Sunday, July 14, 2019


I suppose it is regrettable in some ways but sexual attraction is well rooted in our evolutionary past -- and it is unrelenting. 

And the reality is that both sexes are very physically oriented.  Men like a woman to have some approximation to an hourglass figure and women want a man who is tall and well-built.  A man of 6' and around 200lb just has to have a nice smile for something like 90% of women to find him attractive. A man only 5' tall  will only be attractive to about 1% of women, most of them fatties.

So our hero below is rightly aggrieved.  But he is fishing in the wrong pool.  He evidently wants an attractive woman. He should be realistic and look for a fatty

The bagel shop customer who left a larger-than-life impression after he went on a rant about being vertically challenged claims he is the 'Martin Luther King' of short people.

Chris Morgan says he's enjoying his newfound notoriety since video of his meltdown at a Long Island, New York, bagel shop went viral.

In a rambling interview with, Morgan said that he felt pushed to breaking point by discrimination against short people.

The five foot tall 45-year-old, of Long Island, even said he saw himself as a 'prophet' and 'modern day Martin Luther King' for people of his height as he called for equality for smaller men.

'I got to the point where I'd had enough,' he added. 'The girls hate me, they don't like me, that's fine,' he added. Now I have a mission. 'I'm not stopping and the world is going to hear me. I want equality for everybody. '

He does look rather ridiculous amid much taller people. A human chihuahua?

But in the same breath, the divorced cleaning company owner, who has no children, said he resented all women, branding them 'gold diggers' because they kept dumping him 'because of his height.'

He said: 'I'm sick of getting constantly lied to and used on dates. And then they dump me. They tell me I'm too short,' he explained. 'They don't have a job, or a job as good as mine. They don't have a car. They are more overweight... and they are judging ME?

'Whatever happened to the love of the 60s?' he asked. 'When people loved each other for themselves?'

Morgan, who got married in 2007 before getting divorced five years later, clarified that he was 'tired of the immaturity.' And while he was seen in footage being the aggressor, he asserts that he just wants 'justice.'

'I'm just not tolerating this any more,' Morgan declared. 'Some of those girls found it funny. That's why I have resentment towards women. I find them all to be stupid, gold digging liars.'

But he claims that since video of him screaming and ranting about how the world treated 5ft-tall men, that women have been unfathomably throwing themselves at him.

The incident began yesterday at the Bay Shore bagel when Morgan claims the girl behind the counter struggled to understand his order.

'The third time I asked, she smirked with her friends,' he shared. 'She was laughing and talking with her friends, putting her hand over her mouth and laughing, like girls do when they reject me on a date.

Morgan has a history of confrontations, as seen on his YouTube page which is inundated with clips of him getting in fights with gas station employees and mothers. Some videos even contain racist language. Others do show him playing with a bird and fishing.

In one video, Morgan storms into a 7/11 and has a argument with a Pakistani employee who he claims asked how tall he was. He proceeds to scream at the man about how he is from a 'third world country.'

Morgan attempted to get the employee detained by police, but officers refused to file harassment charges.

Shocking video filmed by Diana Reyes, 18, showed the irate customer shouting at staff at Bagel Boss East in Bay Shore, New York, on Wednesday.

Reyes told the that she and her friend - 19-year-old Olivia Bradley - were waiting in line for their breakfast when the man started mouthing off in front of them to staff. 

'He just seemed a little agitated and as soon as the woman turned her head, he started going off,' Reyes said. 'No one provoked him.'

The brief clip shows a woman asking the man why it is OK to 'degrade women.'  The man retorted: 'Why is it OK for women to say "Oh you are 5ft' on dating sites. "You should be dead. That's OK!'

As other patrons point out that no one has said that inside the establishment, the Napoleon-esque man asserts that 'women in general' make the distinction.

The vertically challenged patron then shouted: 'Everywhere I go I get the same fucking smirk with the biting lip.'

A man in the store, who is twice the angry customer's size, tries to get him to calm down.

'Shut your mouth,' he stated. 'You're not god, or my father or my boss.' The little man tells the larger man he isn't scared of him and chest bumps him in an attempt to intimidate him.

But as he continues boasting about his fighting abilities, another man comes and slams him to the ground.

Additional clips show the man storming out of the store as employees try to hand him his bagel.

The 18-year-old also said that the man who tackled the angry customer, immediately letting him get up and walk away.


