Jordan Petersen endorsed Trump

Jordan Peterson, the clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor known for his stand for free speech and against radical leftism in his home country of Canada, weighed in on the midterm elections, saying he hoped the Democrats would “get walloped.”

On a tour promoting his best-selling book, “12 Rules for Life,” Peterson made his comments backstage at the Cambridge Union while preparing to address the crowd, according to Spectator’s James Innes-Smith.

Peterson told the Spectator that he is troubled by the Democrats’ determination to appeal to a “tiny radical fraction of the voter base,” Spectator reported.

“I don’t think they’re going to wake up until they get defeated,” he said.

Calling the left out as the “flailing liberal elite, hungry for impeachment,” the professor said the Democrats have been unfairly targeting President Donald Trump.

“It’s ridiculous to label Trump as far-right; he’s certainly an anomaly,” Peterson said.

“As a personality, he’s more of a libertarian. He’s not a traditional Republican and he’s certainly not a traditional right-wing figure apart from the fact that he has this large populist base.”

Peterson also condemned the left’s eagerness to label Trump a racist, particularly following the shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue last month.

“We should leave the racist label to people who deserve it,” Peterson said. “Otherwise, we debase the currency. Once everyone’s a racist, well — that’s the end of that as a useful epithet.”

Peterson noted that Trump’s background seems to “rub upper-class educated people up the wrong way.”

“The one thing the intellectual elite will never understand is that if you are poor you can become rich, but if you are not part of the establishment elite, you will never become part of it.”

Nevertheless, Peterson said he can’t understand the Democrats’ insistent hatred for the president.

“Wages are rising, unemployment is down to levels not seen since the early Sixties and the economy is growing at a phenomenal rate,” the professor said.

“Trump is noisy and bombastic and he has a narcissistic edge, but he certainly hasn’t turned out to be the absolute disaster that his enemies predicted. He’s even making headway in North Korea.”

SOURCE





The 'Racist Ad' and News Judgment

During the last weekend before the 2018 midterms, the media decided an ad by President Trump was "racist" and therefore refused to air it. CNN, NBC, Facebook and even Fox News took that position.

The "star" of this commercial is Luis Bracamontes, a Mexican citizen who has repeatedly entered America illegally and who shot two California police deputies dead in 2014. In January, Fox News aired footage of Bracamontes boasting in court: "I don't (expletive) regret that (expletive). The only thing that I (expletive) regret is that I (expletive) killed two. I wish I (expletive) killed more of those (expletives)." But CNN and MSNBC didn't cover it as news. They covered it when Trump used the footage in his ad. They didn't grieve for the families of the two dead deputies. They didn't worry about the problem of crime by illegal immigrants. They worried about Trump's tactics.

Trump's ad played part of the Bracamontes clip, and a narrator said: "It's pure evil. President Trump is right. Build the wall. Deport criminals. Stop illegal immigration now. Democrats who stand in our way will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants."

CNN's Poppy Harlow was aghast and asked, "Is this politics at its worst?" MSNBC's Kasie Hunt asked Sen. Michael Bennet for his response. "I say it's appalling. I don't say that as a Democrat or as a senator," Bennet lectured. "I say it as an American and wish that we had a president who actually was trying to bring the country together rather than dividing us."

As if former President Obama and the Democrats gave America a blissful eight years of unifying moments? Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street were about as angry and divisive as they come. But Bennet and Co. didn't have a problem in the world. These militants and anarchists were celebrated by liberals and their media adjuncts as part of a glorious progressive future, no matter how many laws they broke.

But when an illegal immigrant shoots and kills two law enforcement officers and brags about it, bringing it up is somehow divisive. Why couldn't we unite as Americans around the idea that illegal immigrants shouldn't be killing our cops? Why can't the "news" networks define that as news, and not as inflammatory content to be banned? Why doesn't the president of the United States have the right to talk about this, not by others' standards but his own?

Then consider the newspapers. A search for Luis Bracamontes on The New York Times website finds 20 mentions in the last five years — and 18 of them are from Nov. 1 forward, centered on the new Trump ad that he debuted on his Twitter account.

