Thursday, January 31, 2019

UK: First sitting MP to be jailed in 28 years is black

Why am I not surprised?

Fiona Onasanya has been sentenced to three months in prison for perverting the course of justice - but will cling on to her constituency seat and its income

A Labour MP who dreamed of becoming Britain’s first black prime minister was convicted at the Old Bailey of lying to the police about a speeding charge.

Fiona Onasanya, a former party whip, was found to have colluded with her brother Festus after she was caught speeding just weeks after being elected as an MP in last year's election.

During her retrial, called after a previous jury failed to reach a verdict, the court heard that the 35-year-old had been texting as well as speeding but had “persistently and deliberately” lied to police to avoid prosecution.

The verdict now threatens to bring an end to Ms Onasanya’s short-lived political career, with Labour confirming that it had suspended the whip and expected her to resign in order for a by-election to be held in her Peterborough constituency.

Under the law, Ms Onasanya would have to quit if she is sentenced to more than one year in prison, although Labour insiders claimed that she may delay stepping down until sentencing.

Jurors heard how Ms Onasanya and her brother had gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid her being penalised for the offence, including claiming that a Russian acquaintance, Aleks Antipow, had been behind the wheel, despite him being overseas when the offence was committed.

When challenged by investigating officers, Ms Onasanya, who is a devout Christian, said she stood by her account.

She later changed course when her brother pleaded guilty to three counts of perverting the course of justice, alleging that he had falsely filled out the notice without her knowledge.

Throughout the trial, Ms Onasanya asserted her innocence both inside and outside of court, with one Labour staffer telling The Daily Telegraph that she was so confident of being acquitted that she had begun planning events for the coming months days after police first pressed charges.

This newspaper can also reveal that on November 5, less than a week before her first trial commenced, Ms Onasanya began advertising for a constituency support manager.

However, her version of events were seriously undermined when her former communications manager, Dr Christian DeFeo, came forward during her trial to allege that she had visited his home - near to where the offence occurred - that evening.

Dr DeFeo said he felt “morally and legally” obliged to come forward, adding that never in his “darkest dreams” had he imagined giving evidence against a woman he helped elect.

Prosecuting, David Jeremy QC, claimed that Ms Onasanya was a “determined and resilient” storyteller who had attempted to “sacrifice” her brother to escape conviction.

He added: “What you have done is create a story that makes his crimes so much worse and you have done it to try and get yourself acquitted of this charge. You have sacrificed your own brother.”

Following the verdict, Donna Rayner of the Crown Prosecution Service said that both Ms Onasanya and her brother had “lied to the authorities in the hope they could avoid the consequences of their speeding offences”.

It comes 18 months after Ms Onasanya pulled off one of the shock results of last year’s election, unseating the senior Conservative MP Stewart Jackson by a wafer-thin margin of just 607 votes.

Virtually unknown within the party and local constituency, she told a local newspaper that the victory was down to God, adding: “I did not achieve this alone – I thank God for His favour.”

A source close to Ms Onasanya also claimed that during the election campaign, when told her prospects of winning were slim, she replied:  “I am going to win. God told me I’m going to win”.

One insider close to the Peterborough MP said her conviction in God partly stemmed from a near-death experience as a child, when she was involved in a collision with a car.

They claimed that Ms Onasanya told them they she had been badly injured, but rather than being taken to hospital, her mother took her home and prayed that she recovered.

She has also expressed a desire to become Britain’s first black prime minister, which she said would “open the door so others can go beyond”.

A Labour spokesman said the party was “deeply disappointed” with her behaviour, adding that it fell “well below what is expected of politicians.”


'If it wasn't for Winston Churchill you would be goose-stepping to Holyrood': Piers Morgan blasts 'smirking ginger turd' MSP who branded wartime PM a 'white supremacist mass murderer'

The useless little twerp himself

Piers Morgan has savaged a Scottish politician in a furious TV debate after he described Sir Winston Churchill as a 'white supremacist mass murderer'.  

The Good Morning Britain host, 53, told Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer, 24: 'If it wasn't for Winston Churchill you would be speaking German and goose-stepping your way to Holyrood.'

Piers branded Mr Greer a 'nasty, sneering young man' and accused him of offering 'no balance, perspective or any sense that what Winston Churchill did for this country was actually good.'

In response the young MSP said Piers's version of events were 'wildly ahistorical'.

When the presenter blasted him on a point about the Bengali famine, Mr Greer said: 'You're getting into a tantrum Piers, that's very snowflake of you.'

Mr Greer, Europe spokesman for the Scottish Greens, sparked outrage with his Twitter rant about Britain's great wartime Prime Minister on January 25. 

His controversial tweet generated thousands of responses, including several from Piers Morgan who branded him a 'thick ginger turd'.

After a heated exchange Piers challenged Mr Greer to a TV debate.

Speaking on the show this morning, he demanded to know why Mr Greer had written the inflammatory tweet.

Mr Greer said Churchill was a 'racist because he hated Indians with a passion and branded them a beastly people with a beastly religion'. He also claimed the former PM 'advocated using poison gas against uncivilised tribes' in Africa, as well as using hateful rhetoric against people in Afghanistan and Kurdistan. 

But when he accused the late, great Churchill of being 'responsible for the Bengali famine of 1943', Piers was unable to control his emotions. He said: 'That is a complete and utter lie.

'In the middle of the Second World War Churchill is seen in the papers to be very concerned about the famine in Bengal, going to Canada, Australia and Franklin D. Roosevelt in America, beseeching world leaders to help the Bengalis. 'What you're saying isn't just offensive, it's a downright lie.

'I get enraged by this, because if it wasn't for Winston Churchill you would be speaking German and goose-stepping your way to Holyrood.'

Mr Greer was responding to a Conservative party tweet from January 24 marking the anniversary of Churchill's death calling him 'the greatest Briton to have ever lived'.

Greer, who at 24 is Scotland's youngest MSP ever, was accused of 'attention seeking' after saying: 'Once again for the old people at the back: Churchill was a white supremacist mass murderer'. He caused further controversy by describing anyone who admires the Second World War leader – credited with helping save Britain from Nazi Germany – as 'crass and simple minded'.

Mr Greer also spoke to Bob Seely MP, whose great, great uncle served alongside Churchill. Mr Seely said Mr Greer's argument was just 'trite infantile smearing' and 'eloquent stupidity'. The Isle of Wight MP highlighted that by branding Churchill a racist, Mr Greer is saying he was no better than Adolf Hitler.

Piers added: 'I know he was a flawed character, but Winston Churchill single-handedly took this country out of the abyss.

'You are saying the man who saved us from the Nazis is actually no better than a Nazi himself.'

Throughout the debate Piers told Mr Greer to 'stop laughing, smirking and sneering' because 'the people who lived through the war are not laughing'.

Exasperated, he ended the interview by saying: 'You denigrate this great national icon.  Well, do you know who I find revolting? You.'

Mr Greer, elected in 2016 aged 21, was defiant over the row. He said: 'This is the real, verified history of Churchill and the one known throughout much of the world'.  He added: 'If that's uncomfortable to some here, it's just a sign of how uneducated Britain is of our own shameful history.'

His Twitter attack came the day after the rest of the UK, including Prime Minister Theresa May, marked the anniversary of Sir Winston's death on January 24, 1965, aged 90.

Lee Pollock, of the International Churchill Society, said: 'It seems to me this young man's not as important as he would like, so he has found the biggest target he can in order to get the most attention with a radical point of view. It's a cheap trick.'

Mr Greer's comments highlighted Sir Winston's pre-war activity and his involvement in colonial rule of India.

Other Scottish politicians jumped to Sir Winston's defence on Monday. Scottish Tory whip Maurice Golden said: 'Sir Winston Churchill is one of the defining figures of western democracy… seeking to diminish him is a disservice to the millions of men and women who fought to preserve our freedom.'


Antifa moron pulls a gun on cops

His disrespect for the cops cost him his life

A person (who apparently uses they/them/their pronouns) was ventilated by police officers at Cascade Middle School in Eugene, Oregon, after they pulled a gun on the officers who were attempting to take them into custody. The entire incident was captured by body cameras worn by the police officers.

The ma’an, identified as Charlie Landeros, can be seen wearing a shirt that reads “Smash The Patriarchy And Chill” as police are wrestling them to the ground. Landeros draws a handgun from their waistband, and the two officers try to gain control of their arm, as Landeros points the gun at the officers. Then the cops opened fire.

Landeros was a well known leftist activist in the Eugene, having led and participated in protests, specifically at University Of Oregon.

According to the U of O student newspaper, The Daily Emerald, Landeros was also a member of an armed antifa group known as “Community Armed Self Defense.”

From the Daily Emerald:

Landeros, who used they/them/theirs pronouns, led a student protest in October 2017 that disrupted UO President Michael Schill’s state of the university address. Landeros and other protestors characterized Schill as a CEO and said that the purpose of the protest was to “empower marginalized students on campus.”

Landeros was a member of Community Armed Self Defense, a group that was created as a “new liberatory and inclusive space for all oppressed peoples to learn about armed self-defense,” according to the group’s Facebook page, which is no longer publicly available on Facebook as of 4 p.m. Saturday.

Community Armed Self Defense’s Facebook page said that they could not count on the police to protect marginalized people, and that firearms help marginalized groups protect themselves.

“The police are not here to protect us. They are more likely to harm us themselves than they are to ‘serve or protect’ us,” the group wrote on their Facebook page description.



The Left Isn’t Stopping at Merely Censoring the Right’s Free Speech

No one is talking about the most disturbing aspect of the confrontational incident involving the Covington Catholic school boys. Those boys were not speaking. No one was trying to silence their voices or shout them down. They were merely standing there wearing MAGA hats. Not content with just silencing conservatives, the left is now actively trying to chase conservatives out of the public sphere and society at large. The Native American man, Nathan Phillips, who confronted the boys with his drum was trying to chase them away from the Lincoln Memorial. The person who edited the video to make it appear that the boys were the ones accosting Phillips wanted to justify what Phillips was doing. The media went along with it and condemned the boys.  

This type of totalitarian censorship has been creeping into society more and more during the Trump administration. It is totalitarian because the First Amendment protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Someone merely shows up in a public place wearing a MAGA hat and they risk being attacked. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders showed up to eat dinner with her family at a restaurant and the owners kicked her out. Perhaps most frightening of all, Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s family didn’t even leave their home and they had masked protesters yelling outside and banging on their door, chanting, “We know where you sleep at night.” The message being sent is even if you avoid the public square, you’re not even safe in your own home. 

This is a logical extension of the left’s tactics of resorting to silencing their ideological opponents because they can’t beat them in substantive debates. This is how Antifa arose. Those young, angry Millennials don’t have the brainpower to defeat conservative arguments, so they resort to violence. The domestic terrorist group shows up at conservative events and throws projectiles at conservatives and the police officers who are trying to protect them. Even if you don’t say anything, your mere presence as a conservative puts you in danger from these radicals.

Fortunately, along with this surge of intimidation tactics by the left is a new offensiveness by conservatives. Instead of sitting back and taking it, conservatives are fighting back aggressively. Before, the left would make false claims that conservatives were racist, sexist, greedy, uncaring, etc. Now, conservatives have learned to turn those criticisms around and place them squarely where they belong — on the left. Instead of trying to defend themselves from amorphous charges that require them to prove a negative, conservatives are changing the focus to the actions of the left.

A new generation of young black conservative activists, led by Candace Owens, isn’t trying to defend conservatives from charges of racism. Instead, they are pointing out the racism of the Democrats, from their history as slave owners and segregationists to their elitist attitudes toward blacks today.

Similarly, Brandon Straka, a gay former Democrat leading the #WalkAway movement, isn’t trying to defend conservatives from accusations of homophobia. Instead, he focuses on how the Democrats mistreat gays and other minority groups and view them as just competing interests.

Conservatives are finally getting mad. They’re tired of being bullied. They’re tired of the name calling. They’re sick of being called things they’re not. The left has bit off more than it can chew. Making decent people out to be monsters went too far. Conservatives have woken up and realized playing defensive and nice wasn’t working. It’s time to use the left’s tactics back on them — although not going so far as Alinsky tactics, which include lying. 

The way to fight this newest tactic by the left of trying to stamp out conservatives merely from appearing in society is to call it for what it is — fascism. Some have already figured out what is happening and are calling Antifa fascists. More of this needs to take place. Otherwise Antifa and its comrades will make even more inroads into shutting conservatives out of society.



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


Wednesday, January 30, 2019

The Muslim Sisterhood

The Muslim Sisterhood is a growing contingent of radical Islamists in the highest offices of our land.

While the Leftist media insists that critics of Islamic terrorism and misogyny are "Islamophobes," the Muslim Sisterhood makes no attempt to hide its support for terrorists and anti-American radicals.

But their Left Wing CYA network is desperate to bury these truths, because that's the only way they can accomplish their radical agendas.

Democratic congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, makes no apologies for her deep rooted hatred of everything our country stands for. She didn't hesitate to join the progressive mob against the Covington Catholic students who were viciously attacked by black racists, and a Native American, America-hating radical.

When questioned about her inflammatory, Jew-hating statement about "Israel hypnotizing the world" she didn't even try to hide her seething antisemitism.

Rashida Tlaib may not wear a hijab — but what she does and doesn't wear speaks volumes. While celebrating her first official days as a U.S. Congresswoman, Tlaib draped herself in a Palestinian flag and posed for pictures with terrorist sympathizers. On her congressional office wall is a map the state of Israel marked "Palestine."

These 2 women aren't just a couple of radical outliers in the Democratic Party: they're the new face of it.

There is total solidarity and support for them and their anti-American agendas from other Democrat stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson.

Barack Obama set this "radical transformation of our country" into motion back in 2008, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and America's Islamist enemies in Iran.

Now a decade later, with Nancy Pelosi's blessing, the Muslim Sisterhood in the person of Ilhan Omar has a seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee with full security clearance, and on the Government Oversight Committee (Tlaib).

What's standing in their way for the moment are President Trump and patriots keeping the pressure on the Left with our constant research, campaigns and advocacy.

We've been able to add profiles on both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar to Discover the Networks. has been relentless in its exposure of the anti-American barbarism of the Muslim Brotherhood and its clones, and of the Brotherhood ties of Omar and Tlaib.

This no small matter in the current political environment where the hatred directed at defenders of America and exposers of Islamic atrocities can be severe. Our reputations have been shredded and sources of our funding blocked.

Our fight is far from over. All of us have to step up our efforts lest we lose the country we love.

Email from David Horowitz --

Archbishop of Canterbury apologises 'unreservedly' for CoE's 'mistakes' in handling Bishop Bell allegations

So hard for the Anglican hierarchy to admit that they paid out on a false claim

The Archbishop of Canterbury was accused yesterday of persisting with a “malign” attack on Bishop George Bell after he refused to exonerate him following a “copycat” allegation of historic child sex abuse.

An official report published yesterday concluded that a 70-year-old allegation against Bishop Bell was unfounded. It found that the evidence of the complainant – a woman named only as “Alison” – was “unreliable” and “inconsistent”.

Alison had written to the Church of England, claiming she had been sexually assaulted by the bishop in 1949 when she was aged nine.

The letter was sent a week after the Church of England was found to have wrongly besmirched Bishop Bell in its handling of a previous complaint brought by a woman known only as “Carol”.

The latest report suggested that Carol’s allegation had “prompted a false recollection in Alison’s mind”.

Yesterday, the Most Rev Justin Welby “apologised unreservedly for the mistakes” in the handling of the complaint made by Carol. But he declined to publicly clear the former Bishop of Chichester of any wrongdoing or retract a statement that he had a “significant cloud ... over his name” and that he had been accused of “great wickedness”.

In a private letter, however, sent to Bishop Bell’s closest surviving relative, his niece Barbara Whitley, he wrote: “Once again I offer my sincerest apologies both personally and on behalf of the Church. We did wrong to you and before God.”

Bishop Bell, one of the towering figures of the Church in the 20th century, has been unable to defend himself, having died in 1958. But his supporters urged the Church to restore his reputation after two reports exonerated him.

Ms Whitley, 94, said yesterday: “I would like to see my uncle’s name cleared before I die.”

Desmond Browne QC, a leading barrister who acted for the bishop’s family and who was christened by him in 1949, said: “What is now clear is that the investigations by two experienced lawyers [have established] George Bell’s innocence. But not once [has] the Archbishop of Canterbury offered Bell the presumption of innocence.”

Alison had alleged that Bell, the former bishop of Chichester, had sat her on his lap and “fondled her”.

But the report by Timothy Briden, an ecclesiastical lawyer and vicar general of Canterbury, concluded that in her oral evidence “her attempts to repeat what had been written in the letter displayed, however, a disturbing degree of inconsistency”.

Alison had alleged in the letter the abuse had taken place indoors in front of her mother but in oral testimony thought she had been assaulted outdoors. He concluded that her claim was “unfounded”.

The existence of Alison’s complaint made in December 2017 was made public by the Church of England at a time when it was facing increasing criticism for its handling of the earlier allegation by Carol. Alison’s claim was passed in January 2018 to police, who then dropped the case.

Mr Briden also investigated a separate complaint made by an 80-year-old witness – known only as K in the report – that his mother had told him that she had seen Bishop Bell “carrying out a sexual act with a man over his Rolls-Royce” in 1967.

Bishop Bell died in 1958 and did not have a Rolls-Royce. The report said: “The longer that the statement from K’s mother is analysed, the more implausible it appears.”

Lord Carlile, the QC who carried out the damning inquiry into the handling of Carol’s claim, was scathing of the Church of England’s decision to make public the police inquiry into Alison’s complaint.

Lord Carlile said: “I am astonished that the Church [made] public the further complaint against Bishop Bell and the error has been proved by the conclusion of this latest inquiry.”

Prof Andrew Chandler, Bishop Bell’s biographer and spokesman for the George Bell Group, said “the claim by Alison appeared a copycat of Carol’s complaint”. Carol was paid £15,000 compensation in a legal settlement in October 2015.

In his statement yesterday, Archbishop Welby described Bishop Bell as a “remarkable role model”, adding: “I apologise unreservedly for the mistakes made in the process surrounding the handling of the original allegation against Bishop George Bell.”

But he went on: “It is still the case that there is a woman who came forward with a serious allegation ... and this cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet.”

The current Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, also declined yesterday to exonerate his predecessor. But he accepted that a public statement he made signifying Bishop Bell’s guilt and released in 2015 after Carol’s claim was settled was probably now an error.

“Knowing what we now do [we] would want to re-examine that and I don’t think we would [make that statement].”


Trump Admin Moves to Protect Religious Liberty in Adoptions, Foster Care

The Trump administration is working to protect religious adoption and foster care agencies that have been threatened by "burdensome regulations" imposed in the closing days of the Obama presidency.

Days before leaving office President Obama implemented new regulations that targeted religious foster care providers by requiring recipients of federal assistance to abandon "discriminatory" standards in placement. South Carolina asked the Department of Health and Human Services for an exemption to protect one of its largest foster care agencies, Miracle Hills Ministries, which only places children in Christian households. The Trump administration granted the exemption, saying that religious partners were vital to caring for children. The Obama-era rules could run afoul of religious liberty protections, according to Lynn Johnson, assistant secretary for the department's Administration for Children and Families.

"Faith-based organizations that provide foster care services not only perform a great service for their communities, they are exercising a legally protected right to practice their faith through good works," Johnson said in a statement. "The government should not be in the business of forcing foster care providers to close their doors because of their faith.  Religious freedom is a fundamental human right."

Religious providers have been forced to close their doors after regulators in states such as Illinois and Massachusetts because they did not place children in homosexual households. Johnson said the federal government should not pressure religious believers to violate the tenets of their faith in order to serve vulnerable children. The United States faces a shortage of providers even as the demand for them has increased amid the opioid crisis, according to the agency.

"By granting this request to South Carolina, HHS is putting foster care capacity needs ahead of burdensome regulations that are in conflict with the law," Johnson said. "It protects minors who are in need of as many options as possible for being placed in loving foster families."

Some churches are fighting back against attempts to shutter services they have offered for more than a century. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has accused the city of violating its religious liberty by attempting to cut off their adoption and foster care programs even as the city faces a shortage "crisis." Mark Rienzi, the archdiocese's attorney at the non-profit Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said he was pleased to see HHS protect religious freedom.

"There were raised fears that some HHS requirements would kick religious providers out, so it was very good for the agency make clear that that's not what federal law requires," Rienzi said. "This takes federal law and the Constitution's requirement to respect the civil rights of believers seriously."

Rienzi said the agency announcement should send a clear message to regulators at the state and local level. He called the actions of Philadelphia "outrageous," as the city has provided no evidence of discrimination or complaints from gay individuals about the Catholic operations.

"There is not actually a class of people being stopped by the Catholic Church," he said. "The city is willing to leave the homes of available foster parents empty just for working with Catholics … it is shameful."

Religious liberty advocates and various religious sects, including the Catholic Church and Southern Baptists praised the administration's decision, but others said the exemption was only a first step. Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, said HHS should take steps to repeal the Obama-era rules and issue affirmative protections for religious providers who may still be targeted by future administrations that use "the power of the State to bully people who just want to live out their faith and serve their communities."

"We appreciate that Trump's HHS has shown a desire to overturn this shameful Obama-era regulation, and we encourage them to keep up the good work and finish the job as soon as possible," Schilling said.


How Hollywood social engineers turned 2018's “The Predator” into a big budget flop

I had the misfortune of watching the recently released stinker from The Predator franchise on DVD. Based on word-of-mouth and scathing reviews, I knew enough to stay away from it in the theatres but I was a fan of the 1987 original, so it was tough to shun.

Unfortunately, the lousy ratings were warranted and even the low 28 per cent viewer rating on Rotten Tomatoes was generous!

In addition to boasting that which is known as “a plot,” the original 1987 Predator also had an uber-macho cast that today would be seen as “toxic masculinity” — so the new version offered a heapin’ helpin’ of “girl power”, by way of a female scientist who inexplicably morphs into a super-soldier halfway through the flick.

And then there’s the “big reveal” scene when we all get to learn why these irregular space aliens are coming to Earth on an increasingly frequent basis.

Spoiler alert! The explanation is …. climate change.

The good news is, very few of us are buying into the junk that the social engineers in Hollywood are trying to ram down our throats, but still they persist.

Why can’t the Hollywood weirdos go back to the good ol’ days of making sci-fi and action adventure flicks that drop the virtue-signalling in favour of plot-driven nail-biters?

If I want to watch progressive propaganda films that take their narrative cues from the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki, I’d rent them to begin with!



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


Tuesday, January 29, 2019

The Left’s Use of Intimidation to Silence Christians

If you’re Christian, shut up. That’s been the unmistakable message of our current culture in recent weeks.

Karen Pence has been lambasted for her decision to teach at a Christian school. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, after asking a judicial nominee about his membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus, has tied the organization to the “alt right.”

And a group of teenage Catholic schoolboys waiting for a bus at the March for Life, who didn’t know the mob-approved way to handle a Native American activist walking up to them, are fighting for their reputations.

Of course, this isn’t really about Karen Pence, or judicial nominee Brian Buescher, or the Covington Catholic High boys.

It’s about intimidating everyone else.

It’s telling the husband or wife of an up-and-coming lawmaker that if they want to teach at a school, it’s probably better they choose a non-Christian one, unless they want their spouse someday ensnared in a media cycle over LGBT discrimination.

It’s telling the law student who dreams of someday becoming a judge that no matter how appealing he finds joining a Catholic charitable organization, it’s probably better for his career ambitions if he doesn’t.

And it’s telling schools and students and parents that no matter if they are willing to deal with the expense and trouble of hauling dozens or hundreds of students to Washington, D.C., on buses and having them sleep on gym floors, it still might not be a good idea—because the students’ future reputations, careers, and college prospects could all be gone with one viral video.

No, that wouldn’t happen if the students came to Washington to fight for gun control or raise awareness of climate change.

Just if they’re there to speak up for the babies who can’t.

When President Donald Trump was elected—in a shock for conventional D.C. wisdom—it become obvious that there were plenty of silent Americans who, in the privacy of the ballot box, dared to defy the politically correct, woke cultural leaders of our time.

But it’s not enough to vote.

