attention to the obvious appreciates how many strange events led to Joe Biden somehow defeating America’s most-successful president. Despite getting more votes than he earned in his 2016 victory, President Trump lost his 2020 reelection bid.
Logic says he did not lose. Audits and peculiar vote counts continue to point to fraud. The Democrats can’t win using their radical socialist policies. They have to cheat. Well, it seems that they’ve pulled off another one of their “trick plays”.
This time, they had to fabricate votes in New Jersey’s largest county. Eventually, these crooked liberals are going to get caught. In all honesty, they have been exposed, but no jurisdiction has the backbone to stand up to them.
Just like all the mysterious middle-of-the-night lead shifts in the 2020 Presidential Election for Joe Biden, incumbent crook Phil Murphy flipped Bergen County. Bergen County’s total vote count has a huge effect on the final New Jersey outcome.
It is the Garden State’s largest county. At a point during the evening of the election, Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli had built a surprising lead over his competitor Phil Murphy. With 83 percent of the vote counted, Ciattarelli held a 42,000 vote lead statewide.
Ciattarelli’s lead vote count included winning Bergen County 52 percent of the vote. The county reported 100 percent of the votes had been counted. However, Democrats said not so fast. Suddenly, as the vote count totals pushed to 87 percent, Murphy was announced as the winner in New Jersey’s most populated county.
Once again, like a crafty magician, the Democrat Party seems to have pulled votes out of thin air. If all the votes were counted, how did Murphy flip the final total? Where did these votes come from? In the confusion, Ciattarelli’s 42,000 lead eroded.
Within minutes, the front-running Republican had his margin over Murphy whittled down to 1,600 votes. When did this all happen? Well, conveniently in the middle of the night when no one was looking. The Bergen County overnight transformation for Murphy went down at 1:54am (EDT).
Just like the middle-of-the-night suitcases unearthed in Georgia, plus the many suspicious vote total flips in the middle of the night on November 4, 2020, something sneaky and underhanded went down in New Jersey.
No one needs to be a mathematical genius to figure out something is seriously wrong here. One hundred percent means ALL votes had been counted. However, suddenly in the wee-hours of the morning, some 40 thousand votes conveniently appear to flip the county.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
8 November 2021
Judicial Crisis Network President: The Constitution dictates abortion should be left to states
Judicial Crisis Network president discusses SCOTUS hearing oral arguments in Texas abortion case on 'Sunday Night in America'
"Sunday Night in America" host Trey Gowdy invited Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino on his show to help explain the recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
Severino and Gowdy acknowledged that the oral arguments are not nearly as flashy as decisions, but they remain a vital portion of the law process.
"People are talking about this case as if it’s going right to the heart of Roe v. Wade. We actually have a case on the docket that’s going to do that, but that’s not argued until December. This case was really about some procedural issues that are very unique to the way that the Texas law is structured," Severino explained.
The Texas abortion law has reignited the debate surrounding abortion as the case in regards to the law awaits hearings before the Supreme Court. Severino explained the hearings would not affect Roe V. Wade currently and that the important thing is that the justices remain unaffected by political issues.
"What concerns me about the case is trying to make sure that, as you said, the Court is not getting distracted by their interest in the policy issues. Obviously, judges shouldn’t be looking at the policy issues ever, but that all of the discussion of this abortion issue doesn’t distract them from just applying the regular standards that apply to every case that comes before the Supreme Court in the question of who can bring the lawsuit and who do they have to sue," Severino said. "Because that was really the question this case. It’s not as exciting as is Roe V. Wade valid law, but the Court needs to not be bullied because there’s a lot of people saying you can’t let these cases die."
Severino argued that laws in regards to abortions are best left to the state since the Constitution "doesn’t say anything about it one way or the other."
"In the case of abortion, it is a little bit different. The state is not saying we’re going to perform the abortion in this case. They’re simply saying can this law stand. And, as Justice Scalia himself said, a lot it is not about whether I believe in abortion or not. It’s about if the Constitution talks about abortion. And in this case, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it one way or the other which means it’s left to the states," she said.
She concluded "If they don’t weigh in on that core question, we’re going to keep on having cases. Whether it’s from Texas, from Arkansas, from Kentucky, we have all these cases in line testing other aspects of it. So there’s no way for them to get away from dealing with the real underlying question which is not what do you think about abortion. That’s something for the legislature. It’s is abortion really in the text of the Constitution itself. And if not, then why are we as judges making these calls and why don’t we leave it to the Americans’ representatives."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case regarding an abortion law in Mississippi which bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
*********************************************
Why patriotic capitalism is the way forward for conservatism
Attacking capitalism is in vogue. Conservatives should not fall prey to this
"We do not merely study the past: we inherit it, from people to whom we are bound by natural piety. Inheritance brings with it not only the rights of ownership, but the duties of trusteeship. Things fought for and died for should not be idly squandered. For they are the property of others, who are not yet born." -- "Town and Country," ed. by Roger Scruton and Anthony Barnett
In this quotation, Sir Roger Scruton perfectly encapsulated conservatism’s essence. It is not an ideology, but rather a variety of ideas, beliefs and feelings that are natural to every human being.
We inherit from our parents the home we are born into, the extended family, the community, the city, and the country of our forefathers. Instantly, and quite instinctively, we become attached to these places and people, and a feeling of protectiveness arises.
We become heirs to traditions and culture, history, and deeds, for better or for worse. Each of us is born into an environment and into a certain social and economic status. It is our duty to leave to our successors this multi-layered inheritance in a better shape than it was in when we received it.
The conservative is an individual who understands this most natural relationship between the living, the dead and the unborn. However, apart from making this basic and humane relationship apparent to everyone, a conservative must find practical ways and means to protect and strengthen it.
To that end, conservatives should have an answer as to the political and economic systems that need to be implemented for a country and its individuals to be free, have social mobility, meritocracy and protect their cultural and moral norms. Through an appropriate economic system, conservatives can improve the welfare of every citizen in a society, so that each of us leaves a better world to the future generations, while honoring our past.
After decades of being bullied into silence, a sort of reawakening is occurring among conservatives – a resurgence that has been taking shape in the last six years. Under threat by cancel culture, self-censorship, revision of history, a return of Marxism, illegal immigration and a forced push towards herd mentality and rejection of critical thinking, conservatives are starting to rise and stand up for what they believe in.
It is an existential fight propelled by the most unlikely of individuals: a real estate mogul from perhaps the most progressive city, New York. Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency inspired not only tens of millions of Americans but seemed to awaken from a deep slumber the divided conservatives of Europe.
Many establishment conservatives do not like him and would not like to admit in public that Donald Trump gave them a fighting chance. He showed conservatives how to fight and win. The 45th president had the gumption to stand up for what he believes in, and consequently inspired conservatives, the right in general and freedom-lovers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Now, conservatives need to find common ground and build a durable and believable strategy that produces results.
Conservatism has many nuances and forms, each with something to offer in a great right of center coalition. We should agree on some core common fundamentals, based on what has worked in the past, adapted to the present circumstances.
There certainly are several conservative models of success that can be adapted to the reality of our age and implemented by nation states in Europe, as well as in the US.
We can learn from what President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher did in the eighties and combine their economic policies with the cultural, patriotic, and social values that Burke, Scruton and many others present and defend. These two sides are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, such alliance can be what the West needs to be saved.
Patriotic capitalism is the way forward for conservatism. A patriot cares for his family, his property, his community, his country, and the environment, undoubtedly while wanting to cooperate closely and peacefully with others. A capitalist system brings about the means to conserve everything that conservatives – and most human beings – hold dear.
A patriotic education leads to better citizens with a higher degree of civil responsibility and care for the environment – capitalism provides the means to have school choice and achieve this strong patriotic education. Educated individuals with the necessary economic means and opportunities, create stronger families, which undoubtedly lead to healthier and tougher societies.
Conservatives are right to focus on the cultural aspects. However, this focus does not mean abandoning or choosing the wrong economic policies. On the contrary! Conservatives should provide a holistic alternative that stands on both cultural and economic pillars. On the latter, they are providing no alternative.
What is the conservative alternative to the Modern Monetary Theory, crony capitalism and oligarchy? Which economic system do they advocate for? Where is the outrage towards big – and ever expanding – government, which is undoubtedly the main factor of the current economic degradation of the West?
Conservatives cannot rejoice when conservative politicians use the power of big government and denounce this when the left does it.
Governments should exist to preserve life, liberty, private property, national security and nothing else. That is what makes a strong government—a concept different from that of big government.
Limited governments have been a success story, especially in America. Europe’s legacy of big governments has produced a would-be super-state with socialist aspirations. The bigger the government, the greater the danger that it will abuse its powers. Coming from a country with a communist past, I well understand the dangers of expanding the reach of government as well as its allure, even for conservatives.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/patriotic-capitalism-way-foward-conservatism-nikola-kedhi
************************************************
Israeli bookstores pull Sally Rooney novels over boycott row
Two can play the boycotting game
Two of Israel’s largest bookstores have announced they will no longer stock books by author Sally Rooney after she refused to let her latest novel be translated into Hebrew by an Israeli publisher.
Steimatzky and Tzomet Sefarim, which together own about 200 stores in Israel, said they would remove her books from their shelves and online sites.
Last month the Irish author said she would not allow her newest title, Beautiful World, Where Are You?, to be translated into Hebrew by Modan, an Israeli publishing house.
The writer said her decision was taken out of solidarity with the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for governments to “cut trade, economic, and cultural relations” with the Jewish state.
While she said she was “proud” her previous two novels had been translated into Hebrew, she could not, she said, “accept a new contract with an Israeli company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid and support the UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people”.
In May, 600 musicians, including Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, published an open letter asking fellow artists to refrain from performing in Israel until there is a “free Palestine”.
But the notion of a blanket cultural boycott remains controversial.
Speaking to The Independent, public diplomacy expert and BDS critic Ran Bar-Yoshafat said: “It’s very easy to boycott Israel because she won’t be losing money – Israel isn’t a market for books. It’s all a game as she has nothing to lose.
“I don’t believe she cares about human rights – if she did she would boycott Russia, China and Arab countries for example. She won’t do that because that is a gigantic market.”
Israel has claimed that the BDS is a movement motivated by antisemitism and has rejected apartheid comparisons.
Rooney has enjoyed huge success for her work, including critical acclaim for her second novel Normal People, which was adapted into a hugely successful TV series.
**************************************************
Australian Federal Court slams criminal case against ANZ bank as a 'complete shemozzle'
ANZ now off the hook after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions spent 3 years running around in circles. They could not specify exactly what the ANZ did wrong.
