Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Top House Dem: Trump 'Would be Mussolini and Putin Would be Hitler'

Look at all those unhappy faces surrounding Rep. Clyburn. Contrast it with all the happy faces that surround Trump. Democrats really are the miserable party

The Trump effect

And their utterances are so often motivated by hate rather than any contact with reality. Trump is like Mussolini? Musso passed antisemitic laws. Trump is a great friend of Israel

Both Hitler and Trump discredit the media? Hitler had the media on a leash. The American media are not only free to criticize Trump, they do little else.

Trump discredits the judicial system? They do a pretty good job of discrediting themselves. By allowing affirmative action, they deny the equal treatment right explicitly granted in the 14th amendment, and invent rights, such as abortion, that are nowhere even mentioned in the constitution. Trump is just trying to clean up that mess by appointing judges with known respect for the law

Swastikas hanging in churches? Trump does that?

Rep. Clyburn is clearly a very dim bulb

The third-ranking Democrat in the House said Monday said that if one was comparing America today to Europe before World War II, "this president would be Mussolini and Putin would be Hitler."

"Having studied history and having taught history, I can only equate one period of time with what we experience now, and that was what was going on in Germany around 1934 right after the 1932 elections when Adolph Hitler was elected chancellor," Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told CNN. "He began to do things to discredit the media, to disrupt the judicial system, and if you recall from your studies, they had swastikas hanging in churches all over Germany."

"And when I see and hear, and experience what's going on in the country today, I think back to that time, and I really believe that we as Americans had better get a handle on things," he added. "If we don't, we could very well see ourselves going the way of Germany."

Clyburn appeared with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus -- Chairman Cedric Richmond (D-La.), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), and Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) -- to discuss race in America under the current administration.

Richmond said the president's first year "has not been friendly to African-Americans," and caucus members will "either boycott or will sit together in solidarity and stare down what we believe is inequality and injustice and racism."


The corruption of affirmative action

Yeah, I know it was supposed to be a temporary measure, and overcome temporary prejudice, and make everyone equal and give them a fresh start.

That’s not the way things work in government. Whatever is instituted stays around, festers, and becomes ever more complicated.

So it has been with affirmative action. There are government set-asides for practically every category of humans under the sun, and more interestingly, the idea of affirmative action has percolated through the culture, even to those companies that aren’t involved with the government, and therefore don’t need to keep strict proportions amid their employees.

And yes, if anyone wonders, this idea of the government saying you have to have x number of this type of humans and y number of this type of humans is a very bad one.

It is bad for the companies because sometimes the best-qualified applicant isn’t the one you have to hire. More importantly, though, it is very bad for the people thus singled out, and hired, and thus consigned to a special category.

I’ve dealt with this before on my own blog, and I won’t recapitulate the whole story here, but when I first came to the U.S. I fell in with a group of minority people who viewed everything that happened to them as a sign of discrimination. This was easy, because, given my accent and the fact when younger I tanned darker, people treated me very strangely, including my first boss who was convinced I was both Mexican and illegal. (No, don’t ask. He thought Portugal was a city in Mexico.)

For a while with everything that went wrong, everything I failed at, I thought it was “the man” keeping me down. But after a couple of years I realized that even if that were true, it was not the way to deal with the situation. I realized that even if people were discriminating against me, to accept that as an excuse only guaranteed they won, and I’d never succeed.

Instead, I decided to treat it all as though it were my fault alone, and therefore only I could deal with it. After that, I was not only more successful but a lot happier.

Do people still discriminate against me? Sure. But people discriminate for the stupidest things. I’m sure my husband who is from New England, and whose ancestors fought in the American War of Independence, gets discriminated against just as much because he’s short or because he prefers informal clothing, as I do for being (sometimes, depending on the person) identifiable as Latin.

All I can do to counter it is do the best work I can do and be the best I can be – and it is enough.

We are now more than a generation since equal civil rights were enshrined – restored? – as the law of the land. There shouldn’t be anyone who needs a hand up by virtue of belonging to a special group.

What the continued preferences do is enshrine the idea that some people are perpetually inferior and always need a hand up. This is a dangerous preconception to set up because sooner or later compassion fatigue sets in, and then anger.

Until then, it’s corrupting society at all levels.

One of my colleagues on a panel, in a conference with me, recently said that she had taught at Clarion West, the premier writing conference, in its one franchise, and had been told you can’t have women and minorities in stories and give them defects of character. The “diversity” characters have to be perfect and perfect victims.

This is, of course, profoundly racist, a throwback to the noble savage, and a belief that people who tan, or women, are not fully human and not capable of human flaws.

I don’t know if it’s worse or just tragically comic that this has now started generating (heck, has probably always generated) carpetbaggers, willing to get rich off the conquered territory and willing to lie and scheme their way to power and prominence.

Rachel Dolezal, Shaun King, and yeah, Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren are such carpetbaggers, and you know where they get prominent there are hundreds more hiding in the weave of society, pretending to be something they’re not, to take advantage of those who have to hand them something for nothing (and their chicks for free) for the sake of their claiming “minority” and “victim.”

Still worse than that is that in my field one can craft an edgy and interesting persona, particularly if one lives far away, and get all the acclaim and awards because people think that some groups should be eternally receivers of largesse, as the poor things can’t do it themselves. At least I hope that some of these personas are crafted. Otherwise, the “gay Muslim” is plain insane.

This corrupts the field and elevates to prominence works that have barely grade school competence.

In fact, it corrupts all fields and all enterprises. People elevated beyond their achievements are resentful and think they’re being deliberately being kept down – see Michelle Obama’s reaction to Harvard – while those around them feel put upon and not a little angry.

Progressives complain of the president being “divisive.” But their policies of giving unearned benefits to people, on the basis of presumed past discrimination against long-dead ancestors, are what in fact do cause divisiveness and hatred.

It creates social justice carpetbaggers, multiplying like maggots on the body politic. And it makes a mockery of our land’s idea of equal rights before the law -- be they to liberty or to the pursuit of happiness.

There is only one way to fight carpetbaggers and to heal the country: equality for all under the law.

* People and their works judged by themselves, and not offenses against long-dead ancestors.

* The assumption that all people are capable of the full range of humanity, whatever their skin color, sex or orientation, the good along with the bad.

* And a willingness to see people as individuals again.


Black men prefer light-skinned women

Beyonce's father Mathew Knowles says she and sister Solange wouldn't be as famous if they had darker skin and says many black men with 'eroticized rage' prefer lighter skinned women

He masterminded his talented daughter's rise to fame in Destiny's Child, before helping her get started on a solo career.

Now Beyonce's father Mathew Knowles has spoken out about colorism in the music industry, saying that his superstar daughter and her sister Solange wouldn't be as famous if they had darker skin.

Talking to Ebony, he said the biggest black female stars all had lighter skin.

'When it comes to Black females, who are the people who get their music played on pop radio? Mariah Carey, Rihanna, the female rapper Nicki Minaj, my kids [Beyonce and Solange],' he told Ebony magazine.

Since parting ways with Beyonce professionally in 2011, African-American Knowles has reinvented himself as a college professor, and is promoting a new book about race relations, titled Racism: From the Eyes of a Child.

In his interview the 66-year-old also addressed his own deep-rooted attitudes to skin color, saying that when he first met Beyonce's mother, his ex-wife of 31 years, he assumed she was white.

'I actually thought when I met Tina, my former wife, that she was White. Later I found out that she wasn’t, and she was actually very much in-tune with her Blackness.'

He said that his preference for white or light-skinned black women was embedded in his childhood in Gadsden, a small town near the city of Birmingham, Alabama.

Said Knowles: 'When I was growing up, my mother used to say, "Don’t ever bring no nappy-head Black girl to my house." In the deep South in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, the shade of your Blackness was considered important. So I, unfortunately, grew up hearing that message.'

And this had a lasting effect. 'I used to date mainly White women or very high-complexion Black women that looked White... I had been conditioned from childhood.

'With eroticized rage, there was actual rage in me as a Black man, and I saw the White female as a way, subconsciously, of getting even or getting back. There are a lot of Black men of my era that are not aware of this thing.'

Beyonce's rise to stardom began in 1988 when she won the Baby Junior Award at the Sammy Awards, a ceremony held to honour Sammy Davis Jr.

She signed up to join a girlband, Girls Tyme, when she was eight, with Knowles quitting his full-time sales job to co-manage the band two years later.

The band became Destiny's Child, which three years later signed a seven-album deal with Columbia/Sony.

Knowles co-managed Destiny's Child throughout, and was also credited as executive producer on Beyonce's first solo album Dangerously In Love, before she ended her working relationship with her father in 2011.


Australian Senator slammed for claiming that having women serve in combat roles in the army is a RISK to national security

Bernardi is of course right. Women don't have the stregth or stamina of men. Just look at how the sports are segregated. So women would wilt in a real battle. There was plenty of hand-to-hand action in Afghanistan. Check what Ben Roberts-Smith got his VC for

Women in combat units is not 'in the best interests of Australia's national security' according to controversial Australian Conservatives Senator Cory Bernardi.

He was slammed by his former colleague Western Australian Senator Linda Reynolds in Parliament on Monday. 'I want to say to Senator Bernardi: shame on you,' she said while labelling his comments appalling.

Senator Bernardi spoke against removing an exemption in the Sex Discrimination Act which allows discrimination against women being given combat roles.

'It's about blurring the lines between political correctness and sound tactics in the name of what I think is social justice,' Senator Bernardi told parliament. He said he had deep concerns about the dangers of women serving in combat roles.

'I don't believe incorporating women into combat units is in the best interests of Australia's national security,' Senator Bernardi said.

Senator Reynolds, who was Australia's first woman brigadier in the Army Reserve, branded the Australian Conservatives' leader a 'complete and utter disgrace'. 'He could not have chosen a more insulting or demeaning topic, not only to all of our women who now serve in uniform, but all those women who want to put their hand up, she said. Senator Reynolds said entry standards had not been reduced as part of a push to get more women in the ADF, including in combat roles.

'For the future of defence forces and the security of our nation we need more women,' she said.

The change is part of a largely non-controversial omnibus bill which makes technical changes to a wide range of civil justice legislation.

Today's first day in Parliament was busy for Senator Bernardi, who is forming a new 'right wing' voting block with Senators David Leyonhjelm and Fraser Anning.



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

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

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


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

The thing about the Women in Combat issue is that the military did, to some degree, bring it on themselves. When the feminists first brought it up, a lot of 'women can't do X' metrics were used to kill the idea, and not all of them were real. Example; 'women lack the upper body strength to throw an offensive grenade beyond its kill radius'. This may sound true, but a longtime professional soldier friend of mine dismissed it by saying 'we have a word for people who throw grenades and don't take cover; casualties'. A few unwisely chosen lies like this, and the military had undermined their own position, and also made it harder to insist on actual realistic standards.

Now, the feminists are batshit crazy. That doesn't, however, make the military blameless.

If we want to stop the integration of women into combat positions dead there's a simple way to do it; make it clear that if women can hold combat posts, women must register for selective service.