Tuesday, October 02, 2018

Kavanaugh Interview Explains Why Feminist Left Hates Him

The interview Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley conducted with Fox News’ Martha McCallum explained a lot about why the Left hates him and why they are so anxious to defeat his elevation to the Supreme Court.

In one sentence: Because he’s the exact opposite of what they are.

That, more than Judge Kavanaugh’s repeated and unequivocal denials of the charges against him, was the most important takeaway from the interview.

Contrast Kavanaugh’s description of himself in high school and college, and that of the women who dated him and knew him well, with the feminist hatred of “the patriarchy” and “white male privilege” and the sexually commoditized alcohol-fueled party scene described in Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks from Holton Arms and you see the perfect target for feminist fury.

A week ago, as PJ Media’s Tyler O'Neil reported, two women who dated Kavanaugh — and knew him in high school — joined the 200 other women who defended the judge's high moral character. Ford deserves to be heard, but so do these women.

"He was always a perfect gentleman, and I vouch for him completely," Maura Fitzgerald said according to O’Neil’s reporting. "Brett Kavanaugh and I have been good friends since high school. I dated him in college and he was and is nothing like the person who has been described" by Christine Blasey Ford.

"He always conducted himself honorably with me at all times when we were together," Fitzgerald explained to O’Neil.

Another woman who dated Kavanaugh in high school, Maura Kane, agreed with Fitzgerald.

“I’ve been friends with Brett Kavanaugh for over 35 years, and dated him during high school," Kane explained. "In every situation where we were together he always respectful, kind and thoughtful. The accusations leveled against him in no way represent the decent young man I knew."

O’Neil reports Ms. Kane concluded her comments, "We remain good friends and I admire him as a husband, father and professional."

And to his great credit, Judge Kavanaugh backed-up their assessment of his character by explaining that:

I went to an all boys catholic high school, a judgment (ph) high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship, friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all girls Catholic schools...

I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter. And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends...

I was focused on trying to be number one in my class and being captain of the varsity basketball team and doing my service projects, going to church.

In other words, on being what the feminist Left hates.

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway described the accusations of sexual misconduct lodged against Brett Kavanaugh are part of a "vast left-wing conspiracy," and our friend Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute observed that, “It is feminist narcissism to put flimsy accusations of teenage impropriety ahead of a lifetime of achievement in the law. The priorities look like a revenge attack on a civilization deemed too male.”

A “vast left-wing conspiracy” and “a revenge attack on a civilization deemed too male” are apt descriptions of what has been going on since Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh surfaced.

Unfortunately, that analysis bodes very poorly for the future of American political culture and society as a whole because as we noted in our column “Democrats Have Nothing Left But Violence And Chaos To Defeat Brett Kavanaugh:”

Democrats, by their tactics in opposing Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, have gone way beyond what has been, even for them, considered to be the base level of savagery and ruthlessness established in the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings. After this, there is nothing left but violence and chaos to enforce their will upon a country that rejected them at the ballot box.


Killing free speech about Muslims

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is trying to curb your freedom of speech -- yet again[1].

In June, the first "I 1st Islamic-European Forum for examining ways of cooperation to curb hate speech in the media," initiated by the OIC, ironically but sadly took place at the Press Club Brussels Europe.

The director of the information department of the OIC, Maha Mustafa Aqeel, explained that the forum is part of the OIC's media strategy[2] to counter "Islamophobia":

"Our strategy focuses on interacting with the media, academics, and experts on various relevant topics, in addition to engaging with Western governments to raise awareness, support the efforts of Muslim civil society bodies in the West, and engage the latter in developing plans and programs to counter Islamophobia."

Unlike almost all other intergovernmental organizations, the OIC wields both religious and political power. It describes itself as:

"...the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world... espousing all causes close to the hearts of over 1.5 billion Muslims of the world."

According to the OIC's Charter, one of the objectives of the organization is "To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage,"[3] as well as "To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions."[4]

At the 11th Session of The Islamic Summit Conference (Session of The Muslim Ummah in The 21St Century) in Dakar, Senegal (13-14 March 2008), the member states of the OIC decided to "renew our pledge to work harder to make sure that Islam's true image is better projected the world over..."[5] and to "seek to combat an Islamophobia with designs to distort our religion"[6].

In 2008, the OIC published its 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia. This document listed a number of interactions that OIC representatives had with Western audiences -- including the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and academics and others at universities such as Georgetown and Oxford -- and stated:

"The point that was underscored in all these interactions was that Islamophobia was gradually gaining inroads into the mind-set of the common people in Western societies, a fact that has created a negative and distorted perception of Islam. It was emphasized that Muslims and Western societies would have to address the issue with a sense of commitment to ending Islamophobia... Islamophobia poses a threat not only to Muslims but to the world at large."[7]

Since that 1st OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia, the OIC opened its Permanent Observer Mission to the EU (in 2013) and also cooperates with the OSCE and the Council of Europe "to combat stereotypes and misunderstandings and foster tolerance."[8] In December 2017, the OIC and the EU agreed on strengthening bilateral cooperation, when they held their second Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM) at the OIC headquarters, during which both sides agreed on "strengthening bilateral cooperation through concrete actions".

The OIC was concrete in its demands to the West. In a statement delivered at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the OIC Secretary General called for Europe to "Prosecute and punish for racial discrimination... through the framework of appropriate legislation" and also to "Strengthen existing legislation on discrimination and discriminatory and 'unequal treatment' adopted by EU council directives"[9].

Today, many Western European governments are prosecuting their own citizens for criticizing Islam or Muslims in, for example, Sweden, Germany and the UK, although it is unclear, whether or how much of this development can be directly attributed to the OIC.

In Sweden, for instance, pensioners especially have been prosecuted for making critical comments about Islam on Facebook. A 71-year-old woman referred to so-called unaccompanied minors as "bearded children" and said -- not inaccurately (here and here and here) -- that some seem to be "engaged in rape and demolishing their [asylum] homes". In February 2018, a Swedish court sentenced her to a fine for "incitement of hatred against an ethnic group".

In Germany, a journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, was handed a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The prosecution accused Stürzenberger of "inciting hatred towards Islam" and "denigrating Islam" by publishing the photograph.

In addition to cultivating high-level contacts with Western actors, the OIC also is pursuing a comprehensive media strategy, agreed upon in Saudi Arabia in December 2016 and focused on the West.

This OIC media strategy claims as one of its goals:

"To increase the interaction with media outlets and professionals, while encouraging accurate and factual/portrayal of Islam. Emphasis should be directed at avoidance of any link or association of Islam with terrorism or the use of Islamophobic rhetoric in the war on terror, such as labeling criminal terrorists as 'Islamic' fascists, 'Islamic' extremists."[10]

Part of that strategy has already had much success across the Western world, where authorities and media do not want to label Muslim terrorists as Islamic, but routinely describe them as "mentally ill."

The OIC also notes that it would like media professionals and journalists "to develop, articulate and implement voluntary codes of conduct to counter Islamophobia"[11], while at the same time engaging Western governments "in creating awareness against the dangers of Islamophobia by addressing the responsibility of media on the issue"[12]. The OIC additionally states that it would like to train foreign journalists to "deal with the phenomenon of hatred and defamation of the Islamic religion"[13]-- as exemplified by the recent European-Islamic Forum, where attendees were introduced to the OIC's "Program for Training Media Professionals on Redressing Stereotypes about Islam".

As maintained earlier here, European journalists -- helped along by the EU -- are already very adept at censoring themselves, which means that the OIC's work is probably already more than half-done when it comes to Europe.

Finally, the OIC media strategy calls for fostering a "network of high profile western public figures supporting efforts to combat Islamophobia in politics, journalism and civil society" as well as teams of scholars academics, and celebrities, who will be the faces of the campaign.[14]

The OIC promises that it will also create a fund to support local anti-Islamophobia initiatives, and monitor media and place commentary and news stories in key Western publications.

It is important to note that in the years 1998-2011, the OIC sought to advance an agenda in the UN, banning "the defamation of religions", but the OIC gave up on the ban after realizing that there was not sufficient support there for the proposal. "We could not convince them," said Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish head of the IOC at the time. "The European countries don't vote with us, the United States doesn't vote with us."

Instead of pursuing the ban on defamation of religions, the OIC shifted its focus to UN Resolution 16/18 [17] which calls upon states to take concrete steps to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, "foster religious freedom and pluralism," and "counter religious profiling which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures."

Andrew C. McCarthy, a critic of Resolution 16/18, maintains that:

"Sharia forbids any speech — whether true or not — that casts Islam in an unfavorable light, dissents from settled Muslim doctrine, has the potential to sow discord within the ummah, or entices Muslims to renounce Islam or convert to other faiths. The idea is not merely to ban gratuitous ridicule — which, by the way, sensible people realize government should not do (and, under our Constitution, may not do) even if they themselves are repulsed by gratuitous ridicule. The objective is to ban all critical examination of Islam, period..." [Emphasis in original]

The OICs highly ambitious plans to do away with freedom of speech go severely underreported in the West. Mainstream Western journalists do not appear to find it dangerous that their freedom of speech should be supervised by the OIC, while Western governments, far from offering any resistance, appear, perhaps for votes, to be cozily going along with everything.


Corbyn denounces former UK Chief Rabbi as poll shows antisemitism eroding his support

UK Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn slammed Britain’s former chief rabbi on Sunday, calling his comments on Labour’s and his own antisemitism “beyond excessive” and “offensive.”

Lord Jonathan Sacks had criticized Corbyn for his claim that “Zionists” had “no sense of English irony” despite “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives.”

Sacks referred to Corbyn’s remarks as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. It was divisive, hateful, and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.” Powell became notorious for his anti-immigrant stance and was widely derided as racist.

Sacks then explicitly called Corbyn “an antisemite.”

In an extensive interview with Andrew Marr on the BBC, Corbyn blasted Sacks, saying, “I do actually find that quite hurtful and quite offensive. … I will say to rabbi Sacks, with all due respect, that is beyond excessive.”

Marr asked Corbyn directly whether he was an antisemite, to which Corbyn declared, “No, absolutely not” and praised himself for his opposition to racism.

Corbyn noted that his party has now adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and “that’s been included in our Labour party processes.” Labour originally left several clauses relating to Israel out of the definition, then, under severe pressure, adopted the full definition but with a caveat defending criticism of Israel.

Corbyn acknowledged that Jews have the right to define antisemitism, but when asked by Marr about an incident in which Jewish MP Margaret Hodge called him “an antisemite and a racist,” Corbyn appeared to backtrack, saying, “I completely and utterly reject the idea that I’m any kind of racist. … the matter with Margaret Hodge is closed.”

Asked about his initial defense of an antisemitic mural, Corbyn said, “It also has other symbols as well, doesn’t it?” Asked directly whether he considered the mural antisemitic, he demurred, “I think it should never have been put up.”

Pressed on his remark about Zionists lacking “English irony,” Corbyn claimed he was defending a pro-Palestinian speaker and the statement “was not intended to be antisemitic in any way.”

Told that Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger had said that the remarks made her feel unwelcome in her own country, Corbyn said, “Our party has members of every faith and none, and it is an open, welcoming, and safe place.”

Marr then asked about Corbyn’s participation in a memorial service for Palestinian Black September terrorists, some of whom were involved in the notorious 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Corbyn professed ignorance of the identities of those being honored, for whom he laid a wreath, claiming he was only honoring civilians killed in an Israeli raid on PLO headquarters.

“I thought it was right to take part in what is a very solemn commemoration of it, it wasn’t in any way commemorating Black September and I wasn’t even sure at that time who was in the cemetery beyond those who had been killed in the raid,” he said.

Asked whether he considered the establishment of Israel a “racist endeavor,” he replied, “No. … I think it’s right that people should be able to discuss the establishment of the State of Israel, but recognize the existence of the State of Israel … and not prevent that kind of debate.”

Claiming Israel is a racist state is considered antisemitic under the IHRA definition.

Pressed on whether he felt remorse over his statements and actions, Corbyn said no, and again praised himself as standing against racism.

With the Labour party’s annual conference about to take place, a new poll showed that Corbyn’s antisemitism scandals have undermined his support among the public.

Citing a recent YouGov poll, the UK’s Jewish Chronicle reported that 46 percent of respondents said they associated Labour with the topic of antisemitism. One third felt Corbyn himself was personally antisemitic, while 23 percent feel Labour is institutionally antisemitic. 35 percent of those likely to vote for Labour said they would be less likely to do so if it does not address the issue.

Almost half of respondents believed Labour has a serious problem with antisemitism. 58 percent felt Corbyn had dealt with the problem in an incompetent manner, and 52 percent felt he was dishonest in doing so.


Australia: Brother of Muslim accused of Christmas Day terror plot to blow up Melbourne 'believed Australians who refuse to comply with Sharia law should be executed or deported’

I know who should be executed or deported.  With their hate-filled religion, Muslims are just bad news

A man whose home was raided over an alleged terror plot in Melbourne two years ago believes people who don't sign a contract to live peacefully with Muslims should leave Australia or be executed.

Ibrahim Abbas is giving evidence against his younger brother Hamza Abbas, 23, cousin Abdullah Chaarani, 27, and friend Ahmed Mohamed, 25, who are on trial in the Supreme Court, accused of conspiring to prepare an attack in Melbourne's CBD on Christmas Day 2016.

Mr Abbas was arrested on December 22 that year over the plot, which prosecutors allege targeted Federation Square, St Paul's Cathedral and Flinders Street Station.

In a police interview played to jurors on Monday, Mr Abbas said 20 police came to his home and arrested him. He was quizzed about his support for Islamic State, the caliphate and Sharia Law, which he believed should be implemented in Australia for all Muslims and non-Muslims.

'They would have to sign a contract to live with, amongst Muslims in peace,' he said. 'Whoever does not sign the contract either leaves the country or is executed.'

Mr Abbas developed his views listening to scholars like Anwar al-Awlaki, an alleged IS recruiter.

He also watched 'major release' Islamic State videos designed to update watchers on recent events, attacks and show beheadings.

But he gave up social media and watching political videos around the time his home was previously raided.

'After I got raided I just felt like me being on social media is of no benefit to myself and my views,' he said, noting he had been banned from Facebook five times for posting pictures of Islamic State.

He did continue to use encrypted messaging app Telegram under username ShiaSlayer, but stopped about six months before his 2016 arrest.

Mr Abbas told police he was aware of instructional bomb making videos, and Mohamed had directed him to one about a month earlier.

'He knows that I'm, ah, a fan or I follow IS and - or I agree with their ideology, so he thought that it'd be nice to tell me,' he said.

The video gave instruction on using hydrogen peroxide to make explosives, a product Mr Abbas previously testified he had gone with some of the accused to buy at a chemist.

Mr Abbas also told police a visit to Federation Square with his brother, Chaarani and Mohamed was to get ice cream and walk around.

Last week, he told the court it was then that he suggested the men 'just picture a terrorist attack over here.'  The trial is continuing.



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: