Thursday, October 17, 2019






Trump’s warnings of socialism could carry extra power with Fla. Latinos who fled it

Some comments from a Leftist source

DORAL, Fla. — In this Miami suburb, where a growing Venezuelan community has nestled amid neat condos and cozy tile-roofed homes, contempt for Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, can seem thicker than the stench of nearby garbage dumps that still sometimes cuts the air.

Like many immigrants from that volatile South American nation, Nihar Perez Rojas, 51, is so eager for an end to his socialist regime that she cheered President Trump when he first backed Maduro’s opposition in January. But nine months later, Maduro remains in power, and her family’s loyalties to Trump have split, even as his campaign touts his antisocialism stance to win support in this crucial swing state.

Although Perez Rojas’s husband is likely to vote for Trump next November for precisely that reason, she and her children probably will not.

“I’d say the majority of Latinos here support Trump because they believe he will put an end to socialism, put an end to Maduro,” she said. “Is that possibility worth turning a blind eye to everything else? I ask myself that every day.”

With an uphill reelection battle and an impeachment inquiry hanging over his head, Trump has seized on — and amplified — socialist fears, painting all Democrats as purveyors of a dangerous ideology that could spell an economic catastrophe of Venezuelan proportions for the United States. Socialism is a wedge issue that has long divided Latinos in Florida and could serve as a rallying cry for conservatives nationwide, political strategists say.

“It’s nothing new here,” said Christian Ulvert, a Democratic political consultant in Miami. “What has been interesting is that in the last two years it has been turned into a national marketing campaign and a true effort to define Democrats under this cloud of socialism.”

On the American political left, democratic socialism has become the calling card of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. It also has a powerful attraction for young activists frustrated with income inequality and a warming planet and eager for universal health care and free public college.

A Gallup poll this spring found that 4 in 10 Americans now embrace some form of socialism. But those views appear to be largely based on the European version of socialism practiced in France and Italy.

For many expatriates and exiles of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, socialism elicits fears of economic decline, authoritarian leaders — and for some, memories of the food shortages, poor public services, and rampant corruption that they hoped they had left behind.

Even if Trump’s antisocialism appeals fail to resonate nationally, the strategy still could be key to his campaign if it simply helps him win Florida, a state crucial to his reelection.

Trump has invoked the threat of socialism in speeches, rallies, and conferences — and as his reelection campaign rolled out an aggressive voter initiative in June, “Latinos for Trump.” He has cranked up the warnings of socialist doom as an impeachment inquiry has embroiled his administration.

“One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism; it’s the wrecker of nations and destroyer of societies,” Trump told the United Nations General Assembly last month.

For more than two decades, Republicans in Florida — home to 4.3 million Latinos and the largest US population of Venezuelans — have used the threat of socialism with mixed results to court an older and more conservative generation of Cuban-American voters. But with roughly 190,000 Venezuelans arriving in the past decade, some strategists see Republicans bidding for a new wave of supporters.

Trump followed the Republican playbook in Florida in 2016, eking out a narrow victory in part by touting an aggressive foreign policy in Latin America that helped him do better with Latino voters than he did nationally. Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott, both Republicans, deployed the strategy again to win close races in 2018.

Grass-roots voter mobilization groups and the Florida Democratic Party have sought to punch back, putting political organizers in every major city. As Trump warns against the dangers of Maduro, they tell voters, he has rejected a temporary protection program for Venezuelans and slashed the number of refugees admitted into the United States to record lows.

“We are trying to tell people that what Donald Trump is doing is not OK,” said Luisana Pérez Fernández, who directs the state Democratic Party’s Hispanic communications.

But socialism counter-messaging also must come from national Democrats to limit the effects of the strategy, analysts said.

“We always compare it to a Bay of Pigs moment,” said Gustavo Perez, who recently rebooted the Venezuelan Democratic Club in Miami, referring to the failed US-backed invasion of Cuba under President John F. Kennedy that turned Cuban-Americans away from Democrats. “We can lose a generation of civically engaged people who are doing well and share our values but because they haven’t been contacted where they live, they won’t want to support our candidates when it really matters.”

So far, Democratic political analysts have been disappointed. The party’s presidential debates have only lightly touched on the power struggle over the legitimacy of Maduro’s government that has plunged Venezuela into economic decline and spurred a migration crisis.

“Anybody who does what Maduro does is a vicious tyrant,” Sanders said at the September debate, arguing that his own campaign platform was about treating health care as a human right, providing free child care, and giving everyone a living wage. “In terms of democratic socialism, to equate what goes on in Venezuela with what I believe is extremely unfair.”

During a TV break in the debate, meanwhile, an ad played on some stations nationwide featured a burning photo of Ocasio-Cortez and images of skulls as a Republican House candidate warned of socialism, pointing to the Khmer Rouge movement in Cambodia.

Some Venezuelans saw the ad online from their homes in Doral, nicknamed Little Venezuela or Doralzuela. Once an area of empty warehouses and cow pastures flanked by two dumps, the mushrooming enclave that is home to a Trump golf resort now hosts plazas and gated communities along wide avenues lined with palm trees and gardenias.

In April, when Trump decided to back calls for military opposition from Maduro’s opponent, Juan Guaidó, hundreds of Venezuelan expats and exiles gathered to celebrate at El Arepazo, a popular diner with Venezuelan and American flags flying over its roof.

“Something that this president has done that others haven’t is defend Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela from this radical communism; it’s a total backward slide against democracy,” Victor Piscano, 60, railed at the diner on a recent afternoon. That is why he said he planned “to vote for Donald — 100 percent.”

SOURCE 






Furious British mothers boycott Flora margarine after it pulls its adverts from Mumsnet in 'transphobia' row following complaints from a 'handful' of transgender activists

The makers of Flora face a furious backlash after the company stopped advertising on Mumsnet because campaigners claimed the parenting website was transphobic.

Mothers across Britain are now boycotting the firm that owns the margarine brand, which had responded to complaints by a 'handful' of transgender activists.

Firmly denying that they are transphobic, the founders of Mumsnet insist that they are simply defending the right to free speech.

Mumsnet was set up to allow parents to share tips or stories and boasts ten million users.

Its online discussion board has been a platform for transgender issues, particularly relating to the growing number of children now declaring a wish to change sex.

Last night, dozens of women vowed to stop buying Flora or any other product sold by the company, Upfield, which also sells I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!.

Deborah Barker commented on Twitter: 'I am wholly committed to free speech and mothers/women freedom to discuss issues which pertain to them and have decided to boycott @Flora. I was a pretty loyal customer with two teenage boys, but I cannot buy from companies that support the silencing of #women.'

Another angry Mumsnet user declared: 'Well it's no great loss to Flora is it. I mean women are only responsible for the majority of the household budgeting/shopping etc. And there's only a few million of us on here.'

Upfield's decision was announced on Friday after campaigners for transgender rights said they would stop buying Flora while it was linked to the parenting website.

One activist Helen Islan, who uses the pseudonym Mimmymum on Twitter, tweeted: 'I like Flora but there is absolutely no way I am going to buy it while it is partnering with Mumsnet which platforms nasty, trans-hostile posts on its website.'

Ms Islan was previously embroiled in controversy after complaints she made to police about a transsexual, Miranda Yardley, resulted in Britain's first hate crime prosecution. The case was thrown out and costs awarded to Yardley.

Within an hour of Ms Islan's comment about Flora, Upfield responded online saying it took its 'human rights and diversity policies very seriously' and had started an investigation.

Transgender rights campaigners made claims that Mumsnet was hosting 'nasty, trans-hostile posts' and just a day later Flora had removed its adverts from the parenting site    +2
Transgender rights campaigners made claims that Mumsnet was hosting 'nasty, trans-hostile posts' and just a day later Flora had removed its adverts from the parenting site

The next day the firm released a statement telling its customers: 'We've investigated. We are wholly committed to our values, which include treating everyone equally, so have made the decision to no longer work with Mumsnet.'

Last night, Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts accused the brand of bowing to pressure from 'a handful of activists on Twitter'.

She added: 'Mumsnet has turned down hundreds of thousands of pounds of advertising over the years from companies which we feel don't make parents' lives easier, so we're well used to putting purpose before profit. I do think in the end consumers will value companies which show a bit of backbone.'

Laura Perrins, co-editor of online magazine The Conservative Woman, said: 'It is a ridiculous decision that will have a chilling impact on free speech.

'Upfield are bowing to an extremist view if they think you can't discuss these matters on an internet forum. If people want to, they should make their feelings known with a boycott of their own.'

SOURCE 






Trump Announces $50 Million for Christians, Other Minorities in Syria

After facing criticism from Christian leaders over his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, President Donald Trump defended the decision in front of a largely evangelical crowd Saturday.

“This week I directed $50 million to support Christians and other religious minorities in Syria. I did it on Friday,” Trump said during his remarks at the Values Voter Summit. 

