Tuesday, October 27, 2020

'We have to erase men': Lesbian author who urges women to 'eradicate' men from their lives racks up 5 star reviews on Amazon - but some argue it's 'a form of apartheid'

Just another version of Leftist hate

A lesbian activist has urged women to 'eliminate' men from their minds and lives in a controversial new book that claims to provide the ultimate solution to female emancipation.

Paris city Councillor Alice Coffin, has revealed in her debut book, Lesbian Genius, that she doesn't listen to music, read books, or watch films made by men and her partner Yuri also only consumes things that have been produced by women.

Reflecting on feminism and lesbianism in the years since French feminist Simone de Beauvoir penned The Second Sex, she claimed that the only way for women to be truly emancipated is to eradicate men from their lives completely.

'It's not enough to help one another, we have to erase them. Erase them from our minds, from our pictures, from our representation. I don't read books by men anymore, I don't watch their movies, I don't listen to their music', she writes.

Alice admits she imagined herself as a boy when she was younger, but now believes being a lesbian is a 'greater' achievement.

The author who says she's aware that generalising may annoy people, claims men are a 'permanent war on women' and her book is a response to the favour men continue to receive.

Speaking about the male role models and those currently in leadership, Alice writes: 'There's only men like Macron at the head of our political, economic and cultural institutions and in the media.

'Some worse than others. Let them go. They sow misfortune, we want joy. Being a lesbian is a party, they won't spoil it.'

Hinting at the reason why she doesn't watch films made by men, Alice argues the media objectifies women.

'Following into a well-oiled mechanism created by the Catholic state, the movie industry turned women into objects to massacre, while still putting them on the highest of pedestal.

'Be beautiful and shut up, be beautiful and I rape you, be beautiful, you're going to die, this is the movie industry,' she says.

Alice argues men erect monuments to celebrate their heroes, meanwhile women are abused for centuries and their history is lost without a trace.

'I never say that men have everything to win with feminism. It's false. They have everything to lose. Their privilege, their monopoly, their power,' she adds.

Arguing women are blasted for speaking out, she says: 'When we, feminists, put together lists, produce data, are outraged, they have the nerve to ask: "But you don't think, you just hate men".

Despite the book receiving a flood of five stars reviews on Amazon as readers gush that the author makes points they haven't heard before, fellow French feminists have blasted Alice's call to action.

Marlène Schiappa who is France's former minister for gender equality, accused the author of advocating for 'a form of apartheid,' reports The Economist.

She was asked to share her views about the book promoting a 'form of totalitarianism' in a discussion with radio host Sonia Mabrouk.

Meanwhile, author Agnès Poirier argues Alice's new French feminism would be dubbed 'ridiculous' by Simone de Beauvoir.

Simone who published The Second Sex in 1949, was bisexual and flouted convention to give French women a voice.

Blue-Check Ignorance and Intolerance Threaten Freedom and Our Way of Life

Last week the Twitter blue-check mob tried to cancel one of the nicest and most decent people on the planet: actor Chris Pratt.

His crime? Pratt exercised his freedoms of speech and association by declining an invitation to publicly support Joe Biden. Twitter’s little hate engines went to work on him, until the Avengers actors assembled and clapped back at them. Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, the whole gang who defeated Thanos (an environmentalist extremist, by the way) on the big screen stood up for their friend Star-Lord, and good for them. It’s all too easy for actors to just go along with whatever nonsense the blue-check chuckleheads come up with. Actors tend not to be the most morally courageous lot. If they were, Harvey Weinstein would never have happened.

All in all, it was a good ending to yet another moment of mass stupid in 2020, but the moment should never have had to happen. Silence is speech (not violence). When you’re arrested, the cops even tell you that “you have the right to remain silent” as part of your Miranda rights. In that case, silence is a defense against self-incrimination. Silence can also be a defense against groupthink, and it can be an assertion of your basic human right to be left alone.

Pratt’s decision to keep his mouth shut is not only one that many more of the famous should exercise, it literally lines up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What if the Avengers actors hadn’t defended Pratt? Would we have seen cancel culture destroy a good and decent man not for saying something offensive, but for saying nothing at all? Probably.


Recent blue-check stupidity doesn’t stop at the Avengers’ defense of the Bill of Rights. During the final presidential debate, President Trump brought up the issue of “coyotes” smuggling people across the border. Twitter idiots erupted with guffaws. Because they’re stupid.

Someone went and gathered blue-check reaction to the president’s factual and accurate coyotes remark. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

Blue-checkers exhibit their ignorance about a key border problem.
A couple of those blue-checkers are actually famous. Peri Gilpin, originally from Waco, Texas, played Roz on Frasier. Lexa Doig has starred in a few B-grade and below TV series and movies.

As both of them and all Americans ought to know, coyotes are human smugglers and traffickers. They charge poor people exorbitant sums of money to get them into the United States against our laws by whatever means their evil minds may devise. Coyotes do not care about the welfare of their customers at all. They care about cash and breaking laws. They tend to move the human cargo in the backs of trucks and in conditions that subject them to the real threat of injury and death. No food. No water.

Coyotes are very bad people. They are also fixtures on the border and have been for ages. Trump was right to bring them up during the debate. That he was mocked for it betrayed the arrogance and, again, stupidity that is rampant across the blue-check mob and across too much of our culture. Blue-checkers are not better than the rest of us. They tend to know a whole lot less than your average American. But they were probably handed trophies for doing nothing when they were kids, they’ve been treated like demigods for landing a TV role at some point, and the “I’m the center of the whole universe!” mentality stuck like flypaper.

The left’s combination of self-righteousness and arrogant ignorance pollutes our public discourse, threatens our fundamental rights, and may yet be the death of our freedoms and our republic.

Biden is Wrong: U.S. Didn’t Have a Good Relationship With Hitler — But the New York Times Did

Did the United States really have a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before he started World War II? Joe Biden made this bizarre claim during Thursday’s debate with President Trump. Trump said of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: “North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. People don’t understand. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.”

Biden shot back: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.”

Come on, Joe! The U.S. didn’t have a good relationship with Hitler before he “invaded Europe. The German dictator was, however, beloved in certain quarters, including the editorial offices of the New York Times.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t attack Hitler directly before the war began, but relations between the U.S. and Nazi Germany were by no means good. In September 1938, Roosevelt sent a telegram to Hitler lecturing him about the importance of keeping the peace and stating: “The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.” Implying that Hitler was a warmonger was hardly a hallmark of cordial relations between the two countries.

Failing to get a satisfactory response from Hitler, on October 11, 1938, Roosevelt announced that he was increasing national defense spending by $300 million (over $5 billion in today’s dollars). No one thought that money was going to build up our defenses against Britain and France.

Some in America, however, loved the Führer.

The historian Rafael Medoff recently noted that on July 9, 1933, just over five months after he became Chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become notorious worldwide, the New York Times published a fawning puff piece on Hitler that rivals even today’s media adulation of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi in its one-sidedness, myopia, and disdain for essential facts.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she was an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, as in the presence of this man whose name has become justly synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.”

As if that weren’t enough, she continues with a description of the Führer as outlandish and adulatory as likening the supremely zaftig Stacy Abrams to a supermodel: “His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”

McCormick labored to portray Hitler as more modest than his public persona might suggest: “In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.” He is also, she signaled to her readers, reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”

The intrepid New York Times reporter doesn’t seem to have asked Hitler if he had a significant other, but no one would have been surprised after reading all this if the two of them had become an item.

However, McCormick’s interview was not all about Hitler’s sun-browned face and blue larkspur eyes. In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.

Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would still be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs. And old Joe Biden, as he contemplates the approaching end of the presidential race from his Delaware basement, can rest secure in the certainty that no matter what outrageously false or crazy thing he says, that same New York Times will cover for him, too.

Handling diversity-talk

These days, when we hear academic folks uttering new holy words —“diversity,” “intersectionality,” “systemic racism”— many conservatives deny in knee-jerk fashion that such a goal is important or such a thing exists. Christians should be different. Instead of denying problems, we should acknowledge them, then expand understanding by viewing them Biblically.

Instead of scoffing at diversity-talk we should say, “Your diversity is too thin: Let’s have hyper-diversity.” Paul famously wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Yes: We should welcome into our churches or colleges different nationalities, different legal statuses, and of course both male and female.

Today, instead of limiting “diversity” to the big three of race, sex, and sexual orientation, let’s say, “I’ll see your three and raise you three: Let’s add religion, ideology, and abortion orientation,” since the current Supreme Court battle shows abortion is our most divisive current issue.

After all, is it harder now for a lesbian or an openly pro-life woman to get a tenure track position at a major liberal arts college? Who is more likely to get a promotion at most Fortune 500 companies, someone who sports a Black Lives Matter sticker or someone who keeps an open Bible on his desk?

If we’re asked why a particular dispute like abortion should be singled out, let’s respond, “Fine. Let’s add issues such as socialism versus free enterprise, or evolution versus creation, and do all we can to let students hear a diversity of views.”

Christians who bristle about “intersectionality”— the idea that people can face discrimination for a multiplicity of reasons — should instead say, “Of course. Because of original sin, life is hard, for multiple reasons. Your intersectionality is too small.”

All have sinned — see Romans 3:23 — and sinful individuals create sinful systems. Mega-intersectionality includes structural problems in housing and banking that liberals have pointed out — “redlining” was a long-term sin — and also a welfare system that discourages marriage, a lack of school choice that traps poor kids in awful schools, and an abundance of cohabiting relationships that often lead to children growing up without dads.

And while we’re examining IN-famous problems, let’s be sure to emphasize street-level reality rather than suite-level theorizing. If we’re into castigating “white privilege,” let’s acknowledge that one of the most privileged people of 2020 is Robin DiAngelo. She’s white and reportedly charges $10,000-and-up to give a speech attacking whites and — according to black linguist John McWhorter — condescending to blacks.

McWhorter applies critical thinking to “critical race theory” and DiAngelo’s best-selling book,White ­Fragility: He wrote inThe Atlantic and said on NPR that it “openly infantilized Black people” and “simply dehumanized us” by teaching that “Black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree [since] Black people are unusually weak.”

His critique is just. DiAngelo and others teach that fragile white folks who feel defensive when charged with racism must not say things like “I marched in the ’60s” or “You don’t know me” or “You are generalizing.” Such comments will purportedly make fragile black folks furious.

The Bible emphasizes not fragility but strengthening. Proverbs 27 IN-famously tells us, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Ecclesiastes 10:10 adds, “If the iron is blunt, and one does not sharpen the edge, he must use more strength, but wisdom helps one to succeed.”

I’ll end with a theological twist from famous pastor Tim Keller: “Doubt doubt.” When a materialist professor discounts Christian testimonies by saying people believe only because they’re part of a particular social group, we should neither nod nor get angry. Instead, let’s ask, “Why do you disbelieve? Why shouldn’t we discount your argument?”


My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Monday, October 26, 2020

'I have made mistakes': Vogue editor Anna Wintour apologizes as black staffers call for her to resign and reveal she used a racist word and dismissed concerns when Kendall Jenner and Karlie Kloss were accused of cultural appropriation

Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour has apologized after black staffers called for her to resign and revealed she used a racist word and dismissed their concerns about cultural appropriation.

In a lengthy New York Times article published on Saturday, 18 black journalists who have worked with Wintour said Vogue favored employees who are thin, white and from elite backgrounds.

Eleven of them called for her resignation following offensive incidents involving Wintour's use of the word 'pickaninny', and cultural appropriation controversies involving Kendall Jenner's false gold teeth and Karlie Kloss's Vogue photo shoot as a Japanese geisha.

However, Naomi Campbell, one of the first black supermodels, who appeared on the cover of Wintour's first September issue in 1989, vehemently defended the editor.

And three other people of color told the Times that Condé Nast had made positive changes and that Wintour had promoted them to top roles.

Wintour recently split with her partner of 20 years, telecoms tycoon and entrepreneur Shelby Bryan, and is rumored to have grown close to actor Bill Nighy.

Wintour, who has been Vogue' editor in chief since 1988 and Condé Nast's artistic director since 2013, making her the editorial leader of all its titles, responded to the latest allegations in a statement to the Times: 'I strongly believe that the most important thing any of us can do in our work is to provide opportunities for those who may not have had access to them.'

'Undoubtedly, I have made mistakes along the way, and if any mistakes were made at Vogue under my watch, they are mine to own and remedy and I am committed to doing the work,' she added.

The Times article details a number of examples of alleged racism under Wintour's leadership.

In 2017, Wintour used an offensive racial term in an email as she raised questions about whether a photo shoot of black models wearing bonnets would itself be perceived as offensive.

'Don't mean to use an inappropriate word, but pica ninny came to mind,' Wintour wrote.

In a statement to the Times, Wintour said: 'I was trying both to express my concern for how our readers could have interpreted a photo and raise the issue for discussion, and I used a term that was offensive. And for that, I truly apologize.'

When Wintour asked a black assistant to weigh in on the photo shoot, the assistant said the image was not offensive, but expressed displeasure at being asked to render a verdict as a junior staff member, according to the Times.

In another 2017 incident, Kendall Jenner appeared at a London fashion week party wearing fake gold teeth, which a white Vogue writer described as 'a playful wink to the city's free-spirited aesthetic — or perhaps a proverbial kiss to her rumored boyfriend, A$AP Rocky.'

The Times reports that a black Vogue staffer expressed outrage, saying that the gold teeth were cultural appropriation.

A top lieutenant brought the issue to Wintour's attention, writing: 'If Kendall wants to do something stupid fine but our writers (especially white ones) don't need to weigh in and glorify it or ascribe reasons to it that read culturally insensitive.'

Wintour appeared dismissive of the cultural appropriation crisis, responding: 'Well I honestly don't think that's a big deal.'

Also in 2017, white model Karlie Kloss drew cultural appropriation accusations when she appeared in Vogue in a geisha outfit, with her face in pale makeup and her hair dyed black.

The photo shoot in Japan drew immediate accusations of 'yellowface'.

After internal cries of alarm over the feature, Wintour reportedly replied that it could not be cut because of its 'enormous expense.'

Kloss later apologized, tweeting: 'These images appropriate a culture that is not my own and I am truly sorry for participating in a shoot that was not culturally sensitive.'

That tweet reportedly angered Wintour, who received a personal message from Kloss saying 'I imagine the feeling is mutual, that it was hurtful to see the criticism from our Japan trip.

'I had written a short piece on social media as I wanted to make known that it was never my intention to offend or upset anyone from this spread.'

Wintour dryly replied: 'Thanks Karlie another time please give us a heads up if you are writing about a Vogue issue.'

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner threaten to sue over billboards linking them to COVID-19 deaths

US President Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law are threatening to sue a group of anti-Trump Republicans for posting billboard ads in New York City's Times Square linking them to the country's almost 225,000 coronavirus deaths.

The Lincoln Project says the billboards are there to stay
A lawyer representing Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, made the threat on Friday in a letter to the Lincoln Project, calling the ads "false, malicious and defamatory".

Marc Kasowitz, who is acting on behalf of the couple who are White House aides, also wrote the ads were "outrageous and shameful libel".

"If these billboard ads are not immediately removed, we will sue you for what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages," Mr Kasowitz said in his letter.

One of the ads features a smiling Ms Trump gesturing towards text showing the number of coronavirus deaths in New York and nationwide.

The other is a photo of Mr Kushner next to a quote attributed to him last month by Vanity Fair magazine, citing an unidentified source: "(New Yorkers) are going to suffer and that's their problem."

"While we truly enjoy living rent-free in their heads, their empty threats will not be taken any more seriously than we take Jared and Ivanka," the group said.

The group, which includes former campaign consultants to president George W Bush and senator John McCain, is the most prominent Republican-led organisation opposing Mr Trump's re-election on November 3.

It has produced barrages of ads calling for his defeat, attacked pro-Trump Republican politicians and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The billboards have appeared during a week where the US President said his country was "rounding the corner" on COVID-19 despite new figures contradicting his view of the pandemic.

The US recorded 84,218 new COVID-19 cases on Friday eclipsing its one-day record high of 77,299 new cases on July 16.

A Stake Through the Heart of the Market System

Letter to a critic:

I urge skepticism of calls for government to compel corporations to attend to the welfare of so-called “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of shareholders. The quotation at my blog from Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi nicely summarizes many reasons for such skepticism. I stand by that quotation and encourage you to consider it more carefully. But I here add one more reason – one built on the truth of your wise recognition that “corporate decisions impact communities and families outside of ownership.”

Given this truth, should government, then, compel individuals and households to attend to the welfare of “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of the individual and members of the household? After all, if you choose to shop at Safeway rather than at Kroger, your decision contributes to possible job losses at Kroger. In light of this fact, would it be wise to enable government to compel you to shop at Kroger despite that store’s higher prices or greater inconvenience?

Or if your parents are considering moving to another town, should government be able to override their decision – forcing them to remain where they are – because the sale of their current home will depress property values in their town and, thus, negatively affect their neighbors?

My point is that every economic decision has impacts far beyond the individual decision-maker. This reality isn’t confined to corporations; it’s true of each and every economic decision that you personally make, that each household makes, that each small business makes. And it’s fundamental to an economy built on specialization and trade. To ensure that as many as possible of these impacts are positive rather than negative, market economies rely upon private property and contract rights as well upon economic competition and market prices. (To better understand how these institutions promote positive impacts and lessen negative ones, I recommend a well-taught course in principles of economics.)

And so – “Stakeholder capitalism” is not, contrary to Elizabeth Warren’s claim, a means of saving or improving the market economy. It’s a frontal assault on it. By allowing government to suppress private property and contract rights, we’d move, not in the direction of what you call “a more humane capitalism” but, instead, in the direction of a more arbitrary and, hence, authoritarian means of dictating the use of resources, including labor. The end result would not be what you expect and hope.

National anthem non-protest decision by Australia's Rugby football team

Wallabies coach Dave Rennie has confirmed the national men’s rugby side will not take a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement before their Bledisloe Cup match against the All Blacks next weekend.

Sporting teams and organisations around the world have opted to show support for the BLM movement since the death of George Floyd by taking a knee.

On Thursday, Wallabies fullback Dane Haylett-Petty revealed the Australian squad were considering a silent protest during the national anthem before their Test match against New Zealand in Sydney on Sunday, October 31.

The Wallabies would become the first Australian national side to take a knee during a national anthem if they went ahead with the silent protest.

“I think it’s great,” Haylett-Petty said. “I think sport has an amazing opportunity to have a say and join conversations and a lot of sports have done that and it would be a great thing for us to do.”

It led ex-Wallabies captain Nick Farr-Jones to speak out against the idea.

“To take the risk of basically splitting the support the Wallabies are starting to earn through their gutsy performances in Wellington and Auckland – just don't do it guys, it's too risky,” he told 2GB radio. “You run the risk that a few (viewers) would just turn off. They don't want to see politics in national sport. That's a real risk. I think it could be divisive. I don't think here in Australia that we have a major issue in relation to discrimination of coloured people."

Which led to a response from former player Gary Ella. “That's just stupid talk. That obviously shows that Nick doesn't have a full appreciation of the history of Aboriginal people in this country,” Ella said. “If you're talking about reconciliation, we're talking about sharing and acknowledging the history that we’ve come past and are working towards a better future. Those type of comments are totally ignoring the history."

On Friday, Rennie told reporters the Australian squad came to a “unanimous decision” not to perform the silent protest.

“We met with the leaders and then the leaders met with the rest of the team and it’s a unanimous decision,’ Rennie said. “The key thing is, this is about honouring our indigenous people and we want the focus to be on that.

“Everyone’s got their own opinions around the other situation, but we want the focus to be on reflecting on our history and our past.

“All I’ve said is that our focus is around the First Nations People and the indigenous jersey. We’re not looking to make a political statement.”


My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Pope Francis calls for civil union laws for same-sex couples

The Pope is a heretic. Both the Old and New Testaments are clear that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. A Christian's duty is to condemn it, not support it:

Romans 1:27; Jude 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Mark 10:6-9; Matthew 19: 4-16; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Genesis 19:4-8

Catholics do claim authority for themselves that does not originate from the Bible but teachings which fly in the face of the Bible are clearly not Christian

Pope Francis has called in a new documentary for the creation of civil union laws, giving his clearest support to date for the rights of same-sex couples while breaking from the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

“What we have to create is a civil union law,” the pope says in the film, released in Rome on Wednesday. “That way they are legally covered.”

Francis’s comment does nothing to alter Catholic doctrine, but it nonetheless represents a remarkable shift for a church that has fought against LGBT legal rights — with past popes calling same-sex unions inadmissible and deviant.

Francis’s statement is also notable within a papacy that on the whole hasn’t been as revolutionary as progressives had hoped and conservatives had feared.

He has long expressed an interest in outreach to the church’s LGBT followers, but his previous remarks as pope have stressed understanding and welcoming rather than substantive policies.

The public remarks that led up to Pope Francis’s call for same-sex civil union laws

“This is the first time as pope he’s making such a clear statement,” the Rev. James Martin, a prominent Jesuit who has advocated for the church to more openly welcome LGBT members, said in a phone interview Wednesday. “I think it’s a big step forward. In the past, even civil unions were frowned upon in many quarters of the church. He is putting his weight behind legal recognition of same-sex civil unions.”

The remarks from the leader of the Roman Catholic Church have the potential to shift the debate for some of its 1.3 billion followers. While Catholic priests in some parts of the world already bless same-sex marriage, others clerics operate in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

In “Francesco,” a documentary that touches on several of the pope’s trademark issues, from migration to the environment, Francis does not indicate any openness to extending marriage to same-sex couples, but says “homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family.”

“They’re children of God and have a right to a family,” the pope says in his interview with the filmmaker, Evgeny Afineevsky. “Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

“This is huge,” said David Gibson, director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture. “Looking behind all this, [Francis is] basically saying, again, ‘We’re not out here to be culture warriors. We’re not out here to pick fights. We are out here to build up the family.’ ”

Officially, the church teaches that homosexual sex acts are “disordered.” Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, called homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil.” In 2003, under John Paul II, the church issued a lengthy document laying out the “problem of homosexual unions.” The document, issued by the Vatican’s doctrinal office, said that “legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage” would amount to “the approval of deviant behavior.”

Roberto de Mattei, president of the conservative Lepanto Foundation in Rome, said Wednesday that “this is perhaps the first time Pope Francis has publicly taken a stance on a specific point of morality against the church’s doctrine.”

“There’s no doubt this will add to the great confusion already existing in the Catholic world,” de Mattei said, “and will be fodder for those who maintain that, at least privately, the pope promotes or supports heresy.”

Conservatives often accuse Francis of muddling the church’s teaching on sexuality, saying he is allowing cultural changes to influence what should be immutable rules.

Famously, Francis in 2013 said about somebody who is gay: “Who am I to judge?” And he has spoken often about his ministry to gay and lesbian Catholics, saying they are loved by God and welcomed by the church.

His previous commentary about civil unions as pope has been difficult to decipher. In 2014, he said such unions should be evaluated “in their variety.” Though some took his words as an endorsement, the Vatican’s press office at the time downplayed the significance of any message.

Pope to parents of gay kids: ’Let them express themselves’
On a flight to Rome in 2018, Pope Francis said children who show “homosexual tendencies” should be treated with understanding and not be condemned or ignored. (Reuters)
Earlier, as a cardinal in Argentina, the pope reportedly supported civil unions as a pragmatic alternative to same-sex marriage. By all accounts, he remains staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage.

Pope Francis’s new encyclical is a papal warning about a world going backward

Reaction in the United States among bishops who have been previously critical of Francis’s papacy was relatively muted Wednesday. Support for civil unions and same-sex marriage among U.S. Catholics has steadily risen over the years: According to a Pew Research Center study from 2019, about 61 percent of Catholics support same-sex marriage, compared with 42 percent a decade earlier.

Thomas Tobin, the bishop of Providence, R.I., said in a statement that “the Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples needs to be clarified.”

“The Pope’s statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions,” Tobin said. “The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law. However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”

Pompeo and Vatican officials face off over negotiations with China on bishops

For many LGBT members of the faith, Francis may not have gone far enough.

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, a national organization of Catholics dedicated to LGBT rights, was skeptical on Wednesday.

“Is this a confession that the world and legal communities are moving forward and the church is eons behind?” Duddy-Burke said. “Is it a step forward, or is it a way to avoid going all the way toward same-sex sacramental marriage? Because we’ve experienced a push-pull from the church on this, we’ll hold our breath.”

The pope’s statement may be seen by some as the next step toward marriage equality, but the Catholic Church is far from taking that step, said Patrick Hornbeck, professor of theology at Fordham University.

Hornbeck, who left the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church before he married his same-sex partner in 2015, said Catholics who stay in the church have to do so with open eyes, because it is not likely to change for decades.

“As long as the Catholic Church continues to treat the lives and loves of LGBT people as short of the divine plan for humanity, people who are LGBT will always have second-class status,” Hornbeck said.

For Racial Healing, Reject Critical Race Theory

Imagine you own a small shop, perhaps something like a tailor shop where you have to assist each customer individually, and you find yourself in the situation where two people have entered at almost exactly the same time. One is white, and the other is black. You’re a sole proprietor, so you’re working alone. You are now faced with a decision: which of these two customers do you approach and help first?

Had you been confronted with this simple, everyday scenario a few months ago, you might not have thought much about it. You probably would have laughed and said it doesn’t matter; considering this a thought experiment would likely have seemed impertinent or even race-baiting. Maybe you still feel the same way now, but there’s also a good chance that you don’t. Though you may struggle to explain why, the thought of finding yourself in this perfectly ordinary situation may seem rather discomforting. There is a reason for this discomfort; you’re not just being paranoid.

The reason you’re uncomfortable is because a style of thought—indeed, an entire worldview—called Critical Race Theory has suddenly become mainstream. To be fair, this once-obscure way of thinking about the world has been in development for over 40 years, and has been seeping into our culture for the last decade in particular. In a sense, if you feel uncomfortable by the idea of being caught in the situation described here, it’s because you can feel the critical eye and fear its being turned on you. In a sense, you’re aware that the weight of your decision depends entirely on a factor completely outside of your control: whether or not one of the people who entered your shop, or someone who might end up a bystander to what happens next, has imbibed Critical Race Theory.

Critical Race Theory proceeds upon a number of core tenets, the first and most central of which is that racism is the ordinary state of affairs in our society. It is not aberrational, and therefore it is assumed to be present in all phenomena and interactions. The Critical Race Theorist’s job is to find it and “make its oppression visible” so that it might be “disrupted and dismantled.” This societal presupposition has been further distilled to a single operational question for those who accept the Critical Race Theory view of the world: “The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’” as phrased by the now world-famous critical whiteness educator and bestselling author Robin DiAngelo.

