Wednesday, July 08, 2020



WSJ Slaps Liberal Media Across the Face for Its Embarrassing Meltdown Over Trump's Mt. Rushmore Speech

If you read The New York Times, or other liberal publications, and their coverage of President Trump’s of his speech at Mount Rushmore, you’d think a proto-Nazi rally was held. It was “dark and divisive.” It was filled by phantom claims, like left-wing mobs running amok and their campaign to erase our history. It was racist.

It was a ‘woke’ review of the speech, which mean it was total garbage. Trump celebrated America, which makes this a rally for white supremacy. This is where we are right now with the Left. They’re violent, unhinged, historically illiterate, and anti-American. It was always there, but now they’re out and proud of it.

CNN compiled a most awesomely outrageous claims list regarding the speech. There were no such things, and it only made the anti-Trump network look more like a clown show. If these folks are mad about the “CNN sucks” chant, well—this is how they earn it. If you love America, you’re a racist. That’s the line from the left-wing scum of this country. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wasn’t having any of this nonsense and expertly dissected the tantrum their lefty colleagues threw, noting that a lot of what Trump said has been echoed before from figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Frederick Douglass. Are these lauded figures of American history black white supremacists now (via WSJ):


"Contrary to the media reporting, the America Mr. Trump described is one of genuine racial equality and diversity. He highlighted the central ideal of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” As he rightly put it, “these immortal words set in motion the unstoppable march of freedom” that included the abolition of slavery more than a half century later.

Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. also believed this to be true, and Mr. Trump cited them both, as he did other American notables black and white, historic and more recent. There was not a hint of racial division in his words except for those who want to distort their meaning for their own political purposes. In any other time this paean to American exceptionalism would have been unexceptional...."


Divisive? Mr. Trump’s speech was certainly direct, in his typical style. But it was only divisive if you haven’t been paying attention to the divisions now being stoked on the political left across American institutions. Mr. Trump had the temerity to point out that the last few weeks have seen an explosion of “cancel culture—driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees.”

Describing this statement of fact as “divisive” proves his point. Newspaper editors are being fired over headlines and op-eds after millennial staff revolts. Boeing CEO David Calhoun last week welcomed the resignation of a communications executive for opposing —33 years ago when he was in the military— women in combat. The Washington Post ran an op-ed this weekend urging that the name of America’s first President be struck from Washington and Lee University.

Any one of these events would be remarkable, but together with literally thousands of others around the country they represent precisely what Mr. Trump describes—a left-wing cultural revolution against traditional American values of free speech and political tolerance. And he called for Americans not to cower but to oppose this assault:

“We must demand that our children are taught once again to see America as did Reverend Martin Luther King, when he said that the Founders had signed ‘a promissory note’ to every future generation. Dr. King saw that the mission of justice required us to fully embrace our founding ideals. . . . He called on his fellow citizens not to rip down their heritage, but to live up to their heritage.”

The media already had their hot takes primed and ready to go. They didn’t listen or read the text. These people are wrong about everything and have been for the past four years. And when you see the text and compare to their headlines, it’s no shock as to why people don’t trust them. They are the enemies of the people, who would rather coddle and excuse left-wing rioting and violence, seeing no irony at all when CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta had to be surrounded by fences to prevent this horde from destroying the building.

SOURCE 






Grandpa of Murdered 11-Year Old Destroys Black Lives Matter Charade with One Sentence

It Seems 'Black Lives Matter' Only When a Cop Pulls the Trigger

As police across the country are pulling back amid a wave of angry protests and violent rioting, an 11-year-old boy was shot and killed during a family cookout on the Fourth of July in Washington, D.C. Police are offering $25,000 for information leading to an arrest. The victim, identified as Davon McNeal, reportedly loved football. He was shot in the head in Anacostia and pronounced dead at a local hospital, FOX 5 D.C. reported. One of his grandfathers lamented black-on-black crime and criticized Black Lives Matter for ignoring it.

“Everybody’s just saying they’re just tired – tired of the shootings in the community,” John Ayala, McNeal’s paternal grandfather, told FOX 5. “Everybody’s running around here thinking they’re Uzi-toting, dope-sucking, psychopathic killing machines and they’re just destroying lives.”

“We’re protesting for months, for weeks, saying, ‘Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter.’ Black lives matter it seems like, only when a  police officer shoots a black person,” Ayala lamented, bitterly. “What about all the black-on-black crime that’s happening in the community?”

Ayala said the family had moved out of the Anacostia neighborhood due to the violence in the area, but they still have relatives in the community. McNeal’s mother hosted a “stop-the-violence” cookout for neighbors and the boy had only stopped by to pick up a phone charger and earbuds.

Ayala told FOX 5 that someone opened fire shortly after McNeal got out of the car. Everyone dropped to the ground. The shooting took place around 9:20 p.m.

One of McNeal’s grandfathers told FOX 5 that he hates the Fourth of July because he does not know whether to celebrate or duck from gunfire.

Tony Lawson, the victim’s maternal grandfather, broke into tears speaking about his grandson’s love for football. He added that his daughter — McNeal’s mother — works with Washington, D.C., Councilmember Trayon White and is a D.C. Violence Interrupter. She set up the event to help pacify the community.

“He was a good kid. I mean, his life gone,” Lawson said, fighting back tears. “Eleven years old, he hadn’t lived his life yet. Eleven years old. We got to stop killing each other. Stop it. Put the guns down.”

“Parents, you know your son out. You know what your kids out here doing. If you know, stop ‘em. Stop’ em before they hurt somebody else. Just stop it, stop it, please stop it,” Lawson added.

Davon McNeal does not fit the profile of an unarmed black man shot by police, but his life still matters. The Black Lives Matter movement zeroes in on a tiny minority of black victims, ignoring the broad statistics that show there is no “epidemic” of racist police shootings. Meanwhile, the protests over the horrific police killing of George Floyd devolved into violent riots that destroyed black lives, black livelihoods, and black monuments.

At least 21 people have died in the riots, most of them black. Retired police chief David Dorn was killed by looters breaking into his pawn shop in St. Louis. Chris Beaty was shot while helping two women who were being mugged in Indianapolis. Italia Marie Kelly was trying to leave a protest when she was shot and killed in Davenport, Iowa. Antonio Mays Jr., a 16-year-old boy, was shot and killed outside the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP) in Seattle. Secoriea Taylor — an 8-year-old girl — was fatally shot as her mother attempted to park a car near a group of protesters close to the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks had been killed by police.

These victims were all black, and their lives mattered. Rioters may have intended to protect black lives, but their lawless actions led to these tragic deaths, and the anti-police sentiment expressed in these riots has had a chilling effect on police across the country.

If the Black Lives Matter movement were serious about protecting all black lives, it would condemn the violent riots and address black-on-black crime. As Ayala put it, “Black lives matter it seems like, only when a  police officer shoots a black person.”

SOURCE 






NAACP and Anti-Defamation League Don't Believe We're All Created Equal

America is still world’s great hope. It’s why people flock to this shining city on a hill from across the globe. America is the land of immigrants. One of my sisters emigrated from Vietnam, and my wife’s grandfather was from Germany. The immigrant population in our country far exceeds any other nation at 46,627,102 precious souls; that’s nearly four times more than the nation second to us in immigration.

But if you watched our blamestream media, you would think this is the most oppressive and racist regime in the world! Some BLM leaders want to “burn it all down.” Which country should America be more like, SJWs? I’m all about ensuring justice and equality. Those words carry with them such an incredible weight of subjectivity. We are an exceptional nation for so many reasons. That doesn’t deny our past or present flaws. The Left is hellbent, though, on fundamentally and violently transforming America.

Capitalizing on the unrest and division, numerous “civil rights” groups are further trying to erode what makes America exceptional—our First Amendment. And tech titans of (in)tolerance are more than happy to pretend we’re in China or Russia and suppress free speech.

Recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the NAACP launched an anti-free speech campaign called “Stop Hate For Profit.” On the surface of it, it seems understandable and acceptable. Who wants crazy neo-nazis and Holocaust deniers to have a public platform (other than racists, of course)? Even the ACLU defended Nazi and KKK groups’ free speech rights. Why? As painful as freedom of expression is, sometimes, actual hate is protected by the First Amendment (provided it doesn’t incite violence).

But “hate” is something that has been weaponized by the Left. Teachers can be fired for using the “wrong” pronoun. Public figures, like Franklin Graham, have been censored for speaking about homosexuality from a Biblical worldview. My organization, The Radiance Foundation, was censored by Instagram for a meme declaring Planned Parenthood kills more black lives in two weeks than the KKK killed in a century.

Under the guise of fighting “disinformation” and “protecting black users” (how infantilizing), ADL, the NAACP and a handful of other radically pro-abortion groups are demanding Corporate America withdraw their advertising dollars from Facebook, a social media platform that has already demonstrated its excessive censorship for years. The Stop Hate for Profit campaign is perfectly fine with (actual) hate, bigotry and violence perpetrated by the political Left, not listing a single example of racist, violent, anti-Christian or anti-conservative posts. The campaign wants to “send Facebook a powerful message: Your profits will never be worth promoting hate, bigotry, racism, antisemitism and violence.” Violence? You mean like promoting the destruction of millions of humans deemed non-persons who are dismembered and mutilated in utero in the name of “reproductive justice”?

There’s just so much irony in the NAACP and ADL being so radically pro-abortion. How can you claim to fight discrimination when you support the most violent form of it in abortion? ADL labels prolifers as “extremists”, putting us in the same categories as neo-nazis and racist skinheads. The anti-defamation group has no problem defaming the pro-life movement by casting the fight against abortion as a “white genocide conspiracy” that “defines modern white supremacist thought.”

Using Alabama’s Heartbeat Bill, ADL disgustingly portrayed the fight against the injustice of abortion as being led by white supremacists. The group quotes White Aryan Resistance founder Tom Metzger as proof of their absurd claim: “I have instructed my comrades in the Alabama state legislature to introduce a bill that releases all nonwhite women within the borders of Alabama to have free abortions on demand.”

I’ve been a leader in the pro-life movement for over a decade now. Perhaps ADL missed my speech supporting Alabama’s Heartbeat Bill on the capitol steps of Montgomery. I’m brown, by the way.

These white supremacists are not even part of our movement. Not one of my colleagues has ever displayed any racism—ever. It’s actually quite the opposite; they have worked tirelessly to save every life, regardless of hue. It’s remarkable how a black pro-abortion Democrat from Ohio—Rep. Janine Boyd—proposed the same thing as a white supremacist by demanding (in her defeated amendment) that only black babies be exempted from protection in Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill. 

As far as the NAACP, aka the National Association for the Abortion of Colored People, the group forgot that free speech is a civil right. They sued me and lost in a two-year federal court battle because I (accurately) parodied their name in an Op-Ed.

In a prescient speech, “A Plea for Free Speech In Boston,” slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass declared: “Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”

We’re being robbed today by the very groups who claim to fight for equality under the law. Perhaps they need to actually re-read the Law of the Land. What better time to get reacquainted with American ideals than on Independence Day? In the meantime, as a factivist, I’ll keep defending and promoting the truths that are so self-evident.

SOURCE 






Australia proving 'resilient' to China's influence efforts, says CSIS

China's attempts to influence Australian attitudes and politics are ultimately aimed at peeling Australia away from its US alliance and neutralising its impact on geostrategic issues, says a leading US think tank.

Australia has been included by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic & International Studies alongside Japan, Germany and the UK as case studies of advanced economies that have been targeted by Beijing and Moscow.

"Like Japan, Australia is an attractive target for Chinese influence operations because of its strategic value as a US ally in the increasingly contested Indo-Pacific region," writes Amy Searight, a non-resident, senior associate for Asia at the CSIS.

"Neutralising Australia on a key issue such as the South China Sea would pay huge dividends for Beijing by reducing American regional leadership," say the authors of a new report. EPA

"Neutralising Australia on a key issue such as the South China Sea would pay huge dividends for Beijing by reducing American regional leadership."

The report by the CSIS, which receives funding from the Australian government, comes amid growing US media attention and awareness of what many on both sides of the political divide regard as China's economic bullying of Australia in recent weeks and months.

Even as attitudes harden in the US against China, Australia's case is increasingly making prime-time news. Brian Kilmeade, a high-profile pro-Donald Trump commentator on "Fox & Friends", last week urged Republican House of Representatives minority leader Kevin McCarthy to push for American purchases of Australian iron ore to counter China.

Ms Searight says Australia’s economic dependency on China and its large Chinese diaspora "create points of leverage for Beijing to exploit".

The CSIS also accuses China of trying to "divide Australia's multicultural society" by seeking to unite its Chinese diaspora inside the country to support Beijing "while also exploiting racial sensitivities".

Alongside resources trade, and tourism and education, China has a "natural constituency of support in the Australian business community and among university leadership for a cooperative relationship with China", she writes.

While Australia's "free and vibrant press" has helped draw attention to "Chinese malign influence activities in Australia", Australia's Chinese-language media is seen as having been largely co-opted or purchased by Beijing-linked interests.

"The growing use of WeChat and other Chinese-language social media further limits access of Chinese-speaking Australians to information and perspectives that fall outside of the Beijing-controlled narrative," Ms Searight writes.

The report notes a deterioration in Australian opinions on China since 2008, when 52 per cent surveyed by the Pew Research Centre had a "favourable" view of the Sino giant. In 2018 that number had shrunk to 36 per cent, with "unfavourable" views rising to 57 per cent from 40 per cent 12 years ago.

"Despite its vulnerabilities, Australia’s democratic political culture has proven resilient to China’s growing attempts to influence its political environment," the report's authors conclude.

Still, the CSIS warns that China and Russia are adapting and mutating their efforts, with Beijing starting to emulate Moscow's tactics by creating fake social media accounts to spread lies, "particularly related to the US administration's handling of the coronavirus epidemic".

"Just as China is learning from Russia, democracies under threat can learn from one another.

"Increasing this cooperation and finding common approaches to countering malign influence activities are the best ways to ensure those activities continue to fall short of their goals."

For the purposes of the CSIS study, the authors have adopted former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull's definition of malign influence activities as being "covert, coercive, or corrupting". Mr Turnbull outlined the definition in a speech to parliament in December 2017 when he introduced his espionage and foreign interference bill.

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
`
************************************



Tuesday, July 07, 2020



Black Lives Matter protests have sprung up in dozens of countries. Leaders of the movement speak out about the changes that need to happen now

The above heading, from a current article in Newsweak, promises more than it delivers.  Most of the article is a large catalog of people who have suffered at the hands of police.  Because minorities have on average suffered more than whites, it is assumed that the police are wrong in some way -- more racist, in particular.  That minorities might be more prone to criminal behaviour is not considered or that minorities might be more aggressive, unco-operative and hostile to the police is not considered or even mentioned 

Such a one-eyed article is unlikely to offer any real information but there are a couple of paragraphs in the article that do set out what changes black leaders want.  I have reproduced them below.

The first quest is almost amusing.  The author wants research directed to understanding why racism persists in Britain and how it needs to be addressed.  I can assure him that there has been a great deal of academic research on that question already. I have quite a few articles in the journals on that topic myself.

And the major finding of that reseach is that racial discrimination emerges very early in life -- even in babies. So whether you think  intolerance of difference is inborn or not the challenges it poses are much the same.  It runs deep in the human psyche and is very widespread even in educated adults.  Most adults in current society learn not to express their adverse judgments openly but actions such as "white flight" reveal that their deep-down attitudes and judgments are little different from what we have seen in most of human history -- which is open derogatory judgements of minorities.

However you look at it, the possibility that more  research will reveal anything liklely to bring about change is vanishingly small.  What existing research tells us is that "racism"  will always be with us.

The second proposal for change below is more reasonable: a reallocation of police tasks.  Libertarians have long argued that too much of human behaviour has been criminalized.  They would like to see all drug use made legal everywhere for instance.  A huge amount of police work is devoted to drug crime and often leads to severe abuses.  "No knock raids", for instance are almost entirely devoted to seizing evidence of drug use before that evidence can be destroyed in some way -- by flushing drugs down the toilet, for instance. 

Taking drugs out of the purview of the police would free up lots of police  time that could be devoted to a more patient approach to challenges.  Many police-involved deaths are of mentally ill people and a more patient approch to them would often remove the need for a bullet.



What Oke would like Britain to do is use this moment to tackle the issues laid bare by George Floyd’s death and dedicate substantial resources and funding to understanding why racism persists in Britain and how it needs to be addressed. She seems to be, at once, both optimistic and skeptical about the likelihood of success. “We hope this is a movement of genuine social change across our nation,” Oke said. But, “we feel almost nervous to believe in what the longevity could be of the change.”

Black Lives Matter co-founder Cullors is an advocate of defunding, which redirects money typically budgeted for law enforcement to other community-serving initiatives, including education, healthcare, mental health services and social services programs. “This is a watershed moment,” Cullors told Newsweek. “And we need bold and courageous approaches.”

Already, in the U.S. and in Canada, the idea is taking root, with city council members in Minneapolis voting to dismantle the police department implicated in Floyd’s death and replace it with a new community-based public safety system. Meanwhile, officials in Toronto are discussing a motion seeking to slash that city’s police department budget by 10 percent.

“A significant re-allocation of resources away from ineffective or harmful police approaches and toward programs that demonstrably reduce crime could actually improve public safety,” said Paul Hirschfield, an associate sociology and criminal justice professor at Rutgers University. “Much of what the police do—random patrols, patrolling schools, traffic enforcement, and drug enforcement—do far too little for public safety to justify the enormous expense.”

More HERE 





Exposing the Lies of Black Lives Matter

Black Lives Matter (BLM) was established in 2013 by a trio of self-identified Marxist revolutionaries. Striving to make white Americans “uncomfortable about institutional racism” and the “structural oppression” that allegedly “prevents so many [black people] from realizing their dreams,” BLM contends that blacks living under America's “white supremacist system” are routinely targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes.” That claim has become an article of faith for the millions of American leftists who dutifully parrot BLM's talking points. The remainder of this article is dedicated to providing hard data which exposes BLM's worldview as nothing more than a mountain of malicious lies.

Debunking BLM's Claims About Police Use of Force

A major Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report in 2001 examined incidents where police in the United States used deadly force to kill criminal suspects between 1976 and 1998. During that 23-year span, 42% of all suspects killed by police were black – a figure that comported precisely with the percentage of violent crimes committed by African Americans during that same period. This is enormously significant because we would expect that in police forces not plagued by systemic racism, officers would shoot suspects of various racial or ethnic backgrounds at rates closely resembling their respective involvement in the types of serious crimes most likely to elicit the use of force by police. And indeed, that is exactly what the evidence shows.

The same BJS report found that in nearly two-thirds of all justifiable homicides by police during 1976-98, the officer’s race and the suspect’s race were the same. When a white or Hispanic officer killed a suspect, that suspect was usually (63% of the time) white or Hispanic as well. And when a black officer killed a suspect, that suspect was usually black (81% of the time).

The BJS report also examined the rate at which officers killed suspects of other racial or ethnic backgrounds. In 1998, the “black-officer-kills-black-felon” rate was 32 per 100,000 black officers, more than double the rate at which white and Hispanic officers killed black felons (14 per 100,000). That same year, the rate at which white and Hispanic officers killed white or Hispanic felons (28 per 100,000) was much higher than the “black-officer-kills-white-or-Hispanic-felon” rate of 11 per 100,000.

In 1999, criminologists Geoffrey Alpert and Roger Dunham confirmed once again that police officers were more likely to use force against suspects of their own racial group, than against suspects from another racial group.

A 2011 BJS study which covered the period from 2003 to 2009 sheds further light on the issue of police use of force against people of various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Of all suspects who are known to have been killed by police during that 7-year time frame, 41.7% were white, 31.7% were black, and 20.3% were Hispanic. It is also worth noting that during the 2003-2009 period—when blacks were 31.7% of all suspects killed by an officer—blacks accounted for about 38.5% of all arrests for violent crimes, which are the types of crimes most likely to trigger potentially deadly confrontations with police. These numbers do not in any way suggest a lack of restraint by police in their dealings with black suspects. On the contrary, they strongly suggest exactly the opposite.[1]

In 2015, a Justice Department study of the Philadelphia Police Department found that black officers were 67 percent more likely than their white colleagues to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect, and Hispanic officers were 145 percent more likely to do the same. That same year, a study of the New York Police Department by criminology professor Greg Ridgeway found that black officers were 3.3 times more likely than their white peers to discharge their guns in the course of their work. So much for the notion of trigger-happy white cops.

In any given year, a mere 0.6 percent of black men report that physical force of any kind – including mild actions like pushing and grabbing – is used against them by the police. The corresponding figure for white men is approximately 0.2 percent. Though both figures are infinitesimally small, critics of the police are quick to complain that the figure for blacks is three times higher than the figure for whites. But as National Review points out, that disparity is fully accounted for by the fact that “black men commit violent crimes at much higher rates than white men,” as evidenced by data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey.

The available data indicate that a mere 0.08 percent of black men and white men alike are injured by police in any given year. This figure includes injuries sustained as a result of police actions that are legally justified, and often necessary, in order to thwart criminal behavior.

In a 2018 working paper titled “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” Harvard economist Roland Fryer, who is African American, reported that police officers in Houston were nearly 24 percent less likely to shoot black suspects than white suspects. In a separate analysis of officer shootings in three Texas cities, six Florida counties, and the city of Los Angeles, Fryer found that: (a) officers were 47 percent less likely to discharge their weapon without first being attacked if the suspect was black, than if the suspect was white; (b) black and white individuals shot by police were equally likely to have been armed at the time of the shootings; (c) white officers were no more likely to shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites; (d) black officers were more likely to shoot unarmed whites than unarmed blacks; and (e) black officers were more likely than white officers to shoot unarmed whites. There is no evidence of anti-black racism in any of these findings, though some of them do seem to suggest an anti-white bias.

A 2019 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. “In fact,” writes Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald, the study found that “if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians.” Specifically, Mac Donald adds, the authors of the study compiled a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 and found that 55 percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic.

Each and every year, without exception, whites who are shot and killed by police officers in the U.S. far outnumber blacks and Hispanics who meet that same fate. In 2017, for instance, 457 whites, 223 blacks, and 179 Hispanics were killed by police officers in the line of duty. In 2018, the corresponding figures were 399 whites, 209 blacks, and 148 Hispanics. And in 2019, the totals were 370 whites, 235 blacks, and 158 Hispanics. There is not a hint of anti-black racism anywhere in these figures.

When we compare black rates of violent crime, with the rate at which blacks are shot and killed by police officers, we find that blacks are represented among those shooting victims at rates significantly lower than we would have expected in light of their crime rates. For example, in 2017, blacks were just 23.6% of all people shot dead by police, even though they were arrested for 37.5% of all violent crimes. The following year, blacks were 26.3% of those fatally shot by police, even as they were arrested for fully 37.4% of violent crimes.

According to Heather Mac Donald: “The per capita rate of officers being feloniously killed is 45 times higher than the rate at which unarmed black males are killed by cops. And an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.”

Debunking BLM's Claims About Interracial Crime Against Blacks

In 2012 and 2013, blacks in the U.S. committed an annual average of 560,600 violent crimes (excluding homicide) against whites, while whites committed a yearly average of 99,403 violent crimes against blacks. In other words, blacks were the attackers in about 85 percent of all violent crimes involving blacks and whites, while whites were the attackers in 15 percent.[2]

When white offenders committed crimes of violence (excluding homicide) against either whites or blacks in 2012-13, they targeted white victims 95.8 percent of the time, and they went after black victims a mere 4.1 percent of the time. By contrast, when black offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2012-13, they targeted white victims a whopping 48.5 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 51.4 percent of the time.[3] If we factor into the equation the relative sizes of America's white and black populations, we find that, statistically, any given black person in 2012-13 was about 27 times more likely to attack a white, than vice versa.

In more recent years, the disproportionate prevalence of black-on-white crime has only gotten worse. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2018 there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites in the United States. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90.4 percent, while whites committed 56,394 of them, or about 9.5 percent.

When white offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks in 2018, they targeted white victims 97.3 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 2.6 percent of the time. By contrast, when black offenders committed crimes of violence against either whites or blacks during that same year, they targeted white victims 58 percent of the time, and they went after black victims 42 percent of the time.[4]

City Journal reports that according to Justice Department data, blacks in 2018 were overrepresented among the perpetrators of offenses classified as “hate crimes” by a whopping 50 percent—while whites were underrepresented by 24 percent.

The facts presented above can lead us to only one possible conclusion: BLM's claim that African Americans are routinely targeted for “extrajudicial killings … by police and vigilantes” is a monstrous lie. The purpose of the lie is to cause Americans of all races to detest their own country, so as to promote a desire to raze the nation's traditions to the ground, and to then erect a new Marxist utopia upon its ruins.

SOURCE 





Culture Comes For Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg held a virtual town hall with employees last week to address concerns about the massive advertiser boycott the company is experiencing from “woke” brands. This boycott is being led by none other than the ADL, the notoriously anti-free speech organization.

While the ADL has openly admitted that “hate speech” is constitutionally protected, they have spent years lobbying Congress and tech companies to censor what they deem to be “hateful” speech online.

The great irony here is that Facebook has been “partnered” with the ADL since at least 2017 in order to “fight online hate.” Apparently the vast amount of censorship that Facebook has implemented since then isn’t enough for the ADL.

This advertiser boycott is serious business, costing Facebook an estimated $7 billion with top advertisers like Verizon, Unilever, and others pulling out of Facebook’s ad ecosystem.

As ReClaimTheNet pointed out on Gab, advertisers had already planned to dramatically reduce ad spending this quarter due to the coronavirus anyway, so it appears they seized the opportunity to virtue signal in the process.

This should be a lesson to any company that thinks they can appease the mob and Thought Police mafia of the ADL. Unless and until the ADL has full control over the content on Facebook–and everywhere else on the internet—they are not going to stop in their quest for censorious power. They will not show mercy because they know that politics, and thus power, is downstream from discourse.

Gab has been under attack from the ADL for years now. We have refused to bend the knee and paid the price for it.

For what it’s worth, Mark Zuckerberg claims that the company is not going to change their policies because of this boycott.

‘We’re not gonna change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small per cent of our revenue, or to any percent of our revenue,’ said Zuckerberg, according to The Information.

While Zuckerberg’s refusal to bend the knee to the mob may be noble, his employees are the ones who are writing the algorithms and banning conservatives. Facebook moderators have even been caught on camera bragging about deleting pro-Trump content and implementing anti-white policies.

The end result of this inevitable chaos is the acceleration of the balkanization of social networking–and indeed the internet itself.

SOURCE 






Now the racist stormtroopers target a mermaid
  


It will be incidents like this that will eventually do in Black Lives Matter and the mob witc- hunters looking to sniff out “racism” wherever it hides — or anyone thinks it.

The “Little Mermaid” statue in Copenhagen, depicting Hans Christian Anderson’s beloved little girl sitting on a rock, fins and all, was vandalized with the epithet “racist fish,” according to Danish authorities.

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
`
************************************



Monday, July 06, 2020



How the Heroes of Black Lives Matter Executed Blacks

Including details of extreme psychopath Neil Macaulay, who was popular with Fidel Castro

“We are thankful that he (Fidel Castro)  provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish,” reads the eulogy from the U.S.-based  Black Lives Matter for the top jailer and torturer of black political prisoners in the Western Hemisphere whose lifelong obsession was the destruction of the U.S. “As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!”

“You’re from South Carolina, good!” whooped an agent of Castro and Che Guevara’s July 26th Movement who in 1958 was signing up an American volunteer named Neil Macaulay (later a professor Emeritus) for the KGB-mentored terror group. “I really like your treatment of negroes up there in the American south!” gushed Castro and Che’s recruiter. “ Down here in Cuba all negroes are Batistianos (supporters of Fulgencio Batista, the black Cuban leader Castro, and Che overthrew) and marijuaneros,” (marijuana smokers, dope-fiends.)

“The first firing squad victim was a tall handsome mulatto,” a beaming Professor Neil Macaulay later wrote in his memoirs. “He stood blindfolded before the paredon (firing squad wall), his hands bound in front of him. “Muchachos,” he said calmly, “The only crime you are going to commit is to kill me, because I am innocent.”

“I stepped into the field,” continues the obviously proud Macaulay, “and shouted: “Ready!..Aim!–FIRE!”…the negro went down and I went up to him immediately, commanding the firing squad to order arms as I walked. There were bullet holes in his shirt and he seemed dead, but I wasted no time in putting the automatic to his head and pulled the trigger. It made a neat round hole.”

“Next to die was another negro who was hauled kicking and screaming to the paredon,” continues an obviously gloating Macauley in his memoirs. “I told the jailers to throw him up against the wall and get out of the way…the condemned negro froze in terror when he saw his executioners arrayed before him.

“READY!” My command jolted him out of his trance.

“NO!–NO!” he cried, and tried to climb the wall.

“NO!” he yelled while trying to hide behind one of the execution stakes, but the gun muzzles tracked him relentlessly.

“FIRE!” I yelled,” continues an obviously beaming Macaulay in his memoirs. “The negro turned his head and ducked just as the guns went off. Most of the bullets struck him in profile, tearing his nose, lips, chin and most of his cheeks. His face was transformed into a raw, red mass of flesh and bone that contrasted sharply to the smooth black skin bordering it. He lay on his back with what was left of his face turned to the firing squad. Anyone that hideously blasted, I thought, had to be dead…”Well,” I commented to the firing squad, “it is not necessary to give to give him the tiro de gracia.” (coup de grace)

“Yes, Americano!” shouted one of my men. “He still lives! Give him the shot!” His arms and legs were twitching. His movement ceased only when a bullet from my pistol entered his skull,” further gloats Macaulay.

The above comes from University of Florida Professor Emeritus Neill Macaulay’s memoirs titled,A Rebel in Cuba, published in 1970. The judicial process these black Cubans had undergone was best described by Fidel and Che themselves:

“Judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution, We execute from revolutionary conviction.” (Che Guevara, Feb. 1959)

“Legal proof is impossible to obtain against war criminals. So we sentence them based on moral conviction.” (Fidel Castro Feb. 1959)

“The whole procedure was sickening,” wrote New York Times (no less!) correspondent, Ruby Hart Phillips, about a trial she attended in Havana in early 1959. “The defense attorney made absolutely no defense, instead he apologized to the court for defending the prisoner.”

Edwin Tetlow, a Havana correspondent for London’s Daily Telegraph, wrote about a “trial” by Che Guevara’s judicial dream – a team where he noticed the dozens of death sentences posted on a board – before the trial had started.

Future professor Emeritus Neil Macaulay who gleefully carried out these death sentences continues gloating in his memoirs:

“Escalona (a communist commander later notorious for exterminating rural Cuban rebels with Soviet arms and officers) introduced me to Fidel as “the man who is training the firing squads.” Fidel threw his head back and roared with laughter. As I stretched out my hand, he grabbed me by my shoulders and gave me a bear hug. Everybody was happy. At the University (of Havana) he was known as Greaseball. To me, however, he (Fidel) was very attractive.”

This attraction probably grew when Fidel Castro gifted Yankee executioner Neill Macaulay with property stolen from rightful Cuban owners under penalty of firing squad and torture chamber. More from professor Macaulay’s book:

“Fidel says to give the Americano what he wants. So I selected a plot of about sixty-five acres from an immense plantation that had been jointly owned by some friends of Batista. The INRA (Che Guevara’s Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria) gave me virtually unlimited credit…there was no house on my land so I chose as a residence the former country home of Pepe Fraga, Batista’s former chief of parking meters in Havana. Late in July my wife and infant son joined me there.”

Let's step back for a second and try to wrap our heads around these astounding crimes: An American mercenary joins Castro and Che Guevara’s KGB-mentored criminal band, executes (murders, actually) Cubans without trial, steals the property of Cubans at gunpoint. Then he serves for decades as Professor Emeritus of Latin American Studies at the University of Florida, apparently with nobody batting an eye!

The University of Florida is a state college, so there’s a good chance his salary was paid partly by his victims’ families. And again apparently nobody bats an eye!

Upon Macaulay’s death in 2007 (some suspect by suicide) leftist professor and documentarian Glenn Gebhard wrote: “He (Macaulay) was not a socialist or a communist, and he left (Cuba) after he realized he couldn’t make a living…He was a man of action and really smart.”

Does that somehow exonerate him? Che Guevara, whatever else we can say about him, seemed to actually believe in the communist holy book. Macaulay apparently murdered Cubans for fun and profit.

In the early 1960s, South Carolinian Neill Macaulay briefly lost his US citizenship for serving in a foreign nation’s military. Then “family friend” Strom Thurmond pulled some strings to get it back.  In brief: a “good ‘ole southern boy” boasts of murdering “Negroes” as a mercenary. Then among the nation’s most prominent segregationists of the time (Strom Thurmond) retrieves his U.S. citizenship. Then a southern institute of higher learning hires and honors him!

And not one liberal peep in protest! Who but a gleeful servant (as murderer/lyncher) of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara could possibly get away with something like this in the eyes of the U.S. media and academia?

SOURCE 






UK: Morris dancing groups ban blackening faces

Morris dancers will no longer blacken their faces after organisers pledged to "eliminate" the tradition to avoid racial offence.

The Joint Morris Organisation (JMO) - the largest association of members - said the practice had the potential to “cause deep hurt” in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests.

Any groups who continue to darken their faces would be cast out from the community and barred from events organised by the JMO, it said in a statement issued to members.

The decision provoked outcry from groups who insisted the tradition was not racist and not intended to cause offence.

The true origins of blackened faces has long been a matter of dispute among historians and dancers.

Although it remains unclear, it is generally accepted to have been a disguise first adopted as early as the 15th Century, as opposed to a reference to miners or North African Moors.

British folklore expert Professor Ronald Hutton said that while the Morris name is derived from the Moors, the use of black makeup predated racial connotations and was widespread in folk activities like wassailing and mumming.

He said: “It is one of the simplest means of masking somebody so that their everyday persona is concealed or obliterated and they can take a ceremonial role.

“It was long employed by local British communities who hardly realised or did not realise that there were other human beings of a different colour.

"The disguise was apparently to signal immediately to onlookers that something unusual was going on, and the dancers or players were not their usual selves."

However, alerting members to the Equalities Act, the JMO said blackening faces is a dwindling practice among dancing teams, and will be banned to make the folk tradition fully inclusive of all races and backgrounds without performers or spectators feeling uncomfortable.

They are also moving to prevent the tradition being exploited for nationalist symbolism by far-right groups.

In a statement, seen by the Daily Telegraph, they said: “Our traditions do not operate in a vacuum.

“We must recognise that full face black or other skin tone makeup is a practice that has the potential to cause deep hurt.

“We now believe we must take further steps to ensure the continued relevance and inclusivity of the tradition.

“The Joint Morris Organisations (The Morris Federation, The Morris Ring, and Open Morris) have therefore agreed that each of them will take action to eliminate this practice from their membership.”

Teams choosing to continue with blackening their faces will no longer be “part of the mainstream Morris community”, nor be covered by JMO public liability insurance, it said.

The statement added that the dance has previously adapted to allow women to take part, adding: “We want people from all races and backgrounds to share in this pride and not be made to feel unwelcome”.

Dancers last night lamented the intrusion of politics, and defended the continued use of using black face paint for disguises they consider an innocent part of folk culture.

John Ellis, of the Hampshire-based Hook Eagle Morris Men, said: “This is not the black and white minstrels.  When we wear the disguise, we’re not doing an Al Jolson.

“This is obviously a political hot potato now, but the disguises are not meant to offend, and have nothing to do with race.  It’s a tradition that we feel is legitimate to keep alive.

“We dance at church fairs, raise money for charity.  We’re just people having fun doing a hobby on a Saturday morning.”

The disguise has been traditionally worn during the Christmas caroling forerunner Wassailing, and in the mummers' plays immortalised in Thomas Hardy’s Return of the Native.

There are over 800 teams belonging to the JMO, and around 15,000 Morris dancers in the UK.  Only 2% use full black face paint.

SOURCE 





Best-selling children's author Gillian Phillip is sacked - after adding hashtag 'I stand with JK Rowling' to her Twitter handle amid bitter row over transgender rights

A bestselling children’s author has been sacked after expressing support for fellow writer J. K. Rowling in the bitter row over transgender rights.

In the latest example of ‘cancel culture’, novelist Gillian Philip was last week jettisoned from her role writing titles for a major publishing company.

It came after the writer, who has penned a popular series of books for eight-to-12-year-olds, added the hashtag #IStandWithJKRowling to her Twitter handle.

Her move sparked a torrent of online abuse and emails to her employer Working Partners, a ‘fiction packaging’ firm which devises series for publishing houses and commissions authors to write them.

Ms Philip, 56, had expressed her support for the Harry Potter creator after she retweeted an article referring to ‘people who menstruate’ and questioned why the story did not use the word ‘women’.

Ms Rowling was subjected to trolling and accused of being ‘transphobic’.

However, Ms Philip – one of several authors writing under the name Erin Hunter on popular animal fantasy series including Warrior Cats, Survivors and Bravelands – found herself sacked for her support of Ms Rowling.

After Ms Philip received sexualised abuse and deaths threats from the trans lobby, she tweeted ‘Bring it on, homophobes and lesbian-haters’ – which only inflamed the situation.

Within 24 hours, James Noble, managing editor of Working Partners, replied to the barrage of complaints saying: ‘The worlds created by Erin Hunter are meant to be inclusive for all readers and we want to let you know that Gillian Philip will no longer be writing any Erin Hunter novels.’

The decision was last night condemned by Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, who said: ‘Every day, people’s livelihoods are being destroyed and their names dragged through the mud because they’ve said something others disagree with.

'Anyone who challenges the view of these activists is immediately targeted for cancellation.’

Erin Hunter books are published by HarperCollins, which was also targeted by online protesters.

Ms Philip has also written as Gabriella Poole for the Darke Academy series and Adam Blade for the Beast Quest books.

In a statement last night, she said: ‘I am disappointed that the hard work and professional attitude I have brought to my work for HarperCollins and for Working Partners counted for nothing in the face of an abusive mob of anonymous Twitter trolls.

'It is concerning that my concerns about women’s legal rights and spaces have been presented as “transphobia”, and that this accusation has been allowed to stand by my former employers.’

Chris Snowdon, managing director of Working Partners, said: ‘Erin Hunter is not a single person but a diverse team of creatives and writers.

'We recently became aware that Gillian Philip had associated the Erin Hunter pen-name with her personal views on Twitter, thus associating them with the whole collective.

'In light of this situation, the decision was taken to no longer work with Gillian Philip.

SOURCE 






Going to National Parks Is Racist, Declares ABC News

In the six weeks since a multiracial group of Minnesota cops killed George Floyd, America has learned all sorts of things about what caused the crime. It wasn’t just those cops’ fault, you see. It wasn’t just the responsibility of the city of Minneapolis or even the state of Minnesota. As it turns out, every white person in the world is responsible for Floyd’s death. That’s why we now need to tear down any statue of any historical figure who was Caucasian, even the guy who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. That’s why any white person who voices a black character on a cartoon show needs to step aside now. That’s why we need to expunge that episode of The Golden Girls where they wore mud masks and the dumb one said, “We’re not really black.” All of those things are racist. All of those things made those cops kill that guy.

And we’re just getting started. Everything that white people enjoy is racist, because they’re white people. Even going to national parks is racist now, because most of the people who go to national parks are white.

Seriously.

Did you get all that? It’s racist to go to national parks, even though you’re not keeping anybody else from going there. It’s “self-segregation,” even though the parks are open to anyone who wants to go. And if you’re a white person, it’s your fault if people of color don’t want to go to the parks, especially if you’ve never done anything to hurt anybody. None of the black people interviewed by ABC News can point to any specific instance of racism, which is what’s so nefarious about white people. There’s nothing more racist than not being a racist.

The message is clear: Mother Nature is a white supremacist.

But seriously, folks. Speaking as a white person — Sorry! — I have no interest whatsoever in going to a national park. I know they’re there, and that’s fine. If other people want to go there, fine. If other black or brown people want to go there, fine. And also… it’s fine if they don’t! I really don’t understand why anybody should care about the racial breakdown of national park attendees, or what will be solved if we somehow force non-white people to go to national parks. This is just some white journos who are expected to file a story about racism, even if there’s no racism.

“If white people are bad, and lots of white people go to national parks… Hey, national parks are racist now!” It’s the opposite of journalism.

But let’s say you’re dumb enough to believe this crap. Can you really blame people of color for avoiding national parks? Not only would they see a bunch of white faces there, but some of those faces are 60 feet tall!

Even just a month ago, if you had told me the libs would want to take down Mount Rushmore, I’d say you were imagining things. Now I’m just waiting for Congress to vote on it.

Mind you, I’m ambivalent about making statues and sculptures of any politician, even the relatively good ones. I’ve always been leery of such graven images. But I’m even more leery of any political movement that thinks the path to the future is somehow blocked by evidence of the past. That we can’t move forward without trashing what’s behind us. But then, there’s no logic or reason to any of this. It’s driven entirely by emotion. Crowd psychology has migrated online, and extremes of thought and behavior are rewarded more extremely.

Somebody tells you that Lincoln didn’t really free the slaves? Well then, you need to one-up them and blurt out that Lincoln was an outright racist. Now tear down his statue or you’re a racist! It’s completely insane.

This is all going to have the opposite of the intended effect. Americans were already tired of being called racist for things we didn’t do, and now there’s no escaping it wherever we go. We’re fed up.

Dear Libs: You aren’t going to shame Americans into accepting collective responsibility for crimes they didn’t commit. You’re just going to alienate them, and they’re not going to listen to you when there are real problems to solve.

I guess you want a Trump landslide in November, huh?

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
`
************************************



Sunday, July 05, 2020



The attack on Christ

The devolution of America is reaching a critical stage, and columnist Rod Dreher asks exactly the right question. "What's your Woke Breaking Point?" We may now have an answer. "All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down," tweeted radical BLM activist Shaun King. "They are a gross form of white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down."

King is not alone."Every time you see white Jesus, you see white supremacy," asserts Anthea Butler, associate professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania. Hugo- and Nebula Award-winning science-fiction author Nnedi Okorafor agrees, tweeting, "Yes, 'blond blue-eyed jesus' [sic] IS a form of white supremacy."

Both women were quoted in an article denigrating artist Warner E. Sallman's "Head of Christ," a portrait of Jesus that achieved mass popularity in the mid 20th century. In the same article, author Edward J. Blum reveals the endgame the revolutionaries have in mind. "If white Jesus can't be put to death, how could it possibly be the case that systemic racism is done?" Blum asserts. "Because this is one that just seems obvious. This one seems easy to give up."

Obvious? Who's kidding whom? This isn't about white Jesus or any other religious statues that have represented Christianity for over two millennia. As columnist Andrea Peyser astutely notes, "Biblical figures have long been represented by images that resemble the artist's own community. So in Ethiopia, Jesus has been depicted as black for more than 1,500 years. In the Far East, works showing Jesus as Asian can be found. There's nothing to stop artists from creating new works depicting Jesus however they wish."

That's not good enough for a mob that does not wish to compete on the battlefield of ideas, culture, or religious sensibilities. Their agenda is about the acquisition and maintenance of absolute power — by any means necessary. Thus, attacking one of the few bastions of conservatism that hasn't been completely defiled by capitulation to "woke" sensibilities is an absolute necessity.

And just to be clear, this is not in reference to the Christian leaders in various denominations who long ago surrendered their moral authority to the mob. This is about ordinary Americans derided by former President Barack Obama as people who bitterly "cling" to their religion because they dare to stand against an all-encompassing progressive dogma.

One that now threatens their very existence.

Thus, an army of wannabe fascist enforcers is displaying an animus that abounds in the history of totalitarian takeovers. "Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries have always hated Christianity because it elevates truth and offers a moral authority beyond politics," columnist Lloyd Billingsley explains.

Politics is too nice a word. What religion in general and Christianity in particular represent is the antithesis of totalitarian control that seeks to literally replace God with government. Government run by those for whom the idea that there is something bigger than mankind — and thus a government of men — represents the most potent threat to their contemptible ambitions. "Our fundamental rights don't come from the government," former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee reminds us, "because if government gives them, government can take them. They come from God, and we created a government unlike any that's ever been, whose sole purpose was to protect those God-given rights so that we could live in our personal, individual liberty."

Because that immutable reality represents an existential threat to the progressive agenda, the onslaught won't stop with white Jesus or other religious statues. In Salinas, California, evangelical Christian church New Harvest is being forced to sell its downtown property because a city ordinance bans houses of worship from occupying the first floor of downtown buildings. A federal court in the San Francisco Bay Area recently sided with the city, ruling that churches generate limited interest, do not draw tourists, and therefore detract from the city's stated aim to "establish a pedestrian-friendly, active and vibrant Main Street."

That the Court itself noted the church's weekly schedule of activities "includes a Sunday morning worship service (including a worship band) and programs for children and teens/tweens; a Tuesday evening worship service, 'Fun Club' for children ages 3-4, and boys' ministries (which alternate weekly between two different age groups); a Thursday evening worship band rehearsal; a Friday evening prayer meeting; and a women's Bible study on some Saturday mornings"?

"Salinas deems churches as less deserving of equal treatment under the law than the live children's theatre, two cinemas, and event center that share the city's downtown corridor with New Harvest Fellowship," said Pacific Justice Institute Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, the lead attorney who is appealing the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

What comes after statues and churches? People. People like Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who despite a Supreme Court ruling in his favor regarding exercising his religion by refusing to bake a same-sex wedding cake was targeted yet again by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a "gender transition." People like Little Sisters of the Poor who also remain under attack despite a Supreme Court ruling that said they were under no obligation to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. People like every American who believes in the nuclear family the mob now labels as "cisgender privilege."

In a column for The Week, writer Bonnie Kristian attempts to make the distinction between depictions of a white Jesus for "devotional purposes" and one "whitened to cloak racialized oppression with a lie of divine approval." Christianity Today columnist Christina Cleveland takes it one step further. "Not only is white Jesus inaccurate, he also can inhibit our ability to honor the image of God in people who aren't white."

Really? Then why is the overwhelming majority of racial arson, epitomized by the concepts of "intersectionality" and white "privilege," coming from the secular Left? Why is the blue state of California trying to reinstitute affirmative action? Why are progressive black college students demanding segregated dorms? And why did a county in the blue state of Oregon demand that only white people wear masks?

It is absolutely critical that decent Americans understand one thing above all else: The mob is not the least bit interested in compromise or reconciliation. Every concession made by people who consider themselves reasonable and decent will be met by demands for further concessions. And until they reach the point of absolute control, the mob's appetite will never be satisfied.

That's not politics. It's human nature, and as such people will be forced to take a side, even those naive enough to believe being "down with the cause" offers them exemption. There is no exemption, and in November, the electorate will be presented with one of the clearest choices in history:

One can vote for civilization, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and freedom of religion — or one can vote for Democrats.

SOURCE 






A cowed nation

It’s an interesting electoral strategy – call every white person a racist and demand they vote for you as a way to absolve themselves of their guilt. That’s what Democrats are doing in 2020. I guess it’s better than running on their record and policy ideas. There used to be a word for dividing everyone by race and demanding different treatment based on that division, but I can’t quite recall it at the moment. Oh, yes, it’s racist. But words no longer mean what they used to, they mean whatever leftists demand they mean, which is turning the whole country into one big college campus.

Dictionary.com defines “racism” as follows:

1 a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2 a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3 hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

If that sounds pretty sane, that’s because it is. It’s also not the definition anyone in the Democratic Party uses anymore. And it’s not the definition Merriam-Webster is going to use much longer. After receiving a request from a recently graduated college snowflake who was upset that people were pointing out the definition of racism, MW is adding a new definition involving “systemic oppression.”

Of course, this is normal for life on college campuses – demand action first, find out if it’s true or not later. More often than not, the cause of the outrage turns out to be false.

But true or false, right or wrong, these quaint concepts no longer matter. Not just on college campuses, but everywhere now. Don’t like your boss? Say they’re bigoted or unfairly harsh and demanding. You don’t need any more proof than that. If your boss is a leftist, they’ll likely commit hara-kiri before you hit send on the email anyway, which will only bolster the case for their dismissal because of cultural appropriation.

For the past few decades it’s been harder and harder for anyone to speak on college campuses. For conservatives it's nearly impossible, but a growing number of liberals have had their share of violent mob shout-downs too. Stray one inch away from acceptable liberal orthodoxy and you might as well be a Trump, many Democrats have discovered.

It was all well and good for a while. Sure, you’d get an unfavorable segment on Fox News about your school, but the fervor would fade in a day, replaced by some other outrage. What did it matter? You didn’t go to that school, nor did your kids.

But now those kids are out in the workforce and they haven’t grown up, they’ve only grown bolder.

A lifetime of pedestrian existence and accomplishments meant to celebrate being over achieving, of not keeping score and a wall full of participation ribbons treated as victory have created a generation of spoiled, entitled brats. Worse, they’ve not only been told they’re special, they’ve been told they’re victims too. And they believe both.

Rather than being smacked across the face with the cold, dead fish of reality, “woke” companies bow to their demands, bend the knee to their wishes, and destroy anyone who stands in their way.

For many organizations, it’s too late to fix their corporate culture. Accusations are not only treated as fact, they’re almost treated as confessions. “Why did you do this?” has replaced, “Did you do this?” Lost in all of it is, “Does any of this really matter?”

Of course, the answer to the last question, generally, is no, it does not. But when you’re a snowflake, the slightest breath can melt you.

The Democratic Party has aided and abetted the ideas that have turned so much of our country into one big college campus, without the fun. But Republicans let it happen. Tweeting your disgust over someone being uninvited to speak is literally the least someone could do, yet it’s the most that gets done. As these publicly subsidized factories of the put-upon crank out more professional grievance monsters, lip service isn’t going to be enough.  These political times require someone to have metaphorical content in the front of their underpants, not literal content in the back when it comes to confronting this mob.

It being an election year, and it being the Republican Party we’re talking about, there’s a less than 50-50 chance anyone will effectively stand up and tell these adults that they need to start acting like adults.

Afraid of being called an “ist” or a “phobe” of some sort, too many people have simply watched as the civil society is being treated like a Target in Minneapolis. There’s a hunger for leaders who will actually lead, particularly when leading is a risk. That’s why you ran for the job in the first place, isn’t it?

Audio out of Chicago this week showed just how feckless and cowardly elected leaders are when the chips are down. The city’s Aldermen all whined about the destruction of their neighborhoods to the Mayor, who couldn’t care less. None of them led, they all lamented that the Mayor wouldn’t. This “somebody’s got to do something” attitude won the day, and the city burned.

It’s not unique to Chicago - there just happens to be audio of it there. Democrats were reluctant to speak out because they benefited from the woke mob. Republicans were reluctant to speak out because they thought the woke mob hurt Democrats. Neither is true, and with no one doing anything, the real loser is the country.

The woke factories have to be shut down.

You can’t count on Democrats to stand up, but Republicans need to. Not only fighting, for as long as it takes, to end funding to schools that embrace these witch hunts, but also speaking repeatedly to donors and alumni about cutting them off as well. Hitting them where it hurts is the only way to get their attention; and if some go under in the process, who cares? The country is more important than any institution, especially one dependent upon our tax dollars.

The country is becoming one big college campus, except the fun has been sucked out of it by the joyless, entitled, gang of crybabies who used to contain their whining to the quad now doing exactly what they’ve been trained and encouraged to do in the real world. No one will fully be able to make up for the lifetime of bad parenting and miseducation that led them to this point, but numbers will be able to stop them, and we have the numbers. We just need a leader willing to sound the battle cry before they go from rewriting the dictionary to burning it. As the history of progressives has shown, they start with one book but they quickly move to others, and they never stop there.

SOURCE 





Majority of Black Voters Support a Position that the Left Believes Is Bigoted

A majority of black voters believe there are only two genders, according to a joint poll by Just The News with Scott Rasmussen. Black voters are also more likely than white and Hispanic voters to reject the radical left-wing theory that there are more than two genders.

The poll found 62% of Black U.S. voters said there are only two genders, biological male and females, while 49% of whites and 51% of Hispanics said the same. Thirty percent of black voters said there were “other gender identities,” compared to 44% of whites and 39% of Hispanics.

Overall, 51 percent of U.S. voters believe in the science-based fact that there are only two genders. That is low, but still more than the 41 percent who believe other gender identities exist. Just 8 percent are not sure.

“This is a pretty significant measure of a massive cultural shift,” says Scott Rasmussen. “As on many other questions, there is a significant gap between voters under 45 and their elders. A majority of older voters believe there are just two genders. Younger voters are evenly divided.”

Scott Rasmussen surveyed 1,200 registered voters June 18-20, 2020. The poll has a margin of sampling error: +/- 2.8%.

It’s remarkable to see just how out of step black voters are on this issue with the Democratic Party. A whopping 57 percent of Democrats believe in more than two genders, while just 34 percent believe in just two. An overwhelming majority of Republicans, 77 percent, believe that there are only two genders.

Despite the fact that black voters overwhelmingly vote Democrat, polls suggest they more closely identify as moderate, and identify as more religious and socially conservative than the Democratic Party as a whole. This suggests (to me anyway) that the best way for the GOP to win over black voters is to appeal to them on social issues.

SOURCE 






America's Jews and Christians Are Failing the Test of Their Lives

If you are a Jew or Christian in America, the seriousness of your Judaism or Christianity is now being tested.

People look back in time and wonder how religious people, especially religious leaders — specifically, the clergy — could have failed in times of moral crisis. The failure of most rabbis, priests and pastors to speak out today — when the risk to personal safety is so much less than it was in communist and fascist countries — should provide the answer: Religion doesn’t have all that much impact on most religious people. During comfortable times, it provides two essentials to a happy and fulfilled life — community and meaning — but when tested, it often fails like an umbrella that fails to expand just as it starts to rain.

America is being taken over by violent mobs; a vast amount of destruction and stealing has taken place (with little police intervention and the apathy of our political leaders). Why aren’t all clergy delivering thundering sermons about the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal”? Does it now come with an asterisk?

A central part of a major American city has been seized and occupied by people who hate America and its values, including its Judeo-Christian values. Heard any clergy (aside from some evangelical Christians) speaking out against it?

And most ominous by far, for the first time in American history, free speech — the mother of all freedoms — is being widely suppressed, not by the government but by the press, the universities, the high schools, the elementary schools, all the giant internet media, Hollywood and virtually every major business in America. Christians and Jews place repentance at the center of their theologies, yet there is no place for repentance if you did or said one insensitive thing — real or alleged — even if it was 20 or more years ago. Yet all we get from American religious leaders on this matter is … silence.

The freest, least racist, most opportunity-providing country in history — “the last best hope of earth,” in Abraham Lincoln’s words — is smeared as “systemically racist”; all white people are declared “racist”; and the statues of the greatest Americans, including George Washington and even Abraham Lincoln, are toppled and/or defaced. And all we get from most American religious leaders is either agreement or silence.

It leads this religious American to ask the question the anti-religious ask: Of what use is religion?

Take the claim that being “colorblind” is racist.

If you are a religious Jew or Christian — let alone a rabbi, priest or minister — do you believe that? Do you believe that the human ideal is not to be colorblind? Do you believe that the ideal is to see every person, first and foremost, as a member of a race? Is that what you learned at seminary? Is that what you have taught from your pulpit all of your life?

I doubt it. I assume that, until as recently as a year or even six months ago, you have always believed and preached that we are, in Martin Luther King Jr.’s words, to measure people not by “the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Isn’t it fundamental to all Bible-based religions that we are all created in God’s image, that God has no race and that Adam and Eve, from whom we all descend, had no race? If you are a Christian, do you see Christians of other races first as fellow Christians or first as members of their race? If you are a Jew, do you see Jews of other races as anything other than fellow Jews? Does God?

So, why the silence? Why aren’t all rabbis, priests and pastors telling their congregations and telling America — in tweets, on Facebook, in letters to the editor, on television and radio, in opinion pieces — that there is one race, the human race, and that the only antidote to racism is to deny that race determines our worth, not to affirm its significance?

Does an ideology that affirms the significance of race have an honorable pedigree? Has it ever led to anything good? Isn’t that exactly what Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan advocated?

So, how are we to explain this tragic failure of religious Jews and Christians — and their clergy — to speak up against looting (aka stealing) and for freedom, for America, for Western civilization and for being colorblind?

The answer to this question also goes to the core of what it means to be religious. At the center of our two religions is the notion of fear of God: “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). But what is now apparent is that most Jews and Christians fear the left, fear The New York Times, fear being shunned by “friends” on Facebook and mobbed on Twitter more than they fear God.

That’s what this moment comes down to. Jews and Christians who fail this test will not only lose their freedom, lose the great American hope for mankind and lose the West; they will have also lost their souls.

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
`
************************************

Friday, July 03, 2020



Boston: Study shows Black renters, voucher holders face egregious housing discrimination

Blacks tend to be poorer and more violent so there will always be a presumption against them.  It is similar in Australia with Aborigines and Maori.  As an Australian landlord in the 80's and '90s, I was aware of the adverse probablities with them but still accepted them where my judgment of them personally suggested that they would be OK.  I judged the individual, not the race.

I eventuallly tired of Maori because of their disruptiveness when drunk but contiued to accept Aborigines until I gave up landlording. So I am one of the "good" landlords who did accept minorities.  But I did so on the basis of a personal interview.  If I had to leave the judgment to an agent, however, I would have put in place a mechanism for rejecting minorities. The risk would have been too great to delegate the decision to an agent.

And that is the reality. You can try to make prospective black tenants more desirable by way of anti-discrimination laws but owners will find ways around such laws.  An undesirable tenant will remain an undesirable tenant and will rarely be accepted.

The pity of course is that some minority tenants will be perfectly OK.  Two of my best tenants were black.  But most blacks will be rejected because of their ethnicity.  So an intelligent solution to that problem is needed.

Making eviction easier would be one such measure.  If you can easily get a bad tenant out, owners and agents would be more likely to take a risk.  Higher rents and deposits for minorities would also work but would send the Left into a frothing rage.  The left go for coercion despite the much greater effectiveness of incentives



Researchers fault real estate professionals who illegally ghost, steer away qualified renters

An undercover investigation released Wednesday found that Black people posing as prospective tenants in Greater Boston were shown fewer apartments than whites and offered fewer incentives to rent, and that real estate agents cut off contact when the renters gave Black-sounding names like Lakisha, Tyrone, or Kareem.

The white “testers” in the study posing as would-be renters, on the other hand, easily secured tours of properties, were wooed with discounts, and got preferred treatment — such as the opportunity to view additional units — when looking at apartments.

In subtle and overt ways, Black renters experienced discrimination by real estate brokers and landlords in 71 percent of the cases tested in the study by Suffolk University Law School, titled “Qualified Renters Need Not Apply: Race and Voucher Discrimination in the Metro Boston Housing Market.”

SOURCE





The Problem of 'Anti-Racism'/b>

It requires denial of reality
 
Today, the nostrum goes, it is not enough for Americans to be not racist. They must be “anti-racist.” This woke terminology has infused our lexicon. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently declared from the well of the Senate: “Being race-conscious is not enough. It never was. We must be anti-racists.” What, pray tell, is the difference between being against racism and being anti-racist? Ibram X. Kendi, author of “How to Be An Antiracist,” provides an answer: Racism is no longer to be defined as the belief that someone is inferior based on race. Instead, racism is to be defined as the belief that any group differences can be attributed to anything other than racism. Thus, any system that ends with different outcomes must be racist. Indeed, Kendi contends, “Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic.”

To be anti-racist means to tear down these systems. Any obstacle in the pursuit of equality of outcome must be torn down, assumed to be a product of discrimination. Basic decency, then, means that we must oppose even institutions that have been considered hallmarks of freedom. Those institutions, after all, have exacerbated inequalities, or at least failed to rectify those inequalities.

This means that America’s culture of rights — a culture that suggests an obligation on the part of individuals to respect the rights of others, even if they disagree — must come under fire. That culture reinforces hierarchies and inequalities, after all. The classical liberal says that rights fall equally on the just and the unjust alike; the anti-racist suggests that rights are merely tools of power. Anti-racism, in its essence, is merely reworked neo-Marxism from the 1960s: Herbert Marcuse would have been ecstatic to see his concept of “repressive tolerance” — “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left” — revived under the banner of race rather than class.

The self-proclaimed “anti-racist” left — a left that sees all of human relations reduced to a rudimentary correlation of skin color and inequality, an analysis we used to call racist — has decided that the culture must be cleansed of all of those who will not be drafted into its woke army. Its march through the institutions began with college campuses, where cowardly administrators quickly caved to the bizarre notion that campuses were unsafe, cruel bastions of bigotry requiring speech codes and training in microaggressions. Next, the woke army moved on to the halls of institutional media, where editors were forced to announce their own white privileges along with their resignations, turning over the instruments of informational dissemination to radical racialists.

Now the woke army has targeted corporations. Corporations are, by nature, risk-averse; they seek merely profit and lack of controversy. The hard left has targeted them as the weakest link in the chain of free speech: If corporations can be bullied into pulling their money from social media networks, those social media networks can be bullied into restricting their free-speech cultures. Remove advertising bucks from Instagram and watch as Instagram censors those the woke want censored.

Indeed, such a campaign is now front and center in the culture wars: Major corporations from Coca-Cola to Target have stopped advertising on social media networks, citing the need for more “hate speech” regulation on those platforms. Obviously, those who target corporations will not be satisfied until all non-woke speech is limited or banned; corporations will be unpleasantly surprised when those they have been seeking to appease turn on them as remnants of the evil system. But corporations have neither the principle nor the will to deny the demands of the loudest and the most militant.

The product of the woke crusade will not be a less racist America but a more polarized one. That’s because the woke crusade is not truly about reducing racism; it is about attacking fundamental institutions, American history and our very culture of rights. All the things we share must be eviscerated. So we will share nothing. And then the true ugliness begins.

SOURCE





Strange interpretations from SCOTUS

Once again the Supreme Court has strayed from declaring what preexisting law is to making law.

Impatient with the pace of legislative action on amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual-orientation discrimination, the Supreme Court has rewritten the statute via interpretation. In Bostock v. Clayton County (a 6-3 decision), the Court held that Title VII’s prohibition of workplace discrimination based on “sex” encompasses sexual orientation. Hence, a person fired because of homosexual orientation or transgender status may now bring a claim under Title VII. Although many Americans agree with the policy result reached by the Court, all thinking persons should lament that six unelected lawyers have usurped the role of Congress.

When engaging in statutory interpretation, the Court is supposed to implement congressional intent by examining the plain language of the statute. A statute’s plain meaning is determined by reference to its words’ ordinary meaning at the time of the statute’s enactment. In reaching its decision in Bostock, the Court asserted that it was simply enforcing the plain terms of Title VII as those terms would have been understood in 1964. It cited the late Justice Antonin Scalia and assured readers that it was engaging in a textualism that would have made Scalia proud.

The Court conceded that “sex” as used in Title VII would have been understood by an average person in 1964 as meaning biologically male or female. However, the Court followed up with a remarkable statement: “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

This is balderdash. (Or better yet, “interpretive jiggery-pokery,” as Scalia once said.)

If, for example, an employer fired all lesbians working for his company, he would not be discriminating because the targets of his wrath are biologically female but on account of their sexual orientation. Sex discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination are two distinct categories of discrimination. The former falls within the plain meaning of Title VII; the latter does not.

For most of its history, this has been the common understanding of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination. As Justice Brett Kavanagh pointed out in dissent: “in the first 10 Courts of Appeals to consider the issue, all 30 federal judges agreed that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.” For the first 48 years of its existence, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, viewed sex discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination as separate matters.

Congress certainly viewed sex and sexual-orientation discrimination as different. Over the years various bills have been introduced to add sexual-orientation discrimination to Title VII. At different times majorities in both the House and Senate have approved such a change, but they have yet to come together to send a bill to the president. In many other federal antidiscrimination statutes, Congress has specifically included sexual orientation. Thus when Congress wants to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it knows how to do so.

Bostock is yet another Supreme Court decision that teaches Americans the wrong lessons. Rather than engaging in a debate, proposing legislation, and garnering votes, we are taught that the easiest way to obtain a desired policy result is to run to the judiciary. It’s a lot less work to convince five lawyers rather than 218 House members, 51 senators, and the president.

Of course, under separation-of-powers principles, all legislative authority is supposed to reside with Congress. If the people desire a certain policy or object to a policy enacted, they can use the franchise to oust members of Congress and to elect representatives more to their liking. But the people have no such power when it comes to the federal judiciary. The Court can discover new constitutional rights hitherto unknown in American history or make law through tricks of statutory interpretation, but the people have no recourse.

Bostock is but the latest example of judicial overreach. It shows why the Court should allow policy matters to be worked out in the elected branches of government.

SOURCE





Christian Political Schizophrenia: The American church is far too silent on the most pressing issues of our day

Where is the church? Where is the church? In this racial, political, socialist, communist, and Marxist climate in America, where are God’s people? I thought being “bold as a lion” was the theme of the Christ follower. I thought “more than a conqueror through Christ Jesus” was the standard of the church. What in the Shadrach, Meshach, and Adednego is going on here in American churches? Should the church be involved in politics or not?

I was invited to a small group this past Sunday evening and the topic of Scripture was from 1 John 3. The Bible spoke for itself in verse 13: “Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you.” Hate is such a strong word in today’s climate. Christians don’t want to be hated; they want to be admired. Why do so-called Christians believe they are to be loved and adored for their faith when the Bible clearly speaks of opposition? We claim the only way to true salvation. Don’t you understand that in and of itself ignites a proverbial line in the sand with all types of worldly religions? I guess what I’m trying to say is, where’s the fight? It seems like the coronavirus and the color wars have shut the doors of the church, literally. The physical church doors are shut for the most part and so are the mouths of many so called crusaders for Christ.

At this small group, I was led to speak out against the Black Lives Matter “organization” — to their dismay. I was the only “black” person in the room, so those thoughts coming from me made everyone somewhat uncomfortable and at the same time relieved. They wanted to open up about it because it’s affecting everything around our daily lives. As I shared what BLM was really about — left-wing branch of Marxist communism with a dash of LGBT — they were alarmed. Corporations are jumping on board, NCAA coaches are joining in on the trend, and the church is … silent. Well, except for the “Christian Chicken” CEO Dan Cathy “washing the feet” of a black Christian rapper to show a humble attempt of racial reconciliation. It was a “fail” in a major cringe-worthy way in my humble opinion. Let us all let go of this Christian-Politico Schizophrenia and choose this day whom you will serve; God or the world.

Christians who vote Conservative need to be put on alert that this nation wasn’t formed by cowards sitting on the sidelines. This nation was formed through blood, sweat, and tears. Republicans were the party who thought that slavery was wrong; the party’s foundational platform was based on the “abolition of slavery into American territories.” This wasn’t for the faint at heart. This nation ended up going to its bloodiest war to settle its slave matters.

Should this matter to American Christians who vote conservative values?

Not only should the church be involved in politics, but [it] should dominate politics. Every industry should be impacted by Christ followers. Whether it’s the industry of arts and entertainment, sports, law, literature, education, financial services, or politics, there should be a presence of those who name the name of Christ. So what are you waiting for? Get off your Sunday soap box and impact the lives and industries around you. Stop waiting for the coronavirus pandemic to pass and get out of your pajamas and head to your local assembly. Stop making excuses for watching the livestream instead of joining God’s team. We are being marginalized from within. Don’t miss the greatest weapon that God gave us to destroy the enemy — the Word of God. God bless you and Happy Independence Day!

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.
`
************************************