The president said his administration has so far provided more than $500 million in support of religious minorities oppressed in Syria.

Pastor Andrew Brunson, the American pastor who was held captive in a Turkish prison for two years before the administration negotiated his release, was on the podium with Trump and prayed with the president before the speech.                

“I’ve made clear to Turkey that if they do not meet their commitments, including the protection of religious minorities, and also watching over the ISIS prisoners were captured, we will impose a very swift, strong and severe economic sanctions, like we did in my negotiations to get Pastor Brunson out,” Trump said. “Otherwise, I hate to say this pastor, you’d still be there. I hate to say this also–and this isn’t done from ego–any other president of the United States, you would still be there.”   

Shortly after Trump’s speech concluded, the White House released more details, stating the $50 million would be used for “stabilization assistance for Syria to protect persecuted ethnic and religious minorities, and advance human rights.” The money is set to go for emergency Syrian human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and reconciliation efforts supporting ethnic and religious minority victims of the conflict.       

After Trump announced he was withdrawing U.S. military from Syria, exposing the Kurds and possibly Christians to danger, Christian leaders such as the Rev. Franklin Graham and the Rev. Pat Robertson called on Trump to reconsider.

Regarding the Kurds, Trump said: “Let them have their borders, but I don’t think our soldiers should be there for the next 15 years guarding a border between Turkey and Syria when we can’t guard our own borders.”

Trump called generals in Washington, “highly overrated,” and complained, “The military industrial complex came down on me.”

But, the president had a sobering tone as he recalled emotional stories of family members greeting the returning coffins of fallen soldiers.

“We’ve been in these wars now, one of them 19 years, and they didn’t fight to win,” the president said, a reference to the conflict in Afghanistan. “They fight to just stay there. And, in Syria, we were supposed to be there for 30 days and we’ve been there for 10 years. These wars, they never end.”

He added, to applause from the crowd: “We can’t stay there forever. We have to bring our great heroes home. It’s time.”

Trump also talked about the House Democrat impeachment investigation into his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which they talked about former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the country–among other topics.

Trump specifically criticized two California Democrats–House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, leading the probe, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“Maybe we just impeach them because they are lying,” Trump said. “What they are doing is a terrible thing to our country.”

Members of Congress can’t be impeached, but in rare instances have been expelled from Congress.

Trump said Schiff was “crooked” for making up the contents of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian leader during the opening of an intelligence committee hearing last month. After being criticized during the hearing, Schiff said he meant it as a parody.

Trump noted Pelosi had previously appeared to be staving off an impeachment effort by her more radical members.

“For those of you who think she was reasonable for the last six months, when she said, no, no, no–I said she’s going to do it. She just wants to have it carried out closer to the election,” Trump said. “Not a good person. I think she hates our country. If she didn’t hate our country, she wouldn’t be doing this to our country. It’s a fraud.”

Trump said the far left is determined to “shred our Constitution and eradicate our beliefs.”

“Frankly these people are crazy,” the president said.

He noted the contrast between the whistleblower report and the transcript of the call.

“The whistle blower said quid pro quo eight times,” the president said. “It was a little off. No times.”

SOURCE 





Australia:  Golden skirts! It’s the social engineering ball

Affirmative action programs for women are not merely offensive and patronising but are badly targeted

In the course of one week, we had the rare good fortune to be given three penetrating insights into a single truth: namely that many, probably most, affirmative action programs for women are not merely offensive and patronising but are badly targeted.

These programs produce results the opposite of those intended, and are possibly unlawful, if not also immoral. Many are simply disguised devices to heap more privilege on already privileged women at great cost to other women, shareholders, consumers and ordinary Australians.

The first insight came last Friday when The Australian Financial Review’s Boss Magazine published its list of the 10 most powerful company directors in Australia, measured by adding the market capitalisation of the Australian Securities Exchange-listed companies on whose boards the director sits. Lo and behold, the long-predicted consequences of quotas for female directors became clear: seven of the top 10 directo­rs are women.

That 70 per cent of Australia’s busiest company directors are women does not mean the numbers of female company director­s on ASX-listed companies overall has moved much — that figure remains stuck at about 30 per cent.

Nor does it mean that women are becoming chief executives of listed companies in greater number­s as a prelude to a career as a non-executive director.

While women fill 70 per cent of the top 10 directors list, men still fill upwards of 90 per cent of chief executive positions­ at ASX 100 companies. That is some anomaly. With some honourable exceptions, such as Catherine Livingstone, the female board members in the top 10 directo­rs list are not the corporate titans one might expect or like to see there.

These stark numbers reveal that the “golden skirts” phenomenon, first observed in Norway after gender quotas were mandated, has taken hold in Australia. The golden skirts spectacle happens­ when quotas meet shortages of qualified women. A few qualified women get swamped with offers of board seats. The combination of shortages and quotas drives up the economic value of the scarce resource.

So next time you read about lobby groups such as Chief Executive Women (whose members don’t have to be chief executives) or the Australian Institute of Compan­y Directors lobbying for female quotas for company directorships, understand that this is a naked demand for those women who are already on the lucrative company board roundabout to be given more gigs. It is a demand for more privilege for the already privileged.

Steps that would make a real difference to women in the workforce, such as getting more women into chief executive or C-suite roles, take too long and are too difficult for the quota cheer squad because they require women to have serious­ long-term business careers and build skills and experience across decades. As men do.

Even worse for the golden skirts, delivering a healthy pipeline of qualified women with chief executive or C-suite CVs would alleviate the scarcity that drives up the golden skirts’ market value. More women in the market would strip a few women of their artificially inflated market value.

The second insight came on Monday, when Australian Super repeated its threats to use its voting­ power to coerce boards of ASX-listed companies to have at least two female directors. Politic­ally activist industry super funds such as Australian Super provide the heft and oxygen to grow and enforce these programs for the privileged.

Note Australian Super adds no rider that female appointments be made only where they are the best-qualified — in other words, that appointments are made in the best interests of the company.

No, this is an unqualified, unconditional­ demand to appoint more women, or else Australian Super will vote against existing direct­ors. It is saying, in effect, that the circumstances of the particular company and the interests of its shareholders are irrelevant to them. The interests of individual shareholders will be sacrificed, if necessary, on the altar of Australian Super’s social engineering program.

And, of course, weak boards surrender to them by instructing search firms not to bother even considering male candidates. If the Don Bradman of company directors volunteered for a board being targeted by Australian Super, he would be ignored in favour of a woman. How can a gendered outcome that consciously ignores a sizeable part of the talent pool, including possibly the most talented, be a proper exercise of director’s duties? The short answer is that it is not.

By the way, shouldn’t our regulators be checking that Australian Super is meeting its “best interests” duties under superannuation legislation? Is anyone home at the Australian Securities & Investments Commission and the Aust­ralian Prudential Regulation Authority? Or are “woke” causes now beyond the reach of the law?

The third illustration of the power of special pleading for the already privileged came with a whinge released on Friday by the Law Council of Australia, headed by Arthur Moses SC. The Law Council’s report complains that the “pay gap” between male and female barristers is widening.

Apparently, women conducted 25 per cent of court cases last year but received only 17 per cent of the fee pool. At least when The Australian reported this it quoted Sydney­ barrister Sophie York, who acknowledged that the results­ are more complex than a simplistic whine about a “pay gap”. For example, York acknowledged that “different life choices” may be at play here.

Let’s include more nuance from the real world. It takes a long time to deliver social change and the report­ simply reflects a fee pool dominated by, and heavily skewed to, present leaders of the profes­sion. In other words, by men who went to law school 40 years ago when the university intake was mainly male. In 40 years from now the division of the fee pool will ­presumably reflect the fact today’s university law school intak­e is mainly female.

But, for now, using affirmative action directives to favour women simply privileges an already privil­eged group of female barristers above the entitlement their numbers­, skills and experience deserv­e.

This does not appear to trouble the Law Council. Its “equitable briefing” policy demands affirmative action outcomes now, or at least by next year. It wants women briefed in 30 per cent of all matters and paid 30 per cent of all fees by then, irrespective of how many women are at the bar, how long they have been there or what their skills and experience may be.

Its briefing policy requires that when a client requests their solic­itor to prepare “a list of barristers who might be engaged, women barristers should be included in that list”.

Can you imagine choosing your neurosurgeon this way? You go to your GP and ask for a list of neurosurgeons for your life-threatening operation and your GP gives you a list chosen, at least in part, by gender. Would you be grateful to be told that your sur­gical needs should give way to sociall­y progressive outcomes?

Similarly, how can a briefing policy that subordinates the best interests of the client in that ­client’s individual circumstances to desired gender outcomes be a proper exercise of a solicitor’s fiduc­iary duty of care? How can the Law Council and its constit­uent law societies tolerate this?

Maybe woke causes are indeed above the law.

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

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



No comments: