Friday, September 16, 2016
No Country for Old (White) Men
Democrats admit disappointment that SCOTUS nominee isn't black
At least within the ranks of the Democrat Party, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream is officially dead.
On Aug. 28, 1963, during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, civil rights icon Martin Luther King declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
Today, the absolute last thing Democrats want is for anyone to be judged by the content of their character, instead demanding everyone be judged by the color of their skin.
Then again, that isn’t entirely true. To the modern Democrat Party, the color of your skin must also be aligned with political ideology. That is why conservative blacks and Hispanics are not considered “authentic” blacks and Hispanics. In fact, because they are not also liberal/progressive means they are fair game for the most vicious, slanderous attacks.
A recent example of this comes in the form of the nomination by Barack Obama of the milquetoast, boring old white guy, Merrick Garland, to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the passing of revered originalist Justice Antonin Scalia.
Completing a progressive takeover of the Supreme Court is among the absolute highest goals for Democrats. With an entrenched progressive majority on the Supreme Court, Democrats can laugh off their string of humiliating losses in the U.S. House, Senate and state legislatures since Obama was elected. With a progressive Court majority, they could eviscerate any laws restricting abortion. They could reverse the hated Citizens United ruling and further restrict free speech with which they disagree. They could reverse the Heller and McDonald rulings which declared keeping and bearing firearms an individual right. They could force labor unions on America’s employees. The possibilities are endless.
Speaking last week at a conference hosted by race pimp and anti-Semite “Reverend” Al Sharpton, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), slated to be the next Senate minority leader with the retirement of Harry Reid, said, “A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader [if Democrats retake the Senate], I will make it happen.”
But Democrats don’t just want a reliable vote; they want to make a political statement about the superiority of minorities. This is captured perfectly by a recent Washington Post headline: “Did Obama squander an opportunity by nominating Merrick Garland?”
The article goes on to say, “Some Democrats privately fear that Obama blew an opportunity to help re-activate the coalition that elected him twice by not picking a more progressive nominee — especially a minority candidate — to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Had Obama nominated someone who really ginned up the Democratic base, perhaps Clinton and the party would have more whole-heartedly embraced him or her.”
That fear isn’t exactly private, though, because the Post quotes Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women as saying, “I’m not going to say there wasn’t some disappointment” that Obama nominated a white guy. After the death of Justice Scalia, O'Neill and NOW signed onto a letter urging Obama to nominate a progressive black woman.
Ironically, one reason O'Neill wanted a black woman as the nominee was because “Any African-American woman who might have been nominated would have been viciously attacked. … It’s possible, if those vicious attacks would have happened, then the American public would have been much better informed of the outrageousness of what the Republicans are doing.”
We say ironically because O'Neill seems oblivious to the truly vicious attacks on conservative minorities by liberal Democrats. It seems she forgot about the treatment of black conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who suffered through grotesque character assassination at the hands of Senators Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and others. Thomas famously referred to it as a “high-tech lynching.” In 2005, the very conservative California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman born of poor Alabama share-croppers, was subjected to similar treatment at the hands of Senate Democrats, painted as a radical and a race traitor as they filibustered her nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
To be sure, Garland would be a very reliable vote for leftists, voting consistently en bloc with the Court’s progressive wing of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. It is nearly unfathomable that he would stray from leftist orthodoxy on issues like Second Amendment rights, abortion, affirmative action, free speech (or lack thereof), and empowering and expanding the federal government at every turn.
Yet that is not enough for progressive Democrats. Even though the end result of the judicial opinions would be nearly identical, poor Garland has two unforgivable flaws: he is a he, and he is white.
As for old white man Merrick Garland, perhaps there is still a chance to gain approval with the leftist intelligentsia and the progressive base. All he has to do is change his name to “Merry” and “identify” as a transgender black woman. That way, he’ll (oops — she’ll) have checked all of the necessary identity politics boxes favored by the scientifically challenged, anti-Constitution, progressive Left.
Benham Brother on Hollywood’s Sexual Revolution: ‘If You Do Not Bow You Will Be Persecuted’
Christian businessman, author, and activist David Benham said Monday that if one disagrees with the “sexual revolution” in Hollywood that promotes homosexuality and same-sex marriage they will be “persecuted.”
“If you bow to the God of the sexual revolution, if you bow to its whims, if you are a card-carrying sexual revolutionary, then you will be promoted,” Benham said.
“But if you do not bow, you will be persecuted,” Benham said. “And there has got to be people who say I will not bow to this. It’s wrong.”
In an exclusive interview with CNSNews.com, David and his twin brother Jason spoke about their experience following the cancellation of the planned “Flip It Forward” real estate reality show on HGTV after their stance on abortion was revealed and that they supported traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
CNSNews.com asked the brothers if the sexual agenda in Hollywood meant that if you supported it you were promoted but if you spoke out against it there were consequences.
“The sexual revolution has won the day in terms of cultural pressure,” David Benham said. “If you bow to the God of the sexual revolution—if you bow to its whims, if you are a card-carrying sexual revolutionary – then you will be promoted.
“But if you do not bow, you will be persecuted,” Benham said. “And there has got to be people who say I will not bow to this. It’s wrong.”
Benham said that is why he and his brother were targeted for their beliefs and their show was eventually cancelled.
“It’s a mob,” Benham said. “It is literally a mob, and they will come after you.”
The Benham Brothers have written two books, including “Whatever the Cost” about their experiences with the HGTV show and their decision to speak out according to their Christian faith no matter the consequences. Their second book, “Living Among Lions,” compares the trials of the biblical prophet Daniel to those of Christians today trying to stay true to their beliefs despite cultural pressures.
Mulan vs. the Diversity-Mongers
Let's get down to business. The casting kerfuffle over Disney's live-action remake of the 1998 animated hit "Mulan" brings honor to none. It's a politically correct tempest in a Chinese teapot.
More than 90,000 angry activists have now signed a petition "to tell Disney that we demand to see them cast an Asian Mulan." The lead instigator, Michigan children's librarian Natalie Molnar, vented against the practice of "whitewashing" — that is, employing "white Caucasian actors and actresses in roles originally meant to be characters of color."
Extreme racial and ethnic bean-counting is necessary, even in the remake of a cartoon, the petitioners argue, because "children benefit from finding themselves represented in fiction."
Skin color-based casting entitlements and quotas: "for the children." Of course.
Once again, privileged progressives demonstrate how arbitrary, capricious and ridiculous militant identity politics can be. Last year, Asian-American leftists attacked director Cameron Crowe for casting Emma Stone as a mixed-race character in the romantic comedy "Aloha." It didn't matter whether Stone pulled off the role. The protesters were too busy administering racial and ethnic litmus tests for employment in the entertainment industry.
This year, grievance-mongers moaned about the casting of mixed-race actress Zoe Saldana as black jazz legend Nina Simone and white actress Scarlett Johansson as a Japanese Manga cartoon figure.
In social justice land, movie-making isn't about casting the most talented actors, regardless of race or ethnicity. Movie-making isn't about entertaining customers or making money. Nope.
Movie-making is a never-ending exercise in radical multiculturalism and identity apartheid.
The diversity cops maintain that only the right kind of mixed-race stars should play mixed-race characters. Only the right kind of black actresses should win black roles. And only Asians should be cast in "Mulan" to maintain ethnic realism.
But there's no rhyme, reason or logic in their demands for authenticity. Take "Mulan." The original movie was riddled with historical inaccuracies. Based on the legend of teenage warrior Hua Mulan popularized in an ancient Chinese ballad, the heroine disguises herself as a man to take the place of her elderly father in battle — "to defeat the Huns," as the song from the movie goes.
But the Huns were thousands of miles away sacking Rome and Western Europe. The "Huns" who attacked the legendary Mulan in 6th-century China were mostly likely related to the central Asian Xiongnu tribe in what became Mongolia, which warred with the Han dynasty in the 3rd century. Movie historian Alex von Tunzelmann notes "that was at least a couple [of] hundred of years before Mulan's time, and in any case the link between the Xiongnu and the Huns is in dispute."
Unfortunately for social justice warriors, "Let's get down to business/to defeat the nomadic tribe that was possibly the Xiongnu in the region of Mongolia before it was known as Mongolia" just doesn't have the same ring as the Disney tune that's still stuck in my head after 18 years.
Weirdly, the Asian-American liberal entertainment lobby didn't have a problem with Filipina musical theater star/actress Lea Salonga singing Chinese Mulan's parts in the original movie. Which raises my still-unanswered question in these well-worn casting wars:
Why is it that the self-appointed Definers of racial and ethnic Authenticity get to pick and choose which historical inaccuracies and inconsistencies to protest or ignore?
Strangely, some of the minority actors and actresses in the "People of Color" tribe that the Demand-y Demanders want to cast in "Mulan" are as authentically Asian as Mulan's Eddie Murphy-voiced annoying dragon sidekick, Mu Shu.
Oliver S. Wang, an L.A.-based culture writer, tweeted that "The Rock" (Canadian-American actor Dwayne Johnson of Samoan and Black Nova Scotian heritage) should play the "Mongol villain."
How do you say "Huh???" in Chinese?
Heidi Yeung, editor for a South China Morning Post-owned website, is pushing for Korean-American Daniel Dae Kim to play the villainous role of Shan Yu — in part because he has "almost identical cheekbones to the animated character." Diversity!
Additionally, she wants Japanese-American George Takei to play the Chinese Emperor and another Korean American, Margaret Cho, to play the Chinese matchmaker.
So because the diversity-mongers' choices look more vaguely Asian-ish, never mind the vast differences between their nationalities and heritages, they trump other non-Asian actors and actresses who must all step aside and bow down to the gods of ethnic faux-thenticity.
If "whitewash" is the problem, why is fake yellow wash the solution?
Australia: Muslim is appealing for answers after bank accounts for his charity were shut down
No great mystery here. Money from Muslim charities has been siphoned off in support of terrorism in the past and the CBA doesn't want to be accused of facilitating that
THE founder of a Muslim charity, Ali Banat, said he was given just 30 days to remove his funds from each of his three charity and personal accounts with no justification provided by the bank.
“In my opinion the Commonwealth Bank have decided to close all our accounts because this is a Muslim charity working for the Muslim community,” Mr Banat said.
Muslims Around The World works to provide aid to Muslim communities across Africa and was established late in 2015 after the former Greenacre business man was diagnosed with cancer.
“I’ve had millions go through the bank with my previous business but as soon as I start a charity called Muslims Around The World my accounts get stopped and my EFTPOS machines are taken away from me,” Mr Banat said. “All I want is a reason.”
The local Muslim community has been quick to support the charity, and now, its fight against the banking giant.
Merrylands resident and close friend of Mr Banat, Shai Jacobz Zreika said the prejudice against the charity was disgusting.
“How could they be so heartless as to close accounts for no reason,” he said.
Mr Zreika said he questioned the bank’s ability to target an account holder based on religion.
“We don’t want banks to have a theory in their head, to share it in the world and make it come true,” he said.
“We will be taking legal action — if I have to take it to the highest court in Australia I will.”
Correspondence from the bank offers little insight for the charity, who is now flagged as a risk in future banking relations.
A statement received by Mr Banat reads, “the Bank recognises the closure of your account(s) may cause you inconvenience. Accordingly, the Bank gives you 30 days notice ... You will not be able to open any new accounts with the Bank”.
The charity has taken to social media to share their message across the globe.
A video posted by Mr Banat asking for answers has clocked up over 5,000 shares since it was posted on August 30.
“I am a fully registered organisation and do not support terrorism,” Mr Banat wrote.
“We house innocent African children and widows. I have tried to call the bank and get an explanation however no explanation can be provided simply ‘commercial decision to cease banking relationship’”
More than $300,000 was raised for the charity’s project to provide animals to families for sacrifice in the Muslim celebration of Eid.
Their work extends to Burkina Faso, Togo, Ghana and Benin and Mr Banat hopes to fund development of entire villages across poverty-stricken areas in Africa.
Changes to bank accounts is problematic for the charity who says it could stand in the way of donations.
“Changing a bank causes a lot of confusion and stops money from coming in,” he said, “People are frightened to donate in case they lose their money.”
The Commonwealth Bank refused to comment on the individual customer and issued the following statement.
“Commonwealth Bank consistently serves each customer on a case-by-case basis. There are instances where Commonwealth Bank will need to make a decision to end our relationship with a customer and this is always done after very careful consideration and in line with our account terms and conditions.”
Mr Banat started the charity in late 2015 after he was diagnosed with stage four cancer and given just seven months to live.
He says the diagnosis is a gift from Allah and will continue his work to create a legacy and lasting change for less fortunate communities.
To date, he estimates the charity has distributed more than $2.1 million in aid projects.
The MATW has a charitable fundraising license registered since January 7 2016.
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, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.