I’m glad Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, isn’t backing down and resigning. I’m thrilled Brian Buescher is remaining a member of the Knights of Columbus, and that Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., introduced a resolution saying there’s nothing wrong with a judge being in the Knights. I’m heartened that the Covington students are fighting back, and saying they did nothing wrong.

But they can’t do this all on their own.

About 70 percent of Americans are Christian, according to the Pew Research Center.

They—and everyone who believes in religious freedom—need to start speaking up.

You don’t have to agree with Buescher’s judicial philosophy to say that in the United States, there should be no religious test for judges.

You don’t have to have attended a Catholic school or be pro-life to say that a group of teen boys being awkward around an activist—an activist who later that weekend tried to bring a group of protesters to disrupt a Catholic Mass at the basilica in D.C.—should not be a news story, much less a reputation destroyer.

You don’t have to agree with Immanuel Christian School’s faith tenets to defend Karen Pence’s right to choose the school where she wants to teach.

You know what breeds intolerance? Silence. It’s easy for someone to kvetch about the Covington boys or mock the second lady as a bigot at the water cooler if he has no reason to believe any other colleague will speak up.

We need to take a lesson from the left’s playbook.

Here’s what liberals do really well: They share their stories. And they make it personal.

We need to do the same.

Did your son or daughter go to the March for Life? Talk about it. Share how proud you were that they cared enough about the lives of unborn babies to be on a bus for 20 hours and sleep on a crowded gym floor.

And share how scared you are that they, too, could become targets of social media acvistists and mainstream media because they didn’t know the appropriate public relations strategy to deal with a protest.

Does it make you feel like an alien in your own country that what you hear from the pews on Sunday could make you ineligible to do certain jobs in our system? Express that anxiety. Tell the truth about how you don’t like being treated like a second-class citizen in your own nation.

Are you appalled that your mom’s job at a Christian school could get her branded as a bigot? Say that. Share the facts: Plenty of Christian denominations adhere to 2,000 years of sexual morality, and demand no sex outside of marriage—whether you’re straight or LGBT.

If we keep talking, things will change.

Because people know that if their colleague Kelly is pro-life, or their hair stylist Melissa is Christian, or their neighbor Bob teaches at a Christian school, they will think twice.

That doesn’t mean they will agree with Kelly or Melissa or Bob.

But it does mean they will realize it’s unfair to assume all pro-lifers hate women, or that all Christians hate LGBT people. They will realize it’s more complex than the woke leaders of social media say it is.

And then we can have real discussions and real dialogues, person to person.

I get that it’s hard. I’m often more of a coward than I’d like to be—even with the job security of working at a conservative news outlet. It’s hard to speak up sometimes, especially if you’re scared people will judge you or there will be hidden consequences—promotions that never occur, networking that abruptly stops.

But we don’t have a choice.

Right now, thought leaders in the United States are working overtime to make it clear: Stand up for your Christian beliefs, your pro-life beliefs—and you will pay.

But we can rise up, too.

If there’s one thing we should have learned in this era of Trump, it’s that standing up to bullies works.

And we need to—because there’s nothing American about a future where holding certain religious beliefs makes you a second-class citizen.


The Democratic Party's Holy War on Christian Orthodoxy
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Amy Coney Barrett, who is now confirmed as a judge for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and is a potential Supreme Court nominee, that “dogma lives loudly within” her and “that’s of concern,” she wasn’t voicing concern over the nominee’s religious orthodoxy as much as she was revealing her own.

After all, Catholicism, unlike progressivism, has never inhibited anyone from faithfully executing her constitutional duties — which the judge has done with far more conviction than Feinstein. Maybe Barrett should have been asking the questions.

Recently, by unanimous consent, the Senate approved a Ben Sasse resolution that declares that it is unconstitutional to reject nominees because of their membership to the Knights of Columbus. This move was instigated by a similar incident, when Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono criticized President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Brian Buescher, for being a bit too Catholic for their liking. The Knights of Columbus, a benevolent society that still clings to antiquated notions about the dignity of human life — from the very beginning to the very end — doesn’t exactly adhere to the new progressive moral canon.

Unlike many friends on the right, I’m less offended by questions regarding dogma and belief. It’s true that the Constitution explicitly states that a federal government officeholder or employee can’t be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or job. But it’s also true that the clause directly preceding that clause requires every federal and state official to take an oath to support the Constitution. Rejecting someone over his faith alone is unquestionably a religious test. Merely asking a nominee whether her beliefs might stop her from fulfilling her constitutional duties is a relevant question.

For many liberals, though, the problem is that the beliefs of many Catholics and other adherents of various Christian theologies — or, for that matter, Jewish ones, as well — are increasingly undermining progressive ideals, not constitutional ones.

As Beto O'Rourke might ask, do the principles of the Constitution “still work”? When it comes to religious freedom, they most certainly do not. It’s progressive dogma that led a Harvard-educated Washington Post editor to incredulously ask how traditional Christian schools can even “happen” in contemporary American society. She was questioning not merely whether second lady Karen Pence is right or wrong to teach at a Christian school — after all, Americans are free to be critical of people’s faith — but how a school that adheres to the teachings of a church that counter progressive dogma can exist at all.

This is the same progressive moral dogma that justifies yearslong attacks on the livelihood of Christian bakers and florists. It’s the same dogma that justifies coercing nuns to pay for the rite of birth control. If one doesn’t adhere to these commandments, the state, the most powerful institution in the world, will sue them into submission.

In this regard, liberals also like to claim that those who do allow traditional faith to inform their political views are somehow undermining a tenet of American life. (Well, as long as that traditional faith can’t be utilized for left-wing agenda items, such as immigration and socialized health care.) As it goes, some of us, even nonbelievers, prefer the teachings of Jesus to those of Marx — which, in the non-celestial world, means free will over coercion. Whatever the case, our backgrounds and beliefs always color our opinions.

The Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, an apostate on this issue, recently argued in an op-ed that if the Knights of Columbus are a disqualifying group, “then President John F. Kennedy, and the ‘liberal lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy would have been ‘unqualified’ for the same reasons.”

Well, not exactly the same reason. The anti-Catholicism of the past was predicated on an aversion to new immigrants, conspiracies about the pope, and a general long-standing theological distrust among religious denominations. In the political arena today, only the latter of those reasons is in play, and the denomination isn’t Protestant. The “liberal lion of the Senate” wouldn’t be disqualified by today’s standards, because in public life, at least, he was a doctrinal liberal.

“There are many people on the left who act like every political fight is going to bring about heaven or hell on earth — and so there are a lot of folks for whom politics is a religion,” Sasse said after his resolution passed. Progressives are the most zealous moralists. And these lines of questioning from Democrats, increasingly prevalent in political discourse, are an attempt to create the impression that faithful Christians, whose beliefs are at odds with newly sanctified cultural mores, are incapable of doing their jobs.

Sasse is right. Political bellum sacrum is here. We’re just not looking at the right people.


British Twitter user is investigated by police for posting a poem on social media site suggesting transgender women are still men

A Twitter user is planning to complain to the Home Secretary after police investigated him for retweeting a poem which suggested transgender women are still men.

Harry Miller is furious at his ‘Orwellian’ treatment by an officer who rang to check his ‘thinking’ after he had ‘liked’ a limerick which includes the lines: ‘You’re a man. Your breasts are made of silicone... And we can tell the difference... Your hormones are synthetic.’

In all, the company director – a former policeman – had posted about 30 tweets on transgender issues when he was called by a police officer, who introduced himself as ‘representing the LGBTQ community’ after receiving a complaint.

According to Mr Miller, 53, of Nettleton in Lincolnshire, the complainant was an unknown member of the public who had found him via his plant management company and decided ‘if I employed trans people at all, it was not a safe space for them’.

The officer, PC Mansoor Gul of Humberside Police, told Mr Miller that he had 30 tweets by him. When asked if any contained ‘criminal material’, the policeman read the poem, prompting Mr Miller to say afterwards with some disbelief: ‘A cop read me a limerick over the phone.’

Mr Miller said: ‘I said, I didn’t write that. He said, “Ah, but you liked it and promoted it.” I asked why he was wasting his time on a non crime. ‘He said, “It’s not a crime, but it will be recorded as a hate incident.” ’

He added: ‘The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) “to check my thinking!” Seriously. Honestly.

‘Finally, he lectured me. Said, “Sometimes, a woman’s brain grows a man’s body in the womb and that is what transgender is”.’

Father-of-four Mr Miller told The Mail on Sunday: ‘1984 is supposed to be a book, not a police operating manual.’  He added: ‘To be told that the police needed to check my thinking was a bit much.’

Mr Miller insists that he has ‘nothing against transgender people’ but is concerned about the damaging potential impact for the safety of women from proposals to allow any man who chooses to identify as female.

He plans to write to the Chief Constable of Humberside, the Home Secretary and the Police Commissioner for Humberside to complain and ask the force ‘to sort out its borders as to what constitutes police work’.

Mr Gul told The Daily Telegraph: ‘Although none of the tweets were criminal, I said to Mr Miller that the limerick is the kind of thing that upsets the transgender community. I warned him that if it escalates, we will take further action.’

A Humberside police spokesman said all reports of hate incidents are taken seriously and the force would always ‘take appropriate action’.


Australian hotel sparks controversy after BANNING patrons from wearing anything bearing the national flag on Australia Day

I would celebrate if someone fire-bombed these self-righteous Leftist pricks

A pub barred its patrons from wearing any attire bearing the Australian flag on Australia Day.

The Newtown Hotel, in Sydney's inner-west, left some scratching their heads on Saturday when a sign out front informed customers they'd be turned away if the flag was displayed. 'Newtown Hotel respectfully declines to be part of the 26th of January as the land was not ceded,' the sign reads.

'Today there is a dress code and that involves no Australian flag attire and accessories.'

Some punters online were less than thrilled with the decision, saying it was 'un-Australian' to ban the flag. 'Can't wear the Australian flag in Australia? Ridiculous,' one wrote.

'But [it] will have a colonial style building on Aboriginal ground profiting money selling alcohol?' another asked.

Adversely, many were in favour for the move, sharing messages of support with red, yellow and black heart emojis, representing the colours of the Aboriginal flag. 'Big UPS (sic) to these guys!!' one person wrote with the hashtag 'always was, always will be'.  'That's awesome,' wrote another.

The stance is the latest in a series of political statements the Newtown Hotel has made in the past couple of years. Most recently, they decided against broadcasting last year's Melbourne Cup as a sign of solidarity against the horse racing industry.

Management at the Newtown Hotel declined to comment.



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


Monday, January 28, 2019

Gender activists want to BAN beloved 1982 British children's book Dear Zoo for being 'SEXIST' because all the animals are male

Gender activists are campaigning to ban children's lift-the-flap book Dear Zoo - because all the animals are male.

Rod Campbell's 1982 book tells the story of a young boy who writes to a zoo to ask them to send him a pet.

He then receives a series of animals including a snake, a monkey and a 'too tall' giraffe before being given a 'perfect' puppy.

But campaign group Let Toys Be Toys have now claimed the story is 'biased' - because all the animals involved are male, the Sun reported.

Jess Day, of the campaign, said: 'All the animals are male. It’s biased. Parents must demand better.'

Others have claimed the book needs a 'modern-day re-write' or to be taken off shelves entirely.

But some, including father-of-two Reuben Williams, don't see a problem with the picture book - which has sold some eight million copies worldwide. He said: 'It's a classic and a best-seller for a reason. 'There's no issue unless you make one.'

The Dear Zoo and Friends website describes the story, designed for three to five year olds, as 'a must have for every child's bookshelf'.

It says: 'Young children will love lifting the flaps to discover the animals the zoo has sent - a monkey, a lion and even an elephant! 'But will they ever manage to send the perfect pet?'

The popular story has inspired a series of spin-off tales and gifts, including pocket editions and a Dear Zoo live show.


Ben Shapiro Warns: ‘We Should Take It Seriously When the Left Says That They Don’t Like Religion’

On his daily Facebook Live and YouTube video podcast “The  Ben Shapiro Show” Thursday, host and Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire Ben Shapiro warned that “we should take it seriously when the left says that they don’t like religion,” suggesting that the left is using current cultural norms and the law to target Christianity and Judaism in favor of a collective, secular ethic.

“And we should take it seriously when the left says that they don’t like religion,” warned Ben Shapiro. “Because they mean it – they mean it.”

Ben Shapiro’s remarks stem from recent attacks from the left against Karen Pence for her religious views and from a recent Washington Post piece that suggests that “Western Civilization” is a racist term titled “Steve King says he was just defending ‘Western Civilization.’ That’s racist, too.”

Below is a transcript of Ben Shapiro’s comments from his show Thursday:

“And we should take it seriously when the left says that they don’t like religion.  Because they mean it – they mean it.

“By the way, they don’t like Western Civilization either, the term “Western Civilization.” There’s an actual op-ed in The Washington Post today by David Perry and Matthew Gabriele suggesting that the term “Western Civilization” is itself racist. So, they say that because Steve King once used the term “Western Civilization”, “Western Civilization” –  like, the term – is racist, which means that we have to ban the term “Western Civilization” or at least pretend that Western Civilization no longer holds.

“The truth is that a lot of the objections to Christianity and Judeo-Christian values and Western Civilization are built on a Marxist premise that America and Western Civilized countries are inherently racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic and must be torn out by the roots.

“So, Christianity has to go because it’s bigoted. Even though Christianity, by the way— The Christian world is the basis for all the rights and freedoms that you enjoy today. I don’t care whether you are secular. I don’t care whether you are religious. We live in a world defined by the Judeo-Christian ethic. That’s what made the west different from every other place on planet earth and to pretend that that ethic was completely thrown out with the Enlightenment and what the Enlightenment was about was saying, ‘Churches are wrong. We’re just not going to do church anymore.” That is to ignore the fact that virtually every value that we hold dear is rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition.

“The most important sentence ever written in the history of humanity is that man is made in God’s image. It is the beginning and end point of virtually all moral arguments. That is an argument that is made by the Judeo-Christian religion. The argument for personal liberty, that you have inherent rights, the argument that virtue matters so that we can have freedom, all of this, arises in Western Civilization defined by these values.

“So, if you wanted to do away with those values, if you wanted the collective to be more important than the individual, the best way to do it would be to attack Christianity and Judaism at their roots, would be to attack religion and tear those away.

“And again, the ironic part of this is that this is the least threatening time for theocracy in world history, at least from the Judeo-Christian side. And we’re being treated as though Karen Pence is the true threat to liberty – Karen Pence – not the Democrats who are attempting to stop judges from being appointed to the bench based on their membership in the Knights of Columbus.”


Facebook doesn't really believe in free speech. What they believe in (and actively practice) is censorship

It’s a new year, but Americans are fighting a battle as old as the nation itself. It’s the battle to preserve our free speech and for the first time we’re losing — badly.

The new front lines of this fight are on social media — Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram and others.

2.5 billion people use at least one of Facebook’s apps, making it probably the most important social media platform. Unfortunately, its employees, from the CEO on down, don’t really believe in free speech. They believe in and actively practice censorship on a scale almost unimaginable a few years ago.

Facebook’s embattled founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and its Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg seem determined to make the situation worse. After declaring to Congress their commitment to neutrality, they made end-of-year pronouncements that both promised more censorship, and appeased the far left by vowing to involve them with “new products, features and policies.”

Facebook is now openly antagonistic toward the right. Posts aren’t just blocked by humans who decide what they do or don’t like; they are blocked by computer programs designed by humans to ensure liberal sensibilities are not offended. The New York Times says the company is monitoring “billions of posts per day in over 100 languages.” That makes what Facebook is doing almost impossible to track, until it’s too late.

The Times described a global network with more than 15,000 employees assessing content based on rulebooks more than 1,400 pages long. The rules secretly designate groups as hate organizations and are so specific they even ban certain emoji use. Hate speech mandates alone run “200 jargon-filled, head-spinning pages,” wrote The Times.

The result is chaos. There’s no consistency in what Facebook bans or doesn’t ban — except that conservatives suffer. Pro-life, pro-gun and pro-Trump content all run afoul of Facebook’s eager hate speech censors. Just days before the annual March for Life, Facebook blocked advertising for the new pro-life movie "Roe v. Wade."

Around the Fourth of July, Facebook censored a post for “hate speech.” It was the text of the Declaration of Independence.

Conservatives like Samaritan’s Purse head Franklin Graham have been targeted, as well. Graham was suspended recently for a comment he made two years ago. Facebook later apologized.

This is commonplace for conservatives. The company bans, blocks or suspends and then later apologizes … sometimes.

The radical left has no such worries. Smash Racism DC, the Antifa group that targeted Fox host Tucker Carlson’s home and threatened his wife, is still on the site. So is Splinternews, which posted the personal cell phone number of Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller. Even reprehensible anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan has a Facebook page with more than 1.1 million followers.

Facebook is escalating the problem. In November, Zuckerberg announced a new “Blueprint for Content Governance.” He wrote like he believes in free speech, saying, “The world is better…when traditional gatekeepers like governments and media companies don't control what ideas can be expressed.”

But Facebook does.

Two paragraphs later he asked, “What should be the limits to what people can express?” Then he said the site was instituting more content controls that would limit what you see “even if it doesn't actually violate our standards.” That's called shadow banning content.

Sandberg followed with an endorsement of the liberal “civil rights audit” of Facebook that included an ACLU executive and 90 left-wing groups. She called it one of her “top priorities for 2019.” That audit revealed Facebook had worked so closely with the left that it allowed “several civil rights organizations engaged in the civil rights audit to visit [the company’s] election war room.”

The report Sandberg endorsed commits Facebook to work with these left-wing groups on “content moderation,” elections, and the Orwellian-sounding idea of creating a “civil rights accountability infrastructure.”

It also expressed the need for “greater employee diversity.” When liberals say “diversity,” they mean hiring more liberals from approved special interest groups.

Facebook also engaged the law firm Covington & Burling under former Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona to audit how Facebook treats conservatives. In theory, that report will get equal attention. But in practice, it won’t. It will detail the complaints conservatives have, and Facebook will throw it away. How can it do otherwise? Sandberg has publicly committed to supporting radical left-wing groups — against conservatives.

The company has committed a great deal to the left, including “addressing censorship and harmful and potentially discriminating content on the platform.” That is a direct threat against the conservative movement.

The Media Research Center, along with more than 40 other organizations and tens of millions of supporters in our Free Speech Alliance, has called for just the opposite. We put out four demands that should be endorsed by anyone truly committed to having “a platform for all ideas,” as Zuckerberg stated: 1. more transparency 2. more clarity on hate speech rules 3. an equal seat at the table for conservatives 4. embracing the First Amendment as a model for allowable speech.

Those four demands are firmly in line with America’s foundational principles of free speech. Does Facebook believe in them? Conservatives are concluding that it doesn’t. According to a McLaughlin & Associates poll, one-third (32 percent) of self-described conservatives have left or are considering leaving Facebook.

I was in the room when Zuckerberg told a gathering of conservative leaders that if Facebook’s commitment to be the platform for all ideas was not maintained, its business plan would fail. He was right.


Feminists should learn from John Howard: it’s a matter of personal choice

Janet Albrechtsen uses some Australian examples to highlight the Fascist nature of feminism. John Howard was a long-running conservative Prime Minister of Australia who still speaks out occasionally:

How galling it must be for feminists that John Howard understands modern women better than many of them do. How exasperating for them that his feminism is far more liberating for, and respectful of, women than theirs.

A few years ago, during a National Press Club address, the former prime minister suggested that a 50-50 representation of men and women in politics is utopian planning. It is not grounded in reality, he observed. In the real world, women make choices. And many choose children over a demanding career in politics. This week, Kelly O’Dwyer proved Howard’s point. Her decision to resign for deeply personal family reasons is not a defeat for women. It is a celebration of women’s choices.

The usual band of women went wild over Howard’s straightforward remark that many women choose not to go into politics for sensible reasons. It’s a killer on family life. It takes parents away from children. And many women choose not to go down that path.

How dare he suggest women might not want to aspire to a political career in numbers equal to men? What would he know? He’s plain wrong, they said back then.

And they keep saying it. Last month, in a puff piece for The Australian Women’s Weekly, former Liberal MP Julia Banks took aim at what she called “Howard-era” thinking about women and work. It’s entrenched, she insisted.

The warrior for “gender equality” who deserted the Liberal party took a swipe at Prime Minister Scott Morrison as a traditional man, a religious man whose mentor is Howard. Then she took aim at women who make different choices to hers, women who are stay-at-home mums.

“Now I don’t have an issue with stay-at-home mums,” she said. “But I do in the sense that I believe all women should be, if not at some period in their life, they should ­ensure their financial independence … and not to be dependent on anyone.”

If you think stay-at-home mums have made the wrong choice, it’s an easy leap to demand that women and men fill up parliament in equal numbers. But notice the glaring gaps in the claim by women such as Banks that a 50-50 representation in parliament is a matter of fairness?

The first, and fatal, flaw is that these faux feminists are not interested in women’s choices. Fuelled by arrogance and paternalism, they imagine that all women must choose as they do, that women will want to go in politics in equal numbers to men. Ergo, if women choose anything else, it must be a coerced choice made under the weight of structural biases, patriarchal demands.

When O’Dwyer announced her intention to leave politics at the next election, she spoke from the heart about missing special times with her children “and how many more I will miss” if she stayed. The cabinet minister said she was no longer willing to consistently miss seeing her children in the morning or at night. “They clearly want to spend more time with me too.”

Sadly, O’Dwyer felt the need to satisfy the band of feminist ideologues that ignore the beauty of women’s choices. You don’t need to choose between family and public life, she said.

But her actions spoke louder. Sacrifices are made in any career, more so in those that involve long hours away from family. After a decade in Canberra, O’Dwyer chose family over politics.

Her decision mirrors that of many women who have come or will come to the same conclusion, only sooner than she did. There is no right or wrong here, only a deeply personal decision. What is wrong is an ideology that demeans the choices women make.

I made a similar decision when a very senior Liberal suggested a nice seat in federal politics for me. My children were on the cusp of teenage years, a time when I wanted to be around them more often than not. It’s when kids think they don’t need you that maybe they do. Scheduling quality time made no sense to me, so I chose quantity and that meant saying no to politics. Working from home didn’t guarantee a bump-free ride for them or for me. But my choice to work from home to raise children will always be, for me at least, life’s greatest privilege in all its messy and demanding, frustrating and rewarding glory.

Not every woman can stay at home with their children. Money and other matters can get in the way. But when that choice exists, it should be respected and celebrated, not dismissed as part of some kind of “entrenched” patriarchy. Maybe when we celebrate caring for children, more men will embrace it too.

Alas, women who wear a feminist label on their sleeve have a nasty knack for deriding the choices of other women. Union leader Sally McManus accused O’Dwyer of “throwing in the towel”. No empathy there for O’Dwyer’s very personal reasons for leaving politics. No celebration of a woman’s desire to spend more time with her children. What a cold world McManus inhabits.

Banks has planted her red flag with the same band of ideologues. She deserves credit for winning a seat, but in the end, she was a poor fit for politics. Her feminism is not an empowering one, sitting at odds with a liberalism based on respecting individual freedom over the ­arrogance of central planners like her.

Along with Labor’s Emma Husar, Banks’s feminism is framed by gender tantrums. When women stop blaming men for their own misfortune, mistakes and misdeeds, perhaps feminism will come of age.

The siren call for 50 per cent female representation in parliament is central planning nonsense. The reality of women’s preferences suggests that a 30 per cent target is closer to the mark. Anything more exposes the second killer flaw in the “fairness” argument — it relies on discrimination in favour of women.

It is no coincidence that those who push hardest for a 50 per cent target or quota that does not reflect the full gamut of women’s choices are usually those who most need the additional 20 per cent to make it in politics.

It’s even worse in the corporate world, where the incompetence issue is more pronounced. That’s not to say there are no incompetent men in business and politics. Plenty of men need to be moved on. But to set up a system that demands promotion for those in the red zone of incompetence is a sign of how gender ideology is making the political arena, and business, dumber for a political cause.

The “gender equality” ideologues understand the golden skirts phenomenon only too well. In business, generous targets and quotas that promote the incompetent drive up the economic value of the scarce number of competent women. The incompetent love quotas because they’re in with a chance; the competent love them too because it inflates their economic value. They are swamped with offers. In politics, the neat pay-off is not so much about more money, but greater power.

Howard’s understanding of women isn’t rocket science. His feminism is not stubborn ideology. It is based on celebrating the beauty of women’s choices, something that should be the core of modern feminism.



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


Sunday, January 27, 2019

In Russia, men are still allowed to be men

A lot of conservatives have some admiration for the way political correctness has not got very far in Russia and I am one of them.  Under furious Leftist/Feminist influence there is these days in the Western world great pressure on masculinity.  Anything masculine is heavily criticized.  Huge attempts are being made to feminize Western men.  That has got just about nowhere in Russia.  Russian men are still admired for being men and most Russian women are among the admirers.

It is difficult to address that statistically. One of the attempts to produce statistical proof that men are a bad lot was spectacularly incompetent statistically.  See here.  So the whole question has so far not risen much above opinion and assertion.  So I think I too can approach the question anecdotally only.

But I think one very powerful anecdote concerns Russian baritone Dmitry Hvorostovsky.  Both in Russia and elsewhere he is a much admired singer.  And in opera it is not just the singing that matters.  The acting too is a big deal.  And Hvorostovsky shines there too.  He is a most masculine man in a way that you cannot just adopt or imitate.  He just IS a very masculine man.  And for the male parts in opera that goes down very well.

I will not burden readers with opera but Hvorostovsky also sings popular and traditional Russian songs.  And probably the best known Russian song in the West is "Moscow Nights".  So I want readers to watch him singing that.  You will see an unashamedly masculine man in spontaneous action.

Below is a video of the famous performance in Red Square with Netrebko and Hvorostovsky singing.  Anna Netrebko is a supreme Russian soprano. Hvorostovsky presents his songs in a very strong, confident and dignified way while Netrebko is a rather shy person who is easily embarrassed.

The beginning of the performance is very Russian, with Hvorostovsky dragging a submissive Netrebko onto the stage but then pledging undying love to her. In her reactions you will see how easily embarrassed she is but will also see how much she enjoys Hvorostovsky and his declarations. Most Russian ladies would envy her as Hvorostovsky is a very attractive man. Feminists will hate the whole thing.

You see in this performance as in others that the ladies who sing duets with Hvorostovsky swoop in for a big cuddle with him afterwards. Real women like real men.

Another Russian baritone who exudes Russian manliness is Leonid Kharitonov.  Below he is singing "Volga Boatman" with the Red Army Choir.  The song is actually a type of shanty.  It is not the song of sailors, however.  It is a song of men on a towpath dragging boats along the Volga, presumably upstream. It is a song of endurance.  As such the words are simple to the point of meaninglessness but the tune is compelling.  And when you see Kharitonov  -- a most manly looking man -- you get a feeling for Russian power.

Russians are enduring. They have to be -- with both a demanding climate and a demanding government.  I admire them and have a feeling for what life must be like in Russia. When you listen to Kharitinov, however, you begin to understand the war on the Eastern front. The Germans were military specialists and killed 4 Russians for every one of theirs that fell.  But the Russians just did not give in -- so indomitability triumphed over military brilliance.

So Russia reminds us that manliness is not "toxic" but something quite wonderful.

Note:  After the video of Hvorostovsy above, Youtube segues for me into another video featuring Hvorostovky -- singing the Toreador song from "Carmen".  That too is a magnificent and very manly performance.  You may note at the beginning of the video the way Hvorostovsky strides onto the stage, clearly the master of his universe.

Britain's most disgraceful bureaucracy

The SFO are extraordinarily arrogant and keep getting it wrong. Because they have the deep pockets of the taxpayer behind them, they think that they can do no wrong. They were nearly wound up when they cost the taxpayer a bomb over their failed prosecution of the Tchenguiz brothers.  They are full of themselves, with no good reason.  They should have learned from the Tchenguiz affair that the have to be meticulous about making a case but instead they bluffed -- and lost again. 

The former UK finance director of Tesco has been acquitted of a fraud in the latest embarrassing blow for the Serious Fraud Office and Britain’s largest supermarket group.

Carl Rogberg, 52, was formally found not guilty this morning at Southwark crown court after the SFO said that it had no evidence to present against him. It comes nearly a year after the first trial was abandoned when Mr Rogberg had a heart attack and just over a month after a second trial, involving two other former Tesco employees, collapsed when a judge ruled that the SFO had no case.


Another attack on monuments -- this time in Britain

Scotland Yard has launched an investigation after five memorials and statues were attacked by vandals in what appears to be a coordinated campaign.

The first incident, which caused widespread public anger, occurred on Sunday night when white paint was splattered over the memorial to Bomber Command in London’s Green Park.

But it later emerged that three other war memorials and plaque a murdered police officer had also been targeted at around the same time.

The targets included the Allies Statue statue of Second World War prime minister Sir Winston Churchill and his US counterpart Franklin D Roosevelt in New Bond Street, the Canada Memorial in Green Park, and the Royal Marines Graspan Memorial on The Mall.

The memorial to Yvonne Fletcher, the police officer who was murdered by a gunman during the 1984 Libyan Embassy siege, in St James's Square, was also attacked.

In each case white paint was splashed over the statues and police have said they believe all the incidents are linked.

No arrests have been made and police have said it is not clear what the motive behind the attacks is.

Detective Inspector Dave Watkinson said: "These crimes have understandably caused anger and offence and we are working hard to identify and apprehend those responsible. "Our enquiries are moving at pace and I urge anyone who saw anything suspicious at the locations concerned to contact us."

The Bomber Command memorial was erected to honour the sacrifice of the 55,000 members of aircrew from Britain, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Poland and other countries of the Commonwealth as well as civilians of all nations killed in raids.

It was unveiled by the Queen in 2012 after a public appeal for funds raised more than £5 million.

The RAF Benevolent Fund said it was the fourth time in six years that the Bomber Command Memorial had been vandalised.

It was first targeted in 2013 when a man daubed the word "Islam" on it shortly after the killing of Fusilier Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks.

A week later, a second man wrote "Lee Rigby's killers should hang", "EDL" and "F*** the police" on the memorial. He was jailed for 12 weeks.

Britain's last surviving Dambuster George "Johnny" Johnson, 97, slammed the latest incident. He said: "What a disgrace, such mindless vandalism. "How disrespectful to the nearly 58,000 people who gave their lives so that these thugs have the freedom to carry out such acts? I hope they are caught soon, and suitably punished.”

The memorial to Pc Flecther, who was just 25-years-old when she was gunned down, stands opposite the Libyan Embassy where she had been helping to police a protest.

Her murder resulted in an 10-day siege of the embassy and eventually saw the UK sever diplomatic ties with the regime.  Nobody has ever been charged over the killing of Pc Fletcher.

Responding to the news that her memorial had been targeted, Ken Marsh, the Chairman of the  Metropolitan Police Federation, said: "This is a disgusting and despicable act by vile individuals. We will find those responsible.”


Planned Parenthood Suffers Big Loss in Federal Appeals Court

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices.

“Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling.

The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos.

In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion.

Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility.

In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver.

Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings.

“The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads.

Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes.

The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared.

“The record reflects that (the Texas Office of Inspector General) had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And (Planned Parenthood) did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.”

Finally, the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism.

“Had (Texas) terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and (reach) federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads.

The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life.

The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: After Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct.

The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, which accused the Court of playing politics.

In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court.

The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question.

However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas.

As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings.

Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million.


Australia: Far-left activists have put up contemptuous signs at historic Cook’s Cottage in Vic

I joined in a traditional Australia Day family BBQ with no shame and no thoughts about any minority.  Why should I do otherwise?  In Matthew 8:22 Jesus said, “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead”, meaning that there are more important things to do than worrying about those who cannot be helped and who are therefore as good as dead. 

I did raise a champagne toast to the First Fleet, however, as two of my ancestors came out to Australia as convicts on such ships.  Why should my culture and history be dishonoured in order to promote Aboriginal beliefs?  It is my ancestors and their ilk who made Australia the advanced and peaceful civilization that it is today

Far-left activists have put up signs reading “Rest in Piss Australia Day” and “Abolish Australia Day” at the historic Cooks’ Cottage in inner east Melbourne.

The cottage was built in 1775 by Captain James Cook’s father and was brought to Fitzroy Garden’s in 1934. Cooks’ the oldest building in Australia.

Activist group Whistleblowers, Activists and Citizens Alliance (WACA) put the signs up this morning at 9am when the landmark opened.

WACA spokeswoman Charlotte Lynch said the actions were made in support of demands of Aboriginal solidarity at tomorrow’s Invasion Day rally.

“We are making those demands in solidarity with Aboriginal people who are protesting tomorrow against the colonial narrative and the narrative of White Australia.” she said.

Ms Lynch said the group did not consult with but undertook their actions in response to indigenous activist group Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance’s (WAR) call for seven days of resistance.

“Although we are a group of non-indigenous people we did that to acknowledge sovereignty to speak out against a narrative that is destructive and racist.” she said.

The signs read “Eviction notice: Unpaid rent 231 years”, “Abolish Australia” and “Rest in Peace Australia Day”.

The group put up the same signs last year.



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


Friday, January 25, 2019

American Psychological Association Has Made Choosing a Therapist Easy
The American Psychological Association has, in its words, issued “its first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys.” These guidelines “draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage.”

Three observations:

1) The last thing American males need today is less masculinity.

If you need proof, ask women who are looking for a husband whether the men they date exhibit too much masculinity, too little masculinity or just the right amount. I have talked to hundreds of women on my radio show (every week I have a “Male/Female Hour”), at speeches and in private who are dating to find a spouse. Not one has said men today are too masculine. Virtually all of them have said men today lack masculinity.

And why wouldn’t men lack masculinity? A vast number of boys grow up either with no father or with a father they rarely see. Their lives are dominated by women — their mother, virtually all their teachers, probably their school principal and probably their therapist.

As if that were not bad enough, many of the single mothers of these American boys are angry at the man who never married them, or at the man who divorced them, or at men in general. In addition, these boys’ women teachers suppress their natural testosterone-driven male behaviors. And now their teachers increasingly tell them they may not even be a boy.

Of course, some men are boors — demanding sex on the first date, sending sex-filled messages, etc. But most men know boorishness is not masculinity. Such behaviors emanate not from masculinity but from poor upbringing and/or the sexual revolution, which taught men and women that the sex drives of men and women are the same.

But as psychoanalyst Erica Komisar wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, it is “a recipe for mental illness” to tell boys that “aggression, competitiveness and protectiveness is a sign of sickness.”

2) This is another example of the most important rule of contemporary life: The left ruins everything it touches.

The left has ruined the arts; the universities; high schools; the nuclear family; mainstream Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism; the Boy Scouts; and journalism. And it is now doing the same to the sciences: Universities are increasingly choosing science faculty based on gender and race rather than on scientific expertise.

Psychology and psychiatry have long been homes to left-wing fools (recall the 1964 example of 1,189 psychiatrists declaring then-presidential candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater “psychologically unfit”). But the APA statement will do even more harm.

The American Psychological Association goes beyond defining “traditional masculinity” as “on the whole, harmful.” It urges therapists to help men “identify how they have been harmed by discrimination against those who are gender nonconforming.” That’s right. Your son’s psychotherapist will explain to him how it is entirely normal for a boy his age (beginning in kindergarten) to wear a dress, and that regarding an 8-year-old boy in a dress as not quite healthy is what is not quite healthy. In addition, the APA hopes this therapist will reassure your son that he, too, may well choose to be a girl.

In the words of Komisar, this is “an ideological claim transformed into a clinical treatment recommendation.” That “ideological claim” is, of course, leftism.

3) The APA statement makes choosing a psychotherapist simple.

The hardest part of starting psychotherapy is figuring out how to choose a psychotherapist. If you choose the wrong one, you will not only be wasting a great deal of time and money; you will not be helped, and you might well be harmed.

So, how does one go about choosing a psychotherapist? The APA just made the task much simpler: Just ask any therapist you are considering for yourself or someone else, “Do you agree with the American Psychological Association that ‘traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful’?”

If the therapist agrees, thank him or her for the time and leave. If the therapist starts giving a prolonged response, leave. Any therapist who cannot unequivocally condemn the APA statement is unworthy of your time and your money, let alone your psyche. Many will try to weasel out of directly agreeing (or disagreeing) with the statement. They will tell you that sometimes masculinity is a problem. But they are just being careful not to lose you as a potential client. Such a statement is meaningless: There is nothing that cannot be harmful at times. That includes femininity as much as masculinity, and it includes such normally good things as water (a lot of people drown, after all).

Without “traditional masculinity,” civilization is lost. Ask anyone you know who agrees with using the term “the greatest generation” to describe the generation that fought World War II whether the men of that generation would have fought, much less won, without “traditional masculinity.”

Do not trust therapists who will not condemn the APA statement. They are either a fool or a coward. They may well be very kind and sincere. But that means nothing. You or your child will not be helped by kindness and sincerity. You or your child will only be helped by wisdom.


What is a man? A response to Gillette

A short film - Dedicated to all those who sacrifice everything to make the world safer and better for all of us.

Donald Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the US military can now go ahead

The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to go ahead with its plan to restrict military service by transgender people while court challenges continue.

The high court on Tuesday reversed lower-court orders preventing the Pentagon from implementing its plans. But the high court for now declined to take up cases about the plan.

According to the New York Post, the Supreme Court broke along ideological lines in a 5-4 decision that removed injunctions imposed by lower courts that had previously blocked the ban.

The cases will continue to move through lower courts. Military policy had barred service by transgender people until President Barack Obama’s administration began allowing transgender people already in the military to serve openly and set a date when transgender people would be allowed to enlist.

The five conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Donald Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — moved to lift the injunctions which would let the ban proceed.

The court’s progressive wing — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer — voted to keep the injunctions in place.

The court decided not to take up the plan itself, as the Trump administration had wanted, opting instead to allow lower courts to hear the legal battle.

Mr Trump first unveiled the change in policy in a tweet in July 2017 because he said transgender service members pose a threat to national security, declaring the US government “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

It reversed President Obama’s 2016 policy that allowed transgender men and women already serving in the military to do so openly.

Advocacy groups and lawyers for active-duty transgender military personnel sued to stop the policy from taking effect and courts imposed nationwide injunctions.

The Trump administration’s policy, which was brought into effect by former Defence Secretary James Mattis, bars transgender people from being in the military unless they serve “in their biological sex” and do not attempt to seek surgery for a gender transition.


Lawyer for Covington Catholic HS Families Threatens Lawsuits Against Media Unless They Retract False Stories

Thanks to the sloppy, one-sided reporting of the malicious, agenda-driven media, a group of Catholic high school teenagers and their families have become the subjects of threats and harassment from a hateful online outrage mob. Their only sins? Being white, Catholic, and supporters of the president.

The full story has emerged in the wake of the fake news blitzkrieg over the weekend, and the media outlets that spread defamatory smears against the kids are now being warned to correct and retract their stories or face a lawsuit. Contrary to the media's malicious narrative, the kids were not racist rednecks mobbing a Native American elder with hateful slurs. It was quite the opposite.

Los Angeles-based trial lawyer Robert Barnes offered to represent the Covington families for free should they decide to sue the New York Times.

He said that "anyone who doesn't correct and retract" their false smears would be subject to a lawsuit and that updated stories merely indicating "a more complex picture has emerged" would not necessarily be enough.

When asked if such stories would count as a retraction, he replied that it "depends."

According to his website, Barnes has a history of taking on the causes of underdogs: "Fighting for individuals against unethical law firms, corrupt banks, and rogue government agents, Barnes continues the family tradition his great-grandfathers started centuries ago, fighting for the freedoms that founded America."

Video evidence and statements from multiple witnesses indicate that the boys were targeted by two groups of protesters who hurled hateful, racial, homophobic slurs at them while they waited on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for their bus after participating in the March for Life.

How hard would it have been for the media to find the full video, which was already online, to verify Phillips' assertions before running with them? Nothing Phillips was alleging could be corroborated in the viral video clip of Phillips and the smiling teenager, but they reported his claims as gospel anyway.

The media also reported that the longtime lefty agitator is a Vietnam veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a "recon ranger" based on his say-so, without bothering to verify whether the claim was true.

The Center for Security Studies had some questions about that:  This is not a valid name for any Marine specialty or unit and Phillips age of 64 calls into question how he could have completed training and served in Vietnam prior to the US withdrawal.



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