Why do we give Leftists an easy ride?

David Horowitz

One thing I learned watching the witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh on MSNBC, is that a prestigious university in New York has a Vice President for Social Justice. (She is an MSNBC commentator). Her Orwellian title is but one of many signs that our country is already on the threshold of 1984; the Judiciary Committee circus is another.

In her comments on the hearings, the Vice President for Social Justice, Maya Wiley, was clearly out for blood, and had no interest in evidence, due process, or the facts. She is also of course both a woman, a woman “of color” and a lesbian. In other words, she occupies three of the top rungs in the hierarchy of the oppressed - all bombs waiting to blow up in the face of any straight white male who stumbles into their cross-hairs.

Any fair-minded observer of the Kavanaugh proceedings would have noted that no one – Republican or Democrat - so much as laid a glove on his female accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, even though she had come forward to destroy the life of an exemplary individual and his family. No one, dared to do so. Call this feminine or victim privilege. Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks with tales of drinking were fair game, but Ford’s – which openly talk of the girls’ sexual promiscuity and boast of girls passing out at drinking parties - were not. Nor were her extensive political connections to the anti-Trump left, the pro-abortion movement, the Democratic Party and even the law firm involved in the Steele dossier.

Yes, the sexual crime prosecutor established that Ford lied to the committee when she said she couldn’t come to Washington for the hearings because she was afraid of flying. In fact, as she admitted under questioning, she has frequently flown all over the world for pleasure. But no one actually confronted her about this. For example, no one asked her directly, “If you were brazen enough to lie to a congressional committee about this, why should we believe you in regard to anything else?"

Yes the same prosecutor gently asked Ford why she thought her best friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was present at the party and would corroborate her story, in fact refuted it, saying that she was never at such a party, and the one in question never happened. Ford gave a transparently evasive answer saying her friend had (unspecified) health issues, while never explaining what they were or why that should cause her to contradict what Ford had claimed.

Actually, all the alleged witnesses to the party where the incident was supposed to have taken place have denied that they were there. The one witness who was allegedly in the room where she claimed the incident took place says he wasn’t there. But none of the senators had the temerity to confront her directly with the obvious question: why should we believe your inflammatory claims about Judge Kavanaugh given that no one you have named supports any piece of your story? Moreover, no one asked her “How do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a stellar individual, and bringing incalculable pain to his family by advancing claims that no one corroborates? How can you say that you are 100% sure an incident happened, when you can’t remember anything else accurately about the evening? Did your lawyers instruct you to say 100%? What actually did your lawyers prompt you to say in your prepared statement?

No one said to her: you signed a letter attacking President Trump’s border policies and were able to get the anti-Trump ACLU to publish it; you contacted an anti-Trump paper, the Washington Post, to make your charges; you turned first to Democrats who are sworn to “resist” – actually sabotage –the Trump presidency and his judicial nominees; and you accepted attorneys recommended by Democrats, who are activist Democrat, anti-Trump lawyers. Can we conclude, therefore, that there might be a political motive behind your decision to bring up these character-ruining accusations about a rough-housing you allegedly received 37 years ago when you and Kavanaugh were too young to even vote?

No one dared to ask these questions or to vigorously pursue problematic areas of her testimony and behavior. Instead everyone expressed sympathy for her and her pain in testifying, and said how credible she sounded – even though, unlike Kavanaugh’s presentation, hers was vetted and coached by lawyers, and even though it amounted to character assassination if her memory was false.

At the bottom of these asymmetries lies the fact that despite half a century of women’s “liberation” and “hear me roar” proclamations the feminist attitude towards women is still Victorian. Women are fragile violets who wilt before the raised voices and impassioned claims of male innocence. But this image is a one way mirror. Let a moment go by and then, when they or their defenders are on the counter-attack, hear them roar. Senator Mazie Hirono put it mind-numbingly well: “Men should just shut up and stand up (for their female accusers of course).”

This is the ideologically constructed atmosphere, which makes a latter-day witch trial like the Judiciary hearings possible. Christine Blasey Ford’s story is unbelievable on its face. She claims that after the alleged incident at the alleged party, where three of her friends (who have denied it) were allegedly present, she fled. Here are some questions that were not asked:

How did she get past those friends without them seeing her and her distress?

How could she not have warned her best friend, Leland Keyser, that there were two potential rapists in the house, if that’s what she thought?

How did she get home?

How did her best friend not ask her the next day why she left without her, or what happened?

Why was this such a trauma she could not tell her best friend? One can understand why she would want to conceal from her parents that she had gone to a drinking party with boys, but her friend who was allegedly there? She doesn’t even claim that she was raped, only that she was frightened in an incident that could have happened at any of the drunken parties she might have attended as described in her high school yearbook.

On the face of it, Christine Blasey Ford’s story is not only unsubstantiated. It isn’t credible. The destruction of Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation is the equivalent of a modern-day lynching – the third that Democrats have orchestrated in the last twenty-seven years. It’s despicable. At least Republicans like Lindsey Graham have laid that charge at the door of the Democratic culprits who worked so hard to accomplish it. But, as a nation, we have obviously not reached the point where we can grant women true equality by confronting their lies and their reckless accusations with the same candor and frankness we would if they were coming out of the mouths of men.   

SOURCE








Death-loving Hairstylist Fired After Kicking Pro-Lifer on Video

Jordan Hunt, a pro-choice hairstylist in Toronto who assaulted a pro-life demonstrator last week, has been fired and may face police charges.

After he spoke directly to the camera of a Marie-Claire Bissonnette and roundhouse kicked her, it didn’t take long for Hunt’s identity to emerge, as LifeSiteNews reported. The pro-life news site was the first to post Bissonnette’s video and published a piece by her recounting the incident. She wrote in the article that Hunt confronted participants of the event "Life Chain" by defacing their signs and clothes with a marker before they briefly spoke and he kicked her.

A representative from his former employer, Noble Studio 101, made a statement condemning Hunt’s actions and confirming a social media post that said he was fired.

"We’re four strong women here," she said. "We don’t condone any kind of violence… Everybody has their own opinion and different ways of thinking, but violence is not the answer. He won’t be stepping his foot through the door again."

Bissonnette filed a report with the Toronto Police, whose spokesperson Katrina Arrogante said the incident is "on file and the investigation is ongoing. No arrests have been made at this time."

Bissonnette explained how the attack occurred in her article and in interviews. Speaking to the Pennsylvania political talk show "Two Way Radio," Bissonnette said incidents such as this have proven to her that leftist ideology is the key motivating factor.

"I’m realizing more and more that the leftist ideology, the crazy ideological warriors, they are motivated by their ideology, they aren’t motivated by the inherent good of free speech or the inherent good, let’s say, diversity that they say they are so fond of, or equality," Bissonnette said. "[The] virtue-signalling that they do, it’s not because they actually believe in the virtues; it’s because they want to further their agenda."

The video made it on YouTube’s top ten Wednesday. It shows Hunt defending abortion and then kicking Bissonnette, who can be heard shouting for the police to be called while Hunt says he tried to kick her phone.

"[The man] forcefully roundhouse-kicked me in the shoulder, which sent my phone flying and I yelled for someone to call the police. In defence of his violence he claimed he’d meant to kick my phone, and then, as a fellow Life Chain participant dialed 9-1-1, he yanked off the ribbon I’d been wearing on my chest and ran away, heading east," Bissonnette wrote.

SOURCE






The Israel Victory Project

In January 2017, Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes introduced the Israel Victory Project (IVP) in a Commentary magazine article, explaining how Israel, with U.S. support, should compel the Palestinians to give up their irredentist fantasies and bring a permanent end to the conflict. 

Later that year, with MEF help, the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CIVC) and Knesset Israel Victory Caucus (KIVC) came into existence and quickly gained support: CIVC has a bi-partisan membership of 33; KIVC has 26 Members of Knesset from 7 different parties.

MEF experts briefed top U.S. and Israeli officials, including: Benjamin Netanyahu (twice), Ron Dermer, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt, and Victoria Coates – among others.

Analysts have noticed.

Former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk writes, “Consider the steps taken by the U.S. government [and] a pattern emerges that seems to be only compressible as seeking the implementation of the Victory Caucus.”

Robert Malley (former senior White House official for Clinton and Obama) and Aaron David Miller (long-time Israeli-Palestinian peace process negotiator) write in The Atlantic, “Boiled down to its essence, the administration’s message to the Palestinians seems to be: You’ve lost, get over it.”

Let’s look at that pattern. IVP called on the U.S. government to:
Recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: President Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US Embassy there.

End benefits to the Palestinians unless they work toward full and permanent acceptance of Israel: The State Department has closed the PLO office in Washington.

Change its relations with UNRWA: Trump has cut all support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and rejected UNRWA’s strange definition of a refugee.

Not recognize a Palestinian state: President Trump has repeatedly refused to do so.

End financial aid to the Palestinian Authority: The Trump administration has cut aid to multiple Palestinian entities, including $200 million for the Palestinian Authority, $25 million to the East Jerusalem Hospital Network, and it signed the Taylor Force Act.

President Donald Trump has adopted the Israel Victory approach.

SOURCE






Australia: Dating show contestant gets rejected TWICE due to 'no dating Asians' policy – despite the girls being the same ethnicity as him

This is common and reasonable. The Australian population is about 5% Han Chinese so intermarriage is easily possible.  And if I see an Asian young woman on the arm of a man, the man is almost invariably Caucasian. With a bit of luck the woman's children with a Caucasian man will be able to pass as Caucasian.  As one instance of such a mix see below a picture of a recent "Miss Australia" winner, Francesca Hung.  She is half Chinese but that is not at all obvious



And "not standing out" is a very common wish for many people.  It tends to be safer

Caucasian men also tend to have a height advantage.  Sadly for shorties, most women prefer a tall man


A dating show contestant has been rejected by two women of the same ethnicity as him who cited a 'no dating Asians' policy.

When George Silvino, from Sydney, walked on stage for the dating show Take Me Out, two women of Asian descent instantly decided they were not interested him.

Host Joel Creasey asked the women why they weren't interested in the man to which the first woman replied: 'I kind of have a "no dating Asians" policy.'

Dating show contestant Gianna said she didn't want to date George Silvino because she has a 'not dating Asians' policy

In the show men try to impress a panel of thirty women in the hope of landing a date. If the women are interested in the men they leave their light on, if they aren't interested they switch their light off.

Mr Creasey then asked the second woman why she switched her light off for Mr Silvino. 'I'm sorry, I have a no dating Asian policy as well,' she said. 'I don't want to get mistaken for brother and sister, it could get awkward. 'Because I'm Asian I'm allowed to say that.'

After the show aired last week people had a mixed reaction to the women's dating policy.

'Attractive women: he's hot. Unattractive self-hating Asian women: he's ugly because he looks like my brother,' one person commented on the YouTube video.

'I don't get why almost all the Asians weren't open to him? I'm Asian but I think that guy is pretty good looking and I like his confidence, I'd give him a fair chance at least,' another person said.

But not everyone was upset by the women's choices. 'I have a no dating Asians policy too what's so wrong? ' one person said.

'Actually I don't see the problem. I'm Asian myself, and I like white girls more, but that doesn't mean I hate yellow girls,' another person said.

'Preference is not necessarily racist ..... and yeah, I've heard black white etc. Saying they wouldn't date their own race,' a person said.

Mr Silvino posted a response to the show on his YouTube channel said he did not think there was any malice behind the women's comments.

'Were these comments racist? Yes they absolutely f***ing were,' he said. 'In that context on a game-show there was no bad intentions. It's probably safe to say those comments were not said in a spiteful or hateful sense towards myself or other Asian men.'

However, later in the video he said based on comments he had seen on social media, it seemed like it was all too common that Asian women had these opinions of Asian men.

'Yes, of course these types of Asian b****** do exist. They think they're too good for Asian guys. They discriminate solely based on race.' 

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. 

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