Thursday, October 05, 2017

Christian rights?

Polish Deputy Foreign Minister: Poland will not accept refugees from Muslim countries

Poland will not accept refugees from the south, despite the promise made by the previous Polish government to do so, as stated by Deputy Foreign Minister of Poland, Jan Dziedziczak, reports.

"The decision is binding, we will not accept refugees from Muslim countries. We, as the government, as politicians, simply implementing what our society wants from us, what we are obliged to do by our citizens," Dziedziczak said.

He recalled that the previous Prime Minister of Poland, Ewa Kopacz, and the PO-PSL coalition (Civic Platform - Polish Peasants’ Party) agreed to accept refugees in September 2015, while the opposition party, Law and Justice (PiS), opposed it.

Dziedziczak noted that a significant number of refugees from the south are men. "These are economic migrants who are looking for a comfortable life here," he stressed.

In the fall of 2015, the Kopacz government pledged to accept 7,000 refugees from the Middle East and North Africa as part of the distribution of 160,000 refugees among EU countries. Subsequently, the new government of Beata Szydło refused to do so for security reasons.

The European Commission is currently trying to make Poland, along with the Czech Republic and Hungary, legally responsible for refusing to accept refugees from the south.

One of the arguments Poland makes against accepting refugees is that a significant number of migrants from Eastern Europe, including those from Ukraine, have already been accepted into Poland. According to estimates, there are already between 500,000 and one million Ukrainians in Poland.


Ex-Flight Attendant Accuses Southwest, Union of Religious Discrimination

A veteran flight attendant at Southwest Airlines says she was fired from her job after speaking out about her faith and criticizing her union.

Charlene Carter of Aurora, Colo., filed suit against the company and union in a Texas federal court. She said her employment was terminated after she expressed her religious beliefs regarding abortion in Facebook posts and messages to union president Audrey Stone.

The suit alleges that Stone and the company's actions represented retaliation over her bid to stop paying "compelled fees for its political, ideological, and other nonbargaining spending, and to engage in other speech and activity in opposition to Local 556." Carter criticized the union for using employee dues to fly two dozen officials and flight attendants to attend January's Women's March protest.

She sent messages to Stone objecting to the use of union resources to participate in the march and included a link to a video depicting an abortion, as well as articles about the participation of a convicted terrorist in the March. She repeatedly said "Recall is going to happen," referring to a decertification campaign Carter supported and later sent an email in support of national right-to-work legislation.

"This [an abortion] is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC," she said in a series of Facebook messages. "Wonder how this will be coded in the LM2 Financials … cause I know we paid for this along with your Despicable Party. … Can't wait for you to have to be just a regular flight attendant again."

The company fired her in March, citing her pro-life posts as "highly offensive in nature" and her messages to Stone as "harassing and inappropriate" and warned that her activism was in potential violation of its discrimination policy. Carter's suit says she is the only victim of discrimination in the case, pointing to several union members who were never punished or reinstated following death threats on social media.

"Southwest has subjected approximately thirteen supporters of the recall effort to termination of employment, suspension, repeated fact-findings, and/or other disciplinary measures in the last twelve months, many times at the request of Local 556 members and officials," the suit says.

Neither the union nor the airline returned requests for comment.

The suit says the posts and her criticism of Stone's leadership are protected by the Railway Labor Act because they were directly related to labor activities. She said it would have a chilling effect on workers rights to speak out.

"By firing Carter for her Facebook messages to President Stone and for related posts, Southwest violated Carter's rights under RLA … to vigorously exercise ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' free speech related to flight attendants' efforts to reorganize Local 556, to collectively bargain with Southwest, and to oppose the union's leadership and spending," the suit says. "Defendants had no valid justifications for their actions, and Carter exercised her speech in a manner that would not unduly interfere with any legitimate interest."

The suit seeks to reinstate Carter on the job and win her back pay with interest. Carter also filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing the company and Transport Workers Union of America Local 556 of religious discrimination.

"The President of the union never told me that she objected to my Facebook messages … Southwest never warned me that using Facebook to protect life was inconsistent with its work rules," the complaint says. "My sincere religious beliefs require me to share with others that abortion is the taking of human life … my employer discriminated against me on the basis of my sincerely held religious belief and speech."

Carter received support from lawyers at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Foundation president Mark Mix called Stone's action an "abuse of power."

"Instead of respecting the rights of a worker they claimed to represent, union bosses used their monopoly over the workplace to have her fired for speaking out and questioning their forced unionism powers," Mix said.


Faux Feminism

In the last two weeks, a couple of prominent women inadvertently revealed the insufferably presumptive arrogance that forms the heart of progressive ideology.

“Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their [sic] own voice,” declared former First Lady Michelle Obama last Wednesday during a conversation with author Roxane Gay at the Inbound conference in Boston.

Mrs. Obama kept digging, insisting the 41% of women who voted for Donald Trump weren’t aware enough to think for themselves. “It doesn’t say as much about Hillary, and everybody’s trying to worry about what it means for Hillary and no, no, no, what does this mean for us, as women?” she asked. “That we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, ‘He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ To me that just says, you don’t like your voice. You like the thing you’re told to like.”

Got that? If you’re a woman who didn’t vote for Hillary it wasn’t about the possibility that she’s eminently unlikeable, is a congenital liar, possesses a gargantuan sense of self-entitlement, or is an un-convicted felon who likely compromised national security. It’s all about the inability to like oneself enough — or be smart enough — to transcend such “petty” concerns.

Perhaps Michelle was inspired by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who weighed in with an equally “astute” analysis of the 2016 election. On Tuesday, in an interview with Charlie Rose on CBS News, Ginsburg stated that she had “no doubt” sexism played a role in the 2016 election. “There’s so many things that might have been decisive but that was a major, major factor,” she insisted.

Again, some of those other things that “might have been decisive” could include Hillary’s consistent incompetence as secretary of state, her penchant for running the Clinton Foundation as a de facto pay-to-play enterprise, calling half the nation “deplorables,” or even the idea that she abided the Democratic National Committee’s effort, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders.

Or maybe a lot of “sexists” decided that eight years of sub-par economic growth, worsening race relations, innumerable foreign policy debacles, unfettered illegal immigration, or the ongoing effort to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a nation of tribalist sub-groups competing for most-aggrieved status didn’t merit the “third Obama term” for which the Leftmedia shamelessly shilled during the 2016 election campaign.

One might think Ginsburg would know better than to insert herself into partisan politics — again. During the 2016 campaign, she abandoned any pretense of the impartiality that ostensibly attends her position on the Court. “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she opined to The New York Times last July. “For the country, it could be four years. For the Court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

We wonder what Justice Neil Gorsuch thinks about her comment.

Four days later, Ginsburg dug herself a deeper hole in a CNN interview, calling Trump a “faker.” “He has no consistency about him,” she said. “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

After she was hammered, not just by Trump, but by the far-left New York Times and Washington Post newspapers, Ginsburg apologized. “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Apparently circumspection isn’t Ginsburg’s strong suit. Like the former president’s wife, she demonstrates a similar level of prejudice, hypocrisy and political tone-deafness that sweeping generalizations inevitably engender. Moreover, her “apology” rings exceedingly hollow.

Townhall’s Katie Pavlich takes Mrs. Obama to task. “Did women who voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat primary ‘vote against their voice’ because they voted against the female candidate?” she asks. “Did Michelle Obama vote against her voice for voting for a man, her husband, instead of Hillary?” Pavlich reminds us that would be the same Michelle Obama who “argued Clinton was unqualified to sit in the Oval Office” during the 2008 campaign.

Ginsburg was equally hypocritical, never mentioning “sexism” when Barack Obama denied Clinton her chance to become the first female president. Nor did she wear a collar she is known to put on her robe indicating her intention to dissent against certain Supreme Court rulings — the same collar she wore the day after Trump’s election, even though no opinions were scheduled to be given.

Yet perhaps sexism and mindlessness were factors in the 2016 election. “Me, I intend to vote with my vagina,” declared Dame magazine columnist Kate Harding in April 2015. “Unapologetically. Enthusiastically.”

Part of Harding’s “rationale”? “There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to menstruate, be pregnant, or give birth,” she writes. “There has never been a president who knows what it’s like to be the target of subtle and categorically unsubtle sexism.”

Harding milked her blood images. “American women have been bleeding for over 200 years while men tell us it’s no big deal, and a lot of us have arrived at the point where we just want someone with a visceral, not abstract, concept of what that means.”

What about Hillary herself? “Ms. Clinton played down the role of gender the first time she ran for the top job, but this time it’s expected to be a core plank of her campaign,” reported NewsHub in 2015.

Fast forward to earlier this month, when Clinton joined Obama and Ginsburg in their effort to denigrate non-progressive women. In an interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, Clinton tied former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that he was re-opening the (non)investigation into her emails to the idea that men could turn to their wives or girlfriends and say, “I told you, she’s going to be in jail,” Clinton asserted. “You don’t wanna waste your vote.” Clinton further asserted that women voters who might have been on the fence ultimately decided not to vote for her. “Instead of saying, ‘I’m taking a chance, I’m going to vote,’ it didn’t work,” Clinton added.

In an interview with NPR she singled out white women she believed were “under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for ‘the girl.’”

For decades, progressives have asserted feminism is all about empowering strong, independent women who are unafraid to think for themselves. Yet as Obama and Clinton make abundantly clear, if a woman’s independent thinking doesn’t align itself with progressive ideology, she is nothing more than a self-hating, go-along-to-get-along lackey subservient to a man. Ginsburg is equally obtuse, but if one assumes her assertion applies to both sexes, then women are lackeys and men are misogynists, much like anyone who failed to vote for Barack Obama — or merely disagreed with him in many cases — was “racist.”

It doesn’t get more arrogant or presumptive than that.


Australian woman farmer bombarded with vile and graphic abuse after posting photo of herself with same-sex marriage ballot

Leftist hate is flowing like a river in Australia

A farmer who opposes gay marriage has been bombarded with abusive Facebook messages and death threats for posting an image of herself with a postal vote ballot.

Kirralie Smith, from northern New South Wales, was advised to stand in front of a train by one abusive man who also wished she would get AIDS, the disease which has killed millions of gay men since the 1980s.

Ms Smith said the abuse made her feel 'violated' and the content - including graphic hardcore pornography - is beyond anything she could have imagined.

'I did expect some haters to respond but I was unprepared for the barrage of hate, vulgar messages and threats I received,' she told Daily Mail Australia.

'I notice that lesbians such as Christine Forster posed for such photos with her partner. Did they cop the same level of vitriol and hatred for doing so?'

The level of vitriol has left Ms Smith questioning why she should be forced to deal with such hateful responses to a simple photograph.

'Do I just have to suck this up? Are people really entitled to behave in such a manner when all I did was post a legal and acceptable option when participating in this postal survey?' she said.

I am not breaking any laws. I am upholding a current law. I am using my democratic right to exercise my choice. Why should I be subject to such horrid remarks and images for doing so?'

In addition to the hateful messages, insults and death threats, some social media users even sent offensive images.

One such image is from a hardcore pornographic film and depicts two men involved in a sex act.

'You're a piece of s***,' 'I really hope you get hit by a bus,' 'You need a bullet,' and 'I wish nothing but bad for you and your family,' are some of the other messages.

Ms Smith was told to 'Eat a d***,' called a 'homophobic b****,' a 'nasty nasty cow,' a 'f***wit,' and told to 'Rot in hell.'

The avalanche of abuse comes after weeks of accusations from the 'no' campaign that a fringe element of the 'yes' side are shutting down debate with abuse and violence.

Last week a priest was spat at while walking down the street in Brisbane and called 'a f***ing no voter'.

After former prime minister Tony Abbott was headbutted by an anarchist DJ wearing a Yes badge, activists started using 'Headbutt homophobes' banners at rallies.

Dr Francisco Perales at the University of Queensland suggested opponents of same-sex marriage are less intelligent.

Lecturers Catherine Greenhill and Diana Combe at the University of New South Wales have told maths students not to use the word marriage.

A 'yes' voter was caught on film in Chatswood in Sydney's north racially abusing 'no' campaigners.

Students at the University of Sydney clashed when a 'no' campaign rally turned violent after 'yes' campaign counter-protesters turned up.

Just days later a gay man was viciously heckled at a similar rally at the University of Queensland and accused of 'internalised homophobia'.

A Coalition for Marriage event was disrupted by protesters who stormed the venue and blocked the stage with a banner saying 'Burn churches not queers'.

Vandals attacked a church in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, spray-painting it with 'Vote Yes' slogans.

Gay anarchists took over the former headquarters of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and scrawled hateful anti-police slurs on the walls.

'Sometimes find myself wondering if I'd hate-f**k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system,' wrote openly-gay comedian and Safe Schools author Benjamin Law to his 77,000 Twitter followers.

A Canberra woman was fired for saying 'It's okay to vote no' on Facebook, with her boss Madlin Sims calling it 'homophobic hate speech'.

Dr Pansy Lai - who appeared in the first Coalition of Marriage advertisement - was targeted by a petition seeking to have her stripped of her medical licence.

The most recent Sky News ReachTel poll of 5,000 people found 64 per cent have voted 'yes', 15.5 per cent have voted 'no' and 21 per cent are yet to vote.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: