Yes, Donald Trump & Co. SHOULD fight unfair anti-white racism

The inequality between blacks and whites in the USA drives Leftists mad. Equality is a major part of their religion. But it is plain that whites prosper more than blacks do and that East Asians do best of all. And nothing seems to be able to change that. Leftists cannot accept that there are inherent differences between the three groups that will always make them better fitted to prosper in a modern Western economy. So they resort to all sorts of nonsense in order to deny what lies plainly in front of them. They say they are enemies of racism but go on immediately to practice it against whites: Equality at all costs. They are obsessed: Very unpleasant people

Is there anything more poisonous or ridiculous than insisting that corporations and the government treat people fairly regardless of race?

Apparently not.

An Axios report on the Trump team’s intention to use civil-rights laws to target DEI policies discriminating against whites has occasioned sneering and denunciations.

Philip Bump at The Washington Post snarked, as his headline puts it, “Trump aims to be a fearless warrior for White advantage.”

The New Republic commented, sarcastically, “If Donald Trump is elected to a second term in November, his allies plan to end this country’s long-standing oppression of a major marginalized group in America: white people.”

MSNBC warned, “Trumpism is increasingly organized around the reactionary principle that white Americans are not just overlooked, but are victims because of their race. This is a path to unraveling multicultural democracy.”

Much of the commentary reflects the contradictory argument that anti-white racism isn’t really a thing, yet, simultaneously, is absolutely essential to racial progress.

The same twisted reasoning was often used when the CRT controversy was at its height; critical race theory was either a right-wing myth or foundational to the truthful teaching of America’s past, or somehow both.

There should be a long German word for this rhetorical phenomenon.

Regardless, it is axiomatic that in the context of zero-sum hiring, admissions and contracting decisions, favoring one group will disadvantage another.

This has been well established regarding affirmative-action policies at colleges — it’s much harder for white (or Asian) applicants to get into competitive schools than it is for members of favored minority groups with similar credentials.

Progressives might believe that this is cosmic justice, that whites deserve whatever they get. But individuals aren’t racial symbols and shouldn’t be treated as such. A conscientious white college applicant, who has never harmed anyone, shouldn’t be punished for his or her race.

Why are the iniquities of the old Jim Crow regime being taken out on white applicants — who never voted for Lester Maddox and probably never heard of him — for assistant-vice-president jobs at banks and other corporations?

This is unfair, and, more to the point, against the law.

The US Constitution is race neutral, and so are the civil-rights laws enacted after the Civil War and in the 1960s.

As such, they are potentially a powerful weapon against the system of racial preferences that has become a pervasive feature of American life.

We saw that in the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action decision last year, and in the ruling last month against the Minority Business Development Agency by US District Court Judge Mark Pittman in Texas.

Corporations that are setting hiring targets by race and gender face massive exposure.

They haven’t had to worry about it much to this point. The plaintiffs’ bar, out of political cowardice, won’t touch this issue.

On top of that, it’s hard even to find plaintiffs; becoming known as the white person who was chiseled out of a job and sued over it is not the best career move in corporate America.

This is why an ideologically driven group like former Trump aide Stephen Miller’s America First Legal has had to pick up the baton, with some success.

But if a Trump Justice Department decides to make an example of a couple of high-profile corporations engaged in these discriminatory practices, the regime of preferences may well crumble quickly.

Until recently, the incentives have been all the other way — to adopt the fashionable attitudes, spout the familiar DEI lines, empower the apparatchiks of HR and not risk the ire of elite opinion by taking a different path.

Now, there are signs that DEI in corporate America is cresting, or at least becoming less blatant, under political and legal pressure.

If a Trump Justice Department (and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) pushes these types of policies in business and government into the dustbin, the Left will firmly plant both feet on one side of its current straddle — and say it’s a travesty that anti-white discrimination no longer exists.

https://nypost.com/2024/04/05/opinion/yes-donald-trump-amp-co-should-fight-unfair-anti-white-racism/

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

John Eastman and the Left’s War on the Legal Profession

Bewildering

By Josh Hammer

John Eastman is a lawyer, legal scholar, and a friend. A former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, candidate for California attorney general, and dean of Chapman University School of Law, I got to know John during my weeklong 2018 legal fellowship with the Claremont Institute, which he oversaw. We have stayed in touch and done at least one event together for Claremont since that time.

Unfortunately, since the 2020 presidential election, John has been put through the wringer more than just about anyone in American public life.

He was forced to retire from the law school where he was a longtime constitutional law professor and even dean. He was let go by the University of Colorado’s Benson Center for Western Civilization, where he was a visiting scholar. Armed Stasi—sorry, FBI—agents accosted him in a parking lot and seized his phone without a warrant. He has been suspended from academic conferences and lost board seats. He and his wife have endured death threats, spikes in their driveway, and threatening graffiti in their neighborhood. He has been debanked by Bank of America and the USAA. He is being criminally prosecuted by scandal-ridden Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis. And last week, State Bar Court of California Judge Yvette Roland devoted 128 pages to explaining why he should lose his law license.

All this because John had the chutzpah to do what every law school student is taught to do in legal ethics class: defend and zealously advocate for one’s client, no matter how unpopular or even disreputable that client may be. In this case, John’s unpopular client was a high-profile one: former President Donald Trump.

There has been an astronomical amount of misinformation about John’s activities in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol jamboree, as well as the legal advice that he offered his high-profile client during that time. The corporate media and the Democrat-lawfare complex typically speak of John’s legal advice as encouraging the “overturning of an election” or “fomenting an insurrection,” but such hyperbolic talk is irresponsible and wildly off base.

John acquitted himself well in a compelling essay he penned for Claremont’s American Mind online journal on Jan. 18, 2021, titled “Setting the Record Straight on the POTUS ‘Ask.’” His 12th Amendment argument about the vice president’s more active role in certifying the states’ slates of electors and his accompanying argument regarding the constitutional dubiousness of the Electoral Count of 1887 might not be correct (although it could be), but it is well within the bound of plausible, nonfrivolous legal argumentation an attorney can (indeed, should) press upon an embattled client. That is doubly so here, because the U.S. Supreme Court has never authoritatively interpreted the relevant 12th Amendment provision. Countless legal arguments more frivolous than this are advanced every day in courtrooms across America.

Nor is John Eastman the only man being prosecuted, and possibly disbarred, for his legal activity after the 2020 election. Former U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark is also being prosecuted in Georgia, and he was just found by the District of Columbia Bar to have violated an ethics rule, which might lead to his own disbarment there—all stemming from an internal Department of Justice memo that Clark never even sent.

Once upon a time, the American left understood the moral imperative of ensuring that all Americans have adequate access to legal representation, no matter one’s popularity in the eyes of the government or societal elites. Indeed, the definitive American example of such unpopular legal representation actually dates back to before the United States was even independent: In 1770, a young lawyer named John Adams, the man who would become the young republic’s second president, took it upon himself to defend the British soldiers accused of killing five colonists at the Boston Massacre. Years later, in his dotage, Adams reflected that this was “one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

Presumably, Fani Willis and Judge Roland would have preferred to see John Adams tarred and feathered for his treachery. One also cannot help but wonder how they might have viewed the NAACP’s legal representation in the Deep South during the days of Jim Crow.

The ultimate aim of those Jacobins prosecuting and disbarring lawyers for having the temerity to practice the legal profession is clear: the subordination of the rule of law to the Jacobins’ own friend/enemy-level politics, and the cowing into submission of those lawyers who would so much as consider representing a high-profile Republican client or work in a Republican Department of Justice. Ironically, and without any hint of self-awareness, they do all this in the name of “our democracy.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/john-eastman-and-the-lefts-war-on-the-legal-profession-5622724

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

New York Grand Jury Releases Scathing Report Against Child Protection Services Agency

Child protection agencies seem to oscillate between exessive zeal and gross negligence

The result of a six-month special grand jury investigation into the murder of 8-year-old Tommy Valva by his father has revealed another disturbing instance of abuse of power by child protection agencies and the family court system.

The New York boy died in 2019 from hypothermia after his father, an NYPD cop, inflicted a series of cruel punishments on him. He made the child strip naked, lay on a cold cement garage floor, and hosed him down with cold water. Michael Valva was convicted of his son’s murder in 2022.

The grand jury report, released on April 3, is wrought with similar findings in the recent review of the murder of 5-year-old Harmony Montgomery. Details of the girl’s murder and the state of New Hampshire’s inability to account for her whereabouts for two years gripped the nation.

It was a tragedy set in motion when Massachusetts Family Court Judge Mark Newman awarded custody of the little girl to her father Adam Montgomery. Mr. Montgomery was convicted in February of murdering his daughter.

Judge Newman granted custody to Mr. Montgomery instead of the girl’s mother despite his lengthy violent criminal history and transient status.

Before Tommy Valva’s murder, Suffolk County Family Court Judge Jeff Zimmerman also awarded full custody of the little boy along with his two brothers to his father Michael Valva over the boy’s mother Justyna Zubko-Valva.

In both Harmony and Tommy’s cases, court records, which were widely publicized in both murder trials, show that neither of their mothers had any history of abuse or violence.

In both of the children’s cases, child protection service workers went along with the court’s custody awards despite knowing that there were serious child abuse allegations and child welfare concerns pending against both men.

In her office’s findings from an investigation into Harmony’s murder, Maria Mossaides, director of the Massachusetts Office of the Child Advocate, slammed the state child protection agency for what she called system-wide failures and also for “recklessly” favoring parental rights over Harmony’s safety.

Throughout its 75-page investigative report, the New York grand jury charges New York’s child protection services system with the same kind of failures.

It faulted CPS employees for deeming child abuse allegations by another parent as unfounded with little evidence. It also cited the system as flawed for not having any independent checks and balances with the agency over such decisions.

According to the grand jury, the agency even refused to return its records for the investigation.

“The failure of CPS to do so can only be interpreted as a transparent attempt to shield their own inaction from public scrutiny. Thus, the laws and rules must be changed to prevent such future injustices,” the investigative jury charged.

In its report, it also focuses on another familiar issue raised in other states regarding the operations of child protection agencies and the family court system: the immunity that child protection workers and judges enjoy from dereliction of duty.

“Even though immunity does not preclude a finding of criminal liability for CPS caseworkers who have engaged in willful misconduct or gross negligence, such caseworkers are still effectively impervious to any such liability in cases where reports are deemed unfounded,” the panel wrote.

The panel discovered that caseworkers, due to not being required to substantiate their findings to the court or even a supervisor, created a shield against accusations of “willful misconduct or gross negligence.”

“In this regard, employees of CPS have the unilateral ability to thwart criminal investigations prior to the matter of immunity even becoming relevant, by determining that a case is unfounded, or by deciding not to migrate prior unfounded reports and related materials in a new indicated investigation,” the panel found.

At a press conference during the murder trial, Ms. Zubko-Valva talked about her many pleas for help to child protection workers and other state officials that went ignored.

“I kept thinking about all the institutions who failed to help him, who completely did absolutely nothing ... now everybody’s trying to do the right thing ... but where were you when I begged you for help when you could have saved my child’s life,” said Ms. Zubka-Valva who said she also filed a complaint with the FBI after Judge Hope Schwartz Zimmerman gave custody to Mr. Valva.

The judge awarded custody to the father after a divorce attorney complained to the court Ms. Zubko-Valva was “interfering with her access to the children,” according to a pending wrongful death lawsuit Ms. Zubko-Valva filed against the county CPS.

Details of CPS' alleged complicity in the court’s custody ruling are scattered throughout the lawsuit. These include accounts of the agency’s quick dismissal of a flash drive. The lawsuit stated the mother provided this drive to the agency, and it contained 320 documents and other evidence supporting the claim that Tommy and his brothers were enduring severe abuse by their father and stepmother, Angela Pollina, who was convicted last March of the second-degree murder of her stepson.

According to the lawsuit, the evidence included several letters from Tommy’s pediatrician and therapists corroborating the abuse. It was already revealed in the lawsuit and during Mr. Valva and Ms. Pollina’s trial that the agency ignored visible signs Tommy and his brothers were being starved.

Two years ago, the Institute for Justice (IJ) launched “Project Immunity and Accountability,” a national campaign to end immunity for government officials.

“If we the people must follow the law, our government must follow the Constitution,” the group states as the headline to its campaign’s mission.

CPS agencies have long been accused of using immunity to justify their troubling decisions rather than reform them.

In a 2007 case, a child advocate brought a federal suit against the Standing Rock Child Protection Services and Bureau of Indian Affairs in North Dakota after the agencies claimed immunity for knowingly placing a juvenile sex offender into a foster home with three young children.

“Such immunity, it maintains, is based on the agency’s policy decision to protect the privacy interests of its former ward,” the lawsuit charged. “By this argument, CPS creates a smokescreen within which to hide from liability, despite its flagrant abuse of a system that it is duty-bound to protect.”

As part of its campaign, IJ is asking state legislators to adopt amendments to their state constitution to abolish government immunity, but so far no lawmakers have taken up the cause.

In New Hampshire, where Harmony Montgomery was murdered in 2019, Republican lawmakers like Rep. Leah Cushman have been pushing for reform of the child protection agency and family courts.

The state did not accept any blame for the girl’s murder even though evidence was introduced during her father’s trial that the agency failed to conduct mandatory checks on her and appeared to be unaware that she had been missing for two years.

Recently, Ms. Cushman successfully convinced House leaders to form a special committee to investigate the New Hampshire Division of Children, Youth, and Family (DCYF).

As reported previously by The Epoch Times, the committee had only started when she was removed as chairman of the committee by the House Speaker when she initiated a voluntary oath for both victims and officials as part of the special committee’s investigation.

She has since told The Epoch Times she believes the “real fix” is to take child protection service agencies out of the “investigation business,” abolish family courts, and return allegations of child abuse to the criminal courts where there is real due process.

“Keeping these cases civil is being soft on crime and letting people shown to be abusive to never face justice in a real court of law,” she said.

The NH DCYF, Massachusetts Department of Children Services, and Suffolk County Child Protective Services did not respond to requests for comment from The Epoch Times.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/new-york-grand-jury-releases-scathing-report-against-child-protection-services-agency-5623567?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=latest-news-posts-0

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

Vatican declares sex-change surgery and surrogate births grave violations of human dignity, putting them on a par with abortion and euthanasia

The Pope's rejection of transgenderism is reasonable and welcome but it will dent his hitherto stellar reputation among "progressives"

The Vatican on Monday declared gender-affirming surgery and surrogacy as grave violations of human dignity, putting them on par with abortion and euthanasia as practices that reject God's plan for human life.

Titled 'Infinite Dignity,' the 20-page declaration - that has been in the works for five years - focuses on what it describes as threats to human dignity, including poverty, the death penalty, war, sexual abuse and the abuse of women.

After substantial revision in recent months, the text was approved March 25 by Pope Francis, who ordered its publication.

In its most eagerly anticipated section, the Vatican repeated its rejection of 'gender theory,' or the idea that one's gender can be changed.

It said God created man and woman as biologically different, separate beings, and said people must not tinker with that plan or try to 'make oneself God.'

'It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception,' the document said.

The document distinguished between gender-affirming surgeries, which it rejected, and 'genital abnormalities' that are present at birth or that develop later.

Those abnormalities can be 'resolved' with the help of health care professionals, it said.

The document largely reaffirms and expands on the Catholic Church's teaching regarding gender theory - asserting that attempts to change an individuals gender are ultimately attempts to play God.

He denounced 'gender theory' as the 'worst danger' facing humanity today, an 'ugly ideology' that threatens to cancel out God-given differences between man and woman.

He has blasted in particular what he calls the 'ideological colonization' of the West in the developing world, where development aid is sometimes conditioned on adopting Western ideas about gender and reproductive health.

The condemnation of abortion is strong and reiterates what the pontiff has previously said - that the 'defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right.'

'Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable', it continues.

The document also mentions surrogacy, which it says 'violates' both the dignity of the child and the woman, who 'becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.'

While much attention about surrogacy has focused on possible exploitation of poor women as surrogates, the Vatican document asserts that the child 'has the right to have a fully human (and not artificially induced) origin and to receive the gift of a life that manifests both the dignity of the giver and that of the receiver.'

'Considering this, the legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a `right to a child' that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the gift of life.'

Pope Francis has recently called for the practice of surrogacy to be banned.

The declaration then goes on to mention euthanasia and assisted suicide, defined by some laws as ' death with dignity'.

The document stresses that 'suffering does not cause the sick to lose their dignity, which is intrinsically and inalienably their own'.

Advocates for LGBTQ+ Catholics immediately criticised the document as outdated, harmful and contrary to the stated goal of recognizing the 'infinite dignity' of all of God's children.

They warned it could have real-world effects on trans people, fuelling anti-trans violence and discrimination.

'While it lays out a wonderful rationale for why each human being, regardless of condition in life, must be respected, honoured, and loved, it does not apply this principle to gender-diverse people,' said Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBTQ+ Catholics.

The document's existence, rumoured since 2019, was confirmed in recent weeks by the new prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Argentine Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, a close Francis confidant.

He had cast it as something of a nod to conservatives after he authored a more explosive document approving blessings for same-sex couples that sparked criticism from conservative bishops around the world, especially in Africa.

And yet, the document takes pointed aim at countries - including many in Africa - that criminalise homosexuality.

The new document denounces 'as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.'

The document is something of a repackaging of previously articulated Vatican positions, read now through the prism of human dignity.

The Vatican had previously published its most articulated position on gender in 2019, when the Congregation for Catholic Education rejected the idea that people can choose or change their genders and insisted on the complementarity of biologically male and female sex organs to create new life.

The new document from the more authoritative Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith quotes from that 2019 education document, but tempers the tone.

The Rev. James Martin, who has called for the Catholic Church to extend greater outreach to LGBTQ+ Catholics, said the gender terminology was similar to past declarations.

But he welcomed the condemnation of legislation and violence against LGBTQ+ people.

Francis has made reaching out to LGBTQ+ people a hallmark of his papacy, ministering to trans Catholics and insisting that the Catholic Church must welcome all children of God.

Transgender activists immediately called the document 'hurtful' and devoid of the voices and experiences of real trans people, especially in its distinction between transgender people and intersex people.

'The suggestion that gender-affirming health care - which has saved the lives of so many wonderful trans people and enabled them to live in harmony with their bodies, their communities and (God) - might risk or diminish trans people's dignity is not only hurtful but dangerously ignorant,' said Mara Klein, a nonbinary, transgender activist who has participated in Germany's church reform project.

'Seeing that, in contrast, surgical interventions on intersex people - which if performed without consent especially on minors often cause immense physical and psychological harm for many intersex people to date - are assessed positively just seems to expose the underlying hypocrisy further,' Klein said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13284303/Vatican-declares-sex-change-surgery-surrogate-births-grave-violations-human-dignity-putting-par-abortion-euthanasia.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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