Government regulators tend to be lax about case preparation as they think nobody will have the funds or courage to take on the government. They think people will fold immediately. There have been some atrocious cases of that in Britain, notably the prosecution of Vincent Tchenguiz by the Serious Fraud Office. Their bureaucratic arrogance cost the SFO many millions
But the ANZ is a big beast so was not afraid to take on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutors have abandoned a long-running criminal cartel case against ANZ and one of its senior executives, Rick Moscati, after the Federal Court described the matter as a "complete shemozzle".
The court also said the committal hearings — where a magistrate decides whether there is sufficient evidence to take the matter to trial — were "long, drawn out and ultimately ... fairly pointless".
In an embarrassing blow, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) was ordered to refile its indictment, for a third time, because it was "deficient and defective".
Despite the setback, the CDPP has decided to proceed with its criminal prosecution against banking giants Deutsche Bank and Citigroup, which are also defendants in this matter.
Criminal test case
In June 2018, ANZ, Deutsche and Citi were prosecuted for being "knowingly concerned in alleged cartel conduct".
It is essentially a form of alleged collusion — and the matter was the result of a two-year investigation by the competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
This case arose from ANZ's decision to raise extra cash from institutional investors, by issuing $2.5 billion worth of new shares in August 2015.
Citi, Deutsche and a third major global bank, JP Morgan, through some of their most senior executives, allegedly came to an understanding on what to do with any shares that were unable to be sold.
Often, there aren't any left over — but this time almost a third of the shares, worth about $790 million, did not sell.
JP Morgan is not facing charges because it blew the whistle and was granted immunity.
This is seen as an important test case because criminal cartel charges had never been brought against an Australian bank before.
For companies, the maximum fine for each offence is either $10 million, or three times the total benefits that have been earned and are "reasonably attributable" to the commission of the offence (whichever is greater).
For individuals, the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $420,000, or both.
'Complete shemozzle'
Justice Michael Wigney did not mince words when he criticised the prosecutor's handling of the case on Wednesday morning.
"It would not be unfair to characterise the situation concerning the state of the indictment as a complete shemozzle," he said.
The judge also said it was "entirely unsatisfactory" that the indictment had not been finalised — three years after the banks and their executives were first charged, and about six months before the trial was due to commence.
The CDPP filed its first indictment (which outlines the criminal charges) against the banks and its executives on February 1.
But it was ordered to file a new indictment by July 7 because the charges were poorly explained and "defective" — partly because of the "complex nature" of Australia's cartel legislation.
The same thing happened again on Wednesday's hearing (November 3). In a brief summary of the judge's decision, the Federal Court noted:
"The accused argued that the charges did not sufficiently describe the nature of the offences that they were alleged to have committed because, for the most part, the charges were entirely bereft of particulars and simply repeated the words of the relevant offence provisions."
Justice Wigney decided to give the prosecutor a third chance — and a November 24 deadline to file yet another set of indictments.
Instead of trying again, the CDPP decided to abandon its case against ANZ and Mr Moscati, but is pressing ahead with its prosecution of Deutche and Citi.
In a statement, ANZ's chief risk officer Kevin Corbally said: “We maintained all along ANZ acted in accordance with the law in relation to the placement.
"We defended the bank and Rick on that basis and we are pleased the matter is now behind us."
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
7 November 2021
Project Veritas Gets Raided by FBI After Biden Daughter Diary Leaked
The FBI has conducted multiple searches of people tied to the conservative political group Project Veritas, part of a probe into how parts of President Biden’s daughter Ashley’s diary were disclosed to the public without her consent in the final days of the 2020 election.
Justice Department agents conducted two searches on Thursday in the New York City area, The New York Times reported, citing two unnamed sources with familiarity in the matter.
The group has long maintained its veracity as a legitimate journalistic endeavor, but liberal organizations have been working overtime to vilify the group, with seem even going so far as to declare Project Veritas a “spying” group.
Proponents of PV believe that these attacks are meant to undermine the credibility of their reporting.
https://flagandcross.com/project-veritas-gets-raided-by-fbi-after-biden-daughter-diary-leaked/
********************************************
12 Biological Males Convicted of Violent Sex Crimes Transferred to Women’s Prisons After Identifying as Women
A dozen violent male prisoners in Scotland who identify as transgender have been relocated to women’s prisons over the past 18 months, according to a review by corrections officials in the United Kingdom.
The Times of London reported that, through an official request from the Scottish Prison Service for transparency, the agency admitted that it had indeed moved men convicted of violent crimes — including sex crimes — into close quarters facilities with women. If that news isn’t shocking enough, 11 out of 12 of the men who were moved in with women had not even undergone procedures to “transition.”
They had simply identified as the opposite sex and were cleared to bunk with physiologically smaller and less physically imposing women.
Thankfully, the revelation brought on by opponents of having the state force women to share living spaces with convicted and dangerous men might lead to some reforms. That’s what Dr. Kate Coleman, the director of a group called Keep Prisons Single Sex, hopes.
“The evidence clearly indicates that where prisoners of the male sex, no matter how they identify, are held in women’s prisons, women in prison are negatively impacted,” Coleman told the Times. “I trust that the SPS will pay heed to that fact.”
The SPS’ experiment with housing men who identify as transgender in women’s prisons began in 2014.
One former governor of the Cornton Vale prison for women in Sterling told the Times that prison officials understand the stakes for women who are confined to facilities, such as the one she oversaw.
“My experience is that it is always an issue to have trans women in with female prisoners and you have to think beyond the obvious which is physical or sexual threat, which is sometimes an issue, to the very fact of the presence of male-bodied prisoners among vulnerable women causes them distress and consternation,” Rhona Hotchkiss said.
The SPS was less than transparent with regard to speaking about the specifics of just how many men are currently an added stressor for women serving time after having been convicted of crimes in Scotland.
A spokesperson for the prison system offered a vague statement that risks are taken into account before men are sent to share spaces with women.
“All cases are treated on an individual basis and are risk-assessed through a multi-disciplinary case conference, transgender case conference supported by transgender policy,” the spokesperson said. “Any decisions about the location of transgender prisoners are only made after an individual risk assessment has taken place. This process considers the risks potentially presented both to and by the individuals.”
“We take very seriously our duty of care towards all in our custody. We also undertake regular prison surveys, which includes a focus on the experience and needs of the people in our care — this is an important part of the SPS’ evidence base for policy,” the SPS official concluded.
The official did not disclose if any incidents have occurred since men were given the option of serving time with women.
Women tend to be the victims any time the “transgender” movement acquires more “rights.” Despite being convicted of crimes, women, even in prison, deserve safety from violence or sexual assault at the hands of men who are either confused or taking advantage of the loopholes being offered by a culture that has lost its way.
Women, just like men, must navigate hazards to both physical and mental health once sent to prison if they are to ever re-enter society. They don’t deserve to have the added stress of being surrounded by potentially predatory men.
When they serve their sentences, they deserve the dignity to walk out free, and they’re owed as much protection as possible by prison officials. Perhaps the light shed on this issue by advocates for common sense will force the SPS and the Scottish government to bend to common sense.
Men, especially those convicted of sex crimes, have no place in women’s prisons. Rather than empower them to potentially behave as big fish in small ponds, prison officials need to ensure these people remain in men’s prisons, which is where they belong.
*******************************************
Why People Are Now Calling Family Dollar Racist Is Ridiculous!
After a number of crimes in Family Dollar stores happened recently, Family Dollars stores in the St. Louis area put up self-made signs asking customers to remove their hoods before entering their shops.
In the past few weeks, several Family Dollar stores have been the center of crimes, including a robbery at gunpoint and a man firing a gun in a store.
The management of a Family Dollar in St. Louis has found itself in the public spotlight after posting a sign that makes one small request of their customers before entering the store.
The sign sparked a firestorm with cries of racism and discrimination that eventually led to the sign being removed.
The signs, posted near the entrance, read, “Attn Customers: Please remove hoods before entering Family Dollar.”
According to The Daily Caller, “For the objective and unbiased thinker, the reasoning behind the sign makes perfect sense. It ensures that everyone who enters the store is intent on following the rules, knowing that the cameras can get a clear shot of their face.”
St. Louis News 4’s Jasmine Huda interviewed multiple Family Dollar shoppers to get a better sense of how the local customers feel. Some agreed with the policy, saying, “They want people’s faces to be seen by the cameras. And sometimes when you have on a hood, it might block your facial view.”
Frequent and recent robberies took place at the chain store’s nearby locations. So, you can understand why they would have put up such a sign.
In the weeks before the sign was placed in the store window, a clerk at the Family Dollar on South Jefferson was held at gunpoint during an alleged robbery. During a separate incident at Family Dollar’s South Grand location, a man opened fire.
However, not everyone felt the sign was a reasonable security request because of the sign’s “discriminatory undertone.”
When asked his thoughts on the sign, customer Roger Williams explained, “I would call it discrimination. That’s not right. It shouldn’t matter that you’re going in there with your hood on. If you’re not stealing, and you’re buying, purchasing something, what’s the problem? That shouldn’t be an issue.”
Family Dollar headquarters responded to the matter, saying they were unaware of any signs. Public & Media Relations Manager Bryn R. Winburn of Family Dollar said, “It is not Company policy to ask our customers to remove hoods or sweatshirts before entering our stores.”
The retail chain has also launched an “internal investigation” into the matter. The store removed the sign on account of the public outrage.
The sign applies to everyone. If you believe the sign to be discriminatory, then you must assume that only one race of people walks in the cold with their hoods up. Perhaps there is one race that is more likely to wear hoods, but the rule applies to everyone regardless of their race, religion, or anything else.
https://thepatriotnation.net/why-people-are-now-calling-family-dollar-racist-is-ridiculous/
*******************************************
Mainstream Media Has Abandoned the American Working Class
Police and health care workers, who were deemed heroes last year for working through the pandemic, now face being fired from their job if they don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19. Why are corporate media not giving them any gratitude, but instead “sneering or even rage?” According to Batya Ungar-Sargon, that’s because the mainstream media has abandoned the American working class and catered only to the liberal, highly educated elite.
Ungar-Sargon is a deputy opinion editor of Newsweek. She calls herself a lefty and a liberal. Last month, her new book “Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy” was published.
“The last 5, 10 years has been really the abandonment of the working class by journalists on the left,” Ungar-Sargon told EpochTV’s “CrossRoads” program in an interview premiered on Monday. “Now I’m a lefty, and so I’m coming at this as somebody who feels like my job is to elevate the working class, is to elevate laborers, to elevate the poor and their issues. But what happened was the mainstream media—liberal mainstream media—has really abandoned that fight in favor of one around issues of identity, wokeness, issues like critical race theory and intersectionality that are really, really alien to the concerns of working-class Americans of all races.”
Ungar-Sargon said that back in the 19th century, fathers of American journalism like Joseph Pulitzer and Benjamin Day thought that the point of journalism should be by and for and about the working class and the poor. But things have changed.
“What happened was liberals got very educated, especially over the last 20 years, that education has actually translated into affluence,” Ungar-Sargon said. “Liberals have become much more affluent. They’ve become part of the elite, part of the top 10 percent. So journalism was once a working-class trade, and you would have a journalist who made maybe a little bit more than his neighbor the cop. Today, journalism is a very elite caste.”
Ungar-Sargon pointed out that in 1937, under half of journalists had a college degree. Today, 92 percent of journalists have a college degree.
“So you can really see that shift,” Ungar-Sargon said.
Ungar-Sargon said people on the left have come to respect only a certain kind of education—not the education you get from working or living, but the education you get from a university. The more elite the university, the better.
“You have cops and nurses who are now being threatened with firing and actually [being] fired because they don’t want to get the vaccine,” Ungar-Sargon said. “Imagine a world where we would look at these people who went to work every day at the height of the pandemic, and we said to them: ‘Thank you so much for what you did. You don’t want to get vaccinated; we’ll find another way to make sure that the people you interact with are safe. Maybe we’ll do antibody testing. Maybe we’ll do COVID testing every day.’ And you can imagine a world in which the respect for the labor they put in during the pandemic was sort of given back to them.”
“Instead, what you see is just unbelievable sneering and even rage at these people. There’s zero gratitude,” Ungar-Sargon continued. “I think that really stems from that class chasm that we’re seeing in America, where people who have a certain kind of education, they just do not respect the other side, especially if they voted for Donald Trump. They do not think that they have a role in building up this nation.”
Ungar-Sargon said that’s really a shame. She went on to share her views about why the mainstream media has been pushing narratives such as white supremacy.
“Why [is] the media is pushing a narrative that America is a white supremacy when we have never been further from that? The answer that I came up with was it’s to hide the income inequality that the left is really benefiting from, that liberals, that highly educated, meritocratic elite liberals have really benefited from especially over the last 10 years.”
Ungar-Sargon said digital media’s emergence has pushed media, corporations, and different newspapers and outlets toward covering issues that appeal to smaller and smaller subsets of America.
“The real thing that made this sort of woke moral panic happen was the fact that with digital media, we measure success not in terms of circulation, but in terms of engagement,” Ungar-Sargon said, adding that news outlets want their content to go viral and want the attention.
“We know from digital media that the most extreme voices are always going to be the most engaged,” Ungar-Sargon continued. “What this means is that media outlets like CNN that once were catering to the vast American middle, can now cater to the more affluent liberal elites by giving them the thing that makes them the most emotional, that makes them the most engaged—and those things are Trump and racism, right?”
Ungar-Sargon said the media’s abandonment of the American working class is a threat to democracy.
“It’s undermining democracy because a nation in which only the top 10 percent gets any media or any political attention is an oligarchy. It’s not a democracy. And essentially, the left has participated in the de-platforming of the working class. That’s a lot of Americans who you can tell that many on the left feel that they should not have a vote that they should not have a say,” Ungar-Sargon said.
“We have lost respect for the kind of insight and intelligence that is developed outside of a meritocratic, highly educated rat race. And I think that is a huge threat to democracy.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
5 November 2021
Australia: What motivated Cleo's kidnapper?
Bad or mad? Rather madder than the guy says below, I think. The only picture we have of him (Terry Kelly?) so far shows a brown face so he would seem to be an Aborigine. But he is also described as a loner. Which is very odd indeed. I would have thought that an Aboriginal loner was an impossibility. Aborigines are hugely social. So if he really is an Aborigine he is very mentally disturbed indeed. The area is mostly welfare housing and Aborigines do live in the neighbourhood
UPDATE of 5/11: I was of course right. Kelly was an aborigine and was very weird. He was a doll collector, of all things. Pic of him below
A top criminal psychologist claims the man who allegedly abducted Cleo Smith is likely to be 'very bad, not very mad' - as Perth's Lord Mayor calls for the city to 'turn blue' to celebrate her homecoming.
The missing four-year-old was found at 12.45am on Wednesday alone in a bedroom in a locked and rundown house in the Carnarvon suburb of Brockman in Western Australia, after being missing for 18 days.
A 36-year-old man has been arrested over the alleged kidnapping from her family's tent at the Blowholes campsite on October 18, with psychology expert Tim Watson-Munro telling A Current Affair he believes whoever took her was likely meticulous and calculating.
'I think it's someone who's very bad, not very mad,' he claimed.
'A person capable of planning this crime, executing this crime, keeping this thing under wraps for nearly three weeks now and not really caring about the consequences.'
Cleo, 4, was described as safe and well but was immediately taken to hospital for further tests and to be reunited with relieved and overjoyed parents, Ellie and Jake.
In Mr Watson-Munro's opinion the abduction was highly-planned over a significant period of time.
'He probably waited for the right opportunity to strike. They live in the same country town, he's probably thought about it for awhile,' he claimed.
'Clearly to have done what he did, in such a brazen way, to escape the crime scene the way he did and keep a lid on it, to me suggests a lot of planning.'
********************************************
Seattle Comes Crawling Back to Its Cops
Ronald Reagan was no economist [He DID have a degree in economics], but his understanding of — and his ability to crisply communicate — bedrock economic principles was unmatched among politicians. “If you want more of something,” he often said, “subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it.” How simple. And who can deny it?
Had Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan studied up on the Gipper, she might’ve learned this valuable lesson the easy way rather than the hard way. Instead, during last year’s Summer of Rage, she and her Seattle City Council taxed their city’s police officers something fierce. And, lo and behold, her city now has fewer cops and less law and order.
In a Civil Emergency Order replete with 17 Whereases and a single “Be it proclaimed,” Durkan announced her plan to address the staffing crisis within the Seattle Police Department and its 911 dispatch center. As Seattle’s KING-TV reports, “Experienced officers and 911 dispatchers could get a $25,000 hiring bonus, and rookie new hires could get $10,000” — if they can stomach working within an organization that seems to neither value nor respect them.
According to Durkan’s order, the Seattle PD “had 310 vacancies as of July 2021. SPD has only hired 62 officers thus far in 2021, which combined with a loss of 141 officers in the same timeframe exacerbating [sic] the staffing shortage that began in 2020.”
Why the staffing shortage? It’s not hard to figure out. As the Seattle Police Officers Guild, which represents some 1,300 officers and sergeants, put it, Durkan and her anti-cop colleagues “politically betrayed” their police force during the George Floyd riots of 2020. “The result of this betrayal,” said Guild President Mike Solan, “has caused 350 police officers to flee Seattle since the riots. Many of these former police employees left for lower paying agencies just to escape Seattle’s toxic political climate.”
The Seattle City Council’s efforts to radically defund their cops was just one glaring example of this betrayal. Durkan’s handling of the city’s “autonomous” CHOP/CHAZ zone during the riots and for weeks afterward was another. Who knew that a six-block “Summer of Love” protest appeasement zone, which included an abandoned police precinct in the Capitol district, would rub the city’s cops the wrong way?
Solan, though, was far from finished with Durkan and her ilk:
We also have another 100 officers now off the street due to the Mayor’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and another 130 officers currently unavailable for service who are out on extended leave. When totaled, that is just under half the department gone/unavailable in almost two years. Seattle’s current police staffing crisis was caused by our current politicians and sadly it all could’ve been avoided. This political betrayal will forever be their legacy.
What did Durkan think was going to happen? When a city makes its cops feel like second-class citizens, those cops will go elsewhere. And the results have been deadly serious: In 2020, Seattle recorded its highest murder total within the past 26 years, and violent crime has continued to rise this year.
What’s more, even if Seattle does make up its cop shortage, it won’t happen overnight. Durkan herself acknowledges this, albeit a bit late in the game: “Hiring, recruiting, and training takes months,” she said, “and we need to act now to ensure we can have trained and deployable staff. Seattle cannot keep waiting to address the real public safety officer hiring and retention crisis we are experiencing.”
The city’s police union concurs, but, it says, “Dangling money to recruit new or lateral hires won’t get the job done.”
Indeed, cops don’t grow on trees. Nor do they need to put down roots and risk their lives in communities whose elected leaders demonize them. Had the city of Seattle treated its law enforcement officers with more respect beforehand, it might not now be in the humiliating position of begging them to come back.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/83905-seattle-comes-crawling-back-to-its-cops-2021-11-03
*********************************************
Anti-abortion law Senate Bill 8 is so complicated, the US Supreme Court must first decide if anyone is even allowed to challenge it
It's been two months since abortion became effectively illegal in Texas.
On September 1, the Lone Star state enforced Senate Bill 8, known as "SB8", which deputises private citizens as bounty hunters to police anyone who helps someone get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
The bill makes no exceptions for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest.
Many women have been forced to travel out of state to seek abortions, while those without the means try to self-abort or carry their unwanted pregnancies to full-term.
It's the most restrictive abortion ban in the country, but the law's unique legal structure is what makes it the most difficult to unpick.
Described by some lawyers as "evil, sinister genius", SB8 places the onus on private citizens to enforce the law.
Experts say Texas has designed the law to avoid federal court review and make it near impossible to challenge.
Last month, the Federal Court suspended it, but it was overturned by appeal just days later.
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, which now has a conservative super-majority of 6-3 installed under Donald Trump, has twice declined to block the bill while lower court challenges play out.
It's an indication of how the court's thinking has shifted to the right and sets the stage for the weeks ahead.
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard opening arguments on whether the United States can even challenge the law.
Whether the bill undermines the constitutional right to abortion enshrined in law under Roe v Wade in 1973 is not even at issue.
But the hastily scheduled hearings will set the parameters for the most dramatic month for reproductive rights at the Supreme Court in three decades.
Before delving too deep into the Texas bill, it's important to note the Supreme Court has also agreed to examine another case, this time challenging a 2018 law out of Mississippi.
The Mississippi case directly asks the justices to overrule Roe v Wade precedent and ban all abortions after 15 weeks, before foetal viability.
If the Supreme Court upholds that ruling, it would open the floodgates to a slew of other abortion bans across the country.
Ten conservative states have passed so-called trigger laws to automatically ban abortions if Roe v Wade is undermined.
Another 12 states are expected to pass new abortion laws in the current conservative legal environment.
With just a month until the highest court in the land hears the Mississippi case — previously its only blockbuster abortion case this term — the language used at the Texas hearing could provide clues as to which way the court may fall.
How is Senate Bill 8 different to other abortion laws?
What makes SB8 unusual is that it empowers citizens to sue anyone who "aids or abets" an abortion after cardiac activity is detected at around six weeks.
This includes not just doctors, nurses and health workers, but even drivers transporting people to clinics.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-02/texas-abortion-law-before-us-supreme-court/100585174
************************************************
Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarians
Many readers will know that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has issued an executive order prohibiting governments in Florida from mandating that people wear masks. Meanwhile, many local government officials, including my local school board and superintendent, have defied that order and issued mask mandates.
In response, the governor and state commissioner of education have said they will withhold the salaries of those local officials who issue mask mandates. This article explains that even though the local school board has weakened its mask mandates, the governor and commissioner still find the board in violation of the governor’s order and are withholding the salaries of board members.
One interesting thing about this case is that the authoritarian school board is issuing orders requiring that those within its jurisdiction comply, and in doing so is defying the authority of the government that stands above them. They are anti-authoritarian authoritarians.
The school board is saying that they will not comply with the mandates of those under whose authority they operate, while requiring that those who are within their jurisdiction comply with the board’s mandates.
Cases in which lower-level governments defy the authority of higher-level governments are always interesting because of the conflicts they create. The most visible example right now is state governments legalizing recreational marijuana use, which remains illegal under federal law. But in that case, the states are defying the authority of the federal government by permitting people the liberty to make their own choices. They are consistently anti-authoritarian. In the mask mandate case, the lower-level government is prohibiting individuals from making their own choices.
In the marijuana example, states are resisting the authoritarian reach of government. In the mask mandate example, the school district is claiming the right to extend its authoritarian reach, in defiance of those above them in the chain of command.
There appears to be an inconsistency in the actions of anti-authoritarian authoritarians. They are telling people, “We don’t have to abide by the rules imposed on us, but you have to abide by the rules we impose on you.”
https://blog.independent.org/2021/10/28/anti-authoritarian-authoritarians/
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
4 November, 2021
He Was FIRED For Being White, But He Turned The Tables HARD!
A former North Carolina hospital executive who claimed he was fired because he’s a White male was awarded $10 million in a reverse discrimination lawsuit Tuesday.
Novant Health wasn’t expecting their employee would fight back after firing him and replaced him with two women to “diversify” their positions. And it all happened just before his fifth year with the company.
David Duvall, a former top executive at North Carolina-based Novant Health, was awarded US$10 million on Tuesday by a federal jury after he filed a lawsuit claiming he lost his job because he’s a white man.
Just as Duvall was about to celebrate his fifth anniversary as the senior vice president of marketing and communication at Novant Health, he received the dreaded news that his services were no longer required.
In 2013, Duvall was appointed the senior vice president of marketing and communications at the nonprofit health company but was abruptly fired in 2018, reads his 2019 complaint.
His lawsuit accused the company of firing him in order to diversify the upper levels of leadership. The jury said Novant Health failed to prove that it would have dismissed Duvall, regardless of his race.
Refusing to have his merited position stripped from him, Duvall did what anyone who believes they were fired because of their race or gender would do — he filed a discrimination lawsuit.
In the suit, Duvall alleged that he lost his esteemed position due to the company’s efforts to force diversity within its top leadership positions, which directly discriminated against him based on his gender and ethnicity. Surprisingly, the court agreed with him.
According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the jury determined that Duvall’s race and gender were not only the motivating factors but the sole factors in Novant’s decision to terminate him.
The jury asserted that the company had failed to provide reasonable evidence that he would have been fired regardless of these immutable characteristics. As such, the jury ordered the company to pay Duvall $10 million for discrimination.
“Defendant’s (Novant Health’s) termination of (Duvall) for the purpose of improving diversity constituted discrimination based on sex and race,” the lawsuit said.
The jury agreed with Duvall that Novant Health had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on gender and race in the workplace. Understandably, Duvall and his legal team were delighted with the court’s ruling.
“We are pleased that the jury agreed that Duvall’s race and gender were unlawful factors in his termination — that he was fired to make room for more diverse leaders at Novant,” S. Luke Largess of Charlotte, Duvall’s attorney, said in a statement. “Duvall was a strong advocate of diversity at Novant,” Largess said. “We believe the punitive damages award is a message that an employer cannot terminate and replace employees in order to achieve greater diversity in the workforce.”
Novant Health criticized the decision, insisting that Duvall was fired due to poor leadership skills. However, they weren’t able to convince the court that he was forced out for any reason other than his being a white male.
“We are extremely disappointed with the verdict as we believe it is not supported by the evidence presented at trial, which includes our reason for Mr. Duvall’s termination,” said Megan Rivers, a Novant Health spokeswoman. “We will pursue all legal options, including appeal, over the next several weeks and months.
Novant Health maintains a dedication to “diversity and inclusion” but claims this extends also to “white men.” However, the only reason the company is pushing such an approach is that it believes there are too many white males in top leadership roles and not enough non-white, non-male employees.
While a company may legally pursue diversity on the basis of irrelevant immutable characteristics, it has no legal right to terminate employees simply because of skin color or genitalia. Luckily, the jury recognized this violation and is forcing the company to pay for their transgression.
https://theinformedamerican.net/he-was-fired-for-being-white-but-he-turned-the-tables-hard/
********************************************
Tucker Carlson’s ‘Patriot Purge’ special pushes claim that FBI ‘incited’ Capitol riot
In a new three-part documentary series, Fox News host Tucker Carlson pushes the theory that the FBI incited the Capitol riot.
“Most Americans probably assume the chaos of January 6 was the result of intelligence failures or of simple government incompetence,” Carlson says in Part I of the series, titled Patriot Purge. “But direct incitement by federal agents? The intentional entrapment of American citizens? No decent person wants to believe that. But increasingly there’s evidence it is true.”
In the 27-minute episode, Carlson and other talking heads frame the 6 January insurrection as a false flag attack orchestrated by shadowy government forces, and law enforcement’s response to it as a “second war on terror” in which innocent Americans are unfairly persecuted.
The series is being shown on Fox Nation, the streaming service of Fox News Media, which owns Fox News. However, it is not being aired on Fox News itself.
But that separation is not complete. On the TV show Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade spoke to Carlson about his new project, asking him if “you find indications that the FBI was actually pushing for this invasion.”
“There were people working for the FBI in the crowd that day,” Carlson responded on air. “This series is rock-solid factually.”
In one Patriot Purge interview, a security analyst who says he once worked as a US political operative during the Cold War claims 6 January “was a political warfare operation.”
“I saw that this was a coordinated effort, that there are different cadres of agents provocateurs and other troublemakers who had a sort of military-like precision,” says the analyst, J Michael Waller, over ominous music.
Another source, a journalist named Tayler Hansen, says he witnessed left-wing agitators posing as Trump supporters at the Stop the Steal rally and deliberately fomenting violence.
The series has sparked a fierce backlash, including from some conservatives.
Geraldo Rivera, the Republican journalist and Fox News correspondent, also condemned the show’s theories as “inflammatory and outrageous and uncorroborated.”
*************************************************
The Quiet Red Line That Could Complicate Biden’s Agenda
In late October, three House Democrats held a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol to lay down an unequivocal condition for their support of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act: It had to contain significant immigration reforms.
One of those Democrats, Rep. Lou Correa of California, recalled watching Democratic majorities and a Democratic president fumble away an opportunity to address immigration a decade ago—and he was determined not to let it happen again.
“My concern,” Correa told The Daily Beast on Oct. 20, “the concern of my constituents, is another replay of that scenario.”
Several weeks later, Biden has outlined a framework for the Build Back Better Act forged by painful compromises among liberals and moderates working under slim majorities. Many congressional Democrats have dropped their red lines—on everything from Medicare expansion to paid family leave—in a race to pass the bill as soon as possible.
Immigration, however, remains one of the few outstanding dilemmas threatening to hold up the entire package, as Correa and two colleagues, Reps. Chuy García (D-IL) and Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), have stood firm in their demands to include it.
“We have to address it. It’s been 35 years,” Correa told reporters on Tuesday morning. “This is a big opportunity that should not be passed up.”
The top priority for these Democrats had been to use the Build Back Better Act as an opportunity to establish a path to citizenship for some 7 million undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, the so-called Dreamers, whose legal status remains in limbo. With Donald Trump’s GOP firmly dug in against virtually any immigration overhaul, most Democrats believe they’ll have to go it alone to provide relief to these migrants.
But the unique problem with drawing a red line on immigration is that honoring it would require breaking the Senate’s rules. That’s because Democrats are using the special budget reconciliation process to pass their $1.75 trillion spending bill with a simple majority. Under those rules, only provisions with an impact on the federal budget may be included. And the Senate rules enforcer, the parliamentarian, has previously decided that a path to citizenship can’t be done by reconciliation
**************************************************
George Floyd’s Hometown Votes to Reject Police Reform
The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, at the hands of a number of the city’s police officers, sparked a national outcry about systemic racism and police brutality that many believed would lead us to a massive paradigm shift, at least as far as law enforcement is concerned.
Advocates seized on the moment to suggest all manner of solutions. Some insisted that abolishing the police entirely was the only real solution, (often through defunding), while others took a slightly more sensible approach, suggesting that there are some responsibilities that police officers could shed to more qualified individuals – specifically in low-danger instances involving people suffering from mental illness.
One such solution was on the ballot in Minneapolis this week, and the results have shocked some observers.
Voters in Minneapolis have resoundingly rejected a proposal to reinvent policing in their city, 17 months after the killing of George Floyd by police sparked massive protests and calls for change.
Approximately 56% of voters rejected a ballot question that would have removed the Minneapolis Police Department from the city charter and replaced it with a “public-health oriented” Department of Public Safety.
The “Yes” campaign conceded defeat in a statement that read, in part, “We spoke the truth while the opposition, Democrats and Republicans alike, spread lies and mischaracterized our measure to create confusion, distrust, and fear. “
Many blamed a national surge in crime for the waning interest in police reform, with some of this escalation coming directly from the national protests and riots surrounding Floyd’s death.
https://flagandcross.com/george-floyds-hometown-votes-to-reject-police-reform/
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
3 November. 2021
Actor defaces George Floyd monument
This is only fair. The Left approve of attacks on monuments that conservatives value
New York City's George Floyd statue has been defaced by a struggling actor who has apparently been in small roles on series such as "Parks and Recreation," "CSI: New York," and "That's So Raven." The actor was arrested and charged with defacing a George Floyd statue in the city.
Micah Beals, 37, was charged with criminal mischief in connection with an incident earlier this month involving the George Floyd monument, according to USA Today. According to the New York Police Department's hate crimes Twitter feed, surveillance footage from the area shows "a guy on a skateboard sprayed gray paint over the face and base of a monument of George Floyd." Beals was detained and charged with the offense on October 25, according to the story.
As previously reported by The Daily Wire, the monument was on display as part of Confront Art's "SEEINJUSTICE" exhibition, which also included two other statues and was unveiled to the public last Friday evening. According to the New York Police Department, the Floyd statue was damaged with paint at 10 a.m. Sunday.
“There’s video footage police were able to ascertain,” detective Frances Sammon told CNN. “They show a male ducking down under one of the statues. He then mixes something together, and, as he skates away, he throws a container of paint at the statue.”
Volunteers gathered in record breaking time to remove the paint. By the time Andrew Cohen, co-founder of Confront Art, arrived, the statue had already been cleaned and was ready to be reinstalled.
“They went to the hardware and bought supplies out of their own pockets,” he told CNN. “This is inspiring teamwork and support from the community.”
One of those volunteers, Harmony Seaburg, told the outlet that cleaning the statue was “very emotional” for her.
“It was really hard to see this larger-than-life man like this,” Seaburg said. “We’re trying to get all the paint off his face, but it’s very emotional.”
Floyd became a household name on May 25, 2020, when he was killed by Minneapolis police officers during an attempted arrest. Derek Chauvin, a former police officer, was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for Floyd's murder.
https://dfctoday.com/former-disney-star-charged-with-vandalizing-a-new-monument/
**********************************************
The Cancel Culture Mob Meets Resistance
There are some notable examples of resistance to the First Amendment suppression mob this week.
One would be in Major League Baseball. After the MLB thugs pulled the All-Star Game from Georgia because that state advocates voter integrity by requiring voter ID, a threat to the Demos’ fraudulent bulk-mail balloting strategy, it turns out the Atlanta Braves and the Houston Astros are now headlining the World Series. In other words, the biggest baseball matchup of the year is now being played in Georgia and Texas, another state that requires voter IDs.
Other athletes, notably the NFL’s Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and the NBA’s Boston Celtics star Enes Kanter, are also hitting back at the cancel culture mob.
Then, after YouTube banned Bryson Gray’s anti-Biden hip-hop sensation, “Let’s Go Brandon,” the kinder-gentler version of “FJB,” it took the top billing on the iTunes chart. And the number two slot went to rapper Loza Alexander for his version of, you guessed it, “Let’s Go Brandon.”
That was followed by an epic “Let’s Go Brandon” correction by The Washington Post.
The flagship of the Leftmedia propagandists, CNN, aired a segment with Bari Weiss, who thoroughly schooled Brian Stelter on cancel culture offenses. I am guessing he won’t invite her back again.
In Hollywood, high-profile director Mel Gibson has fended off the cancellation crowd.
But the most significant of the cancel culture kick-backers this week was comedian Dave Chappelle, who, despite some of his graphically gross “humor,” made the mistake of insisting there are two genders.
For the record, The Patriot Post has suffered significant shadow-banning by the corrupt social media giant Facebook, in part because its so-called “fact-checkers” concluded that our adherence to the science — that there are in fact two genders — constitutes “hate speech.”
Our friend, Rep. Jim Banks (R-IA), found out this week that Twitter will lock your account if you dare call a man a man. Banks said that a gender-dysphoric man — Biden’s Secretary of HHS Rachel Levine, who was declared the “first female four-star admiral” (a ceremonial distinction given to HHS secretaries) — was what he is: a man. Banks was promptly notified by the Twits that calling a man a man “violate[s] our rules against hateful conduct.”
By the way, Banks is still a Naval officer who deployed to Afghanistan twice, before Joe Biden’s surrender and retreat. “Admiral” Levine, on the other hand, has no military service record.
So, what did Dave Chappelle do? He committed the unpardonable sin of insisting men are men and women are women. Chappelle, who lives in Ohio, not Hollywood, has not drifted so far left as to take complete leave of his senses.
In his very popular two-part Netflix stand-up series, “The Closer,” Dave made the grave mistake of asserting: “Gender is a fact. Every human being on Earth had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on this Earth. That is a fact.”
Oh the horrors. He is now the target of relentless condemnation by the heterophobic gender deniers. He is not backing down, yet, and is paying a very heavy price for it.
Firing back at his attackers, Chappelle declared: “They’ve canceled people more powerful than me. They canceled J.K. Rowling. She wrote all the Harry Potter books by herself. She sold so many books the Bible is worried about them. And they canceled her because she said … gender was a fact. And then the trans community got mad as sh*t. They started calling her a TERF. I didn’t even know what that was. But I know that trans people make up words to win arguments.”
Despite a lot of pressure from the Rainbow Mafia, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos says he will not take down Chappelle’s specials: “Some people find the art of stand-up to be mean-spirited but our members enjoy it, and it’s an important part of our content offering.” He even fired some of the Netflix activists who were leading the revolt.
Those employees demanded Netflix “boost promotion … for trans-affirming titles on the platform” and “suggest trans-affirming content alongside and after content flagged as anti-trans.” They insisted Netflix “hire trans and non-binary content executives” and “create a new fund to specifically develop trans and non-binary talent.” Sarandos is attempting to make nice with those employees, given the power the small but vocal LBGTXYZ lobby has in Hollywood. He will find that no amount of concession will ever satisfy the arbiters of gender language.
Whatever else you might say about Dave Chappelle, he does not comport with the party line. A few other leftists, like Bill Maher, are also breaking with the script. It will be interesting to see if he can endure this mob. Soon enough they will show up at his house and go after his wife and kids.
Chappelle’s five-minute 2019 stand-up routine on “Juicy Smoo-yay,” mocking hate-hoax perp Jussie Smollett in front of a mostly black audience, clearly some of whom were still buying into the hoax, is one of the funniest routines I have ever seen. If you are not inclined to subject yourself to Chappelle’s expletives, you can read an excerpt here.
Ultimately, Chappelle’s “offending remarks” are an affront to a much more powerful cancel mob than the Rainbow Mafia. He has offended the entire Biden/Harris regime gender-denial agenda, which is being infused into every federal agency.
The latest chapter in the regime’s gender absurdities is the announcement this week that Biden’s State Department will issue passports with an “X” gender designation for those who are too confused to decide which gender they are. No word yet on how many Americans Biden abandoned in Afghanistan will apply for one of those passports.
Oh, and a final note as Biden prepares for his European G7 confab on “climate change.” Even Vladimir Putin is comparing the woke culture agenda to the political consequences of how “Bolsheviks followed the dogmas of Marx and Engels” after the Russian Revolution.
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/83798-the-cancel-culture-mob-meets-resistance-2021-10-28
********************************************
Supply Chain Problems and Prospects
President Joe Biden blames inflation on supply chain problems. He has assured the American people that since supply problems will lift soon so will inflation pressures. He is wrong on both counts. The inflation reflects more than supply chain problems, but even if it were just supply matters, they will persist longer than he claims.
The nation’s supply chain difficulties have many moving parts, but their root lies in the post-pandemic buying surge. Consumers, having spent little during the lockdowns and quarantines and sometimes with generous government checks in hand, have ratcheted up buying since the strictures have eased. Overall consumer spending has grown a powerful 11.6 percent over the past 12 months, a rate of increase only surpassed by the initial, post-strictures buying surge during the summer of 2020. The demand surge has filtered back from retailers to producers who, having stopped or curtailed activity during the lockdowns, have had to scramble to catch up. Delays, shortages, and rising prices are the result.
A worker shortage has exacerbated the strain. Fears of infection have kept many people away from the workplace, while government policies have kept others at home. Until recently, especially generous unemployment benefits made it more profitable for some to avoid work, especially workers with child care responsibilities who collected not only generous benefits, but also saved on child care expenses. As of September, the combined effect of these influences had brought work participation to a mere 61.6 percent of the civilian population, down from the pre-pandemic level of 63.5 percent. The percent change looks small, but it constitutes a 5.5 million decline in the numbers of people available for work.
The extra unemployment payment expired last month, but other generous government benefits remain in place, enough to keep some potential workers at home.
Recently, vaccine mandates have had an additional and detrimental effect on worker participation. Some workers have quit their jobs, rather than comply. Others have been fired or placed on leave. An absence of comprehensive data makes it hard to know exactly how much the mandates will further constrain the workforce. Using as guidance the experience of Washington State, where some 2,000 government workers have left because of the vaccine mandate, it is easy to see mandates across states and businesses taking more than a million more out of the workforce.
Meanwhile, a rise in strike activity has had an independent effect. The latest data from Cornell University’s Labor Action Trackers records almost 200 strikes so far in 2021, more than in years. It is hardly surprising. The worker shortage provides leverage for organized labor and the inflation provides workers ample motivation to seek higher wages. True, striking workers are still technically employed, but they are not producing. So far, the cumulative impact is small compared to other influences on labor availability. But whatever the justice of the strikes, they have made their own contribution to the labor shortage.
Meanwhile, the spring-summer rise in COVID-19 infections has added its burden on supply chains. The Delta variant has slowed production only marginally in the United States and Europe, but it has had a powerful effect in Asia. China’s strict “zero-tolerance” policy quickly shut down factories and shipping centers at the first sign of renewed infections. Governments elsewhere in Asia have also had to shut down factories, notably in important exporting economies such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
The loss of this production has cut off product flows to this country, consumer goods in large part, but also parts needed by domestic producers. This interruption has done especial damage to the delivery of computer chips to auto manufacturers and of holiday gifts, notably toys.
Perhaps most significant in this mélange of trouble is the world-wide energy shortage. The post-pandemic demand surge would have strained production potentials in the best of circumstances, but policy actions have made matters worse. Biden has shut down the Keystone Pipeline and stopped the fracking revolution. Whatever the justification for his actions, they have contributed to a 14 percent drop in North American fossil fuel production. Furthermore, the absence of this production has returned monopoly-like power to OPEC and Russia, both of which have every incentive to constrain how much they pump and so keep the price of oil high.
Green initiatives have also contributed. These shut down coal mines and marginal supplies of oil and natural gas. Now with the surge in demand, it has become difficult, if not impossible, to restart the closed operations. It has proved even harder to ramp up alternatives, such as wind, solar, and hydro, to fill the energy supply gap. China has experienced an especially severe shortfall in electricity production. That may seem a long way from the United States, but the factory closures have constrained exports of products needed in this country.
These are not problems that dissipate quickly, whatever the president says. On the contrary, falling temperatures this winter will increase energy demands and intensify shortages that will likely filter through all production efforts. Even if Biden were to reverse his positions on fracking and the Keystone Pipeline, it would take months for the associated energy sources to reach users. It may turn out that Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s forecast of no easing until mid-2022 is optimistic.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/supply-chain-problems-and-prospects_4076021.html
***************************************
Racist Academic Accidentally Renounces His Life’s Work
In a tweet he quickly deleted, the nation’s leading purveyor of “antiracism” showed that anti-white racism is alive and well.
Kendi, the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Boston University and the nation’s leading proponent of the racist doctrine known as antiracism, inadvertently exposed himself on Friday as a fake, a fraud, a fabulist, and a phony when he tweeted an article citing a study that found 34% of white students falsely filled out the racial bean-counting section of their college admissions applications.
“More than a third of White students lied about their race on college applications,” Kendi complained, “and about half of these applicants lied about being Native American.”
Hmm… why on earth might white students pretend to be that which they’re not? Perhaps the answer can be found in the second sentence of Kendi’s tweet: “More than three-fourths of these students who lied about their race were accepted.”
Aha! If Kendi is correct — and he must be; he’s a college professor, after all — then white people actually get preferential treatment when they claim that their skin color is something other than white. Of course, that would mean that Kendi’s life’s work has been a Big Fat Lie, and that the bestselling author and millionaire is little more than a race-peddling grifter.
Is this a great country or what?
Kendi has thus noted that affirmative action creates unfair and systemically racist policies in our academic institutions — unfair and racist toward whites. Of course, he’ll claim otherwise, but why would Kendi have deleted that suddenly inconvenient tweet without explanation? Why not open it up to discussion? Why not reconcile his seemingly contradictory statements in the marketplace of ideas? Perhaps because he knows there’s no fitting the square peg of what he’s been saying all along into the round hole of what he accidentally admitted with that one bone-headed tweet: namely, that “white privilege” is snake oil. Or, at the very least, that non-white privilege is a thing, too. Unless we’re talking about Asian American college admissions, in which case they’re discriminated against to an even greater degree than whites.
“They imagine White people are disadvantaged while White people are on the higher end of nearly every racial disparity,” complained Kendi after trying to cover his tracks by deleting his tweet. “They imagine Black and Native people have racial advantages at the same time Black and Native people are on the lowest end of nearly every racial disparity. SMH.”
Actually, there’s no imagining here at all. When it comes to college admissions, white people (and Asian people) are routinely discriminated against. And Kendi’s tweet proved it. And his “nearly every racial disparity” straw man doesn’t disprove it. We’re talking about racial discrimination in college admissions, which is precisely the topic Kendi brought up in his since-deleted tweet.
Let’s face it: Anti-racism is simply racism in reverse. Kendi himself admits as much. “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” he says. “The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
Not in a healthy society it isn’t.
Racism is wrong no matter who’s on the receiving end. And, as Chief Justice John Roberts once put it, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
This would seem like a sensible approach. Unless you’re a leftist.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
2 November, 2021
30% of Republicans say VIOLENCE may be the only way to save the U.S. from its mounting problems
If the Left steal yet another election, there will be no more point in voting. Voting is a substitute for armed conflict but it only works if people accept that it reflects a real majority
Three out of every 10 Republicans believe the United States is so far gone that violence might be the only way to save it, according to a new poll released late last month.
The national survey taken by the Public Religion Research Institute shows that the fallout from January 6 Capitol riot may still be polarizing Americans more than nine months after it occurred.
Out of the 30 percent of Republicans who agreed that 'true American patriots might have to resort to violence in order to save our country,' 39 percent also held the belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.
Republicans who back baseless election fraud theories are about four times more likely to call for 'patriotic' violence than those who don't.
And 40 percent of those calling for uprising get their news from 'far-right' sources such as OAN and Newsmax.
Nearly one in 5 Americans - 18 percent - agreed with the need for violence in general, with 11 percent of Democrats and 17 percent of Independents saying so as well.
'Democracy is at a perilous crossroads right now. And I think that these poll results should be a further wakeup call to everyone,' Mike Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told DailyMail.com.
'One of the big challenges here is one of the nation's two major political parties is accepting dangerous disinformation about the 2020 election, even though our elections are safe and secure.'
Among religious groups, the poll found that 26 percent of white evangelical protestants believed violence is necessary to save the country, more than any other faith identity.
Next was people who follow non-Christian religions, of which 23 percent believe 'American patriots' need to take action to save the US.
PRRI CEO and founder Robert Jones said the findings are 'a direct result of former President Trump calling into question the election.'
'I’ve been doing this a while, for decades, and it’s not the kind of finding that as a sociologist, a public opinion pollster, that you’re used to seeing,' he told Yahoo News.
Even before he left office, the ex-president began promoting conspiracy theories that the election was rigged in favor of President Joe Biden.
On January 6 he channeled the furor created by those claims to rile up hundreds of supporters at his White House Stop the Steal rally, encouraging them to march toward the Capitol to put pressure on lawmakers who were readying to certify the election results.
Jones said he originally believed that the enthusiasm for violence would be highest 'in the heat of the moment' immediately after the riot.
But PRRI's findings on the question remained relatively steady in similar surveys conducted since March when 28 percent of Republicans, 13 percent of Independents and 7 percent of Democrats believed American patriots would have to 'save the country' with violence.
'One might hope cooler heads would prevail, but we really haven’t seen that' in the aftermath of January 6, Jones said.
'If anything, it looks like people are doubling down and views are getting kind of locked in.'
It appears the beliefs that pushed people to insurrection that day are still alive within Trump's party. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans either somewhat or completely agree that the election was stolen from Trump.
'That's a very unfortunate and dangerous result,' Sozan said.
About one in seven Republicans who believe so trust 'far-right' news sources, while only 19 percent of GOP voters who watch 'mainstream' media think the same.
'Donald Trump continues to repeat the lie that the election was stolen from him and that there was widespread election fraud - sadly, what we see is that Trump repeating that for over a year makes his followers believe it,' Sozan said.
The survey also shows that other beliefs that overlap with QAnon conspiracy theories still maintain a presence as well, despite repeatedly being disproven.
Roughly a quarter of Republican respondents to the survey identify as QAnon believers, which PRRI notes is 'significantly higher' than the 15 percent of Independents and 10 percent of Democrats who believe in it.
But nationwide, PRRI identified two QAnon beliefs along with the idea that 'true American patriots' need to rise to violence that hold true with about one in every five Americans.
Twenty-one percent of all respondents believe that 'There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.'
And 18 percent agreed with the statement, 'The government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation.'
The alarming rise of extremist ideals also comes with a growing nostalgia for the 20th century, when America was at the height of its power on the global stage following World War II - and still behind on critical social and civil rights reforms.
A majority of Republicans believe life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while a majority of Democrats believe it's changed for the better.
The share of Republicans who think life has gotten better since then is 29 percent - down from 46 percent the year before.
'Many people in the Republican party are holding very deeply-held views on race and religion, and wanting to harken back several decades when they thought things were better in this country - and so all of that together becomes a very toxic brew,' Sozan said.
Americans who've said the country has changed for the worse since then are more likely to believe in violence the change its path than those who think it's gotten better.
The survey polled a random sample of 2,508 American adults from all 50 states, between September 16 and September 29.
*********************************************
Aggressive Leftist hate of conservatives goes back a long way
It's much more than mere disagreement
**********************************************
Revenge of the Donald: Nostalgia and resentment could be enough to catapult Trump back into the presidency
This is NOT a sympthetic article about Trump. Writer David Frum is vaguely conservative but of the George Bush kind
Losers don’t usually get a second chance in modern U.S. presidential politics. Back in the days of nominating conventions and party bosses, an Adlai Stevenson or a Thomas Dewey could gain two consecutive nominations. Richard Nixon actually won the presidency in 1968 after losing in 1960. But since the coming of primary contests, it’s win—or retire. Even Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, was debarred in 2004.
Donald Trump, who upended so many previous presidential precedents, now seems likely to upend one more. Trump has to be considered the massive front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination. He’s already running hard, and he’s already dominating the field. Fox News’s intense promotion of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as an alternative to Trump is not working out any better in 2024 than its similar effort on behalf of then–New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in 2016. Trump dominates in the polls. He has the lead in fundraising. Down-ballot races turn on loyalty to Trump. Potential rivals vow they will not run for president if Trump does.
It’s an amazing spectacle, because Donald Trump was no ordinary political loser. He was a huge political loser. He lost the popular vote in two consecutive presidential elections, the second time by a margin of 8 million votes. He led his party to a brutal midterm defeat in 2018 amid the strongest economy since the late 1990s. He was the first president to have been impeached twice, the second time for inciting a mob to invade and attack Congress to overturn a national election result. He now faces more criminal and civil jeopardy than Richard Nixon did ahead of his presidential pardon in 1974.
David Frum: Trump may not have to steal 2024
Trump is campaigning on two themes: nostalgia for the strong pre-pandemic economy, plus resentment over the outcome of the vote in 2020. It’s not much, but it’s enough—enough to force DeSantis, the would-be Trump replacement, into desperate stunts to prove himself Trumpier than Trump: handing out $5,000 rewards to cops who refuse vaccination; identifying himself with a state surgeon general who advises anti-vaxxers to trust their “intuitions.”
But nobody is Trumpier than Trump. There’s no Trumpism that’s bigger than Trump. “It’s about a movement, not a man” is a venerable cliché applied to populist politics. In this case, though, it’s about a man, not a movement. In 2016, Trump endorsed allowing transgender people to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” In 2017, he crammed through a huge tax cut for the rich. On the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, Trump was negotiating a giveaway trade deal with China. Those are all supposed populist no-no’s. Trump followers paid no mind. If Trump does it, it’s okay. They don’t much care about the content of his politics. They care about its mood.
Anybody who follows politics even casually can see the Trump comeback emerging. Well-sourced reporters carefully detail the comeback’s mechanics. But almost nobody is prepared for the malicious destructiveness of what is to come.
In a 2011 speech, Donald Trump explained his single top rule in life: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.” He’s repeated the same idea over and over again in speeches, tweets, and books published under his byline. In 2024, the targets of Trump’s revenge are American law and American democracy. At a September 25 rally in Perry, Georgia, Trump excoriated state Republican officials who failed to subvert the state election for him. In Iowa two weeks later, Trump delivered more attacks on the 2020 election process, focusing this time on state Republicans who failed to steal Arizona for him.
In 2016 and through the early part of Trump’s presidency, there was often an edge of Friars Club comedy to Trump’s rally performances: not very nice comedy, a little out of style in tone and sensibility, but comedy all the same. Not in 2021. Now it’s all dark and bitter.
David A. Graham: America is not ready for Trump’s second term
Here’s video from a Georgia television station of the entirety of Trump’s Perry rally. Trump’s own speech starts at 1:37:38. Watch as much as you can stand and tell me if you detect even a moment of humor, Friars Club or otherwise. The most quoted bit—Trump’s quasi-endorsement of the Democrat Stacey Abrams as a better governor for Georgia than the Republican Brian Kemp—is not any kind of joke. It’s a deliberately delivered challenge, lower jaw jutting beyond the upper teeth, eyes slitted with anger.
That’s the guy who wants to return as the 47th president.
In Trump’s first term, the country was protected to some degree by his ignorance and ineptitude. He kept trying to do bad things, but it took him a while to figure out how the controls operated, where the kill-switches were located. By the time of his attempt to extort the Ukrainian president, in 2019, Trump had achieved a higher degree of mastery. But by then it was too late. Then the pandemic struck, and Trump bumped into a new wall of failure. In a second Trump presidency, however, the burglars will arrive already knowing how to bypass the alarms and disable the locks. He’ll understand that it’s not enough to install an ally as attorney general—he must control the secondary and tertiary ranks of the Justice Department too. He won’t allow himself to be talked into another chief of staff with an independent sense of duty, such as John Kelly, who averted much harm from the middle of 2017 to the beginning of 2019. It’ll be Mark Meadows types from day one to day last. And he’ll bring with them a new generation of Republican officeholders whose top priority will be rearranging their states’ election laws so that Republicans do not lose power even if they lose the vote.
That’s the future Trump is preparing.
Be ready.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-running-president-2024-election/620502/
***********************************************
Enthusiastic consent - more feminist fantasy than real world sex
Bettina Arndt comments from Australia:
Ivan is 74 years old. He has been making love to his wife, Suzie for thirty-five years. Their foreplay starts early, sometimes at the breakfast table. He writes:
“Remember the song, Come on Baby, Light my Fire? That can mean starting the mating dance hours before....
If the signals are faint, I’ll gently see if I can strengthen them … with a lingering kiss or a touch here and there. If there is no obvious inclination, then I won’t push it. I’ll back off. I look for tacit communication that she is in the market—or could be. The communication is in the eyes—and the way they look into mine. I can feel instantly if we’re on the same wavelength”.
He knows what to do if he senses she is interested:
“I can then be emboldened to make suggestions, like ‘How’s your skin at the moment? Does it need to be creamed?’ We both understand the code. We are both averse to being obvious and blunt. We prefer innuendo and teasing.”
This long-married couple like to keep things subtle. He’s aware she doesn’t want him to ask for consent. He’s spent decades learning to decipher her desires:
“This is a woman who has real trouble talking about sex and whose main method of communication is a whispered yes, a small groan, a tensing of her leg muscles, so it was a difficult process.”
Ivan’s lucky. He lives in West Australia where their lovemaking is still legal. But in NSW it is now a different story. Enthusiastic consent legislation has been law for the last two months.
According to NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman it is all “very simple”. Consent now has to be communicated by the other party “saying or doing something." Subtle interpretation of long-established codes is not enough to let the accused off the hook. “A reasonable step has to be an act or something said to ascertain the complainant's consent."
That’s it, you see. Most people don’t seek consent before and during lovemaking and nor do they have any interest in doing so. But that means we are all now prospective complainants or alleged perpetrators.
Consent is certainly not “very simple,” Mr Attorney General. It’s obvious you and all the other people making these laws don’t have a clue about what goes on beneath the dancing doona. There are many, many women like Ivan’s wife who’d be appalled if their husbands asked them for permission for sex. They expect their men to be able to tell if they are receiving a green light... or not… and sometimes to work hard to achieve it.
I’ve had people talking to me about these complex interactions for much of my adult life, having started my career as a sex therapist using the media to encourage more open conversations about sex. It recently occurred to me that I’m sitting on just the evidence to show why this simplistic talk about consent makes no sense.
I have diaries I collected from hundreds of couples during a 2007-9 research project about how they negotiate differences in sexual desire. I’ve already used this material for books about the gender desire gap and why sex means so much to men. But these revealing his-and-hers diaries offer clear proof as to why enthusiastic consent laws are totally barking mad. And whilst they focus mainly on people in long-term relationships, the research did include some very young people who’d only just met and believe me, here the communication is even more dense and bewildering.
Let’s have a look at another of my diarists – I called him ‘Anthony’ (unsurprisingly most of the participants preferred their names withheld from this revealing project). This 47-year-old man just couldn’t get his wife, Adele, to be open about her desires. He was yearning for her to admit that she wants him:
“To just say she felt like sex and wanted me to do it to (or with) her. I would like to see her wanting sex the way I want her to want it (now there’s a selfish, unrealistic thought!). I would really like her to verbalise her sexual thoughts. Over the years I have tried to move toward that point but have been frustrated by her apparent difficulty in finding the words or willingness to share them. Tactile is OK but it’s so damned ambiguous. I don’t want to imbue her touch with my meaning, I want to know what she’s been thinking to want to touch me. I want to know how she wants sex. I want to be inside her head.”
Now, see here, where he describes one of their interactions:
“Before I get out of bed, I pick up my book for a half hour of reading. Adele usually wakes before me, and she is reading already. She rests her hand on me and from time to time strokes my skin with tiny finger movements. The movements themselves and the places being touched don’t carry any overt sexual overtones at all but the persistence of them tells me she probably wants something. Whether it is to please me or to please her I don’t know. I don’t trust my judgement about that anymore. After a while I begin to think about the possibilities—imagining she wants pleasure and I feel a slight sexual response developing.
“Adele persists. She treads a narrow path so well—lots of practice, I suppose. She makes no overt sexual move and thereby avoids making the exchange unambiguous, ie with the potential for rejection. I put my book down and cuddle up to her. I can’t see her face but I’d bet anything that she is smiling.”
Look at this, Mr Speakman. She is touching him but deliberately making her approach ambiguous, so she won’t be seen to be asking for sex and won’t risk rejection. She’s ensuring it is up to him to make the next step.
This is classic of the complex dance of desire playing out in even the most harmonious of couplings. What makes you think you can go stomping into this delicate arena using your brand new, glistening legal jackboots and work out who is raping whom?
I have hundreds of such interactions I could trot out here, all showing why today’s sexual thought police are on the wrong planet. Clearly today’s 4th Wave feminists never bothered to read the classic 70s sexual works that educated and enthralled many of their mothers. Like Nancy Friday’s famous collection of real women’s sexual fantasies, My Secret Garden, full of steaming rape scenarios and women who want men to take charge. They are still well and truly out there, Mr Speakman.
Here’s another of my diarists, Anthea, describing a fling she had with an American guy, who was ten years her junior:
“From the outset it was aggressive, hard, powerful and incredible, so much so I cannot really begin to do it justice with a description. During our second day together, I gave him my vibrator to do what he chose with. His response was to throw me to the bed, tie me up with a tie that happened to be hanging on my bedroom door and then use the vibrator on me to get me to reach multiple orgasms. He said nothing before we did this, there was no discussion, he took charge, and it was incredible.”
She wanted him to take control, not ask for permission to throw her on the bed, to tie her up, and use the vibrator to drive her crazy. It was a perfectly straightforward, mutually advantageous transaction.
But imagine this scenario was happening now and the younger man tired of her attractions. What if this wonderful fling ended badly and Anthea decided to take advantage of this open invitation from the government inviting her to rethink? To retrospectively withdraw her consent and claim he’d overwhelmed her. The man was a marine after all, a big burly aggressive toxic male. Who’d believe him in a she-said, he-said legal battle if she decided to play the aggrieved victim?
It’s a simple fact of life that most love-affairs, most hook-ups end leaving one party disappointed. When the wounded party is a woman, she is now presented with a new legal weapon targeted to destroy the man who has let her down. Oh yes, in theory the legislation is gender-neutral but the reality is that women are rarely charged with such crimes, even though our most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey found almost one in three people claiming to be victims of sexual assault were male (28.4%). Men rarely take action over such crimes, knowing that if they do, they are unlikely to be believed.
Men are the ones in the firing line – primarily because their stronger levels of sexual desire mean they are usually the ones pushing for sexual consent. “Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it and after many years of it,” reports Roy F Baumeister, psychology professor at University of Queensland and a world expert on gender differences in desire. And as my diarists proved, most women still prefer men to initiate, partly because the female psyche seems to struggle more with sexual rejection.
The new sexual consent laws are all about encouraging women to rewrite the history of their sexual relationships in order to find more men guilty of sexual assault.
These laws willfully ignore women’s own ambiguity and confusion which means men face a lethal guessing game.
For one final example of these complexities, here’s a his-and-her version of one couple’s lovemaking session:
Terry’s diary - Wednesday, 26 September
“Last night she was drawing on my back. This is unheard of—her touching me like that. So, I lay there for a bit and enjoyed it. Then she ran her finger down my side and it tickled so I laughed and she rolled over, so I turned and cuddled her and we were having a good moment together gently stroking each other and cuddling. But then she pushed me away, saying ‘You always reject me!’ I protested and said I was enjoying our time together but she had made up her mind, ‘No, you rejected me. That’s why I don’t make a move on you, it hurts me to be rejected.’ I tried to say sorry, but it fell on deaf ears.”
Megan’s diary - Wednesday, 26 September
“We got into bed, he turned his back to me and I started stroking his back. He said it was nice. Then I tried to reach around to touch his penis and he started being really silly, saying that it tickled. I felt rejected so I pulled away. He then came over to my side of the bed and cuddled me but it was too late. I was lying there thinking mean thoughts about him. Then I said to him ‘Why did you do that? You could tell I was making an effort to initiate sex with you and you knocked me back.’ To which he responded, ‘What? What? I didn’t knock you back.’ He didn’t make an effort to make moves on me (it probably would have been unsuccessful), and he fell asleep shortly after.”
He says, she says. Two totally different versions of who did what, written within days of the actual event. Go figure….
Now we are expecting juries to sort out what actually took place years after a confusing liaison which one person claims took place without consent. In our current climate there’s a very real risk that such contradictions and confusion will be just swept aside, and those twelve ordinary men and women will step up, conform to the zeitgeist and believe-the- woman.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
1 November, 2021
Dem mayoral candidates now stressing law and order over BLM, 'defund the police'
In big-city mayoral elections, attracting enough votes to win apparently matters.
In city after city, Democrats who previously heeded Black Lives Matter’s calls to "defund the police" by reducing law enforcement budgets or reallocating police funds to other uses are now stressing crackdowns on crime as Election Day nears, The Washington Post reported Saturday.
"Mayors aren’t stupid, and they understand if taxpaying residents of their city start leaving, as they did in the 1970s, the whole city is endangered," Ned Hill, an Ohio State professor who studies city politics, told the newspaper.
Debates on addressing lawlessness are also taking place in cities without competitive elections, the report said.
The Democrats in cities such as New York City, Buffalo, Cleveland and Seattle may simply be reacting to the data, according to the Post, which cited last week’s Pew Research Center poll that showed 47% of Americans want police to receive more funding, not less.
That figure was up from 31% last June, amid racial justice protests, the Post reported.
U.S. cities saw killings rise by 30% in 2020 – representing the largest single-year spike since the federal government began tracking the information in the 1960s, the newspaper reported.
Perhaps reflecting the shift in voter sentiment, New York City’s Democratic mayoral nominee, Eric Adams, is a former NYPD captain, while GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa is a longtime anti-crime civic activist.
Even progressives are making adjustments, according to the Post.
In Buffalo, far-left mayoral candidate India Walton – a community activist backed by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. – now emphasizes better police accountability and roles for mental health professionals in reducing crime rather than her previous calls for defunding police and profanity-laced shouting during anti-police protests, the Post reported.
Nevertheless, Walton is trailing Byron Brown, Bufffalo's incumbent Democrat mayor, by 17 points in a recent poll despite having defeated Brown in a June primary. Brown is now trying to retain his office as a write-in candidate.
"Mayoral candidates are being compelled to respond to realities on the ground," Bruce Katz, director of the Nowak Metro Finance Lab at Drexel University, told the Post.
In Portland, Oregon, which last year saw a string of more than 100 days and nights of civil unrest, even Democrat Mayor Ted Wheeler – who was reelected last year -- has changed his view of some issues regarding law enforcement.
In September, Wheeler admitted that a "hands off" approach to policing for an August clash of opposing protesters was "not the right strategy," Fox News previously reported.
But low police morale resulting from last year’s the "defund the police" movement has been blamed for Portland’s struggle to recruit officers for its resurrected gun violence unit.
Last week Portland police Chief Chuck Lovell stressed the importance of staffing the unit after the city saw 19 shootings over a 54-hour period.
******************************************
Biden Admin’s Attempt to Bully Israel Via ‘Difficult’ Phone Call Fails Miserably
Efforts by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to stop Israel from building more housing in the West Bank have failed, according to a new report.
A report in the Times of Israel, citing the Walla news site, said Blinken spoke with Defense Minister Benny Gantz and scolded Israel for moving ahead with new housing that it has been planning.
On Sunday, Israel announced that it was moving forward with work to create 1,355 housing units in the West Bank, according to the Associated Press.
On Wednesday, Israel’s Defense Ministry’s higher planning council officially backed plans that had been in the works for 3,000 new homes in the West Bank, according to the Times of Israel.
The Times reported that “three unnamed Israeli officials familiar with the call” said Blinken told Gantz that Israel’s plans were “unacceptable.”
“The Americans gave us a yellow card,” a senior Israeli official is quoted as having said after the call.
The report said that Israel should consider what the Biden administration thinks when it acts in the future to add settlements.
Gantz offered soft words to Blinken saying Israel would consider what the Biden administration might have to say, according to the Times.
The Blinken call came after days of American disapproval.
When news of the new housing first emerged, Michael Ratney, America’s top diplomat in Jerusalem, called Israeli official Shimrit Meir to complain, in a conversation Axios said its sources described as “difficult.”
On Tuesday, U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said during a briefing that the Biden administration was “deeply concerned about the Israeli Government’s plan to advance thousands of settlement units tomorrow, Wednesday, many of them deep in the West Bank.”
“We strongly oppose the expansion of settlements, which is completely inconsistent with efforts to lower tensions and to ensure calm, and it damages the prospects for a two-state solution,” Price said.
On Friday, Price made a similar statement, but targeted both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Tuesday’s statement only chided Israel.
“We are concerned about the announcement of a meeting next week to advance settlement units deep in the West Bank, and believe it is critical for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to refrain from unilateral steps that exacerbate tension and undercut efforts to advance a negotiated two-state solution,” Price said on Friday, Axios reported.
The scolding of Israel comes at a time filled with a lot of anti-Israel sentiment. Douglas Schoen and Andrew Stein noted in an Op-Ed in the New York Post that these feelings against Israel have “even infiltrated US policymaking, sending an even louder message and carrying real consequences for Israel.”
***********************************
CNN Outfoxed: Conservative Programs Occupy Nearly Every Slot in the Top 15 Most Popular News Shows
It’s a good time to be a conservative cable news network, despite what the liberal media overlords want you to believe.
Tuesday was a particularly strong day for Fox News, as the network took 14 of the top 15 top cable slots, with “The Five,” “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and “Hannity” being the top three, according to Nielsen Media Research.
Fox News is offering its audience an alternative to most of the establishment media’s talk and opinion programs, which are acting as if former President Donald Trump is still in office.
They are likely attracting conservatives and even moderates who are looking for criticism of the Biden administration as opposed to praise from lapdog Beltway journalists.
People tuned into liberal media religiously from the moment Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015, and the circus raged on throughout his tenure in the White House in order to provide negative coverage around the clock.
Outside of primetime talk shows, CNN’s “New Day” morning show is suffering a serious ratings decline.
In the Nielsen rating without repeats, “New Day” ranked below the top 70 shows on cable news on Tuesday, and it has experienced a 40 percent decline in ratings since Brianna Keilar began co-anchoring the program in April.
On Wednesday, the show had its lowest viewership in six years, mustering only an average of 304,000 viewers, Nielsen data suggests.
By contrast, “Fox and Friends” has pulled in over 1.3 million viewers on Wednesday, a clear display of a much larger fanbase.
It should be no surprise that in a nation where the majority of the establishment media leans left, the right-leaning cable networks, which are fewer in number, would perform better.
Newsmax also made waves with its rankings as well, as its shows are also consistently making it in the top 70 on cable as the network caters to a populist right audience.
Establishment outlets used to include more political perspectives in their programming, but they have grown increasingly partisan.
Many Americans do not want to hear sugarcoated talking points about the Biden White House, especially given the current economic issues consumers are facing.
*************************************************
The End of American Courage
It’s “the ability to disregard fear.” That’s how the Oxford Dictionary defines courage. There are many things of which we’re fearful, and whether or not we face most of them is unimportant. Disregarding a fear of spiders to kill one doesn’t constitute courage. The Oxford Dictionary places the definition in context by further stating “the courage to act on one’s beliefs.” And in their beliefs is where Americans have faltered.
The definition of belief is “a person’s religion; religious conviction.” Our personal beliefs are arguably the most sacred part of us, and not having the courage to act upon them indicates we truly don’t possess them.
Over the centuries, Americans have demonstrated such courage to defend their beliefs in the face of grave dangers. Over the decades, however, Americans seem to have become alarmingly disenchanted with the idea of courage, much less religious conviction. As a result, America now stands on the threshold between preservation and neglection.
The Undermining of American Courage
Today, we’re too smart for religious convictions or belief in God. And that in itself is just the problem—not that we don’t believe in God, but that we sense our national brilliance can’t allow such a concession.
The argument for our brilliance is not even personal, but collective. It’s the idea that we, on an individual level, may not be that smart, but those in charge—those at the highest levels of science, academia, and law—know better than we do. They’re our collective thought process, and if they suggest that God is a fictional aspiration we should relinquish, then we believe they have a valid point, even if we decide to hold on to our belief.
This is how the demise of any society begins. We’re told what to think. Even if we choose to do otherwise, we’ve allowed something just as deadly to poison our individuality: we’ve allowed the powerful and the brilliant to suggest they can at least attempt to dictate our patterns of thought.
These dictatorial powers harnessed by corporate executives, tenured professors, mainstream journalists, sinister psychologists, and egotistic bureaucrats have made the average American sense—even if subconsciously—that perhaps it’s best they don’t have a say in the local conversation, much less the national one. So Americans have learned to self-censor. In other words, Americans have silenced their beliefs.
The Result of Silence
This current stream of soft dictatorship is reminiscent of what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn expressed during a speech he gave in London in 1983:
“Over half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”
Now, to make such a statement meant that “God” had actually not been “forgotten.” What it indicates is that those personal beliefs were no longer consequential. They meant nothing. Those beliefs were no longer tolerated being discussed with anyone outside their immediate and trusted circle, and even that was risky.
By the time this statement had been made, the Russian Revolution had accomplished its objective to not merely crush opposition, but also to crush the very idea of becoming the opposition. The only way to become the opposition is to discuss opposition in the marketplace of ideas. A democratic society can’t last—indeed, it won’t last—if the marketplace is shuttered.
A comparison between Stalinist Russia and modern America is unfair because they’re clearly not equivalent. This is why the statement that Solzhenitsyn heard as a child is so important. Solzhenitsyn was born in 1918, a year into the Revolution. The older people he overheard had witnessed the devolvement of the Russian Empire into the USSR. So they understood “why all this ha[d] happened.”
This is the potential equivalent of Stalinist Russia. What will our grandchildren overhear in the years to come?
Democracy Depends on the Marketplace of Ideas
The idea of “God” was the fundamental basis for Englishmen coming to these shores. George Washington considered religion and morality two “indispensable supports” that held up America’s foundation. Many other Founders felt the same.
The marketplace has introduced many terrible ideas that have moved America away from God. The devolvement has no doubt been a long process. From the theory of evolution taking over as the only scientific reason for human existence to embracing the idea that human existence is arbitrary and can be aborted with little to no objection. From the idea that women can’t legally have the same rights as men to the absurd suggestion that surgically women can become men (and vice versa).
The list of ideas that have been inflicted on American society is ongoing and at times devastating. This doesn’t mean that these types of ideas should be shouldered for eternity. Bad ideas should be allowed a spot in the marketplace. It’s the only way to spot the good from the bad. The problem is when the powers advocate bad ideas, introduce them to society, and then force that society to engage in those ideas (whether they believe in them or not is also inconsequential).
The danger Americans face, which is equivalent to Stalinist Russia, is that the opportunity to circumvent bad ideas is becoming more and more restricted. It’s reminiscent of another Solzhenitsyn quote: “Beaten down, sickly, virtue has now been allowed to enter in all its tatters and sit in the corner, as long as it doesn’t raise its voice.”
If logic and reason, along with faith and virtue, are no longer allowed spots in the marketplace, then we doom our grandchildren to soon overhear our frightening statements.
In this day and age, perhaps more than any other time in American history (and I don’t write that haphazardly), we need American courage. We must conduct ourselves according to the dictates of our consciences.
It’s time to voice our beliefs and preserve that for which we stand. This is not a time to compare modern America with Stalinist Russia. It’s a time to compare America with what those older Russians witnessed at the beginning.
If we fail to do so, it will be the end of American courage. And without that, it will lead to the end of America altogether.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/the-end-of-american-courage_4074605.html
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
For the notes appearing at the side of the original blog see HERE
Pictures put up on a blog sometimes do not last long. They stay up only as long as the original host keeps them up. I therefore keep archives of all the pictures that I use. The recent archives are online and are in two parts:
Archive of side pictures here
Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used on the blog in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and reflects the date on which the picture was posted. See here
My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;
Email me (John Ray) here.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/7SE32ORE4TRCC4SB33LEWOV3AA.jpg "image from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/resizer/8LZKWstay5CkR8-yQDLJJ04BSFw=/1440x782/smart/filters:quality(70)/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/7SE32ORE4TRCC4SB33LEWOV3AA.jpg")