That is, as you imagine yourself coming out from behind the counter to greet one or the other of these two customers—one white and one black—racism is present in your decision. If anyone involved accepts the tenets of Critical Race Theory, it will be that person’s job to identify your racism and make a stink of it (which might result, if you’re in certain American cities today, in your shop being vandalized, looted, and burned down in the coming nights). In some sense, everything in your life hinges upon you making the right decision in a situation that doesn’t allow for such a thing.

Why not? Consider your options.

If you choose the black person, say, racism is present in that situation. A Critical Race Theorist will ask how it manifested, try to find it, and will then call it out to disrupt and dismantle it. In this case, it is clear that you don’t trust the black person to be in your shop unattended while you help another customer, which is based in racist stereotypes and upholds racism. If you choose the black customer, you have chosen poorly.

If you choose the white person instead, though, racism is present in that situation. A Critical Race Theorist will ask how it manifested, try to find it, and will then call it out to disrupt and dismantle it. In this case, you clearly favor white people, who you view as first-class citizens over black people, who you see as second-class citizens, because you’re a racist. If you choose the white customer, you have chosen poorly.

Because Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary, present, and intolerable, there is no right choice in this plain, everyday circumstance. The only way to remedy this problem, to someone who accepts Critical Race Theory’s premises, is to find the racism embedded in the situation and then to call it out, so that it might be disrupted and dismantled. This is the world according to Critical Race Theory, and in such a world, you’re always wrong (and notice—your race never had to be assumed for these situations to play out to the inevitable conclusion of present racism: the conclusion was simply to be and was assumed from the outset).

A world that operates like this cannot be functional, and it certainly cannot achieve Critical Race Theory’s stated objective: to achieve “racial healing” by ending racism and making society more just and fair. If we want to achieve those goals, which I believe are possible, it begins by rejecting, not accepting and mainstreaming, Critical Race Theory.

Trump Makes History in the Middle East Yet Again With Another Israel Peace Deal

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that yet another Middle Eastern Muslim-majority country will formally recognize the Jewish State of Israel, in yet another massive foreign policy coup for the president’s diplomacy in the Middle East.

“President [Donald Trump] has announced that Sudan and Israel have agreed to the normalization of relations— another major step toward building peace in the Middle East with another nation joining the Abraham Accords,” Judd Deere, deputy assistant to the president and deputy White House press secretary, announced on Twitter.

The recognition of Israel appears to be part of a broader agreement by which Trump will formally rescind Sudan’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Between 1989 and 2019, military dictator Omar al-Bashir controlled the North African country, allegedly engaging in human rights abuses and sponsoring terrorism. After protests in 2018, a coup d’etat ousted Bashir from power in April 2019.

“President Donald J. Trump has informed Congress of his intent to formally rescind Sudan’s designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” the White House announced on Friday. “This follows on Sudan’s recent agreement to resolve certain claims of United States victims of terror and their families. Yesterday, in fulfillment of that agreement, the transitional government of Sudan transferred $335 million into an escrow account for these victims and their families.”

According to the White House, Trump achieved “the resolution of longstanding claims of victims of the East Africa embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the murder of USAID employee John Granville.”

“This is a significant achievement for the President and his Administration and brings a measure of closure to many to whom it has long been out of reach,” the announcement argued.

The White House hailed the agreement as “a pivotal turning point for Sudan, allowing for a new future of collaboration and support for its ongoing and historic democratic transition.” The statement also urged Congress to pass legislation to “ensure that the American people rapidly realize the full benefits of this policy breakthrough.”

The Sudan agreement represents another major foreign policy coup for Trump, following the Abraham Accords.

This summer, Trump announced historic peace deals between Arab states in the Persian Gulf and the State of Israel. In the Abraham Accords, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized relations with Israel. Before the signing, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia announced they would open their skies to Israeli flights to the UAE. As part of its rapprochement with Israel, the UAE agreed to order hotels to serve Kosher foods in Abu Dhabi, delivering a powerful symbol of Jewish acceptance in a notoriously anti-Semitic part of the world.

Shortly before the Abraham Accords, Trump brought Muslim-majority Kosovo and Christian-majority Serbia together for a historic agreement that included promises to set up embassies in Jerusalem. This agreement brought reconciliation to two countries with centuries-long animosities that had sparked multiple wars, including World War I.

These historic diplomatic successes have brought Trump multiple Nobel Prize nominations.

The West’s booming new religion

This week, Britain’s Equalities Minister delivered a speech we probably wouldn’t hear in our federal parliament. That’s a shame because we could do with some home truths about a booming wokeness movement that is deeply flawed.

During a House of Commons debate on Black History Month, Tory minister Kemi Badenoch, an immigrant of Nigerian heritage, exposed the blind adherence of schools to simplistic slogans of the Black Lives Matters movement.

“I want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home in my life and it is the promotion of critical race theory — an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression,” she said. “What we are against is the teaching of contested political ideas as if they are accepted facts. We don’t do this with communism. We don’t do this with socialism. We don’t do it with capitalism.”

Badenoch said that some schools have decided to openly support the anti-capitalist Black Lives Matter group “often fully aware that they have the statutory duty to be politically impartial”.

“Black lives do matter. Of course they do,” said Badenoch. “But we know that the Black Lives Matter movement — capital B, L, M — is political. I know this, because at the height of the protest, I’ve been told of white Black Lives Matter protesters calling — and I apologise for saying this word — calling a black armed police officer guarding Downing Street a ‘pet n …’.”

When Badenoch entered the British parliament in mid-2017, she was hailed by sections of the media as the smartest of the crop of new MPs. And maybe only a woman of colour could rise in parliament and say we should stop pretending BLM “is a completely wholesome anti-racist organisation”. ‘There is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that,” she said.

“We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and their inherited racial guilt. And let me be clear, any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.”

Let’s not kid ourselves. There is a similar propensity in Australian schools to present BLM in simplistic, and misleading, terms as a wholesome anti-racist movement.

For example, at Ballarat Grammar, a weekly chapel service in week eight of term three, delivered as a video package to students, was devoted to the BLM movement. After an introduction where the school chaplain describes social movements as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, a number of students read scripted statements extolling the virtues of the BLM movement. Students call for reparations for invasion. They talk about white privilege. They detail the terrible treatment of some Indigenous Australians within the justice system.

Students should bring complex and difficult issues to the attention of other students. Genuine learning will, at times, cause discomfort. But the video package for Ballarat Grammar students, and posted on the intra-school website, is a mickey mouse version of the BLM movement. It makes no attempt to recognise BLM as a political movement, which, like every political movement is complicated, sometimes inconsistent, and not figured out from a handful of scripted platitudes. Students are not stupid. Teachers, and preachers, respect them far more by allowing them to explore how political movements can be both significant and far from perfect.

Students have come of age in an online world. So there has never been a greater need to help them be discerning, curious, even sceptical of what they come across in their digital world. So why package up the BLM movement as a Hallmark card?

Defunding police, for example, has become a crude mantra of the BLM movement. It ought to be contested, even at schools, lest students imagine that mantras are a substitute for thinking about complex issues.

As Ballarat Grammar was compiling its BLM chapel video, the BLM website stated its aim to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family”. Though deleted from the website in mid-September, how does this anti-family view fit with the chaplain’s claim that the BLM movement is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit?

Parts of the BLM movement are radically political, vehemently anti-capitalist and aimed at dismantling the liberal order. It’s not hard to find video footage of black-clad BLM protesters standing over diners at restaurants, chanting “white silence is violence”, demanding that all people raise their fists to show solidarity with their chosen agenda.

If this was just a case of dumbing down education, that would be bad enough given the woeful results of Australian students in international educational rankings. But if educators are not giving students the warts-and-all truth about the BLM movement, how will kids learn to separate some very sound aims from some deeply authoritarian traits? Ballarat Grammar’s chapel service could have offered students the chance to consider a deeply ethical question: when, if ever, do the ends justify the means?

Imagine a school classroom where high school students are asked to consider whether Western lives matter? Where they are challenged to think whether we should kneel for French teacher Samuel Paty? Where they are asked to consider what Italian journalist Guilio Meotti said during the week after the civics teacher was beheaded for discussing the Mohammed cartoons in his classroom: “This French teacher was the victim of the most ferocious racism that circulates today in Western democracies, that of fundamentalist beliefs against ‘infidels’.”

Alas, not just schools offer unthinking support for the BLM movement. Corporations and all kinds of other groups salute it too as part of their commitment to “diversity and inclusivity”. This commitment, part and parcel of a wider wokeness agenda, is another quasi-political movement that, like the BLM movement, could do with a splash of scepticism and analysis.

Parading virtue is not the same as doing good. No organisation should need a highly paid team of D&I “experts” to prove it supports inclusivity and diversity. Nor should it need pages of turgid D&I policies to understand that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex, sexuality, creed, culture or race.

But the D&I industry has become the perfect Trojan horse for more opportunistic activists to demand special status and privileges for groups they deem special. And timid CEOs and boards are swallowing it, lock, stock and barrel. Most companies have D&I statements drafted by D&I “officers”, D&I KPIs drawn up and monitored by more D&I “professionals”, D&I workshops run by D&I “experts”. It is, as Time magazine reported late last year, a booming industry: a 2019 survey of 234 companies in the S&P 500 found that 63 per cent of diversity “experts” were appointed during the past three years.

What a terrific lurk. No skills or formal qualifications required. Learn the D&I lingo, master the art of bullshit, and you’re on your way to a lucrative career with guaranteed work from company executives and board members looking to mimic each other with expensively drafted drivel about diversity and inclusion.

Woke D&I flunkies are paid handsomely, for example, to advise companies to establish their diversity and inclusion credentials by encouraging employees to “bring their whole self to work”. Most of it is for show. And much of it is as deeply flawed as the BLM movement.

What if your whole self includes a Christian or Muslim view of traditional marriage or homosexuality? Rugby Australia famously told Israel Folau not to bring those bits of his whole self to work, nor to express them on his personal social media accounts. Then he was told not to come to work at all.

James Cook University is another organisation that, according to its website “encourages diversity.” “JCU has an extensive program in place to encourage diversity,” it says. JCU places “diversity messages” in its recruitment advertising — such as this: “We are enriched by and celebrate our workplace diversity and welcome applications from candidates of all backgrounds and abilities.”

But when it comes to the university’s core business, diversity and inclusion is a crock. Rather than defend the diversity of academic opinions, JCU sacked physic professor Peter Ridd, claiming he acted in an uncollegial manner when he challenged the quality of climate research by a JCU academic.

More and more, the D&I industry resembles a new religion for our secular age. Corporate executives throw shareholder money in the D&I collection plate to signal their virtue.

Even worse, whereas older, traditional religions are learning to become more tolerant of difference, the D&I industry is not there yet.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Friday, October 23, 2020

Dem Hive Mind Tries to Cancel Chris Pratt for Avoiding Biden Fundraiser

Welcome to America in the first year of the 2020s, boys and girls. Everything matters. Nothing matters. There is no way to tell up from down anymore.

Enter Chris Pratt — everything people want to like about an entertainer. He’s a decent, God-fearing guy who always seems to be in a good mood. Scandal-free. Heck, even when he and his first wife Anna Faris got divorced in 2018 it was so amicable people were wondering if they were even real.

But in the aforementioned topsy-turvy nature of American society, Pratt’s decency is a hard “no” from enlightened, tolerant leftists.

OK, it’s not just his decency, it’s also his lack of willingness to participate in the leftist hive mind.

Some of Pratt’s Avengers castmates decided to get together for this bit of nonsense:

The Daily Wire:

“On Tuesday, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Paul Rudd, Don Cheadle, and Zoe Saldana will participate in a fundraising event to support Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris,” Vanity Fair reported.

“Yet while there was broad interest in the latest star-studded push for the Biden campaign, it’s the absence of one key Avengers star that has caused the biggest stir on social media,” the outlet noted. “Shortly after the event was announced, Chris Pratt’s name trended on Twitter, with many criticizing the Guardians of the Galaxy star for his perceived political views.”

As noted by The Daily Wire, Pratt was ridiculed over the weekend for allegedly radiating “homophobic white Christian supremacist energy,” among other left-wing attacks.

Because, of course, everyone who doesn’t support the leftist groupthink mob is homophobic and racist.

They really think that dismissing the over 200 million Christians in the United States as homophobic white supremacists is a sustainable winning political strategy.

I won’t post any of the social media hate directed toward Pratt here because I don’t like giving people like that any kind of publicity. It’s plenty easy to find (especially on Twitter) if you want to.

One of Pratt’s Marvel Cinematic Universe costars was having none of it. Robert Downey Jr. came to Pratt’s defense with a gentle but biting rebuke of those who are attacking his friend:

The “sinless.”


If we just went a few years back in the Wayback Machine we wouldn’t be talking about the need to defend an American because he is a Christian and doesn’t want to support a certain candidate just because some of his friends did, but this is where we are at now:

Yeah, now we have to “defend” someone for being honest and open about his struggle with cancer because he’s a wrongthink Rethuglican. It’s bad to worry about dying in front of all the people who want you dead, after all.

Chris Pratt is being excoriated for openly possessing values that most Americans do. He’s a celebrity, however, and our betters will be having none of that, thank you.

It would be nice if Chris Pratt wasn’t an anomaly in the entertainment industry, but we are well past that point. The fact that he’s there is encouraging, however. The more that the cancel crowd extends its reach like this, the more diluted and weak it gets.

It’s a weird silver lining to see but we have to take the small victories when we can in order to get to the big ones.

What is the antidote to ‘Wokeness’?

Political comedian Evan Sayet says he has long dedicated himself to conserving and promoting the American values that have given him freedom and allowed him to pursue his life of liberty and happiness. His new book, The Woke Supremacy, lays out the history and characteristics of “Wokeness.”

However, in failing to examine the origins of this totalitarian intolerance, he misses the critical difference between old-style Marxism, so-called “Democratic socialism,” and “cultural Marxism” as first delineated by the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci and employed by Chinese dictator Mao Zedong.

That’s okay, though, because Sayet masterfully describes how these subversives operate and lays out the tactical principles (and lack of moral principles) that drive them. Their goal, he says, is to replace Western civilization with a nihilist premise that everything about Western culture is evil.

One fruit of this evil, poisonous tree is that Western society is so racist, Woke activists assert, and so fraught with multiple other evils that it cannot be repaired. Instead, it must be eradicated and replaced.

Philosopher, historian and self-defense advocate Sam Jacobs summarizes the origins of Wokeness by reviewing Gramsci, who spent a decade in Mussolini’s prisons and rejected the twin ideas of a dictatorship of the proletariat and direct ownership of the means of production as losing propositions.

Instead, this son of a low-level Italian bureaucrat argued that for socialism to “take America without firing a shot” (as Khrushchev would later boast) would require a “long march through the institutions” of Western culture in order to penetrate, infiltrate and eventually control them. In the 1960s Marshall McLuhan summed up Gramsci’s argument in his book, The Medium Is the Message.

Both Chairman Mao, beginning in 1966, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot a decade later saw existing cultural institutions as impediments to their quest for absolute power to reshape their societies according to their Marxist ideals. But both revolutions failed, perhaps because they had missed Gramsci’s point. Success comes from slowly subverting the culture rather than destroying it.

Mao’s vision was to rid China of “the four Olds” – Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Ideas. In other words, everything that pre-dated communism. As Christopher Holton writes in The Hayride, Mao’s Red Guards started out renaming streets, quickly escalated to destroying old buildings, old books, and old art, and ransacking homes of the disloyal. They even desecrated cemeteries, dug up corpses and tore down monuments. Only later did they start killing.

Pol Pot witnessed China’s “Cultural Revolution” and wanted to outdo his mentor via a “Super Great Leap Forward,” instead of a “long march.” He expelled foreigners, closed embassies, shuttered newspapers and TV stations, confiscated radios and bicycles, outlawed mail and telephones, and put those still alive in agrarian camps. People began starving to death.

In his 2012 book, The Kindergarten of Eden, Sayet posited four laws of “modern liberalism,” beginning with “indiscriminateness,” total rejection of the intellectual process. This, he said, leads to a topsy-turvy worldview that always sides with the lesser and against the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good. That is what happened in China and Cambodia.

Promoting the lesser is always paired with denigrating the better. The negative qualities of the Woke (socialists) are ascribed to the un-Woke (nationalists) – and vice versa. Hillary Clinton thus framed President Trump for “collusion with Russia,” which evidence now shows she herself engaged in.

The primary goal of the modern liberal, Sayet contends, is the total regression of man back to his first days on earth. Or as Joni Mitchell wrote, “We’ve go to get ourselves back to the Garden.” The blueprint for cultural Marxism in America, Sayet argues in both books, is John Lennon’s popular song, “Imagine.” The perfect, peace-filled world has no heaven or hell and people live just for the moment, with no countries, no religion, no possessions, and nothing worth dying for.

This Woodstock hippies’ quest for an imaginary simpler time provided the New Left with a ready-made tool for organizing to effectuate institutional control. Their rejection of Western civilization – their search for the innocence of “the Garden” – enabled them to create new curricula that lured “useful idiots” into the halls of academe, the arts and the political arena, where hard-core Woke nihilists could redefine “truth.”

Sayet opens The Woke Supremacy by stating that, while Hitler’s National Socialism was ideologically the polar opposite of Democratic Socialism, ideology has little influence over behavior once any socialist system gains power.

Both rejected nationalism built on a foundation of local leadership (hence our Tenth Amendment) that implements policies which make sense locally even if not nationwide. Socialism, Sayet affirms, requires top-down governance where “one size fits all” (except for governing elites).

Enforcement of top-down government requires tyrannical control, and tremendous energy, to impose a Woke supremacy from which there can be no dissent or even debate. Wokeness thus requires the use of hate and fear. There is no redemption for the apostasy of believing facts when they conflict with “Woke truth.” The “Cancel Culture” can be just as vicious against a prior ally as against longtime opponents.

Conversely, there is no “Woke morality” by which infidelity, theft, property crimes or even murder disqualify a person who is useful in promoting Wokeness. The Woke proudly spotlight even criminals who shot first as “victims” of a “racist” police force that oppresses the entire society. Deconstructing sexual norms is also a powerful tool that confuses what is a “right.” Environmentalism turns science into a Woke morality play, regardless of real-world evidence to the contrary.

The Woke also use modifiers to confuse, divide and conquer. Adding “politically” to “correct” changes objective truth or outright fiction into narratives of “my truth.”

Similarly, the modifier “social” transforms the concept of “justice” notions that “the oppressed” are morally right to steal or commit voter fraud if their “intent” is couched in victimhood that can spark “peaceful protests.” The goal is victory, “by any means necessary,” whether packing the Supreme Court or turning a murderer into a victim to generate hatred of the law.

Not only must evil become good to the Woke; actual good deeds must be deconstructed. A major tool is the “dog whistle,” a tactic that asserts the Woke “know” the “real meaning” behind seemingly innocent or even positive words or actions.

Sayet recognizes that even a Trump/Republican political victory this fall will not defeat the Woke Supremacy’s culture war on America. They are too entrenched in schools and universities, in newsrooms and entertainment fields, and across social communications industries, to be easily vanquished.

Jacobs helpfully suggests that the first step in defusing cultural Marxism is to learn what it is and how it operates – and call it out for what it is. Sayet provides an excellent primer for this.

Step 2, says Jacobs, is to learn from the history of society and ideas the many benefits that Western Civilization has brought, including its self-correction of prior evils – and teach them to others.

Step 3 is to reject political guilt and instead recognize that Western civilization is a constant work in progress, a continuing effort to improve society, not a static conspiracy to rob everyone but “old, rich, white men” of their just rewards.

Via email

VP Pence Honors Castro and Che Guevara’s Murder Victims, Obama Honored the Murderers

“It is great to be back in the Sunshine State with so many champions for freedom, just 19 days away from a great victory all across Florida and all across America. But standing here, near the hallowed grounds of Memorial Cubano, it is my great honor, on behalf of our president, to accept the endorsement of these extraordinary heroes of the Cuban exiled community. Thank you so much. I thank you so much for the honor and for the support,” Vice President Pence at the Cuban Memorial, Oct. 15.

Far from honoring communist murder victims, Obama visited Cuba to gift the mass-murderers a financial lifeline, covered his heart while posing with Che Guevara and raised Raul Castro’s arms in triumph. Could the choice in this election be any starker?

You’ll often find people with itchy noses and red-rimmed eyes ambling amidst the long rows of white crosses at Tamiami Park on Coral Way and 107 Avenue in Miami.

It’s a mini-Arlington cemetery called the Cuban Memorial, in honor of Castro and Che Guevara’s murder victims and those who fell trying to free Cuba from the murderous barbarism they imposed with their Soviet overlords while "The Best and Brightest" dithered, bumbled, and finally betrayed.

But the crosses at the Cuban Memorial are symbolic. Most of the bodies still lie in mass graves dug by bulldozers on the orders of the Stalinist dictator who Jimmy Carter called “an old friend” and his mass-murdering henchman who Obama saw fit to pose in front of with hand his over heart.

Never heard of this Cuban Memorial in the mainstream media? Well, it honors the tens of thousands of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s victims (many of them U.S citizens, by the way). Need I say more about the media blackout? I didn’t think so.

Some of these Cuban Memorial visitors will be kneeling, others walking slowly, looking for a name. You remember a similar scene from the opening frames of Saving Private Ryan. Many clutch rosaries. Many of the ladies will be pressing their faces into the breast of a relative who drove them there, a relative who wraps his arms around her spastically heaving shoulders.

Try as he might not to cry himself, he usually finds that the sobs wracking his mother, grandmother, or aunt are contagious. Yet he’s often too young to remember the face of his martyred uncle, father, or cousin — the name they just recognized on the white cross.

"Fusilado" — firing squad execution — it says below it.

According to the Black Book of Communism these total 16,000, all at the orders of the man Democrat presidential candidate George McGovern called “likable and a good friend.” Even many of the older men walking among these crosses will be red-eyed, choked up.

The elderly lady still holds a tissue to her eyes and nose as they wait to cross the street after leaving the memorial. Her red-eyed grandson still has his arm around her. She told him about how his freedom-fighter grandfather yelled "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Cristo Rey!" the instant before the volley of Russian bullets shattered his body.

They cross the street slowly, silently, and run into a blue and orange-haired harpy waving a Black Lives Matter placard. Her T-shirt sports the face of her husband’s cowardly executioner, Che Guevara. You, friends, tell me how she might feel?

Another woman will go home after placing flowers under her father’s cross — a father she never knew. "Killed in action, Bay of Pigs, April 18th, 1961" reads the inscription on his cross. She was 2 at the time. "We will not be evacuated!" yelled her father’s commander into his radio that day, as 41,000 Red Troops and swarms of Stalin tanks closed the ring on her father and his 1,400 utterly abandoned Band of Brothers. "The Best and Brightest" all had important social engagements that day.

"We came here to Fight!" her father’s commander kept yelling at the enraged and heartsick CIA man offering to evacuate them from the doomed beachhead. "Let it end here!" was his last yell, barely audible over the deafening blasts from the storm of Soviet artillery.

Her 23-year-old father — an accountant in Cuba a year before, a dish-washer in a Miami Hotel only two months before, and now grim-faced, thirst-crazed, and delirious after three days of continuous ground combat — heard the order from his commander: "No Retreat! We Stand and Fight!" and rammed in his last clip. By then he’d long realized he’d never see his daughter’s graduation.

His ammo expended, and no more coming on the specific orders of "The Best and Brightest," he fell among the bodies of 100 of his Band of Brothers, after mauling his communist enemies to the score of 20 to one. "Wimps! Yes, Wimps!" the woman hears Democrat Party Golden Boy Michael Moore label her father and his Band of Brothers in one of America’s best-selling books. "Crybabies too!"

Again, friends, you tell me how she might feel.

Castro murdered her relatives, shattered her family and plunged a nation — which had double Japan’s per capita income in 1958, plus net immigration from Europe — into a pesthole that repels even half-starved Haitians. He jailed, tortured, and murdered more political prisoners than pre-war Hitler, and about 20 times as many as Mussolini.

He asked, pleaded, and finally tried to cajole the Butcher of Budapest into an obliterating nuclear strike against America. Failing there, he tried to blow up Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdale's, and Grand Central Station with more TNT than used by Madrid subway terrorists.

Yet he’s hailed as "One Helluva Guy" by Ted Turner; as "Very likable, a man I regard as a friend!" by George McGovern; and "Way Too Cool!" by Bonnie Raitt, among dozens upon dozens of other accolades by dozens of other liberal scoundrels and imbeciles. Tens of thousands of Cubans (and dozens of Americans) fought him. "We were fighting for Cuba’s freedom as well as America’s defense. To call us mercenaries is a grave insult," says Alabama Air guard officer Albert Persons about his and his Alabama comrades’ heroism during the battle of The Bay of Pigs. The Ivy League’s Best and Brightest might sell our comrades out, they snorted. We sure as hell won’t.

It was more than bluster, too. Four U.S. volunteers — Pete Ray, Riley Shamburger, Leo Barker, and Wade Grey — suited up, gunned the engines, and joined the fight. These were Southern boys, not pampered Ivy Leaguers, so there was no navel-gazing. They had archaic notions of right and wrong, of honor and loyalty, of who America’s enemies really were. Their Cuban comrades — men they’d trained and befriended — were being slaughtered on that heroic beachhead. Knowing their lumbering B-26s were sitting ducks for Castro’s unmolested jets and Sea Furies, all four Alabama air guard volunteers flew over the doomed beachhead to lend support to their betrayed brothers in arms.

All four were shot down. All four have their names in a place of honor next to their Cuban comrades on the Bay of Pigs Memorial, plus streets named after them in Little Havana, plus their crosses at the Cuban Memorial.

When Doug MacArthur waded ashore on Leyte, he grabbed a radio: "People of the Philippines: I have returned. By the grace of Almighty God our forces stand again on Philippine soil — soil consecrated in the blood of our two peoples."

Cuban soil was similarly consecrated.

Women’s March Unites Against a Woman: Amy Coney Barrett

The second 2020 Women’s March, held on October 17, centers on sending an “unmistakable message about the fierce opposition to Trump and his agenda, including his attempt to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. This comes after the president nominated Judge Barrett, a brilliant jurist admired even by legal experts who disagree with her, as the late justice’s replacement. This latest march takes a stand against Barrett, even as so many American women identify with her story.

It’s true that Ginsburg’s seat is a big one to fill – and should be approached with thoughtful consideration. At her nomination, Barrett herself recognized the late justice as a “woman of enormous talent” who “not only broke glass ceilings” but also “smashed them.”

But this march isn’t just against President Trump nominating a new justice – the timing of it, or the politics surrounding it. It’s also specifically against his nominee, a woman: Judge Barrett.

Confirming this, the Washington Post named its live stream of the D.C. event, “Women's March protests Amy Coney Barrett.” And, in the promo video, the Women’s March included a clip questioning Barrett and her abortion position.