The ad intersperses the Bracamontes clips with footage of the caravan of immigrants marching through Mexico. Trump's ad incorrectly states that Democrats let Bracamontes in and let him stay, when he illegally entered the country under both Democrat and Republican presidents.

But it's not the bad facts that they're finding offensive. They're too emotional to deal in facts. The ad is "racist" because it's seen as an attempt to scare white voters into choosing Republicans.

CNN's Don Lemon picked up where his network left off, saying: "this horrible guy who is a convicted cop killer, you know, mouthing things in court and smiling. It just — every racist immigrant trope that you can think of is in this ad." NBC's Peter Alexander said, "the president is facing sharp condemnation for what critics call fearmongering and racism by promoting this web video trying to terrify Republicans to vote."

Haven't CNN and NBC and the other networks just spent two years making videos to terrify everyone into voting against Donald Trump and his alleged enablers? Haven't they been divisively fearmongering about "democracy dying in darkness" through this entire presidency?

SOURCE 






Retired man, 69, 'who identifies as a 45-year-old' begins legal action to have his age reduced so he can attract more women on Tinder

A 69-year-old Dutchman is battling to legally reduce his age by 20 years so he can get more work and attract more women on Tinder.

Emile Ratelband argues that if transgender people are allowed to change sex, he should be allowed to change his date of birth because doctors said he has the body of a 45-year-old.

The motivational speaker, a media personality in the Netherlands, is suing his local authority after they refused to amend his age on official documents.

Mr Ratelband's case has now gone to a court in the city of Arnhmen in the eastern Dutch province of Gelderland.

He was born on 11 March, 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11 March, 1969.

Mr Ratelband, who has converted to Buddhism, said: 'I have done a check-up and what does it show? My biological age is 45 years.

'When I'm 69, I am limited. If I'm 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work.

'When I'm on Tinder and it says I'm 69, I don't get an answer. When I'm 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.

'Transgender people can now have their gender changed on their birth certificate, and in the same spirit there should be room for an age change.'

The Dutchman said he is discriminated against because of his age on a daily basis. He complains that companies are reluctant to hire someone the age of a pensioner as a consultant.

And he says his move would also be good news for the government as he would be renouncing his pension until he reaches retirement age again.

The judge said that he had some sympathy with Mr Ratelband as people could now change their gender which would once have been unthinkable.

But the court said there would be practical problems in allowing people to change their birth date and it would mean legally deleting part of their lives.

The judge asked Mr Ratelband about the status of his early years, from 1949 to 1969, if his official birth date was put back.

'For whom did your parents care in those years? Who was that little boy back then?,' the judge asked.

The court is due to deliver a written ruling within four weeks.

SOURCE





Feds threaten councils over Australia Day date change

Minister Dutton not hoodwinked

The federal government has threatened to strip several NSW councils of the right to hold Australia Day citizenship ceremonies amid plans to hold them a day earlier.

Hawkesbury City is reportedly considering holding its ceremonies on the evening of January 25 because of the daytime heat.

Kempsey and Bellingen shire councils have similar plans, according to Macquarie Media.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton suggested the move was political rather than weather related and warned them against changing the day. "I don't care whether people are seeking to move it in an obvious way or playing games - the intent is very clear," he told Sydney's 2GB on Thursday. "Australians don't want councils playing politics with these issues."

Mr Dutton said ratepayers expected Australia Day to be "respectful" to those new citizens who consider it one of the proudest days of their lives. "We're not going to have that disrupted by this nonsense," he said.

"The rules are pretty clear. If they're not going to abide by it, then they'll find themselves without the ability to conduct the ceremony."

Last month, Byron Shire Council backed down on its plan to move its citizenship ceremonies from January 26 after threats from Prime Minister Scott Morrison. He called the move "indulgent self-loathing".

Citizenship Minister David Coleman later wrote to all council mayors to reinforce that citizenship ceremonies should be apolitical, bipartisan, non-commercial and secular.

SOURCE 

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

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

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

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

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