Barrett’s Life Refutes Leftists’ ‘Oppressed Women’ Narrative

Leftists hate Amy Coney Barrett because she thoroughly debunks their feminist empowerment dogma. As Joy Pullmann, executive editor at The Federalist and a mother of six children in her own right, insightfully notes, “Barrett is a walking rebuke not only to the narrative but to the powers that be. And she looks great while she does it. Her very existence repudiates the left’s binary thinking about womanhood, that women have to deny what makes women different from men to achieve professionally. And that’s why they hate her.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) practically said as much yesterday when he blasted Barrett as a threat. “Just about everything that America believes in and stands for when it comes to issues like healthcare and labor rights and LBGTQ rights and women’s rights, Judge Barrett stands against all of that,” Schumer thundered in his best imitation of Ted Kennedy’s disgraceful “Robert Bork’s America” defamation. “Justice Ginsburg must be turning over in her grave up in heaven to see that the person [Republicans] chose seems to be intent on undoing all the things that Ginsburg did. I will strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this nomination.”

Given that Ginsburg held pretty irreligious views, Schumer’s assertion that she’s “in her grave up in heaven” (whatever that means) is clearly intended as a dig at Barrett’s sincerely held Catholic faith. After all, the anti-religious dogma lives loudly in the Democrats.

This feminist narrative explains leftists’ hateful smear campaign against a highly successful and inspirational woman when it comes to healthcare. They attempt to turn her into a sub-human monster who essentially wants to endanger the lives of millions of Americans by removing their ObamaCare healthcare coverage, as The New York Times ridiculously claims. Or as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) falsely insisted, Barrett’s nomination “threatens the destruction of life-saving protections of 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions.”

Never mind the fact that Trump just this week signed an executive order ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are assured access to health insurance, demonstrating the truth of his repeated statements that he agreed with that provision of ObamaCare.

The truth is that Barrett blows up the Left’s resentment-based narrative of religious conservatism equating to oppression of women. Barrett stands as a shining example refuting the Democrats’ primary manner of appealing to suburban women voters. Democrats insist that under President Donald Trump and Republicans, women are suffering under a misogynistic “patriarchy” akin to “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, as Trump’s presidency has actually led to greater individual Liberty and less government encroachment into people’s lives.

The root objection Democrats and the Left have against Barrett is that they see her as a serious threat to their ultimate religious sacrament: abortion rights.

Indeed, Barrett’s comments on abortion defy the Democrats’ dubious caricature of her as some oppressed “handmaid.” She said, “Motherhood is a privilege, but it comes at a price. … A woman who wants to become pregnant accepts this price, but in an unplanned pregnancy the woman faces the difficulties of pregnancy unwilling. … [Then] I think supporting poor, single mothers would be the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S.”

To Democrats, abortion is viewed as the primary means of female empowerment. It is the litmus test for determining the “fairness” of society, as they assert that women cannot compete equally in the marketplace without abortion. Such a view, of course, is fundamentally anti-woman and anti-mother. And that’s why they can’t stand the thought of a pro-life, pro-family woman like Amy Coney Barrett sitting on the most powerful court in the land.

SOURCE

Tim Davie: BBC boss ‘prepared to fire stars who break impartiality rules’

BBC director general Tim Davie has said he would be prepared to sack presenters who make major breaches of impartiality guidelines on social media.

Mr Davie, who became DG earlier this month, said new social media rules would be announced in the coming weeks, and would apply to all staff. “I am prepared to take the appropriate disciplinary action, all the way to termination,” Mr Davie said.

He said he would also be able “to take people off Twitter” if necessary.

His comments come after criticism of stars such as Gary Lineker, who has courted controversy in the past for sharing his political views on Twitter.

Responding to Mr Davie’s comments on Tuesday, the Match of the Day host said: “I think only Twitter can take people off Twitter.”

‘Hard action’

Mr Davie told MPs on the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee: “Enforcement actions will be very clear, we will be able to take disciplinary action, we’ll be able to take people off Twitter. I know people want to see hard action on this.”

Pressed on how people could be removed from Twitter, he clarified that in some cases he would ask staff to suspend their Twitter accounts if they wanted to continue working for the BBC.

He told the MPs he wouldn’t rush into far-reaching action. “I know some people would like me to fire [people] immediately [when] there is a foot fault,” he said.

“I’m sure over your career and my career, sometimes we have not acted perfectly. So there will be a range of enforcements. Sometimes someone just needs a talking to. Other times there will be more serious matters.”

The action taken would not depend on the stature of the star involved, but there would be a distinction between occasional contributors and those who are “the face of the BBC”, he said.

“Social media guidelines will make clear where the lines are. If someone is a face of the BBC, I think entering into party politics seems to me not the right place to be.”

Asked specifically about Lineker, Mr Davie said the former footballer had “always got a flavoursome turn of phrase”, but “understands his responsibilities as a person within the BBC”.

He said: “We will issue the social media guidelines which will be clear. I would note that Gary Lineker has been very clear in his statements recently, saying, ‘I understand I have responsibilities while working at the BBC’.

“Those responsibilities will be clearly laid out. I am the director general so I am now running the show, and in my view, party political statements are not the right thing for people to be making if they are part of an impartial news organisation.”

‘Not about banning people’

In the past, there have been “a few tweets and a few incidents” from BBC staff and presenters that “in my mind have not furthered the BBC’s reputation for impartiality”, Mr Davie said.

The new social media guidelines will cover people working in all areas of BBC programming, Mr Davie said.

“The bar will be higher for news and current affairs, but there will also be a bar for those people working as BBC talent across the organisation, across genres,” he said.

“I don’t think this is about banning people on social media, by the way. We must be up there. I passionately believe that impartial reporting can be flavoursome. The idea that it’s dull is wrong.”

Lineker topped the BBC’s most recent “star salaries” list with £1.75m in the 2019-20 financial year, but has announced he will take a 23% pay cut, amounting to £400,000.

The second highest earner was Zoe Ball, who was paid £1.36m to host the Radio 2 breakfast show.

MPs asked Mr Davie why Ball is paid more than triple the salary of the station’s mid-morning presenter Ken Bruce, despite attracting fewer listeners than him.

Ball has lost around a million listeners since taking over from her predecessor Chris Evans, who was paid around £240,000 more than her.

Mr Davie referred to “the historical rate for the Radio 2 breakfast show” and said such leading presenters were able to look at “entertainment options across television and radio”.

“Don’t get me wrong,” he added. “I’ve inherited some of this. You’ve seen what we’ve done with Gary. I want to make sure that we are getting as best value as we can in the market, and better value where we can.

“I’ve spent a lot of the last few years working in the international market, fighting for talent. There is an element of hyper-inflation, as all these services pile in, and people with TV personality and profile will be difficult to get.

“I’m all for developing young talent and taking more risk or opportunity with developing talent coming through. But I absolutely think that with a few people, and it is a very small number of people, we are in a bit of a market.”

“With Zoe in particular, she’s an outstanding broadcaster, we are in a renegotiation and we’ll be looking where we go forward,” Mr Davie said.

Mr Davie also addressed the departure of political interviewer Andrew Neil to become the face and chairman of new TV channel GB News. The director general said the issue was not the amount he had offered Neil to stay, but “what he wants to do with his life”.

He said: “Andrew’s an outstanding broadcaster. We had a good conversation, I made a good offer, he had a better one. We move on. He’s been brilliant.”

SOURCE

Americans’ Right to Worship Is Being Denied by Governments. I Won’t Be Silent Anymore

I never expected that the most basic religious freedom, the right to worship—protected so robustly in our Constitution’s First Amendment—would be unjustly repressed by an American government.

But that is exactly what is happening in San Francisco. For months now, the city has limited worship services to just 12 people outdoors. Worship inside our own churches is banned. The city recently announced it will now allow 50 for outdoor worship, with a goal of permitting indoor services up to a maximum of 25 people by Oct. 1—less than 1 percent of the capacity of San Francisco’s St. Mary’s Cathedral.

This is not nearly enough to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Catholics in San Francisco. In imposing these restrictions, the city is turning a great many faithful away from their houses of prayer.

People can freely go to parks here, as long as they stay six feet apart. If they follow proper social distancing and wear masks, people can eat on an outdoor patio with no hard numerical limit. Indoor shopping malls are already open at 25 percent capacity. Catholics in San Francisco are increasingly noticing the simple unfairness. As one of my parishioners asked recently, “Why can I spend three hours indoors shopping for shoes at Nordstrom’s but can’t go to Mass?”

And it is not just San Francisco. According to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, six states with a combined population of 67 million Americans single out religious worship for unfavorable treatment compared to similar secular activities: California, New Jersey, Maine, Virginia, Connecticut and Nevada.

We Catholics are not indifferent to the very real dangers posed by covid-19. This is one of the reasons Catholic churches have developed rigorous protocols to protect public health in our facilities. We submitted our safety plans to the city in May along with other faith communities, and while indoor retailers had their plans approved and went into operation, we are still waiting to hear back.

Meanwhile, the scientific evidence from other jurisdictions is clear: These safeguards are working. As three infectious-disease specialists who reviewed the evidence on more than 1 million public Masses over the past few months concluded, there have been no documented outbreaks of covid-19 linked to church attendance in churches that follow the protocols. We have demonstrated that we know how to hold Mass safely. There is no reason not to allow us to put that knowledge into practice.

Nor do our concerns stem from hostility toward government. We Catholics respect legitimate authority, and we recognize that the government has a right to impose reasonable public health rules, just as we recognize its right to issue safety codes for our church buildings. But when government asserts authority over the church’s very right to worship, it crosses a line. Our fundamental rights do not come from the state. As the authors of our Declaration of Independence put it, they are “self-evident,” that is, they come from God.

Even this injustice, though, is not as hurtful as the simple lack of compassion. I sometimes wonder whether the increasingly secular elites imposing these restrictions understand the pain they are unnecessarily inflicting. The sacraments as we Catholics understand them cannot be live-streamed. People are being denied the religious worship that connects them with God and one another. For hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans facing the simultaneous challenges of a pandemic and economic downturn, the church is their key source of spiritual, emotional and practical help. I worry about the poor, the jobless and especially the addicted whose major access to community help is the Alcoholics Anonymous meetings formerly held in churches all over the city and the country.

As one of my parishioners, Kathryn Reese, wrote recently in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Even more than food for my body, this is food for my soul. I need it. My faith is what got me through all these years, raising my kids, going through a divorce, working as a correctional officer and correctional counselor in San Quentin, and volunteering for my community.” And the Rev. Moises Agudo, who pastors the overwhelmingly Latino churches in the Mission District, echoes the sentiment, saying that his people have lost many things because of the pandemic but “the consolations of the Mass should not be one of those things.”

We want to be partners in protecting the public health, but we cannot accept profoundly harmful and unequal treatment without resisting. This is why I and other Catholics from across San Francisco will join in a public demonstration this Sunday calling on the city’s mayor, London Breed, to treat religious believers fairly.

At our demonstration, we will not be asking for special treatment. We just don’t want religious worshipers singled out for unfavorable treatment relative to people participating in activities with comparable risk profiles. All we are seeking is access to worship in our own churches, following reasonable safety protocols—the same freedoms now extended to customers of nail salons, massage services and gyms. It’s only fair, it’s only compassionate, and, unlike with these other activities, it’s what the First Amendment demands.

SOURCE

From RBG to Mask Mandates, the Dems Beg for Authoritarian Rule

Imagine living in a country where your basic rights are subject to a single individual’s whim and decree. That this individual could die at any moment and her replacement will make a new decree removing those basic rights. Is this the country you want to live in?

Imagine in the late 18th century telling Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington that 240 years after the revolutionary war, millions of Americans would be mourning the death of a single individual with lamentations that their basic rights, freedoms, and even our system of government are endangered.

Imagine telling these patriots who were pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to facing down the most powerful monarch on the face of the planet that these Americans would be screaming and wailing at the sky over the death of this single individual who they often referred to as a “queen.”

Is there any doubt that our Founding Fathers, knowing that millions of their fellow Americans would vest such faith, power, and control in a single individual – a “queen” – would look at each other and say, “Oh, why bloody bother? We have our wealth and property; let’s go get an ale.”

I wouldn’t blame them, and neither would you.

This is not the America our Founders envisioned or expected for us, their posterity.

And those Americans who crave, yearn and plea for such a nation should be looked upon with suspicion.

There is a common theme in the fervent lamentations hurled upon the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the Left in this country: That she was the last standing protection in this country from multitudes losing their basic rights and now that she is gone, these rights are facing an existential crisis.

How obscene.

To think that our basic rights are in the hands of an 87-year-old woman with several bouts of cancer is terrifying and antithetical to everything our country was supposed to stand for. But this is the country the Left has created by lifting the Supreme Court to the level of some kind of super-legislature with its limited members enjoying lifetime appointments.

The basics of your constitutional rights are not supposed to be determined by one tie-breaking vote on the Supreme Court. Your constitutional rights are determined in the Constitution. And if you want to modify the Constitution to recognize and protect more rights, then there is a mechanism to do just that. They are called amendments. We’ve used it many times in our 240 years.

Instead of following James Madison and Alexander Hamilton’s recipe, the Left has used the courts to inject newfound rights and protections with unelected judges who are never accountable to the American people. This has been a recipe for disaster, which has now led us to this revealing moment.

The Left has not been circumspect about their strategy to remake our Constitution through judicial fiat. Instead, they are threatening violent revolution if they can’t have a hand in selecting their new, replacement monarch in Queen RBG’s place.

It’s telling. They actually like this arrangement.

This tendency toward authoritarianism is also revealed in their singular criticism of President Donald Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

If Joe Biden and other Democrats are ever properly pressed on their hyperbolic attacks on Trump of coronavirus, the only real policy they point to that they’d have done differently is to have a national mask mandate. Now, let’s set aside some of the dubious science behind many of the mask mandates we’ve seen pop up in Democrat states. Let’s instead think through their real criticism of Trump in this regard.

Think about it: The one thing they’d do that Trump didn’t do is implement a nation-wide mandate to wear a mask. This mask declaration is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but they don’t care. They insist that not only is the mandate necessary, but any president who does not implement one is neglectful of his duties to the American people.

Their biggest criticism of Trump in this pandemic is that he has not been authoritarian enough.

“How dare the president not command what we should and should not wear in public and how we should or should not behave!!!”

It doesn’t end there. From the Green New Deal, mandates on your car, your travel choices, your diet, your choice of gun for self-defense, your income, your energy options, your income level, your medical choices, your doctor, your children’s school, and on and on and on… the Democrats have a plan to fix this country, as long as you just let them tell you what to do and fine or throw you in jail if you disobey.

They want their monarch to sit on the thrown in the Supreme Court to grant or deny you your rights and they want the head of state to mandate your behavior and life choices so that it serves the state.

Imagine, we used to get upset in this country over a tax on tea.

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