“Amy Coney Barrett won’t say if climate change is real, if presidents should commit to a peaceful transfer of power, if cases protecting marriage equality and our right to birth control were correctly decided,” the Women’s March tweeted on October 14. “Not only is her nomination illegitimate, it's a danger to our future.”

In other words, according to the Women’s March, Judge Barrett “is an affront to everything that Justice Ginsburg fought for.”

Among other things, she stood against women, the group complained on September 28.

“All of the progress that has been made—for women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and more—could be rolled back if Barrett is confirmed,” it urged.

The Women’s March also accused her of being an “anti”: “anti-immigrant,” “anti-choice,” “anti-lgbt,” and “anti-gun control.”

She was also anti-feminist, it said.

“Her presence on the Supreme Court would be a direct threat against all the freedoms, rights, and feminist values we've fought so hard to defend under Trump,” it added in another tweet on September 26.

And yet, in its haste to condemn her, the Women’s March overlooks the American women who identify with Amy Coney Barrett. They exist.

“For Conservative Christian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Success Is Personal,” one New York Times headline read on September 28. A Politico opinion headline declared, “Amy Coney Barrett: A New Feminist Icon” the day before. Another opinion piece, in America magazine, announced, “I see my own pro-life feminism in Amy Coney Barrett” on October 14. “Feminists Should Be Celebrating Amy Coney Barrett,” another piece, published by National Review, argued.

Each was written by a woman.

That’s something that should attract the Women’s March, which tries to come across as inclusive. Its self-described mission, after all, is “to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change.”

“We must create a society in which women - including Black women, Indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Jewish women, Muslim women, Latinx women, Asian and Pacific Islander women, lesbian, bi, queer, and trans women - are free and able to care for and nurture their families,” the Women’s March declares, “however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.”

The list notably doesn’t include pro-life or conservative women who, from the beginning, have been excluded. But pro-life groups, such as New Wave Feminists, and conservative groups, such as Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), still attend in an unofficial capacity – or host their own rallies.

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, the head of New Wave Feminists, which was uninvited as a partner from the first Women’s March in 2017, has stressed that even women marching in the Women’s March support them.

“We were so overwhelmed by the positivity of women coming up to us and saying, ‘We disagree with that decision’ and ‘We’re so glad you’re here,’” she said last year, referring to the reaction of women at past marches.

This year, New Wave Feminists had a presence again, as did IWF, which hosted an “I’m with Her” rally – “her,” meaning Amy Coney Barrett.

“The Women’s March is a picture of today’s feminist movement,” IWF President Carrie Lukas told the Washington Times. “It purports to speak for all women, but it ignores all of the women who reject its extreme progressive agenda.”

Tammy Bruce, the president of Independent Women’s Voice, IWF’s sister organization, added that the “so-called women’s movement is standing by while the mainstream media questions if Amy Coney Barrett can be a Supreme Court justice and a good mother, in addition to vilifying her background and her faith.”

At the same time, Barrett stresses that she values women and their choices. She addressed this while answering the question, “Can women really have it all?” at a Hillsdale College event last year.

“I think each woman is called to a unique path,” she urged. “I don’t think there’s one cookie-cutter way that women should proceed.”

“One thing I think that is really important not to lose sight of, is that we are so fortunate as women living in 2019 to have so many more doors open to us, and so many choices,” she said. “But I think as part of that conversation, I always want to be careful never to devalue the choices that women make that are different.”

That’s a message that the Women’s March should embrace, too.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Thursday, October 22, 2020

What the Never Trumpers are saying

The summary below turns on the definition of conservatism. The Never Trumpers are correct in saying that Trump has overturned what American conservatism has meant since Reagan. It should be remembered, however that Reagan was by his own admission as much a libertarian as anything else. He once said: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom".

So, wonderful as Reagan was, taking your definition of conservatism from him is very narrow.

The big failing of libertarians is that they see liberty as the solution to all problems. That is very dogmatic. We certainly could have much more liberty than we do but part of the reason why we do not is that there are other factors that are influential on human decision-making. Open borders are for instance a libertarian ideal but conservatives foresee many problems with that -- increased crime, increased load on the welfare and health systems, support for Fascist politics -- and Trump has clearly acted on that reasonable fear, which is one of the big factors behind his huge popularity among Republican voters

So what we are looking below at is what a small group of post-Reagan intellectuals think is good policy and what the big mass of conservative voters think is good policy. Trump has created a new definition of what conservatives stand for and the old guard can't accept that. They cannot accept what the mass of conservative voters have shown to be conservatism in the present era. They dismiss as "populism" the verdict of the people.

And the Trump gospel is both crystal clear and with much traditional conservatism behind it. The one thing it is not is libertarian.

Trump is patriotic, gives foreigners no unearned credits and will use whatever means are available to him to advance America's interests as he sees them. And that includes tariffs and trade deals. It should be noted that, contrary to all libertarian assumptions, America's great thriving in the 19th century took place behind high tariff walls.

Tariffs are in fact a great insult to libertarians. Free trade is one of their most basic beliefs. And they have orthodox economic thinking on ther side. Tariffs do clearly to some degree jack up the prices that Americans pay in their supermarkets. So in ignoring that Trump has simply reminded us that money is not everything, which is a thoroughly Christian view. If paying a bit extra at the supermarket helps troubled communities a government may well consider that worthwhile

And Trump's patriotism is very conservative. Patriotism may seem crass to many intellectuals but it means a lot to many ordinary Americans. And notable British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has argued that patriotism is at the heart of conservatism. So Trump is not breaking new ground in his emphatic patriotism

Isolationism too is traditional in American conservatism and Trump's largely succesful efforts to bring American troops back home from the Middle East is a vivid expression of that

And Trump's tough stance abroad has had amazing results. Three peace deals in the Middle East and the Balkans is exactly three times more than anybody else has accomplished. The success of Trump's economic policies in creating jobs is a legend and he has now added to that achievement a stellar record of achievement in international politics. So his form of conservatism works wonders. The Never Trumpers should swallow their pride and their outdated assumptions and recognize that Trump has revived real conservatism and shown that it works wonders

The future of American conservatism will be decided at the coming election with the two options being the self-destruction inherent in a Trump victory or the long agony of reinvention necessitated by a Trump defeat.

Both will be chaotic — but in their different ways. From his 2016 presidential victory Donald Trump has throttled and then recreated the American conservative movement under new values and ideas — yet the Trump revolution remains bitterly contested and the movement is divided against itself. This election is about the destiny of American conservatism. Trump is the most important transformative figure for conservatism since Ronald Reagan, with The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald F Seib saying of Reagan’s 40-year inheritance: “He personally made the Republican Party into a conservative party and his legacy inspired the movement’s leaders, animated its policy debates and stirred its voters’ emotions long after he left the scene.

“Then four years ago it all changed. Donald Trump ran in 2016 and swamped a sprawling Republican field. In doing so, he didn’t merely win the nomination and embark on the road to the White House. He turned Republicans away from four decades of Reagan-style national greatness conservatism to a new gospel of populism and nationalism.”

Seib calls the political revolution that saw the Reagan legacy buried in the Trump upheaval the “most important political story of the new millennium”. This is hard for Australians to grasp since there is no organised conservative movement in this country able to take command of a party like the Republican Party.

In America conservative ideology constitutes a throbbing, rampant, powerful coalition with ties to churches, corporates, small towns, middle-class virtue, blue-collar workers, the military, the flag and national pride. The thesis in Seib’s new book, We Should Have Seen It Coming, is self-­explanatory — his story is the collapse of the Reagan foundations and Trump’s storming of the ­fortress.

In retrospect, it looks so obvious; it always does. The Reagan legacy hit the wall when the conservative movement turned against the Republican Establishment with the Bush family in its sights. In truth, the Reagan legacy was sandbagged by a changed world.

It came in unsuccessful wars after 9/11, the 2008 global financial crisis where Wall Street was saved and Little America punished, the arrival of China’s trade power at the cost of jobs in Middle America while poor services, compressed wages and skyrocketing incomes at the top end fermented a store of grievance. Seib says that when ­George W Bush left the White House in 2008 he identified three threats — isolationism, nativism and protectionism. They became the troika that Trump mobilised.

After Barack Obama’s 2012 ­re-election the Republicans faced an internal revolt. Trump’s one-time political guru, Steve Bannon, wanted to burn the edifice — he wanted to make rejection of immigration and free trade into the two biggest issues. Trump was neither a true Republican nor a reliable conservative. But the times suited a rebellious outsider who looked beyond the party establishment and exploited a rebellious conservative base. By contrast, the conservative power structure was aghast.

Trump offended at every level. Where Reagan had been a “morning in America” optimist, Trump warned of carnage as he raged and insulted; Reagan had a core of deeply held beliefs while Trump’s essential outlook was what suited his instincts and interests; where Reagan had an expansive view of US global leadership, Trump saw America as a victim being ripped off; where Reagan’s confidence saw him back immigration and free trade, Trump was a passionate double protectionist.

True conservatives saw the real threat. Hillary Clinton might defeat the Republicans but she could not betray their purpose. Trump could and he did. Yet Clinton had another role — along with the lurch to the left of the Democrats, she frightened many moderate conservatives who had no time for Trump. Seib said Republican ­National Committee chairman Reince Priebus swallowed his misgivings and “turned the keys to the party’s entire infrastructure over to the Trump campaign”.

“Still, even most people in Trump world didn’t think he would win,” Seib said of the 2016 contest. “Indeed, some of his campaign managers put Trump’s chance of winning at only 15 per cent.” But it was how Trump won that mattered — he largely repudiated the past policies and behaviour of Republican presidents as he exploited a grassroots hostility to nearly all forms of established power.

The core of Trump’s appeal lay in tribalism and nationalism. His message was the bankruptcy of old conservatism — it was too global, too Wall Street, too economic libertarian and out-of-touch elitist. Trump said what mattered were national borders, government intervention, cultural traditions and national pride. That meant knowing the differences between citizens and foreigners, jobs in China and jobs in America and honouring the difference between a man and a woman.

But Trump’s campaign against the system in 2016 was much easier than his 2020 campaign as an incumbent President. Four years in the White House have proved Trump does not possess the discipline, consistency and focus to ­entrench a new settlement based on populist and nationalistic ­conservatism.

Trump is a rebel, not a governor. He is a shooting star, not a ­policy builder. He cannot turn populist sentiment into a governing model. A narcissist obsessed by his own needs cannot create a new structure for his country. Every stakeholder quickly learnt Trump was a compulsive deal-maker.

Anything could be traded. Everything was negotiable. No principle would stand in the way of Trump’s advantage. His governing model violated every notion of conservative principle.

Companies, churches and Republicans — anyone who dealt with Trump — knew that trying to strike bargains was the only language he knew. Trump even told the Chinese that if they fixed the North Korea problem they’d get a trade dividend.

Classic conservatism is wary of executive power but Trump was addicted to executive assertion. He ran on instinct, not analysis. He saw history as bunk. He criticised allies and threatened to walk out of NATO. He was attracted to dictators with whom he could do deals.

He was obsessed with tariffs, cared nothing about budget deficits (before the pandemic) and had no interest in reforming government programs.

Seib quotes the “Never Trumpers” in the Republican Party saying: “Trump has blown up what used to be the ideological core of the party.” Can it be put back together? No, the Trump experience has changed American conservatism forever. It has been seduced by Trump’s success and the corrupting prospect he offers — that only Trump can resist the progressive tidal wave seeking to cancel every aspect of US cultural values and traditions.

By throwing in their lot with Trump, conservatives have turned their movement towards tribalism, populism and government intervention, rejecting both Adam Smith and Edmund Burke in favour of Trump’s “only I can fix it” narcissism. History will show it’s a bad deal.

Populism is the antithesis of conservatism. It rests upon stirring up passions, fuelling division, promoting polarisation and policy based on “reward and punish” transactions. Seib does a brilliant job in describing with detachment the transition from Reagan to Trump and the existential dilemma that confronts American conservatives regardless of who wins this presidential contest.

Leftist 'Rights' vs. Your Freedom of Conscience

The foundation of civilized society is freedom of conscience. But this core freedom is under severe assault from the Left. And that is frightening because all our constitutionally-enumerated freedoms rest on the bedrock liberty of conscience.

Consider the First Amendment. Free exercise of religion is informed and motivated by the dictates of conscience. So also with the other planks of the First Amendment—free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances. All these liberties spring from the foundational freedom of conscience and date to America’s founding.

Jailed for Preaching

For James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, his commitment to religious freedom and the rights of conscience may have begun while standing with his father outside a Virginia jail. There he heard Baptists preaching from the jail cell windows. What was their crime? According to historian William J. Federer, they were unlicensed ministers—preaching religious opinions not approved by the government.

Prior to his work on the U.S. Constitution, Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” against religious assessments (taxes imposed to support religion). In it, the man John Marshall called “the most eloquent man I ever heard” wrote:

"The equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature (of God); if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us (emphasis added)."

While his argument focused largely on religious liberty, Madison’s use of the phrase “the dictates of conscience” highlights the broader and more general applicability of freedom of conscience—which undergirds all our God-given freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson, whose letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was widely quoted on the question of church and state, speaks even more powerfully about freedom of conscience in that same letter:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions (emphasis added)."

Actions only. Not opinions. This highlights the distinction between rights and beliefs—a distinction that must be made for civil society to exist. But that distinction is rapidly yielding to the onslaught of the radical Leftists.

Religious Rights Second?

Today, a whole cast of Leftist characters argue that their right to assume non-biological gender identities (for example) is superior to your right to deeply-held religious convictions. As one LGBT activist put it: “For human rights to flourish, religious rights have to come second.”

Chai Feldblum, the openly-lesbian former member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, agrees. She is the architect of the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would force religious organizations to hire people not having the same (or any) religious convictions. Feldblum also writes: “Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are all morally neutral . . . but lack of gender equity is morally bad.”

This is the agenda of the Left—now on full display. Their “rights” must always prevail over your beliefs. In their fevered understanding, your beliefs are “morally bad.”

In less than two weeks will be an election—one holding greater portent for America than at any time since the Civil War. This election is fundamentally about whether this cornerstone freedom of conscience can endure and whether the Gospel is one of those things that must come second.

The question today is the same posed by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: “Will government of by and for the people perish from the Earth?” The answer depends largely on you.

Will you bend the knee to radical Marxists, or remain obedient to the truth of God? Will you be bullied into silence or stand on your convictions? Will you cower in your homes for fear of the pandemic, or will you stand and defend freedom for the sake of future generations?

Many have gone to ends of the Earth—giving their lives for the sake of the Gospel. You need only set aside an hourof your life to stand for Christ in the voting booth.

The hour is late. The Constitution is on life support. Our freedom to proclaim the Gospel stands in jeopardy. Your vote can help preserve the Constitution which guarantees rights endowed by our Creator. The very freedoms of those yet unborn hang in the balance.

Vote. Vote your conscience—while it’s still allowed.

Antifa Fascists Violently Shut Down Free Speech Rally in San Francisco

The Associated Press (AP) finally reported Antifa violence perpetrated against Trump supporters at a Free Speech Rally held in San Francisco on Saturday.

The rally was organized by Team Save America in response to Twitter's Orwellian decision to suppress the news three weeks before the presidential election to protect Joe Biden. How fascist of Twitter.

Demonstrators wore "Make America Great Again" hats and displayed "Thin Blue Line" and U.S. flags in a show of patriotism and support for members of the law enforcement community. Cops have been shot, injured, and wished dead by the leftist mob over the past several months.

Hundreds of Antifa members attacked participants and cops who were protecting rally-goers, or at least trying to. An Associated Press photographer witnessed an injured Trump supporter and a police officer on the ground near San Francisco's United Nations Plaza. San Francisco Police put out a statement saying three of their officers were injured after being attacked with pepper spray and caustic chemicals.

If Nancy Pelosi's district is a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the nation, it doesn't bode well for civil liberties, or really anything Americans traditionally value. Democrats pretend the right to protest is essential but all they care about is using the far-left mob to intimidate Republican voters.

The leftist mob even attacked two seniors attending the Free Speech rally.

Antifa attacked 2 senior citizens that were trying to enter our rally. After knocking one of the elders to the ground, Antifa continued attacking everyone who tried to enter my free speech rally. They still can’t explain why they committed countless hate crimes. Real NAZIS https://t.co/7QfRp0dKkO

Democrats have done everything they can to incite left-wing violence while simultaneously denying its existence. The Democrats are doing this because they think it helps them politically.

But will Americans really hand the country over to Democrats and the angry mob this November? Is violence the new way to win American elections?

Man denied German citizenship for refusing to shake woman's hand

The man aced the German naturalization test, but refused to shake hands with the female official handing over his citizenship. Despite claims he will not shake hands with men either, his citizenship has been rejected.

A German court ruled on Friday that a Muslim man who refused to shake the hand of a woman should not receive German citizenship.

The 40-year-old Lebanese doctor, who came to Germany in 2002, said he refuses to shake women's hands for religious reasons.

The Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg (VGH) ruled that someone who rejects a handshake due to a "fundamentalist conception of culture and values" because they see women as "a danger of sexual temptation" was thereby rejecting "integration into German living conditions."

The doctor studied medicine in Germany and now works as a senior physician in a clinic. He applied for citizenship through naturalization in 2012, for which he signed a declaration of loyalty to the German constitution and against extremism. He passed the naturalization test with the best possible score.

Nevertheless, he was not granted citizenship because he refused to shake hands with the responsible official when the naturalization certificate was handed over in 2015. The woman therefore withheld the certificate and rejected the application.

His petition against the ruling was unsuccessful before the Stuttgart Administrative Court and he appealed to the VGH. Following its decision Saturday, the court said that the man can appeal to the Federal Administrative Court due to the fundamental significance of the case.

The VGH described a handshake as a common nonverbal greeting and farewell ritual, which are independent of the sex of the involved parties, adding that the practice goes back centuries.

The judge found that the handshake also has a legal meaning, in that it symbolizes the conclusion of a contract.

The handshake is therefore "deeply rooted in social, cultural and legal life, which shapes the way we live together," the judge said.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)