Tommy Robinson jailed for nine months for contempt of court over social media video

Tommy speaks the truth about Muslims --- unforgiveable in Britain

Tommy Robinson has been jailed for nine months, but will serve just 10 weeks, after being found in contempt of court for broadcasting a video on social media which featured defendants in a criminal trial.

Riot police were called in to attend as crowds of Robinson's supporters reacted to the sentencing outside the Old Bailey. Eight people were arrested last week when Robinson previously appeared in court. 

The founder of the English Defence League (EDL), whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was found to have committed contempt of court following a two-day hearing at the Old Bailey last week.

Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Warby found Robinson was in contempt in three respects when he filmed men accused of the sexual exploitation of young girls and live-streamed the footage on Facebook, in breach of a reporting ban, outside Leeds Crown Court in May 2018.

Passing sentence, Dame Victoria said: "Nothing less than a custodial penalty would properly reflect the gravity of the conduct we have identified."

"The respondent (Robinson) cannot be given credit for pleading guilty. He has lied about a number of matters and sought to portray himself as the victim of unfairness and oppression.

"This does not increase his sentence, but it does mean that there can be no reduction for an admission of guilt."

Because Robinson has already served 69 days for the Leeds contempt case, which was eventually overturned and retried last week, Dame Victoria said he would be required to serve nearly 10 weeks in prison.

Speaking after the sentencing, the Attorney General said: “Today’s sentencing of Yaxley-Lennon serves to illustrate how seriously the courts will take matters of contempt.

"Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings has consequences, and I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.”

Giving reasons for the decision on Tuesday, Dame Victoria said Robinson encouraged "vigilante action" in the video, which lasted an hour-and-a-half and was viewed online 250,000 times on the morning of the broadcast.

The judge said the words he used in the video would have been understood by viewers as "an incitement" to harass the defendants and "gave rise to a real risk the course of justice would be seriously impeded".

Throughout the Old Bailey hearing, Robinson denied any wrongdoing, saying he did not believe he was breaching reporting restrictions and only referred to information that was already in the public domain.

Robinson was jailed for 13 months after being found in contempt of court on the day of the broadcast.


Washington State Wants to Force This Church to Pay for Abortions 

Opponents of religious freedom love to use “separation of church and state” as a misguided battle cry to remove prayer from public schools, erase historical religious landmarks, and even block faithful Christians from public service.

Meanwhile, real violations of separation of church and state are increasing.

Across the country, we’re seeing numerous incidents in which the government is trying to control what churches teach, where they worship, and how they exercise their religious freedom.

Look no further than what’s happening to Cedar Park Assembly of God. The state of Washington has passed a law that forces churches like Cedar Park to pay for abortions through their health insurance plans.

Let’s take a look at Cedar Park, its pastor, and how they are standing up to this unconstitutional state law.

Jay is the senior pastor at Cedar Park, a church that continually lives out its pro-life views in a variety of tangible ways. Cedar Park’s pro-life ministries include partnering with a local pregnancy center and foster care providers, hosting an annual camp for children in foster care, and hosting an annual prayer service to pray for couples struggling with infertility. Jay’s predecessor even co-founded an adoption provider for frozen embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization.

But it gets even more personal than that. When Sandy found out she was pregnant in high school, she and Jay were taken by surprise. Sandy briefly considered abortion. But, instead, the couple decided to get married, and they had their first of four daughters together. Jay and Sandy have no regrets – they consider their oldest daughter to be one of their greatest blessings.

So, when they found out that Washington had passed a law that would require their church to pay for abortions, it felt like a slap in the face. And they knew they had to do something about it.

In early 2018, the Washington State Senate passed SB 6219 or the so-called “Reproductive Parity Act.” This act mandates that healthcare plans in the state that offer maternity care must also pay for elective abortions. This means that when Cedar Park provides its more than 180 employees and their families with quality, affordable health insurance, they have to fund abortions. Failure to do so could mean fines and criminal penalties, including jail time.

Jay and Sandy knew that their religious freedom was being violated. So, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Cedar Park’s behalf.

When we hear people invoking the “separation of church and state,” it often means they want to shut believers out of the public square. But that isn’t what the “separation of church and state” is supposed to mean—far from it.

When the Founders drafted the First Amendment, they were more concerned with protecting believers from the government and not the other way around.

The state of Washington is violating this separation by trying to impose its pro-abortion views onto churches like Cedar Park by requiring them to pay for abortions. This is a violation of churches’ religious freedom. Unfortunately, Washington isn’t the only state with such a requirement. That’s why Cedar Park challenged this law in federal court.

The Bottom Line: Churches should be free to operate according to their faith without being threatened by the government.


New Religion, old hypocrisies

A view from Australia

This is a parable about a new religion that has deep roots on the secular left side of politics. The starting principle for moderates and extremists alike is that those who challenge their moral code are not just wrong, they are immoral; nonbelievers have no legitimacy in the public square. And hence, why the new moral code is part of a new religion.

A fortnight ago, Andy Ngo was bashed by a mob of antifa protesters, who are best understood as extremists from the new religion. Ngo is a young Asian man, a journalist who is not part of the left-leaning media. He carried his new GoPro camera to report on antifa’s march through the streets of Portland, Oregon. Ngo has been reporting on stories that major US media outlets would rather ignore, including the activities of antifa. Their name suggests they are anti-fascists, but bashing a journalist is a common tool of fascists.

While Ngo was mobbed by thugs in masks, police stood back. He ended up in hospital, treated for head injuries including a sub­arachnoid haemorrhage. Film of the violent assault went viral. Yet news outlets went largely silent, eventually shamed into some cynical coverage.

Ngo is the gay son of Vietnamese immigrants, which is worth juxtaposing against antifa’s make-up and mission. A group of angry white millennials protesting against white supremacy violently assaulted a young Asian gay man. Make sense of that.

The lack of concern from major media outlets speaks to the hypocrisy of the left’s moral code. Imagine their rightful outrage if Trump supporters bashed a young left-leaning journo. The same media organisations that routinely pounce on Donald Trump for his media baiting at campaign rallies — think CNN, The New “Woke” Times and The Washington Post — seemed relaxed with antifa’s excuse that Ngo deserved it because he reported on antifa.

When some media outlets finally popped up, Ngo was painted as a troublemaker who deserved no sympathy. “Don’t worry about Ngo. He’s been discharged from hospital, with a big fat GoFundMe of around $160,000 and any number of armed, right-wing groups offering to act as ‘bodyguards’,” wrote one misguided, or malevolent, pundit in The Independent.

The same chap suggested that the far right wanted to treat the assault on Ngo as “their own (cut-price) Horst Wessel moment”. Wessel was a 22-year-old Nazi stormtrooper who was fatally shot by communists on January 14, 1930, his death becoming a rallying cause that propelled the Nazis to power.

Ngo is not a Nazi stormtrooper. He is a curious journalist who challenges modern cant working in a liberal democracy, like ours, that is increasingly imperilled by a new religion that seeks to punish nonconformists in various ways.

Over two thousand years ago, Christianity set down a moral code for people. Biblical stories tell of deadly sins and heavenly virtue, commandments guide us, there are offers of forgiveness and paths to redemption. There were also dark periods when those who questioned rising and rigid religious orthodoxy, and hypocrisy, were shut down. And non-­believers were persecuted.

Today, there is a new religion, with a new moral code enforced by a new sainted class that includes corporate leaders, government bureaucrats, those at the top of industry groups, university vice-chancellors and sporting bosses too. Like old established religions, the clerics of the new ­religion presume to hold a monopoly over morality. This new papal class also enforces a rigid ­orthodoxy similar to old established ­religions.

Those who stray from this new moral code do so at their own risk. There are public condemnations so fierce they aim to rewrite history. Think of those same-sex marriage activists who have not just attacked tennis player Margaret Court for her beliefs but consider her thought crimes so ­serious that the Margaret Court Arena must be renamed. According to Billie Jean King, Court’s Christian views justify trashing her record of 24 Grand Slam singles titles. Note that Court is not asking King to subscribe to her views. But King demands that Court change hers or lose her standing as a tennis legend. Only in degree is that different from historical cases of estab­lished religions persecuting heretics.

The new religion makes no room for nonconformists. Its followers want to shut down voices of dissent. Instead of changing the channel or reading a different newspaper, Richard Di Natale was caught during the last election saying that he wanted sections of Sky and News Corp shut down.

Proponents of the new religion search and punish people for tiny transgressions, confecting fake outrage. And they make no room for redemption or forgiveness. The orthodoxy is so powerful that conservatives are even sacking their own when faced with the shitstorm unleashed by disciples of the new religion. In Britain, Roger Scruton and Toby Young were both sacked from their quangos when the May government succumbed to social media outrage. Burning witches at the stake in a grassy field is an old variant of new witch-hunts on ­social media platforms.

It did not help that Young, a man with a passion for education, apologised unreservedly for comments he made during an earlier career as what he called a “journalistic provocateur”.

When you start from the same point — that dissidents are so morally depraved they must be stopped — only the consequences differ. Some adherents of the new religion chose to bash Ngo, while others demanded that Young be sacked.

It used to be the case that we rendered unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, and unto God the things that were God’s. The new moral code is so omnipresent it reaches on to sporting fields, into boardrooms, universities and ­bureaucracies.

The sacking of Israel Folau is bigger than a legal biff about a contract and a code of conduct. Folau was sacked for sinning against the new moral code. It is a totemic clash of religions, between old ones such as Christianity (but it could be Islam next) and the new religion promulgated by a new secular class that wants to stop a man from posting different moral judgments drawn from a centuries-old code of conduct called the Bible.

Some followers of the new religion have become blind to what is at stake. The ABC, for example, struggles to show much curiosity. Interviewed this week on Radio National about religious freedom, Barnaby Joyce mentioned the Folau saga. Presenter Hamish Macdonald interrupted, saying that Folau had been covered enough. Except it has barely been covered at all on the taxpayer-funded ABC.

Later, on Monday evening, a Q&A audience member raised the Folau matter. Host Tony Jones directed it to the openly gay panel member Penny Wong. No one else was asked for their views.

If the ABC is the media arm that spreads the new religion, Rugby Australia’s Raelene Castle has become its self-appointed priestess. During Folau’s code-of-conduct hearing, Castle seemed to suggest it was fine for Folau to post good bits from the Bible, but not bad bits. Was she presuming to sit in judgment of a book that is thousands of years old, with a few billion followers? Who is Castle to decide what individuals should decide for themselves?

People who presume to speak about moral issues for others, rather than just themselves, are found in droves in corporate Australia. A new class of corporate clerics presumes to speak for shareholders on everything from same-sex marriage to changing the Australian Constitution to preference one race of people with a special chamber of their own.

Corporate clerics are easily identified. They spend more time virtue-signalling about getting the right gender balance and exposing society’s unconscious bias than they do on issues that go to the core of their business: boring ­issues such as tax reform and industrial relations reform.

Alas, this hard work is handballed away by faux trust-seekers who would rather feel the warm glow that comes from standing in a room of like-minded corporate clerics signing up to social campaigns using other people’s money. And those quick to attack Qantas’s Alan Joyce should remember he is one of the few to ­advocate for social change and sound economic policy.

The reverence paid to diversity by corporate Australia mirrors the hypocrisy of Billie Jean King in sport. They make no room for political diversity. It’s another sign that the new moral code is religious in nature, because few ­religions, not old ones and not this new one, handle diversity of thought well.

A spokesman for the self-­appointed corporate virtue-signallers, former KPMG chairman Peter Nash, told this newspaper last week that companies needed to push social causes to rebuild trust with people.

Here’s my advice — and it’s free. Companies will rebuild real and lasting trust by treating customers fairly, respecting the diversity of shareholders whose money pays their generous wage, and advocating economic policies that allow companies, workers and our economy to flourish.

At universities too, bureaucrats use codes of conduct to enforce new moral codes using vaguely drafted commandments that you must not behave in an uncollegial manner.

At James Cook University, vice-chancellor Sandra Harding used the university’s code of conduct to remove physics professor Peter Ridd from his job. Ridd taught at JCU for decades. Students adored him. His sin was to challenge the quality of research by some JCU colleagues about the state of the Great Barrier Reef.

A university committed to the liberal education of its students, and finding the truth, would have been curious about Ridd’s work. Instead, JCU sacked him.

How is his removal different to heretics being removed by established ­religions?

When it comes to thou shall implement gender equality, the new religion has become irrational and fanatical. As The Australian reported this week, the Queensland Mines Minister could not seek expert advice from the Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee because the committee, lacking 50-50 gender representation, was forced to cancel meetings.

Meanwhile six workers died in Queensland mines and quarries in the past 12 months.

It’s early days. But this new religion and sections of its ruling class are already so corrupted with hypocrisy, it needs a reformation, a Martin Luther to post 95 theses exposing the equivalent of those old papal indulgences. Consider this Thesis # 1.



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

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

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


No comments: