Sunday, March 24, 2019



NZ Mosques reopen amid nationwide mourning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Fox Caves to Islamist Sensibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why not Ihan Omar’s?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fox News is abetting that chaos. Shame on them.

SOURCE






Rampant dishonesty in response to the NZ massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






An outpouring of irrational Leftist hate comes to Australia

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

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

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

She was instantly hit by a deluge of criticism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Friday, March 22, 2019



Brainless Leftist opportunism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has been the reaction of senior Democrats?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Another enemy of Free Speech

Sounds like he gets his ideas from Chairman Mao



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main driver for this? Government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Thursday, March 21, 2019


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Covington Teen Could Win His Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN

First Washington Post, now CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Hungary for More: ‘Making Families Great Again’

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






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

Who benefits from violence?

Joe Hildebrand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then there is Egg Boy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also demeans the gravity of the threat we face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that really what we are?

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

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




Wednesday, March 20, 2019




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE







Abortion: New Mexico Exposes Big Canyons on Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Public policy should support mothers who choose to stay at home

BY PATRICK T. BROWN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More HERE






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

Still too high

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tuesday, March 19, 2019




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hollywood liberals didn’t waste any time piling on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Denmark gets it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other opposition parties were critical of the new rules.

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE






Man Awarded 1.8 Million After Being Falsely Accused Of Rape

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

As reported by the Daily Wire:

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

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

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

As reported by the Daily Wire:

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

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

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

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

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

As reported by Quartz:

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

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

As reported by the Daily Wire:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As reported by Red State:

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

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

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

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