The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. Email John Ray here. See here or here for the archives of this site.


For a list of blog backups see here or here.

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

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

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

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



****************************************************************



29 March, 2018

False rape cry

A report from India

I am a Law student studying in one of the top NLUs. Once all my cousins gathered at my grandmother's house during holidays. Me and my cousin brother with my go pro camera used to record lot of pranks.

When me and my brother were in the room talking to each other we after listening to some steps coming towards our room, we became ready with my go pro to record and scare anyone who comes in. My cousin sister came inside the room running and tore her top and started shouting please don't rape me please help help!!. Me and my brother thought it was a prank so we didn't react and went back to normal. It was after 10 minutes we realised that something has been fucked up. All the family members gathered and we were fucked up. My mom started slapping me continuosly crying. My sister told everybody in the house that we raped her.

I told everyone to give me five minutes to explain myself and brother mine. After everyone's beating I finally got my chance to prove my innocence. I was fucking bleeding from my face but then I asked my sister to tell everyone what happened in detail. She started describing as if we raped her brutally. Then came my masterplan I showed her the go pro she first thought I was bluffing and added that I tried to film her.

I fucking lost it and asked everyone to watch the clip. As soon as my sister realised I was not bluffing, She started crying loudly and shouted nobody loves me this is fake and all. I after proving my innocence also posted the clip on the family whatsapp group so everybody knows.

She said that as she was not able to clear her CA papers [Institute of Chartered Accountants of India] and everybody was upset from her and she felt unlovable. Whatever!!!!!

If their had been no proof about that incident me my brother’s life would have been destroyed. I felt so thankful that I can't tell.

I lost every feeling for my sister and also learnt that due to all rape cases girls have been given a leverage to take advantage.

I am not saying every girl do it but some do.

SOURCE






Open letter from British Jews to the British Labour Party leader

Today, leaders of British Jewry tell Jeremy Corbyn that enough is enough. We have had enough of hearing that Jeremy Corbyn “opposes antisemitism”, whilst the mainstream majority of British Jews, and their concerns, are ignored by him and those he leads. There is a repeated institutional failure to properly address Jewish concerns and to tackle antisemitism, with the Chakrabarti Report being the most glaring example of this.

Jeremy Corbyn did not invent this form of politics, but he has had a lifetime within it, and now personifies its problems and dangers. He issues empty statements about opposing antisemitism, but does nothing to understand or address it. We conclude that he cannot seriously contemplate antisemitism, because he is so ideologically fixed within a far left worldview that is instinctively hostile to mainstream Jewish communities.

When Jews complain about an obviously antisemitic mural in Tower Hamlets, Corbyn of course supports the artist. Hizbollah commits terrorist atrocities against Jews, but Corbyn calls them his friends and attends pro-Hizbollah rallies in London. Exactly the same goes for Hamas. Raed Salah says Jews kill Christian children to drink their blood. Corbyn opposes his extradition and invites him for tea at the House of Commons. These are not the only cases. He is repeatedly found alongside people with blatantly antisemitic views, but claims never to hear or read them.

Again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with antisemites rather than Jews. At best, this derives from the far left’s obsessive hatred of Zionism, Zionists and Israel. At worst, it suggests a conspiratorial worldview in which mainstream Jewish communities are believed to be a hostile entity, a class enemy. When Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, Jews expressed sincere and profound fears as to how such politics would impact upon their wellbeing. Our concerns were never taken seriously. Three years on, the Party and British Jews are reaping the consequences.

Routine statements against antisemitism “and all forms of racism” get nowhere near dealing with the problem, because what distinguishes antisemitism from other forms of racism is the power that Jews are alleged to hold, and how they are charged with conspiring together against what is good. This is not only historic, or about what Jeremy Corbyn did before being Party leader. It is also utterly contemporary. There is literally not a single day in which Labour Party spaces, either online or in meetings, do not repeat the same fundamental antisemitic slanders against Jews. We are told that our concerns are faked, and done at the command of Israel and/or Zionism (whatever that means); that antisemitism is merely “criticism of Israel”; that we call any and all criticism of Israel “antisemitic”; that the Rothschilds run the world; that ISIS terrorism is a fake front for Israel; that Zionists are the new Nazis; and that Zionists collaborate with Nazis.

Rightly or wrongly, those who push this offensive material regard Jeremy Corbyn as their figurehead. They display an obsessive hatred of Israel alongside conspiracy theories and fake news. These repeated actions do serous harm to British Jews and to the British Labour Party.

Jeremy Corbyn is the only person with the standing to demand that all of this stops. Enough is enough.

Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jewish Leadership Council

SOURCE





This Week British Jews Bravely Stood Up to Labour's anti-Semitism. It Was a Tragic Failure

Jacob Judah [When will Jacob and his fellow Left-leaning Jews accept that it is conservatives who are their friends? From Nixon to Trump it is conservative Presidents who have always stood by Israel -- JR]

British Jews are U.S. Jews' poor kid brother. But I have never seen my Jewish community so assertive and united against Jeremy Corbyn’s normalization of anti-Semitism; I have also never seen Jews so powerless

I joined the Labour Party under Ed Miliband [a Jew]. I have campaigned in two general elections, in dozens of local elections and leafletting drives and have been active in my university Labour club since I joined the party in 2013. I was confident in my Jewish identity, and my Labour values. But I have handed in my membership card.

I left Labour, not because my values or ideology changed. Rather, my Jewishness is an important part of my identity. It would be intellectually dishonest to encourage strangers to vote in Jeremy Corbyn as Britain’s next prime minister, when I would be deeply uneasy about a Corbyn premiership and its ramifications for the country's Jews.

British Jewry is a modest community, and it has much to be modest about. It has never been as intellectually creative as American Jewry, nor as assertive as French Jewry. As the poorer kid brother of American Jews, Britain’s Jews’ achievements can be embodied, rather tragically, in Ed Miliband and Oliver Letwin. Rabbi Johnathan Wittenberg, the senior rabbi of Masorti Judaism in Britain, notes with regret that, “Labour has traditionally held socialist values, and these are values that Jews empathize with.”

Yet, in the last two years, as Anglo-Saxon Jewry has been hit by a wave of conspiracy theories, British Jewry has been brave. It has undergone a renaissance of sorts. More assertive, British Jews have united and stood up for themselves in a way that our American cousins have not. The fact that roughly one in every 200 British Jews turned out, with less than 24 hours’ notice, on Monday evening to stand against the rise in anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is perhaps a sign of the changing times.

This low-key watershed on an overcast Monday evening was triggered by what seemed to be, yet again, the yet another round in an ever-increasing list of either anti-Semitic developments or blindness to anti-Semitism from the Labour membership and leadership.

The case at issue was a Facebook comment by Jeremy Corbyn in 2012, opposing the removal of a mural depicting "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-style Jewish financiers playing chess on the backs of naked workers. However, said one protester on Monday, “There could have been other catalysts. It’s an accumulation of events and events.”

In response, Britain’s largest and most respected Jewish institutions, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, published an open letter, alleging that “again and again, Jeremy Corbyn has sided with anti-Semites” and called for a demonstration. Never before have Jewish institutions called for demonstrations against a major political party, never in my, or my parents’ lifetimes has anti-Semitism been such a pressing issue for British Jews. Never before have I felt that British Jews have to reassess their place in British society.

There was something tragic about this bravery, tinged with a low-hanging sense of unease. British Jews charged Lancelot-like into the indifference of the British public, accompanied by a pat on the back by some 60 ostensibly virtuous MPs who, having shown their faces crossed the street back to Parliament fully expecting nothing to change.

This collective shrug is what has made me anxious. Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism has normalized anti-Semitism and discussion of it in British society to the extent that it barely registers. On Sunday, the BBC’s "News at Ten" led with an Australian cricket scandal.

A refrain heard among those on Parliament Square was the degree to which this was perceived as a Jewish-only issue. The perception of the virtue fest by Labour MPs, keen to highlight their moral uprightness, underlines the degree to which the concerns of Labour MPs and the Jewish community have drifted apart. I don’t need more solidarity. Solidarity without gestures is meaningless.

This demonstration was a sublime failure. I have never seen my Jewish community so assertive and united; I have also never seen Jews so powerless. This protest was an admission of failure – an admission that Jews have failed to influence, not been listened to and failed to make a difference on the left. How had we come to this?

At the small pro-Corbyn counter-protest, one woman told me that the #EnoughisEnough protest was “riddled with Tories,” and that, “this is not a conspiracy theory, but it is no coincidence that this protest is happening just before an election” – notwithstanding the fact that it has been less than 10 months since the last election.

From the inside, I have witnessed the tragedy of some parts of the Corbyn movement – which has so many positive facets – as they were taken into a leader cult, built on populist rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

Debate is structured around dangerously vague, conspiratorial ideas of “the establishment,” media control and the banking system. Anti-Semitism is more than just personal, base, a matter of dislike. There is less of a focus on the theory-grounded materialist thinking of previous generations of Labour politicians, which ascribed behaviors and power positions more to the dynamics and dictates of a capitalist system.

It doesn’t have to be like this. In the hour before the protest began, a promising third statement dealing with the mural and its fallout was released. In it, Corbyn addressed and debunked directly some of the old and new anti-Semitic conspiracies that have found a seam in some parts of the Labour Party. There is much to be admired in the Corbyn movement, in the engagement that it has created, its breaking of the intellectual mould of the stultified debates, and the revitalization of British politics that it has bought with it.

Corbyn must speak to the Jewish community, he should refine and give the promising statement that was released just before the protest in the form of a speech. Corbyn is respected, and people on all sides will listen to what he has to say.

The bridge between the Jewish community and Labour is on fire. If Labour cares about British Jewry, it must do its best to put it out. Only then will Britain’s Jews consider returning.

SOURCE






Australia: Brainless do-gooders to make Aboriginal crime problem worse

What is their solution to the high rate of Aboriginal crime?  To reduce the penalties!  They want to abolish jail for fine defaults, for instance.  Do they know nothing about human behaviour? Basic psychology tells us that to reduce the undesired behaviour you need to INCREASE the penalties, not reduce them.  But Leftist "solutions" almost invariably worsen the problem so this ideological claptrap is nothing new.  They are trying to signal their own big heartedness, not help Aborigines

Australia has reached "crisis point" when it comes to the rate of indigenous people being sent to jail - especially women, lawyers say.

Federal and state governments are facing calls for urgent action as the latest statistics show Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders continue to be "alarmingly" over-represented in prison.

In a report tabled in federal parliament on Wednesday, the Australian Law Reform Commission says Indigenous Australians are 12.5 times more likely to be in jail than non-indigenous people.

Indigenous women, who make up more than a third of the country's female prison population, are 21.2 times more likely to be incarcerated than their non-indigenous sisters.

"The cycle of incarceration will continue devastating families and communities if we do not remodel our approach to criminal justice," Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT chief executive Lesley Turner said in a statement.

The Law Council of Australia labelled it a "national crisis" that requires immediate action.

It has called on governments to adopt the ALRC's 35 recommendations and not shelve them - like many from the 1991 royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody report were.

"The ALRC's recommendations offer a renewed roadmap to end disproportionate numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in incarceration," president Morry Bailes said.

The commission has suggested establishing a new body to redirect resources from the criminal justice system to community-led initiatives to address the issues driving crime and imprisonment.

It also wants all levels of government to repeal mandatory sentencing that disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, amend bail laws to ensure they're culturally appropriate, and scrap jail terms for unpaid fines.

On top of that, it has recommended a national inquiry into child protection laws and processes affecting indigenous Australians and specified national targets to reduce the rate of incarceration rates and violence against them.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





28 March, 2018

A tale of woe but not a whisper about its cause

The figures below about ever-growing traffic congestion in the Boston area are quite distressing.  One wonders where it will end up.  Sadly, such jams are not unique to Boston.  There are similar tales in many parts of urban USA. And the waste of people's time is huge. Instead of sitting for hours in traffic, people could be doing productive or at least congenial things.

So the story below is eloquent in setting out the problem but where is any attempt to find its cause? As the article is from a Leftist paper, the major cause of the problem is just too incorrect to discuss:  If you keep taking in millions of immigrants, most of them are going to end on the road in cars.  That's how America works. 

So what are millions of extra cars going to do with a relatively fixed amounts of road-space?  There will be no room for them and traffic will jam up.  Governments will endeavour to build extra road space where they can but where so much land is already built on, that is going to be a slow and limited process.

How long will commutes have to be before Americans put the blame for delays where it belongs -- on immigration.  With some commutes already taking two hours each way, something has got to give soon


Barbara Mayer, a nurse from the South Shore, has been making the same drive to and from the Longwood Medical Area for five years. Today, the trip takes her a good 15 or 20 minutes longer than it used to, an hour and a half compared with 70 minutes, and that’s if there’s no Cape traffic.

“I used to have time to water the flowers when I got home,” she said.

It’s the same story on the North Shore, where the drive into Boston to meet clients sometimes takes etiquette consultant Jodi Smith two hours, twice as long as it did a decade ago. West of the city, in Waltham, the MBTA’s Route 505 morning rush bus to the Financial District is now allotted 63 minutes to arrive. It was allotted 47 minutes in 2007.

Even in a city that has long known traffic headaches, congestion in recent years has extended commutes to lengths that approach a breaking point, encroaching ever deeper into the lives of workers who say they have less and less time to spare.

With Boston’s commutes ranked among the nation’s most stressful, employers increasingly must woo workers by allowing them to work from home or at off hours, according to the global staffing agency Robert Half. Some workers are simply electing to quit rather than lose more time to the road.

Joel Richman of Boxborough left his job and started working from home when a company move from Newton to Boston stretched his drive to two hours each way.

“You end up planning your entire day around your commute,” he said. “I’d leave at 4:15 and everyone else was still cranking away. By the time I got home it would be almost six. I’d try and spend a few minutes with my daughter and then log back on to the computer.”

Even real estate agents are having to adapt, by changing the way they market their properties. “We used to say ‘20 minutes into Boston,’?” Waltham broker Gary Rogers said, “but we don’t give the time anymore — it’s too dangerous. You don’t know if there are going to be delays.”

There are a few ways to measure how bad traffic has gotten. You can look at numerous studies showing that commuters are spending more time stuck in traffic than ever. One found the average Boston-area driver spending 60 hours stuck in traffic in 2017 — two more hours than in 2016.

You can think about the fact that Millennium Partners is proposing a $100 million gondola to fly workers over the clogged streets of the Seaport.

Here’s another way to see the change: Compare old bus schedules with today’s schedules, and notice that it takes buses — and cars driving on the same roads — a lot longer to cover the same number of miles than it did a decade ago.

“We had to revise the schedule to reflect reality,” said Colin Johnson, a vice president with DATTCO, which runs a commuter bus from Fairhaven to Copley Square.

Ten years ago, DATTCO’s 6:50 a.m. bus from Fairhaven hit Back Bay around 8:20, a 90-minute ride. Today’s commuters are on that bus for 130 minutes and don’t get to Copley until 9 a.m.

It’s a similar story from Southern New Hampshire. In 2008, the 7:30 a.m. Boston Express bus from North Londonderry, N.H., to South Station arrived at 8:35, a 65-minute trip. Today the express gets in at 9:10, 100 minutes after departing.

The MBTA has also changed its schedules, a reflection of the growing traffic and unpredictability of that traffic, according to the agency. In 2017, the morning express routes from Brighton and Watertown and Waltham took an average of 39 percent longer than they did in 2007.

With rush-hour traffic growing exponentially, every commuter interviewed spoke about the impacts on their lives and jobs, and the dreaded math of Boston traffic, in which a small delay in departure time can cost dearly in extra time on the road.

“If you leave five minutes late, it could take you 20 minutes longer to get to work,” said Mayer, the nurse. “Every once in a while, I’ll forget that I need to stop and get gas, and I’ll think, ‘Oh my God, I’ll never get there on time.’?”

Just as we’re experiencing more extreme weather events these days, anecdotal evidence shows that the increased volume of cars on the roads is leading to more extreme traffic events.

The smallest thing — rain, construction, a game at Fenway, an accident on a feeder road — can cause a tie-up.

That makes people afraid to go to work in bad weather, for fear they’ll never get home in time to meet family obligations.

In Sudbury, on a day when one of the recent nor’easters was heading our way, new mom Jordan Haywood worked from home rather than head into the financial district. Her infant’s day care was closing early, meaning Haywood would basically go to work and turn right around.

“If you’re a half an hour late [for day-care pickup] it’s $7,” she said, mentioning that she’s still breast-feeding, and that when she runs late, not only does it cost her money, but her milk begins to build up, adding extra urgency.

Some of her fellow working and commuting mothers pump in the car while they’re driving, she said. “They say it’s a timesaver. They are multitasking.”

As the drives get longer, living in or close to Boston is becoming farther out of reach financially for average workers. An analysis of single-family home sales found that prices are rising much faster in or near the city compared with prices in far-flung towns, according to Timothy Warren Jr., chief executive of the Warren Group.

He looked at the prices of single-family homes in 285 Massachusetts communities and found that in only 10 have prices surpassed what they were in 2005 — a peak in the market — by 50 percent or more. Nine of those 10 communities were in or near Boston.

“Some of those communities were previously considered blue-collar and affordable, including South Boston, Jamaica Plain, Somerville, and Charlestown,” Warren said in an e-mail.

“Others in the top ten (Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, and Lexington) have always been high-priced, but have become dramatically more so in recent years,’’ Warren said.

This pricey housing means many people are forced to live far from work, a situation made more painful by the growing commute times.

Michelle Collins and her fiance settled in Saugus after not being able to afford anything closer to their jobs. She works as a lab technician in Newton. He’s a warehouse manager in Natick. That means an hour’s commute each way for her and sometimes a two-hour trip for him.

“No matter what time you leave you can hit these weird pockets of traffic,” she said.

If Collins doesn’t build in a cushion, she might arrive late and, she said, have minutes deducted from her pool of vacation, personal, and sick time.

“I’d rather spend the time on vacation than sitting on Route 128 southbound,” she said.

SOURCE






Student Shames Pro-Gun Americans, Then We Noticed What’s Wrong With Her Jacket

The most visible activists in the latest push to tear up the Second Amendment are getting a lot of attention… and not all of it is positive.

Parkland, Florida, students David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez have become the faces of gun control as they make the rounds in the media and at rallies, but viewers have noticed some troubling “red flags” with both of them over the weekend.

On Saturday, the teenage protester Gonzalez took the stage as part of “March For Our Lives,” and delivered a speech that blamed gun ownership for the tragedy which killed 17 people last month.

That by itself isn’t surprising, but observers quickly pointed out something odd and ironic about her attire.

While standing on the podium, the anti-Second Amendment activist wore an olive green jacket that appeared to be a military uniform, with military-style patches sewn onto the sleeves. There was not a single American flag anywhere on the fatigues.

There was, however, a Cuban flag patch on her right shoulder — exactly where the American flag normally is worn.

“You can’t even make this up,” commented one pro-gun Facebook page. “She is wearing a Cuban flag, a communist country that is well known for disarming its own people and then slaughtering them wholesale; while addressing the U.S. about gun control.”

That commentary isn’t wrong. There’s a deep and sickening irony to replacing the U.S. flag with the symbol of a communist, tyrannical country that has been ruled by dictatorship for 60 years… while essentially telling Americans to give up their gun rights.

“Hitler took several years to disarm the population using gun registration lists, but Castro moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power,” explained Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America.

“He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists — compiled by the preceding Batista regime — to confiscate the people’s firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don’t give the all-wise leader any lip,” Pratt continued.

That use of gun control by the oppressive Castro regime in Cuba is common knowledge among many who fled the island.

“In modern Cuba, firearms are regulated by the National Revolutionary Police, the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces. The private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited. And Cubans continue to flee for the U.S. Surprised?” asked Luis Valdes, a Cuban-American gun rights advocate.

“We should never forget that purchasing a firearm is an important part of the American Dream,” Valdes explained.

“Gun ownership is the one few tangible acts that we can do when exercising our Constitutional Rights. When you hold that firearm in your hand, you’re holding a literal, physical representation of freedom,” he said.

Fidel Castro’s Cuba “murdered thousands upon thousands. The late R.J. Rummel, a University of Hawaii professor who tracked mass-killings by governments around the world, estimated as many as 141,000 people were murdered by the Castro regime,” reported Investor’s Business Daily.

“And that was  just through 1987. Since then, of course, thousands more have been killed,” the report continued.

Between Emma Gonzalez shunning the American flag to instead dress like a Cuban dictator and David Hogg throwing a stiff-armed salute that looked disturbingly like a Nazi gesture, there are many alarms about the not-so-subtle symbolism being used by these “organizers.”

That’s doesn’t automatically mean that they are themselves aspiring tyrants, but it does mean that they are shockingly ignorant about history and the real-life horrors of gun control… and that by itself should disqualify them as serious voices.

SOURCE





Is #MeToo Backlash Hurting Women’s Opportunities in Finance?

When my mother graduated from college in 1972, she interviewed at an investment bank where a manager told her that for certain positions, women were interviewed but never hired. Even in the late 1980s, she went on interviews with headhunters who would explicitly tell her, “They want to interview a woman,” with the emphasis on “interview”— as in, not hire. Through the decades, as she’s climbed the ranks to become a CFO of publicly traded company, I’ve often told these stories to show how much more opportunity exists in the workplace today.

In the aftermath of the MeToo movement around sexual harassment, I wonder how much progress we’ve really made; recently, several men have privately told me that they have no intention of hiring women for open roles, or of managing young women if they can avoid it. I now worry that the movement has already sparked a destructive backlash.

As someone who works in finance and is currently a student in the executive MBA program at the Wharton School, I’ve heard men say that they’re less likely to hire or associate with women as a result of the intensity of MeToo. Whether consciously or not, I am not sure how any man in America isn’t reassessing his hiring practices. I have heard directly from male executives at two prominent Wall Street firms that they are moving their female direct reports to report to female bosses.

Even if we could get past the troubling message this sends, this isn’t practical — women only make up about 25% of the executive team at the top Wall Street firms, and there simply aren’t enough women to sustain this model. I’ve also heard from male fund managers that they didn’t want to take on the “risk” of hiring a woman in their small shops. An employee of a large bank shared that any future women analyst hires should be “unattractive.”

This environment is particularly troubling for my female classmates and me if we want to obtain a job in financial services, which is what Wharton is known for. Even if I were smarter or more qualified than one of my male classmates, why would an employer hire me when the guy next to me is good enough and is less likely to make an accusation of harassment? Females make up just over 25% of my class, there is no short supply of male MBAs to hire. I have already heard from some men at small hedge funds that they won’t hire women because we’re too “risky,” and from men in VC that they won’t have one-on-one meetings with female founders.

But such candor is rare, and off the record, because such discrimination is illegal. And women may never know why they were passed over. In some ways, I think my mother was afforded a better interview experience — at least they were being honest when they flat-out told her they won’t hire women. I fear this spring will see many female MBAs interviewing at firms that wish to appear to be striving for gender parity, but have no real intention of hiring any young women.

To some, including the men I spoke with, it seems like the MeToo movement is not just about stopping harassment, but essentially trying to achieve the impossible: desexualize the workplace, which goes against Darwin. Chemistry between human beings can’t be stopped, so what’s the answer? To many men, that answer is protecting themselves by avoiding socializing with or hiring women. It may be illegal, but that won’t stop it from happening — most cases would never get to court, and even if they did, they’d  be really tough to prove.

My close friend, Vanity Fair contributing editor, Bethany McLean, views this fear as another excuse to exclude women. Before becoming a writer, she spent her days as an analyst at Goldman Sachs and certainly understands Wall Street culture. “That argument betrays a fundamental lack of respect for women,” she told me. “When men say that they’re afraid of being alone with women, what they’re actually saying is that there is a high likelihood that all women are crazy and will read something into a situation that isn’t intended. Women shouldn’t buy into the patriarchal point of view that women can’t be trusted.”

Her point of view is supported by a 2016 study on corporate sexual harassment policies. It found that most corporate sexual harassment policies were ineffective because employees interpreted them as protecting irrational or oversensitive women at the expense of men. “We found that the actual words of the sexual harassment policy bore little resemblance to the employees’ interpretations of the policy,” wrote one of the researchers. “Although the policy clearly focused on behaviors of sexual harassment, the participants almost universally claimed that the policy focused on perceptions of behaviors.”

Although men’s fears may be grounded in an unconsciously biased view of women as untrustworthy or irrational, I do think that the MeToo movement bears some of the blame for the backlash I’m currently seeing. The hashtag and media reports have had a telescoping effect, essentially blurring important distinctions between rape, groping, and clumsy come-ons. As a victim of sexual assault who lived through a U.S. federal landmark case, I want to support the movement, but when the social media waterfall started last fall, I couldn’t bring myself to share my experience — which brought me to the brink of depression for three years — under the same hashtag as women who were briefly fondled at a holiday office party. While neither sexual harassment and assault should be tolerated under any circumstances, they are not the same thing. But the level of condemnation offered to each now seems to be the same. As Sarah Chiche, one of the main authors of a French riposte to MeToo, told the New York Times, “Men whose only fault was sending a slightly salacious text message or email were being treated, on social networks, exactly the same way as sexual criminals, like rapists.” Watching the pendulum-swing of society’s reaction to sexual assault has been whiplash-inducing, and to me, worrisome.

I’ve heard many female peers say that they think the MeToo movement will speed gender parity in the workforce and create access to more executive positions. But we are not at a moment of celebration yet. As a society, we’ve worked so hard to try and take gender off the table, and now more than ever, it seems like it’s very much there.

The response to MeToo shouldn’t be to celebrate with expectations about the promise of this future. I don’t have the answers, but I do believe the start requires addressing the reality of how scared men have become to work with and hire women as a result, and that trust between sexes in the workplace is broken. If the MeToo movement allows us to address this openly and honestly, then society will be much better for it. My concern is this is not happening; rather, women are silently being pushed to the side, making the road to the C-suite and boardroom just as hurdled as it was for my mother 40 years ago.

SOURCE






Australian Police officers to undergo 'Muslim sensitivity training' to better understand Islam and combat the radicalisation of home grown terrorists

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to train Muslims into adapting to Australian culture?

Australian Federal Police officers will undergo three-day 'Muslim sensitivity training' to better understand the culture of Islam.

The AFP is tendering for a new provider to conduct the courses for officers across Australia, as the agency works to manage the threat of Islamic terror.

The agency will work to target Islamic extremism and prevent the radicalisation of young people in Australia.

The program will brief officers about current international conflicts and 'areas of interest', and aims to build relationships with Islamic community leaders.

The workshops will educate officers about all aspects of Islam, as Australian soldiers return from war-torn regions including Iraq and Syria.

The AFP told Daily Mail Australia the agency was tendering for a new provider, after offering the course over many years.

'The program has been delivered over many years by academic and cultural leaders within the community,' the AFP told The Australian.

'[It ensures] that AFP members are culturally aware and sensitive to the issues of the communities to which the AFP provides.'

The Australian police force has introduced a range of groups and commissions to tackle the threat of Islamic extremism since the September 11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

The National Disruption Group (NDG) was formed to combat religious extremism and includes officers from the state police, the Australian Crime Commission, and national intelligence agencies.

The NDG worked with 'vulnerable individuals, particularly young people, to prevent them from committing terrorist-related activity or travelling overseas to fight with a terrorist group'.

The AFP will also focus on targeting encrypted messages sent over the internet to organise terror attacks.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said: 'The use of encrypted messaging by terrorists and criminals is potentially the most significant degradation of intelligence capability in modern times'.

'The use of cyberspace by terrorists and criminals presents an increasing challenge for our agencies,' Mr Dutton said at the ASEAN conference. 

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia on Monday, an AFP spokesman said Islamic Awareness Workshops were 'paramount in educating officers around the Islamic faith'. 

'Like many other cultural initiatives within the AFP and Commonwealth Government, ensures that AFP members are culturally aware and sensitive to the issues of the communities for which the AFP provides a service to,' he said.  

'The program is designed to educate them about Islamic culture and the history of Islam, including the current international conflicts and areas of interest. It also covers engagement with other law enforcement partners and community members and groups.

'The AFP is governed by ‘Commonwealth Procurement Rules’ and as such we are unable to release additional information regarding an RFT while it is in the evaluation period.' 

Meanwhile, Senior commanders report they are concerned about terrorism ahead of the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.

Undercover commandos will be at the heart of the massive operation to keep the Commonwealth Games safe, police have revealed.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





27 March, 2018

Women in Men’s Sheds

Bettina Arndt writes from Australia:

Women are everywhere now. We've forced our way into all the workplaces, into the army’s fighting forces, into all men’s organisations, into the pubs. Everywhere you look there are women.

But there was one place that men were safe and that was in men's sheds. Traditionally in Australia many men had sheds up in their backyard where they could retreat to do their own thing. It led to a Men's Shed movement across Australia – over 1000 sheds now, particularly attracting older, retired men who come together and support each other. A vital mental health measure given that these older men are the group most at risk of suicide in the country.

But guess what? Women are pushing our way into the sheds too. There are sheds across the country coming under pressure to allow women members and amazingly some have caved in. I recently spent a few days talking to men in sheds for a YouTube video, finding out what’s going on here.

It turns out women are being allowed in the door due to a bunch of virtue-signalling men who willingly sell out other males in order to win brownie points from the ladies. They don’t believe in what men’s sheds are supposed to be all about – that special male companionship that comes from men doing things together, working on projects and enjoying banter and secret men’s talk. They don’t believe men are more likely to share their problems when with other men who get where they are coming from, who know what it’s like to face a broken marriage or prostate cancer.

There’s a good bloke up at Kur-ring-gai called Kevin Callinan who is chairman of the peak body representing men’s sheds, The Australian Men’s Sheds Association. He worked for seven years to set up his local shed but Kevin comes from a background in equity in the workplace. He believes in “inclusiveness” and hence calls his thriving shed simply “The Shed” and women are welcome.

Kevin is a man who doesn’t believe there's anything special about male culture. “There is to a certain extent but it’s not the be all and end all. I would more prefer a broader mix of society.” When asked whether it changes male culture to include women he said. “It does change male culture - for the good.”

Yet you hear something very different if you talk to most blokes in the Men’s Sheds movement.

“What do you think of women in men’s sheds?” I asked a man from the Kincumber Shed, on the NSW Central Coast. “Ugly!” was his response.  

“If women ever came into this shed I would be out the door,” said another.

Many believe the men allowing women into their sheds for cosy “inclusive” little craft sessions are selling out other men – and they are part of a far bigger problem.

There are many men in leadership positions see it in their interests to brown-nose to the ladies rather than stick up for men. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull lies about women’s role in family violence blaming the whole problem on men. Men running corporations, our bureaucracies are falling over themselves to institute policies favouring women. Our laws are tilted to favour women victims. The men running our universities promote a fake rape crisis and ignore the increasingly failure rates for male students. And so it goes on.

Men involved in the Men’s Shed movement need to take action to protect these male sanctuaries that enrich the spirit and even save the lives of some men. Come on men – grow a pair and stand up for men! 

Via email from Bettina bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au





Navy: No Destroyer of the Chaplaincy

If Jason Heap is one thing, it’s persistent. The DC-based humanist had already lost his bid to join the Navy chaplaincy under the Obama administration. He had to know that his application was an even longer shot under President Trump. Still, Heap filed again, hoping Navy officials would be more lax the second time around. Thanks two of the Hill’s conservatives, they weren’t.

Heap’s push to become the military’s first atheist chaplain started back in 2013. He made a big splash with the idea, even taking the military to court when it refused to change the tradition that George Washington started more than 240 years ago. “The Defense Department won all the cases against Jason Heap,” FRC’s Chris Gacek told reporters, “so you’d think that they would leave well enough alone and, therefore, there wouldn’t be a problem in the future. But there is a board called the Chaplain Appointment and Retention Eligibility Advisory Group that is recommending that the Navy accept him as a chaplain.” So, he went on, “even though he couldn’t get it through the courts or through other processes, there’s another group of faceless bureaucrats that have an agenda and are trying to push it.”

The news stunned Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), who both serve on their Armed Services Committees. Neither could believe the military was even having this discussion, let alone under a conservative commander in chief. To head off a politically correct disaster, they rallied their troops, firing off letters to the secretary of the Navy and its chief of chaplains with dozens of members’ signatures. Not only would it violate the Defense Department’s own guidelines, but it would open the floodgates to the complete erosion of the unique spiritual tradition of our military.

While neither letter mentioned what the two chambers could do — forcing the Navy’s hand through appropriations riders or other pressure points — branch leaders got the message. This week, Lamborn and Wicker got the news they’d been waiting for: Heap’s request was denied. “The very definition of the chaplaincy was at stake here, so I’m relieved to see the Navy’s response,” Lamborn said. “Appointing an atheist to a historically religious role would’ve gone against everything the chaplaincy was created to do. It would open the door to a host of so-called chaplains who represent philosophical worldviews and NOT the distinctly religious role of the Chaplain Corps. I applaud the Navy for upholding the truth.”

Wicker was just as relieved. “The Navy’s leadership has done the right thing,” he told reporters. “The appointment of an atheist to [a] … religious position is fundamentally incompatible with atheism’s secularism. This decision preserves the distinct religious role that our chaplains carry out.”

If the military wants to create specific programs for atheists or humanists, it can. There’s no need to hijack the Chaplain Corps to serve them — unless, as I suspect, the real goal had nothing to do with service to begin with. Either way, we salute the Navy for protecting the integrity of the chaplaincy, “For God and Country.”

SOURCE






A clown in a wig



How can a learned judge be so ignorant?

British Judge tells Parsons Green jihad bomber to study Koran, says: “The Koran is a book of peace…Islam forbids terror”

If Ahmed Hassan takes Mr Justice Haddon-Cave’s advice and studies the Koran more closely than he already has, he won’t emerge from prison a peaceful, gentle man. On the contrary, he will be a more hardened jihadi than he already is. Has this judge ever tried to read the Koran himself? Obviously not. If he had, he wouldn’t be able to say that it is a “book of peace.” But this is the willful ignorance that prevails not just in Britain, but everywhere in the West.

“Parsons Green terrorist is jailed for at least 34 years after the judge rules he lied about only being 18.

The Parsons Green bomber lied about his age in order to remain in the UK sparking renewed questions over the screening of child migrants.

Iraqi born, Ahmed Hassan, entered Britain illegally three years ago and then applied for asylum, claiming to be a 16-year orphan, who had keen kidnapped by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Hassan was jailed for life with a minimum of 34-years, after being convicted of attempting to murder dozens of commuters on a packed rush hour train at Parsons Green in south west London.

But the case raises serious questions over the ability of officials to weed out asylum seekers who try to take advantage of the system by claiming to be children.

Two years ago the Government came in for intense criticism when pictures emerged showing applicants who appeared to be much older than 17, claiming to be unaccompanied child migrants.

Home Office officials later suggested they might look older because of the ordeals they had suffered, But critics have insisted the system is open to exploitation and offers a potential gateway for terrorists to enter the UK.

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, told Hassan the length of the sentence reflected the fact he did not believe he was only 18 and said he hoped the amount of time he spent in prison would give him the chance to study the Koran properly.

More than 50 people were injured when the bomb partially detonated sending a fireball down the busy carriage of the District Line train last September.

But it is feared scores would have been killed if the device, which was packed with 400g of ‘Mother of Satan’ explosives, had functioned as Hassan had intended.

At his sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey, the judge said: “Your intention that morning was to kill as many members of the British public as possible by planting the IED (improvised explosive device) on a busy commuter Tube train.”

He went on: “You will have plenty of time to study the Koran in Prison… the Koran is a book of peace… Islam forbids breaking the law of the land…..Islam forbids terror.”

Hassan came to Britain hidden in the the back of a lorry in Autumn of 2015, around the time the government relaxed the rules on accepting asylum applications from unaccompanied minors.

He was found a place in a Barnardo’s children’s home and made a formal asylum application to the Home Office in January 2016.

Hassan told officials his parents had been killed and he had been kidnapped by Isil and trained to kill by them….

SOURCE





The Real Reason We Have Mass Shootings

Walter E. Williams

One of the unavoidable tragedies of youth is the temptation to think that what is seen today has always been. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in our responses to the recent Parkland, Florida, massacre.

Part of the responses to those murders are calls to raise the age to purchase a gun and to have more thorough background checks—in a word, to make gun purchases more difficult. That’s a vision that sees easy gun availability as the problem; thus, the solution is to reduce that availability.

The vision that sees “easy” availability as the problem ignores the fact of U.S. history that guns were far more available yesteryear. With truly easy gun availability, there was nowhere near the gun mayhem and murder that we see today.

I’m tempted to ask those who believe that guns are today’s problem whether they think that guns were nicer yesteryear.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

What about the calls for bans on the AR-15 so-called assault rifle? It turns out that, according to 2016 FBI statistics, rifles accounted for 368 of the 17,250 homicides in the U.S. that year. That means restrictions on the purchase of rifles would do little or nothing for the homicide rate.

Leaders of the gun control movement know this. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership.

Gun ownership is not our problem. Our problem is a widespread decline in moral values that has nothing to do with guns. That decline includes disrespect for those in authority, disrespect for oneself, little accountability for anti-social behavior, and a scuttling of religious teachings that reinforced moral values.

Let’s examine elements of this decline.

If any of our great-grandparents or even grandparents who passed away before 1960 were to return, they would not believe the kind of personal behavior all too common today. They wouldn’t believe that youngsters could get away with cursing and assaulting teachers. They wouldn’t believe that some school districts, such as Philadelphia’s, employ more than 400 school police officers.

During my primary and secondary schooling, from 1942 to 1954, the only time one saw a policeman in school was during an assembly period where we had to listen to a boring lecture on safety. Our ancestors also wouldn’t believe that we’re now debating whether teachers should be armed.

There are other forms of behavior that would have been deemed grossly immoral yesteryear. There are companies such as National Debt Relief, CuraDebt, and LendingTree, which advertise that they will help you to avoid paying all the money you owe. So after you and a seller agree to terms of a sale, if you fail to live up to your half of the bargain, there are companies that will assist you in ripping off the seller.

There are companies that counsel senior citizens on how to shelter their assets from nursing home care costs. For example, a surviving spouse may own a completely paid-for home that’s worth $500,000. The costs of nursing home care might run $50,000 a year.

By selling her house, she could pay the nursing home costs, but her children wouldn’t inherit the house. There are firms that come in to shelter her assets so that she can bequeath her home to her heirs and leave taxpayers to foot the nursing home bill.

In my book, that’s immoral, but it is so common that most of us give it no thought.

There is one moral failing that is devastating to the future of our nation. That failing, which has wide acceptance by the American people, is the idea that Congress has the authority to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. That is nothing less than legalized theft and accounts for roughly three-quarters of federal spending.

For the Christians among us, we should consider that when God gave Moses the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” he probably didn’t mean thou shalt not steal unless you get a majority vote in the Congress.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************



26 March, 2018

A very Leftist sheriff






Looking back







Anti-gun crusader gives Communist clenched fist salute



On Saturday, an enraged student from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School gave a fiery speech, and at its conclusion threw up a salute that ignited a firestorm on social media.

Far-left activist David Hogg attacked Republicans during his speech, saying, "I’m going to start off by putting this price tag right here as a reminder for you guys to know how much Marco Rubio took for every student's life in Florida."

Hogg continued with his Democratic talking points, stating, "Let's put the USA over the NRA."

Toward the end of his approximately four-minute speech, Hogg said, "Thank you. I love you all. God bless all of you and God bless America. We can and we will change the world!"

At that moment, Hogg threw up a salute that sent Twitter into a frenzy.

SOURCE







Instead of March for Our Lives, maybe it’s time to March for the Truth?

Follow the money.

It’s a strange political fact, but nearly every major anti-gun group has been a front group. The NRA is maligned 24/7 and yet it’s completely obvious whom it represents. Despite the efforts to tie it to everyone from firearms manufacturers to the Russians (if you can’t tie any random Republican thing to the Russians these days, you won’t be working at the Washington Post or CNN for very long), it represents its five million members. Anti-gun groups tend to represent shadowy networks.

Take Everytown, the noisiest and most dishonest anti-gun group on the scene. The one consistent thing about anti-gun groups is that that they are usually the opposite of what their name says they are.

Everytown for Gun Safety was formed out of two other groups: Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Both are actually front groups for Michael Bloomberg, the lefty billionaire and former boss of the Big Apple, who used New York City resources to host at least one of its websites.

So Everytown is really New York City.

March for Our Lives is on every cable channel, but who runs it? The photogenic teen fronts are out front. But it’s obvious to everyone that a bunch of teens don’t have the resources and skills to coordinate a nationwide movement. Instead it’s the experienced activists who are actually running things.

The March for Our Lives Fund is incorporated as a 501(c)(4). Donations to 501(c)(4) groups are not tax- deductible. And they don’t have to disclose donors. That’s why they’re a great dark money conduit.

But the March for Our Lives website suggests that donors who want to make a tax-deductible donation should write a check to the “March For Our Lives—Everytown Support Fund”. How will Bloomberg’s organization provide support for the supposed student group?

Why have two March for Our Lives Fund, one dark and one light? And why is one being routed through the godfather of the gun control lobby?

When it comes to March for Our Lives, the questions never end.

The March for Our Lives permit application was filed by Deena Katz, a co-executive director of the Women's March Los Angeles Foundation. This wasn’t just a little bit of professional activist assistance.

The application lists Katz as the “Person in Charge of Event”.

Katz is a former Dancing With the Stars and current Bill Maher producer.  She’s also the former owner of Talent Central, a Los Angeles talent agency, The leaked application lists her as the president of the March for Our Lives Fund.

Media contacts for March for Our Lives are being handled by 42 West. The agency is a full service PR firm operating out of New York and Los Angeles that represents major celebrities. 42 West was supposedly recommended by George Clooney who was one of a number of major celebrity donors.

Where did all those millions of dollars go? Good question.

“They’re being directed by people with knowledge of how to responsibly spend this money and it’s going to be very transparent. Every penny is going to be accounted for," Jeff Kasky, the father of one of the students, claimed.

Who are those people? A leaked document reveals that the March for Our Lives Action Fund is actually overseen by six directors and is incorporated in Delaware.

So far we have Los Angeles, New York and Delaware, but not Florida.

Donations are being directed to, “March For Our Lives Fund, 16130 Ventura Blvd Ste 320, Encino, CA 91435.” That matches the listed office address on the application for the Wishnow Ross Warsavsky & Company. The tax firm appears to have no website.

The six directors learn toward Los Angeles.

There's Aileen Adams, the head of Do Good LA, who had served as the Deputy Mayor for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for Los Angeles. Adams was also UCLA's Vice Provost for Strategic Alliances.

Nor is she the only UCLA person on the list.

There's also George Kieffer, chair of UCLA's Board of Regents, who was named one of the most influential lawyers in California. He also held a variety of other political positions and headed the California State Protocol Foundation which funds expenses for Governor Jerry Brown.

Then there’s Nina Vinik who serves as the Program Director for the Gun Violence Prevention Program at the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation has been notable for its gun control efforts and it’s not surprising to find it here. The Joyce Foundation also set up the anti-gun Fund for a Safer Future.

One story claims that, "Several members of the Fund for a Safer Future are organizing internally to explore new ways of engagement in the wake of Parkland.” Another states that the Joyce Foundation, “funds research to help grantees understand how different audiences think about the issue. It's up to grantees to come up with tactics.” After Parkland, Nina wrote a militant editorial using some very familiar talking points, like, “Maybe it’s time to ask the Supreme Court about the rights of the Parkland parents to see their kids grow up.” The Joyce Foundation and Nina are based out of Chicago.

Over in Washington D.C., there's Vernetta Walker of BoardSource acting as the fund’s Secretary and Jeri Rhodes of the Friends Committee on National Legislation acting as its Treasurer.

And then out of Madison, Wisconsin, comes Melissa Scholz.

Florida is notably absent from the roll call. Instead the organization, one of a number of seeming incarnations of the March for Our Lives brand, draws on established activist talent from the usual places, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. There’s nothing particularly local about it.

March for Our Lives is funded by Hollywood celebs, it’s led by a Hollywood producer and its finances are routed through an obscure tax firm in the Valley. Its treasurer and secretary are Washington D.C. pros. And a top funder of gun control agendas is also one of its directors.

None of this has much to do with Parkland. The mass shooting by a mentally ill man who should have been committed and arrested long before he carried out his massacre was a political opportunity.

Now that opportunity is being exploited to the hilt by a professional class of political activists.

Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.

And who is really behind the whole thing? Hollywood celebs, Bloomberg, a network of organizations?

We know who supports the NRA. You can see NRA stickers on car windows even in the bluest cities in the country. But who really supports the anti-gun political network? You’ll need to spend hours sorting through paperwork, following the trail, comparing addresses and researching names, to even get a hint.

That’s what an illegitimate lobby thwarting the will of the people really looks like.

Instead of March for Our Lives, maybe it’s time to March for the Truth?

SOURCE





US Senate passes Taylor Force Act, slashing aid to Palestinians

United States funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is set to be slashed after the Senate passed the Taylor Force Act as part of a $1.3 trillion spending package to stave off a US-wide government shut down.

The Act, which has garnered bipartisan support, would withhold a large chunk of Washington's financial aid to the Western-backed Palestinian leadership unless they cease payments to families of terrorists convicted in Israeli courts.

The bill's proponents, along with Israeli officials, say payments by the PA to families of those imprisoned in Israel for carrying out acts of terror serve as incentives for other would-be assailants.

The legislation is named after US citizen Taylor Force, who was killed by a West Bank resident who went on a stabbing spree in Jaffa Port in March 2016.

It protects some aid funding to the PA, including for wastewater projects that have been spearheaded by co-operation between Palestinians, Israel, the US and Jordan.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham succeeded in attaching the bill to the massive omnibus spending package that came up for a vote in the Senate in the early hours of Friday morning.

“Taylor was an American hero who was brutally murdered at the hands of terrorists,” Graham said in a statement before the bill's passing.

“Yet instead of condemning this horrific attack -- and so many others like it -- the Palestinian Authority pays monetary rewards to terrorists and their families.""These rewards for terrorist attacks are inconsistent with American values. They are inconsistent with decency, and they are certainly inconsistent with peace.”

The PA has strenuously opposed the bill, arguing that the payments are legitimate and it would be politically impossible to curtail them.PA President Mahmoud Abbas defended the payments to the families of Palestinian attackers last summer as "a social responsibility"

Israel's UN envoy Danny Danon lauded the move to end what he termed "pay to slay" payments."The passage of the Taylor Force Act is an important step towards finally ending the despicable practice of pay to slay & ensuring accountability in the Palestinian Authority.

A similar bill in Israel that would cut Israeli funding by the same amount that the PA uses to pay terrorists' families is currently before the Knesset.

SOURCE




Military Changing Body Armor to Accommodate Women’s Long Hair

As women enter ground combat fields in larger numbers, the military services are working harder to make gender-specific accommodations for their gear -- even down to tweaking protective equipment to fit around longer hair.

According to presentations prepared by the Army and the Marine Corps for the Pentagon's Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, both services are making independent changes to ensure gear fits correctly for women with hair buns.

A presentation prepared by Army Lt. Col. Ginger L. Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment, shows a recently introduced version of the Female Improved Outer Tactical Vest, or FIOTV, includes a yoke-and-collar assembly that dips in the back to accommodate a hair bun, along with other fit improvements to offer better ballistic protection for women.

Feedback from soldiers is also leading to helmet improvements, the presentation shows.

Women in uniform complained that the "X-Back" design of the apparatus holding the chin straps interfered with hair buns, making it difficult for the helmet to fit securely on the head, with the straps in the proper places. According to the presentation, the Army is introducing a female-specific "H-Back" apparatus that includes an opening for a bun.

This solution, along with improvements to retention straps to keep them from interfering with peripheral vision and cutting into earlobes, was "widely accepted by [the] female soldier community," the presentation showed.

A number of recent improvements to the Army's body armor design have come through the human factors evaluation process, in which female soldiers provide feedback and critiques on their own personal protective equipment and test out new gear.

"Often, these HFEs compare new equipment and legacy systems side by side in a counter-balanced test design," Whitehead's presentation stated. "Testing personnel measure all Soldiers participating in user assessments and operational tests to determine their individual percentile rankings for various body dimensions and to initially size and fit the tested equipment."

The Army began these research efforts in 2010.

The Marine Corps, which began an effort to expand the size range of its stock of personal protective equipment as infantry fields opened to women in 2016, now aims to fit all Marines from the 2nd percentile of female troops to the 98th percentile of males. Previously, gear only had to fit the 5th to 95th percentile of men. The change means another 8,856 smaller-stature and 5,711 larger Marines will get gear that fits, according to a presentation for DACOWITS from Lt. Col. Chris Madeline, the Marine Corps' program manager for Infantry Combat Equipment.

The Corps' new Enhanced Combat Helmet, which is set to begin fielding this spring, has design features that better accommodate the hair bun, according to the presentation.

The Plate Carrier Generation III system, which is currently in the design and contracting process, is shorter and 25 percent lighter than its predecessors, with a more modular fit, according to the slides.

The Marines are also working on an improved adjustable pack frame designed to fit better around body armor and offer better fit options to cover a range of sizes.

For services in which women have historically had to contend with protective equipment designed for men that often left them contending with gaping armholes and too-long torsos, even small adjustments, like room for hair buns, represent progress.

The Army and Marine Corps are not the only male-dominated services with blind spots in this area. Just last year, the Navy changed a policy governing how to wear ball caps that allowed women with long hair to wear them comfortably for the first time.

So far, the Army and Marine Corps have opted to expand size range and improve fit for the primary body armor vest and protective plates, rather than to design a full range of gender-specific protective gear.

In 2017, Lt. Col. Kathy Brown, then-product manager for soldier protective equipment at PEO Soldier, told Military.com that research had shown that form-fitting protective plates for women created their own fit challenges, and the Army had ultimately determined that it was not the best approach.

That answer, however, does not satisfy everyone.

Last year, Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., told Military.com that he found the solution "100 percent unacceptable."

"Men would be the first to cry out that the military adapt appropriate body armor ... to them if it was first designed for women," said Carbajal, who served in the Marine Corps as a mortarman and left the service as a sergeant. "It's really important that we provide the same appreciation and support for female soldiers and Marines that we do for men ... as a Marine myself, I find it does not correlate to the values of the institution."

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************




25 March, 2018

Germany is hostile to the Jews.  Are we still in the 1930s?

Germany co-operating with Tehran's ballistic missile program, which includes scores of medium-range rockets capable of striking Israel and sparking a regional war

U.S. officials are increasingly alarmed by a congressional block on President Donald Trump's pick to be the next ambassador to Germany, a holdup that comes as Berlin pursues a host of anti-Israel measures and is growing closer to Iran, according to multiple administration insiders who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

As Democrats in Congress continue to hold the nomination of Richard Grenell, a veteran Republican diplomat who was tapped by Trump to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Germany, the post remains vacant, sparking concerns the United States is ceding leverage amid sensitive discussions regarding the future of the landmark Iran nuclear deal.

The vacancy also has left the United States with little voice to combat a series of anti-Israel efforts being pursued by the German government. Trump administration insiders are becoming increasingly fed-up with the block on Grenell, telling the Free Beacon that U.S. diplomats currently helming the post have been bungling critical national security priorities, including the Iran portfolio and recent efforts by Germany to sell Tehran sensitive equipment used by the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria to produce chemical weapons.

"The current leader of the embassy is not an ambassador," said one senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of the situation, referring to Kent Logsdon, a former Obama administration official who is serving as the charg? d'affaires ad interim in Berlin.

German officials have declined to go along with a bid to crackdown on Tehran's ballistic missile program, which includes scores of medium-range rockets capable of striking Israel and sparking a regional war.

Recent reports also indicate that Germany is likely selling Iran technology that is being used to help the Syrian regime replenish chemical weapons stocks.

"The Germans have become key facilitators for Iran's dual use material and technology imports," said one Trump administration insider who works closely with the White House on Iran issues. "These are goods that ostensibly look civilian but can be used to help Iran advance its missile and nuclear programs."

"In talks with American negotiators, Germany has made it clear it does not believe Iran's missiles should be subject to a snapback of sanctions waived by the nuclear deal," the source disclosed. "Instead, the Germans say the West should simply keep waiving sanctions and offer to negotiate with Iran on its missile program by offering the regime more economic incentives in exchange for JCPOA-like concessions on missiles."

This has caused a tense diplomatic situation that has been exacerbated by the lack of a U.S. ambassador in Germany, the source said.

"At a time like this, we need a strong-willed, pro-Israel American ambassador in Berlin," said the source. "That man in Rick Grenell.  The sooner he hits the ground, the sooner we start taking it to the Germans for dragging their feet on Iranian missiles."

As the Iran issue takes top billing, Germany has also come under criticism for a series of anti-Israel efforts opposed by the United States.

In the latest kerfuffle, Germany has been blocking efforts by Israel to join the United Nations Security Council. Israel's presence on the council could send a significant international message and help thwart efforts by Arab nations to delegitimize the Jewish state at Turtle Bay.

There, too, Grenell could have an influence, sources say, referring to his vocal support of the Jewish state and efforts to combat deligitimization efforts.

Germany also has refused to take a tough line on the Iranian-tied terror group Hezbollah, according to recent report.

The German government is said to be opposed to efforts by the international community to designate Hezbollah as a terror group and crackdown on its rogue activities across the region.

As the diplomatic battle continues, the United States has had little to no voice in the discussion, sources say, again citing Grenell's holdup.

Richard Goldberg, a former senior Senate aide and current senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described the block on Grenell as disastrous for U.S. national security and foreign policy.

"The number of bilateral issues facing the United States and Germany are mounting by the day," Goldberg said. "We need a thoughtful, strong-willed, confirmed ambassador in place as soon as possible.  On issues like trade, the Iran nuclear deal and Russia sanctions, the stakes are too high to drag this out any longer.  Leader [Mitch] McConnell should consider filing for cloture at the end of the week if the hold isn't lifted."

SOURCE





FBI Political Correctness Allowed This Islamist Teenager to Carry Out Attack

A sickening act of youth violence in Florida glinted across the news headlines last week, and then disappeared from view.

There will be no CNN town halls or student walkouts over the lost life and preventable tragedy, because there are no guns to blame. Only dropped balls.

As the exploiters of crisis know full well, bureaucratic screw-ups don’t make good fodder for partisan fundraisers and hipster T-shirts.

According to a probable cause affidavit filed by the Palm Beach County police, 17-year-old Corey Johnson bought a knife last Sunday and brought it with him to a sleepover at longtime friend Kyle Bancroft’s house. At 4 a.m., he decided to kill Kyle’s mother, Elaine; his brother, Dane; and Dane’s friend, Jovanni Sierra Brand.

Corey repeatedly stabbed Jovanni in his bed and slit his throat. Then he attempted to murder Elaine as she approached the boys’ bedrooms in response to Jio’s last gasps. Dane rescued his mom and sustained 32 stab wounds. Both were hospitalized and survived. Jio was buried last Friday—less than a week after celebrating his 13th birthday at a pizza party attended by Corey.

The accused killer told police he “stabbed the victims because of his Muslim faith,” watched videos of “Muslim jihadists” on his cellphone, and “was reading the Quran from his phone just prior to the attack to give him courage to carry out his intentions.”

Perhaps he read the sword verses for inspiration? Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan quoted from them in his presentation to classmates and superiors at Walter Reed Medical Center: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.”

Or maybe it was Surah 9:5: “Fight and slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush.”

Corey’s brutal attack was no bolt out of the blue, no unexpected incidence of sudden jihad syndrome. Local school officials and police in Palm Beach County, along with federal and international law enforcement authorities, had encountered more red flags in their years of dealing with Corey than at a Communist May Day parade in Havana.

In middle school, Corey had reportedly stalked a student and sexually harassed her. She told school police. Nothing happened. He dabbled in white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and gay-bashing, and then immersed himself in radical Islam—rising at 5 a.m. daily to pray and revere the Syrian flag.

Corey’s online jihad agitation, physical abuse, and addiction to ISIS beheading videos prompted his sister in 2016 to confide in a school therapist, who contacted the local sheriff’s office.

Corey’s mom, the sister told school officials, was in denial. The sister so feared for her life she slept with a knife under her bed.

Law enforcement officers at the Jupiter Police Department and Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office convened at Corey’s high school last January to investigate the self-radicalized teen’s contact with ISIS as he sought to join the terror group.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force became involved after European intelligence counterparts told them Corey had used Instagram to issue security threats to a Catholic high school in England. The threats “were so severe in nature,” local officials discovered, “that up to 100 students were removed from the school fearing some kind of attack.”

One of the messages threatened: “By Allah, we will kill every single Infidel student at this school.” Corey told FBI agents he “was supportive of known terrorist Anwar al Awlaki”—the spiritual patron of lone-wolf jihadists.

The FBI’s plan of action? Inaction. The agency watched and waited and wanly admonished Corey to knock it off because authorities “believed a redirection approach would be the most beneficial regarding his conduct.”

“Redirection” is akin to the alternative social justice strategies school officials and police used in Parkland, Florida, before 17 innocent students and teachers died at the hands of a teen shooter who was a walking neon sign for a mental health catastrophe.

No referrals, no charges, no records, no problems.

Except for the fact that Corey ignored the FBI and continued his Islamic instigation online. After nearly a year of foot-dragging, the FBI gathered enough evidence to bring federal charges against Corey for his social media terror threats.

According to records released by the Jupiter Police Department, local officials were told the charges would be brought in the summer of 2017. But on the early morning of the jihad stabbings at Palm Beach Gardens last week, the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office had yet to take action on a known radicalized threat who had menaced his family, his schoolmates, and innocents abroad.

It’s a familiar narrative for the FBI—from the Boston Marathon bombers to the Orlando nightclub shooter to the Fort Lauderdale airport jihadist to the San Bernardino terrorists. Family members, teachers, neighbors, and co-workers saw something and said something. Investigators investigated. But nobody did nuttin’ till it was too bloody late.

SOURCE






The Police Shooting of Stephon Clark - Beyond the Hysteria and Screaming Headlines

A black man with two small children was shot and killed by Sacramento, California police. His only crime? Holding a cellphone while standing in his own backyard.

That seems to be the Left’s narrative, anyway, regarding the death of 22-year-old Stephon Clark, who was indeed shot by police in his grandmother’s yard on Sunday night. And given today’s political climate along with mainstream media headlines and activist tweets on the topic, it’s no wonder so many people are outraged.

The tweet that perhaps went viral the fastest, with well over 100,000 likes and retweets, came from First Coast News journalist Lana Harris, who wrote, “Stephon Clark. Officers reportedly shot at him 20 times in his backyard because they thought he was holding a tool bar. It was his cellphone. Someone will have to explain this to the two little boys he leaves behind - one and three years old.”

Race baiter Shaun King called Clark’s death a “brutal police execution” of someone who “posed no risk whatsoever.”

BLM activist Qasim Rashid called it a “cold-blooded execution.”

“Clark was in his own backyard when officers shot at him 20 times,” read the Huffington Post byline. The site’s main headline on Wednesday night read, “Cops Kill Unarmed Man *In Own Yard* 20 Shots Fired.”

“Police shot at a man 20 times in his own yard, thinking he had a gun. It was an iPhone,” headlined the Washington Post.

CNN’s read, “Sacramento police shot man holding cell phone in his grandmother's yard.”

To get to the actual facts, or at least some explanation that doesn’t involve Clark sitting in his backyard on a work conference call when two police officers strolled by and simultaneously thought “hey, let’s shoot a black guy today...” - one had to read beyond the screaming headlines, but not very far.

Turns out, the incident involved some serious property destruction, a multi-yard chase involving fences... and a helicopter. Yes, a helicopter and yes, I’m pretty sure they don’t bring those things out to look for jaywalkers.

As it so happens, far from a night of shooting random black people just for the fun of it, these two officers were responding to a 911 call about a man breaking vehicle and home windows with what the helicopter pilot thought was a toolbar. When encountered, the man led them on what the Washington Post called “a frantic foot pursuit through darkened streets.”

Even the Huffington Post couldn’t help but cite the inconvenient details later in their coverage:

“Disturbing helicopter footage of the incident, released Wednesday, shows thermal images of Clark running through his neighborhood and hopping fences as two officers begin to close in on him. He stops at the home he shared with his grandparents and two sons. Seconds later, officers shoot him dead.”

While an investigation is being conducted and the truth will be ascertained about whether or not officers should have pulled the trigger when they did, one fact is incontrovertible - Clark could have surrendered at any point during his multi-yard pursuit, yet chose not to.

It should also be noted that Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, hardly a “law and order” conservative by any conceivable definition, chose not to “second guess the split-second decisions” of the officers.

Even so, Leftists have already turned it into a race thing. In their coverage of the incident, VOX wrote, “Police killings of unarmed black men helped fuel the rise of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Now a new tragedy — the shooting death of an unarmed black man in his own backyard — is raising new questions about how much things have changed, if at all.”

VOX then goes on to cite the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database statistics that show that out of 230 people killed by police in 2018, 38 were identified as black.

That’s 17 percent, out of a population that makes up about 13 percent of America. Slightly more than their representation, but hardly the “significant racial disparities” VOX complained about later in the piece so they could attribute it to “high levels of housing segregation and economic inequality” and stuff.

The Washington Post also feels like there’s an “overrepresentation of African Americans” in the statistics, citing statistics last year showing that of unarmed people killed by police, “30 were white, 20 were black and 13 were Hispanic.”

Given the fact that black offenders actually commit 52 percent of homicides, or well over their 13 percent representation of the population, the fact that the number is significantly less than white suspects shot is a testament to police restraint, not racism.

Granted, pulling that trigger should be the absolute last thing police do when confronting any criminal suspect. On the other hand, bashing in windows and running away from police should also be the last thing anyone who doesn’t want to get even inadvertently shot should engage in.

Even though we see things differently, Left and Right should be able to agree on this: Stephon Clark’s death was a needless tragedy, and yes, it was entirely preventable.

SOURCE






Australia: 'Racist to its core': Outrage as nurses are subject to a new code where they must announce their 'white privilege' before treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients

Australian nurses and midwives are being forced to announce their 'white privilege' before treating Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander patients -  a move which has been slammed as 'racist to its core'.

The term 'white privilege' defines the unearned social and cultural advantages awarded to people with white skin which are not enjoyed by people of colour or non-white backgrounds.

The Nursing and Midwifery Board believes the cultural safety of Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander patients is just as important as their clinical safety.

But Graeme Haycroft, spokesperson for the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland, (NPAQ) told Sky News the addition to the code of conduct could have serious consequences for nurses and is simply 'racist'.

The Board describes the move as 'a decolonising model of ­practice based on dialogue, communication, power sharing and negotiation, and the acknowledgment of white privilege'.

Mr Haycroft said 50 per cent of NPAQ members were opposed to the new rule. 'They have said "this is wrong, do something about it",' Mr Haycroft told host Peta Credlin.

The inclusion of 'white privilege' in the code of conduct was first exposed by Cory Bernardi's Australian Conservatives. Senator Bernardi heavily criticised the move, labelling it as 'another virtue signal' and 'nonsensical'.

'This is just another example of where PC and this identity politics has captured the professional class or the political class,' he told 2GB.

Following backlash, the Board released a statement which said the codes required midwives and nurses to 'acknowledge that Australia has always been a culturally and linguistically diverse nation'.

Medical staff are also asked to consider the impact historic factors such as colonisation have had on indigenous peoples' health.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************






23 March, 2018

Trump: Sanctuary State Places ‘Innocent Americans at the Mercy of Hardened Criminals’

Mary Ann Mendoza was enraged that the illegal immigrant who killed her son—police Sgt. Brandon Mendoza—wasn’t deported for a crime committed in Colorado two decades earlier.

“They are not sanctuary cities, they are outlaw cities,” @SenTomCotton said.

Though she wrote a letter to President Barack Obama after her son’s death in 2014 expressing her concern, she found a more receptive voice Monday when participating in a roundtable discussion at the White House with President Donald Trump.

“This is actually a mass murder happening in the United States by illegal aliens killing American citizens,” Mendoza, who lives in Arizona, said Monday in a meeting that included Cabinet officials, members of Congress, and state and local law enforcement officials.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

“Over 63,000 Americans have been killed since 9/11 by illegal aliens,” Mendoza continued. “It’s a crime spree being left unchecked and these sanctuary state and city officials are putting American lives in harm every single day. We have become collateral damage to their personal agenda.”

Trump called out California, the first and only state to become a sanctuary state, making it illegal for local law enforcement to report illegal immigrants.

“California put innocent Americans at the mercy of hardened criminals, hardened murderers in many cases,” Trump said Tuesday during the roundtable discussion.

The president noted that Democrats in Congress have opposed legislation to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

“Democrats’ priority is to protect criminals, not to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said. “My priority and the priority of my administration is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States.”

Sanctuary jurisdictions reject “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens. “Detainers” are used to request that a state or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours to allow ICE to take custody and initiate removal proceedings.

A bill to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities, sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., can’t overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass. Toomey called this “frustrating.”

The Justice Department filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law.

“Federal law is supreme law of the land,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during the White House roundtable event. “It was made clear by the Supreme Court the federal government has immigration responsibilities.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal legal group, has opposed any crackdown on sanctuary cities. In a February statement, the group said:

The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act perpetuates unconstitutional immigration detainer practices, and upends hundreds of community trust policies. Rather than taking a punitive approach to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep their communities safe, the Senate should end DHS’s unconstitutional detainer practices, or fix the constitutional deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer requests.

During the White House roundtable, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said the jurisdictions defying federal law “are not sanctuary cities, they are outlaw cities.” He added, “it’s past time for Congress to give the administration the tools it needs.”

During fiscal year 2017, which began in October 2016, Immigration and Customs Enforcement made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and affected more than 225,000 removals, according to the White House. During that time, 110,000 of those arrests came under Trump’s time in office. That’s compared to 77,806 arrested for fiscal year 2016.

Of those arrests, 81 percent were of convicted criminals, said ICE acting Director Thomas Homan, who pushed back against the notion that his agency was making indiscriminate arrests. He said there have been “no raids and no sweeps” and that arrests are targeted.

“We are told on one hand to focus our efforts on criminals. … but those same folks who want us to focus on criminals say don’t come into their county jail. It defies logic,” Homan said during the round table talk.

He added that criminals are aware of sanctuary cities.

“These policies are being used by criminal organizations in Mexico and Central America,” Homan said. “It’s a selling point to smuggle aliens to a sanctuary jurisdiction where even local law enforcement won’t cooperate with them, thereby bankrolling the very criminal organizations that smuggle these aliens.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she is “horrified” that local elected officials were “pitting” local law enforcement officers and federal immigration agents “against each other.”

SOURCE






NBA team under fire for allegedly discriminating against a white person

Racial discrimination lawsuits, especially in the workplace, are nothing new, though they normally involve minorities who claim they were mistreated.

But in a suit filed Friday, a former employee of the Atlanta Hawks claims she was discriminated against because she is a white woman.

Margo Kline says she worked for the Hawks from June 2012 to March 2017 as a community development coordinator in the organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility Department, according to The Blast.

In 2014, an African-American man named David Lee was given a leadership position in that department, and Kline alleges that he “promoted a culture of discrimination against white individuals.” In addition, she claims she faced discrimination due to the fact that she is a woman.

Lee was allegedly “dismissive” and “exclusionary” toward white, female employees of the team, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Kline also said he would make jokes about “white culture,” as well as favor less qualified black people over white ones when making decisions regarding hirings and promotions.

Moreover, he allegedly expected more from white females in the department than he did of black employees.

“Kline said the organization ignored her complaints and instead unfairly scrutinized her work and impeded her ability to do her job, often gossiping and ridiculing her,” according to The Journal-Constitution. “The lawsuit also alleges white coworkers were told not to speak with Kline or they could lose their job.”

Kline tried her best to report what she saw as unjust treatment, “but the Hawks did not take action to stop the discrimination,” the lawsuit reads.

And after complaining, she says things only got worse for her, as her colleagues allegedly began treating her “with contempt, negativity, and a lack of respect.”

Then, in February 2017, Kline met with the team’s senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, a black woman named Nzinga Shaw, and discussed the alleged discrimination.

Just weeks later, Kline received a “Final Written Warning” that said there were “ongoing deficiencies in her conduct and/or performance.” She says that despite what the warning seemed to indicate, she had never been disciplined due to poor performance before.

Three weeks after receiving that warning, Kline was terminated by the Hawks.

Kline filed a discrimination charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and now, she’s suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though it’s not clear what she is looking to receive in terms of damages.

The Hawks, however, have dismissed the allegations as nothing more than “baseless claims.”

“We take all claims of discrimination seriously and have performed a thorough review of these baseless claims,” the team said in a statement. “The case was quickly dismissed at the EEOC level. We deny these claims and will vigorously defend against them.”

It’s not the first time the Hawks have come under fire for alleged racial issues. Just last year, the Hawks faced a lawsuit from a former security manager who said that black celebrities entering the team’s arena faced tougher security than white celebrities. That employee said he was fired when he complained about the alleged discrimination.

SOURCE






Sweden: Mosque that applied to broadcast call to prayer has asked Allah to “destroy the Jews”

What did Swedish authorities expect?

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Did Swedish officials assume that Muslims entering the country would leave all that at the door?

“Mosque that applied for prayer calls is against Christians and Jews,” translated from “Mosk? som ans?kt om b?neutrop hetsar mot kristna och judar,” Samh?llsnytt, March 20, 2018:

The mosque is denigrating Jews, urging men to control their daughters and women, using Saudi Arabia’s official curriculum and books in their Islamic schools, and urging Muslims not to have contact with “kuffar” (unbelievers).

V?xj? Mosque has featured in the media in recent weeks, since the foundation applied to broadcast the call to prayer, which caused a debate at the highest political levels. A survey also showed that a majority of the Swedish people want to ban the calls to prayer.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that this particular mosque deals with hatred and features hatred on its official Facebook page, which Bassam Al-Baghdady presents on his website.

When Al-Baghdady wrote the post, he predicted that the images he translated would be removed, and very correctly: some of them have been removed or made unavailable at the time of this writing.

One image that calls for the collection of money in connection with Eid al-Fitr says: “The alms of al-Fitr will be collected this year for our families in Palestine. May Allah preserve Gaza and destroy the Jews, the enemies of Allah.”

Furthermore, you will find textbooks used in the mosque school that are “official curricula for Islamic education in Saudi Arabia.”

Here’s also a call not to let their daughters dress “naked” and wear “Western clothes” as well as to “teach your daughters to dress well from childhood.”

It is also urged not to participate in the “kuffars” celebration of their feast Christmas, when seeing Jesus as the Son of God is a blasphemy.

SOURCE





Australia: Tony Abbott says Peter Dutton is 'absolutely right' about white South African farmers

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton is "absolutely right" about the need to prioritise white South African farmers through Australia's refugee program.

Wading into the internal and diplomatic furore over Mr Dutton's remarks, Mr Abbott said the situation in South Africa was a "national crisis" and "racism of the worst sort", and backed the call for intervention - despite Foreign Minister Julie Bishop rejecting the idea at the weekend.

"There is a very serious situation developing in South Africa. Something like 400 white farmers have been murdered, brutally murdered, over the last 12 months," Mr Abbott told 2GB radio. The farmers were being murdered by "squatters intent on driving them off their land", he said, and it would be a "national crisis" if the same thing were happening to Australian farmers.

"If the boot was on the other foot we would call it racism of the worst sort," Mr Abbott said.

"I think we should acknowledge this as a very, very serious issue of justice and fairness and freedom for people who are trying to do the right thing.

"I think that Peter Dutton was absolutely right to say that under our humanitarian intake program there ought to be a place for people who are being persecuted this way."

Mr Dutton's bid for some sort of special refugee program for white farmers has stoked not only internal tensions within Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet but a diplomatic furore with South Africa. That country's foreign ministry has refuted the assertion that white farmers are persecuted and demanded an apology for Mr Dutton's claim they needed help from a "civilised country" such as Australia.

The statistic cited by Mr Abbott - that 400 white farmers have been murdered in the past year - has appeared in several media reports, including in Australia, but is disputed. According to Africa Check, a fact-checking website, police and researchers counted 74 farm murders in the 12 months between April 2016 and March 2017, with victims' races not recorded.

South Africa has demanded Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton retract his comments that the country's white farmers are being "persecuted" and deserve protection with special visas from a "civilised country".

At the weekend, Ms Bishop rejected Mr Dutton's pitch for "special attention", telling the ABC's Insiders program the "credibility [of the refugee program] comes from the fact that it is non-discriminatory and that each application is assessed on its merits". There were "no plans" to alter the program, Ms Bishop said.

However, the program is Mr Dutton's responsibility as Home Affairs Minister and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Mr Turnbull is yet to publicly articulate a view on the issue.

Ms Bishop confirmed Australia's high commissioner to South Africa was "called in" for a meeting with the government in Pretoria following Mr Dutton's remarks, and explained the nature of Australia's refugee program.

Mr Dutton last week revealed he had instructed his department to examine ways of giving special treatment to white South African farmers, observing there was already a large cohort of South Africans settled in Australia who integrated well and did not live off welfare. "They're the sorts of migrants we want to bring into our country," Mr Dutton said.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************






22 March, 2018

How come school shooters are usually white?

They're not. Gun deaths in black schools are just not publicized.  Why?  Is it white privilege at work?  No.  It is because the well of Leftist outrage would run dry if black deaths were noted: The deaths are so frequent.  Plus the shooter is black too and we must not mention that

The renewed push for gun control, the nationwide “March for Our Lives” this Saturday, the school protests last Wednesday — they happened after 14 teenagers and three adults were murdered at a high school in affluent Parkland, Fla. A well-heeled school. And nobody who died was black.

This did not go unnoticed by families who’ve lost children, black children, to gun violence in Boston.

There were no calls to action when Ron and Kim Odom’s son Steven, 13, was murdered, in 2007, on his way home from playing basketball.

There was no uproar after the murder that same year of Warren Daniel Hairston, 21; or Eric Smith-Johnson, 18, in 2010; or Raekwon Brown, 17, in 2016; or before that, Quintessa Blackwell, 18, though both were gunned down in broad daylight outside Boston schools: Brown at Jeremiah Burke, Blackwell near Holland Elementary.

Thousands of teenagers, many just in the wrong place at the wrong time, have died in shootings in America’s inner cities for years. But these shootings don’t happen on the same day. They happen day after day.

During this powerful uprising after a suburban school shooting, let’s hope we hear as much about daily gun slaughters terrorizing city teens and children in school and on the street in front of their homes.

Boston families I spoke to last week have long recognized this stark, unjust double standard. Yet they did not speak with resentment.

Ron Odom, father of Steven, a minister and a retired postal worker, now works as a school crossing guard. “People say, ‘Nothing will happen until it starts happening to white children.’ Well, now it’s happened. What’s the difference between what these children are saying and what our children are saying?” Odom asked. “But if they’re able to move Congress to some centrist agreement on guns, I’m standing with them. Our children are dying.”

Ruth Rollins, mother of Warren Daniel Hairston, runs Operation Lipstick, a program to reduce illegal gun trafficking. Lipstick has two buses leaving Boston for the Washington “March for Our Lives.” Most of the riders are children, teens, or young adults. One is the daughter of Rollins’s dead son, a 13-year-old who was a baby when her father was shot to death. “We always hear from parents,” Rollins said. “Now we’ll hear from the children.”

Leonard Lee, Warren Daniel Hairston’s uncle, is a community activist who has gone to burials of dozens of gun-downed teens and young men he’s known. Said Lee, “We were conflicted around this march. But what resonated after we talked to young people was, ‘Use it as a bridge to connect.’ Don’t make this a black/white issue, an urban vs. suburban issue. Make it an American issue.

“It’s so easy to get a gun now. I can get you one in a couple of minutes for less than $35.”

Monalisa Smith, Eric Smith-Johnson’s aunt, runs Mothers for Justice and Equality, a group committed to ending the “normalization” of child gun murders.

Let’s hear about the gun deaths of young people in inner cities.

“If we get angry and bitter and focus on injustice, not justice, we can’t run the race. You’ve got to be that example, and that’s not easy,” she said. “You’ve got to fight and cry at the same time. You meet mothers who just lost children, what do you say? Young people come to you afraid they’ll lose loved ones too. What do you say? All you can do is promise them that tomorrow is coming, that weeping endures for the night,” she said, quoting the psalms, “but joy comes in the morning.”

“I pray a lot. I’m always praying,” said Smith. “You have to hold onto this unwavering faith that we’ll get through this, that we’re going to win, that the NRA is powerful but we’re going to see the change we need,” she said. “It is happening. Our children are rising up from the ashes.”

SOURCE






Firing Tillerson removed an obstacle to peace

by CAROLINE GLICK

As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was being fired on Tuesday, his central assumptions about the Palestinian conflict with Israel, which are shared by the entire Washington foreign policy establishment, literally blew up in Gaza.

On Tuesday morning, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah's convoy was attacked by a roadside bomb during an official visit in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Hamdallah was in Gaza to inaugurate a wastewater treatment facility sponsored by the World Bank. The facility was approved 14 years ago, but infighting between Hamas, which runs Gaza, and Fatah, the PLO ruling faction which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), blocked its operation time after time.

The shuttered water treatment facility in northern Gaza has long been a monument to the Palestinian leadership's incompetence and indifference to the plight of the people it is supposed to be serving. As the plant gathered dust, Gaza plunged deeper and deeper into a water crisis.

As the Times of Israel reported, Gaza has two water problems: insufficient ground water, and massive pollution of the existing supply due to the absence of sufficient sewage treatment facilities.

Untreated sewage is dumped directly into the Mediterranean Sea, and then seeps back into Gaza's groundwater.

Gaza's polluted acquifiers only produce a quarter of its water needs, and due to insufficient water treatment facilities, 97 percent of Gaza's natural water sources are unsafe for human consumption.

Hamdallah's visit to Hamas-controlled Gaza was supposed to show that the Fatah-Hamas unity deal Egypt brokered between the two terror groups last year was finally enabling them to solve Gaza's humanitarian needs.

And then Hamdallah's convoy was bombed, and the whole charade of Palestinian governing competence and responsibility was put to rest.

Later in the day, the White House held a Middle East summit that demonstrated Tillerson's basic assumptions have the problems of the Middle East precisely backwards.

Under the leadership of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law, along with Jason Greenblatt, Trump's senior negotiator, Israeli officials sat in the White House for the first time with Arab officials from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar. Representatives from Egypt and Jordan, with which Israel enjoys open diplomatic relations, were also in attendance. Canadian and European officials participated as well.

Although they were invited, the Palestinians chose to boycott the conference. Their boycott was telling. The PA claimed it was boycotting the conference in retaliation for America's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and President Trump's plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Israel's 70th Independence Day in May.

But anger over Jerusalem doesn't justify the snub. The purpose of the summit wasn't to reach "the ultimate deal." The summit was called to to formulate the means to contend with the humanitarian crises emanating from Hamas-controlled Gaza. The Palestinians boycotted a summit whose sole purpose was to help them.

As Palestinian commentator Bassam Tawil noted, the PA's boycott while appalling, was unsurprising.

The White House summit was a threat to both rival Palestinian factions. It showed that the Trump administration, which both Fatah and Hamas hate passionately, cares more about the Palestinians than they do.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is entirely the product of Hamas and Fatah actions. In an op-ed in the Washington Post last week, Greenblatt laid the blame on Hamas. "Hamas's utter failure to fulfill any of the most basic functions of governance has brought Gaza to the brink of collapse, which has necessitated the response of the international community."

Fatah, Tawil noted, is just as responsible. The Fatah-controlled PA has used the Palestinians of Gaza as a pawn in its power struggle against Hamas. Rather than work to decontaminate Gaza's water supply and provide for the basic needs of the population, for the past year the PA has imposed economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip.

Ostensibly imposed to induce the population of Gaza to rise up against Hamas, they have simply served to increase the misery of the residents of Gaza. Hamas's power remains unchallenged as Qatar, Turkey, and Iran shower the terror group with cash and arms.

As Tawil noted, Hamas and Fatah are willing to fight one another until the last Palestinian in Gaza.

The conference showed that the attack on Hamdallah's convoy was not a freak episode. The bombing was emblematic of the Fatah-Hamas leadership's obsession with their own power, to the detriment of the people they claim to represent.

The events in Gaza and the White House on Tuesday tell us two important things.

First, they reveal that the primary obstacle to both peace and regional stability in the Middle East is the Palestinian leadership - both from Fatah and Hamas.

Not only did the PA refuse to participate in a summit dedicated solely to helping the Palestinians, but also the very day the summit took place, PA-controlled Voice of Palestine Radio reported that the PA intends to file a complaint against President Trump at the International Criminal Court. Trump's recognition of Jerusalem, the PA insists, "violated all international laws and resolutions."

The report also said the PA intends to sue Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman for "crimes against the Palestinian people."

Tuesday's second lesson is that while the PA is the primary obstacle to peace and regional stability, it is easily surmountable.

Tuesday's conference was a diplomatic triumph for the Trump administration. For the first time, official representatives of five Arab states that have no diplomatic relations with Israel sat publically in the White House with Israeli officials. They were brought together due to their common concern for the Palestinians in Gaza, and for the instability that the plight of the Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza might encourage.

Although it is still unknown whether anything discussed at the conference will turn into concrete improvements on the ground, the summit itself was a concrete achievement. It showed that the Arabs are willing publicly to bypass the Palestinians to work with Israel. The fact that the conference was devoted to helping the Palestinians served to transform the PA from the critical partner in any peace deal to an irritating irrelevance.

And that brings us to Tillerson, and the foreign policy establishment whose positions he channeled.

During his 14 months in office, Tillerson insisted on maintaining the establishment's view that the Fatah-controlled PA is the be-all-and-end-all of Middle East peace efforts. The view that there can be no Arab-Israeli peace without the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) compelled successive U.S. administrations to continue to embrace it despite its support for terrorism, and despite its refusal to accept or even respond to any offer of peace by either Israel or the U.S.

The belief that there can be no peace without Fatah convinced successive American administrations to pour billions of dollars in aid money down the black hole of PA treasury accounts. Since the Israeli-PLO peace process began in 1993, the Palestinians have received more international aid per capita than any nation on earth has received in world history. And all they produced are an impoverished, sewage-filled terror state in Gaza, and a jihadist hub in Judea and Samaria that would explode in violence if Israel did not control security.

The view that the U.S. needs the PLO and its PA to achieve peace gave the Palestinian leadership an effective veto over every U.S. policy towards Israel and towards the peace process.

Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the embassy to Jerusalem was the first time any American leader since Bill Clinton had dared to reject the Palestinian veto on US Middle East policy.

Tillerson supported maintaining the PA's veto. As a result, he all but openly opposed Trump's decision.

So too, last June, in a bid to protect U.S. funding to the PA - despite the fact that fully 7 percent of its donor-funded budget is used to pay salaries to terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families - Tillerson falsely told the Senate Foreign Relations committee that the PA had agreed to end the payments. After the Palestinians themselves denied his statement, he only partially walked it back. The next day, he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the U.S. was in "active discussions" with the Palestinians regarding halting the payments.

In the event, the PA raised its payments to terrorists in 2017 to $403 million. In 2016, the PA spent $347 million to pay salaries to terrorist murderers and their families.

In other words, Tillerson is so committed to the view that there can be no peace without the PA, that he willingly misled U.S. lawmakers.

Trump administration officials keep insisting that they are almost ready to present their peace plan for the Palestinians and Israel. But whatever the plan may entail, the steps the White House has already taken - Tuesday's summit, Trump's move on Jerusalem, and his determination to sign the Taylor Force Act to end U.S. support for the PA if it maintains its payments to terrorists - have already advanced the cause of peace more than any American peace proposal ever has and likely ever will.

Those moves removed the principle blockage to all peace deals - namely, the Palestinian leadership from Fatah and Hamas alike. By bypassing the PA, the White House has focused its efforts on expanding the already burgeoning bilateral ties between Israel and the Arab states. It has encouraged the expansion of cooperation between these regional actors. That cooperation is the key to diminishing Iranian power in the region; defeating Sunni jihadists from the Muslim Brotherhood and its spinoffs; and to improving the lives and prospects for peace of Palestinians, Israelis and all the nations of the region.

Tillerson opposed all of these actions. Like the foreign policy establishment he represented, Tillerson refused to abandon the false belief that nothing can be done without PLO approval. By removing him from office, President Trump took yet another step towards advancing prospects for peace in the Middle East.

SOURCE






UK: The jingoistic fear of Russia is out of control

The Salisbury poisoning has exposed the hysteria of Britain’s rulers.

The speed with which Britain’s political class has descended into jingoism and anti-foreigner hysteria in the wake of the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Salisbury has been extraordinary. In mere days, before we have proof of Russian state involvement, before we know the full facts of who was behind this attempted murder, virtually every section of our political and media elites was hollering for confrontation, demanding punishment of the Russian beast, and wailing, yet again, about the threat this warped eastern entity poses to Western stability and democracy. That such an evidence-lite outburst of nationalistic and militaristic fervour has come from those who have spent the past 18 months lecturing the little people about our alleged disdain for truth and our Little Englander paranoia should be lost on no one.

We are living through a desperate, hammed-up re-enactment of the Cold War era. ‘Christ, I miss the Cold War’, said Judi Dench’s M in Casino Royale when one of her missions proved rather more complicated than she had expected. She could have been speaking for much of the 21st-century Western political establishment who, feeling all at sea, and bamboozled by a contrarian electorate that refuses to vote in the way they’re meant to, seem to long to wrap themselves in the comfort blanket of old Cold War certainties from that era when the world was binary and our politicians didn’t have to say much more than ‘I hate the USSR’ to win applause. Post-Salisbury we’ve had Theresa May doing a bad impersonation of M, telling us it is ‘highly likely’ the Russian state was behind this poisoning and that Britain will confront the evil east head-on over this matter. Hey presto, suddenly ‘Maybot’, this PM so ridiculed by the press as flat and uninspiring, looks strong. This is the magic dust of Cold War nostalgia.

For many, it’s not enough. Tory MPs and much of the right-wing press, gabbing in heated tones about Russian menace, Putin’s warped plans to destabilise Europe, and other things that exist more in their heads than in the world of provable fact, have been egging May on to say more and do more. There must be confrontation, there must be sanctions, there must be no cuts to our military resources because, who knows, we may need to go to war, they say, madly. Fancying themselves as bit-part players in a John le Carr? novel, these politicians and observers clearly relish the political and personal momentum, however fleeting and opportunistic it might be, that talking tough on Russia has provided them with. And it’s not just the right. An editor at the Guardian says the poisoning was a ‘brazen attack on a sovereign country’ and ‘cannot go unpunished’. The Guardian cares about British sovereignty now? Wonders will never cease.

Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated. He has been branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’. David Miliband compared him to Trump: in short, he’s all but a Russia stooge. These attacks on Corbyn merely for saying we should speak robustly with Russia rather than get into a needless confrontation with it confirms that this affair has left the realm of measured political discussion and is now a needy, emotionalist search for a foreign evil entity that our political class might feel united in opposition to. No questioning, no appeals for calm, can be tolerated by the moral beneficiaries of this anti-Russia hysteria and so they seek to shut such things down with slurs and accusations. ‘What’s wrong with you? Do you love Putin. Do you hate Britain?’

Yet even Corbyn couldn’t resist milking the anti-Russian moment. Shortly after appealing for calm he attacked the Tories for taking donations from Russian oligarchs. Now all the talk is of ‘dirty Russian money’. Owen Jones at the Guardian went into full conspiracy-theory mode, accusing the Tories of being at the ‘centre of a web spun by [the Russian regime]’. Sections of the supposedly radical left are engaging in borderline xenophobic, or at least paranoid, chatter about our politicians having been bought off by ‘filthy’ money from Moscow, rehabilitating the McCarthyite panic about Russians infiltrating our political systems. Corbynite Paul Mason even called on Theresa May to cancel all defence cuts because we cannot ‘face down’ the Russian threat if we are ‘depleting our armed forces’. Behold Corbynista jingoism. Socialists for war with Russia – who saw that coming?

It looks likely to get worse. Ofcom is now threatening to revoke Russia Today’s right to air in Britain. Moscow is summoning Britain’s ambassadors for talks. Will it expel them? Will Britain expel Moscow’s? Trump’s Washington, keen to disprove the claims that it is in bed with the Kremlin, is getting involved, with Rex Tillerson asserting that the Russian state was probably behind the poisoning. And so international tensions intensify, in a way that could soon spin out of control. And on what evidence? None. Some experts believe it is unlikely the Russian state okayed the poisoning, given its amateurishness and pointlessness. They think it could have been a result of fallout between groups of former spies or possibly the action of the Russian mob. That is, non-state actors. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But can’t we wait for more facts before we rush to judgement, and conflict? It seems not. You’re a Putin apologist if you don’t share their longing for the ramping up of global tensions.

For nearly two years, Britain’s political class and chattering class have looked with contempt upon ordinary British people, whom they accuse of being post-truth, nationalistic, xenophobic and nostalgic for Empire. Now, these same people sniff at the suggestion that we should wait for more evidence on the Salisbury poisoning, suddenly care about Britain’s national integrity, engage in paranoid ‘vulnerable Britain’ vs ‘evil Russia’ hysteria, and want Britain to build up its military muscle to face down the Evil East. Everything they have said about us is far truer of them. That it happened so quickly, this descent from a supposedly rational political class into unstable, jingoistic war-talkers going on about filthy foreign money and influence, tells us just how thin is the veneer of reason on today’s ruling elites.

SOURCE






The 'patriotic' thought police came for Corbyn. You are next

By PETER HITCHENS

Is THIS a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.

I disagree with Mr Corbyn about many things and actively loathe the way he has sucked up to Sinn Fein. But he has a better record on foreign policy than almost anyone in Parliament. Above all, when so many MPs scuttled obediently into the lobbies to vote for the Iraq War, he held his ground against it and was vindicated.

Mr Corbyn has earned the right to be listened to, and those who now try to smear him are not just doing something morally wrong. They are hurting the country. Look at our repeated rushes into foolish conflict in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. All have done us lasting damage.

Everyone I meet now thinks they were against the Iraq War (I know most of them weren’t, but never mind). So that’s over.

But Libya remains an unacknowledged disgrace. David Cameron has not suffered for it, and those who cheered it on have yet to admit they were mistaken.

Yet we pay for it, literally, every day. Along with our clinically insane covert intervention on the side of Al Qaeda in Syria, the Libyan adventure created the unending migration crisis across Europe which, in my view, threatens the stability of the whole continent.

Yet I recall a surge of anger from the audience when I doubted some crude war propaganda about mass rapes in Libya on the BBC’s Question Time. War is strangely popular, until it comes to your own doorstep.

I sense an even deeper and more thoughtless frenzy over Russia, a country many seem to enjoy loathing because they know so little about it.

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.

In any case, the crude accusation, with its implication of treachery, frightened me. I expect, as time goes by, I will be accused of being an ‘appeaser’ and of being against ‘British values’. And then what? An apparatus of thought policing is already in place in this country. By foolishly accepting bans on Muslim ‘extremists’, we have licensed public bodies to decide that other views, too, are ‘extremist’.

Because the authorities are terrified of upsetting Islam, nothing much will happen to Muslim militants. But conservative and Christian views such as mine will suffer.

Christian and Jewish schools, especially ones which have conservative views on marriage and sex education, increasingly find themselves in trouble. Even mainstream Catholic and C of E schools are under stealthy attack, with attempts made to stop them ‘discriminating’ in favour of pupils from Christian homes.

Ofsted now says that ‘all schools’ have a ‘duty to actively promote fundamental British values’, which sounds totalitarian to me. This includes so-called ‘mutual respect and tolerance of values different from their own’.

Actually, there is nothing mutual about it. The sexual revolution fanatics demand submission, and offer no tolerance in return. Now the freedom to educate children at home, always a barometer of liberty, is being seriously threatened for the first time in our history. The pretext for this is supposed fears of child abuse or ‘extremism’. The real reason is that so much home education rejects the so-called ‘British values’ of multiculturalism and sexual liberation.

What next? ‘British values’ over foreign policy, war, immigration? I expect so. TV and the internet have for years been promoting a leaden conformism, whose victims are actually shocked – and often angry – when anyone disagrees.

There’s no real spirit of liberty left in this country.

Yes, I am scared, and I never have been before. And so should you be. War, or the danger of war, is always an opportunity to silence troublemakers.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





21 March, 2018

Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys

The finding is that black boys from well-off families tend to be "skidders" -- people who move to lower social classes than their parents.  There are many possible explanations for that but the fact that black girls in well-off families are not skidders is the revealing finding.  It isolates the cause of the skidding to something that is differentially present in girls and boys.

And that is in fact the pachyderm in the residence.  The article is from the NYT so the pachyderm is ignored.  But it is perfectly obvious what the key difference is and it is perfectly obvious why it brings on skidding.

So what is the unmentionable pachyderm? It is the fact that black males are particularly prone to impulsive violence.  The astronomically high incidence of black on black shootings in Chicago alone should tell you that.  Blacks are much more ready to reach for a gun than are either white males or black females.  And a tendency to impulsive violence will have you rapidly skidding downhill.  You will antagonize people, you will be avoided and you will be locked up.  And prison is the rock bottom of the socio-economic status scale.

FOOTNOTE:  Given my extensive academic background, I tend to write in a rather academic way.  And I am aware that academic writing is easily misunderstood and misrepresented.  So I think I should expand on what I said above.  I am NOT saying that ALL affluent young black males are quick to reach for a gun.  I am simply saying that SOME are and that drags down the average social success for that demographic category.  Nor am I saying that skidding is normally brought on by a tendency to violence.  It may be brought on by many things


Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.

Most white boys raised in wealthy families will stay rich or upper middle class as adults, but black boys  raised in similarly rich households will not.

Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.

According to the study, led by researchers at Stanford, Harvard and the Census Bureau, income inequality between blacks and whites is driven entirely by what is happening among these boys and the men they become. Though black girls and women face deep inequality on many measures, black and white girls from families with comparable earnings attain similar individual incomes as adults.

Large income gaps persist between men — but not women.

“You would have thought at some point you escape the poverty trap,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and an author of the study. Black boys — even rich black boys — can seemingly never assume that.

The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s, debunks a number of other widely held hypotheses about income inequality. Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.

If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls.

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites.

“The problem,” Mr. Chetty said, “is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America.”

The few neighborhoods that met this standard were in areas that showed less discrimination in surveys and tests of racial bias. They mostly had low poverty rates. And, intriguingly, these pockets — including parts of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, and corners of Queens and the Bronx — were the places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.

“That is a pathbreaking finding,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard sociologist whose books have chronicled the economic struggles of black men. “They’re not talking about the direct effects of a boy’s own parents’ marital status. They’re talking about the presence of fathers in a given census tract.”

Other fathers in the community can provide boys with role models and mentors, researchers say, and their presence may indicate other neighborhood factors that benefit families, like lower incarceration rates and better job opportunities.

The research makes clear that there is something unique about the obstacles black males face. The gap between Hispanics and whites is narrower, and their incomes will converge within a couple of generations if mobility stays the same. Asian-Americans earn more than whites raised at the same income level, or about the same when first-generation immigrants are excluded. Only Native Americans have an income gap comparable to African-Americans. But the disparities are widest for black boys.

For poor children, the pattern is reversed. Most poor black boys  will remain poor as adults. White boys raised in poor families fare far better.

“This crystallizes and puts data behind this thing that we always knew was there because we either felt it ourselves or we’ve seen it over time,” said Will Jawando, 35, who worked in the Obama White House on My Brother’s Keeper, a mentoring initiative for black boys. Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them.

Mr. Jawando, the son of a Nigerian father and a white mother, grew up poor in Silver Spring, Md. The Washington suburb contains some of the rare neighborhoods where black and white boys appear to do equally well. Mr. Jawando, who identifies as black, is now a married lawyer with three daughters. He is among the black boys who climbed from the bottom to the top.

He was one of the 20 million children born between 1978 and 1983 whose lives are reflected in the study. Using census data that included tax files, the researchers were able to link the adult fortunes of those children to their parents’ incomes. Names and addresses were hidden from the researchers.

Previous research suggests some reasons there may be a large income gap between black and white men, but not between women, even though women of color face both sexism and racism.

Other studies show that boys, across races, are more sensitive than girls to disadvantages like growing up in poverty or facing discrimination. While black women also face negative effects of racism, black men often experience racial discrimination differently. As early as preschool, they are more likely to be disciplined in school. They are pulled over or detained and searched by police officers more often.

“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

She said this racist stereotype particularly hurts black men economically, now that service-sector jobs, requiring interaction with customers, have replaced the manufacturing jobs that previously employed men with less education.

The new data shows that 21 percent of black men raised at the very bottom were incarcerated, according to a snapshot of a single day during the 2010 census. Black men raised in the top 1 percent — by millionaires — were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.

The sons of black families from the top 1 percent had about the same chance of being incarcerated on a given day as the sons of white families earning $36,000.

At the same time, boys benefit more than girls from adult attention and resources, as do low-income and nonwhite children, a variety of studies have found. Mentors who aren’t children’s parents, but who share those children’s gender and race, serve a particularly important role for black children, Ms. Hurd has found. That helps explain why the presence of black fathers in a neighborhood, even if not in a child’s home, appears to make a difference.

Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities. This fits with previous research that has shown that the effects of racial discrimination cross class lines. Although all children benefit from growing up in places with higher incomes and more resources, black children do not benefit nearly as much as white children do. Moving black boys to opportunity is no guarantee they can tap into it.

“Simply because you’re in an area that is more affluent, it’s still hard for black boys to present themselves as independent from the stereotype of black criminality,” said Khiara Bridges, a professor of law and anthropology at Boston University who has written a coming paper on discrimination against affluent black people.

This dynamic still weighs on Mr. Jawando. He has a good income, multiple degrees and political aspirations — he is running for county council in Montgomery County, where he grew up. But in his own community, he is careful to dress like a professional.

“I think if I’m putting on a sweatsuit, if I go somewhere, will I be seen as just kind of a hood black guy?” he said. “Or will people recognize me at all?” Those small daily decisions — to wear a blazer or not — follow him despite his success. “I don’t think you escape those things,” he said.

SOURCE






Angela Merkel slaps down ally who said Islam had no place in Germany

She still doesn't get it

Angela Merkel has moved quickly to overrule her new interior minister hours after he declared that “Islam does not belong to Germany” and as cracks in her fragile coalition government began to appear.

She said that the religion of Germany’s four million Muslims did indeed belong to the country despite the view of Horst Seehofer, a senior figure in the Christian Social Union party in Bavaria, her conservative ally.

Mr Seehofer, 68, secured the renamed Ministry of Interior and Homeland in the coalition government as a platform to push through a tougher immigration policy and try to win back voters who switched to the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party

SOURCE






The Truth About Islamophobia

Definition of Islamophobia then:  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam.

Definition of Islamophobia now: "a racial project, spawned by a master discourse that drove European supremacy and today powered by popular views and state policy seeking to safeguard its domestic progeny, white supremacy."

Islamists are good at redefining words when their effectiveness takes a nose dive, or they need to create a new narrative. This is the case in an article written by Khaled A Beydoun, and published in Aljazeera titled "Rethinking Islamophobia". Beydoun , a law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law,and an affiliated faculty member at UC Berkeley declares Islamophobia is   "anchored in an Orientalist underbelly that precedes the creation of the formative American racial enterprise and its modern form, and a protracted War on Terror that extends it through formal law and policy."

 In this article, which is filled with paranoia more that truth, Beydoun actually does state he is redefining Islamophobia. "This historical context, coupled with its modern complexity, inspired my new definition and framing of Islamophobia. Above all, Islamophobia is founded upon the presumption that Islam is inherently violent, alien, and unassimilable - driven by the belief that expressions of Muslim identity correlate with a propensity for terrorism."

But wait, all of that is true, and is well documented throughout the trilogy of Islam known as the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah (SIra). Islam has been, and still is violent, alien, or I would say antiquated, and certainly does not urge the assimilation of Muslims into Western culture.The prophet Muhammad was, in his early Meccan years a peaceful, pious man, but upon his inability to convert the masses, he became a political, murderous thief.

What Muslims like Beydoun want the world to believe, is America is a racist society, that somehow has been transformed due to the election of a President that wants to make our country great again. This idea seems to be offensive to Muslims, since their ideology calls for everything that is antithetical to our way of life. Muslims believe in redistribution of wealth, that all people are unequivocally equal, and their beliefs are supreme. That is where the hypocrisy lies. In Islam, there are two classes of people..Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis must follow the rules of Islam, and pay a tax called jizya. If they cooperate, Dhimmis are allowed to practice their faith, and are protected by the state. 

Another fantasy Beydoun has created is three dimensions of which he labels "private Islamophobia; 2- structural Islamophobia, and; 3- dialectical Islamophobia."  "Private" Islamophobia is considered the fear of Islam, perpetrated by those who mis- characterize Muslims and others like Sikhs. Structural Islamophobia comes from the government in  the form of laws and bans against Muslims, and dialectical, which basically reiterates the prior two.

What Beydoun doesn't tell in his long diatribe, is the truth. The word Islamophobia was created by Muslims to be used as a label which would deter people from speaking out against, or opposing Islam. Labels are known to harm people in the way of losing their job, family members, or friends. Like any other term though, over time it loses is meaning and effectiveness, so other definitions or words are created. Now, according to this article, Islamophobia is no longer a fear of Islam, but an entire structure of society filled with a population that is hateful, and loaded with supremacy. White supremacy. Oh please!

 HOWEVER, the most important point is how the term is being used by Muslims. Their efforts to end what they consider to be Islamophobia has instead created a national security risk. Law enforcement and our military have become so delicate to Muslim communities for fear of losing federal funding or their pensions they are cooperating with Muslim communities conducting business in a way that doesn't offend the Muslims. Because of the demands by Muslims to further their agenda and our political correctness, some of the outcomes of these implications are:

The purging of relevant, factual training that includes who terrorist organizations and their supporters are within the U.S

The termination of surveillance in mosques

The end of profiling

The ceasing of standard search procedures, such as canines to detect explosives

The barring of our military being able to identify the enemy and annihilate them

The altering of rules of engagement replaced with recall and retreat

The cessation of interrogation tools that are effective but are seen as offensive and demeaning

All because Muslims label these Islamophobic.

All of these things we have viewed as small incremental changes, are now the result of our law enforcement agencies calling Islamic terrorism acts of domestic extremism.

It isn't Islamophobia that is dangerous, it is those calling for its demise who are.

SOURCE





Australian Church forced to remove the word 'Jesus' from its Easter advertising as the word is considered to be OFFENSIVE to non-Christians

A church has been forced to remove the word 'Jesus' from its signs ahead of Easter because it has been causing offence.

Elim Church on the Central Coast in New South Wales paid for digital signs to be displayed at Erina Fair shopping centre reading 'the greatness of His Power'.

Pastor Martin Duffy told 2GB radio that shopping centre manager Lendlease objected to the signs and forced them to be changed to read 'Risen Christ' instead of 'Jesus'.

'The phrase 'Jesus is alive'... is the core message of the Christian faith and what Easter's really all about,' he said.

'It's a good message. I think there's a minority group out there that are constantly distorting the message of Jesus Christ. It's just going on and on.'

Elim Church is a West Gosford evangelical church located north of Sydney.

Pastor Duffy claimed Lendlease requested to withdraw the word 'Jesus' from the sign as it may have offended shoppers and non-Christians.

The sign was an advertisement for a free community event being held on the waterfront at Gosford.

'The greatness of His Power - Jesus is Alive!' the sign read.

Pastor Duffy said Lendlease has since changed their mind and allowed the word 'Jesus' to be included in the sign.

He said Lendlease said the word 'Jesus' has yet to be added to the sign but he is hopeful it will be returned eventually.

In a statement, a Lendlease spokeswoman said they regretted asking for the sign to be amended.

'It was an error of judgment to ask Elim Church to change its messaging, and we apologise unreservedly.

'Lendlease values diversity and inclusion, and we welcome people of all backgrounds at our shopping centres.'
Read more:

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************




20 March, 2018

Now PE is RACIST says taxpayer-funded study that claims that teaching children to play football, rugby, cricket and netball favours 'white privilege'

School Physical Education lessons are racist, according to an astonishing taxpayer-funded study.

Teaching children to play football, rugby, cricket, netball and rounders favours ‘privileged’ white students, the politically correct 20-page report claims.

The research, which was criticised last night as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘patronising’ by a top black footballer, says sports that have been taught in schools for generations hark back to Britain’s colonial past and make ‘whiteness’ the norm.

Its authors, who were given a grant of nearly £10,000 to examine PE classes in England and Norway, suggest that learning dances from different cultures should be given greater prominence. [But that would be "cultural appropriation"]

They add that the emphasis in PE on health and fitness could even be imposing Western ideals of how people’s bodies should look.

They also claim that ‘character-building’ practises such as ‘fair play’ have European roots.

But last night former England football star Les Ferdinand, a black player who is now director of football at Queens Park Rangers, derided the study as ‘ridiculous’.

He said he had never been aware of racism during his ten years of school PE and added: ‘Ethnic minorities have gone on to play football and rugby for England and they have all gone through the same PE curriculum.

‘This research is a waste of money and a waste of time. It is ludicrous.’

Lord Ouseley, who chairs the anti-racism football campaign Kick It Out, said it was ‘crazy’ to put such sports in ‘a context of ethnicity and racism’ as they were played all over the world.

He added: ‘This research is an irrelevance and also patronising because people make their own decisions about their involvement in sport.’

The report – called A Whitewashed Curriculum? The Construction of Race in Contemporary PE Curriculum Policy – says traditional games were developed in the Victorian era by ‘white privileged males’ at elite public schools that often discriminated against minorities.

The study, written in often baffling jargon and published in the journal Sport, Education and Society, says the games have been used by the British as ‘part of a civilising process’ and transported around the world ‘as an extension of nationalism and the Empire’.

The study was conducted by Anne Flintoff, Professor of Physical Education and Sport at Leeds Beckett University, and Fiona Dowling from the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences in Oslo. They received a grant of £9,940 from the largely taxpayer-funded British Academy to support their work.

Bizarrely, they say that by focusing on the need for ‘healthy, active lives’ there is ‘a danger PE lessons can contribute to a recolonisation of ethnic minorities’ physicality’.

Quoting from other research, they say: ‘It is through the monocultural and ahistorical language of discourses of fatness and fitness in schools that young people’s bodies, in subtle ways, are pedagogized to white ideals of the body.’

The report also states that PE is ‘constructed as a predominantly white, unmarked space’.

SOURCE





Hate-filled Arizona social worker attacks blameless woman

Heather Whitten, from Arizona, is a documentary photographer and mother of four children. She struggled with infertility, fostering, and adoption to get to the place she is at today, and it’s because of that struggle that she enjoys photographing scenes that document the downfalls and triumphs of motherhood.



One day, her son Fox fell ill, so her husband Thomas took him into the shower with him to provide him with comfort and relaxation. He helped the little boy bathe and that was it. Heather found nothing strange about it. She snapped a photograph of the two in the shower and posted it. “It was just beautiful. It was not surprising or anything out of the ordinary; it’s how he has always been with the kids,” she said.

Fox got over his illness a few days later. A few days was all it took for the photo to stir up a lot of commotion on the internet. It had been shared 32,000 times and 140,000 people reacted to it, before Facebook banned it twice. This all took place in May of 2016.

Most people loved the raw image, which portrayed raw parenthood. Parenthood isn’t always glamorous, or what some would consider “appropriate.” Sometimes you eat slobbery, discarded banana mush off of your baby’s cheek and sometimes you accidentally wipe their diarrhea on your forehead when changing a diaper. What is so different about a shower or bath with a child that is too young to even find nakedness inappropriate yet?

Regardless, people have a right to their own opinions. And one individual felt compelled to write a letter of complaint to the Sahuarita Police Department. When the police dismissed the letter without taking action, an investigator from Arizona’s Department of Child Safety spent the next few months dedicated to portraying Heather as an abusive mother, even neglectful. The investigator apparently had only a single interview with Heather about the photo, and that was the only interaction and background she had.

Heather admitted that she breastfed one of her children during the entire interview, without covering herself, which she was certain bothered the investigator. However, breastfeeding is protected by law, whether it be public or private, covered or uncovered.

The investigator’s only claim was that Heather neglected to supervise her children by allowing images of them to be online, therefore putting them at an avoidable risk of harm. But Heather argued that as an artist, she has the right to share her work with the public. Heather felt there was not enough evidence, other than the investigator’s bias against her, to put her in an unfavorable position. However, if the claim was substantiated, Heather would be added to Arizona’s Central Registry for the next 25 years. She would no longer be able to foster or adopt children, or hold a position working with children.

The hearing was on February 3, 2017. On March 8, 2017, Heather posted the verdict to her Facebook with a creative photograph she took herself.

She wrote, “All claims unsubstantiated! Thank you for your time and your patience and your support! You showed up for me through shares and comments and emails and donations and letters and signatures. It’s overwhelming and illuminating. Being able to bring my lawyer on board and to have such a big show of support behind me made all the difference! This case has shaped me, my family and my photography in ways that I can’t even begin to explain. But, this part is over and we could not be more thrilled to put it all behind us! Thank you, thank you, thank you!”

SOURCE

One hopes that the verdict totally discredits the horror social worker




Britain's many false rape allegations can have disastrous consequences

'I'm free from this living hell': Haunting last words of man who took his own life after fake rape claim... as police finally investigate accuser

A man accused of rape killed himself after police refused to believe that texts on his phone proved the sex had been consensual.

The accuser is now being investigated for perverting the course of justice, following an inquest at which a coroner said Ross Bullock, 38, took his own life because of the ‘distress’ caused by the allegation.

After his arrest in March 2015, Mr Bullock was questioned by police and bailed for a month despite showing them text messages that strongly suggested he was innocent. Even when officers decided against action, he was warned he could be charged at a later date.

Finally, after a ‘year of torment’, Mr Bullock hanged himself in the garage of the family home, leaving a note revealing he had ‘hit rock bottom’ and that with his death ‘I’m free from this living hell’.

His body was found by his mother Carole. His father Ronald, 76, said: ‘Ross would still be alive now if the police had dealt with the allegation sensitively.’ And Mrs Bullock, 74, added: ‘The allegation changed Ross as a person. He cut himself off.’

The Mail on Sunday has previously reported a series of cases that have exposed grave police failings over rape accusations.

Mr Bullock’s parents may now take civil action against West Mercia Police and are calling for the accuser – who was in a relationship with another man when she and Ross had sex – to be charged. Police confirmed they are investigating an allegation of perverting the course of justice.

Mr Bullock, a forklift truck driver from Redditch, Worcestershire, met his accuser in February 2015 and they had sex at his workplace. The pair shared dozens of flirtatious texts afterwards.

In one exchange, Mr Bullock said: ‘Well I hope u had a good time.’ The woman replied: ‘It was alright I suppose!! X.’

The Independent Office for Police Conduct confirmed Mr Bullock Snr had filed a complaint and the case was referred back to West Mercia. Its investigation concluded there was no case to answer.

Last night West Mercia Police said: ‘Mr Bullock was arrested and released with no further action. We would like to offer his family our sincere condolences following his tragic death.’

SOURCE





Hogg Releases Own Ad, Utterly Humiliates Self With High School Mistake

Liberal anti-Second Amendment voices have found their new poster boy: David Hogg.

The Parkland student-turned-activist appears to have been given not just the spotlight but the entire stage in the gun control debate … but his sanctimonious tone and weak grasp of the facts keep getting in the way of his efforts to look less like a high school student and more like an authority on gun violence.

Hogg, 17, used the Florida shooting tragedy to leap into a role he seemed to have been long preparing for: A new media pseudo-journalist, pushing an anti-gun agenda by labeling even mild gun owners as evil and condemning every NRA member in America as having blood on their hands. Subtle.

Hogg — who was shoving a camera in students’ faces for “interviews” even while the Parkland shooting was still unfolding — just released a video “PSA” that takes his already condescending and haughty attitude and turns it up to 11.

The “advertisement,” which features the over the top teenager sternly lecturing Americans while framed by a stark black background, begins with this blunt and misinformed question: “What if our politicians weren’t the b—- of the NRA?”

Apparently it’s a bad thing that when millions of like-minded American gun owners speak, their representatives listen. With an ignorant lead like that, you know the sanctimony is off to a great start. Try to hold your nose.

“In the video, Hogg seizes on Trump’s rope-a-dope of Democrats, whereby he made them believe he was open to every gun control imaginable, only to draw them out into the light and deny them every gun control they pushed,” explained Breitbart News.

“He then points to Democrat Conor Lamb’s victory over Republican Rick Saccone earlier in the week. Hogg suggests Lamb’s victory is proof Americans have had ‘enough,'” continued the news outlet.

Here’s the problem: Even though Conor Lamb is a Democrat and did manage to barely defeat his opponent in a close race … he’s not actually anti-gun. At least he claims not to be. Pretty much everybody following the race who’s not in high school knew that.

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
In fact, Lamb ran on a “Blue Dog Democrat” platform of supporting the Second Amendment, and opposes anti-gun programs like “high capacity” magazine bans.

“New gun laws aren’t the answer to preventing more mass shootings like the one at a Florida high school,” the newly elected congressman declared shortly after the Parkland tragedy.

In other words, when it comes to Lamb versus Hogg  — is this “1984” or “Animal Farm?” — the winning candidate actually opposed gun-grabbing talking points, yet the teenage wanna-be media mogul is pretending that it was some sort of referendum on gun control.

“Democrats are celebrating the victory of gun-loving Conor Lamb in the Pennsylvania special election. What would those student gun control protestors say if they knew about that?” wondered an Investor’s Business Daily editorial last week.

The answer, apparently, is that they’re either too dense to notice, or are actively pushing a false narrative to fool the American people. We used to call this “lying.”

Disingenuous statements and half-baked facts are a bit of a theme for David Hogg. “#WhatIf we could go to school without fearing for our lives?” he asked on Twitter, in a post that included the disdainful PSA.

You’d think from that question there are killers on the loose on every school campus … which are of course government-run and often controlled by liberals. It’s just dripping with fear and bordering on hysteria — but what’s the reality?

Well, there were about 51 million kids attending school in the United States as of 2017, according to data from the Department of Education.

And tragic school shootings? “Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually,” stated criminology Professor James Alan Fox in USA Today.

Ten out of 51,000,000. Let’s be clear: That’s still a tragedy, and we can and should work to make it zero, but this is the statistic that in David Hogg’s words makes students stage walkouts based on “fearing for our lives.”

Do you know what kills ten times the number of school kids every year? Not guns. Bicycles.

“Compare the school fatality rate with the more than 100 school-age children accidentally killed each year riding their bikes or walking to school,” Fox pointed out.

“Congress might be too timid to pass gun legislation to protect children, but how about a national bicycle helmet law for minors? Half of the states do not require them,” he continued. “There is no NRA — National Riding Association — opposing that.”

In other words, Hogg and all the rest of the anti-gun crowd are spreading panic to push an agenda. The mainstream media presumably knows these facts or could look them up, but can’t be bothered. The truth might get in the way of of their Constitution-shredding motives.

If the teenage media darling wants so badly to play an adult and influence key laws in our nation, then he needs to face facts like an adult — and they’re not even remotely on his side.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************








19 March, 2018

Evidence From Norway Shows Gender Quotas Don't Work For Women

The country of Norway has many American admirers, from President Trump to Sen. Bernie Sanders. Progressives like Sanders consider Norway a progressive paradise, because it has implemented almost every progressive policy under the sun, from universal health care to government mandated gender equality policy in the work place.

But have these policies achieved the desired outcome that the progressives are seeking? The latest data on gender quotas in the work place from Norway and some other European countries shows a policy with a good intention doesn't necessarily translate to a good outcome.

We've all heard the argument, especially in these days, that women are well represented in the educational system and the labor force, but at the top of the power hierarchy they are still surprisingly poorly represented.

UK Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman repeatedly said "only seven women run the FTSE 100 companies" in a recent interview of Jordan Peterson, to back up her view that male dominance in the workplace prevents women from reaching the top.

Ten years ago, Norway, the progressive paradise, took a drastic step to address this gender gap at the top of corporations. Its Minister of Trade and Industry Ansgar Gabrielsen of the Conservative Party introduced a mandatory gender quota of 40 percent for the boards of all public limited companies. The passing of this draconian law means, "If a company breaks the gender quota rules in Norway, it will be denied registration as a business enterprise in the Bronnoysund Register Centre and be subject to forced dissolution by the courts."

 Following Norway's example, a dozen other European countries, including France, Germany and Italy, adopted similar gender quotas- - 30 to 40 percent of corporate boards must be made up of women.

Ten years later, The Economist reported how the policy turned out based on data from Norway and other European countries with similar gender quota policies. On the surface, it seems the gender quota mandate achieved its desired outcome - female representation on corporate boards in these European countries increased. "In some countries the share of women among directors of large companies has increased four- or fivefold since 2007." But as always, the devil is in the details.

The Devil In The Details

Did the higher female representation on corporate boards improve corporate profitability and corporate governance as proponents promised? The data is inconclusive. Some companies saw improvement in both areas but some didn't. Did the higher female representation on corporate boards improve board's decision making as supporters claimed? Data shows that although decision making processes might have changed, the substance of the decisions and the quality of decision didn't improve by simply having more women on boards.

Now corporations in Europe are facing a shortage in finding qualified women to fill the gender quota mandates on their boards. Some reached for less qualified and less experienced women to meet the quota, which doesn't help improving corporate performance or governance. Since the law in Norway only applies to public companies, some Norwegian companies became private. The number of public limited companies in Norway dropped from 452 in 2008 to only 257 in 2013. The number of board seats dropped from 2,366 in 2008 to 1,423 in 2013. So there are fewer seats for women to fill.

The `Golden Skirts' Are Stretched Thin

But what everyone is most interested in answering is the question of whether the quota really benefited women. The answer depends on who you ask. The quota has certainly benefited a small group of women who are already high achievers and are at the top of corporate hierarchies. They are called the "golden skirts" and their numbers are very limited. Since the quota mandate led to a surge of demand for these women, many of them found more opportunities and higher pay, but they also found themselves stretched thin by serving on multiple boards.

As The Economist reported, the most puzzling information revealed by the data is that the quota mandate "had no discernible beneficial effect on women at lower levels of the corporate hierarchy." Proponents of such a policy have long promised that more women in leadership positions would translate to more career opportunities and promotions for women in the lower levels, which in turn will lead to better paying jobs and a shrinking gender pay gap. But that promise turned out to be wishful thinking.

Data shows that in France, Germany and the Netherlands, which all mandate women taking 30 to 40 percent of corporate board seats, only 10 to 20 percent of senior management jobs (one level below the board of director position) are held by women and that number has been consistent for the last 10 years. The Norwegians own study shows eight years after Norway introduced the law on gender equality in boardrooms, there are zero female CEOs in the country's 60 largest companies.

There is no data to demonstrate any higher pay or more career advancing opportunities for the vast majority of women in the workforce. Thus, having more women on the board has done little to benefit 99 percent of women in the workforce. Rather, it failed to lure more women to climb the corporate ladder and it failed to open up more mid-career opportunities and better pay.

In fact, Norway is seemingly going the wrong direction. In 2015, the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap ranked Norway as the world's second most gender equality place, with a score of 0.85, where 0 is inequality and 1 is complete equality. But in 2016, Norway's ranking dropped to the third place with a lower score of 0.84.

The logical conclusion, as The Economist presented, is that "gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down." Like so many progressive policies, the mandatory quota benefits a very small elitist group at the expense of the masses, despite its slogans on "equality."

One of the reasons that we don't see more women at the top of corporate hierarchy is the choices that women make. For example, some women choose to become stay-home moms for a period of time due to the high cost of childcare. When women make that choice, they end up paying a price in their career advancement. So if society wants to see more women taking leadership roles in any organizations, one sensible policy is to make childcare more affordable.

Given the fact that the high cost of childcare is the result of government policies, getting rid of those ruinous policies will likely lower the cost of childcare, which in turn helps more women stay in workforce to climb corporate ladders. The last thing women need is a useless gender quota at the board level that does nothing for the majority of us except window dressing.

SOURCE






No More Crosses? A case before the Supreme Court may settle whether memorial crosses are "unconstitutional."  

Imagine Arlington Cemetery with no crosses. Imagine the word “God” sandblasted from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Imagine Biblical verses removed from the U.S. Capitol. This is the world the radical atheists want. This is the world they almost have.

First Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest legal organization dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom, is currently appealing a case to the Supreme Court so this doesn’t happen.

Here’s how it began. In 1925, Gold Star families and the American Legion (the largest veterans service organization in the U.S.) built the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Veteran’s Memorial, also known as the “Peace Cross,” in memory of the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland, who died in World War I. The names of the 49 deceased veterans and the words “Courage,” “Valor,” “Endurance” and “Devotion” appear on the monument.

The cross stood as a peaceful memorial to the fallen veterans until February 2014, when the American Humanist Association (AHA) claimed that the monument unconstitutionally violated the Establishment Clause because of its public ownership and demanded that it be demolished, altered or removed. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the monument’s constitutionality citing the cross as a military symbol for sacrifice, courage and remembrance. However, in December 2015, the AHA appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the memorial was unconstitutional. On March 1, 2018, the Fourth Circuit denied the en banc rehearing, leaving an appeal to the Supreme Court as the final option.

Hiram Sasser, chief counsel for First Liberty, notes, “If [the Fourth Circuit] decision stands, other memorials, including those in nearby Arlington Cemetery, will be targeted for destruction as well.” If the decision from the Fourth Circuit stands, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal case, it would mean that all crosses on public property are “unconstitutional.”

The case rests on whether the Establishment Clause — the first sentence of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — prohibits the public display of crosses.

The establishment of a religion means having an official, government-sponsored religion. Some have also interpreted the Establishment Clause as meaning government “neutrality.” According to the American Humanist Association’s website, the Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from “entangling itself in religious matters without a religiously neutral reason.” Government ought to be “neutral” toward religion and not favor one over the other. But a big difference exists between “neutrality” and “hostility.”

While the AHA claims “Good Without A God,” as its motto, is it fair or tolerant to force that belief on everyone else? Radical atheism does not say, “I believe in nothing, and you can believe in God if you want.” Rather, it says, “I believe in nothing and it is my right to not see, hear or experience anything about God anywhere.” Whether it is “No, you can’t pray,” or “No, you can’t put a Bible verse there,” or “No, I don’t want to see a cross” — even if it’s in the middle of the desert — the radical atheists do not seek to live in mutual tolerance. They cannot rest until they have converted all of society into a religiously sterile culture. Our legal system should not bow down to this dogmatic, anti-tolerant behavior as the “neutral” option. Rather, radical atheists should practice the tolerance they demand from others.

Following their Fourth Circuit win, AHA Senior Counsel Monica Miller, who argued the case, stated, “This is a big win not only for separation of church and state, but for all non-Christian veterans who are excluded from an enormous Christian cross war memorial.”

But how many of the fallen men were actually atheists? The families of the fallen soldiers decided on that particular shape to remember their fallen sons, brothers and husbands. Would it not dishonor their choice to remove or destroy it? If, in fact, the non-Christian veterans feel excluded, why do they not build their own non-cross memorial?

Further, while the AHA argues that the cross represents a sectarian, exclusionary religious symbol, the cross also represents military heroism. Some of the highest military honors include crosses such as the Distinguished Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, and others granted for exemplary military service. The cross also stands as an internationally recognized symbol of bravery and sacrifice as exemplified in the Victoria Cross in England and the Croix de Guerre (Cross of War) in France.

The cross also represents a memorial. These men lost their lives in a foreign war on foreign soil. While some of their bodies were later repatriated, many were buried overseas. For several families, the “Peace Cross” stood as the only place where grieving families could pay honor to their loved ones.

Michael Carvin, lead counsel for The American Legion and partner at Jones Day, notes, “This memorial has stood in honor of local veterans for almost 100 years and is lawful under the First Amendment. To remove it would be a tremendous dishonor to the local men who gave their lives during the Great War.”

The case also has bipartisan support. Eight Republican and Democrat members of Congress joined in support of the memorial by filing an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit Court.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty, states, “Memorials are living reminders of our country’s history and the cost of war. How will we remember the fallen or teach the next generation about service and sacrifice if we start bulldozing veterans memorials and cemeteries across America? We will continue our work to overturn this decision and defend the memory of those who preserved freedom.”

SOURCE





Identity Politics Insanity

Perhaps nothing offers greater insight into the progressive mindset than what its adherents deem proper and improper expressions of identity politics   

Perhaps nothing offers greater insight into the progressive mindset than what its adherents deem proper and improper expressions of identity politics.

“Rachel Dolezal, the troubled former NAACP leader who claimed to be African-American, is the subject of an upcoming Netflix documentary that’s already causing major backlash,” Fox News reports.

The Twitter-verse was rife with derogatory comments. “There are millions of black femmes and non-binary people in the world that deserve to be heard … and the fact that I have to see her name on my screen makes me so so so angry,” stated Lorazepam Grier. “Rachel Dolezal’s choice to play pretend in black culture has now destroyed the lives of two black children,” tweeted George M. Johnson. “Hey @Netflix, Rachel Dolezal doesn’t need a documentary streamed on your site. She’s fraudulent and problematic. Why don’t you take all that money and put it towards projects made by real black women?” asks Breniecia.

Netflix isn’t paying Dolezal anything, but they remain the eye of the leftist storm for “giving the 40-year-old a spotlight with a film that explores how she portrayed herself as African-American for years, despite being born biologically white,” Fox explains.

Biologically white? The use of biology to define one’s identity left the progressive train station long ago. So much so, that even the assertion it is a defining factor has real world consequences for those insufficiently attuned to the progressive worldview. “A student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania has been barred from attending a religious studies class required for graduation after pointing out that there are only two genders,” Campus Reform reveals.

Senior student Lake Ingle was ultimately barred from class for questioning the worldview of IUP Professor Alison Downie following a video presentation featuring a transgender woman name Paula Stone. The 15-minute video was replete with tiresome progressive tropes asserting the reality of “mansplaining,” “male privilege” and “systematic” sexism.

Following the video, Downie asked the women attending the class to share their thoughts. When none of them spoke up, Ingle rocked the proverbial boat.

“I objected to the use of the anecdotal accounts of one woman’s experience to begin a discussion in which they were considered reality,” Ingle told Campus Reform. “It was during my objection that Dr. Downie attempted to silence me.”

The next day Downie did more than that. She referred Ingle to the school’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB) and presented Ingle with a document illuminating his alleged violations: “Disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; [and making a] disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor’s personal prejudice.”

The “Documented Agreement/Sanctions,” part of the document reveals conditions Ingle must fulfill to be reinstated in class. They include a letter of apology to the professor, an apology to the class, and the acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for “inappropriate behavior” that has “severely damaged” the class’s learning environment and the “safety” of its “atmosphere.” Moreover, when Ingle is done groveling, he is expected to “listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake’s disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28.”

He or she? What about “ze,” “zir,” “ve,” “tey” or the panoply of other “gender appropriate” pronouns being force-fed to the American public, even to the point where one could be fined as much as $250,000 for failing to acquiesce? Apparently IUP’s administration is as insensitive to “reality” as Ingle himself. Regardless, Ingle’s hearing is set for tomorrow and a decision will be announced on March 19. If the administration rules against him, he won’t graduate in May.

So why would progressives pillory a woman like Rachel Dolezal who insists biology doesn’t matter and pillory a student like Lake Ingle who insists it does? Because some identity politics are “more equal” than others. Identity politics that advance the progressive agenda are embraced, and those that threaten it are vilified.

Dolezal represents a mortal threat to a racial spoils system that began relatively nobly enough, with the concept of affirmative action to redress a litany of historical wrongs, perpetrated mostly by Democrats, beginning with their establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and their enforcement of Jim Crow laws. It has deteriorated to the point where black students have demanded and received segregated dorms on University of California campuses, courses on “white privilege” have become part of the public school curriculum, and the enforcement of a policy where “students of color” cannot be disciplined in school at rates disproportionate to their statistical representation in the student population engendered the calculated disinterest in the Parkland shooter until it was too late.

Yet even the racial spoils system has its “subsets.” While Dolezal is a pariah, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains a respected member of the Democrat Party, despite tenuous claims of Native American ancestry and the dismissal of a DNA test to prove it, one way or the other. “I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me,” Warren insists. “It’s part of who I am and no one’s ever going to take that away.”

Still more subsets? As a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University indicates, Asians also remain on the outside looking in. That’s because minority groups who excel without an ideological thumb on the scale to assist them represent a threat to progressive efforts to convince the nation that victimization requires the elevation of diversity over meritocracy.

The searing irony? Meritocracy still matters — in terms of determining the hierarchy of victimization among leftist grievance groups. And nothing would roil that hierarchy and its orchestrated pity parties more effectively than “trans-racialism,” and the ominous potential that anyone could claim to be a victim, based on the exact same premise as transgenderism: self-identification is the sole standard for determining reality.

So why is transgenderism championed? Because it aligns itself quite neatly with the progressive project to “fundamentally transform” America. And nothing says transformation better than the attempt to replace biological reality with gender “fluidity.” In stark contrast to racial fluidity, which threatens progressivism’s identity politics agenda, gender fluidity enhances that agenda, because it undermines traditional religious and family values.

Values that don’t require the expansion of coercive government power to enforce them.

As the Left’s contrasting reactions to trans-racialism and transgenderism indicate, intellectual consistency and honesty can be tossed aside if they don’t serve progressive interests. Thus the same CNN that put Bruce Jenner on the air to speak about his “path to womanhood” is the one that speaks to the “scandal” of Dolezal “presenting herself as black for years” — and presents a link to yet another CNN column that calls racial fluidity a “con.”

Nothing is more of a con than the contemptible notion that reality itself can be determined by whether it accrues to the Left’s twisted identity politics agenda.

SOURCE






The Crisis of Fatherless Shooters

In the wake of the Parkland massacre, the age-old question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” has a newfound relevance.

As another mass school shooting stuns Americans, it is time to talk about not just how to protect students from shooters, but also about what must happen so that fewer students become shooters in the first place.

It is crucial to talk about how more American children can grow up with the emotional, psychological, and spiritual security that comes from relationships where one is deeply cared for, connected, and known.

For what lies inside so many school shooters is a deep void of identity and relationship that they tragically seek to fill through nihilistic violence.

There is a sobering theme repeated over and over in the biographies of school shooters—the fatherlessness of a broken or never formed family.

Among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Psychologist Dr. Peter Langman, a pre-eminent expert on school shooters, found that most came from incredibly broken homes of not just divorce and separation, but also infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence, and child abuse.

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, scholar Brad Wilcox called attention to the work of criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, which found the absence of fathers to be one of the “most powerful predictors of crimes .” He explained that fathers are role models for their sons who maintain authority and discipline, thereby helping them develop self-control and empathy toward others, key character traits lacking in violent youth.

The late rapper Tupac Shakur said, “I know for a fact that had I had a father, I’d have some discipline. I’d have more confidence. Your mother can’t calm you down the way a man can. You need a man to teach you how to be a man.” Shakur, who was murdered in 1996, started hanging out with gangs because he wanted to belong to a family.

In addition to structure and discipline, a boy’s relationship with his father can be a profound source of identity—or not. Dr. Warren Farrell, author of the “The Boy Crisis,” says that when a boy asks “Who am I?” the answer is that his identity is comprised of half his dad and half his mom. If he thinks his father has abandoned him, he fears he is not worthy. Boys who do not have a strong relationship with their fathers may lack a model of healthy masculinity. Many of the school shooters struggled with a sense of “damaged masculinity” and sought to become “ultramasculine.” Langman says that at the end of this spectrum  is “getting a gun to suddenly have power.”

In fact, the fathers of three of the most infamous school shooters were absent from their sons’ lives. The father of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, had not seen his son in two years and later told reporters he wished his son had never been born. The adoptive father of Nikolas Cruz died when Cruz was 5 years old. And the father of 6-year-old Dedrick Owens, the country’s youngest school shooter, was in jail when his son killed his first grade classmate. Dedrick Owens’ father has said that he suspects his son’s crime was a reaction to his absence.

Since the 1965 Moynihan report, the breakdown of the American family has been hotly debated. Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s finding that fatherlessness would lead to poorer outcomes for African-American children was published at a time when only 25 percent of African-American households were led by a single parent. Today, 24 percent of white non-Hispanic families are headed by a single parent and the rate has reached 66 percent among African-Americans. If we don’t reverse current trends on marriage, the number of fatherless children will only grow.

Ultimately, if we make fatherlessness and family breakdown a partisan issue, we all lose. Both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush promoted a National Fatherhood Initiative in their administrations. Because strong marriages promote strong bonds between fathers and their children, the Trump administration should emphasize both.

A good starting place would be to reduce the marriage penalties that have been built into our welfare system. A next step would be to elevate the contributions of ordinary men doing the extraordinary work of fathering. And if we directed 1 percent of the attention and media coverage we give to athletes, musicians, and movie stars toward fathers, perhaps more boys would grow up seeing them as role models. President Donald Trump, his Cabinet, Congress, and other leaders can also use their bully pulpits to lead in this direction.

And the good news is that communities are devising creative ways to help make up for the absences of dads. One example is in Dallas, where Billy Earl Dade Middle School held its annual “Breakfast with Dads.” To ensure that all 150 male students who wanted a mentor would have one, an organizer put out a request on a Facebook page for 50 “volunteer fathers.” Nearly 600 men from all different walks of life and careers answered the call.

We cannot provide every fatherless boy with a dad, but we can start by respecting the unique role that fathers play in the lives of boys and encouraging more men to step into the lives of children who need a male role model.

To understand the brokenness of our children, Americans must take a deeper look at the brokenness of our families. We must do this together. We must be the keepers of all our country’s sons so that they can grow up to be one another’s. If we are going to prevent the next Parkland, we need to take seriously the need all our young boys and men have for a dad.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





18 March, 2018

What the Alt-Right Gets Wrong About Jews

I have reproduced below what I see as a very good reply to  antisemitic thought.  In looking at why Jews tend so strongly Left, however, the authors manage only the most conventional explanation -- that the Jewish history of persecution is the key.  It has made modern-day Jews paranoid about ideas associated with past persecutors. And they associate conservative ideas as the ones that are most reminiscent of the ideas held by past persecutors.

But that is utter nonsense.  It was Protestant and ultra conservative Prussia (in North-Eastern Germany) that legislated to "emancipate" the Jews on March 11, 1812, and the tolerance of Jews in Prussia is why there were so many Jews prospering in pre-Hitler Germany, and why indeed many Ashkenazi surnames are to this day German ones. 

And the all-time pinnacle of antisemitic policy, Nazism, was a socialist creed, as almost any reading of Nazi documents will reveal.

So the record of tolerance for the Jews was ultra-conservative Prussia and the record of intolerance for the Jews was the socialist Hitler!  What in that would make Jews attracted to socialism?

It is true that Soviet disinformation has portrayed Nazism as Rightist but I think Jews should be generally well informed enough to see through that.  Jews have strong reasons to want to understand Nazism and even a cursory study of it will inform them where Nazism really lay on the political spectrum.

And discrimination against Jews in the Western world today is a fleeting thing so is a poor explanation for a huge and continuing political bias.

So I think the Jewish attraction to Leftism requires a better explanation than a memory of persecution. 

I have no doubt that a memory of an adverse past can be retained for a long time.  In Ulster they still sing about the Battle of the Boyne of 1690 and the Scots still haven't got over Edward Longshanks in the 13th century -- so political memories can last a long time.  What I ask is WHY some memories persist, what need does retaining such memories serve? And I see no reason why fear of conservatives and Christians persists among Jews. 

In Ulster each side sees the other as a dangerous rival and in the case of Scottish attitudes towards the English the matter is all too clear if rarely expressed:  The English find the Scots amusing.  And there is nothing more enraging than that.  But what problem to Jews are American Christians and conservatives today? American Christians and conservatives are in fact the bedrock upon which American support for Israel is based. Rationally, Jews should vote for conservatives.  Instead they voted two thirds for Obama, who was no friend of Israel.  It took a strong conservative to give official recognition to Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

But, despite all that, Jewish American support for the Donks remains strong.  Why?

I think there is better explanation for Jewish Leftism, one founded firmly in the present and recent past. It flows directly from the known high average IQ of Jews.  Because of the huge potency of IQ in meeting life's challenges, Jews have risen to the top of most niches in society.  They are an elite people. 

And what do we know about the elites? Superior attitudes.  Because they have done well they tend to think that they know it all and are in a far better position to guide society than are the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory -- as Bill Buckley put it.  And the Democrat allegiance of America's present elites has been thrown into sharp focus by the ascendancy of Donald Trump. 

So I think Jews are Leftist because elites generally are Leftists.  They have the attitudes of their class.  Marx would understand. That seems to me to be a simple and straightforward explanation and as such has the benefit of Occam's razor.  I have written at some length previously on why elites tend Left, which see.


written by Jonathan Anomaly and Nathan Cofnas

For many on the alt-right, every grievance is, at root, about Jews. Andrew Anglin, host of the most popular alt-right/neo-Nazi website, explains: “the only thing in our movement that really matters [is] anti-Semitism.” If only the Jews were gone, he argues, the white race, freed from bondage, would immediately overcome all of its problems. Where does this attitude come from?

Jews are a conspicuous people, small in number but large in footprint. As Mark Twain wrote in 1899:

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one quarter of one percent of the human race….Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk….What is the secret of his immortality?

For many people throughout history, the answer to Twain’s question was simple: Jews conspire among themselves to dominate and disadvantage gentiles. This answer fell out of fashion, at least in polite society, after World War II. Since the 1990s, however, the conspiratorial account of Jewish prominence has taken on a new, more meretricious form in the work of (now retired) California State University, Long Beach psychologist Kevin MacDonald, known affectionately among alt-righters as “KMac.” According to Richard Spencer, the inventor of the term “alt-right” and unofficial leader of the movement: “There is no man on the planet who has done more for the understanding of the pole around which the world revolves than Kevin MacDonald.” And: “KMac…may be the most essential man in our movement in terms of thought leader[ship].” To understand the alt-right’s anti-Semitism, we must understand MacDonald’s ideas, particularly as outlined in his most influential book, The Culture of Critique.

According to MacDonald, Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy.” Jews possess both genetic and cultural adaptations (including, on the genetic side, high IQ and ethnocentrism) that allow them to develop successful intellectual movements that undermine gentile society and promote their own group continuity. “Jewish intellectual movements,” MacDonald argues, are led by charismatic figures analogous to rabbis. They attack white nationalism while promoting Jewish nationalism, and use pseudoscience to “pathologize” anti-Semitism, which in reality is a justified response to “Jewish aggression.” According to MacDonald, Jewish intellectual movements include Freudianism, Frankfurt School critical theory, and multiculturalism. These movements, MacDonald claims, taught white gentiles to reject ethnocentrism and accept high levels of nonwhite immigration to their countries while tolerating Jewish ethnocentrism and racially restrictive immigration policies in Israel.

MacDonald’s theory and the anti-Semitism of many on the alt-right are largely reactions to the perceived liberalism of Jews. One of us (Cofnas) has just published an academic paper that examines MacDonald’s most influential book, The Culture of Critique, and finds that it is chock full of misrepresented sources, cherry-picked facts, and egregious distortions of history. MacDonald and the alt-righters are, nevertheless, correct that many liberal leaders over the last hundred years have been Jewish. We’d like to offer an explanation for this phenomenon, as well as determine whether Jewish liberalism is the cause or the result of anti-Semitism.

People who learned everything they know about history from MacDonald’s books may be under the impression that traditional gentile society was marked by “hierarchic harmony” (his term) before Jews began their intellectual assault after the Enlightenment. This is a gross distortion of history. Gentile radicals have been around for centuries, doing exactly what MacDonald thinks is characteristic of Jews. Consider Edmund Burke’s comments on European (gentile) radicals at the time of the French Revolution:

Nor is it in these clubs alone that the public measures are deformed into monsters. They undergo a previous distortion in academies, intended as so many seminaries for these clubs, which are set up in all the places of public resort. In these meetings of all sorts every counsel, in proportion as it is daring and violent and perfidious, is taken for the mark of superior genius. Humanity and compassion are ridiculed as the fruits of superstition and ignorance. Tenderness to individuals is considered as treason to the public.

The French Revolution itself was an entirely successful movement to overturn whatever “hierarchic harmony” had existed in France, and it was led by gentiles and inspired by gentile philosophers. (Many of the gentile philosophers who laid the groundwork for the Revolution, such as Voltaire, were committed anti-Semites.) Radical French thinkers like Rousseau are completely ignored by MacDonald.

MacDonald analyzes the Frankfurt School in great detail and argues that the ideology of the school was constructed to advance Jewish interests by promoting nonwhite immigration and in general undermining white culture. (MacDonald does not mention that, incidentally, many of the Frankfurt School’s fiercest critics were Jews, like Karl Popper, who mocked their work as pseudoscience.) But French existentialism was a movement that was analogous to the Frankfurt School in every important respect…except that the leaders—Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Camus—were white gentiles.

Sartre was a leading critic of France and America, and strongly supported nonwhite immigrants in France. The French existentialists produced radical critiques of traditional gentile society and, like the Frankfurt School, advanced pseudoscientific ideas (making demonstrably false claims about human nature and refusing to subject these claims to any test).

It is easy to find gentiles independently developing ideas virtually identical to those promoted by “Jewish intellectual movements.” MacDonald quotes Foucault’s statement: “If I had known about the Frankfurt School in time, I would have been saved a great deal of work. I would not have said a certain amount of nonsense and would not have taken so many false trails trying not to get lost, when the Frankfurt School had already cleared the way.” For MacDonald, this shows how influential the Jewish-dominated Frankfurt School was. But it also reflects the fact that, while the gentile Foucault was influenced by the Frankfurt School, he was independently thinking along the same tracks.

Still, in the past hundred years or so Jews have clearly been overrepresented among the leaders of liberal movements. They were overrepresented among communist leaders and revolutionaries, among prominent immigration advocates, and so on. Even if liberalism is not the Jewish invention that MacDonald claims it is, we still should explain why Jews appear to be disproportionately attracted to it. And is anti-Semitism a response to Jewish liberalism?—or could it be the other way around?

IQ, Persecution, and Political Identity

Mark Twain’s explanation for Jewish intellectual prominence was that “Jews have the best average brain of any people in the world.” Though they make up far less than one percent of the world’s population, Jews have comprised more than half of all world chess champions, about a quarter of Fields medalists in mathematics, and more than a fifth of all Nobel Prize winners. Social scientists have found that Ashkenazi Jews score, on average, around 110-112 on IQ tests (compared to a mean of 100).

Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending argue that high Ashkenazi IQ evolved during the Middle Ages in Europe due to gene-culture co-evolution. Prohibited from entering many blue-collar occupations like farming, Jews turned to finance, particularly money lending, to survive. Records from around the year 1270, for example, report that almost 80 percent of adult male Jews in Roussillon (what is today southern France) made their living as money lenders. Finance requires a relatively high level of verbal and mathematical intelligence, and the hypothesis is that Jews who could not cut it in business tended to drop out of the community or starve.

On Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending’s thesis, these restrictive conditions selected for verbal and mathematical intelligence, not for the ability to engage in the sort of conspiracy against gentiles described by MacDonald. If Cochran et al. are right, we would expect Jews to be overrepresented in science and in the leadership of political movements, as these are both cognitively demanding activities. There is no particular reason to expect Jews to be overrepresented only in liberal movements.

Indeed, MacDonald and other anti-Semites largely ignore the fact that Jews have been conspicuously overrepresented among the leadership of all sorts of right-wing movements: anti-communists like Herman Kahn, John von Neumann, and Edward Teller; libertarians like Milton and David Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Israel Kirzner; traditional conservatives like Allan Bloom, David Horowitz, and Richard Posner; and Donald Trump’s senior policy advisor and perhaps the most influential anti-immigration activist in the United States, Stephen Miller.

But MacDonald seems to be right that Jews were disproportionately involved in radical leftist political movements in the twentieth century, and in the US Jews tend to vote Democrat. We think this can be explained by the high average IQ of Jews in combination with their being a persecuted minority, which has tended to push them toward political views that emphasize social toleration and the free movement of people. In other words, MacDonald reverses the correct order of causation: rather than Jews inviting persecution by advocating cosmopolitan policies that thwart the interests of Europeans, Jews advocated cosmopolitanism as a predictable response to persecution.

Persecution of Jews began for religious reasons in the Middle Ages and morphed into political persecution as Jews began to climb the social ladder, and political leaders saw them as a useful out-group to use as a scapegoat for people’s economic and social woes. For example, when Italian traders inadvertently brought the Black Plague from Asia to Europe, thousands of Jews were murdered in retaliation when Christian peasants decided that the Jews had deliberately infected them.

George Orwell understood the psychological benefits of directing disdain toward an out-group in order to foster social cohesion among an in-group. In his great novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he gives the character who would receive “two minutes of hate” every day among the proletarians a Jewish name: Goldstein. It is obvious why. Orwell’s implication was that the Soviet Union and other regimes were capitalizing on a human need to have some group to hate in order to foster loyalty and obedience to the leader of the in-group.

There is some evidence in political psychology for a correlation between high IQ and liberal political beliefs. So we might suspect that Ashkenazi Jews, with the highest average IQ in the world, would lean liberal. Interestingly, though, IQ correlates positively with classical liberalism, which emphasizes both social and economic liberty. This seems to be because those with higher intelligence tend to exhibit personality traits like openness to experience and tolerance for different ways of living. But those with higher IQ are more likely to support free-market economic policies (“liberalism” in the old sense of the word). Intelligence is required to understand how trade can be a positive sum game, and how order can emerge from individuals freely interacting with one another.

There are also obvious historical reasons why Jews would tend to gravitate toward liberal and cosmopolitan political philosophies that emphasize the protection of minority rights. In the early twentieth century, socialists rejected natural human hierarchies and urged persecuted minorities to overthrow their oppressors. To many Jews, socialism meant doing away with the legal and social barriers they had faced for more than a millennium. While socialist societies didn’t live up to their promises in practice, the values they espoused were easy for Jews to identify with. The Holocaust reinforced the feeling among Jews that nationalistic movements were dangerous, and that salvation lay in liberal cosmopolitanism.

Can MacDonald Save His Theory?

Popper’s famous criterion to distinguish science from non-science was “falsifiability.” Any legitimate scientific theory, he said, should specify some state of the world which, if it is observed, would make us logically compelled to reject the theory. One of the problems with Popper’s criterion is that there is no such thing as falsification in the strong sense that he envisaged. Any theory can be salvaged in the face of any evidence, though this may require some fanciful theorizing. In practice, we just have to use our judgement to decide which of the competing theories we are considering explains our observations in the most sensible way. As far as MacDonald goes, no single one of the numerous factual errors documented in Cofnas’s paper can be said to “falsify” his theory. Nor can any single example of right-wing Jews or radical gentiles. We just have to use our judgment to decide whether his conspiracy theory is a better explanation of Jewish liberalism than the simpler high-IQ-plus-persecution theory that we advocate.

No amount of evidence can disprove a theory. But as the influential Jewish philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos argued, eventually the number of ad hoc assumptions we have to make in order to sustain a theory in the face of counterexamples becomes so large that the theory shows itself to have no predictive or explanatory value. Maybe MacDonald has an ad hoc explanation for why the most liberal countries in Europe, which in the past few years accepted the largest number of immigrants relative to their population—Sweden and Germany—have a very small number of Jews. Maybe he has another ad hoc explanation for why Jews like Noam Chomsky are the world’s leading critics of Israel. And for why gentiles who were not under the influence of Jews, like Rousseau and Sartre and countless others over the past couple thousand years, have been political radicals. As to whether these ad hoc explanations are convincing, we will have to use our judgment.

We don’t think MacDonald will be able to rescue his hypothesis, built as it is on misrepresented sources and distortions. But for some dishonest alt-right leaders, the literal truth of his ideas is probably not that important. They need an enemy to unify their movement. There is no more convenient a people to play this role than Jews.

SOURCE





Navy medics embed in a Chicago hospital to get battlefield experience because the city's gun violence 'is not unlike a warzone'

Since 2014, the Navy has been operating a pilot program where they train medics for the battlefield at Chicago's Stroger Hospital
Located in one of the most violent cities in America, Stroger's trauma unit sees a lot of gunshot wounds - the type of injury Navy medics need to prepare for

This year, the Navy will be expanding the program to make it mandatory for all medics before going into action

For years, the first time many Navy medics saw their first gunshot wound was on the battlefield. Not anymore. The Navy is now expanding a program to train medics at Chicago's Stroger Hospital.

Because Chicago has been plagued recently by a spike in violent crimes, the hospital's trauma unit sees more than its fair share of gunshot wounds, creating an environment not unlike the battlefields of the middle east. 

'The experience here can't be replicated elsewhere, unless you have a major land invasion,' Dr. Faran Bokhari, who chairs the trauma & burn surgery unit at the hospital, told the Wall Street Journal in a story published Wednesday. 

SOURCE





Hollywood Heaps Praise on Movie Promoting Pedophilia

"Call Me By Your Name" is celebrated by Hollywood hypocrites during their #MeToo activism.   

With one single statement while hosting the Oscars, comedian Jimmy Kimmel openly admitted what any American with a pulse and an IQ above room temperature has known for years; namely, that Hollywood has declared open war against the values and sensibilities of everyday Americans.

Anyone who has watched the Oscars in recent years (and that number has seriously dwindled) has seen films nominated for Best Picture that most Americans have never even heard of, much less seen. Kimmel explained why, declaring, "We don't make films like `Call Me By Your Name' to make money. We make them to upset Mike Pence." Vice President Mike Pence, a quietly devout Christian, has become a favorite target for the anti-Christian vitriol vomited by the pro-LGBT Left.

Why such critical acclaim for a movie that earned less than $16 million nationally? Because Hollywood loathes traditional values and rejects morality, and has worked for decades to normalize sexual deviancy. Just months after (rightfully, if true) vilifying Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore for dating teenage girls while in his twenties and thirties, Hollywood heaps adulation on a movie that glamorizes almost the same thing.

"Call Me By Your Name" is the story of Elio, a 17-year-old American boy living in Italy with his parents in the summer of 1983. His father is a professor specializing in Greco-Roman culture, and Oliver is a 24-year-old American scholar pursuing a doctorate, who has come to Italy to serve as an intern under Elio's father. Elio becomes smitten with Oliver and pursues him romantically, and the two eventually engage in a sexual relationship under the nose of Elio's father. In the end, Elio's heart is broken when Oliver reveals he is engaged to a woman, and the relationship ends.

What is so grotesque and mind-boggling about the leftist Hollywood acclamation for this movie is that it occurs at the same time Hollywood elites are congratulating themselves for their bravery for the #MeToo movement, which has exposed a culture of rape and sexual exploitation of women and young boys by powerful men in Tinseltown.

"Call Me" normalizes and glorifies pedophilia, attempting to justify it by arguing the younger man is the pursuer, as if the adult was helpless to do anything but capitulate to the lustful advances of the boy. The movie portrays this as a beautiful coming of age story, a story of first love.

Those defending the movie (and the underlying question of morality) point out that Elio is 17, and therefore above the legal age of consent. Yet if we change the sex of the youth from male to female, is this not the exact exploitation of power and influence that the #MeToo movement rages against? Young women essentially selling themselves to powerful male producers and directors for personal gain? So why pursue this narrative in the movie?

Again, it's about normalizing deviancy. As writer Chad Felix Greene, who is homosexual, laments, "This film has now entrenched in gay male culture and validated the idea that a teenage minor is not only entitled to his sexual impulses but should be celebrated for pursuing them at all costs. It positions the reluctant older man as demonstrating kindness and compassion to the intense desires of the younger man by giving into and indulging his impulses and manufactures a fantasy of true and powerful love resulting. It tells a generation of men in their 20's and older that pursing sexual relationships with teenagers is not only beautiful and empowering to the younger partner, but perfectly acceptable as long as it is legal."

For the Left, maturity and autonomy are shifting sands. The Left argues that elementary-age school children should be taught the intricacies of various types of sexual behavior, and girls as young as 13 should be able to have abortions without parental notification or consent. They argue that our youth are mature enough to vote and have a voice in advancing gun control laws. Yet they also argue that our youth should be banned from owning a firearm, that they should be able to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26, and that they should not be subject to the death penalty as punishment for heinous murders because their brains are not full developed.

Emotional immaturity and impressionability is exactly why the pro-LGBT, pro-pedophilia Left is pushing this theme, especially with the youth. This is not some conjured conspiracy theory of the Religious Right; this is the open declaration of the Left. They are seeking to indoctrinate our children into the LGBT agenda, and "the younger the better." These are not just angry campus activists screaming to silence conservatives, these are millionaires and billionaires pushing the LGBT agenda in order to "punish the wicked" Christians.

It should come as no surprise that the three men who started the transgender movement - which includes Alfred Kinsey, the sexologist celebrated by the Left - were all pedophilia activists.

Hollywood is infested with sexual predators who are tirelessly working to normalize and legalize their predatory, sexually deviant behavior. When they are exposed, they use faux victimization as a shield to deflect criticism and anger, as Kevin Spacey did by "coming out" as homosexual when it was revealed that he had sexually assaulted multiple boys.

Keep this in mind as you watch Hollywood praise those who glorify pedophilia, and seek to destroy the morals and values that strengthen individuals, the family, and by extension, the nation.

SOURCE






Australia: Must not mention child abuse in Aboriginal families

The usual unbalanced response to the issue is coming from the Leftist Aboriginal industry.  The official policy is to leave abused black children with their families and if that does not work the kid is left with other black families, usually relatives. Where all that has been tried the kid may in rare cases be fostered by a white family. 

Adoption is usually considered only as a last resort.  Of the four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children adopted between 2016 and 2017, three went to white families, according to government figures.

The protesters act as if the latest call is to place ALL abused black kids with whites, which is not being proposed at all. The proposal is for the most endangered kids to be placed with white families.  There have been deaths among children whom the authorities have simply shuffled around among black families.

A protester below says: "Aboriginal children are being taken away at exponential rates and these rates have grown every year"  --  as if that exonerates the existing procedures.  Surely it in fact shows that the problem is getting worse and in need of fresh thinking

The real driver behind the protests is of course the strange leftist belief that "All men are equal". Mentioning that child abuse if rife among blacks defies that foolish gospel


[TV program] Sunrise has sparked intense backlash after a commentator suggested Indigenous children should be taken from their families

The comments were made on Tuesday morning as part of the breakast show's 'Hot Topics' segment. Samantha Armytage kicked off the discussion by bringing viewers up to speed on assistant minister for children David Gillespie calling for non-Indigenous families to adopt at-risk Aboriginal children.

"It's a no-brainer", Sunrise commentator Prue MacSween supports federal minister David Gillespie's proposal for white families to adopt at-risk Aboriginal children.

"Post-Stolen Generations there's been a huge move to leave Aboriginal children where they are, even if they're being neglected in their own families," she said.

The Sunrise co-host then asked controversial commentator Prue MacSween and Brisbane radio host Ben Davis what they thought. MacSween made headlines last year after she said she was "tempted to run over" former ABC host Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

McSween claimed there was a "fabricated PC outlook" among some people who believed it was better to leave Aboriginal children in abusive homes than have them adopted by white families.

"It's just crazy to just even contemplate that people are arguing against this," she said. "Don't worry about the people that would cry and handwring and say this would be another Stolen Generation. Just like the first Stolen Generation where a lot of people were taken because it was for their wellbeing... we need to do it again, perhaps."

The comments have been slammed as false and misleading by prominent members of the Indigenous community.

South Sea Islander and Darumbal journalist Amy McQuire said the two minute segment was "packed [with] so many mistruths". "The idea that Aboriginal children are not being placed in white families is a lie," she wrote. "The greater lie is that Aboriginal children are not being taken away and are being kept in dangerous situations for fear of a 'stolen generation'.

"That does not gel with the statistics: Aboriginal children are being taken away at exponential rates and these rates have grown every year since Kevin Rudd gave his apology to the Stolen Generations and promised it would never happen again."

Black Comedy's Nakkiah Lui, meanwhile, has accused Sunrise of "bottom-feeding off people's pain". "If you're talking about the removal of Aboriginal children from their families, communities and culture, maybe speak to Aboriginal children, families and adults that have been affected," she wrote. "Not white people who have zero knowledge."

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************






16 March, 2018

Dear Sadiq Khan

The mayor of London used a speech in the US to read out six abusive tweets, saying he “could go on and on”, as he accused the government of a “dereliction of duty” for leaving big technology companies unregulated. Addressing the South by Southwest technology conference in Austin, Texas, Khan said he was not listing the messages in order to be portrayed as a victim, or to ask for sympathy

By Shazia

Dear Mr Khan,

You have used one of my tweets in your speech at the Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas, accusing me of hate speech. When I constantly receive so called hate speech from the Muslim community, the very community that is being protected under the guise of `hate speech,' which has actualised into threats to my person whereby I live with a panic button and a personal alarm, both provided by the police. I live under this constant threat and for asking you a valid question about FGM you have endangered me further.

I am a woman who has experienced the brutality of a forced marriage in which I was vaginally and anally raped for the best part of three years. I speak out in order to give a voice to those who still live under this.

And while you are using the narrative of hate speech to silence people like me, young Muslim women, men and in fact anyone who lives under the harmful cultural practices of Islam find themselves further isolated and unable to talk about what is going on in the community.

I also raise awareness on the rape of Muslim children by Muslim men. We both know this is a huge problem in the community and that honour and shame stops many from speaking out and even fewer from reporting this horrific crime against children.

Rather than encourage growth, integration and harmony in the community you are being divisive for who knows what reason.

Thanks for naming me as a hate preacher, alt right and far right, of which I am neither, and giving all those who allegedly suffer from mental health issues ammunition to come after me. Unlike yourself I am a vulnerable woman from the minorities and do not have the security of 24/7 protection.

You won't silence my voice though; I too am the daughter of a Pakistani bus driver and not just the gori's [white person] daughter.

SOURCE






Child sex abuse: Sarah Champion MP says 'consider race and culture'

A fear of being called racist is preventing authorities investigating the reasons behind child abuse cases, an MP has claimed. Rotherham MP Sarah Champion was speaking after 17 men were convicted of forcing girls in Newcastle to have sex.

Mostly British-born, they are from Iraqi, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian and Turkish communities.

Ms Champion said asking if there were "cultural issues" was simply "child protection".

Northumbria Police said society "can't be afraid to have this discussion".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Champion, Labour's shadow women and equalities minister, said gang-related child sexual exploitation involves "predominately Pakistani men" who were involved in such cases "time and time and time again".

"The government aren't researching what is going on. Are these cultural issues? Is there some sort of message going out within the community?" she said.

Ms Champion said the "far right" would attack her comments for "not doing enough" and the "floppy left" would call her racist.

"This isn't racist, this is child protection," said the MP for Rotherham, where at least 1,400 children were found to have been exploited between 1997 and 2013.

'White girls worthless'

The issue was not being dealt with because "people are more afraid to be called a racist than they are afraid to be wrong about calling out child abuse", Ms Champion said.

Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadhan Foundation said the debate needed putting in context. "Amongst these criminals there is a mindset that they think that white girls are worthless," he said.

"They don't have any regard for their standing within society and therefore they think they can be used and abused in that way.

"But the vast majority of child sex abuse carried out in this country is carried out by white men - through the home, through family networks and through the internet."

Northumbria Police Chief Constable Steve Ashman said the force did not ask about religious background on arrest.

As those arrested under Operation Sanctuary were from a number cultural backgrounds, "who do I point that finger towards to say you have an issue here, culturally?" he said.

Some communities' attitude to "women, principally white women" needed addressing, he said. "But the discussion has to take place beyond policing."

Former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald said there had been a reluctance in the past to investigate gangs from some Asian communities targeting vulnerable white girls.

"Some recognition that this is a problem" was needed, he said.

All communities needed to address it, "not pretending it's something else, not shying away from it, recognising it for what it is, which is profoundly racist crime", he said.

SOURCE






Jordan Peterson on corporate virtue signalling

Clinical psychologist, author, professor and easy-on-the-eye cultural critic, Jordan B. Peterson, took a break from his sold out speaking tour to chat with Miranda Devine. 

He had some sage words of advice for the likes of Qantas, Telstra, PWC, KPMG et al:

"People who are doing this at the corporate level will rapidly get their comeuppance . If you're operating within a capitalist environment like let's say the executives and management of Qantas, who are being paid disproportionately well, you don't also get to be a social radical. And you don't get to salve your conscience for receiving a pay cheque that's 300 times the pay cheque of the average worker by pretending you're a social revolutionary. It's an appalling sleight of hand.

"In addition, you don't get to invite the radical leftists into your corporate utopia without opening the door to a major fifth column. If you are naive enough to think that the demand of the radicals for the transformation of your company is going to end with a few requests for language transformation then you're a complete bloody fool.

"It's staggering to me to watch the corporate elite types kowtow to the radical Marxists. They do it to virtue signal or because they're feeling guilty or maybe because they're facing genuine pressure and don't want to stand up against it. But they're playing a game that will punish them intensely."

"In the early 1970s when it became absolutely untenable for anyone with any moral intellectual pretensions to be on the side of the Communists . the same doctrine went underground and transmuted into this postmodern dogma that completely dominates the humanities and social science end of the university curriculum and increasingly plays a determinative role in the legislative process at every level of government in the West. It's the same old wolf in new sheep's clothing.

Isn't it curious that corporate heavyweights never virtue-signal about issues such as national security, energy prices, crime or homegrown terrorism; it's always some topic high on the Leftist agenda.

Companies should focus on serving their client base, taking care of their employees and increasing value for their shareholders and avoid becoming entangled in contentious social and political issues that can alienate existing and potential stakeholders.

SOURCE



Racist HuffPo
    
The HuffPost Opinion section made it a personal goal to limit the amount of white writers contributing to its pages, according to one opinion editor.

HuffPost Deputy Opinion Editor Chloe Angyal explained the opinion section focused on the goal of lifting up writers of color and making sure less than 50 percent of the writers are white.

Angyal also said she kept tally of the numbers throughout the month to ensure the opinion page was staying on track in ensuring the representation of minority, trans and gender non-binary writers was on track.

"This is definitely 100% how it works, mate," Angyal responded when a Twitter commenter asked her if the policy meant qualified white writers were passed over for other writers.

The editor in chief for HuffPost did not return request for comment in time for publication.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************











15 March, 2018

Bill That Protects Freedom of Those for and Against Same-Sex Marriage Angers Some on Left

Sen. Mike Lee has introduced a religious freedom bill that is designed to protect Americans who believe in traditional marriage from punishment by the government.

“What an individual or organization believes about the traditional definition of marriage is not—and should never be—a part of the government’s decision-making process when distributing licenses, accreditations, or grants,” Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal.

The newly introduced version is different from the original version, introduced in 2015, in that it also includes protections for “those who support any federal legal definition of marriage between two people, including same-sex marriage,” CNN reported.

Lee says his bill, reintroduced Thursday, would help protect Americans from being penalized for their religious beliefs.

“The First Amendment Defense Act simply ensures that this will always be true in America—that federal bureaucrats will never have the authority to require those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage to choose between their living in accordance with those beliefs and maintaining their occupation or their tax status,” Lee said.

Groups on the left have attacked the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union’s Ian Thompson, a legislative representative, said the bill would promote “taxpayer-funded discrimination.”

The Human Rights Campaign’s Sarah Warbelow told CNN of the change to the legislation: “It appears to be a false attempt or a failed attempt to make this legislation constitutional by making it seem they’re not just targeting LGBTQ people.”

Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, which works to “secure full nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people nationwide,” was similarly negative.

“Any changes made to this bill can’t hide its true animus: to legalize discrimination against LGBTQ people,” Davis told CNN.

Emilie Kao, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that she believes the legislation would provide protection for those who believe in traditional marriage as well as those who believe differently.

“Sen. Lee has introduced much-needed legislation to protect the freedom to act according to the view that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Kao said. “Even though the Supreme Court described this view as ‘decent and honorable’ in Obergefell v. Hodges, we have seen a wave of litigation against people who hold a belief that has been shared by people around the world for millennia. In a pluralistic society, there should be room for civil disagreement on marriage.”

SOURCE






Abortion Advocates Can’t Stand It: Need More Proof the Mexico City Policy Works?

When abortion advocates complain about a policy morning, noon, and night—that’s a win!

Many rituals are associated with Inauguration Day in the United States: the Oath of Office, inaugural balls, and Washington-area residents whose party lost the election listing their homes on Airbnb, just to name a few. And then there’s a lesser-known ritual that’s just as established but even more important: the argument over the Mexico City Policy.

First instituted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy derives its name from the venue of that year’s U.N. conference on “Population and Development.”  The policy states that, as a condition of receiving federal funds, non-governmental organizations agree they will “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.”

Every time the White House changes party hands, the Mexico City Policy also changes. Like clockwork. So when Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama move in to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they rescind the Mexico City Policy. When Republicans like George Bush and Donald Trump come to town, they restore the policy in some form.

Each time the policy is restored, abortion advocates start wringing their hands, warning that the U.S. is putting women’s lives at risk. They cite figures about deaths from “preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.” And recently, they’ve claimed that the latest iteration of the policy is forcing organizations to choose between treating HIV/AIDS and providing “life-saving reproductive health services.”

It’s not clear, of course, how in the world a policy specifically directed at abortion prevents anyone from addressing real health issues. And they conveniently omit the fact that the policy specifically exempts referrals in cases of “rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of the woman.”

As Elisha Dunn-Georgiou of Population Action International, recently acknowledged, “the policy does not reduce U.S. funding for health or family planning.” But it does take money from what she calls “the most competent providers of ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’”—that is, pro-abortion advocacy groups like hers or Planned Parenthood.

So what’s really behind the dire warnings that accompany the reinstatement of the policy is funding. Groups that equate “women’s health” with “abortion rights” attack the Mexico City policy as a “health threat,” even if the only real threat is to their own bottom line.

But there’s also another reason for the hand-wringing over the Mexico City policy, one that even critics have been forced to admit: it’s a policy that works! The policy has forced non-governmental organizations to decide whether their priority is going to be abortion advocacy or women’s health.

In the process, local people are questioning why so many foreigners and government officials consistently present abortion as a solution to all of their problems, when the U.S. government does not support it?

Well, here’s why.  First, abortion really isn’t a solution for women’s health. The all-too-many deaths from pregnancy-and childbirth-related causes in developing nations have little to do with legalizing abortion, a point critics of the policy seem intent on obscuring.

Second, because Christian institutions provide one-third of the medical care in Africa, and they want to promote health, physical and spiritual, not a “culture of death.” That’s why they support the Mexico City Policy.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t be a bit surprised that groups like Planned Parenthood hate it. It denies their funding, and directly challenges their deep, historic, and ideological commitment to abortion on demand.

Which is why denying them funding overseas is a positive development. Now if we could only find a way to deny that funding here at home.

SOURCE







Hollywood Admits It Hates Heartland Values
   
I was disappointed but not surprised that Tyler Perry’s “Boo 2” and “Let There be Light” were not nominated for an Oscar. The films that my friends and family enjoy watching are typically overlooked by the Hollywood elites.

For whatever reason the folks who play make-believe for a living prefer their cinema to be a bit more provocative.

“The Shape of Water” won the 2018 Oscar for Best Picture. It’s the story of an inter-species romance between a mute woman and a half-man/half-fish creature who lives in an aquarium.

It’s a movie about embracing others. Consider Vox’s description of the movie’s only villain: “an angry, bitter, cruel boss-man who’s certain of his own superiority to everyone who isn’t a white man like himself, and whose religion hasn’t helped him learn anything like love.”

“Call Me By Your Name” also won an Oscar. It’s the story of a “romance” between a 24-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy.

“Variety” heralded the film as “the lyrical sensations of erotic and emotional discovery.” The Los Angeles Daily News called it “refreshingly fun, erotic, non-judgmental and both intellectually and emotionally smart.” And the Los Angeles Times declared it “a powerfully erotic and affecting love story.”

For some context, Fox News reports a 23-year-old North Carolina school teacher was arrested in 2017 for having a “romantic” relationship with a 17-year-old boy.

What Hollywood calls a love story the police would call a sex crime.

So why is there a disconnect between the films that tug at the heartstrings of the heartland and the vulgar offerings churned out by Hollywood?

“Out of the nine best picture nominees, only two made more than $100 million. That’s not the point,” Oscars host Jimmy Kimmel explained. “We don’t make films like ‘Call Me By Your Name’ for money. We make them to upset [Vice President] Mike Pence.”

Oh, so they’re doing it on purpose. They are intentionally flaunting their contempt for our values and basic human decency. In other words, Hollywood wants you to fork over 20 bucks to have a radical agenda shoved down your throat.

That’s why one of Hollywood’s most celebrated movies promoted man-boy pedophilia and the other was about a woman who had sex with a fish.

And it wonders why America would rather stay home, pop a bowl of extra buttery Orville Redenbacher and watch a “Last Man Standing” marathon.

SOURCE





America Is the Best Place in History for Racial Minorities

Dennis Prager   

At the City College of New York in the late 1930s, my father, an Orthodox Jew, wrote his senior class thesis on anti-Semitism in America.

He delineated common realities of the era, such as Jews’ admission to law firms, country clubs and colleges being denied or restricted, and various other manifestations of popular and institutional anti-Semitism.

Yet he taught his two sons—my older brother and me—to believe that we, as Americans, were the luckiest Jews in Jewish history.

With the obvious exception of Jews living in Israel, he was right. I can state this with some authority, having written a book on anti-Semitism and taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College.

Despite the existence of anti-Semites and anti-Semitism in America, American Jews are indeed among the luckiest Jews in Jewish history. Even with the re-establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, many more Israeli Jews have moved to America than American Jews have moved to Israel.

This is not a reflection on Israel, which is a country with a high quality of life that is an unparalleled blessing in Jewish life; rather, it is a reflection on America and how good it is for Jews.

Likewise, despite the existence of racists and racism in America, black Americans are among the luckiest blacks in the world. A distinguished black journalist, Keith Richburg of the Washington Post, fully acknowledged the horror and cruelties of slavery. Nevertheless, he thanked God his ancestors made it possible for him to be born and live in America, not Africa.

After covering Africa for the Washington Post, Richburg put it this way in his newspaper: “Let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I can: There but for the grace of God go I.”

Somewhere, sometime, maybe 400 years ago, an ancestor of mine whose name I’ll never know was shackled in leg irons, kept in a dark pit … and then put with thousands of other Africans into the crowded, filthy cargo hold of a ship for the long and treacherous journey across the Atlantic. Many of them died along the way, of disease, of hunger. But my ancestor survived … He was ripped away from his country and his family, forced into slavery somewhere in the Caribbean.

Then one of his descendants somehow made it up to South Carolina, and one of those descendants, my father, made it to Detroit during the Second World War, and there I was born, 36 years ago. And if that original ancestor hadn’t been forced to make that horrific voyage, I would not have been standing there that day on the Rusumo Falls bridge, a journalist—a mere spectator—watching the bodies glide past me like river logs.

… And so I thank God my ancestor made that voyage. … I empathize with Africa’s pain. I recoil in horror at the mindless waste of human life, and human potential. I salute the gallantry and dignity and sheer perseverance of the Africans. But most of all, I feel secretly glad that my ancestor made it out—because, now, I am not one of them.

That is why millions of Africans prefer to live in America than anywhere else. That is why more than 2 million Africans immigrated to the United States in the recent past (compared with the 388,000 who came as slaves).

Unlike the many Americans—black and white—who believe the leftist libel about America oppressing blacks and all other nonwhites, the millions of Africans who want to come to America know how lucky they would be to be a black in America, as do the millions who already live here. They know they are, or would be, among the luckiest blacks in the world.

And what about Latin Americans? Like American Jews and American blacks, they are among the luckiest Latinos in the world. How could they or anyone else deny this given the fact that tens of millions of Latin Americans left their families, friends, culture, language, and very homes to live in America? And given the fact that tens of millions more ache to do the same?

What kind of lie must a person embrace to flee to a peaceful, prosperous country whose people treat him generously and beautifully and not think he is lucky to live there?

And, finally, there are the many white Americans—people born and raised in America, many of whose ancestors also fled war, poverty, and oppression in Europe—who not only deny how lucky they are to live in America but also vilify the founders of America who made their blessed life possible. Their attitude transcends mere lying; it enters the realm of pathology.

SOURCE


*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************






14 March, 2018

Hillary disrespects American women

Hillary took part in the India Today Conclave over the weekend and her contempt showed.  No conservative would go as far as she did in her downgrading of women.  Conservatives tend to like women -- even love them -- but Hillary just despises them. But she is a feminist!  A hater, more likely

Former Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton let loose in a conversation with the India Today Conclave over the weekend, calling Trump voters and residents of heartland states 'backwards," telling the audience that Americans "didn’t like black people getting rights," and "didn't like women," and claiming that white women only voted for Trump because they were told to do so by their husbands.

Clinton waited until she was well overseas to give the shocking speech, rehashing some of her greatest hits into a single, televised rant, delivered largely to an audience of Indians gathered for the innovation conference.

Asked about the 52% of white women who voted for Donald Trump in the Presidential election, despite being faced with the possibility of having the first woman President in American history, Clinton did not concede that women could have voted based on their own political preferences. Rather, the failed Democratic candidate claimed that white women were under the spell of their husbands, fathers, and sons, who forced them to pull the lever for Donald Trump.

"We do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton told the audience, about the Democratic Party. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

Yep. That's right. A majority of white women in America are merely the pawns of their male betters, the willing tools of a massive Patriarchal conspiracy that sought to keep Clinton out of the White House because she happened to be a woman.

That's not all though. Clinton went on to claim that then-FBI director James Comey, now a liberal hero, destroyed her "momentum," and "decreased my vote," when he suddenly re-opened an investigation into her mishandling of classified information just days before the November election.

At some point, Clinton's habit of excusing her campaign performance simply because pathological. She no longer accepts any rational explanation for her loss that is at odds with her own carefully curated reality, and she'll likely carry these same explanations with her to her deathbed, always believing that America was too backwards, to brutish, and too misogynistic to see the paradise she promised.

SOURCE






Gun-Control Activist Finds Picture of ‘Scary’ Gun… Silenced After Learning What She Really Posted


An airhead

Gun control activists have been doing their worst again in recent weeks, demonizing law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association as they seek to undermine and infringe upon the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

As such, they are also pushing yet another legislative attempt to ban “assault weapons,” a made-up term that essentially constitutes any sort of firearm that looks like something the military would use, but in actuality is a standard semi-automatic firearm with certain cosmetic features, of which there are millions upon millions in common use.

Unfortunately for them, their fear and loathing when it comes to firearms runs so deep that they can’t even keep straight what kinds of weapons they claim they do and don’t want to ban — likely because they don’t even know the basics of firearms and how they operate in the first place.

Case in point is the following tweet from Shannon Watts, leader of the Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action gun control advocacy group, who posted a picture of a “scary” looking rifle and fretted that an 18-year-old adult could purchase one at a sporting goods store, according to The Daily Wire.



In the eyes of Watts and her small but vocal coterie of liberal moms demanding gun bans, the above rifle should be classified as an “assault weapon” and ripped from the hands of law-abiding citizens, largely because of its black “tactical” appearance that resembles a military-issue firearm.

But in reality, the gun Watts is apparently so fearful of is nothing more than a bolt-action .22 long rifle caliber firearm, the sort of firearm that legions of gun owners learned to shoot with and grew up around as children. Deadly with a well-placed shot, yes, but still barely a step above a BB gun, and largely suitable for target practice or hunting small game like rabbits and gophers.

SOURCE






Why More Men Than Ever View Marriage as a Bad Deal

Over the last few decades, we’ve seen a revolutionary change in the way marriage works in America.

In your great-grandparents’ heyday, relationships were more about raising a family and making a living than love. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any love involved; it just means the motivations were often a little different than they are today. Women wanted to get out from under the same roof as their parents and have kids. When a woman found a decent man who treated her well and seemed like he could provide for her and her children, that was often enough of a foundation to build a marriage. After all, the country was much poorer then, so her parents couldn’t necessarily support her and she didn’t have a lot of job options. A husband was the best financial option most women had back then.

Today, most women can take care of themselves and those who can’t have the federal government helping them, so they don’t NEED a man to take care of them financially. Combine this with the fact that financial opportunities for uneducated and unskilled men are dramatically reduced from the pre-shipping container/pre-computer age and marriage has been forever changed. That male dockworker can no longer support a family by himself and even if the wealthier, more educated female executive were to marry him (and she probably wouldn’t because he has less status than she does), the marriage would be far less stable because financial need wouldn’t hold them together.

This has a lot to do with why divorce happened much less frequently in the past. Not only was it a little scandalous to get divorced, a woman had a lot more worries about how to pay her bills if she decided to go her own way. That combination of financial need and social stigma held people together. Consider that “the 1967 crude (divorce) rate was 8.7 times as large as that for 1867” and it becomes obvious that marriage was a much more certain bet for previous generations of Americans.

As the need for financial security has fallen away, “love” has become the primary motivator of people who want to marry. The problem with that is that love can be one fickle b*tch.

For most people, that hot, passionate love driven by hormones that makes you crazy for someone else typically doesn’t last forever. Additionally, as people say, “familiarity breeds contempt.” When a woman is on year three of sex with the same person, she just picked his stained underwear off the floor again and what she thought were cute little idiosyncrasies early on have started to get on her nerves, “love” has turned out to be a much less effective cement than financial necessity. That’s very important because almost 70 percent of the time the woman is the one who files for divorce.

Given that we have a justice system that rewards women and punishes men at every opportunity during and after a divorce, it’s no surprise that women are more likely to be the ones ending the marriage. Courts heavily side with women over men when it comes to custody of the children. Chances are if you’re a man in a battle for custody, you’re going to lose and then you’re going to be forced to pay through the nose for the privilege of not getting to spend as much time with your kids as you like. Speaking of which, financially, the courts still act as if we’re in the thirties. Certainly, there could be a situation where a significant alimony payment would be the only fair solution, but that should be a fairly rare occurrence in this day and age.

Imagine a secretary who makes $30,000 a year who marries a CEO making 10 million dollars a year. Five years later, they get divorced. How much does she deserve? Most women would say “half.” At least “half” of what he made while they were together. The honest answer a lot of men would give you would be “nothing.” You know how much she contributed to the man’s success in his career? Nothing of significance. How much is she worth in the working world after the marriage? About the same as she was before, plus she’s had the advantage of having her much richer husband buy her things for years that she’ll take with her. Do you know what he should owe her in that situation after five years of marriage that didn’t work out in the end? Nothing, just like she owes him.

Yet and still, in many states, her husband would be expected to keep her living in the “style to which she has become accustomed.” This is exactly the reason that any MAN WHO ALREADY HAS MONEY is crazy if he doesn’t insist on a prenuptial contract before a wedding. Is that romantic? No, but neither is giving a woman who hates your guts half your money. Does it imply you’re not 100 percent sure the marriage will last? Yes, it does, but in a world where divorce is so common, no one can really be sure a marriage will last anymore. You can claim otherwise if you like, but you’re just whistling past the graveyard. I’ve known women who divorced a husband because he lost his job and had trouble finding another one; because she wanted to relive her party years at 35 years old with two kids; because she decided her husband wasn’t manly enough; it goes on and on and on. What I am telling you is that there are no guarantees and your sweet, reasonable honey who loves you to death may decide she wants out of the marriage and turn into a monster once she has a lawyer whispering in her ear during the divorce. Guess what? Usually, the guy never sees it coming.

This can lead to a situation where you’re paying for the lifestyle of a woman who doesn’t want to be with you anymore and is using your kids as a weapon against you while you struggle financially. I know more than one man who has been in this situation. Almost every man does these days. Some people would tell you that’s just the price of marriage. “Hey, if she’s not worth that, then don’t get married.” But how often does the opposite situation happen? How often is a woman stuck paying the bills for her ex-husband while he has the kids after he decided he “just wasn’t in love” anymore? I’ve never heard of a situation like that, although I’m sure it has probably happened. This is an enormous risk that marriage entails for men, but generally not for women.

You also can’t underestimate the impact of having reliable female birth control and women pursuing their careers. Between college and many women trying to climb the career ladder, marriages are occurring later than ever. There was a time in American history when 80% of people were married by 21. That is no longer true.

Barely half of all adults in the United States—a record low—are currently married, and the median age at first marriage has never been higher for brides (26.5 years) and grooms (28.7), according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data.
In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are currently married will drop to below half within a few years.

The longer you wait to get married, the less of a chance there is that the marriage will produce children. Take the potential of having children out of the equation and marriage is even less appealing to many men. Keep in mind that single women can now easily avoid pregnancy and have become much more promiscuous than they used to be. Does that mean every single guy is getting laid left and right? Not at all, but it does mean that sex is much more available to the average single man than it was 100 years ago. In other words, even if a man never gets married, he doesn’t have to forego sex. In fact, he has the opportunity to have sex with multiple women, an attractive proposition to most men that would be denied to him if he were married. On top of that, he doesn’t have to take on any burdens. He’s not financially responsible for his girlfriend. He doesn’t have to take care of the kid she had with another guy five years ago. There’s no potential for a brutal divorce if things don’t work out. Typically, women are the ones who grew up dreaming of the perfect wedding and the commitment that followed. Most men just grew up dreaming of having sex with beautiful women.

At one time, those two fantasies had to merge. When our society was less promiscuous, the man needed to get married to have regular access to sex. He got what he wanted and she got what she wanted. Is that still true today? The numbers say “No.”

Back in the early 1990s, the average American had sex about 60 to 62 times per year, but that number dropped to less than 53 times per year by 2014. Among married couples specifically, the drop was even more dramatic - from about 73 times per year in 1990 to 55 in 2014. This actually brings the sex lives of married couples below people who've never been married, who have sex about 59 times per year as of 2014.

So if you’re a man, getting married may very well mean LESS SEX and with the same woman instead of potentially sleeping with multiple women. It also means risking a soul-ripping divorce where the court system will be stacked against you. Oh, and don’t even mention the old, “Getting married? Wow, I’ll be treated like a king!” fantasy that men had once. Today, you’re more likely to be treated to demands that you do half the weekly housework.

When you look at that sort of thing, it’s easy to understand why some men are simply opposed to marriage. I am not one of those men, but I will tell you the scales have tipped too far against men in marriage. By that, I mean that unless something changes that shifts the institution of marriage back onto more favorable ground for men, marriage will have great difficulty recovering in America. Since marriage is one of the most important building blocks of a successful society, that’s something none of us should want.

SOURCE







Britain's odd housing regulations

Restricting whether you can build, rather than what, drives up prices

Matt Ridley

Sajid Javid, the Housing (etc) secretary, is right – and brave -- to go on the warpath about Britain’s housing crisis in his new national planning framework, to be launched today. Britain’s housing costs are absurdly high by international standards: eight times average earnings in England, 15 in London. A mortgage deposit that took a few years to earn in the early 1990s can now take somebody decades to earn. Average rents in the UK are almost 50% higher than average rents in Germany, France and crowded Holland.

Britain really is an outlier in this respect. Knightsbridge has overtaken Monaco in rental levels. Wealthy, crowded Switzerland has falling house prices and lower rents than Britain. Over recent decades, most things people buy have become more affordable – food, clothing, communication – and the cost of building a house has come down too. Yet the price you pay for it in Britain, either as a buyer or a tenant, has gone up and up.

Speculation exacerbates the problem. British people, and foreign investors here, borrow money to invest in housing on the generally valid assumption that it will rise in value. This distorts our economy, diverting funds from more productive investments and exacerbating labour shortages in expensive places like London and Cambridge.

The fastest take-off in house prices relative to earnings has been in the last two decades, when cheap money has further fuelled the house-price spiral, rewarding the haves at the expense of the have-nots. The high cost of housing is by far the biggest contributor to inequality. The reason some people have to turn to food banks is not because of high food prices, but because of high housing costs. It is a rich irony that the Attlee government’s town and country planning act of 1947 is probably as responsible as anything for the continuing prosperity of most dukes.

But seeking out profiteers misses the point. At root of the problem is supply and demand. Britain restricts the supply of housing through its planning system far more tightly than other countries. That keeps prices going up, enabling developers, landlords and speculative buyers to make gains. We are building not much more than half as many houses each year as France, despite a faster population growth rate, and a quarter as many as Japan.

So why is British planning so restrictive? Until 1947 Britain regulated house building in most cities the same way other countries did: by telling people what they could build, rather than whether they could build. As Nicholas Boys Smith, director of Create Streets told a recent conference at the Legatum Institute, in the centuries following the Great Fire of 1666, “There was a series of pieces of legislation that set down very tight parameters: ratio of street width to street height, the fire treatment of windows etc. That is how most of Europe still manages planning. They have not taken away your right to build a building.”

Britain switched to deregulating what you could build, but nationalized whether you could build, by adopting a system of government planning, in which permission to build was determined by officials responding to their own estimate of “need”. This brought great uncertainty to the system, because planning permission now depended on the whims of planners, the actions of rivals and the representations of objectors. Today local plans are often years out of date if they exist at all, and are vast, unwieldy documents, opaque to ordinary citizens and subject to endless legal challenge and revision.

This makes Britain both far more subject to centralized command and control and far more dominated by big corporations than other countries. It is a good example of how socialism and crony capitalism go hand in hand. Barriers to entry erected by planning play into the hands of large companies and make it hard for small, innovative competitors to take them on. In turn, this leads developers to produce unimaginative, repetitive designs to get the best return on their huge investment in land and permission.

Getting planning permission to build houses in Britain requires you to spend big sums on consultants, lawyers, lobbyists and public relations experts, as you wear down the councils’ planning teams and their ever growing lists of questions over several years. Not that the two sides to such debates are really antagonists: it is more like a symbiosis, a dance in which both sides benefit, because the fees to be earned by everybody from ecologists to economists are rich. And that is because at the end of the process the reward can be huge: a 100-fold uplift or more in the value of a field that gets turned into housing.

As a property owner, I have experience of this system and, I freely admit, a vested interest in it. I should be arguing for it, rather than against. However frustrating planning authorities can be, the rewards they bring to property owners can be large, either through upward pressure on prices and rents by their restrictions on permissions, or through uplifts in the value of land zoned for development.

Our mostly centralised taxes make things worse. In Switzerland, cantons compete for the local taxes that residential property owners pay, encouraging them to agree promptly to building bids, whereas here development brings headaches for local councils in providing infrastructure and services, only partly redressed with “section 106” agreements that make developers pay for schools and roads.

The system also creates opportunities for nimbyism on a greater scale than elsewhere. Opposing new development because it blocks your view, increases congestion on the roads and crowds the doctor’s surgery and local school, is rational everywhere. But it is much easier to organize a protest when the decisions are taken by council officials and the permissions are for big projects, rather than where many small decisions to build are taken by many dispersed owners and builders.

If Sajid Javid is to succeed in revolutionizing Britain’s housing market, he must tackle the underlying causes. Rent control, help-to-buy, affordable housing mandates and bearing down on developers’ land banks mostly address the symptoms. Forcing councils to set higher targets for house building is a start, but if he were to succeed in unleashing a building boom across the country sufficient to bring down house prices he would create a debt crisis among those with negative equity. So it will not be easy to cure Britain’s addiction to property, but he must try.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





13 March, 2018

DREAMers Go Rogue… Trash Democrat Party in Unprecedented Move

Playing identity politics is a risky game. The Democrat Party no doubt thought it could snag easy votes by pandering to the largely Latino population of “Dreamers” … but the left’s eagerness to blame Republicans for every problem is now causing many in that community to reject liberal promises.

During a recent appearance on Fox News, an illegal immigrant and participant in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program named Cata Santiago had harsh words for Democrats and their inability to work with President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers.

“They don’t walk their talk,” declared the 20-year-old immigrant, who is a Mexican citizen but was taken to the U.S. by her parents when she was only 8.

Trump moved to end the Obama-enacted DACA program after it had been repeatedly extended, based primarily on the argument that, according to the U.S. Constitution, important immigration rules should be passed by Congress instead of created by executive action.

Trump gave lawmakers half a year to pass a permanent solution and said that he would sign it when it reached his desk. A bipartisan bill never materialized

Santiago slammed the left for constantly pointing fingers at conservatives while doing next to nothing to actually build a path to citizenship.

“We’re tired of it. We’re tired of believing them when they say ‘It’s the Republicans.’ They make promises when they’re in an election, and when it’s over they’re done and don’t do anything,” she stated.

A recently uncovered memo from within the Democrat Party revealed that the party was worried about gaining votes from Hispanics and saw Dreamers as “a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success.”

Many observers interpreted this as an admission that liberals were defending DACA for votes, not for ideological reasons.

Other immigrants also echoed Santiago’s rejection of Democrat politics.

“The Democrats made the calculation to kick the can down the road and allow hundreds of thousands of us undocumented youth to live in uncertainty,” pointed out Maria Duarte, who was part of a sit-in protest at DNC headquarters. “We are anxious and we are scared of being torn away from our homes and our community.”

Even strong advocates of the DACA program are voicing their frustration over Democrats falling on their face when it came to finding a solution for so-called “Dreamers.”

“Democrats have no plan, and once again, Schumer, now the minority leader, is showing that protecting these immigrants … was never his priority,” complained Cesar Vargas, a pro-amnesty immigration attorney.

“The lack of leadership by Democrats, however, is nothing new. In 2009, they controlled the White House and Congress and still failed to bring up immigration reform for a vote,” Vargas pointed out.

He’s not wrong. You could even say that “complain and blame Republicans” has been the de facto Democrat playbook since the Clinton era. As the old saying goes, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time … and even Dreamers may have run out of sympathy for leftist excuses.

SOURCE





Virginia Social Worker: I Was Fired Over My Concealed Carry Permit

The National Rifle Association has filed a lawsuit over Florida’s new gun law, which increases the age to buy rifles in the state from 18 to 21. Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed the bill yesterday.

Yet, the pro-Second Amendment organization should consider joining another lawsuit in Virginia, where a social worker was reportedly fired for being a concealed carry holder. On Facebook yesterday, Storm Durham, a social services worker, described how three Roanoke police officers escorted her out of her office.

She said some of the officers had accompanied her on child services visits. Durham was also not allowed to use the bathroom on her way out due to safety concerns. On Twitter, Durham said that she’s seeking lawyers to fight this:

I was fired today. From Roanoke City Social Services, serving as a damn good social worker. I was fired for having a concealed carry permit. Not the gun, the permit. I was escorted by 3 city police officers bc I am a "safety risk to the building"

“I have a concealed carry permit. I own guns. I hunt. I target shoot. I represent Women hunters and outdoorswomen. Does that make me a criminal? Does that make me a safety risk to others? A big enough safety risk to be escorted by three Roanoke City Police officers?” asked Durham of what appears to be a humiliating ordeal. “So scary and threatening that I need to be treated like a criminal?” she added.

Durham said that she never brought her firearm to the office, and that she bought one for self-protection being a survivor of sexual assault. 

“I am an American, a gun owner, and a proud sponsor of hunting across America, and I, nor my lawyers, judges, or support systems will rest until something is done until someone answers for punishing me and taking away my constitutional right,” she declared.

Well, this is quite an egregious story about one’s constitutional rights being violated.

SOURCE





The Munroe Bergdorf spat confirms how poisonous the new ‘progressives’ are

Bergdorf is a black trannie that thinks highly of itself

Munroe Bergdorf probably hates you. Certainly if you are white she will think you are pretty disgusting. She thinks that you, like ‘all white people’, partake in ‘racial violence’. She thinks you have built your ‘existence, privilege and success’ on ‘the backs, blood and death of people of colour’. In short, you’re scum: you are racially violent and blinkered to your role in the spilling of black people’s blood. Who wouldn’t hate someone like that? I would. And don’t even start Ms Bergdorf on homosexuals who support the Tory Party (‘special kind of dickhead[s]’), the Suffragettes (‘white supremacists’), or homeless people (the white ones apparently ‘have white privilege’ – lucky bastards). For someone who blathers on about acceptance, Ms Bergdorf seems curiously unaccepting of certain groups of people.

That Ms Bergdorf, a trans-woman and sometime model, poses as a promoter of tolerance and diversity and yet at the same time sanctions hatred or at least disdain for large sections of society has got some people scratching their heads. How can this be? This week she stepped down as an equalities adviser for the Labour Party following a media storm over her past hateful comments. (Literally everything you need to know about the Corbynised Labour Party and its trading of class politics for identity politics is contained in the fact that it wanted advice about equality from someone who thinks the white man on methadone who lives in a skip enjoys ‘white privilege’.) Now some people are laughing, and it’s a confused laugh, at the fact that an aspiring equalities adviser could be so mean about certain social groups.

But it makes sense. Perfect sense. Hatred, demonisation and the treatment of large swathes of society as backward are key elements of the politics of identity. It is not an accident that many identitarians hold extremely intolerant views of certain social groups. They are not going ‘off-script’ when they casually write off white people or straight people or Christians as dickheads, supremacists, ignorant, evil, etc. Rather, such a callous painting of ordinary people as ‘problematic’, as creatures to be wary of, is central to this politics that relies for its very survival on the idea that minority groups are victimised and thus require help and flattery from those in authority. For in order to sustain this beneficial status as ‘victim group’, identitarians must continually construct a fantasy army of victimisers. Their social and political status is utterly dependent on their ability to depict other people, ordinary people, you and me, as horrible, hateful, and perilous to their identity or their ‘existence’. The fuel of their worldview is fear and hatred of others, of us.

They’re all at it. Every identitarian activist devotes an extraordinary amount of energy to uncovering and complaining about the alleged backwardness of ordinary people. Witness how gay-rights groups now scour for evidence of homophobic hatred. So desperate are they to prove, against the evidence of everyday experience, that gays suffer horrible prejudice in 21st-century Britain that they have taken to flagging up schoolkids’ use of the word ‘gay’ as an insult to bolster their claim to victim status. Or see how Muslim community groups trawl for evidence of ‘Islamophobia’, gathering every stupid tweet or anti-Koran comment made on a bus into dossiers of dread that they might present to the media and the government. They need this; it guarantees their funding; it grants them access to the sainted circle of threatened groups requiring special resources. To ensure their survival in a politics that rewards those who suffer, they must set out to prove that non-Muslims are a problem; they must encourage hatred of non-Muslims.

Or witness how victim feminists treat everything from a whistle in the street to a sexist tweet as proof that they suffer ‘structural oppression’. Many of these feminists come from well-off backgrounds, were privately educated, and have incredibly relaxing jobs in the media and politics, and yet they must debase themselves by trawling for evidence of misogynistic hatred because this sustains their self-flattering, self-deluded status as victim. Trans activists are the worst on this front. Victimology is so central to their identity that they have come to view midwives saying ‘it’s a boy!’ or abortion charities using the word ‘women’ as evidence that society is a transphobic conspiracy and this will make young trans people kill themselves. To survive, to garner greater influence in public debate, trans activism must depict the rest of society as disgusting; everything in the politics of identity implores it to do this.

This instinct for demonisation, for ‘othering’ ordinary people, doesn’t only express itself in terms of identitarian vs your average member of the public. It also unleashes a process of fragmentation within identity groups themselves. So highly prized is the title of victim that there is now a creepy competition both among identity groups and within identity groups. Feminists and trans-women bicker over who suffers the most. Bisexuals rage against homosexuals for ignoring ‘biphobia’. Muslim campaigners bristle if they feel too much attention is paid to anti-Semitism. And then within groups, new sects are always breaking off, believing they will fare better in the game of victimhood if they go it alone. Witness how ‘white gay men’ are now slammed by black homosexuals. Or how white trans-women are damned as ‘more privileged’ than black trans-women. Black Muslims agitate against Asian Muslims. ‘The black Muslim experience is completely different to… the Asian one’, wrote one recently. And of course he means it is worse. This is the nasty racial, sexual and religious fragmentation unleashed by a politics that celebrates and rewards those who claim to suffer: a competitive victimhood in which solidarity is not only difficult, but impossible.

What does this elitist coveting of the prize of victim status do to public life? It poisons it. It encourages suspicion, hatred. As identity politics becomes the main form of politics, so we the public are increasingly ruled over by a political, campaigning and media class that thinks we are foul; that thinks we are racist, transphobic, Islamophobic, stupid, dangerous. After all, every new piece of research commissioned by identity groups tells them this: that such-and-such a group is still misunderstood by the dim throng and thus it needs more funding and assistance, etc, etc. They spread panic about prejudicial hatred among the public, but in truth it is they who hate us. It is they who demonise Christians, the elderly, ageing feminists, certain gays, white people, working-class people, and anyone else whose views might be held up as proof that certain minority groups still suffer ‘structural oppression’.

Identity politics is the midwife of misanthropy. Imagine going about your daily life thinking all white people are racist, ‘white men’ are trash, most Christians are homophobic, the country is riddled with transphobic prejudice; imagine how fretful you would be, how scared of your fellow man, how consumed by disdain you would become for the citizens of your own nation. This is the identitarian mindset. This is how they view society, how they must view society: they fear it, and hate it.

SOURCE







Foreign Aid Often Hurts More Than Helps

When these corrupt regimes are flush with American cash, it's no wonder that so many poor nations fail to prosper.  

There’s an old saying that charity begins at home. While the spirit of the phrase is controversial in our hyper-political climate, the fact is that sending federal aid overseas is more of a feel-good solution than a long-term way of reducing poverty or increasing the ability of people to become more self-reliant and prosperous.

For decades, the United States has sent aid to countries around the world with the noble intention of helping those unable to access the basic necessities of life such as medicine, running water and shelter. But some Third World countries never break the cycle of poverty, and this often has more to do with their corrupt political leaders than a lack of work ethic, resources or a desire to improve. When these corrupt regimes are flush with American cash, it’s no wonder that so many poor nations fail to prosper.

The best way for people to escape poverty is to implement a free-market economy, support individual freedom and business expansion and fight political corruption. The reason tyrannical and corrupt regimes don’t follow this advice is self-evident.

The data show that free nations are more prosperous than those whose political systems aim for equality at all costs. The Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Index of Economic Freedom ranks 180 nations based on their level of economic freedom and the corresponding level of poverty. Some economic studies send mixed messages, but not this one. The numbers are irrefutable: As economic freedom increases, poverty decreases.

As Patrick Tyrrell writes at The Daily Signal, “This finding should not be overlooked when organizations like the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank plan aid for developing countries. Such aid too often ignores economic freedom violations by despots, dictators, and autocrats.”

There seems to be little thought given to where the aid goes when it leaves places like the IMF or World Bank, or how the money is spent if it actually makes it past an entrenched autocracy. But should we expect anything different from organizations that habitually overlook corruption in countries receiving aid?

Tyrrell adds, “Strongmen who disregard property rights or the rule of law to remain in power have been rewarded with billions of dollars in foreign aid from rich countries for decades. Despots and dictators have often used this aid to solidify their grips on power, such as by withholding food aid from groups that do not support them.”

So that’s why decades of American and international aid hasn’t even made a dent in the problem.

Not surprisingly, the political Left is often the driving force behind these global relief programs, and government aid isn’t the only problem. More often than not, so-called progressive aid organizations are plagued by malfeasance while the people in need to continue to suffer. We only need to look at what the Clinton Global Initiative did with contributions from wealthy, progressive donors. Remember the millions that were sent the Clintons’ way in order to help the Haitian people recover from the 2010 earthquake? Haiti still hasn’t recovered, yet the Clintons have rolled in cash.

Another segment of our society pushing for more global assistance is progressive Christians, who use their faith as justification for pouring billions of dollars of government aid into poverty-stricken countries. Once a donation drops into the collection basket, the assumption is that a hungry mouth will be fed and medicines will be delivered.

Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. As The Resurgent’s Peter Heck suggests, “Christians who see their brother in need personally should give generously from their own resources, bank accounts, and wealth to care for them. Christians who see their brothers in need in other parts of the world should support charitable organizations that work to rebuild their lives through missions and relief efforts.”

This sounds reasonable considering that Americans are the most generous people in the world. “Americans out-donate Britain and Canada two-to-one and nations like Italy and Germany 20-to-one,” The Almanac of American Philanthropy reported in 2016. “What’s more, more than half of every single income class except those earning less than $25,000, give to charity. The much maligned top 1% in the U.S. economy fork over one-third of all donations made.”

But Heck adds, “Christians who are interested in results more than political posturing, should encourage and urge their government to spread a doctrine of economic freedom to the impoverished world. That, far more than confiscation and redistribution of wealth, achieves the results we desire.”

The problem with sending money overseas is that it doesn’t get to the needy, and it therefore has a minimal impact on people’s long-term living conditions. Princeton University economist Angus Deaton, who worked for decades at the World Bank, asserts that rich do-gooders may be exacerbating the problem of corruption in the Third World, given that there’s been so little to show for $135 billion in global aid.

What Deaton and other economists discovered was that countries receiving aid actually found their economic situation growing worse because the relationship between the governments and their people changed. This makes sense. A country is less likely to be accountable to its people if the government can rely on a steady stream of international aid.

The U.S. should lead the way toward reform. This includes ensuring that nations receiving aid are working toward implementing policies that expand the economic and political rights of their people, and working directly with aid organizations rather than funneling money through politicians and despots.

We can also apply these standards to our own cities, by promoting entrepreneurship and supporting business-friendly policies that help the downtrodden build independence and wealth. Like Third World despots, Democrat mayors across the country have largely squandered hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars since the “Great Society.”

Only when we battle poverty at its root cause will we break the cycle of political corruption and poverty.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************









12 March, 2018

Germany Not Alone Concerning ‘No-Go Zones' and Lack of Assimilation

In an abrupt about-face, perhaps engendered by political calculations, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has publicly admitted the existence of so-called "no-go zones": enclaves of migrants in various German cities who live insular lives that are resistant, and often downright hostile, to German values; places where it has become unsafe for tourists, outsiders of any kind, and even first responders such as firefighters and police, to venture.

These zones are fueled by the density of the unassimilated alien populations living within them, populations with cultural attitudes and values found in religiously conservative Muslim communities in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia. Many of those values find expression in adherence to sharia law, including its expectations about how women dress and comport themselves, even though sharia conflicts with the laws and ethical structure of the host nation.

Merkel may be the first European, indeed Western, leader to admit the existence of such zones, although a number of observers have in the past suggested that they exist in Germany, as well as in Belgium (such as the Molenbeek area of Brusels, infamous for its harboring of terrorist jihadis); certain metropolitan areas of France, including some of its Parisian suburbs; and various enclaves in English cities, to name just a few. Some Australians even suggest that no-go zones are starting to develop in cities "down under."

It's ironic that Merkel holds this dubious honor, since in 2015 she unilaterally declared that Germany would accept without limit migrants crossing both maritime and land borders to get to the European Union (EU) — a position she reiterated publicly as recently as July 2017. Although Merkel primarily had in mind Syrians fleeing their war-ravaged nation, her statements became a clarion call for at least 1.5 million "irregular arrivals" (EU diplo-speak for illegal entry).

Germany has struggled with the consequences since Merkel's ill-conceived remarks sparked the flood, including infamous sexual assaults on women by groups of migrant men loitering in the public squares of major German cities during holiday seasons, terrorist attacks on trains and holiday markets, burgeoning crime, and even a de facto acceptance of polygamy among its unassimilated inflow.

But Germany has not been alone in staggering under the weight. So have the front-line countries of the EU, such as Greece and Italy, whose islands have served as convenient arrival points for seaborne migrants smuggled from Turkey and North Africa, as well as the Eastern European countries that meet Turkey's land bridge from Asia into Europe. Many were obliged to create, or significantly beef up, their border guard corps, erect fences, and take substantially less welcoming measures than Merkel's to staunch the flow. And the EU was then obliged to offer what was, for all intents and purposes, a bribe to Turkey with promises of millions of euros in "assistance", in order to persuade that country to ensure that its own police and border guards prevented unauthorized departures by land or sea.

And even as Merkel is now belatedly tacking right, as evidenced by her most recent admission of no-go zones — quite probably as the result of her political party's waning popularity in Germany, and her difficulty forming an effective governing coalition — she is still pushing EU leaders to oblige all other EU nations to accept their "fair share" of these unassimilated and, at least in some instances potentially unassimilable, individuals, though they had no say in Merkel's welcome. This threatens EU unity even as the union still attempts to come to grips with Brexit.

The consequence, throughout Europe, has been a surge in the popularity of governments and political parties that advocate more restrictionist immigration policies (see, e.g. here and here). As in the United States, some of these parties have been unfairly smeared as xenophobic, ultra-right-wing, and "nationalist".

The lesson for the United States in all of this isn't to close our doors. It does suggest strongly, however, that we must be prudent in vetting people from other parts of the earth whose cultural values are so singularly different from ours to ensure that they can assimilate; that they are "well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States"; and that they are philosophically capable of "attach[ment] to the principles of the Constitution," which includes the notion that ours is a civil society, and that government at all levels is ruled by civil, not religious, law.

It also means accepting inflows of individuals only at a rate that permits our various local and state governments to meaningfully interact with and care for them because, once here, they become mainly reliant on states, counties, and cities — not the federal government — for their care, education, acculturation, and integration into their new communities.

One often hears the assertion that our Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, and that this prohibition extends to refugees and other aliens outside our shores. Putting aside whether this is true, though, if aliens outside the boundaries of constitutional coverage are entitled to its protections, what about the reverse?

What happens when religious belief and cultural practice and mores are so ingrained in some individuals as to prevent them from meaningfully subscribing to the tenets of the American Constitution, to American forms of government, or to our social mores? They may wish to share in our cornucopia of plenty, but at the same time expect our society and government to adapt itself to fit into their cultural and religious telescope. Is this acceptable?

How do we resolve the standoff? Surely the answer must be exercised in favor of our way of life, else we risk losing everything simply by permitting ourselves to be overwhelmed numerically by individuals who don't want to become American in any meaningful sense.

SOURCE




Democrat antisemites   

At the 2012 Democrat Party Convention, the effort to reinstate the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital into the party’s platform was met with a chorus of boos loud enough to completely fluster convention chairman and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. After calling for a vote three times, Villaraigosa simply decided the “ayes” were in the majority — an assertion met with another chorus of boos. An anomalous moment?

Clarifying is more like it. “The California Democratic Party adopted a resolution at their annual convention on Sunday to oppose federal bills intended to thwart the movement to boycott Israel,” The Forward reported on Feb. 28.

In 1977, Congress passed legislation prohibiting Americans from complying with foreign government-imposed boycotts against nations friendly to the United States. It was supported by the Business Roundtable, American Jewish organizations and Jimmy Carter’s administration. In 2017, Congress sought to update that law with the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, adding international organizations like the United Nations or the EU that might also be inclined to pressure businesses to boycott the Jewish State.

This effort was aimed at defusing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has been the radical Left’s favorite pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel platform, with all the attendant assertions of Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territories included.

“Radical” is a key word here. In 2016, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 2844. The anti-discrimination law made it clear that California’s government would bar companies that engage in discrimination against any sovereign nation from doing business with the state. Sec. 2. (c) of the law specifically barred discrimination against “the nation and people of Israel.” The State Senate approved the bill by a vote of 34 to 1, and the State Assembly approved it by a vote of 69 to 1.

Eighteen months later, these same Democrats opposed federal legislation similar to the bill they had passed almost unanimously. Thus, what used to be “radical” leftist politics is now mainstream Democrats Party politics in the Golden State — all the attendant anti-Semitic implications included.

Is it just Golden State Democrats? The ACLU branded versions of the act making its way through both chambers of Congress as anti-First Amendment, despite the reality that nothing prevents anyone from expressing any opinion about Israel. Yet that was all the necessary cover for Democrats fearful of their increasingly leftist, pro-BDS base. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand withdrew her support for the bill, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren hedged, insisting, “The boycott is wrong, but I think outlawing protected free speech activity violates our basic Constitution.” Democrat Senators Chris Murphy (CT) and Tammy Duckworth (IL) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (MA) were also vacillating with regard to the legislation.

And not just that legislation. Last August, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced he’d co-sponsor the Taylor Force Act, named after Army veteran Taylor Force, who was murdered by a Palestinian while touring Israel. The act would stop American taxpayers from subsidizing the Palestinian Authority (PA) until it ended its reprehensible habit of providing terrorists freed from prison with a government job and a salary — one that is higher if their crime is more heinous.

The consummate no-brainer? Four Democrat senators, Chris Murphy (CT), Tom Udall (NM), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Corey Booker (NJ), voted to kill it in committee. And while the bill passed overwhelmingly in the House, it has yet to be voted on in the Senate.

Why are many Democrats embracing such hostility toward Israel? According to a poll conducted by Nielsen Scarborough, 56% of their constituents back economic sanctions and other get-tough measures against Israel, and 72% believe America unfairly favors Israel over the Palestinians.

Moreover, a Pew poll released in January reveals that since 2001, the share of Democrats sympathizing more with Israel has declined 11 points, from 38% to 27%. The decline among Democrat Millennials is even more pronounced: Approximately 27% of Millennials now say they are more sympathetic to the Palestinians than Israel, compared to only 9% in 2006.

The party’s schism is best revealed by the split between supporters of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Clinton’s supporters favored Israel over the Palestinians, 47% to 27%. Sanders supporters favored the Palestinians over Israel, 39% to 33%.

Since Sanders supporters tend to be younger, Democrat politicians are apparently becoming more attuned to their social justice warrior sensibilities. Sensibilities increasingly aligned with the contemptuous notion that Israel is an apartheid state engaged in Palestinian genocide.

Yet Israel is only part of the dynamic, or perhaps better described as a useful distraction for the increasing levels of progressive-supported anti-Semitism per se. Nothing speaks to this reality better than leftist support for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a “gutter religion.”

In a major speech on Feb. 25, Farrakhan remained true to his worldview, asserting that Jews were “the mother and father of apartheid,” and declaring that “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper sidestepped a media-imposed blackout and covered the speech, noting that despite the “inherent” anti-Semitism and anti-homosexual comments expressed by Farrakhan, “several leaders of the Women’s March are supporters of Farrakhan and have not condemned him.” He also leveled the same accusation against members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The proverbial shoe fits. One of Women’s March organizers was Linda Sarsour, who has long supported Farrakhan. She once insisted “nothing is creepier than Zionism,” and justified terrorism as a response to a “racist, supremacist, violent [Israeli] regime” that views Palestinians as “less than human.”

Another organizer, Tamika Mallory, criticized by Tapper for attending Farrakhan’s rant, was “defended” by Bronx rapper and political activist Mysonne — who insisted Farrakhan was right to blame Jews for the “violence, control, pain and destruction” they have imposed on black people.

Mallory herself, who received a shout-out from Farrakhan at the rally, posted a number of tweets insisting she was the victim of “bullying.”

The Congressional Black Caucus? At least seven Democrats — Reps. Maxine Waters (CA), Barbara Lee (CA), Danny Davis (IL), Andre Carson (IN), Keith Ellison (MN), Gregory Meeks (NY) and and Al Green (TX) — have attended meetings with Farrakhan.

The same Congressional Black Caucus that buried a 2005 photo of Farrakhan with Barack Obama.

While visiting Israel last August, House Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer insisted his party remains “overwhelmingly” pro-Israel. Chuck Schumer insists BDS and anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. Yet the New York Post reveals a painful truth — and perhaps the most telling harbinger of things to come — noting that Schumer is 66 years old and Hoyer is 78, while Booker and Gillibrand are only 48 and 50 years old, respectively.

Thus, the paper asserts, the Democrat Party’s “reliable support for Israel looks to be a thing of the past.”

Columnist Dennis Prager is even more assertive, declaring, “The day America abandons Israel will be the beginning of the end of America as we know it.”

Not America, Mr. Prager. The Democrat Party. One on the verge of a moral meltdown fueled by identity politics, in all their tribalist — and burgeoning anti-Semitic — glory.

SOURCE





Right of Private Association Takes Hit Under NY’s Schneiderman

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (Screenshot)
A court of appeals recently upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a challenge based in the right of private association expressed in the 1959 landmark decision NAACP v. Alabama. The ruling has a disproportionate effect on conservatives associating with nonprofit causes that shun taxpayer financing.

At issue in a case brought by Citizens United is whether anti-gun, climate alarmist, pro-abortion leftwing New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman may compel nonprofit organizations to provide him their list of $5,000-plus donors filed confidentially with the Internal Revenue Service.

The case never got to trial where facts and evidence could be considered and challenged. Instead, the courts accepted Schneiderman’s untested claim that he needs those donor names and addresses to prevent fraud, and dismissed the suit brought by Citizens United.

The decision had a racial element. The court essentially held that the constitutional right of private association protecting blacks in the 1950s civil rights era from Alabama Democrat Attorney General John Patterson does not necessarily extend to others associating in a race-neutral context.

This newly found, race-tinted limitation on the right of private association is particularly troubling since the unhinged and increasingly violent left has expanded its scope of targets addressing civil rights and political causes.

The ruling seems to say that if you have the concern and the means to donate $5,000 to a tax-exempt organization that provides training to teachers in proper use of arms, an organization that provides counseling against abortion, or a host of other civil rights issues, your right of private association doesn’t count. These are, of course, issues affecting all races.

What is also troubling about the decision is that the civil and criminal penalties protecting confidential tax return information such as an organization’s list of donors provided to the IRS have no bite when a state attorney general wants that information for no proven reason. And probable cause be damned.

The ruling disproportionately hurts conservative organizations, which, unlike nonprofits on the left, tend not to rely on taxpayer funding. Conservative nonprofit organizations are far more likely to rely on private citizens pooling their resources for a cause, whereas liberal organizations often see themselves as “partners” with government, especially under the Obama community organizing model, and tend to eagerly accept, if not rely upon, taxpayer money.

As to fraud in the tax-exempt world, one merely needs to follow the news to know that some of the biggest and most frequent nonprofit scandals and diversions of tax-exempt money for improper purposes happen when nonprofit organizations are financed with taxpayer money.

The conservative nonprofit model, on the other hand, tends to treat taxpayer financing as a negative. Across the board of all reasons why conservatives choose not to donate to a nonprofit organization, perhaps the most consistent reason is whether an organization takes taxpayer money. This is such a powerful motivator that in their appeals for contributions many conservative nonprofits emphasize they accept no government funding.

If Mr. Schneiderman were sincere about his desire to prevent fraud, he would not violate the right of a private association, but instead focus on better disclosure of taxpayer funding to nonprofits.

The last major revisions to Form 990 – the tax return of nonprofits filed with the IRS and collected by state charity regulators such as Mr. Schneiderman – were done under the Lois Lerner IRS. Form 990 is geared for liberal organizations. It is difficult for donors to find on the Form 990 how much taxpayer money an organization receives. Lois Lerner’s agenda lives on beyond her tainted tenure with the IRS.

This leads to three changes that should be made. Form 990 needs to be revised so on page one, in bold, organizations disclose how much taxpayer money they receive. Next, charitable solicitation statutes should require registering organizations to provide full disclosure of how much taxpayer money nonprofits receive. Lastly, among the already required disclosures, nonprofit websites and solicitations to the general public should be compelled by law to disclose what percentage of the organizations’ funds are from taxpayer money.

At the same time, and especially considering how the left has become increasingly violent as their democratically political losses mount, one should hope that Citizens United brings this case to the Supreme Court, and a better decision for the right of private association prevails.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons, Esq. is an attorney and co-author with Richard Viguerie of "The Law That Governs Government."

SOURCE






Jordan Peterson is in Australia

CAROLINE OVERINGTON

I want to start by saying: if you don’t have a ticket to see Jordan Peterson while he’s in Australia, run and get one. Beg, borrow and steal to get one. Except you can’t.

Peterson arrived in Australia this week for what, to their dismay, local organisers — a small company, True Arrow Events — immediately recognised is a too-short series of lectures in too-small theatres, on too few dates. He is sold out everywhere.

People can’t get enough of the 55-year-old psychologist. So, what will you be missing?

I went along to the Melbourne lecture on Thursday to find out. I’m not going to deny that I was already a bit of a fan girl.

Like many people, I stumbled on Peterson online last month when his interview on Britain’s Channel 4 with Cathy Newman went viral. I enjoyed it — enjoyed him — so much, I went and got his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos and inhaled it in a day. And OK, sure, since then I may have found myself, more than once, happily lost down a YouTube rabbit hole of Peterson ­lectures.

This was to be the real thing. The event was to be held in the sublime surroundings of the Melbourne Recital Hall. It was a warm night and the crowd was mostly on foot, and mostly young but not especially so — there were certainly people middle-aged and older.

I found myself seated in the second-back row, near the sound mixer, alone yet not, because it seemed like half the crowd had come alone, and I soon found out why: they hadn’t been able to convince friends to come along.

You want me to sit for two hours listening to some obscure Canadian drone on about the meaning of life — or else maybe pluck my eye out with a fork? Pass the fork.

They had shrugged and come along anyway.

To my left, I had a super clean-cut guy, Alex Roy, 32, who works for a non-profit. Behind us was the tattooed and beautiful Maggie Baines, 32, who is doing gender studies at the University of Victoria (she sheepishly admitted that her girlfriends weren’t all that happy about the idea of her “going to see Jordan ‘Effing’ Peterson because I guess he’s seen as a bit antifeminist”); and to our right we had brothers Tim and Nathan Morris, 24 and 26 respectively, who stumbled on Peterson while gaming, and soon found themselves “like, not talking about My Kitchen Rules, talking about big issues, like: what is the purpose of my life?”

Within seconds, everyone had introduced themselves and they were all getting animated, remembering the best things they’d heard Peterson say, when the lights dimmed and Peterson strode on to the stage.

To my complete surprise, they — indeed the entire audience — immediately rose as one and gave him a standing ovation. He hadn’t even said anything yet!

His first words were: “It’s three in the morning my time.” They cheered that, too.

Peterson did not say so but he had only just got off the plane. It would be an exaggeration to say that he has been on a speaking tour nonstop since the start of the year, but not by a lot. He’s touring the world and it’s different every night. He decided on his topic for Melbourne just 10 minutes before taking the stage.

He wanted to begin, he said, with something “spectacularly difficult”. The existence of God.

Peterson uses Bible stories to illustrate basic points in his lectures, and “people keep asking me, do I believe in God? And I’ve been accused of hedging my bets.”

It wouldn’t be fair to try to summarise his answer to that question. He spoke for more than 90 minutes, with no notes. If that sounds like your worst nightmare, know this: he does not drone.

Peterson has an unusual way of speaking that carries you along. Partly it’s the accent — he is a Canadian who has spent time in the US — but it’s also the way he speaks, with his long fingers pressed against his forehead, like he’s trying to push, or maybe even pry, the thoughts out.

Other times he’s like a mime artist, using his hands to draw boxes in the air, or else he’s doing a sucking thing with his fingers, drawing his hand back, like the movement of a jellyfish.

He does not shout or insist. He’s not a snake-oil salesman or a tub thumper.  He’s got his doubts, too. And depression.

There is also the manner in which he paces the stage, lean and hungry. All of Peterson’s clothes are new because he recently has lost more than 20kg by restricting his intake pretty much to moose, elk and steamed broccoli.

His daughter Mikhaila, 25, has suffered from chronic ill health almost all her life, including a form of arthritis that cost her a hip and an ankle when she was 17, and threatened to crumble more of her joints. She invented a diet that he has now adopted. It’s so strict, the tour organisers had to book him into self-catering hotels and Airbnb where the whole family can prepare their own meals (there being no elk in Australia, kangaroo may have to do).

Mikhaila Peterson credits the diet with curing her ailments and Jordan Peterson’s depression, which has been severe at times. He is now obsessive about food and veers dangerously close to those gals who claim to cure disease with food, except everyone knows he is right. You do feel awful when you eat junk food, and when you stop you’ll lose weight and feel better, and diabetes and arthritis may well be improved.

But on with the show. What did he say?

In essence, his point was not a new one: in a million years, who will care that you lived? You will be dust, and so will everything you ever did and everyone you ever loved. “Given that, you can decide that everything’s pointless, and yet we don’t,” he said.

Human beings tend to live like there is a point to it all. Not just here in the West. Every society has its parables. We are apparently hardwired to accept that there is more. Which maybe means there is more?  Maybe life does matter. Maybe we do, too.

On the other hand — and we all know this is true — with every person you meet, “you don’t have to scratch very much to find a bedrock of tragedy”.

“God only knows what’s wrong in your life,” Peterson said. “No doubt plenty, and there is more to come, you can be sure of that.”

That’s because even normal, well-functioning human beings are burdened by sorrow, and how could it be otherwise? We all suffer because bad things happen to all of us. We all lose people we love and in the end we all die.

Think about that for even a day and you’ll find yourself on the edge of nihilism. What can rescue us from despair?

“Happiness isn’t going to do it, that’s very fragile,” Peterson said. But meaning?  That may be the trick.

But what does it mean, to have meaning in your life?

Peterson’s ideas are difficult to summarise but essentially he believes that heaven and hell exist in some form on earth, and anyone who has ever done a bad thing knows it.

When you do a bad thing, you feel awful, and it’s the same when you find yourself being carried along by people or organisations whose values you don’t share, or working in a job that is not fulfilling, or telling lies about your drinking, or even when you’re not doing what you believe in your heart you were put on earth to do.

You feel awful because you’re walking in the wrong direction.  Let’s call that hell, since that’s how it feels.

When your house is in order, when you’re acting with clarity and honesty, when you’re moving in the right direction, you feel better, right?  That’s the opposite of hell.

Probably not heaven, since we’re human, but it is better than the alternative.

Peterson’s idea is that you — the sovereign individual — should start moving as quickly as possible away from hell. Away from things that would make you feel bad, and therefore make your world worse.

Pick your goal — a job more suited to your skills, a more honest marriage, a life filled with more kindness towards others — and head in that direction.

Catastrophic things will still happen. You will still suffer, because you’re human. But you will be able to bear it.

The reason we despair, he says, is because we have no target, “sometimes no bow, no arrow, no idea that we’re even meant to be aiming at”. So pick up whatever burden you’ve been given — your personal losses and grief, which you can’t escape anyway — and start moving rapidly in a direction that won’t make your life worse.

Make good decisions. Don’t tell lies.

Maybe the only life you’ll improve will be your own, but that’s a good start.  “Fix what’s in front of you,” Peterson said.

Peterson told the Melbourne audience he had received 30,000 letters in the six months since he rocketed to fame and, in broad outline, they said two things.

The first group says: “You put into words what I always thought was true, but couldn’t find a way to say it.”

The second group says: “I’ve listened to you, and I’ve been trying to put my house in order. I stopped making things worse, and lo and behold, they got better!”

The audience laughed and cheered.

Ninety-five minutes in, Peterson stepped briefly away from the stage and people were invited to line up behind the microphones, and half the audience rose and rushed toward the aisles, since everyone had a question for him.

No way was he going to get to them all, which was a shame because unusually for this format — audience participation — even the questions were good.

He was asked if there is a coming Christian renaissance — he thinks it likely — and about the looming civil crisis in South Africa.

One guy in an open relationship wanted to know if Peterson admired his decision to voluntarily face the fear and insecurity that develops when you know your partner is sleeping with other people (answer, in short: no).

A pale individual with a quaking manner asked whether “a person can continue to do graffiti and still say they were aiming to make the world a better place?”

The crowd laughed, but Peterson paused for a long time, like he wanted to give it serious consideration. “Mostly I think it’s a desperate attempt to get status,” he said ­finally. “And I think you should paint on your own property. But then there’s Banksy.

“So I hate to say this, but it depends on who you are. Probably you’re not Banksy.”

It went on for a bit longer, then it was time to go, and of course Peterson got a second standing ovation, but it wasn’t a long one, for everyone was rushing to get outside — and I soon figured out why.

Peterson was going to be signing. Buy a book and you’d get a chance to meet him, and didn’t that provide a moment to make a local author weep: the queue was 25 wide — that’s wide, not deep — and it snaked through the foyer and right up the staircase, and why wouldn’t it?

There just aren’t that many roaming rock star philosophers in the world today. You may think it mumbo-jumbo. You may profoundly disagree.

Even so, it will be a long time since you sat for two hours and considered the big questions with other people keen to have an animated conversation about the world, and our place in it.

I’d say get a ticket — but of course, you can’t.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





11 March, 2018

Black doctor kills a baby in an attempt to prove himself

He acted without permission from the parents so is surely liable to be charged with manslaughter

The heartbroken parents of a two-day-old baby who died after a needless operation today described the horror of their son 'arriving home in a coffin'.

Paul Mitchelhill died in his mother's arms following risky abdominal surgery carried out by a doctor who wanted to 'prove a point'.

A coroner concluded that failings by surgeon Emmanuel Towuaghanste 'directly contributed' to his death and the inquest heard he should have acted more 'conservatively'.

And his devastated parents, Paul and Irene Mitchellhill, have today revealed the agony of their loss which continues to leave a 'void' in their lives almost five years on.

Speaking after the inquest, the couple, from Carlisle, Cumbria, said: 'Paul died the day after his surgery and we came home without our son, having only held him for the first time as he was dying.

'We faced the horror of losing our first baby boy and the trauma of him arriving home in a coffin.'

The hearing at Newcastle Civic Centre was told how the surgery was 'not urgent' and Paul's death was 'avoidable'.

But Mr Towu, 62, took the decision within hours of Paul's arrival at the Great North Children's Hospital in Newcastle on October 21, 2013, to operate on a defect known as an exomphalos major - rather than wait to find out more.

But an expert witness suggested the locum surgeon, who had been at the hospital for only a month, was trying to 'prove a point' by carrying out the surgery.

Paediatric surgeon Bruce Jeffray, who now heads the department, told the hearing he had seen just six cases of exomphalos major in his 20 years experience.

Mr Jeffray said he would have treated the condition 'conservatively' and would not have elected to perform emergency surgery on the new-born child.

Instead, he would have wrapped the defect in bandages and handed the baby to his mother as he was at no immediate risk, the inquest heard. He added: 'I think this was an avoidable death.'

Mr Jeffray described compartment syndromes as 'disastrous', adding: 'You have converted a stable situation into uncontrolled chaos.'

Simon Huddart, a retired paediatric surgeon, also told the hearing: 'A locum surgeon of one month as a consultant and performing this surgery has a feeling of trying to prove a point.

'Seeing an operation is not the same as doing the operation, I watched my dad drive for 17 years - it doesn't mean I could drive.'

The inquest heard his parents were not consulted ahead of the operation and Mr Towu did not discuss the decision with permanent medical colleagues ahead of the operation.

Surgery was undertaken to close a 7cm gap in his abdomen, but he quickly showed worrying symptoms of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) due to a complication.

Expert surgeons told the four-day hearing that they would not have operated immediately, and the court heard opportunities to save his life were missed in the hours after the operation went wrong.

Police were called in and launched a manslaughter investigation on the basis Mr Towu had been grossly negligent, but no criminal action was taken against him.

SOURCE





Ben Shapiro: Intersectionality and Anti-Semitism

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite. This isn't in question. It's a fact, and one the minister continues to underscore with each speech. Last week, he spoke before the 2018 Saviours' Day event in Chicago. He stated: "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off the eyes of that Satanic Jew, and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through." Just for good measure, he added, "Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out," suggested that Jews are "the children of the devil" and claimed, "when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door."

He's not a subtle fellow.

Which makes it utterly stunning that so many top-level Democrats have been able to get away with hobnobbing with him. Just weeks ago, we found out that Farrakhan met with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2005, including then-Sen. Barack Obama; 21 current members of Congress were at that meeting. None of them have denounced Farrakhan. Rep. Danny Davis, D-Il., asked about Farrakhan on Sunday, stated, "I don't have no problems with Farrakhan. ... I know the Jews and Farrakhan ... The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth."

Tamika Mallory, one of the leaders of the Women's March on Washington, was personally present at Farrakhan's lecture in Chicago. Another Women's March leader, Carmen Perez, routinely touts Farrakhan on her social media. And anti-Semite Linda Sarsour spoke at a Nation of Islam event three years ago. All three have defended Farrakhan. Mallory took to Twitter to explain: "Jesus had a number of enemies as do all black leaders. Period point blank." Perez stated, "There are no perfect leaders." And Sarsour defended another anti-Semite from questions about Farrakhan.

Yet the mainstream media's attention to this odd spate of events has been relatively muted. Imagine, for a moment, that the House Freedom Caucus had met with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Imagine top tea party leaders had done so as well. Then imagine they had been questioned by members of the media about their associations and proceeded to dismiss such questions as irrelevant. Would we ever hear the end of the story? Of course not. President Trump is still living down his tacit nods at the "alt-right" during the 2016 campaign, as he should. But top Democrats openly embrace the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan, and the only major media figure who seems to give a damn is CNN's Jake Tapper.

All of which demonstrates that where the media are concerned, intersectional identity matters far more than blatant bigotry. Farrakhan is black; the Congressional Black Caucus is, too; Mallory is black; Perez is Mexican-American; Sarsour is Muslim. This means that we're supposed to ignore their anti-Semitism. Were these characters all white Christian Republicans rather than minority Democrats, this would be front-page news each day.

The sin of intersectionality lies in the willingness of its devotees to discard virtue for identity politics. Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, no matter who purveys it. If only the members of the Democratic Party and the media felt the same way.

SOURCE





An 'America First' Immigration Policy

There are a lot of things right with Donald Trump's immigration vision and a few things that are misguided. It's worth reviewing which is which.

I was privileged to learn my immigration economics and history from the very best, Julian Simon. I was a research assistant for his classic book "The Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States," which, nearly 30 years after publication, remains the best tutorial out there for anyone who wants to understand how immigrants affect our jobs and our pocketbooks.

Every policymaker working on the issue today would be the wiser if they went back and read it.

The big picture starts with this: America greatly benefits economically from a steady flow of immigrants (currently about 1 million new legal arrivals each year) — always has and hopefully always will. It's not a cliche that we import the best, brightest and hardest working from all over the world.

Immigrants' age profile is beneficial to the U.S. They tend to come to the United States when they are young — between the ages of 16 and 35. They are educated in China, or Mexico, or Germany, or Ireland, and then America gets most or all of the benefits of their labor and the public return on the education.

This is one of the greatest wealth transfers in the history of the world. It is worth trillions of dollars to American citizens. Not every immigrant turns out to be an asset — and, yes, there are bad apples — but America's ability to import human capital at virtually no cost is arguably one of our greatest comparative advantages in the global economy.

Immigrants are especially beneficial now because of our unfavorable demographic situation. We have some 75 million baby boomers who are retiring at the pace of 10,000 a day, and there aren't enough young people to fill the gaps. Immigrants can and hopefully will — or else Social Security and Medicare will go belly up much faster than anyone imagines.

So what are the central components of an "America First" immigration policy?

—Build the wall, but make sure it has big gates. Getting tough on illegal immigration makes sense, but we should not cut back on the number of visas for legal immigrants. We need them.

—President Trump is right that we should move to a merit-based immigration system. While most immigrants give more than they receive, it is incontrovertible that the fiscal and economic benefits of immigrants are directly correlated to their skills, special talents, knowledge of English, educational attainment and entrepreneurial abilities.

—Since there is such a high global demand for entry into the U.S., we should set a price on these visas, perhaps $25,000 or even $50,000. We could raise about $20 billion a year to reduce the budget deficit. There would be no shortage of people lining up to pay the entry fee in exchange for the most valuable resource in the world: an American passport.

—Issue work visas for farm and other seasonal workers. These should be temporary visas that authorize these migrants to work and reside here. Americans aren't going to work in the fields. Period.

—End the visa family category for parents of immigrants. There is no benefit to bringing in people over the age of 60. They are likely to use Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits, while having paid little in taxes.

—Immigration, yes — but welfare, no. Immigrants should not be eligible for any nonmedical welfare benefits. The current restrictions — on food stamps, housing benefits, SSI, disability and so on — have been unenforced for years. Immigrants who need financial assistance should get it from their sponsors, churches, charities or relatives, not American taxpayers. We need E-verify not just at workplaces but also in welfare offices. Immigrants who do go on welfare should have their visas suspended.

Under these conditions, it's hard to imagine that millions of bright, hardworking and freedom-seeking immigrants would not want to come to the United States. The most valuable asset in the world is a U.S. passport, and we should stop giving it away for free.

SOURCE






Australia. One woman tells the politically incorrect truth  about violence towards women and children in black culture

Soaked in blood, with nightclothes clinging to her skin in the thick, muggy heat, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price sprints to the nearest neighbour’s house and begs them to call the police. It is 7am, Darwin, 2008. Five months into a new relationship — the first since splitting with her high-school sweetheart and father of her three kids — and Price is bolting for her life.

Drugs and feral outbreaks of jealousy have broken the veneer of the honeymoon period. In the heat of the attack a lamp is hurled at her with such force that it leaves a gash requiring six stitches. “I looked at my hand, it was covered in blood and the blood was dripping down my shoulder,’’ Price recalls. “And I thought, ‘I have to get out of here because if I don’t get out of here, he’s going to kill me.’?”

She manages to make a run for it, out the door, feet slapping the driveway of the flats where she lives, across the road and into sanctuary. “I felt like the stereotypical Aboriginal woman victim of ­violence. And I felt really degraded,” Price says now. “Sitting in this stranger’s house, bleeding all over their floor and asking them to call an ambulance for me, and the police. I was just so glad that my kids weren’t there to witness that.”

The proud Warlpiri-Celtic woman peers at the bushland across the street from her mother’s place on the edge of the Alice Springs township. ­“Immediately there’s a stigma attached to a victim of family violence. And I felt it, straight away. And I felt like, ‘How could I let this happen to myself? Why didn’t I see this coming?’”

This would be the last time Jacinta Price would be a victim. She broke up with her boyfriend, roused her spirits and took a good hard look around her. In the mirror stood a clever young Territory woman with much to say — although it would take some years for her to articulate all that she’d seen and experienced since she was a tiny kid running through the potholed backstreets of Alice.

But soon she began to speak some uncomfortable truths. She lifted the veil on the murderers and rapists and victims in her own extended family and the kinship ties and “cultural excuses” that protect the perpetrators. She has been hailed as a fearless anti-violence warrior and at the same time has become a lightning rod for criticism. But once the lid was off she realised there was no turning back. Despite the vitriol, the scorn, the social media hate campaigns. No running away.

In a newspaper article, Price listed the diverse cultural mix in her own household: “I am half Warlpiri and a mixture of Irish, Scottish and Welsh. My sons are of Warlpiri, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Malay, Indian, French, African, Chinese, Scandinavian and ­German ancestry. My stepson is half Scottish and a quarter Mauritian. They are all 100 per cent ­Australian.” Her point? “Most of the self-identifying indigenous members of our community who claim to feel hurt by Australia Day being held on January 26 would also have white ancestors in their family trees and may not even have been born if the First Fleet hadn’t come.”

Price’s views have attracted the attention of some high-profile allies, including the one-time prime ministerial candidate turned anti-PC baiter Mark Latham, who enlisted her to take part in a televised Australia Day campaign. “I heard her speak at a conference in Brisbane last year and was very impressed by her practical but compassionate approach to the indigenous issues,” says Latham.

The cavalcade of abuse that dogged Price in the weeks following her involvement in the campaign was “horrendous”, says the one-time Labor leader. “The trolls hate her because she’s the sort of ­person that identity politics would normally applaud — an indigenous woman, an elected councillor from Central Australia. She’s got impeccable credentials for speaking on indigenous issues, but she’s not toeing the inner-city green line, and their only response is abuse and online hysteria.”

Latham understates nothing when speaking of how far he believes Price could travel in politics. In April, if she is successfully nominated to run for the Country Liberal Party in the sprawling ­Territory seat of Lingiari — which insiders say looks a done deal — she then has the chance to ride into the House of Representatives on the ticket at next year’s election. “I think Jacinta is the most impressive indigenous person that I’ve come across in the political sphere,” Latham says.

Conservatives across the nation latched onto the Price juggernaut following the intense Australia Day coverage. Asked if she trusts figures like Latham and others now hooked on her and her political ideologies, and whether they have her best interests at heart, she cautiously replies: “Trust is a strong word. I think there are people who are ­valuable to have in your network, put it that way. You need to surround yourself with ­people you trust. There are only a few people you can trust. I’ve learnt that most definitely. And never necessarily trust those who are throwing themselves at you and want to do things for you. Even if they say they don’t ­necessarily want something, there is always something that someone wants.”

By 2015, the younger Price was in the process of a political awakening. She realised she too was now in a position to start raising her voice. The seemingly endless chain of violence in her family led her to speak out. “I got to a point in my life where we had that many deaths in our family. We had that many women traumatised by family violence and children traumatised by family violence,” she says. “And this ‘growing up yapa [Aboriginal] way’ is always like, you don’t talk about the really tough things. You pretend like they don’t exist. You know there are members in your family who have beaten the crap out of your own aunty, who have raped people, and yet your family expects you to pretend that these people haven’t done those things. You’re supposed to turn a blind eye to that. And I think I got to a point where I went, ‘I’ve had enough of this’. And I became quite vocal.”

In lifting the veil from the largely taboo subject of Aboriginal community violence, Price’s star began to rise. She was hand-picked to deliver a couple of high-profile addresses to audiences at the National Press Club and the right-wing think tank the Centre for Independent Studies. In the latter, in 2016, she told the audience: ­“Aboriginal culture is a culture that accepts violence and in many ways desensitises those living the culture to violence.”

To the press club she admitted she had been placed under immense pressure to withhold parts of her story, saying she was putting her immediate family at risk of violent retaliation. “But why am I standing here if not to hold us all to account for the lack of responsibility, action and justice for these Aboriginal women and children and the thousands of ­victims of family violence and sexual abuse?” she said.

Prominent Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine says Price’s uncompromising stance on indigenous violence has never been more necessary. “It’s a voice we need to have in the parliament. Because the current situation is not working,” he says from Sydney Airport, where he is waiting for a flight to ­Darwin where he will meet members of the NT Government dealing with a child protection crisis after the alleged rape of a two-year-old Aboriginal toddler in Tennant Creek. “On the Closing the Gap figures, we’re spending something like $130 billion [in eight years to 2016] and we’re not really confronting the real issues,” Mundine says. “About the social breakdown and family dysfunction in some of these communities. And the alcohol and drugs and so on. So I think she’s spot on. The status quo is not working. We need new blood in there, we need someone to be disruptive and to shake it up so we start actually confronting and dealing with the issues.”

In her desert hometown, some have begun striking out against Price’s firebrand commentary. A perception that she hasn’t properly consulted with women in town camps and communities has added kindling to the blaze. In late January, a statement attributed to “the Aboriginal women of Central Australia” was read in the Alice Springs council chambers by indigenous councillor ­Catherine Satour, appearing to take aim directly at Price. “To be an Aboriginal leader it requires you to be appointed and recognised as such by the Aboriginal community,” the statement read. “As the Honourable Linda Burney MP so rightfully put: ‘Leadership in an Aboriginal cultural context is not given or measured by how much media you get or if you earn big money. True Aboriginal ­leadership does not come from high-level appointments or board membership. It doesn’t come from and cannot be given by white constructs. Leadership is earned; it is given when you have proven you can deal with responsibility and you understand that responsibility’.”

While Satour and others flatly deny the speech was pointed at Price, a heated stoush at the ­meeting’s conclusion suggests otherwise. Inflamed on social media beforehand, Price’s relatives showed up to defend her name. Price herself was a no-show, away in Sydney for unrelated business. White activists accompanied a group of Abori­ginal women supportive of the statement. The place was packed. While the meeting dragged on, a din erupted on the council lawns. A ­screaming match between Bess Price and other desert women had broken out, with insults hurled in English and Red Centre languages. The stoush hit fever pitch as Satour left the chambers. It is alleged that an uncle of Price’s stormed up and verbally assaulted the councillor. “Following this statement [being] read is now a matter for a police investigation as I and the Arrernte woman were abused and I was threatened with violence,” Satour says. Territory Police have confirmed a report was filed.

More HERE 

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





9 March, 2018

Brave man speaking out against laws ruining men's lives

An email from Bettina Arndt (bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au)

I want to introduce you all to a good friend, Augusto Zimmermann. Some of you may know him from his speech at the International Men’s Issues Conference last year (ICMI 2017

Augusto is a former Law Reform Commissioner for Western Australia. He’s a professor, an academic lawyer who has won many awards for his research and teaching. He spent ten years at Murdoch University, including a period as Associate Dean of the law school.

For the last few years this brave man has been speaking out against changes to the domestic violence laws in his state and also the role of AVO’s in family law battles.

Late last year he left Murdoch after finding himself increasingly uncomfortable about the feminist agenda being promoted in the law school. The new goal of the school is to promote social justice and particularly to support the role and legal standing of women. What a crazy way to train new lawyers.

My new video is a skyped chat with Augusto about all this. Here it is:



Please help me circulate this.

For those watching the video who want to learn more about the courageous stance he is taking on these issues, I will include a few links to articles he has written on domestic violence laws and family law:

Reform the Family Law Act to Protect the Innocent, Quadrant Magazine, Volume LXI, Number 11, No 541, October 2017.

The Menace of Family Violence Order, Quadrant Magazine, Volume LX, Number 10, November 2016,







Sweden finds Trump was right on immigration, gang violence

Sweden’s prime minister, who criticized President Trump last year for blaming Swedish violence on Muslim refugees, said Tuesday that he’s cracking down on immigration and gang violence to make Sweden great again.

At a White House news conference with Mr. Trump at his side, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven spoke of his own Trump-like agenda of implementing tougher laws on immigration and crime, and of spending more money on law enforcement.

“We have our share of domestic challenges, no doubt about that,” Mr. Lofven said. “We are dealing with it every day, allocating more resources to the police, more resources to the security police, tougher laws on crime, tougher laws on terrorism.”

Not only that, he said Sweden’s crackdown on immigration and gangs is working.

“We can see some results now in our three major cities, decrease in shootings because we’re attacking the organized crime very tough,” the prime minister said. “And we’ll keep on doing that. There is no space in Sweden for organized crime. They decrease freedom for ordinary people.”

It sounded very much like Mr. Trump’s rhetoric against the MS-13 gang members that he seeks to deport in larger numbers, and his policies to limit migration from certain Muslim-majority countries until better screening is in place to weed out potential terrorists.

SOURCE





Court Ruling Could Banish Memorial Crosses From Arlington Cemetery
   
There is a very real possibility that war memorial crosses at Arlington National Cemetery could be in jeopardy, a federal judge warned in a chilling dissent to a court case involving the fate of a 90-year-old monument honoring soldiers in Bladensburg, Maryland.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday refused to revisit an October decision that declared the 90-year-old “Peace Cross” was unconstitutional because it rests on public property.

The monument is a memorial to the 49 men from Prince George’s County, Maryland, who died fighting for liberty in World War I.

The memorial, paid for by the American Legion and local citizens, consists of a large Celtic cross on a pedestal inscribed with the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.”

The American Humanist Association, which represents a vicious gang of humanist and atheist thugs, was responsible for filing the original lawsuit.

“Government war memorials should respect all veterans, not just those from one religious group,” AHA attorney Monica Miller said. “The cross unconstitutionally endorses Christianity and favors Christian soldiers to exclusion of all others.”

That, of course, is an outright lie perpetrated by some very bad people.

The Establishment Clause actually allows monuments that include religious symbols and text to stand on public land, according to Van Orden v. Perry.

You need to understand the American Humanist Association’s ultimate goal — it wants to eradicate any public mention of Christianity. It wants to destroy the Judeo-Christian values and teachings that flavor every one of our founding documents.

It has declared war on Christians in America and it will not stop until God and Jesus and the Bible are scrubbed from the public marketplace.

Federal Judge Paul Niemeyer warned people of faith that the Bladensburg ruling could lead to the unthinkable — the removal of memorial crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.

“It … puts at risk hundreds of monuments with similar symbols standing on public grounds across the country, such as those in nearby Arlington National Cemetery, where crosses of comparable size stand in commemoration of fallen soldiers,” Judge Niemeyer wrote in his chilling dissent.

First Liberty Institute and Jones Day, the law firms representing the American Legion, vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court. And they should.

Otherwise, the atheists will be free to commandeer bulldozers and turn our war memorial across the nation into piles of rubble.

SOURCE





Kansas Republicans Are Standing Up to Transgender Lies, Protecting Kids From Harm

In 1856, a new political party held its convention in Philadelphia. They called themselves “Republicans.”

As violent skirmishes in “bleeding Kansas” foreshadowed civil war, the delegates took their stand, resolving that “it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy, and slavery.”

This legacy of moral clarity and courage is the inheritance of every Republican. It was in that spirit that the delegates at this year’s State Convention of the Kansas Republican Party passed a resolution regarding human sexual identity.

The delegates at the convention affirmed “God’s design for gender as determined by biological sex and not by self-perception,” and resolved to “oppose efforts to validate transgender identity.” They declared that “public schools should not undermine the values of parents who do not agree with transgenderism; and that students have a reasonable expectation of privacy and safety at school.”

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

A media frenzy then ensued, from local papers and LGBT blogs to a shamefully inaccurate editorial in The New York Times.

For the majority of Kansans, it is stunning that basic biology is now debatable, much less that to defend it is considered “undignified,” “crass,” and “hateful anti-science,” in the words of opponents of the resolution.

Just the opposite is true. In fact, the resolution affirms “the dignity of every human being, including those who identify as LGBT.” Compassion and concern for the well-being of others is what motivated the statement. There is no love in a lie.

Fellow Kansans are suffering and dying because of the lie that one’s sex is whatever a person believes it to be. The rate of attempted suicide for those who experience “gender dysphoria” is 41 percent—10 times the national average. Those who undergo “gender reassignment surgery” are 19 times more likely to commit suicide.

Children are now receiving chemical therapies that include experimental puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, despite the fact that 80 to 95 percent of children would otherwise reconcile their dysphoria with their biological sex. Men and women who have “de-transitioned” often reflect with sadness and frustration that their doctors and therapists failed to help them explore other options.

Facts like these are the reason doctors like Paul McHugh, university distinguished professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, put a stop to sex-reassignment surgeries. It’s not about bigotry or fear or “being anti-science.” Transgenderism is sexual ideology spread through shame and intimidation.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking this isn’t your problem.

Literature promoting homosexuality and transgenderism has been developed for children as young as kindergarten. (One book, “George,” received a William Allen White Children’s Book Award from Emporia State University in 2017.) Teachers and coaches are being instructed to affirm transgender identities and coerced to use a student’s “preferred pronouns.”

In 2016, parents in Derby, Kansas, were shocked to learn that their high school’s locker rooms, bathrooms, and other private facilities were to be open to students on the basis of “gender identity,” thanks to a “guidance” document issued by the Obama administration.

And just last month, a judge in Ohio revoked the parental rights of a couple who wouldn’t allow their minor child to begin sex-reassignment procedures.

We didn’t ask for this fight, but it’s here.

The rapid and widespread attention received by the Kansas GOP resolution indicates just how entrenched the lie about human sexual identity has become in a short amount of time. But it also tells of the thirst that good citizens still have for truth.

Let’s be people who have the courage and compassion to tell it.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





8 March, 2018

Fed-Up Sheriff Goes Off, Tells the Real Truth About Liberals and Mass Shootings

A Wisconsin sheriff sounded off on what he believes to be the “root cause” of mass shootings in the U.S., and called on parents to discipline their children more effectively.

Dodge County Sheriff Dale Schmidt penned a Facebook post Thursday arguing that a major cause of mass shootings may be a radical culture shift that has occurred in the U.S. over the years — a culture shift caused by weak parenting.

“Following every mass killing, I ask myself, what has happened to our society?” Schmidt wrote. “I also wonder what the solution is to ensure our families do not become future victims.”

The Wisconsin sheriff pointed out how “years ago, people would go to school and have hunting rifles in their vehicles,” but “mass violence in schools and other locations did not happen as in society today.”

He added that there is a “root cause” fueling the drastic shift that has occurred over the years, and that “there is no quick and easy solution” to stop it.

“It’s my belief that the root cause starts with our youth lacking basic skills including respect for authority figures like parents and teachers, the ability to cope with conflict and the ability to handle rejection,” Schmidt stated.

Schmidt added that substance abuse and mental health problems are also a driving factor, but noted that “it is imperative that we raise our children in a manner that instills respect for authority.”

According to Schmidt, every child needs to face “disappointment” at some point in his or her life in order to build character and develop a basic understanding of how to handle adversity.

“While no one wants their child to ever be disappointed or upset, when they are young, they need to face conflict and disappointment and learn to resolve it appropriately under the guidance of adults,” the sheriff wrote.

He continued: “When youth are not taught how to handle difficult situations, they must find their own way to cope, which without guidance may be result in unhealthy or even dangerous future behavior.”

Schmidt explained that his motive behind penning the piece was not place blame. Rather, he said he hopes to start a conversation that could lead to an effective solution.

However, with gun control being the end-all solution touted by the left, he chimed in with his thoughts on the matter.

“Many have strong opinions about gun control but realistically gun control will do nothing more than place a very small band aid on a much bigger problem,” he stated in his conclusion.

And Schmidt may have a point. A Crime Prevention Research Center study that used data from 1950 through July 10, 2016 showed that 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred in areas where guns are banned.

The sheriff’s post received a lot of positive feedback on social media, according to The Washington Times.

On Facebook user wrote: “Very well said…….and maybe putting God and religion back in our life could help the situation.”

Another user thanked Schmidt for refraining from placing the blame on firearms.

“Thank you for recognizing the true problem and not just focusing on a gun control agenda like some of your colleagues around the country,” the user wrote. “Like you said, it is a very complex issue.”

SOURCE






Legislation Further Strangles Abortion Clinics With Damning New Rule

The Indiana House approved a bill Wednesday which tightens the regulations on abortion facilities and requires abortion clinics and other facilities that perform abortions to report when any complications occur.

Senate Bill 340 passed in a 67 to 26 vote, and mandates that hospitals, doctors and abortion clinics report any complications during an abortion, including cervical perforation, uterine perforation, hemorrhaging, infection, respiratory arrest, blood clots, incomplete abortion and others.

Doctors, abortion clinics and hospitals must also report if a woman wanting to abort expresses a desire to do so because she was abused, harassed or coerced.

Hospitals and abortion clinics applying for operational licenses must disclose whether they have ever been barred from obtaining legal documents or had their operations shut down due to a failure to meet health and safety regulations.

The law also expands safe haven baby boxes to allow women to leave an unborn baby at any Indiana fire station, including those staffed by volunteers, without risk of facing criminal charges.

“The Indiana House took strong action today by passing Senate Bill 340,” Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter said, according to LifeNews.

“The days of abortion businesses hiding injuries to women, or looking the other way when women are coerced into abortion, will hopefully come to an end with this important bill,” he added.

“In order to protect the health and lives of women, complete and reliable data on abortion must be available to women, the medical community, and the general public.

The passage of S340 furthers this goal, and AUL urges Governor Holcomb to sign this legislation without delay,” Americans United For Life president Catherine Glenn Foster told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday.

Arizona lawmakers approved a bill last Thursday that will mandate abortion providers and physicians request information from women undergoing abortions about their reasons to abort and provide them with comprehensive information about the risks of abortion.

The Arizona bill — Senate Bill 1394 — lists 11 potential reasons, including questions about the woman’s emotional and physical health, according to the Arizona Central.

SOURCE






Racist restaurant

To be avoided

As part of a month-long "social experiment," a pop-up restaurant in New Orleans is asking white customers to pay extra for their meal in the name of wealth redistribution.

According to Civil Eats, the pop-up called Saartj gives white customers — and only white customers — the option to pay "$12 for lunch or the suggested price of $30" while black customers are "charged $12 and also given the option to collect the $18 paid by a white patron as a way to redistribute wealth."

Restaurant creator Tunde Wey says that his project seeks to educate patrons on the "nation's racial wealth gap," using statistics, according to Civil Eats' coverage from an EPI study that looks at income distribution broadly, similar to the debunked 22-cent "gender pay gap" statistic.

"After they order, Wey tells each diner about the nation’s racial wealth gap, pointing to stark facts, such as higher education increases a Black family’s median income by $60,000, where as it increases a white family’s median income by $113,000," reports Civil Eats.

Wey also asks his white customers personal questions like "have you ever inherited money or received gifts from family like a car, college tuition payments or other high value gifts?"

Once the conversation finishes, Wey then asks his white customers how much they will pay. The "white guilt" definitely pays off, with close to 78% of his white customers paying more than double the required price, according to Wey. This guilt, which Wey calls "positive social pressure," is entirely intentional and designed to elicit payment.

"Refusing to pay more comes off as anti-social and people don’t want to be judged for that," Wey said. "People look on the other side of the till and see me standing there and they’re thinking that I’m judging them. If they couldn’t pay a higher amount, they gave a me a list of caveats why they couldn’t."

Should white customers ask important questions like "where does the money go?" Wey chides them for their attempts to make their "wealth virtuous."

"The ownership of wealth has been contingent on taking from someone else," Wey tells customers, relying on the "zero-sum" economics fallacy, "and money doesn’t distill virtue on you. You cannot transfer money without transferring the agency that comes with it."

"I tried to just say the money is not need-based or merit-based, it’s neutral," he said. "In fact the folks with the agency are the Black folks, because they get to take the money or not."

If black customers offer to pay the extra $30 themselves alongside their white counterparts, Wey denies them the dignity of doing so. "Black people have even tried to pay the $30 and I’m like 'No, it’s not for you,'" he said.

So, is his social justice social experiment working? Does the wealth redistribute? Actually, no. A vast majority of the black diners refuse to take money from other people guilted into paying more.

"After looking at the preliminary data collected from the survey, one of the most interesting results is that of 70 or so diners, 76 percent of the Black diners refused to take the $18 that they were offered," reports Civil Eats.

SOURCE





Kangaroo court for Cardinal Pell

I am no Catholic but I can see that this is a travesty of justice.  "Victims" are allowed to testify entirely in private, with no opportunity to see them, let alone have their allegations tested in court by counsel.  They are given that license because this is an enquiry not a trial but that is a distinction with ltttle difference.  If the enquiry uses it dubious "evidence" to conclude that a trial is justified, people will take it as evidence of guilt akin to a court verdict. 

And when we hear that the alleged transgressions happened 40 years ago and have come to light only now, it is clear that the procedings are thoroughly corrupt.  That Pell is a very conservative priest has to be relevant.  He had to be "got"

The alleged victims of the most prominent Catholic Church leader to be accused of sex abuse began testifying in Australian court via video link Monday.

Australian authorities charged Cardinal George Pell, Pope Francis’ former finance minister, in June 2017 with sexually abusing multiple people several years ago in his Victoria home. Pell began facing his alleged victims’ testimonies Monday. They testified in court via video link from an undisclosed locations so as to avoid media attention surrounding the courtroom, the Associated Press reported. The testimonies are expected to continue for up to two weeks.

The alleged victims’ names and number have not been released to the public, and their in-court testimonies are being kept private. Authorities have also withheld specific allegations against Pell from the public — noting only the sexual assault charges are “historical,” meaning Pell allegedly committed the acts decades ago.

Pell’s lawyer, Robert Richter, had no objections to the prospect of the complainants testifying via video. Richter did, however, question the rationale for allowing one of the alleged victims to testify with a support dog present, saying, “I always thought that dogs were for children and very old people,” according to AP.

“No,” Magistrate Belinda Wallington replied. “They’re also there for vulnerable and traumatized people.”

Richter also questioned why Pell would not be able to appear in court with a priest’s support. Richter argued Pell’s age and medical problems were adequate reasons Pell should be allowed to appear in court with personal support.

The prosecution “has an objection to that support person being a priest, although I can’t understand that,” Richter told Wallington.

Abuse victims and their advocates cheered the charges against Pell as a sign authorities were becoming more responsive to the voices of the abused. Pell, however, has denied all charges and intimated he will enter a not-guilty plea if put before a jury trial. Pell’s lawyers argued in February the complainants were inspired to bring accusations against Pell not by trauma but by news of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and its 2016 inquiry concerning Pell.

Pell’s first accuser came forward 40 years after the alleged crimes in 2015 and was prompted to do so via reports of the inquiry, the lawyers noted.

Pope Francis has not forced Pell to resign and has not passed any judgement on Pell, saying he will wait for the Australian judiciary to complete their justice process and come to a conclusion his input has not influenced. Pell, for his part, said he will continue his work in ministry and in the church’s finances after the case is resolved.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





7 March, 2018

An incompetent dickless Tracy gave the order not to stop Florida school shooter



One is reminded of Cressida Dick, the British Lesbian cop who was in charge of the operation in which an innocent Brazilian electrician, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead by police while he was sitting peacefully on a London underground train

The Broward County Sheriff’s Office has identified to Fox News the captain who, according to sources, directed responding deputies and units to “stage” or form a “perimeter” outside Stoneman Douglas High School, instead of rushing immediately into the building, as the mass shooting unfolded there.

Multiple law enforcement and official sources said the commands in the initial moments after Nikolas Cruz allegedly opened fire would go against all training which instructs first responders to “go, go, go” until the shooter is neutralized. As law enforcement arrived, the shooter’s identity and exact location were still unknown.

Multiple sources told Fox News that Captain Jan Jordan was the commanding officer on scene. In an email responding to Fox News’ request for information, a BSO spokesperson wrote, “Capt. Jordan’s radio call sign is 17S1.”

The massacre on February 14 killed 17 people and wounded 16 others.

Sources told Fox News it was Jordan giving the commands because they were recorded on the dispatch logs coming from Jordan’s radio insignia 17S1, or “Seventeen Sierra One.”

SOURCE





Former YouTube worker alleges discrimination against white, Asian men in suit

 YouTube has been sued by a former recruiter who said he was fired in November following a protracted battle over the company’s hiring practices and culture. Photo: Dreamstime, TNS Photo: Dreamstime, TNS YouTube has been sued by a former recruiter who said he was fired in November following a protracted battle over the company’s hiring practices and culture.

A former YouTube recruiter is suing the company’s parent, Google, alleging YouTube discriminated against white and Asian male engineers in hiring, and perpetuated a toxic culture in its efforts to recruit more women and minorities.

The employee, Arne Wilberg, worked at Google for nine years and spent the last four as a recruiter at YouTube. He said he was fired in November 2017, after a protracted battle over YouTube’s hiring practices and culture. The suit was filed Thursday in San Mateo County Superior Court.

“For the past several years, Google has had and implemented clear and irrefutable policies, memorialized in writing and consistently implemented in practice, of systematically discriminating in favor job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men,” the civil suit states.

A spokeswoman for YouTube did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A Google spokeswoman provided the Wall Street Journal a statement saying the company has “a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity. At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”

Wilberg alleges that in April 2017 he was told to cancel all interviews for junior and mid-level software engineering positions, except for those with applicants who were female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline.”

Wilberg says he refused to carry out the directive and was penalized and threatened with termination. Ultimately, he claims, he was fired for resisting company policy.

Google’s workplace culture and hiring practices have become the subject of multiple lawsuits, both from those who argue that the company has gone too far in its attempts to diversify, and recently from a former employee who alleged that he was fired for speaking out about company culture in defense of women and minorities. The issues received national attention last year when former Google engineer James Damore released a memo that argued that men are biologically more suited to coding careers than women. Damore sued after he was fired.

Wilberg’s lawsuit more generally describes a company that moved erratically in its attempts to hire more women and minorities. “Google used Weekly Recaps to track the number of hires who were ‘Female,’ ‘Black,’ and ‘LatinX,’” and had quarterly hiring quotas for engineers, the suit alleges.

Wilberg alleges attempts to cover up those hiring practices. “Google on occasion would circulate e-mails instructing its employees purge any and all references to the race/gender quotas from its e-mail database in a transparent effort to wipe out any paper trail of Google’s illegal practices,” the lawsuit states.

According to Wilberg, some employees expressed disagreement with the policies, and complained at a meeting about the way managers “spoke about black candidates as the team needed to hire more blacks. ... One team member complained that managers were speaking about Blacks like they were objects,” the suit said.

SOURCE





How Silicon Valley went from ‘don’t be evil’ to doing evil

Once seen as the saviors of America’s economy, Silicon Valley is turning into something more of an emerging axis of evil. “Brain-hacking” tech companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, as one prominent tech investor puts it, have become so intrusive as to alarm critics on both right and left.

Firms like Google, which once advertised themselves as committed to being not “evil,” are now increasingly seen as epitomizing Hades’ legions. The tech giants now constitute the world’s five largest companies in market capitalization. Rather than idealistic newcomers, they increasingly reflect the worst of American capitalism — squashing competitors, using indentured servants, attempting to fix wages, depressing incomes, creating ever more social anomie and alienation.

At the same time these firms are fostering what British academic David Lyon has called a “surveillance society” both here and abroad. Companies like Facebook and Google thrive by mining personal data, and their only way to grow, as Wired recently suggested, was, creepily, to “know you better.”

The techie vision of the future is one in which the middle class all but disappears, with those not sufficiently merged with machine intelligence relegated to rent-paying serfs living on “income maintenance.” Theirs is a world in where long-standing local affinities are supplanted by Facebook’s concept of digitally-created “meaningful communities.”

The progressive rebellion

Back during the Obama years, the tech oligarchy was widely admired throughout the progressive circles. Companies like Google gained massive access to the administration’s inner circles, with many top aides eventually entering a “revolving door” for jobs with firms like Google, Facebook, Uber, Lyft and Airbnb.

Although the vast majority of all political contributions from these firms, not surprisingly, go to the Democrats, many progressives — at least not those on their payroll — are expressing alarm about the oligarchs’ move to gain control of whole industries, such as education, finance, groceries, space, print media and entertainment. Left-leaning luminaries like Franklin Foer, former editor of the New Republic, rant against technology firms as a threat to basic liberties and coarsening culture.

Progressives are increasingly calling for ever growing tech monolith to be “broken up,” calling for new regulation to limit their size and scope. Many have embraced European proposals to restrain tech monopolies which now resemble “predatory capitalism” at its worse.

The right also rises

Traditionally, conservatives celebrated entrepreneurial success and opposed governmental intervention in the economy. Yet increasingly even libertarians, like Instapundit’s Glen Reynolds, have suggested that some form of anti-trust action may be necessary to curb oligarchic power. The National Review even recently suggested that these firms be treated as utilities, that is, regulated by government.

Conservatives are also concerned about pervasive political bias in the industry. The Bay Area, the heartland of the industry, has evolved as Facebook co-founder Peter Thiel notes, into a “one party state.” Ideological homogeneity discourages debate and dissent, both inside their companies.

More importantly, conservatives seek to curb their ability — increasingly evident as traditional media declines — to control content on the internet. As the techies expand their domain, America’s media, entertainment and cultural industries would seem destined to become ever less heterogenous in politics and cultural world-view.

A clear and present danger

Whether one sits on the progressive left or the political right, this growing hegemony presents a clear and present danger. It is increasingly clear that the oligarchs have forgotten that Americans are more than a collection of data-bases to be exploited. People, whatever their ideology, generally want to maintain a modicum of privacy, and choose their way of life.

The perfect world of the oligarchs can be seen in the Bay Area, where, despite the massive explosion in employment, even tech workers, due to high costs, do worse than their counterparts elsewhere. Meanwhile San Francisco, among the most unequal places in the country, has evolved into a walking advertisement for a post-modern dystopia, an ultra-expensive city filled with homeless people and streets filled with excrement and needles. It is also increasingly exporting people elsewhere, including many people making high salaries.

Of course, technology is critical to a brighter future, but need not be the province of a handful of companies or concentrated in one or two regions. The great progress in the 1980s and 1990s took place in a highly competitive, and dispersed, environment not one dominated by firms that control 80 or 90 percent of key markets. Not surprisingly, the rise of the oligarchs coincides with a general decline in business startups, including in tech.

We have traveled far from the heroic era of spunky start-ups nurtured in suburban garages. But a future of ever greater robotic dependence — a kind of high-tech feudalism — is not inevitable. Setting aside their many differences, conservatives and progressives need to agree on strategies to limit the oligarch’s stranglehold on our future.

SOURCE






Angela Merkel's real legacy is the lawless no-go areas that police fear to patrol where half of the locals have foreign roots and the German tongue is a rarity

On Saturday morning in the biting cold, a middle-aged man in a stout winter coat handed out free tulips in a west German suburb to mark International Women’s Day.

He cut an unusual figure in the market square of Marxloh, a rundown multi-cultural district where the German tongue is a rarity, on the edge of the once-thriving steel city of Duisburg.

Half the 20,000 residents in this suburb have foreign roots, many arriving thanks to a border-free EU and German chancellor Angela Merkel’s offer of welcome to the world’s refugees.

The outcome of Europe’s biggest migration crisis since the Second World war has been disastrous for Marxloh.

Many of the newcomers are jobless and so rely on state benefits, and hang around with nothing worthwhile to do.

A leaked police report says the streets are controlled by drug dealers and robbers who ‘view crime as their leisure activity’.

As for the Germans who remain here, some are frightened to go out after dark because of ‘conflicts between foreigners’, claiming that tram journeys through the area in the evenings are ‘nightmarish’.

‘We have many problems here and they do not get better,’ explains the tulip man in good English as he hands me an orange bloom from his basket.

Facing the end of her career if she failed to stitch together a loveless ‘grand coalition’ of political opposites, the ‘no-go’ admission was a dramatic climbdown for the German leader, who has welcomed more than a million new faces to her country in three years, while irritating an increasingly sceptical German public with the mantra ‘We can do it’.

Yesterday she survived only after an unlikely 11th hour pact was agreed between her own conservative-leaning Christian Democratic Union and the Left-wing staunchly pro-immigration Social Democratic Party.

Yet the road ahead will be rocky because the two parties have only a small joint majority in parliament. Both are under pressure from the Right-wing, fiercely anti-migrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD).

In elections last year, reflecting growing German dissatisfaction with mass immigration, it raced from the traps to become the country’s third largest political force.

In troubled Marxloh, a third of those entitled to vote backed the AfD. ‘We felt disillusioned,’ says a young German man with a ring in his ear, who was drinking on Saturday afternoon at the Crazy Monkey, one of the few pubs left in the Duisburg area thanks to the large teetotal Muslim population.

Smoking a cigarette outside before returning to his game of darts, he said: ‘It’s no surprise that people here are turning against Mrs Merkel and her policy of allowing so many foreigners in.’

In Marxloh market square itself, the main open-air restaurant, the Spar, is run by a Turkish 28-year-old who spent ten years in London’s Wood Green.

He came to Germany ‘because of family difficulties’ six months ago, refuses to give me his name, but announces that the district has ‘massive problems’.

‘There are many people from different places in the world who want control here,’ he said. ‘We don’t see the police often and they seem to stay away from the streets.’

Whatever the accuracy of this, Marxloh does not make you feel safe. The only policemen I encountered over seven hours were two outside their office in the market square.

They were standing near a heavily filled ashtray and refused to talk to me even through a German interpreter.

The streets come alive after dark when locals leave the market square, dominated by a mega-market called Istanbul and close to a street of gaudy wedding dress shops that are hugely popular with newly arrived migrants from Romania and Bulgaria.

Loud Arabic music floats out into the air from shoddy apartment blocks, there are wild gatherings of Roma with cans of lager, and flash cars with young men at the wheel suddenly zoom into sight and roar away again.

Marxloh is one of 40 problem areas cited in the German media as struggling to cope with large migrant concentrations, urban decay, high unemployment and chronic welfare dependency, which have become, they claim, ‘incubators for anarchy’ as well as drug-dealing and crime.

In an article called ‘Ghetto Report Germany’ the respected newspaper Bild – which described those 40 areas – labelled them as parallel societies, no-go areas and ‘burgeoning ghettos’.

Official police reports given to another respected newspaper, Der Spiegel, said spiralling levels of violence in Marxloh (and other places like it) show officers are losing control, and public order ‘cannot be guaranteed over the long term’.

‘There are districts where immigrant gangs are taking over streets for themselves,’ said the resulting account in Der Spiegel.

‘Native residents and business people are being intimidated and silenced. Policemen, and especially policewomen, are particular victims of a high level of aggression and disrespect.’

It doesn’t sound like the Germany of old. Marxloh, a 20-minute tram ride away from central Duisburg in western Germany, used to be a place for German families to visit on a Saturday afternoon for shopping, a picnic in the park, or a coffee and beer at the pavement cafes.

Not many outsiders visit here now, or dare to.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************




6 March, 2018

The paradox of patriotism

In this age of identity politics, why is national identity so demonised?

We live in an age of identity politics. Today, one’s sexual orientation, gender identity, religious background, immigrant background, is not simply embraced, tolerated, deemed incidental to one’s standing in society – but loudly celebrated, if not sacralised. Under multiculturalism, the melting-pot ideal of a society, in which cultural differences are either deemed unimportant, or the barriers between us are actively broken down, has been thrown out in favour of celebrating the things that separate us. And new legislation relating to gender identity seeks to give official recognition to how one feels about oneself, both in the world and in one’s own body.

And yet, there’s one identity that isn’t celebrated today – that, in fact, is demonised: national identity. In the wake of the Brexit vote, British and English national identities have once again been underlined as nefarious, divisive forces. ‘Nationalism has taken a depressing turn, this past year and a half’, a Guardian columnist writes, bemoaning the ‘suspicion of foreigners’ and hubristic ‘let-Britain-roar, grow-wings-and-fly pap’ that the Leave campaign stirred. Brexit represented a ‘mix of arrogance and ignorance, a very English amalgam’, wrote another, in the New European, dooming us to ‘dull small island life, grey, inward, with shops full of pies and chips and blue passports in our bags’.

Much of this was nakedly political. Linking Brexit, a decision made by a sovereign people to leave a bureaucratic order, with blinkered British nationalism is an easy way to defame it, to present it as something visceral and ugly. You see this in the way that every broadside against Brussels, whether it was May’s pre-election speech standing down the Eurocrats for leaking against her, or the Tory backbench’s reaction to a hinted-at ongoing role for the European Court post-Brexit, are painted as stemming from xenophobia. All the while, it is quite clear that what Brexit voters don’t take kindly to is not being under the thumb of foreigners, but being under the thumb of anyone.

The post-Brexit panic about nationalism taps into a long-standing concern and embarrassment about national identity

Nevertheless, the post-Brexit panic about nationalism taps into a long-standing concern and embarrassment about national identity. Given our history, it’s perfectly understandable. British national identity is for some inseparable from the historic crimes of Empire. The Cross of St George was, until only a few decades ago, associated with skinheads and National Front thugs. Yesterday, as one commentator pointed out on Twitter, marked the 50th anniversary of the Commonwealth Immigration Act, a deeply racist piece of legislation introduced by Labour to stop Kenyan Asians with British passports from coming to Britain, because they were ‘not nationals of this country in any racial sense’.

But it’s strange that such concern is so potent at a time when British national identity, of the blood and soil sort, exists only on the margins, and what it means to be British is for most people far more benign. Ask someone what it is to be British in the 21st century and they’ll likely talk about customs, foibles and sports – of cheering on Ingurland at Wembley, upholding fair play, and apologising when someone bangs your shins on the bus. Even the popularity of the royal family feels more akin to the popularity of a soap opera than undying fealty to tradition. Nations may well be ‘imagined communities’, as the author Benedict Anderson notably put it. But these imaginings express a human need to belong, rather than to discriminate.

The idea of black Britons, Asian Britons, Middle Eastern Britons is today wholly uncontroversial. What’s more, while some middle-class commentators argue that British identity locks out ethnic minorities, this doesn’t seem to be the experience of most ethnic-minority communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the vast majority of non-white ethnic groups living in Britain describe their national identity as British, English, Scottish or Welsh, including 85 and 80 per cent of black and Pakistani Brits respectively. Meanwhile, the British Social Attitudes Survey suggests that the number-one criterion most people have for what it means to be ‘truly British’ is simply speaking the language.

Indeed, nations as we know them today have often been conceived as projects in breaking down borders between people, in cultivating fellow feeling among previously separate or antagonistic groups. In his famed 1882 lecture ‘What is a Nation?’, the French historian Ernest Renan remarked that the ‘essence of a nation is that all individuals have many things in common; and also that they have forgotten many things. No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgundian, an Alan, a Taifale, or a Visigoth.’ Since the French Revolution the idea of nation has often been bound up with equality, citizenship and representation. A nation’s ongoing existence, as Renan put it, is a ‘daily plebiscite’.

None of this is to downplay the ethnic chauvinism that ravaged Europe during the 20th century. Nor is it to whitewash the fact that even those nations, like America and France, which were founded on high-minded, universalist principles haven’t always lived up to them. The point is that the pull of national identity is not necessarily a reactionary force. While every nation is steeped in its own history and mythos, it provides a common ground for previously disparate groups to intermingle and forge a new society. In The Lion and the Unicorn, George Orwell argued that patriotism is ‘the opposite of Conservatism, since it is a devotion to something that is always changing’.

Nations have often been conceived as projects in breaking down borders between people, cultivating fellow feeling among previously separate or antagonistic groups

National identity and democratic citizenship are not synonymous. Throughout history ethno-nationalists have tried to carve up the public between native citizen and alien. But what constitutes national identity in Britain today stems from both a sense of belonging and shared civic norms and responsibilities. The spectre of nationalism haunts only the nightmares of snobby commentators. And just as the attacks on national sovereignty are today really an attack on the popular sovereignty nations give expression to, it’s hard not to interpret the rage against national identity as a rage against the civic, democratic values that many Britons associate with it, the ‘daily plebiscite’ that elite Remainers loathe.

Does all this mean that national identity is in itself a force for progress, a source of resistance against myriad anti-democratic ‘globalists’? Of course not. When you extricate national identity from civic values it amounts to something fluid, cultural, sentimental. There’s nothing wrong with it, and it can’t help but inform our politics. But that doesn’t mean that you should politicise it. Some Labourites have for years been saying they need to ‘reconnect’ with English identity, but what they really need to do is reconnect with English voters; they need to put identity to one side and appeal to people on the level of ideas and interests; they need to stop sneering at white vans and St George flags, rather than buying some themselves.

All forms of identity politics are limiting, if not self-destructive. Anyone who considers themselves progressive should be interested in fighting for the freedom of all mankind, while recognising that national democracy is the means in which it can be achieved. But to criticise identity politics is not to deny the existence of identity, or to deny some identities have some real content. National identity can offer a platform on which a more expansive (albeit limited) sense of belonging can sit. And that is perhaps why it is so loathed, while other identities are so celebrated. Elite identity politics is explicitly anti-majoritarian and divisive. They prefer us to be in our own separate boxes, because we’re far more dangerous when we’re together.

SOURCE






Southern Poverty Law Center is a Joke

BY HELEN SMITH

So the Southern Poverty Law Center now says that myself and other women such as Christina Hoff Sommers are enablers of male supremacy. Our crime? Mentioning that maybe men and boys are not treated as well in society as some women, their sycophants and haters like the Southern Poverty law Center think they are.

I mean, how dare women say that the 30,000 or more men who kill themselves each year deserve some sympathy, that the majority of young boys who cannot read should receive help or that men should have due process rights! I mean what nerve we have.

I get emails and letters from men across the US and even other countries who tell me about the difficulties and downright atrocities that they are dealing with on a daily basis. These men are in desperate pain from dealing with being denied jobs, not being able to finish their degrees and being raked over the coals by exes and their whims, while not receiving anything but contempt by society, the courts and miserable, misandric places like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So a couple of women, so few in fact, that the Southern Poverty Law Center had to dig up people like myself or a few other women like Sommers, who actually think that men are human beings to use as examples. That's just sad. There should be more women than a handful speaking out.

If I am to be labeled as a "male supremacist" because I think that male suicide deserves attention and treatment, that boys should have access to a good education free of bias, and that due process in college is a right, not a privilege, then sign me up! I just hope more fair-minded people will join me.

SOURCE





Segregation at Comic Con: No Straight, White Males Allowed at Parties

The comics industry seems to be doubling down on their policy of completely excluding anyone who is straight, white, male, or conservative. This year's Emerald City Comic Con released its schedule of events on its app recently. Anyone who is male, white and identifies as heterosexual found himself excluded from industry mixers and professional mixers.

A source attending the event who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons spoke to PJM about the blatant discrimination.

"I’m disappointed that they choose to be divisive in an industry that has seen enough divisiveness as it is," the source said. "We are not our race or gender or sexuality. Aren’t we a sum of our parts, or as MLK noted so famously, isn’t it the content of our character that should be what counts?”

But this is not the philosophy that drives the race- and sexuality-obsessed left. If you had the misfortune to watch the Olympics this year, you'd know that the most important people in the games were two guys who like having sex with other guys. The fact that they didn't medal in their individual sports because of their subpar performances had no bearing on the media's desire to elevate them to god-like status for everyone to adore and beatify. They're queer, so they win!

The source contacted Emerald City Comic Con on Facebook to inquire about the lack of diversity in the mixers.

It seems the left is determined to create an alternate universe where discrimination still exists but is only directed at white people. This runs contrary to all the great civil rights leaders who fought for equality. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't march in order to refuse service to white people and yet that's where we are in 2018. And they don't even see how wrong it is! Look at how comfortable Comic Con is admitting they did this!

PJM reached out to Emerald City Comic Con for comment and received no answer.

Lately, there have been way too many of these stories surfacing. Pamela Geller's children are being run out of their jobs because of views their mother holds that the left finds unacceptable. Simply being linked by DNA makes her daughters culpable in the left's eyes and so they must be destroyed and put out of work, unable to support themselves or make a life for themselves because they are assumed to hold doubleplusungood views. Their current apology tour will not save them. They are untouchables because their mother refuses to bow to the politically correct dogma that insists Islam means us no harm (even though its ideological adherents refuse to stop blowing people up or running them over with trucks while screeching "Allahu Akbar!").

SOURCE






Sarah Palin Just Exposed Anti-Christian Joy Behar’s Complete Hypocrisy

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin pounced on “The View” co-host Joy Behar’s double standard when determining whether hearing from God is a “mental illness.”

“So, Joy Behar,” Palin tweeted on Wednesday, “do you consider our friend Oprah Winfrey’s prayer a sign of ‘mental illness,’ too? Double standards, much?”

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee’s question was a clear reference to Behar mocking Vice President Mike Pence for believing he can hear from Jesus Christ in prayer.

“That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct. Hearing voices,” said Behar on ABC’s “The View” earlier this month.

In multiple interviews, Winfrey has stated that she is relying on God to tell her if she is meant to run for president.

“I went into prayer,” the television personality told People Magazine in a story published on Wednesday. “‘God, if you think I’m supposed to run, you gotta tell me, and it has to be so clear that not even I can miss it.’ And I haven’t gotten

In the aftermath of Winfrey’s speech about sexual misconduct at the Golden Globes last month, many urged her to run for president.

“I pay attention, and when you have that many people saying something, I thought gee, I never in my life, ever, ever, thought I would be in politics. I’ve always said no no no no no,” she said. “Am I at least supposed to look at that question?”

The Bible, in fact, records in the Gospel of John that Jesus said regarding born-again believers, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”

He further described Himself as a good shepherd, “And when (a good shepherd) brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”

Fox News reported that ABC has received over 30,000 calls in response to what the Media Research Center described as Behar’s “anti-Christian bigotry.”

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************



5 March, 2018

The Norwegian madness

Tuesday, February 20. It's our first time in Prague, and – except for a couple of visits to Berlin – K.'s first time on territory that was once part of the Warsaw Pact. Today, as we're wont to do on arrival in a new city, we passed on museums and other cultural attractions, preferring instead to walk and walk and walk – to get a sense of the place and the people and start finding our way around.

After several hours of wandering along the winding streets and across cobbled squares dominated by churches, we came back to our hotel and had a drink at the bar. After two gin and tonics, I saw that K. had tears in his eyes. I looked at him quizzically. He could hardly get the words out.

“I'm so angry at my country's government!” he finally exploded.

The country in question being Norway.

K. explained. We had just seen a good deal of Prague, and had passed heaven knows how many thousands of people. Not once had we seen a hijab. Let alone a niqab or burka.

“In this whole big city, not one!” he cried. “And yet in that little town where we live – in the middle of nowhere! – you can't look out of the window for a minute without seeing one.”

For us, the Islamization of Western Europe had been a constant topic of conversation for almost twenty years. We'd voiced anger, frustration, despondency, cynicism. But I'd never seen him get teary-eyed about it.

We lived in Oslo for twelve years. During that time, its Muslim population grew steadily. And so did the percentage of Muslim women in head coverings. During our first years in Oslo, we never saw a niqab, which covers everything but the eyes, or a burka, which covers even the eyes. Gradually, however, both became familiar sights.

Seven years ago we moved to the small town where we now live. It, too, has become supersaturated with hijab – and the occasional niqab.

In 2002, I was called an alarmist. Yet if you'd asked me back then whether, sixteen years later, it would be impossible to walk a few blocks down the main street of a remote Norwegian burg like ours without seeing a hijab, I would've said no: the transformation won't happen that fast.

How wrong I was!

Over the years, we've traveled extensively in Western Europe, to other places where the same process of Islamization is underway. After a while it all seems almost natural – the bearded men in djellaba, the women in hijab, the ubiquitous strollers and baby carriages and armies of children, some of the tiny girls also wearing hijab.

But now here we are in Prague, and for K. the utter lack of any Islamic presence here is little short a revelation. He's been intensely aware all along of what's happening to his country, but now, in Prague, the horror of it has hit him like a punch to the gut.

In the morning, I take yet another long walk, and pass families who I realize are heading home from shul. There are several synagogues in the neighborhood. One Jewish toddler runs gleefully down the sidewalk, and his father chases him and sweeps him up in his arms. He catches me smiling and smiles back. There is no sign of the fear that increasingly causes Jews in Western European cities to keep a low profile, to forego their yarmulkes, to move to the U.S. or Israel. Jews are safe here.

Sitting here in our hotel room, I check some Norwegian news sites on my laptop. At document.no, I read that Oslo's police chief, Janne Stømner, denies any link between the skyrocketing crime rate in east Oslo and the rise in the immigrant population. (I examined this crisis recently in City Journal.) The perpetrators of crime, she insists, are “our own teenagers.”

At resett.no, there's an item about the prize for the year's most important social commentator. The winner: 20-year-old Sumaya Jirde Ali, a hijab-wearing Somali immigrant. It's her second major accolade this year. (Last month she won an award for “civic courage.”) Accepting her prize, Ali mentioned Sylvi Listhaug, the Norwegian Parliament's sole voice of reason on immigration. Here's what Ali said: “F**k Sylvi Listhaug.”

According to Resett, the audience of Oslo cultural-elite types cheered lustily.

(This statement wasn't out of character for Ali. Recently, she tweeted: “F**k diplomatic debate. F**k the police.”)

Finally, rights.no featured an article by Hege Storhaug about Somalis who've been allowed to settle in Norway on the pretext that they come from a failed state – but who send their kids to schools in that “failed state” to shield them from Western values. This widespread phenomenon was discussed on TV the other day by, among others, Progress Party politician Jon Helgheim, who, Storhaug noted, had nothing critical to say about it.

“We were told that if we voted for FrP,” K. said earlier at the hotel bar, using the Norwegian acronym for the Progress Party, “that things would change. But nothing has changed!” He's right. For years, the Progress Party promised, if voted into power, to rescue Norway from insane immigration policies. Well, they're now part of the government. FrP leader Siv Jensen is Minister of Finance. Listhaug is an FrP member, and she talks tough. But what substantial steps has her party taken to reverse Norway's race toward doom? None.

Norway has leverage in the EU. It pours billions into that rathole. But the Czech Republic is a net beneficiary of EU largesse. Nonetheless, along with Hungary and Poland, it's bravely standing up to EU pressure to join in Western Europe's self-destruction. In this country of 10.5 million people, only 3500 are Muslims. In Prague, therefore, K. and I are able to experience a poignant reminder of what cities like Oslo were, not all that long ago – and what they could still be now, if not for the feckless fools who rule them.

SOURCE






Charlottesville judge orders tarps off Confederate statues

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — A judge in Virginia has ordered the city of Charlottesville to remove the black shrouds that were installed over two Confederate monuments after a white nationalist rally last summer.

Local news outlets report Charlottesville Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore gave the city 15 days from the time an official order is signed to remove the tarps.

They currently cover statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas ‘‘Stonewall’’ Jackson. The tarps have been removed several times since being put up in August as a sign of the city’s mourning of the deadly violence at the August rally.

Moore’s decision came during a hearing in a lawsuit against the city, which is seeking to remove the monuments.

The city said in a statement that it is disappointed by the ruling but will respect the court’s decision.

SOURCE






How “Identity Politics” Is Designed To Destroy Us

The Left’s resurrection of the totalitarian faith.

In January 2018 when negotiations over the fate of 800,000 “DACA” recipients broke down, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blamed the impasse on the alleged racism of President Trump and his senior advisers. “Last night the president put forth a plan,” Pelosi told the US Conference of Mayors; “let me just say what I said last night, that plan is a campaign to make America white again.”[1] This was not only an obvious lie, but a spectacularly brazen one, since Trump’s announced plan would provide a path to citizenship not only for the DACA illegals, who are non-white, but for a million additional illegals, mainly from Latin America, who are also mainly non-white.....

The attacks by Democrats and leftists on federal law, on national borders, and on the idea of assimilation into an American culture can only be understood as attacks on the nation itself. Members of the Democrats’ “resistance” employ loaded phrases like “white supremacy” and “white nationalism” in referring to the White House and the supporters of secure borders and a rational immigration policy. The clear meaning of this abuse of language is that, in the eyes of the left, an American patriotism is illegitimate; American patriotism is equivalent to “white nationalism” and is racist.

The racial politics of the left is part of a larger spectrum of “identity politics,” which has been embraced by the Democratic Party and is better understood as cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxists divide the population into racial, ethnic and gender groups and arrange them in a hierarchy of alleged oppression. This perverse and divisive view of American society was in fact the organizing principle of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, which justified her candidacy as ending the alleged inequality of women and the mythical wage-gender pay gap. Her opponents, she said, belonged in a “basket of deplorables,” which she identified as “racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes, xenophobes – you name it." Following her defeat, her Democratic supporters formed a “Resistance” to the incoming president whom they denounced as a white nationalist, sexist, anti-Muslim racist. A “resistance” is hardly an appropriate posture for an opposition party in a democracy, where compromise and tolerance are foundational values. This war declared on the Trump presidency was launched with a Women’s March, billed as the largest protest ever, which presented itself as a movement to defend “oppressed” groups against the incoming “white supremacist” administration that Americans had just elected.

The Women’s March was headed by Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Islam’s misogynistic Sharia law and a vocal supporter of Islamist holy war – especially against the Jews of Israel. Sarsour told the assembled marchers, “I also remember that I live in a country that was founded on the extermination of indigenous people.” This was a declaration of hate for America, approved by the protesters and typical of their speakers. It was also a libel - the perfect expression of the left’s oppressive chain of being, in which whites, males, heterosexuals and patriotic Americans are framed as genocidal enemies of “social justice” and human progress. It was also a lie equal in brazenness to Pelosi’s claim that Trump’s agenda was to make America white again. There are, in fact, more “native Americans” alive today than there were when the first European settlers arrived. It never was, nor has been, the policy of the United States to exterminate indigenous people or any racial or ethnic group.

The ideological miasma that has overcome the Democratic Party and the political left, was crystallized in Hillary’s claim that “sexism” rather than her own incompetence, corrupt history and poorly designed election campaign was responsible for her defeat. “Sexism” is a bastardized term that was coined by Sixties radicals in a calculated attempt to appropriate the moral authority of the civil rights movement through a false association with “racism." Only a perverse reading of history and the social relations between the sexes, could lead to this absurd attempt to link the treatment of African Americans and women. But for radicals the conflation of the two is essential to their Marxist view of the world as a hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed, of America as the great Satan on the hierarchy’s crest.

The sinister implications of this terminology are apparent on a parsing of the coinage itself. Before there was “sexism,” there were adjectives to describe specific and concrete behaviors affecting the relations between men and women: “inappropriate,” “rude,” “boorish,” “prejudiced,” “offensive,” “molesting,” and criminal, as in “rape” - to name several. These adjectives compose a spectrum of behaviors with gradations from what is merely annoying to what is prosecutable. Differentiating between offensive behaviors makes it possible to judge individual actions and motives, and arrive at a morally just attitude towards them, along with possible remedies. But once these behaviors are subsumed under the general rubric sexism all such distinctions vanish. The focus is no longer on individual behaviors – which can involve both parties - but on an alleged generalized “oppression” of women by men.

This ideological framework – abstract and collectivist - eliminates individual nuance and distinction. In the right political context, it can criminalize merely boorish and inappropriate behaviors and invoke punishments that can be quite severe. In the hysterical atmosphere created by the “MeToo” movement – a by-product of the Women’s March and the “movement” that produced it, mere accusations become tantamount to guilt with chilling results, and ominous implications for a country built on “due process,” and the defense of individual rights.

In the atmosphere fostered by oppression politics, a United States Senator and former comedian, a lifelong leftist and champion of “women’s causes,” has been forced to resign his Senate seat because of on camera pranks – which were obviously pranks – performed during his stage career. A pioneer public radio host of 40 years – another leftist and Hillary Clinton supporter - has been deprived of his program, banished from his station, and erased from its radio history because of an accusation – and only an accusation – of inappropriately touching a female colleague’s back. What is important is no longer the particulars of these cases, or the character of the individuals involved, but their collective identity as – white oppressor males – and the collective identity of their alleged victims, oppressed women.  

The totalitarian implications of this increasingly powerful ideological trend in the national culture have become pronounced enough to have alarmed some liberals, most notably the writer Andrew Sullivan. Observing that cultural Marxism is now the required creed of America’s liberal arts colleges, Sullivan warns, “When elite universities shift their entire worldview away from liberal education as we have long known it toward the imperatives of an identity-based “social justice” movement, the broader culture is in danger of drifting away from liberal democracy as well. If elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large. What matters most of all in these colleges — your membership in a group that is embedded in a hierarchy of oppression — will soon enough be what matters in the society as a whole.”[3]

In America’s universities, which are the training grounds for America’s future leaders, the victory of the cultural Marxists is already complete. In Andrew Sullivan’s words, “The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment — untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights — are now routinely understood as mere masks for “white male” power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites. Any differences in outcome for various groups must always be a function of “hate,” rather than a function of nature or choice or freedom or individual agency. And anyone who questions these assertions is obviously a white supremacist himself.”

There are three pillars of the totalitarian outlook. The first is its totalist agenda -  the elimination of private space and the abandonment of the liberal idea that there should be limits to government authority. In its place, totalitarians insist that “the personal is political.” Since the hierarchy of oppression that inspires social justice warriors encompasses all social relationships between races and ethnicities, between men, women, and multiple politically correct genders, there is no area of social life that escapes political judgment and is protected from government intrusion.[4] Already, in New York City – to take one municipality controlled by the political left - there are 31 government designated genders, and fines for failing to recognize them.[5]

The second totalitarian pillar is the idea of the social construction of race, class, and gender. This anti-scientific idea that races and genders are socially created rather than biologically determined is already the unchallenged premise of virtually all academic courses relating to gender and race, and informs many of the planks of the official platform of the Democratic Party. Recognizing the role of biological factors in determining gender and race would require an adjustment to reality, whereas the goal of identity politics is revolutionary and “transformative.” Removing and/or suppressing the alleged creators of genders and races will make possible the social transformation whose goal is “social justice.” The alleged creators of genders and races are the designated villains of identity politics: patriarchal and racial oppressors (white supremacists) who employ these categories to marginalize, dehumanize and dominate vulnerable alleged victim groups.

The centrality of these victim groups is encapsulated in totalitarianism’s third pillar: objectification - the elimination of individual agency and accountability in favor of group identities and oppression status. This of course is the inevitable consequence of collectivist ideologies which make groups primary and remove from individuals their agencies as subjects. If there is inequality its source is an invisible hierarchy of oppression, never the inequalities and failures of individuals themselves. If homicide is the number one killer of young black males, whites must be responsible because whites allegedly control all the institutions and social structures that determine black outcomes – notwithstanding the fact that the same crime statistics plague municipalities run by blacks as those run by whites. What may go on in black communities to account for these and other appalling statistics – out of wedlock births, physical abuse by parents, drug trafficking, lax law enforcement policies instituted by liberal authorities – is rendered invisible by an ideology which regards race as the determining factor regardless of individual behaviors and failings. If women are “under-represented” in engineering positions at Google, this cannot be because of individual choices made by women – to think so is prima facie sexism – but must be the work of a patriarchal conspiracy, however invisible.

While democracy and individual freedoms still prevail in America, the injustices perpetrated by these totalitarian ideas, which have caused so much misery in modern times, will be limited. But the totalitarian march has already resulted in a kind of civil war in our political life, although such violence as exists has been  mainly verbal. But consider what happened when there were no democratic restraints and these ideas became the reigning ideology of a Marxist state in 1917: “We are not carrying out war against individuals,” explained a member of Lenin’s secret police about his government’s campaign against the kulaks, or land owning peasants. “We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is – to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red Terror.”

Similar questions have already defined the fate of the accused in our country, and the frequency of such incidences should be a warning. Thankfully, despite the disturbing influence of identity politics in our schools, in the Democratic Party, and among growing number of political actors, we are still far away from a Red Terror. But as Ronald Reagan famously warned,

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

The erosion of individual freedom and individual rights, and of the idea of individual agency and accountability, is well advanced. The policies of the Democratic Party on immigration, race, women and a host of critical issues are now shaped by a collectivist, identity politics mentality. We cannot be certain where this will lead, and we should be alarmed that it has gotten so far.

SOURCE






Huck strikes back

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee continues to fight back after mounting pressure this week prompted him to resign from an honorary position on the board of the Country Music Association Foundation.

As Fox News reported, he announced his decision to step down on Thursday, just one day after announcing his seat on the charitable board associated with country music events such as the CMA Awards and CMA Festival.

In his resignation, the two-time Republican presidential candidate cast his critics as intolerant of his conservative social views.

He continued his criticism of the perceived leftist influence on the modern country music industry in a tweet early Saturday morning.



The political cartoon illustrated the point he attempted to make in his lengthy resignation letter, reprinted in its entirety by The Tennessean.

Huckabee’s announcement came on the heels of harsh criticism from some in the industry, including prominent talent manager Jason Owen.

He said appointing the socially conservative politician and part-time musician to the board was “a detrimentally poor choice by CMA and its leaders,” which he further described as “grossly offensive.”

In Huckabee’s resignation letter, he cited “the unnecessary distraction and deterrent to the core mission of the Foundation” as the impetus behind his abrupt departure.

The letter went on to provide an opportunity for him to defend himself directly.

“Since I will not be able to continue in what I had hoped to be useful service in this endeavor, I wanted to at least put some things on the record,” he wrote. “I have no expectation that it will change the irrational vitriol directed toward you or me for my religious or political views that necessitated my abrupt departure, but I want you to know what you would never know by reading intolerant and vicious statements on the internet about who I am or what led me to want to be a part of your efforts to empower kids with the gift of music. So please bear with me.”

After recounting the impact music played in his formative years and his work while governor in improving the state’s educational system, he said the backlash leading to his resignation was focused solely on his personal beliefs.

“If the industry doesn’t want people of faith or who hold conservative and traditional political views to buy tickets and music, they should be forthcoming and say it,” he wrote. “Surely neither the artists or the business people of the industry want that.”

He described a time in which the arts stood alone as “the one place America could set aside political, geographical, racial, and economic barriers and come together,” predicting that if that realm of our culture “becomes part of the polarization,” it could signal the end of our civilization.

Denouncing the assertions of those who say he is intolerant, Huckabee described what he would like to see become of the culturally influential industry.

“I hope that the music and entertainment industry will become more tolerant and inclusive and recognize that a true love for kids having access to the arts is more important than a dislike for someone or a group of people because of who they are or what they believe,” he wrote.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************




4 March, 2018

Food Handout Ban for Foreigners Sparks Debate in Germany Over Racism, Migration Policies

A decision by a food bank here to stop providing food to anyone without German citizenship has stirred an ongoing national debate over discrimination and migration policy, with blame flying in more than one direction.

The “Tafel” (Table) food bank, a non-profit non-governmental organization in the western city of Essen, collects food nearing expiration date from restaurants and supermarkets to give to about 6,000 needy people each week.

Local media initially caught wind of the decision to stop registering foreigners, which the organization on its website attributed to “the increase in the number of refugees in recent years.”

After reports drew angry reactions, the NGO’s manager, Jörg Sartor, expressed surprise at the response, telling a press conference that he did not “understand all the excitement” about the decision, which took effect in January.

He said elderly people were frightened away from the food bank, citing complaints of “pushing and shoving,” and blaming migrants who do not understand Germany’s culture of standing in line but have a “give me” attitude.

Those comments only fueled the controversy. Over the following weekend, six of the food bank’s delivery vans and one of its entrances were vandalized with graffiti slogans such as “Nazi.”

The Essen Tafel is one of 930 food banks across Germany, but the only one to ban foreigners.  Manfred Jabs, head of Tafel food banks in two other German states, told the Zeit newspaper the Essen move was discriminatory and “a contradiction of the founding principles of the Tafels.”

The move does not contravene anti-discrimination law, however, as that does not cover the issue of food handouts.

Still, a spokesman for the federal Anti-Discrimination Agency said it was “fundamentally questionable” to exclude people because they are refugees.

Chancellor Angela Merkel also waded into the issue, telling the RTL broadcaster that “one shouldn’t make such distinctions,” but also acknowledging that the situation highlighted the “pressures” facing nonprofit organizations.

Others have similarly labelled the move as discriminatory.

“I can only appeal to our society that we do not define ourselves by German or not German, but that we define ourselves as decent or indecent,” Joachim Stamp, interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia state (where Essen is located) told a session of the state’s parliament Wednesday.

But others blamed Merkel’s refugee policies, which have seen 1.2 million asylum seekers arrive in the country since 2015.

The far-right anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party said the chancellor’s “asylum chaos” had forced the food bank’s hand.

“Who could have reckoned with an extra 75 percent of asylum scroungers at the charity, who use their elbows against the weak?” the AfD asked in a statement, referring to Sartor’s claims of “pushing and shoving” scaring elderly Germans.

Left Party leader Sahra Wagenknecht also blamed the government, saying its poor planning after the refugee crisis overburdened nonprofit groups.

“It isn’t right that the poorest people bear the costs of migration,” she said in a radio interview. “Irresponsible government policies,” rather than the food bank in Essen, had “poisoned the political climate,” Wagenknecht added.

Poverty issues researcher Christoph Butterwegge pointed to the government’s social policies as the problem, telling DW that “the main thing here is the successive cutbacks of the social welfare system.”

Butterwegge said the food bank’s decision smacked of racism – “nationality cannot be a selection criterion for food aid” – but that preventing hunger “is the government’s responsibility.”

The food bank’s leaders held an “emergency” meeting Tuesday to discuss the outcry. They agreed to meet with lawmakers in two weeks’ time to discuss alternate solutions, but nevertheless committed to maintaining the ban until summer.

Government spokesman Steffen Seibert told the mayor of Essen Wednesday that Merkel welcomed the decision to hold discussions on the matter and would be “very interested” in the outcome.

“Need is need,” Seibert said. “Citizenship is not a guideline.”

SOURCE






Georgia: NRA hate proves costly for Delta airlines

Gov. Nathan Deal said he would reluctantly support a measure that stripped a lucrative tax break for Delta Air Lines but also includes broader cuts to the state’s income tax rate.

The Republican was a vocal supporter of the $50 million tax break, which would have eliminated the state’s tax on jet fuels. But Senate Republicans voted Wednesday to strip it out of the measure after Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle said he would “kill” the incentive unless Delta restored ties with a gun rights group.

At a press conference Wednesday, Deal said he was frustrated by the “antics” of Republicans seeking higher office and said he would still seek to salvage a tax break for Delta. But he said he couldn’t veto a measure that also amounted to a sweeping tax cut for residents.

“The real story is the unprecedented $5 billion tax cuts for Georgians,” he said. “The real story is what it has always been: What is in the best interests of our state.”

SOURCE






France’s Le Pen Charged Over Gory ISIS Tweets: ‘World Upside Down’

French far-right leader Marine le Pen said Thursday that the bringing of criminal charges for tweeting graphic images of ISIS violence was clearly an attempt to silence her. She said the world was “upside down.”

If convicted of distributing violent images, the National Front leader, who lost an election run-off last year to President Emmanuel Macron, could be imprisoned for up to three years and fined some $90,000.

Prosecutors in a Paris suburb filed preliminary charges against her Thursday over the three controversial tweets, which featured graphic images of a caged man on fire, an ISIS prisoner being run over by a tank, and the body of James Foley, the American journalist who went missing in Syria in 2012 and was later beheaded by the Sunni terrorist group.

The tweets were posted in late 2015, shortly after ISIS’ deadly attacks in Paris, but until late last year Le Pen as a deputy in the National Assembly enjoyed immunity from prosecution.

At the request of the French justice minister, lawmakers voted in November to strip her of that immunity, laying the ground for this week’s indictment. (Earlier last year, the European Parliament had voted to lift her immunity – she was an MEP at the time of the incident – at the request of the French government.)

After last November’s vote Le Pen called it a violation of her freedom of expression. She tweeted that a jihadist returning from Syria takes fewer legal risks than does a lawmaker who denounces ISIS’ debased behavior.

Under French law, the posting of “violent messages that incite terrorism or pornography or seriously harm human dignity,” and which could be seen by a minor, is a criminal offense.

Responding to Thursday’s development, she told the BFM television news network the indictment was “clearly aimed at silencing me” but added that she “will not be silenced.”
Ad Feedback

She said she would consider any conviction a “medal of patriotism.”

Le Pen told the conservative Le Figaro that the law she is being charged under was designed to protect children back in the era of Minitel, a French pre-world wide web technology that was known for its sex chat lines.

“It’s the world upside down,” she said.

At the time Le Pen posted the images, she was responding to a broadcast journalist, Jean-Jacques Bourdin, whom she accused of likening ISIS – also known by the Arabic acronym Daesh – to France’s far-right wing.

“THIS is Daesh,” she tweeted under the images.

Foley’s parents at the time condemned the posting of the “shamefully uncensored” picture of their son’s body.

Le Pen then took down that tweet, saying she had not been aware of the identity of the person in the image, which she said could be accessed on Google by anyone.

Le Pen’s political opponents slammed her over the tweets, with then-prime minister Manuel Valls accusing her of “inflaming” public sentiment and other ministers demanding legal action against her.

The incident occurred several weeks after the Paris terror attacks, when ISIS gunmen killed 130 people over three hours at a concert hall, sports stadium and restaurants in the French capital.

SOURCE





The Leftist race obsession again

It's the Democrats who keep racism alive in America  

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s dream of individuals being judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is sadly far from being realized, especially within today’s Democrat Party, where racial politics are passed off as a fight for equality and diversity. This reality was on full display in the Senate on Thursday when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) gave his rationale for voting against President Donald Trump’s judicial nominee Marvin Quattlebaum. Schumer stated, “The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary. Quattlebaum replaces not one but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African-American.”

Schumer, who must think “minority leader” means something else, further explained, “As of Feb. 14th, 83 percent of the President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92 percent were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades. It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.” So, to put it bluntly, Schumer voted against Quattlebaum because he is white.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) responded to Schumer, tweeting, “I’ve known Chuck Schumer for years. He is not a racist, but this was an absolutely shameful reason to vote against a very qualified nominee like Marvin Quattlebaum.” Graham added, “This is political correctness run amok. Voting against a highly qualified nominee because of the color of his skin does nothing to bring our country and nation together. Frankly it is a massive step backward.”

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the GOP’s only black senator, also weighed in on Schumer’s comments, tweeting, “Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina.”

The fact remains the Democrat Party has a long history of race-based politics. Schumer’s statements were merely political “diversity” virtue signaling, to the lowest common denominator. He raised no concerns over Quattlebaum’s past record, nor did he question any of his judicial views. Rather, Schumer simply played the race card as if that were reason enough to reject the man. Schumer is playing the worst kind of identity politics. Fortunately, his racially biased concerns fell flat as Quattlebaum was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 69-29.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************






2 March, 2018

Angela Merkel admits there ARE 'no-go' areas in Germany that 'nobody dares' to enter

Chancellor Angela Merkel has claimed there are 'no-go areas' in Germany, leaving ministers speechless.

Officials have previously dismissed the notion there are places in the country that  police and other outsiders can't visit.

But Merkel said she favours a zero-tolerance policy on crime that includes preventing no-go areas, which she called 'areas where nobody dares to go' in an interview with n-tv on Monday.

The chancellor said some areas are so bad that police, along with other outsiders fear entering them. 'There are such areas and one has to call them by their name and do something about them,' she said.

Asked to name the areas, Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters today  'the chancellor's words speak for themselves.'

Interior Ministry spokesman Johannes Dimroth likewise declined to identify no-go areas, saying security was a matter for local not federal authorities.

 SOURCE






Wolf whistling in France could soon attract a $500 fine

Paris: Men who harass women on French streets with wolf whistles or lecherous behaviour could end up being fined more than $500.

Plans for a new law of "sexual or sexist affront" aimed at outlawing France's macho culture were set out by a parliamentary working group on Wednesday.

France is expected to pass the new law within months as concern continues to grow about sexual harassment and assaults that have come to light in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. The government is expected to incorporate the recommendation within months.

Wolf-whistling, making obscene or insulting remarks or pestering women for their phone number would be penalised under the plans.

The cross-party group was commissioned by Gender Equality Minister Marlene Schiappa to define harassment and examine how police could enforce a new law against it.

A longtime ally of President Emmanuel Macron, Schiappa said last September that new measures were needed to address the "grey zone between consented seduction and sexual aggression".

After five months of deliberations, her panel is advising the government to broaden the scope of the new criminal offence to cover a range of behaviour causing an "intimidating, hostile or offensive situation" or "injurious to the dignity of others because of their gender or sexual orientation". Fines would range from €90 to €350 ($140 to $552).

Belgium and Portugal are among a handful of countries that have already introduced legislation to ban such behaviour. Britain has broader laws in place against harassment in general.

The bill, to be submitted to the French Parliament and cabinet by Schiappa, will also set a minimum age of consent for sex.  Under existing French law, only children under five are automatically regarded as non-consenting. But recent cases have caused outrage because men who had sex with pre-teen girls were not charged with rape but with the lesser offence of sexual abuse of a minor.

Macron has said tackling street harassment is a priority. "Women in the republic cannot be afraid to go out," he said in November.
 Telegraph, London

SOURCE







France's Marion Le Pen at CPAC: 'Just Like You, We Want Our Country Back!'

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Feb. 23, conservative Catholic French politician Marion Marechal-Le Pen said the election of President Donald Trump proves that when "the people are given the opportunity to take their country back, they will seize it," and that she supports a policy of America First for the American people, Britian First for the British people, and France First for the French people.

Marion Le Pen, 28, also defended the family, the nation, natural law, and a common morality. "What do we want?" she asked. "Just like you, we want our country back."

“Let me be clear here, I’m not offended when I hear President Donald Trump say ‘America First,'" said the young Le Pen. "In fact, I want America First for the American people. I want Britain First for the British people. And I want France First for the French people."

Marion Le Pen is the niece of Marine Le Pen, who ran for the French presidency on the conservative National Front ticket in 2016-17. Marion Le Pen is also the granddaughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the National Front, but who was removed from the party in 2015 by Marine Le Pen who denounced his extreme views. Marion Le Pen is in agreement with her aunt on most issues and she is seen as more traditionally Catholic and pro-family.

Marion Le Pen is a National Front party member and she served in the National Assembly from 2012 to 2017.

“After 40 years of massive immigration, Islamic lobbies, and political correctness France is in the process of passing from the eldest daughter of the Catholic Church to the little niece of Islam," said Le Pen at CPAC.  "And the terrorism is the only tip of the iceberg. This is not the France that our grandparents fought for [in World Wars I and II]."

"How did we get here?" she said. "Because the EU and French governments forgot one crucial point: To open oneself to the outside, you must have a solid core. To welcome, you have to remain; and to share, you must have something to offer."

“Without nation and without family, the limits of the common good, natural law, and collective morality disappear as the reign of egoism continues," said Marion Le Pen. 

"Today, even children have become merchandise. We hear now, in the public debate that we have the right to order a child in a catalog [IVF clinics], we have the right to rent a woman’s womb, we have the right to deny a child a mother or a father – no, you don’t! A child is not a ‘right.’"

"Is this the freedom that we want?" she said.  "No, we don’t want this atomized world of individual without gender, without father, without mother, and without nation."

“So, what do we want then?" said Le Pen.  "Finally, just like you, we want our country back."

"I came here to tell you that there is a youth ready for this fight in Europe today," she said.  "A youth who believes in hard work, who believe that the flag means something, who want to defend individual liberty and private property – a conservative youth movement that wants to protect their children from eugenics and from the gender-terror delirium. A youth that wants to protect their parents from euthanasia, and protect humanity from communism."

“Like the American youth, the French youth is the heir of a great nation," she said. "To whom much is given, much is expected. Our fight cannot take place only in elections. We need to convey our ideas across the media, in the culture and education to stop the domination of the liberals and the socialists."

Marion Le Pen continued, “The last two years have shown one thing: Never underestimate the people. Only a battle not waged is a battle lost. Brexit in the UK, many [garbled] in France and, of course, the election of President Donald Trump prove a fact: When the people are given the opportunity to take their country back, they will seize it."

“Through your actions and your talents, you have succeeded in putting conservatism right back on top of the political agenda," she said.  "Let us build on what you have achieved here, so that on both sides of the Atlantic a conservative agenda may prevail."

She then read a quote, “'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire,'" and continued,  "You were the spark. It is now up to us to feed the conservative flame in our country. … Long live the Franco-American friendship!”

SOURCE






Australia: Child protection staff turned a blind eye to Aboriginal men sexually assaulting underage girls because of 'cultural reasons'

Leftist "tolerance" can come at a steep price, a price not paid by Leftists themselves

Child protection case managers in the Northern Territory underwent mandatory training four years ago after it was revealed a small number of staff members ignored relationships between young girls and much older men because of Aboriginal cultural practices.

Jodeen Carney, the CEO of the Department of Children and Families at the time, sent an urgent memo in November 2014 ordering all staff to participate in training conducted by social anthropologist Jane Lloyd, according to NT News.

The memo is believed to have been prompted by a staff member's decision to grant permission to let a girl have a relationship with a man, who she also lived with.

'It has come to my attention that a small number of staff misunderstand how some cultural practices in local Aboriginal communities affect their role as child protection practitioners when assessing and managing cases involving sexual exploitation,' Ms Carney said in the memo, the publication reported on Wednesday.

'The age of consent in the Territory is 16 years of age. Children under 16 years of age cannot 'consent' to sexual intercourse.'

Ms Lloyd was hired to educate staff and 'address aspects of classical and contemporary Aboriginal beliefs and customs insofar as they relate to family structures and child safety,' Ms Carney said.

The leaked memo comes after tensions escalated in Tennant Creek over the alleged sexual assault of a two-year-old girl.

The toddler was flown to the Alice Springs Hospital on February 16 before being rushed to the Women's and Children's Hospital in Adelaide, where she was placed in an induced coma because of the severity of her injuries.

A 24-year-old man has since been arrested and charged with sexual assault. He appeared to have been bashed when he appeared in court by video-link last week. He did not apply for bail.

The girl has been released from hospital into the care of her family and will return to the home where the alleged assault occurred, much to the horror of relatives. Her parents are understood to have troubled pasts, and are known to be heavy consumers of alcohol.

It was previously reported a party was held at the home on the same night the two-year-old was allegedly sexually assaulted.

Territory Families received 21 calls to the girl's troubled residence between August 15 and December 17.

Restrictions on the sale of alcohol in Tennant Creek have been put in place for the next seven days after an increase in alcohol-related offences, particularly domestic violence.

Licensing director-general Cinday Bravos says the restrictions will apply to six venues in the town including the Tennant Creek and Goldfields hotels and will limit the amount of takeaway alcohol that can be bought and when it can be purchased.

'I will then assess their effectiveness and the options available for implementing longer-term measures if the restrictions prove to be successful in reducing the levels of harm associated with the consumption of alcohol,' Ms Bravos said in a statement on Tuesday.

Takeaway alcohol will only be sold from 3pm to 6pm, Monday to Saturday, with limits on the amount of beer, wine, fortified wine or mixed drinks that can be purchased in a single transaction.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





1 March, 2018

Incompetence Wasn't the Problem in Broward County

I feared from the beginning that the school cop may have seen himself as just following his politically correct orders.  Looks like I was right.  There have been cases in England where police have been told not to go in to where there is gunfire.  When all is quiet and they do go in they find dead bodies.  Surprise! They are basically not a real policeman's asshole to accept such a direction but some have been disciplined for risking themselves

No one who follows the blogging collective known as the "Conservative Treehouse" will dispute my claim that its most prominent blogger, "Sundance" by name, is America's best reporter.  I got to know Sundance doing research for my book on the Trayvon Martin shooting, If I Had a Son.  So instrumental was the research of Sundance and his colleagues that I made the "Treepers" the protagonists of the book.

Sundance's research into the political dynamics of Martin's Miami-Dade school system led him to expand his research into neighboring Broward County years before the Parkland shooting.  We communicated the day after that shooting.  We had a shared sense of what had gone wrong.  I detailed some of this last week in an article on what one public interest magazine called the "Broward County solution."  In Broward County, they call it more modestly the "PROMISE Program."

In November 2013, Sundance first reported that Broward County was "willing to jump on the diversionary bandwagon."  As an attached Associated Press article noted, "One of the nation's largest school districts has reached an agreement with law enforcement agencies and the NAACP to reduce the number of students being charged with crimes for minor offenses."  The goal, as the article explained, was to create an alternative to the zero-tolerance policies then in place by giving principals, not law enforcement, the authority to determine the nature of the offense.

In a collaborative agreement among school officials and law enforcement, the presence of the NAACP might seem anomalous, but not in the Obama era, where considerations of race routinely shaped educational policy.  "One of the first things I saw was a huge differential in minority students, black male students in particular, in terms of suspensions and arrests," Broward's recently hired school superintendent, Robert Runcie, told the American Prospect.  A black American, Runcie assumed that the differential was due largely to some unspoken institutional bias against minorities.  As he saw it, these suspensions played a major role in the so-called "achievement gap" between white and minority students.

The first two "whereas" clauses in the collaborative agreement deal with opportunities for students in general, but the third speaks to the motivating issue behind the agreement: "Whereas, across the country, students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ students are disproportionately impacted by school-based arrests for the same behavior as their peers."

The spurious "same behavior" insinuation would put the onus on law enforcement to treat black students more gingerly than they would non-blacks.  To make the issue seem less stark, authorities cloaked the black American crime disparity with EEOC boilerplate about "students of color" and other presumably marginalized individuals.  Although nonsensical on the face of it – one is hard pressed to recall a crime spree by the disabled – this language opened the door for Nikolas de Jesus Cruz.  An adopted son of the late Roger and Linda Cruz, the future school shooter had a name that fit the "metrics" of the collaborative agreement, regardless of his DNA.

It is not hard to understand why Broward County officials would be eager to adopt this program.  Miami-Dade had been receiving all kinds of honors for its efforts to shut down the dread "school-to-prison" pipeline.  On February 15, 2012, Miami-Dade County Public Schools put out a press release citing a commendation the Miami-Dade Schools Police (M-DSPD) had recently received.  The Department of Juvenile Justice had singled out Miami-Dade for "dramatically decreasing" school-related "delinquency."  Said M-DSPD Chief Charles Hurley, "Our mantra is education not incarceration."

Seventeen-year-old Miami-Dade student Trayvon Martin got neither incarceration nor education.  Eleven days after this self-congratulatory press release, Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida, 250 miles from his Miami home.  For all the attention paid to the case, the media have refused to report why Martin was left to wander the streets of Sanford, high and alone on a Sunday night during a school week.

Sundance, who lives in South Florida, broke this story through old-fashioned gumshoe reporting.  He writes, "Over time the policy [in Miami-Dade] began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement."  Sundance was alerted to the problem during the investigation into Martin's death when six M-DSPD officers blew the whistle on their superiors, the most notable of them being Chief Hurley.  The whistleblowers told of cases of burglary and robbery where officers had to hide the recovered evidence in order to avoid writing up the students for criminal behavior.  "At first I didn't believe them," writes Sundance of the whistleblowers.  "However, after getting information from detectives, cross referencing police reports, and looking at the 'found merchandise' I realized they were telling the truth."

One of those incidents involved Martin.  Caught with a dozen pieces of stolen female jewelry and a burglary tool, Martin had his offense written off as entering an unauthorized area and writing graffiti on a locker.  There could be no effort made to track the jewelry to its rightful owner, lest Martin's apprehension be elevated to the level of a crime.  Instead, Martin was suspended, one of three suspensions that school year.

When George Zimmerman saw him that night in the rain, Martin, now on his third suspension, was looking in windows of the complex's apartments.  Zimmerman thought he was casing them.  Given his history, Martin probably was.  Zimmerman dialed the police.  The rest is history – or, more accurately, would have been history if the media had reported Martin's brutal assault on Zimmerman honestly, but they almost universally refused to do so.

Broward County launched its "education not incarceration" experiment four months after Zimmerman was rightfully found not guilty in the Martin case.  By this time, Sundance and his fellow Treepers had exposed the corruption that Miami-Dade's seemingly enlightened policy had wrought within its school police department.  Given the mainstream media's failure to follow up on Sundance's work, even in Florida, it is likely that Broward officials did not know how deeply the policy had compromised police work in Miami-Dade.

What Broward County authorities did know is that the best "school resource officers," the euphemism for in-school sheriff's deputies, were those most sensitive to the objectives of the PROMISE program.  It is hardly shocking that in 2014, the now notorious Scot Peterson was named School Resource Officer of the Year by the Broward County Crime Commission for handling issues "with tact and judgment."  The motto of that crime commission?  "Evil triumphs when good people stand idly by."  Yikes!

Peterson, the commission noted, was also "active in mentoring and counseling students."  It appears that Nikolas Cruz got counseled a lot.  Better to educate him, after all, than incarcerate him.  Although there are many details still to be known, the Miami Herald reported on Friday that, in November 2017, a tipster called the Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO) to say Cruz "'could be a school shooter in the making,' but deputies did not write up a report on that warning."

The Herald added that this tip came just weeks after a relative called urging BSO to seize his weapons.  Two years prior, "A deputy investigated a report that Cruz 'planned to shoot up the school' – intelligence that was forwarded to the school's resource officer, with no apparent result."

That school resource officer just happened to be Scot Peterson.  He did not err by letting this misunderstood Hispanic lad go unpunished in any meaningful way.  Peterson showed his award-winning "tact and judgment."  He had to understand that to keep the PROMISE momentum going, the school would have to see fewer and fewer arrests each year.  This meant excusing worse and worse offenses, especially for students who counted as minorities.  As for the qualities real cops are expected to show – courage under fire comes to mind – those were obviously not Peterson's strong suit.

"The school resource officer was behind a stairwell wall just standing there, and he had his gun drawn.  And he was just pointing it at the building," said student Brandon Huff of Peterson.  "And you could – shots started going off inside.  You could hear them going off over and over."

In a surprisingly tough interview with Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, CNN's Jake Tapper cited the 23 incidents before the shooting that involved Cruz and questioned whether the PROMISE program might have been responsible for the inaction by the sheriff's office.

"It's helping many, many people," said Israel in defense of the program.  "What this program does is not put a person at 14, 15, 16 years old into the criminal justice system."

Said Tapper, "What if he should be in the criminal justice system?  What if he does something violent to a student?  What if he takes bullets to school?  What if he takes knives to schools?  What if he threatens the lives of fellow students?"  As solid as these questions are, if CNN had raised comparable questions after the death of Trayvon Martin, 17 Parkland students might still be alive.

Says Sundance in conclusion, "I will give testimony, provide names, outline dates, and give all prior records to any lawyer for use in a wrongful death lawsuit – so long as their intent would be to financially ruin the entire system and personally bankrupt the participants."

SOURCE





Stopping the Assault on Conscience

Conservatives don't need to prove the existence of the war on faith anymore – HHS did it for them! After years of pooh-poohing the crackdown on Christians, the other side will have a much harder time now, thanks to the agency's new division in the Office for Civil Rights.

After eight years of weaponizing the government against men and women of faith, President Trump is demanding a unilateral disarmament – starting with one of the leading offenders, Health and Human Services. In January, it wasn't just the start of a new year, but a new era in protecting religious liberty. The administration announced a bold new initiative, aimed at turning the government from an enemy of freedom to an ally. Starting in 2018, it would open an office dedicated to stopping the assault on conscience.

Two months into the idea, the job is turning out to be bigger than anyone envisioned. Now that Americans have a president they can trust and a place to confide, more victims are stepping out of the shadows to tell their stories. Complaints are pouring in to the agency about violations across a full spectrum of services: health care, medical care, adoption, child care, and more. Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), is surprised but encouraged. At least the system is working.

"We have made a commitment to vigorously and fairly enforce laws protecting conscience and religion that had been given second-class treatment for too long," he told CQ. "The surge in complaints shows that the American people are responding to our new openness." It also shows something else: the problems are deeper than people thought. "Less than two months into 2018, OCR is already nearing the total combined conscience and religion complaints in all of 2017." Last year, before a special division was established, OCR was on the receiving end of 464 conscience and religious-related complaints. Right now, that number has already hit 345! (And, one official points out, that doesn't include any filed by mail.)

Obviously, the hostility toward religion is so deeply engrained that it will take years to weed out the abusers and clean up the toxic environment that has stunted our First Freedom. And here's the ironic part: until President Obama, the freedom to believe was never a controversial idea. It was such a consensus issue, in fact, that after the Supreme Court invented legalized abortion in 1973, Congress responded by passing a law to protect health care workers from the very discrimination they're facing today. Even Senator Ted Kennedy defended the bill's "full protection to the religious freedom of physicians and others." Only two members objected.

Suddenly, under the Obama administration, that all changed. Instead of demanding compromise and coexistence, the other side exchanged its sham of tolerance for full-blown government forced coercion. Now, almost a decade later, the mess is titanic. Longtime grievances can finally be aired. Before Trump, most people who were affected by Obamacare, taxpayer-funded abortion, or gender identity knew that if they complained it would only make them bigger targets. What a refreshing change for them to know that the government that was once their oppressor can now be their defender.

Let's hope the White House recognizes the good work of OCR and moves to replicate it in other places across the administration. Until then, this is another important reminder that elections have consequences. In this case, positive ones.

SOURCE





Georgia Senate Passes Bill To Protect Religious Beliefs of Adoption Agencies

The Georgia Senate passed legislation on Friday that would protect the religious beliefs of adoption agencies and foster care groups that receive taxpayer money and decline to place children in homes headed by homosexual or lesbian couples.

Senator William Ligon (R- District 3), who sponsored the legislation, stressed that the bill does not interfere with adoption agencies that want to place children in gay homes but that it protects adoption groups who oppose such arrangements on religious grounds.  The agencies that want to place children with any type of "couple" can do so and those who want children palced with a mom and dad are free to do so -- they won't be forced to place children in same-sex homes.

"Just because you are a faith-based organization doesn't mean you have to check your faith at the door and cannot participate in government programs," Sen. Ligon told WRAL.com.

The legislation passed in the Senate 35-19. The bill now goes to the Georgia House.

The "Keep Faith in Adoption and Foster Care Act" says that "maintaining a diverse network of adoption and foster care service providers which accommodate children from various cultural backgrounds is a high priority of this state such that reasonable accommodations should be made to allow people of different geographical regions, backgrounds, and beliefs to remain within and become a part of such network."

"The General Assembly finds that it is important that decisions regarding the placement of children be made using the best interests of the child standard, including using child-placing organizations best able to provide for a child's physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional needs and development," reads the legislation.  "The General Assembly finds that child-placing agencies have the right to provide services in accordance with the agencies' sincerely held religious beliefs."

The bill specifically allows "a child-placing agency to decline to accept a referral from the department and decline to perform services not referred under a contract with the department based on the child-placing agency's sincerely held religious beliefs; to prevent the department from discriminating against or causing any adverse action against a child-placing agency based on its sincerely held religious beliefs...."

The Human Rights Campaign, a pro-homosexual advocacy group, criticized the legislation. “Plain and simple -- SB 375 is discrimination dressed up as a ‘solution’ to a fake problem,” said Marty Rouse, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign.

“It creates an unnecessary hardship for potential LGBTQ adoptive or foster parents in Georgia and primarily harms the children looking for a loving home," said Rouse.  "It’s unfortunate that leaders are focusing on this bill, instead of concrete ways to improve the child welfare system in Georgia. We ask the Georgia House of Representatives to reject this bill.”

SOURCE






Australia censoring the press in order to butter up Muslims?

Independent adjudicator -- The Press Council -- says the article is ok.  Government says it is not -- and won't give reasons

FOR what appears to be the first time, the Classification Board has taken the extraordinary censorship decision to ban an Australian news site from reporting a terror threat.

TODAY, news.com.au has published a Press Council decision that ruled in its favour — accepting there was public interest in its article publicising the disturbing ways Islamic State was trying to target potential victims through sites like Gumtree.

The problem is, the article titled “Islamic State terror guide encourages luring victims via Gumtree, eBay” no longer exists.

A week after it was published on May 31, 2017, the Attorney-General’s office contacted news.com.au to demand it be taken down, saying the Classification Board had ruled it should be refused classification as it “directly or indirectly” advocated terrorist acts.

It appears to be the first time section 9A of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 has been used to censor a news report, since it was first added in 2007.

The action has alarmed the publisher of news.com.au as Australian media in general were not informed the Classification Board had the power to ban news stories or that the eSafety Commissioner had the power to instigate investigations into news articles.

“The first news.com.au knew of this matter was when contacted by the Attorney-General’s Department and advised of the Classification Board decision,” news.com.au argued as part of a separate Press Council investigation into the article.

“The department, board and the eSafety Commissioner did not contact news.com.au beforehand to advise of the investigation. Consequently, news.com.au was not given the right to make submissions or a defence in regard to the article.”

News.com.au removed the article as it was facing legal penalties from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) if it refused, including fines or even civil or criminal legal action.

In justifying its decision, the Classification Board noted the article contained “detailed references and lengthy quotations from Rumiyah (Islamic State’s propaganda magazine)” with limited author text to provide context.

News.com.au asked the board why there was no opportunity for news organisations to defend the article based on public interest grounds but a response provided by a spokesman for the eSafety Commissioner did not directly address this.

The spokesman said the board did consider whether the material could “reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate, or as entertainment or satire” before making its decision.

He also acknowledged this may have been the first time a news article had been censored using this section.

Passages in the article were taken from of Islamic State propaganda magazine Rumiyah.
Passages in the article were taken from of Islamic State propaganda magazine Rumiyah.Source:Supplied

“We are not aware of any similar decisions by the Classification Board, however we are aware of ongoing efforts by government departments, universities and indeed industry bodies such as the Australian Press Council to encourage and promote responsible, balanced reporting of news and issues relating to terrorism,” the spokesman said.

There is now concern about what the situation means for the operation of a free and independent media in Australia.

Representatives of news.com.au have tried numerous times to get further explanation from the Attorney-General’s Department about the operation of the powers but these have been unsuccessful.

Recent inquiries to the department about how it became involved, whether the application of section 9A is reasonable or could be considered censorship, have also not been addressed.

“The Attorney-General was appointed in December 2017 and is therefore not aware of what discussions may or may not have taken place between the office of his predecessor and media outlets,” a spokesman for the Attorney-General told news.com.au.

“Classification Board decisions are a matter for that agency which sits in the Communications portfolio.”

The eCommissioner has also declined to reveal the source of “several complaints” that sparked its review, and whether they were from a member of the public or from a government official or representative.

“It is inappropriate to comment on the identity of individuals submitting complaints about offensive and illegal content, or to disclose any other information which could compromise the operational integrity of the investigation process,” a spokesman said.

News.com.au editor-in-chief Kate de Brito said any censorship of the media by a government department raised serious concerns about press freedom.

“This is a deeply concerning development of media censorship. The Classification Board has silenced the reporting of a legitimate threat to the Australian public,” she said. “Australians have a right to know if their safety or lives are being placed at risk — there can be few more important matters of public interest.

“The secretive way the Classifications Board acted in this way is a direct attack on freedom of the press and journalists should condemn it.”

While the Press Council also received at least one complaint about the article, its ruling published today found there was a public interest in news.com.au publishing the article.

It agreed the article featured limited author input, analysis or context but accepted the need to warn the public.

“The Council accepts the public interest in alerting readers to potential risks to their safety,” the ruling says.

“The Council considers that on balance, the public interest in alerting readers to the dangerous content of the terrorist propaganda and its instructional detail was greater than the risk to their safety posed by the publication’s effective republication of terrorist propaganda content.”

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************





IN BRIEF



HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray






(Isaiah 62:1)


A 19th century Democrat political poster below:








Leftist tolerance



Bloomberg



JFK knew Leftist dogmatism



-- Geert Wilders



The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog



A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?


Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair



Enough said


Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.



There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though


What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so


Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.


Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners


Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.


The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole


Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males


Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations


Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.


I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.


I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass


Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies


The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"


Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"


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


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


So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”


Children are the best thing in life. See also here.


Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."


Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".


One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.


It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.


A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."


Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).


The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin


"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes


What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian


Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil


The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties


Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion


"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)


I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!


No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"


Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae


On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds


Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans



Index page for this site


DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:

"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues



ALSO:

Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)



Selected reading

MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM

CONSERVATISM AS HERESY

Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Pyszczynski et al.





Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)



Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20151027-0014/jonjayray.comuv.com/

OR: (After 2015)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160322114550/http://jonjayray.com/