Friday, January 31, 2020

Left Claims Women Are Essential To Business But Optional To Families

In 2020, Washington state insists the female perspective is critical to corporations. But in 2018, it insisted the female perspective was optional for children.

Washington state Democrats continue to run the table with their majority. They opened the new year with several egregious legislative initiatives, from decriminalizing underage prostitution to pushing the comprehensive sexual education program soundly rejected by a majority of Washington state parents late last year. Also up on the overreaching docket is SB 6037, which would require every public company to have a “gender-diverse board of directors.”

It would appear the Senate Democrats believe representation of both sexes is of great importance. Unfortunately, their concern regarding sex differences is limited only to the world of business because they spent 2018 scrubbing the words “mother” and “father” from the world of family. The passage of the Uniform Parentage Act in 2018, coincidentally also numbered SB 6037, supported by every Senate Democrat, made one’s sex in parenthood officially optional.

Democratic Sen. Jamie Pedersen, sponsor of both the 2018 and 2020 versions of SB 6037, stated in a 2018 Senate hearing that referencing mothers and fathers in parenthood laws was “unconstitutional.” The SB 6037 circa 2018 not only rendered parenthood sex-neutral, it legalized commercial surrogacy and endorsed the dangerous precedent of parenthood based on “intent” — a.k.a., awarding children to whichever adults have the money to acquire them.

The justification for such a radical makeover? The national legalization of gay marriage, proving once again that redefining marriage redefines parenthood. When you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become optional in parenthood. Bye-bye sexual equality in the family.

Pedersen’s SB 6037 circa 2020 penalizes businesses that don’t have a “gender diverse” board. He thinks there should be at least 25 percent female representation at the head of each company. Ironically, no females are represented at the head of Pedersen’s own home. He and his husband purposefully excluded women from the upbringing of their children after poaching a woman’s useful parts to acquire children, that is, purchasing eggs and renting wombs.

To juxtapose these incongruent ideas more succinctly: SB 6037 of 2020 insists the female perspective is critical to corporations. SB 6037 of 2018 insists the female perspective is optional for children.

Kids Need Moms and Dads

As the founder of a nonprofit created to defend a child’s right to be known and loved by both his mother and father, I can tell you the research on sex-specific parental involvement is conclusive: Neither mother nor father are optional. That’s because men and women are different and thus interact with children in wonderfully sex-specific ways. In fact, men’s and women’s parenting styles are so sex-specific, researchers have concluded that “parenting” is a misnomer; there is only “mothering” and “fathering.”

Here are just a few examples of the distinct and complementary ways men and women parent:

Connecting: Dads and moms connect to, interact with, and relate to children differently. Moms tend to be more gentle and quiet. Dads are more physical; they do more tickling, wrestling, and general adventuring. Moms tend to be more involved with what sociologists call “mundane caregiving” — keeping the child fed, clothed, clean, and generally alive.

Dads tend to be more active, unpredictable, and imaginative than moms. When directing their children’s behaviors, dads tend to be more rule-based, whereas moms tend to err on the side of grace and empathy. One encourages independence; the other encourages security.

Talking: Generally, moms are more in tune with their children’s specific emotional needs. Thus, more often mom is on the scene with affirming words. Dads tend to be more direct. In conversation with their children, moms tend to simplify their language so they can connect on their child’s level: “Do you have an owie?”

Dads talk to their babies like they talk to everyone else, with more complex and adult words: “Dude, that’s a gnarly rug burn!” One approach reaches kids right at their comprehension level, while the other pushes them to the next comprehension level.

Playing: Generally, mothers care for children, and fathers play with children. When mothers do play, it’s different from how dads play. Fathers predominantly play in the arena of large motor skill development, such as running, jumping, and throwing. Mothers’ play lands on the finer side of motor skill development, such as coloring, cutting, and crafting.

Moms tend to focus on fairness in play. Dads’ play encourages boundary-pushing, competition, and appropriate risk-taking. Dads encourage competition, while moms encourage equity.

Proof for these glorious and complementary differences can be verified by searching “dad with baby video.” The results are filled with fathers doing creative, limit-pushing activities with their kids, from strapping their Bumbo to the top of the Roomba, to toddlers dancing to “Beat It” in their BabyBjorn, to dads putting kids in a laundry basket so they can pretend they’re on a roller coaster.

Now search “mom with baby video.” The search results are filled with sweet and adorable, cuddly mom-and-baby moments. It’s a glorious display of human nature — moms providing security and dads providing adventure. Kids need wild fun. They also need the security of being strapped to their mother while she cooks dinner.

Kids Want Moms and Dads

You know what else? Kids want a mother and father. As my nonprofit’s growing story bank can testify, kids who grow up well-loved by single parents or double moms or dads crave the sex-specific love they missed. Ted, raised by two moms, shared:

"From an early age I found myself being drawn to my friends’ fathers, or at least the ones who seemed like good, responsible, loving dads. I think my parents knew somewhere in the back of their minds that this was necessary for me and didn’t discourage this. My best friend’s dad also probably recognized the role he was fulfilling in my life and did so willingly and that’s something I’m forever grateful for".

One daughter of a single mother wrote:

"I’ve only wanted one thing in this life that I have been missing: paternal love. The bond between a father and his daughter that shows her the way a man should treat her; It shows her how a man should love her. The type of love that pushes her on the swings. The type of love that picks her 50lb body up after she falls and says to her, “I love you.” I’m jealous of that paternal type of love that the girls share with their fathers."

Samantha, raised by her father and his partner, shared how she longed for a mother:

"My 5-year-old brain could not understand why I didn’t have the mom that I desperately wanted. As I grew, I tried to fill that hole with aunts, and dads’ lesbian friends, and teachers. I remember asking my first grade teacher if I could call her mom. I asked that question to any woman that showed me any amount of love and affection. I craved a mother’s love even though I was well-loved by my two gay dads."

It’s beneficial for children to have equal sex representation at the head of their home. This sex parity provides children what they need for optimal development, satisfies their primal longings, and fulfills their natural rights. Unfortunately for the children in my state, their need for sex diversity in the living room pales in comparison to the need for sex diversity in the boardroom.

Gender Matters Everywhere, Including in the Home

The left is constantly fawning over female members of the Supreme Court, ostensibly from the belief that these women offer a distinct and necessary perspective from the highest bench in the land. Many early childhood educators lament the disproportionate female-to-male teacher ratio, about nine-to-one, in elementary schools, arguing that children, especially those reared by single mothers, would greatly benefit from male teachers as role models.

According to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, “[H]alf of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.” And hell will be paid if there are no female nominees for Best Director at the Oscars. So it seems sex matters to the left in the institutions of justice, education, business, government, and entertainment. Yet we are somehow supposed to pretend sex is irrelevant in the institution of the family? Only the worship of adult sexual desires could put us under such a dubious spell.

If the Democrats here in Washington state have any interest in righting their hypocrisy before their unscientific, foundationless worldview collapses on them, I suggest they propose a bill mandating sex quotas in the home. The bill could recognize the important sex diversity they claim to value, and do so for the sake of the most vulnerable demographic in their state: children.

Such a bill would capitalize on the natural order that already exists, that both a man and a woman are required for baby-making. It could even encourage, through benefits such as tax breaks, that men and women cooperate in child-rearing. A bill like that would forward societal expectations that both parents remain committed to their child for life, thus allowing children to enjoy the sex-diverse gifts that men and women bring to the boardroom of the family.

We could call that legislative initiative “marriage.” After all, natural marriage is the only institution that has always gotten sex quotas exactly right.


Trans MMA Fighter Who Broke Woman’s Skull Celebrated as ‘Bravest Athlete in History’

A male-to-female transgender mixed martial arts fighter, who twice broke a woman’s opponent’s skull in a fight, has been named the “bravest athlete in history.”

Fallon Fox, who rose to prominence in 2013-14, is an infamous transgender MMA fighter who demolished her opponent Erika Newsome in a Coral Gables, FL, MMA fight.

Fox, according to The Verge, “secured a grip on Newsome’s head… With her hands gripping the back of Newsome’s skull, she delivered a massive knee, bringing her leg up while pulling her opponent’s head down. The blow landed on Newsome’s chin and dropped her, unconscious, face-first on the mat.”

Fox also defeated Tamikka Brents, giving her a concussion and breaking 7 orbital bones, reported Sott.

In spite of an innate biological advantage over her opponent, Out Sports–a sports subdivision of Out magazine–claimed that “Fallon Fox is still the bravest athlete in history,” in a recent headline on the controversial athlete.

Out Sports explains, “Fox stood strong and continued to push for, and earn, her right to compete.”

Except for one fateful match, she also won every time she stepped into the professional ring.

Fox has remained hidden from the fighting scene and public eye for a while due to injuries.

Fox said, “I would have kept going but the injuries were the biggest reason,” before going onto explain, “Some people suspected it was the UFC not letting me in, but that wasn’t the ultimate goal. Some people would ask if I wanted to fight in the UFC, and yeah, I would have taken that opportunity. But even without that I would have just kept fighting.”

The author of the piece slams naysayers, such as Joe Rogan, as being “vicious for the sake of being vicious.”

The author later explains that sensational headlines emphasizing how a trans athlete broke her competitor’s skull were overblown as “Broken bones and concussions are not uncommon in MMA.”

Fox said, “This happens all the time,” adding, “I’m not the first female MMA fighter who’s broken another fighter’s bones or caused a large amount of stitches or a concussion or any combination of those.

“And people will of course, because I’m trans, hold it up as this devastating thing that couldn’t possibly happen if I weren’t trans. But there are many different examples of similar things happening.”

Fox’s ability to compete against women has been subject of much controversy.


The New Face of Prejudice

Patrick Hampton (who is black) says conservatives are the new n*ggers

In a society where racism is deemed evil for all, there can be no justification for the prejudices we conservatives experience today.

A week ago, (on the MLK holiday weekend, coincidentally) I boarded a charter bus with a band of conservatives (of all colors, if that matters to anyone) en route to the BLEXIT rally in Charlotte. Also in attendance were my two oldest sons, who begged me to go. North Carolina bound, we all discussed issues, laughed together, and forged new friendships, bonding with one another over shared values and a hope for a stronger, more unified America.

But when we arrived, we weren't met with this camaraderie.

Upon entering the hotel, some folks didn't take too kindly to our presence. Many of us were wearing what we believed in — American flags, pro-God apparel, and also the infamous red MAGA caps. This attracted glares of disapproval and commentary. Some onlookers muttered under their breaths, while others had no problem stepping up to us directly; one went as far as to call us "trifling." So much for a hospitable welcome.

After a five-hour commute, hunger set in. We decided on a bite to eat at a nearby soul food restaurant.

Our entrance disrupted dinner for some of the black patrons who decided to pack up and leave. Others made statements suggesting that we weren't welcome, although the employees were kind and had no problem serving our group. Sadly, the best soul food I've had in years was peppered with the prejudice of passersby who refused to sit in the same room with us.

It was as if we walked into a time rift, returning to the civil-rights era. But instead of everything being labeled "whites or coloreds only," our world was divided by whether we were liberal or conservative. Everything that's old would become new again. I'll leave you to decide which group isn't welcome today.

It wasn't until one group member started to cry that I realized something. I hadn't factored in the reality that many of the people in our entourage had never seen what black conservatives experience on a daily basis. I had learned to grow tough skin in dealing with my own community, having been blackballed after my run for school board in 2014. I was told to never come back to the black inner city. I found myself unable to find work except for mopping floors in a medical facility to pay for my son's private-school tuition. But like many faithful black conservatives, I did the only thing I knew to do — pray for God to create an opportunity for me.

But at that restaurant, hope was also served. Not every patron projected their disapproval on us. One woman asked questions about why some of us support President Donald Trump. After I explained my stance, she had more questions. Her curiosity had been piqued. In terms of thinking differently about politics, the seeds of freedom of thought were sown.

Our weekend continued to be filled with question and query, as people stopped to debate, discuss, or simply ask "why." And while I know we will never convince every single individual of our views, having the conversation at all would be defined as a success in my book.

On a positive note, some minds were changed. Other people were prompted to think more deeply about their stances on topics such as school and educational choice, free enterprise, and abortion. So long as black people are thinking instead of feeling, God's work is being done.

Overall, I found it interesting how our group of conservatives approached the aforementioned scenarios. Instead of attempting to "cancel" others with Facebook posts, marches, media coverage, and negative reviews, we compassionately shared a bit of ourselves with people we didn't know from Adam.

During the midnight trip home, I quietly held my head down, reflecting on how much I learned from this experience. There's much to realize about the state of our society and how racism has been allowed to proliferate among progressives for far too long. And while the road to ideological freedom is long, we're growing closer and more black and brown people are coming along for the ride. Unlike today's progressives and liberals, we conservatives have saved a seat for anyone who wants to come. The only admission is an open mind.


Row over Bettina Arndt’s honour

Social commentator and men’s rights advocate Bettina Arndt has hit back after Victoria’s attorney-general called for her to be stripped of her Australia Day honour.

Over the weekend, Ms Arndt was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) — Australia’s third-highest civic honour — for striving to achieve “gender equity through advocacy for men”.

The journalist and sex therapist was criticised in 2018 when she interviewed convicted sex offender Nicolaas Bester and has been outspoken against what she believes is a “fake rape crisis” at Australian universities.

In response, Labor’s Jill Hennessy, who is also state minister for workplace safety, has written to Governor-General David Hurley after the Australia Day Honours list was published on Sunday saying she was alarmed at the appointment.

Ms Arndt has blasted the letter as “gobsmacking” and “absolutely hilarious”.

Ms Hennessy’s letter, dated January 28 and posted on her Facebook page, recognises the honours are decided with the recommendation of an independent council but asks why Ms Ardnt was included.

“Taking into account Ms Arndt’s well-documented opinions, public commentary and media appearances — which include sympathising with a convicted paedophile and blaming and shaming victims — this award is an insult to victims of sexual abuse and to those of us who work hard every day to prevent it,” she wrote.

Ms Hennessy also pointed to the issue of family violence.

“I would ask that the Council of the Order of Australia consider cancellation of Ms Arndt’s award given that her public commentary brings the Order into disrepute and in particular that it attaches the Order’s tacit support to her views,” she wrote.

Ms Ardnt said Ms Hennessy should be ashamed.

“Shame on Victoria’s first law officer, Jill Hennessy, the Victorian Attorney-General for responding to muckraking from ideologues rather than seeking proper evidence,” she posted on Twitter.

She posted this morning: “She shows my main crime was defending men and telling the truth about women’s role in family violence.”

This all comes as the New Matilda questioned Ms Arndt’s credentials — writing that she was not a doctor, had never obtained a PhD and nor was she a psychologist or clinical psychologist.

The publication claimed she “has actively participated in the promotion of material which portrays her falsely as a psychologist, clinical psychologist and doctor”.

On Facebook overnight, Ms Arndt hit back at the story, calling it a “hit job”.

“I am not currently a practising psychologist. However, that was certainly my professional training when I started my career in the 1970s. I have postgraduate qualifications in clinical psychology,” she wrote.

“It’s common practice for well-known people to use labels that include their professional background. According to the authorities regulating professional practice for psychologists, I am not doing anything wrong.”

Former Australian of the Year and family violence survivor Rosie Batty, whose young son was murdered by her mentally ill ex-husband, earlier this week questioned the legitimacy of the appointment.

“I cannot help but be appalled that someone who minimised violence towards women who is part of the inevitable push-back and backlash that we all experience as we pioneer a way forward, would be awarded,” Ms Batty told

Upon receiving her honour, Ms Arndt told she had been writing about men’s issues for 30 years.

She said she started off as a feminist and campaigning for women’s rights, but became “increasingly alarmed” by the movement.

“I felt in many areas, women had achieved equality,” she said. “We had a lot to celebrate. But there are many who wanted to extend women’s rights well beyond any notion of equality.

“It’s now all about male bashing, trying to advantage women over men in so many areas. I had enough of that.

“I don’t think it’s fair that a small, noisy minority group in our society closes down discussion on issues that affect half the population.”



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


Thursday, January 30, 2020

Happy Anniversary to Citizens United

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court overturned portions of a federal law that empowered government to dictate how Americans who were not connected to any candidates and political parties could practice their inherent right of free expression. It was one of the greatest free speech decisions in American history.

The case of Citizens United revolved around state efforts to ban a conservative nonprofit group from showing a critical documentary it produced of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton right before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. At the time, the McCain-Feingold Act made it illegal for corporations and labor unions to engage in "electioneering communication" one month before a primary or two months before the general election.

Or, in other words, the law, written by politicians who function without restrictions on speech -- and applauded by much of a mass media that functions without restrictions on speech -- prohibited Americans from pooling their resources and engaging in the most vital form of expression at the most important time, in the days leading up to an election.

"By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others," Justice Anthony Kennedy would write for the majority, "the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice."

Right after the decision, President Barack Obama famously rebuked the Justices during his State of the Union for upholding the First Amendment, arguing that the Supreme Court had "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

First of all, the court hadn't overturned a century of law (though the age of the law bears absolutely no relevance to its constitutionality). Citizens United reversed portions of a law, less than a decade old, that forbade Americans from contributing as much as they wanted directly to the funding of speech. Corporations would still be banned from donating directly to candidates, as they had been since 1907.

Moreover, those corporations, typically unwilling to pick partisan sides for reasons of self-preservation, are still responsible for only a fraction of all political spending, averaging around 1% or less since 2010. Top 200 corporations spend almost nothing on campaigns.

Conversely, since 2010, there's been an explosion in grassroots political activism on both right and left. As Bradley A. Smith points out in The Wall Street Journal today, small-dollar donors are more in demand than ever. Bernie Sanders lives on them, and Donald Trump raised more money from donors who gave less than $200 than any candidate in history.

Nothing in Citizens United, of course, made it legal for foreigners to participate in American elections. It is still illegal for anyone running for office to solicit, accept or receive help from foreign nationals.

Obama, like many progressives, would ratchet up the scaremongering over anonymous political speech. Over the past couple of decades, our political class has convinced large swaths of the electorate that private citizens have a civic responsibility to publicly attach their names to every political donation. They do not. As the often-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

It is true, though, that since the Citizens United decision, streaming services have been able to produce and play documentaries about political candidates like Trump without answering to a government entity. Publishing companies, especially smaller ones, can now print books about political figures without being policed by the state. And you can contribute as much money you want to any independent group that shares your values. As it should be. The very notion that anyone should be restricted from airing his or her views is fundamentally un-American.

Then again, even if the floodgates had opened for "special interests" -- a euphemism for causes that Democrats dislike -- and even if there had been a massive spike in corporate spending on speech, and even if secretive corporate entities started producing documentaries that disparaged favored political candidates and released them days before an election, it still wouldn't matter.

The principle of free expression isn't contingent on correct outcomes, it is a free-standing, inherent right protected by Constitution. That principle holds whether people of free will are too lazy or too gullible to resist alleged misinformation. The proper way to push back against rhetoric you don't like is to rebut it.

Or not. It should be up to you.


Are Christians living in fear?

Daniel Park arrived at Michigan Law School expecting serious, multifaceted debate on a range of issues.

And plenty of cold weather. It turns out he was only right about the weather.

“I couldn’t believe the culture of shame and intimidation against Christian voices on topics such as abortion or marriage,” Daniel says.

While law schools tout mission statements embracing ideological diversity, the reality is that neither the faculty nor the students at many law schools engage seriously with the Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of American law and society.

Combine that with a growing tendency for Christians to stay silent out of fear, and it’s clear there’s a huge problem.

“When I wanted to bring a pro-life speaker to the law school, even student groups that are pro-life in conviction said it was ‘too controversial’ or that ‘we would lose credibility with the community,’ shares Daniel. “Seeing how afraid others were, I decided to keep my head down for the remainder of my first year.”

Then Blackstone happened. “That’s when it hit me—I’m not alone. And I cannot stay silent.”

The Blackstone Legal Fellowship brings together exceptional Christian law students and prepares them for careers marked by integrity and excellence.

Since Blackstone was launched 20 years ago, it has grown exponentially. Today, nearly 2,300 law students have benefitted from the generosity of people like you, John.

Many students who attend the training program describe their pre-Blackstone education experience as similar to Daniel’s. They feel alone, outnumbered, and overwhelmed.

But time after time, these students graduate Blackstone feeling reenergized in their passions and fully equipped to carry on the mission to which God called them.

“I learned from lawyers, academics, judges, and faith leaders on how to advocate for truth winsomely,” reveals Daniel. “I met colleagues at law schools around the country fighting the good fight.”

“That’s when it hit me,” he says. “I am not alone. And I cannot stay silent.”

This past fall, Daniel returned to law school ready for action. “A still, small voice in my heart was urging me to start a pro-life group at my law school. I and three other Michigan law students in my Blackstone class decided to go for it,” says Daniel.

It took some time and a lot of work, but ultimately, Daniel and his friends were successful. Protect Life at Michigan Law is now an official student group, promoting the inherent dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.

“Without Blackstone, I would not have had the boldness, support, or resources to step out in faith and start this pro-life group,” Daniel reveals.

And without Blackstone, Daniel and nearly 2,300 other Blackstone graduates wouldn’t have the skills and knowledge they need to stand boldly for religious freedom, life, and marriage and family.

Via email from Alliance Defending Freedom:

‘I don’t have any pain anymore’: Justina Pelletier takes stand in Boston Children’s Hospital lawsuit

For years, Justina Pelletier endured intense pain, mysterious symptoms that left her family in anguish, and led to a bitter standoff with her doctors over her care.

On Monday, seven years after the Connecticut teenager was placed in a locked psychiatric unit at Boston Children’s Hospital, she took the stand in her family’s malpractice suit against her doctors and caregivers.

In a small, wavering voice, she chronicled the nine months she spent in lockdown at age 14 against her parent’s wishes after doctors accused the couple of interfering with her treatment. She recalled the pain of being taken from her parents, leaving her with a separation anxiety so intense that she still sleeps with her mother. Her nightmares are frequent.

The terror always revolves around being removed from her parents, she said. “I would get taken away,” she said, describing her fear.

Now 21, Pelletier said that since having her colon removed in February 2018, her hospital visits have subsided. “I don’t have any pain anymore,” Pelletier said.

Pelletier’s testimony came one week into the civil trial in Suffolk Superior Court against the renowned pediatric hospital and four of Pelletier’s doctors and caregivers.

Linda and Lou Pelletier were locked in constant dispute with doctors and other caregivers at the hospital over their daughter’s diagnosis and treatment. Relations at the hospital grew so acrimonious that the Pelletiers lost custody of their daughter after doctors and state child welfare officials concluded that they were acting against her best interests and interfering in her treatment.

It was excruciating stomach pain from severe constipation that prompted her and her mother in January 2013 to travel from their West Hartford, Conn., home to Children’s Hospital, in an ambulance, in the snow, to seek treatment.

Less than a month into her stay there, on Valentine’s Day 2013, her parents were whisked away from the hospital by men clothed in black, she told the jury. “I didn’t get to see them anymore,” she said.

Pelletier had never spent a night away from home without her mother. “All of a sudden I just didn’t get to see her," she said.

The hospital’s only explanation: “They said that I’d get better faster, but they really didn’t say why,” she said.

Medical notes, records, and e-mails between caregivers describe Pelletier’s parents as difficult, disruptive, belligerent, and accusatory, according to court records.

The Pelletier case has driven headlines, ramped up an unlikely coalition of advocates and stands, to some, as a symbol of doctors’ powers to override parental rights.

After Pelletier’s parents were banned from the hospital, it would be a week before she would see them again. From then on, they were allowed once a week supervised visits on Fridays. Phone calls were limited to 20 minutes per week, always with someone listening in.

Doctors and caregivers at the hospital suspected that some or part of Pelletier’s symptoms might be psychologically driven, or a type of somatoform disorder.

Patients with such disorders tend to manifest real physical symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, but without any underlying explanation supported by physical, biological or medical reasoning.

Doctors at Children’s Hospital believed Pelletier would benefit from intensive psychological treatment and therapy.

But Pelletier’s parents were resistant to psychotherapy, doctors said, and insisted that their daughter instead suffered from mitochondrial disease, a chronic, very rare and incurable condition characterized by mutated cells.

The diseased cells become unable to completely burn food and oxygen to generate enough energy for a body to live. The condition is often inherited.

During Pelletier’s hospitalization, she and her parents were forbidden from speaking about health issues, physical ailments or anything medical related. Even dandruff and ingrown toenails were off limits. If they ventured there in conversation, the call would end abruptly, Pelletier said.

Pelletier said her constipation worsened while she was hospitalized. Staff would make her sit on the toilet for extended lengths of time, she said. They also wanted her to push herself in her wheelchair, but she felt so weak that she could not. She would be left to sit, unmoved, sometimes for entire days, she said,.

Pelletier said she did not feel encouraged by the staff. “They were just being mean about it,” she said.

She was scared all the time, missed her family desperately and felt like no one at the hospital believed her.  “I just wanted to go home,” Pelletier said. “It was really hard being away from my family.”

These days, she has discovered horseback-riding therapy. She thrives in the saddle and now rides competitively, and it’s not unusual for her to take winning ribbons home, usually blue and red. “I love it,” she said during one of the few times her face lit up on the stand.

When Pelletier’s testimony came to an end, her father helped her down from the witness stand.

With his arms hooked under her armpits, Lou Pelletier supported his daughter’s weight as she half-shuffled, half limped across the courtroom back to her empty wheelchair beside her mom.


Australia: When a government says a white man is black, dissenters have to be fired

I put up the post below yesterday on my Tongue Tied blog.  It now has a sequel, which I reproduce below it.  The disgrace has got worse.  The truthteller HAS now been fired. Does anybody believe that the pink-skinned guy below is an Aborigine?

WHAT a scandal. Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt now threatens to sack a whistleblower who called out "Aboriginal historian" Bruce Pascoe as a white.

The whistleblower in Wyatt's sights is Josephine Cashman, an Aboriginal businesswoman on his advisory council. That's because Cashman claimed Pascoe, author of the bestseller "Dark Emu" and star of an upcoming MSC series, is a fake Aborigine, and she says she has plenty of evidence.

Genealogical records on suggest all of Pascoe's ancestors are of English descent, and Pascoe refuses to say which is actually Aboriginal.

Indeed, his story keeps changing. Once he identified as white, until a reviewer of his first novel said it would have been better had Pascoe been black.

Once he claimed that one of his mother's grandmothers was Aboriginal, before admitting she was English. Now he claims he's descended from several tribes, including the Boonwurrung of Victoria, Tasmanian Aborigines and the Yuin of NSW.

But his claims have been rejected by the Boonwunrung Land & Sea Council, the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania and members of the Yuin, and now even the Yolngu of Arnhem Land.

Elder Terry Yumbulul says his fellow Yolngu want Wyatt to investigate Pascoe's "claim to Aboriginal ancestry" and what he's gained from an identity "he has been unable to verify".

Yumbulul, like the Boonwurrung and the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, also rejects Pascoe's claims — based on false citations and exaggerations — that Aborigines weren't hunter-gathers but farmers in "towns" of "1000 people".

"There is no evidence of it in our art, languages or songlines," says Yumbulul, who accuses Pascoe of causing "concerns about our ancient cultures, our ancient traditions, our precious stories".

So what's Wyatt's reaction? It's to defend white Pascoe and
seemingly threaten Aboriginal Cashman with the sack. Wyatt told the Guardian Australia that Pascoe's Aboriginality was "being played out publicly" when "we should deal with (it) within communities".

He said he could ask one of his advisers to quit "I have to think of the greater good of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

Really? Is truth to be sacrificed for the "greater good"? And where's this "greater good" when Aborigines are being stripped of their past and even their right to say who is of their tribe?

No Liberal MP should tolerate what Wyatt seems to have in mind. If Cashman goes, so should he.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 27 January, 2020

Ken Wyatt dumps Josephine Cashman in wake of Dark Emu scandal

Indigenous Australians minister Ken Wyatt has sacked his one-time friend and ally Josephine Cashman amid a furious debate over Aboriginal identity.

Ms Cashman on Tuesday lost her position on the senior advisory group overseeing the design of an indigenous voice to government, seven weeks after she asked Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton for an investigation into acclaimed author Bruce Pascoe for “dishonesty offences”.

Mr Wyatt was said to have been blindsided by Ms Cashman’s email to Mr Dutton on December 11, 2019, in which she alleged Professor Pascoe gained a financial benefit by wrongly claiming to be Aboriginal. Mr Wyatt learned about her complaint in The Weekend Australian on January 11, after Mr Dutton had referred it to the Australian Federal Police.

Since then, The Australian has learned, members of the senior advisory group became increasingly concerned that Ms Cashman’s public criticism of Professor Pascoe was divisive and detracting from their work. Ms Cashman’s push for a national register of indigenous Australians as a way of confirming identity also drew criticism.

“Following recent discussions with the Senior Advisory Group Co-Chairs, Professor Dr Marcia Langton AM and Professor Tom Calma AO, and after careful consideration, I have decided that Ms Cashman’s membership of the Group is no longer tenable,” Mr Wyatt said in an email to reporters on Tuesday.

“Ms Cashman’s actions are not conducive to the constructive and collaborative approach required to progress the important co-design process for an Indigenous voice.”

The Australian has been told Ms Cashman’s future on the senior advisory group was considered untenable last Thursday after the AFP confirmed it had completed its assessment of her complaint against Professor Pascoe and identified no Commonwealth offence. Having identified no financial benefit on the material Ms Cashman provided, the AFP did not probe Professor Pascoe’s ancestry.

The Australian has been told Ms Cashman’s sacking was imminent when a debate erupted on Monday night over the authenticity of a contentious letter that Ms Cashman gave to Sky commentator Andrew Bolt, which he published on his blog. Said to have been from Northern Territory elder Terry Yumbulul, it was critical of the thesis of Professor Pascoe’s bestseller Dark Emu, which draws on the historical accounts of early settlers to call for a rethink of the hunter gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal people. “It would have been impossible for my people to have built wells, silos, houses and yards to pen animals, as Pascoe promotes,” the letter states.

Mr Yumbulul later told NITV: “I did not say anything of the sort to write the letter on behalf of me”.

However Ms Cashman said on Sky on Tuesday that Mr Yumbulul approved a final draft of the letter. Bolt said Mr Yumbulul and his wife Clely were cc’d on several drafts and he published emails which he said showed they had replied with corrections.

Professor Pascoe is described on the back cover of his latest book, Salt, as a Bunurong man. He is accepted as Aboriginal by Mr Wyatt and other prominent indigenous Australians including Professor Langton, the co-chair of the senior advisory group.

On Bolt’s program on Sky on Tuesday night, Ms Cashman claimed: “There is a group of Aboriginal elites that decide who is Aboriginal and who is not and people on the ground have had a gutful of it.”

Professor Pascoe writes about claims he is “not really Aboriginal” in Salt. “What they say has cool logic. Clinical analysis of genes says I’m more Cornish than Koori.” he writes.



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 29, 2020

Louisiana store to stop selling KKK, Nazi apparel after public outcry

The owner of an antiques shop in New Orleans’ famous French Quarter has announced that they will no longer sell Nazi or Ku Klux Klan memorabilia after a complaint by the Anti-Defamation League sparked a public outcry.

According to, ADL South Central Region director Aaron Ahlquist publicly demanded the store stop selling items including a Nazi flag, a figurine of a Klansman and racist caricatures of African-Americans, asserting that they did not present “the image that New Orleans wants to convey to the millions of visitors each year, nor to our own citizens.”

“It is deeply troubling that items so clearly associated with hateful ideologies are so prominently displayed for sale in the French Quarter,” Ahlquist said. “We cannot allow for hate to become normalized, and that certainly includes profiting from the symbols of hate.”

When first asked by reporters about her merchandise, store owner Sue Saucier replied that the offending products were “historical items” and that while they did “not represent my sentiments,” she would not stop selling them. Customers could burn them after purchase for all she cared, she asserted.

“You can’t please everyone in this world,” she was quoted as saying, blaming political correctness for people’s anger.

However, reported, Saucier subsequently changed her mind, stating that after speaking with her attorney, she had “done some reflection on the issue, and we are going to remove the items from the store.”


In New Research, Psychologists Explore The Upside Of Political Incorrectness

“I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct.” This was a statement made by Donald Trump in a 2015 presidential debate.

Clearly, the statement resonated with the American public. What also resonated was Trump’s unabashed use of politically incorrect language throughout his campaign and even into his presidency. He has said things like “Torture works, okay folks” and “26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military - only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?”

But what is it about Trump’s singular style of communication that draws people to his message? New research appearing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology may hold the answer.

Specifically, a team of psychologists led by Michael Rosenblum of the University of California, Berkeley examined the inferences and character judgments people made in response to others’ use of politically incorrect language. They found that, while not without its downsides, the use of politically incorrect language led people to believe that communicators were more “authentic” than they may have otherwise felt.

To arrive at this conclusion, the researchers recruited 415 U.S. adults to participate in a short online survey. In the survey, the researchers asked participants to read one of four statements. They were asked to imagine these statements had been made by a senator in a public speech. The statements, listed below, had to do with politically sensitive topics (either transgender issues or immigration) and were written in a politically correct, or incorrect, manner.

Transgender, politically correct statement. “The way to help ‘LGBTQ’ persons is not to change how we identify citizen’s sex. Of course I believe that ‘LGBTQ’ persons are among the most vulnerable members of our society and we must do everything in our power to protect them. It may be politically correct to say, but it’s true and important for our country.”

Transgender, politically incorrect statement. “These people who call themselves ‘LGBTQ’ are often profoundly disturbed and confused about their gender identity. But they WERE born of a certain sex. We must make them identify as the sex they were born, not as the sex they might want to be on a whim. It may be politically incorrect to say, but it’s true and important for our country.”

Immigration, politically correct statement. “Immigrants are hard workers and they add diversity to the American fabric, which makes us better as a nation. It may be politically correct to say, but it’s true and important for our country.”
Immigration, politically incorrect statement. “We must make sure that these foreigners from third world countries aren’t taking jobs from real Americans. It may be politically incorrect to say, but it’s true and important for our country.”

The researchers then asked participants to rate the speaker on a variety of personality dimensions, including authenticity, interpersonal warmth (e.g., caring, tolerance, likeability, etc.), and perceived competence. They found that authenticity ratings were higher when people evaluated politically incorrect statements and interpersonal warmth ratings were higher when people evaluated politically correct statements. Interestingly, no differences were found for the personality dimension of competence.

The scientists went on to replicate their key finding – that political incorrectness increases perceptions of authenticity – in various experimental contexts, including in a live interaction where people were encouraged to make either politically correct or incorrect statements regarding the proposed federal funding of an historically Black church.

The authors conclude, “Political correctness is increasingly discussed as a standard of language in America, but little is known about how it influences attributions of communicators. Across nine experiments, even when a person expressed the same position, using politically incorrect language made the communicator seem more authentic—but also colder—than using politically correct language.”


Men's advocate, Bettina Arndt, given Australia Day honour

The Left cannot stand an anti-feminist female

[Some] Australians have reacted with fury to controversial commentator and men’s rights activist Bettina Arndt being recognised in this year’s Australia Day awards.

Ms Arndt was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) — Australia’s third-highest civic honour — for striving to achieve “gender equity through advocacy for men”.

The journalist and sex therapist was criticised in 2018 when she interviewed convicted sex offender Nicolaas Bester and has been outspoken against what she believes is a “fake rape crisis” at Australian universities.

“This is vile,” writer Van Badham tweeted. “Bettina Arndt platformed a paedophile, creating space for a convicted criminal who groomed & raped a child to brag about his crimes, while she herself blamed children for ‘sexual provocation’. If she is what’s ‘honoured’ as an Australian, it is no honour AT ALL.”

“Giving Bettina Arndt this award is like giving Pauline Hanson one for promoting racial equity & George Pell one for child safety,” journalist Sherele Moody wrote.

“Arndt’s work is not about gender equity. It’s misogyny-driven hate designed to keep women barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink.”

Ms Arndt, 70, who says she’s been writing about men’s issues for 30 years, told she was “delighted” to have her career recognised in this way and predicted it would “cause a stir”.

The Sydneysider said she’s also “very happy” about the wording used in the citation for her honour.

It states that she has been appointed an AM “for significant service to the community as a social commentator, and to gender equity through advocacy for men.”

“It absolutely captures what I’m doing,” she said. “But I would imagine that would be controversial because the feminists claim that they’re the only ones promoting gender equity through endlessly tilting laws, rules and regulation to favour women at the expense of men.

“I hope this award will encourage others to join me in campaigning for true gender equity – fair treatment for men and women.”

Ms Arndt said she is currently campaigning to draw attention to the “illegal kangaroo courts” she claims universities are using to adjudicate rape, as well as male suicide and “gender-neutral” suicide prevention policy.

Domestic violence is another issue she has campaigned on.

“Malcolm Turnbull boasted of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on domestic violence programs which (were) all about demonising men,” she said. “They ignore the true complexity of domestic violence which include problems with mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.”

Meanwhile, she claims male victims of domestic violence receive “absolutely no funding”.

Ms Arndt says she’s been writing about men’s issues for 30 years.

She said she started off as a feminist and campaigning for women’s rights, but became “increasingly alarmed” by the movement.

“I felt in many areas, women had achieved equality,” she said. “We had a lot to celebrate. But there are many who wanted to extend women’s rights well beyond any notion of equality.

“It’s now all about male bashing, trying to advantage women over men in so many areas. I had enough of that.”

Throughout her career, Ms Arndt has courted controversy with her views and campaigns.


'Get rid of your chip off your shoulder': Pauline Hanson's Australia Day message to Aboriginal protestors campaigning for a change of date for the national day

This campaign about the date will immediately change to a demand to abolish the day absolutely if it ever succeeds.

It is entirely a creation of the political Left, to whom any national consciousness is anathema. 

Both in the USA and Australia, the Left do their best to promote racial division and antagonism.  It is the Left who are the dangerous racists.  Without them, different races would have a much better chance of living together in harmony.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has claimed Aboriginal people who want Australia Day moved away from January 26 need to 'get the chip off their shoulder'.

The outspoken federal senator was involved with a heated argument with Melbourne radio broadcaster Neil Mitchell on the Today Show, a day after Australia Day protests across the country.

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island flags filled streets across the nation on Sunday, as thousands of protesters called for the date of Australia Day to be moved because of growing tensions over what it celebrates.

January 26 - which marks the raising of the British flag on Australian soil in 1788 after the First Fleet arrived in Sydney Harbour - is regarded as 'invasion day' by many First Nations people.

During a passionate discussion with Mr Mitchell and host Karl Stefanovic, Ms Hanson said she does not believe the date should be changed - claiming there are far bigger issues for Aboriginal communities.

'They're not talking about this in Aboriginal communities and I was there two weeks ago,' Ms Hanson, 65, said.

'You know the big issues there? Kids are on the streets, they're starving, they've got the biggest rate of syphilis in their townships.

'You move the date from January 26th, whatever date you pick they're going to whinge about that as well.

'Get rid of the chip off your bloody shoulder. We are here, I was born here, this is my country... this is Australia Day where people join together.'

Mr Mitchell, the long-time 3AW talkback host, initially agreed that the date on which Australia Day is celebrated is not 'a huge issue for most Aboriginal people'.

But he took exception to Ms Hanson's comments that 'invasion day' protesters have a chip on their shoulder, claiming it was remarks like this that caused division.

'Get the chip off your shoulder? That'll really help. We need to be inclusive. I don't think it's a chip on your shoulder to be worried about history,' Mr Mitchell, 68, said.

Ms Hanson defended her stance, replying: 'Neil this has been going on for over 200 years do you think they have been affected by this?'

'They're using this as an excuse. It's either a political stance or they're pushing their own agenda.'

Today Show host Karl Stefanovic had the final say on the matter, claiming that such a debate highlighted how emotional the issue is.

'This is part of the problem, it is such a divisive thing and a divisive argument, and I want unification on this day,' he said.



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 28, 2020

7 States Move to Ban Males From Female Sports as Dems Work Overtime to Force Trans Agenda

In the early days of the 2020 legislative session, seven states have introduced bills to keep male students from entering and competing in female sports. New Hampshire, Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri have taken steps to end the unfair practice of allowing males to compete against females in school sports. Several high-profile cases have highlighted the unfair advantage that males have against females, creating a firestorm surrounding this issue nationwide.

Eighteen states already prohibit males competing in female sports and if passed, the new legislation would bring that number to twenty-five. The American Conservative reported the controversy:

In high school sports, for example, there is no conclusive, federal policy for transgender inclusion, so each state—and even [county] and local jurisdiction—is making its own determinations. According to the pro-LGBT advocate group GLSEN, there are 18 states that have policies that prohibit transgender students to participate in high school athletics.

According to, eight states including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Texas, say that a student’s sex, as recorded on their birth certificate, determines whether they play on women’s or men’s teams. This has of course been called discriminatory by trans advocates.

As usual, Democrat strategy when the states exercise their rightful authority to stop insane leftist ideas is to turn to the feds and lawsuits to force their will down our throats in the form of the Equality Act — passed by the House in 2019 but not voted on by the Senate. There is a case in front of the Supreme Court now that will have wide-reaching consequences based on the outcome of the question, "does the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prevents sex discrimination also include gender identity?" The justices seem to understand that their decision could lead to major societal upheaval.

Lawyers are laying out their arguments, as reported by the New York Times.

Justice Alito asked whether a transgender woman could play on a women’s college sports team. That issue, Mr. Cole said, was also not before the court.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether a ruling in favor of Mr. Cole’s client would do away with sex-specific dress codes. Mr. Cole said no.

“Recognizing that transgender people have a right to exist in the workplace and not be turned away because of who they are,” he said, “does not end dress codes or restrooms.”

“There are transgender male lawyers in this courtroom following the male dress code and going to the men’s room,” Mr. Cole said, “and the court’s dress code and sex-segregated restrooms have not fallen.”

But John J. Bursch, a lawyer for the funeral home that fired Ms. Stephens, said a ruling in her favor would have vast consequences.

It would mean, he said, “that a women’s overnight shelter must hire a man who identifies as a woman to serve as a counselor to women who have been raped, trafficked and abused, and also share restroom, shower and locker room facilities with them.”

The idea that a ruling from the Supreme Court that employers cannot discriminate based on gender identity would not have an effect on sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms is absurd. Of course, it would. And we have already seen the encroaching of males in female spaces in states where school boards are determined to enact policies friendly to transgender goals and hostile to women and girls. Illinois and New York high schools have already adopted policies to allow males into female locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports without any corresponding laws that require it. A ruling equating gender identity with sex would destroy all-female segregated spaces and sports forever.

The states putting forward legislation to stop this are on the cutting edge of what needs to be done immediately to stop activists from destroying girls' sports and privacy. Democrats are working furiously to pass "equality" bills that include gender identity, like the Equality Act. This bill would destroy women's spaces and sports and persecute churches that refuse to give males access to female spaces like bathrooms or shelters. Democrats are not going to give up on it. This issue is going to be the most important one going into 2020 for the safety of women in America. Vote accordingly.


ICE Threatens Jail for Sanctuary City Officials Under Subpoena Who Fail to Comply

Are sanctuary city politicians and officials ready to go to jail to protect illegal alien criminals?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are threatening to send sanctuary city officials to jail if they fail to comply with subpoenas naming criminal illegals who have been released rather than turned over to ICE.

"They can show up to court with a toothbrush because they might not be going home that night. Because they could be jailed for failure to comply with a lawful order from a judge. That’s the route we’re going.”

ICE is enormously frustrated and why shouldn't it be? Politicians and bureaucrats from sanctuary cities regularly thumb their noses at ICE agents, releasing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles back into the population after they had been charged.

Perhaps a few nights in the hoosegow will make them see the light.

Washington Examiner:

Albence said the subpoenas were a “last resort” to force “sanctuary cities” to help federal officers find people at their homes and jobs if local jails will not turn them over while in secure settings. ICE focuses most of its effort going after people illegally in the country charged or convicted of criminal offenses.

“Hopefully, when some of these other jurisdictions that don’t want to cooperate see that we’re taking this seriously, maybe they’ll come around and try to help us help their own communities,” said Albence, who was tapped to lead the 20,000-person agency six months ago. He did not answer if Denver or New York would face retaliation from the federal government if they do not honor the subpoenas.

Last week, for the first time in its history, ICE issued subpoenas to force local cooperation in New York and Denver.

The subpoenas ask for the phone number, home address, type of vehicle, employer, and more information that can help ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations officers go into the person’s community and try to make an arrest. Albence said that sanctuary cities force ICE to squander resources running around trying to find people and that localities are forced to waste manpower rearresting criminals who could have been deported.

“How much time could NYPD have dedicated to doing other functions instead of continually arresting people that are here illegally, have no lawful right to be here, and are committing further crimes?” he asked. “Our goal is to find them before they commit further crimes, right? We’re actually able to prevent crimes if we can get these people off the street.”

As emotionally satisfying as it would be to see New York or Denver law enforcement doing the perp walk following a contempt citation, it's probably not going to happen. The court cases that arise from a contempt citation would last for years. Time and again the Supreme Court has ruled that local immigration authorities do not have to do ICE's job for them.

Sanctuary cities are probably here to stay, to the detriment of the safety of residents who live there.


'Hate Group' Lawsuit Clears Hurdle, Judeo-Christian Group Warns SPLC 'Day of Reckoning' Is Coming

While America was distracted with impeachment and the 2020 Democrats last week, a monumental lawsuit against Orwellian government surveillance cleared a major hurdle in a Michigan district court. The case, American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) v. Nessel, involves the defense of free speech against government surveillance based on the far-left smear factory the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its allegedly defamatory "hate group" accusations.

"This is George Orwell, 1984, the thought police, watching over us," AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise told PJ Media on Tuesday. Michigan Attorney General "Dana Nessel keeping a watchful eye on all these SPLC-designated 'hate groups' has a chilling effect on speech and expressive association."

Last Wednesday, federal district judge Paul Maloney agreed that the AFLC has a powerful case against Nessel and former Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) Executive Director Agustin Arbulu. He denied Nessel's and Arbulu's motions to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to discovery. This means AFLC will be able to request all documents showing communication involving Nessel, Arbulu, and the SPLC.

"The SPLC can't violate our constitutional rights — unless they're working with the government as a joint actor," Muise argued. He described Nessel as "a hard-core left-wing progressive. I wouldn't be surprised to find some connections" between her and the left-wing smear factory. "We intend, through discovery, to disclose any connections that the Michigan attorney general and the SPLC had. If there's enough joint action so that the SPLC could be considered a state actor, then we will consider adding them to the lawsuit."

In a statement following Maloney's order, Muise insisted that this ruling should terrify the SPLC.

"The judge’s powerful and exceedingly favorable decision should send a strong message to the Michigan attorney general that she will not be allowed to weaponize her office to target political opponents. It should also send a strong message to government officials who side with the George Soros-funded and radically partisan SPLC that their day of reckoning is coming. Know this: We will not allow you to trample on our constitutional rights," he said.

The lawsuit revolves around a "hate-crimes unit" that Nessel and Arbulu launched last February. In the press release for the new unit, both officials effectively endorsed the SPLC's "hate group" accusation. Arbulu went so far as to name a geographic region of the state — a region that includes AFLC's headquarters. "Particularly of concern, over one half [sic] of the identified groups are located east of US-23 between Flint and Ann Arbor," the MDCR director said.

"According to the SPLC report relied upon by Defendants, Plaintiff is identified as a 'hate' group because it is allegedly 'anti-Muslim,' and according to SPLC’s 'Hate Map,' Plaintiff is located in the Ann Arbor area," the lawsuit claims. "Consequently, Plaintiff is one of the very groups that Defendants referred to in their public announcement as an 'extremist and hate organization in Michigan.'"

In his ruling, Maloney laid out AFLC's three claims against Michigan's attorney general: that the officials violated the group's free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments; that they violated AFLC's right to expressive association, which is also protected by those amendments; and that "by targeting AFLC for disfavored treatment based on its political viewpoints, Defendants have deprived AFLC of the equal protection of the law, which is protected by Fourteenth Amendment."

Maloney also cited AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi, who explained how the SPLC's "hate group" accusation damaged his organization. "AFLC has to expend resources to combat the label and bolster its reputation. The government’s endorsement of the label makes that job more difficult. Although AFLC was not specifically mentioned in the Press Release, it received media inquiries following the Press Release. The government designation thus injures AFLC both reputationally and financially," the judge wrote.

While Nessel and Arbulu "cannot control who SPLC labels a hate group," their action of "referencing SPLC’s reports as the justification for the Policy Directive" places the government's imprimatur on the SPLC's "hate group" accusations inside the state of Michigan. "Notably, AFLC contends it does not engage in any criminal activity and further contends it has been placed on SPLC’s list of hate groups because of its constitutionally-protected activities."

"AFLC has established both a harm to its reputation and a credible fear that it will be targeted by the State of Michigan under the Policy Directive," Maloney noted. "As pled, AFLC reasonably fears that it will be a target for investigation and surveillance."

AFLC claims the SPLC accuses them of being a "hate group" due to the organization's conservative political positions. The far-left group gained credibility by suing the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy, but in recent decades it has expanded the monitoring of "hate groups" to include ever more mainstream conservative and Christian organizations.

As documented in my book Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a devastating racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal last March led the SPLC to "clean house at the top," firing its co-founder and seeing the resignation of many other leading figures. After this scandal, employees came clean about being "part of the con," exaggerating hate by padding the "hate group" list and "bilking northern liberals" into cutting big checks. The SPLC has millions in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

The "hate group" accusations are also politically motivated. The list includes mainstream conservative groups like ACT for America, the Center for Security Policy, the Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom. Former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok declared that the SPLC's "aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them."

AFLC v. Nessel is not the only lawsuit centered on the SPLC's "hate group" accusations. The Christian ministry D. James Kennedy Ministries filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the SPLC after it was booted from the AmazonSmile program. A judge granted the SPLC's motion to dismiss, but DJKM filed an appeal last October.

The far-left group accused Maajid Nawaz, an anti-terror Muslim reformer, of being an "anti-Muslim extremist." Nawaz sued and the SPLC settled, offering a very public apology and paying $3.375 million to his nonprofit. In addition to DJKM and Nawaz, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Baltimore lawyer Glen Keith Allen, and former heroin addict Craig Nelsen have sued the SPLC for defamation and various other claims. The CIS lawsuit was struck down because it attempted to shoehorn a defamation claim into racketeering, but it will likely be re-filed. Peter Brimelow, the editor of VDare, sued The New York Times for branding him a "white nationalist" while citing the SPLC.

In the Nelsen case, a judge allowed the plaintiff to enter the discovery process, giving the former heroin addict access to the organization's documents. The SPLC had falsely claimed that Nelsen "wasn't convincing anyone" that his drug recovery program was open to men of all races.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit branded a "hate group" by the SPLC, told PJ Media that more than 60 organizations are considering their own lawsuits against the SPLC.

AFLC may have the strongest argument because their case involves a state government endorsing the far-left smears, enforcing them with threats of government surveillance. It is indeed Orwellian.


Sexual correctness is a distraction from more worthy concerns

A view from the far-Left

In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one’s sexual orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex and who does not want to belong to any ‘traditional’ gender bracket.

Thinking about ‘it’, writing about it, doing it, is considered “progressive”; cutting edge. Entire novels are being commissioned and then subsidized as far away as in the Asia Pacific.  Western organizations and NGOs (so-called “non-government organizations” but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.

These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new types of combinations that many people never even heard about or imagined could exist.

Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers “ladies, gentlemen and children” anymore  in order “not to offend” those who do not want to be any of the above.

Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly many times that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even “left-wing”.

Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It is about one’s “identity” and about the right to change one’s gender. What you do with your private parts is much more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing one’s gender is more newsworthy than the “regime changes” and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.

Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.

Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as ‘intolerant’, ‘backward’, and even ‘oppressive’.

Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with “sexual identities”?

The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless “rights”, have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.

And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies, sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.

I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.

But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.

There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with and obviously are not.



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 27, 2020

Massachusetts seeks to rein in largely unregulated urgent care industry

These clinics arose primarily as as way to escape the health bureaucracy and thus provide cheaper care.  But the bureaucrats resent them

For years, the urgent care industry has grown rapidly, with walk-in clinics popping up across Massachusetts to treat patients with colds, infections, cuts, sprains, and other common ailments.

Yet the industry remains largely unregulated. Urgent care has become a common term in health care — but it has no state definition in Massachusetts, making these centers difficult if not impossible to monitor, according to state officials.

Now policy makers appear poised to impose new requirements on urgent care centers, but they’re facing resistance from industry executives.

The lack of standards means any provider can market itself as “urgent care,” and patients don’t know what to expect when they walk in the doors, said Marylou Sudders, the state’s secretary of health and human services.

“There is no standardized definition or structure that exists for urgent care,” Sudders said. “In terms of consumer protection, we should define them and regulate them.”

Urgent care was a focus of sweeping health care legislation that Governor Charlie Baker proposed last fall. The Baker administration wants these centers to be licensed as clinics, to provide care to low-income patients who use MassHealth, and to offer some mental health services.

State lawmakers have filed more than a dozen bills pertaining to urgent care centers this session, and both House and Senate are working on additional legislation that is likely to include regulations for the industry.

Operators of urgent care clinics say such regulation could slow growth — or even kill an industry that provides convenient, affordable care. They have been frequent visitors on Beacon Hill, lobbying to try to prevent the passage of legislation that could disrupt their business model.

“Any regulation that increases cost and complexity could be damaging to the industry,” said Shaun Ginter, chief executive of CareWell Urgent Care and a board member of the national Urgent Care Association.

Because there is no definition of urgent care in Massachusetts, some centers are licensed as hospital facilities, some as clinics. But many operate as physician practices, which don’t require a license.

Individual health care providers, such as doctors and nurses, must be licensed to treat patients no matter where they work.

“We should be treated no differently than any other medical office,” Ginter said. “We feel very singled out and pulled out to the side when we shouldn’t be.”

Urgent care executives said it costs from hundreds of thousands to well over $1 million to open a clinic. Licensing requirements would increase those expenses, they said, especially if the state mandates that clinics be built to certain specifications — and such requirements could be devastating for the clinics that are already up and running.

“From a business perspective, nobody would open new centers,” said Lynne Rosen, chief executive of PhysicianOne Urgent Care, which operates four clinics in Massachusetts.

Rosen said the company plans to develop several additional sites, but she’s waiting to see what happens at the State House.

“I can’t sign that lease until I understand [the legislation],” she said. “We’re going to monitor what goes on in the first 90 days of the year. Certainly, it influences our decision-making.”

Urgent care companies are also objecting to the Baker administration’s insistence that they provide certain mental health services. Their centers usually are staffed by providers with backgrounds in primary or emergency care — not mental health care.

“That would require a change in staffing model, potentially,” Rosen said.

Jim Brennan, who owns six American Family Care clinics in Massachusetts, agreed, saying, “There is a need for behavioral health providers, but I’m not certain the urgent care platform is equipped to do that.”

Rather than implement new regulations, industry executives said, the state should lift burdensome requirements that make it difficult for MassHealth patients to seek care at urgent care clinics. Currently, MassHealth requires a referral from a primary care physician before covering urgent-care visits.

Administration officials say they can’t lift these restrictions unless the state first adopts standards for urgent care.

While they don’t have an official state definition, urgent care centers are typically open on nights and weekends when most doctors offices are closed. They generally promise to treat a variety of medical issues — except for life- and limb-threatening emergencies — at a fraction of the cost of hospital emergency rooms.

They offer walk-in service, accept health insurance, and are staffed by physicians, physician assistants, or nurse practitioners.

About 180 urgent care centers have opened in Massachusetts, most of them in the past decade, according to industry and state figures. Much of the growth has come from relatively new for-profit companies, though some traditional health care providers, including nonprofit hospitals, also have centers.

These facilities are distinct from retail clinics such as CVS MinuteClinics, which offer more limited services and are already regulated by the state.

But not everyone has equal access to urgent care centers. They tend to be located in middle-class and affluent communities — not in low-income neighborhoods.

Policy makers have begun to pay more attention to urgent care centers in recent years. In 2018, the Massachusetts House approved legislation to put hefty assessments on the centers. Urgent care companies lashed out at the proposal, which died when House and Senate lawmakers couldn’t agree on compromise legislation.

House majority leader Ronald Mariano, lead author of the 2018 House bill, said he has backed off the assessments but remains concerned that the centers are unregulated. He’s also worried they are “taking money out of” community hospitals, which he wants to protect.

“We should set some standards so we know what these people are doing and who they are servicing,” Mariano said.

The House is likely to take up urgent care this spring as part of a larger health care bill, Mariano said. The Senate is also considering new rules.

“Our goal is to provide high-quality, affordable, and accessible health care to everyone in the Commonwealth,” Senator Cindy F. Friedman, cochair of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, said in a statement. “Urgent care centers provide this kind of health care to our residents — so yes, they too should be subject to regulations and oversight.”

Lawmakers have until the July 31 end of the legislative session to compromise, while urgent care companies try to influence the debate.

At least one company, ConvenientMD Urgent Care, has accepted that regulations are probably coming.

ConvenientMD has opened eight centers across Massachusetts in the past 13 months. They are already licensed as clinics, said chief executive Max Puyanic.

“It is very costly to go through the licensing process,” he said. “[But] we assumed it was better to do it up front, assuming it might be required in the future.”


Banning Conversion Therapy to Placate the Rainbow Mafia
Utah becomes the 19th state to ban what used to be a widely accepted practice

The state of Utah this week became the 19th state to ban conversion therapy for children who struggle with gender-disorientation pathology. In short, that means therapists are legally prohibited from working with young people to help them recalibrate their sexual desire or identity.

Here’s the Associated Press definition and explanation of conversion therapy:

Conversion therapy is a practice used to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people who have been through it say it deepened feelings of depression and increased thoughts of suicide. The new rule bans licensed Utah therapists from subjecting LGBTQ minors to the practice that the American Psychological Association has said is not based in science and is harmful to mental health. The Utah Psychological Association also spoke in favor of the rule.

The hypocrisy is so appalling it’s worth recasting that paragraph with a couple of links to prove the assertions:

Gender “reassignment” surgery is a practice used to try to “change” a person’s biological sex, despite the clear science that there are only two sexes. Many people who have been through it say it deepened feelings of depression and increased thoughts of suicide. In fact, an astounding 41% of “transgendered” individuals have attempted suicide, compared to just 4.6% of the overall population. Nevertheless, judges and doctors have subjected minors to the hormone therapy and more — sometimes over the objections of their parents — even though the American Psychological Association used to say this was not based in science and is harmful to mental health.

The American Medical Association also used to classify various gender pathologies as mental illness, even recommending conversion therapy until 1994, when the AMA reversed course and started recommending psychotherapy to help homosexuals “become more comfortable with their sexual orientation.”

Now, we’re not defending any particular brand of conversion therapy, as that would greatly depend on the therapist and vary widely depending on the patient. But it’s clear that over the last 30 years, the Rainbow Mafia has put the screws to doctors, psychologists, and scientists, who have done a total about-face from prior established practice in order to comply with a political agenda. When this sort of pseudoscience is done to teenagers or even elementary-age children, it is nothing less than child abuse.

And yet The Patriot Post has encountered censorship from Facebook on two specific occasions for talking about the science of two sexes and for opposing child abuse. Yet it’s not just memes on social media; it’s laws affecting parents, children, businesses, doctors, and others. Utah has joined 18 other states in criminalizing opposition to the accepted political point of view, and that’s what’s so dangerous.


Diversity Isn’t Always the Answer

Walter E. Williams

It’s nearly impossible to have even a short conversation with a college administrator, politician, or chief executive without the words diversity and inclusion dropping from their lips.

Diversity and inclusion appear to be the end-all and be-all of their existence. So, I thought I’d begin this discussion by first looking up the definition of diversity.

Here’s my question to those who are wedded to diversity and inclusion: Are people better off the less they have in common with one another?

For example, women are less likely to be able to march 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load. They are also less likely to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles, and move a wounded comrade weighing 165 pounds while carrying that load.

Would anyone argue that a military outfit would benefit from diversity by including soldiers who can and those who cannot march 12 miles in five hours while carrying an 83-pound load?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, diversity is “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.”

The definition gratuitously adds, “equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake.”

The standard definition given for inclusion is involvement and empowerment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are recognized.

You say, “Williams, the military is an exception!”

What about language?

The International Civil Aviation Organization has decreed that all air traffic controllers and flight crew members engaged in or in contact with international flights must be proficient in the English language as a general spoken medium.

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, there are about 7,000 languages in the world. The International Civil Aviation Organization could promote language inclusiveness by requiring language rotation.

Some years, Cebuano (of the Malayo-Polynesian language family) and in other years Kinyarwanda (of the Niger-Congo language family) could be the language of pilots and air traffic controllers.

Keep in mind that it is claimed that the great benefit of diversity and inclusiveness is that it promotes and fosters a sense of belonging. It values and practices respect for the differences in the talents, beliefs, backgrounds, and ways of living of its members.

Another issue is what should be done when people who should know better praise non-diversity and non-inclusiveness?

Civil rights leader Rev. Jesse L. Jackson said, “I applaud commissioner Adam Silver’s commitment to diversity and inclusion within the NBA.”

During the 2018-2019 season, more than 33% of NBA teams had head coaches of color. The number of assistant head coaches of color was over 42%. The number of black NBA players was 82%.

In the face of these statistics, Oris Stuart, the NBA’s chief diversity and inclusion officer said, “Diversity, inclusion, and equality are central to every aspect of our game and our business.”

I would like for Jackson and others who claim that there’s racial diversity and inclusiveness in professional basketball to make their case. The same question can be asked about professional football where 70% of NFL players are black, and 9% of team head coaches are black.

The thornier question and challenge is what can be done to make professional basketball and football look more like the American population?

Most of the diversity and inclusiveness insanity has its roots in academia.

An example is a paper titled “Equilibrium Grade Inflation with Implications for Female Interest in STEM Majors,” written by Naval Postgraduate School professor Thomas Ahn, Duke University economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, Duke University researcher Amy Hopson, and James R. Thomas of the Federal Trade Commission.

The authors argue that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs at colleges and universities lacking female enrollment can be attributed largely to harsh grading policies in these fields.

Their solution to increase the number of women’s involvement in STEM is to standardize grading curves, in order to grade less “harshly.” The insanity of this approach is to not only weaken standards for women but to weaken standards across the board.

This is more evidence that George Orwell was absolutely right when he said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”


Why I’m looking forward to celebrating Australia Day

Some Australians are tired of the constant protests that surround Australia Day. Some just want to celebrate their country and not be shamed for it.

Corrine Barraclough

When I first arrived in Australia 10 years ago, I’d never heard of Australia Day.

There was a lot of chatter in the office about what everyone was up to, talk of family gatherings, BBQs, fireworks, parties, yummy food and a real sense of pride in country.

We don’t have an “England Day”. There is no day when everyone comes together, waves flags and feels proud (that’s not connected to the royals).

Quite simply, Australia Day is the official national day of Australia. I loved the simplicity of that.

Australia Day is for all Australians; no matter where we’re originally from and it felt overwhelmingly inclusive.

I find it incredibly sad that now, years down the track, debate around our special, national day only seems to grow increasingly negative as time ticks by.

Anyone who calls it “Invasion Day” is looking to promote disunity. Anyone who calls it “Survival Day” is missing out on the warmth this day offers. There’s even talk about “paying rent” for stolen land.

There doesn’t need to be any controversy, angry hash tags or vitriol spat on social media. It’s meant to be a day of solidarity, peace, celebration and pride.

Australia Day is, of course, each year on 26 January and celebrates the arrival of the First Fleet of British on Australian soil.

Australia was not invaded – it was settled. There was no warfare, no organised military resistance or conflict. The First Fleet came here with convicts in chains; it was not an invasion force. Certainly, starting a new chapter doesn’t mean everything that’s gone before is forgotten.

There are records of celebrating Australia Day dating back to 1808.

Now, it’s a public holiday across all states and territories.

Doesn’t everyone love a public holiday? Doesn’t everyone look forward to an extra day off work?

And yet, here we are in 2020, and furious protesters are waiting in the wings, ready to preach their religion of division.

If you’re looking to find evidence of “oppression”, you will always be able to find it.

If you’re looking for opportunities to divide rather than bring people together, you will always find them.

If you’re seeking to shout about “shame”, you should take off your blinkers.

Australia is a wonderful country filled with caring, thoughtful, compassionate people. Just look at the incredible response to the bushfire crisis for proof of that.

This is not a racist country – and no one should feel “shame” for looking forward to celebrating this weekend.

This year, more than ever, we should be coming together.

Much as activists like to screech otherwise, the vast majority of people want to keep Australia Day on January 26 – and they want to celebrate freely.

A new poll from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) found that 75 per cent of Australians support Australia Day on January 26.

This is a huge number, especially considering the constant, monotonous and vocal efforts of the political left and pockets of mainstream media to oppose our national day.

The “woke” bullies with an agenda of bitterness have failed to divide us; that makes me even more proud. Perhaps I shall wave two flags.

“Mainstream Australians are fundamentally optimistic and positive about Australia and its values,” said IPA Foundations of Western Civilisation Program director Dr Bella d’Abrera.

The survey found 88 per cent of people were “proud to be an Australian”, with only 3 per cent disagreeing.

Only 10 per cent of Australians think the date should be changed. They will, no doubt, be the ones covered in glue this weekend.

On Sunday there are protests planned for “Invasion Day 2020” across the country, including Parliament House in Melbourne.

Perhaps we may see some familiar faces from other protests this year and some of the same loudmouths gluing themselves to the road in protest.

Its just noise, whether they’re screaming about “climate justice” or “invasion justice”.

People are sick of these disrupters.

The police should not be battling to maintain law and order against feral left-wing agitators. Their aim is to “burn down Australia”.

We’re in the middle of a bushfire crisis for god’s sake; no wonder most people aren’t on-board with the madness.

No, it doesn’t make me “selfish” for celebrating.

Nor does it make me “insecure”.

No, I’m not “ashamed”.

No, I don’t want to talk about “enslavement”.

And no, caring about Australia Day does not mean that I don’t care about the future of Aboriginal communities. Far from it.

I repeat: The majority of mainstream Australians are proud, they’ll be celebrating and if you’re not part of that, you’re simply a tiny, resentful fringe minority.



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