Monday, March 11, 2019

The party of Braying Jackasses is squabbling over a resolution condemning anti-Semitism

It seems like only yesterday that House Democrats were going to steadfastly rebuke the racist face of anti-Semitism in their ranks once and for all.

Oh, wait; it was yesterday. And they declined to do so amid intra-party squabbling over identity politics.

The recurring theme of freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism brought Democrats to the brink of introducing a resolution condemning such anti-Semitism, though avoiding actually naming Omar. In fact, Nancy Pelosi even offered the asinine assessment that Omar’s comments were not “intentionally anti-Semitic.” But an uprising led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez forced an expansion of that resolution to include “all forms of hate,” including “Islamaphobia.” It’s no coincidence that Omar is Muslim. The Latina Ocasio-Cortez even wants anti-“Latinx+” statements to draw a rebuke.

Several 2020 presidential contenders from the Senate, including Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, jumped to Omar’s defense.

Pelosi even reportedly grew so frustrated that she dropped her microphone and walked out of a closed-door Democrat meeting, bitterly complaining, “Well if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking.” Perhaps all she needed to do was sleep on it, as Democrats will reportedly vote on the watered-down resolution later today.

The Wall Street Journal aptly notes, “An exercise that began with trying to distance Democrats from an anti-Semitic slur has evolved into a display of political cowardice that equates smears against Jews that have a horrific historical meaning with generalized ‘hate.’ Thus does a specific hatred get consumed, and trivialized, in today’s Democratic identity politics. And Ms. Omar can keep her Foreign Affairs Committee seat.”

Moreover, while Ocasio-Cortez wants to deflect this hate problem to Republicans, it is Democrats who are trafficking in hatred these days — especially hate for Donald Trump. In fact, that’s what’s so ironic about this whole thing. As PowerLine’s John Hinderaker points out, “Ilhan Omar hates like a Democrat, and she openly expresses that hate like a Democrat. The problem is that she hates people who mostly support the Democratic Party.” I.e., Jews. As long as the hate is directed at groups leftists deem worthy of it, especially on the Right, Democrats are pleased. But you have to hate the “correct” people.


Federal judge lifts last of injunctions against transgender military ban

The last injunction blocking President Trump’s transgender military ban from taking effect was lifted by a federal judge Thursday, moving the administration closer to being able to enforce the policy.

In a six-page order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge George Russell III wrote that he was lifting his injunction because “the court is bound by the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the preliminary injunctions in their entirety."

Though courts have now ruled to lift all four injunctions that had been placed on the policy, advocates for transgender troops say one remains in effect due to a stipulation in that court’s ruling.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the existing policy allowing open service by transgender people will stay in place until “further guidance” is issued in the “near future.”

"The department is pleased with the district court's decision to stay the final injunction against the department's proposed transgender policy,” Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said in the statement. “The 2016 policy will remain in effect until the department issues further guidance, which will be forthcoming in the near future."

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January to stay two of the injunctions. That followed a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier in January that lifted another of the injunctions.

Transgender troops have been serving openly since June 2016 when the Obama administration lifted the previous ban on their service.

In July 2017, President Trump tweeted he would reverse the open service policy, saying he would “not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

Four lawsuits were filed against the ban, and lower courts in all four had issued injunctions blocking the policy from taking effect while the suits work their way through the court system.

In March 2018, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis released a policy that would allow transgender people to serve if they do so in their biological sex.

Transgender people and their advocates argue the Mattis policy is still effectively a ban akin to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

The ruling issued Thursday stemmed from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six transgender service members.

The ACLU called Thursday’s decision “deeply disappointing” and vowed to continue fighting the Trump policy.

“Each and every claim made by President Trump to justify this ban can be easily debunked by the conclusions drawn from the Department of Defense’s own review process,” Joshua Block, senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project, said in a statement. “Our clients are brave men and women who should be able to continue serving their country ably and honorably without being discriminated against by their own commander in chief.”

The injunction ruled on by the D.C. Circuit Court is still in place, though. Advocates say it remains in force for the time being to allow the plaintiff’s lawyers time to decide whether to request a rehearing by the appeals court’s full bench.

The lawyers in the case have not said yet whether they will request a rehearing. But in statements, the organizations leading the suit expressed confidence they would ultimately prevail in striking down the Trump policy.

“The Trump administration keeps pushing to enforce a senseless and harmful ban,” Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project director, said in a statement. “There is no question this ban weakens our military by excluding from service transgender people who meet all of the military’s rigorous readiness and medical standards. With the Doe injunction still in place, we will continue fighting this discriminatory ban.”


Muslim evil

Muslim values are barbaric

A man who was jailed for a sickening plot to throw acid at a toddler, three, has been attacked three times in prison, it emerged today. Jabar Paktia, 42, was battered by inmates after he was arrested for his part in the assault on child, which took place on July 21 last year.

The young victim had suffered serious burns to his face and arm and screamed: ‘I hurt, I hurt!’ after being doused with acid at a Home Bargains store in Worcester.

Dad-of-four Paktia was sentenced to 12 years in prison at Worcester Crown Court on Wednesday for his role in the depraved plot. The group was charged with conspiring to throw sulphuric acid with intent to ‘burn, maim or disfigure’ the boy in July last year.

He had been friends with the boy’s 40-year-old Muslim father, who organised the attack in a bid to smear his estranged wife to make her look like an unfit mother.

Balraj Bhatia, defending Paktia, told the court his client had been left with ‘significant injuries’ after being attacked by fellow prisoners since being behind bars. He said: ‘He has been attacked on three separate occasions in custody, receiving significant injuries as a result. ‘He accepts he has been injured and may continue to be injured.’

Paktia, of Wolverhampton, and his five co-conspirators, including the child’s father were caged for a total of 78 years. Judge Robert Juckes QC described the case as ‘unique’ and added: ‘I have never come across a case in which there are so many people involved in targeting a child.

‘Even battle hardened crown court judges were sickened when they heard the news that someone had attacked a three-year-old boy with sulphuric acid. ‘It became increasingly apparent how well-planned this was, with links going back to the man at the heart of this attack, who was the boy’s own father.’

Adam Cech, 27, who squirted the acid on the boy and Jan Dudi, 25, both of Handsworth, Birmingham were jailed for 12 years. Saied Hussini, 41, of Harlsden, West London was sentenced to 14 years in prison, whereas Norbert Pulko, 22, of Tottenham, North London received 12 years.

The dad, from Wolverhampton, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was jailed for a 16 years and was branded ‘monstrous’ by the judge.

The court heard Cech, Dudi and Pulko had followed the three-year-old boy, his brother, sister and their mother into the shop at the Srub Hill Retail Park.  Cech then squirted the youngster with sulphuric acid as he looked at a display of footballs with his older brother.

The child suffered a 10cm burn injury to his left forearm, and a 3cm burn on his forehead, which needed specialist hospital treatment.


Right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos is set to be granted an Australian visa with the Immigration Minister about to rule there's no reason he can't come here

Right-wing poster boy Milo Yiannopoulos is set to be granted an Australian visa with the Immigration Minister saying there's no reason he should be banned.

Minister David Coleman is understood to not be convinced by the Department of Home Affairs' reasons for denying Yiannopoulos a visa, The Australian reported.

Some fear his controversial views would spark violent protests during his planned speaking tour across five Australian cities.

The Department of Home Affairs warned the 33-year-old it was likely to deny him entry following riots during his 2017 Australian tour and an unpaid $50,000 bill issued by Victoria police.

The claim Yiannopoulos is about to be granted a visa comes after weeks of pressure from conservative MPs such as One Nation's Pauline Hanson.

The conservative provocateur's supporters clashed with protesters who chanted 'f*** off Nazi', which led to seven arrests during his 2017 Sydney tour.

His Melbourne leg of the tour was even more violent, with police forced to use sticks to keep the demonstrators at bay.

The 33-year-old had initially organised a 'Deplorables' speaking tour with convicted criminal Tommy Robinson and self-described 'western chauvinist' Gavin McInnes in December.

The tour was rescheduled to February 2019 but was cancelled for the second time because visa applications were still being considered by government authorities.

Yiannopoulos intends to tour before the expected May federal election, although there isn't a clear date when he will arrive

Victorian MP and former human rights commissioner Tim Wilson said Yiannopoulos was 'self-absorbed' and was an 'attention-seeker'.

'But free speech is for everyone, hence I was surprised by the news and have raised it with the minister,' he said.

Pauline Hanson said she had contacted Mr Coleman through numerous letters, texts and phone calls – urging the government to grant Yiannopoulos a visiting visa in the past few weeks.

Yiannopoulos is known for his commentaries mocking left-wing political correctness and feminists.



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


No comments: