‘Tolerant’ Liberals Sure Hate Jews

That the political left is a cesspool of hatred and bigotry is nothing new, a simple Internet search about college campus life over the past few years turns up disgusting, violent attacks on anyone not deemed “woke” enough. Not bowing down and kissing the boots of the Marxist ANTIFA or “Black Lives Matter” or whatever fascistic flavor of the moment Democrats are embracing to terrorize the public into submission has become so “normal” that even when it takes out a fellow useful idiot in the media, it barely registers as a news story anymore. But there is one form of hatred that doesn’t rate a blip on the radar of the leftist media, mostly because it is a pandemic among their fellow travelers: anti-Semitism.

Support police and they’ll come for you. Don’t sufficiently support protests, they’ll come for you. Celebrate the United States and men who founded it and they’ll come for you. Mention the biological fact that there are only two genders and they’ll come for you. Say vile things about Jews, or amplify those who do, and you’re likely to be met with muted crickets.

The latest example is Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson posting an anti-Semitic quote from Adolf Hitler to his Instagram account. The quote was a fake, but the sentiment wasn’t. This wasn’t Jackson’s only dive into the anti-Semitic pool. Turns out he’s also a big fan of Louis Farrakhan who hates Jews more than he hates white people.

Jackson was forced into the least sincere of all human actions – the forced apology. In his, Jackson tried to justify his stupidity by claiming he wanted to “enlighten my people” by sharing what he thought was a Hitler quote. “I probably never shouldn’t have posted anything that Hitler did cuz Hitler was a bad person,” he added. Ya think?

“You know, I just hopefully everybody respects my path on my opinions to try to just enlighten my people and just let everybody know there’s no hatred involved,” Jackson finished.

Putting aside the absurdity of using what you think is a Hitler quote to “enlighten” anyone, other than as a cautionary tale, and the inherent bigotry of the phrase “my people,” Jackson isn’t unique or alone in his embrace of anti-Semitism.

There is no bigger or prouder anti-Semite in the country than Farrakhan, who only takes a break from rambling about Jews to attack white people. That an NFL star would amplify him should cause outrage. But it hasn’t, at least not in any measurable way.

After releasing his “hostage” apology video, the Eagles fined Jackson an undisclosed amount and that’s about it. Saints quarterback Drew Brees is currently groveling on apology 739 for saying he wouldn’t disrespect the American flag and he’s still being attacked by has-beens like Eminem.

Jackson’s “mistake” was using Hitler, not anti-Semitism. Hitler can’t be ignored, everyone understands what a monster he was (which is why the left is working so hard to portray the progressive socialist into a right-winger). Farrakhan, on the other hand, had many nice things to say about Hitler over the course of his career. Why does he get a pass?

The rabid anti-Semitism of Farrakhan has been long known, he’s said horrible things enough times on camera that living under a rock for the last 40 years is the only way to avoid it. Yet Louis is now almost mainstreamed by the left. If they hadn’t been able to rehabilitate Al Sharpton’s racism and anti-Semitism, Farrakhan was waiting in the wings.

Somehow, to many celebrities, cops are the enemy who needs to be destroyed, but Louis Farrakhan is someone to be celebrated. Chelsea Handler, Lisa Rina, Sean Hayes, etc., recently praised a video of him.

A streaming service from Fox Broadcasting, called “Fox Soul,” planned to air a speech by Farrakhan on the 4th of July, because what better way to celebrate the founding of the country than publicizing a racist? Once people noticed, it was canceled. But it was moved to something called “Revolt TV,” which is owned by Sean “Diddy” Combs. Not a single “mainstream” media outlet bothered to mention it.

Rapper and actor Ice Cube proudly promotes Farrakhan on social media. “The Honorable Louis Farrakhan continues to warn America to this very second and he’s labeled one of your ‘evil names’ and you turn your ears off.  Why is the truth so offensive that you can’t stand to hear it?” he recently tweeted (one of many similar tweets dripping with anti-Semitism from him).

While DeSean Jackson deserves scorn for his actions, why do these other people escape the same? Why is Louis Farrakhan acceptable? Why is anti-Semitism glossed over so casually? Black Lives Matter gets a pass for their hatred of Israel (it’s been framed as the movement being “hijacked,” but it’s not – it’s who leftists are). Leaders of the Women’s March had a history of anti-Jewish comments and you barely heard about it. In fact, the political left is marinated in hatred of Jews, starting on college campuses and ending in a relentless stream of attacks on Jews on the streets of New York City, and it barely creates a ripple of coverage.

The left claims to be against hate, but they aren’t. They use it, they foment it, they direct it. Liberals manufacture it and scream about it at the top of their lungs when it suits their needs, but when it comes to Jewish people, they’re blind, deaf, and mute.

Anti-Semitism is alive and well, and it’s being mainstreamed by some big names in liberal circles. The embrace of Louis Farrakhan is just the symptom, the disease is the liberals who believe it works.

SOURCE 






UK City Council Chooses Law Over Chaos: Removes Unsanctioned Protest Statue

The City Council in Bristol, England chose to uphold the values of their citizens and the rule of law this week when they removed an illegal, unsanctioned protest statue. The statue, created in the image of Black Lives Matter activist Jen Reid, was placed without approval on a pedestal that had previously been vandalized by statue-toppling rioters.

The Bristol statue of 17th century philanthropist Edward Colston was erected in 1895, a memorial to his financial contributions to charities and schools in Bristol during his life. Like many wealthy Europeans during that point in history, Colston was involved in the Atlantic slave trade, a legacy that soured his once philanthropic reputation. That part of Colston's history became widely publicized and disparaged beginning in the 1990s and calls for the removal of his statue began shortly thereafter.

Rather than wait for the Bristol City Council to hear from the citizens of their city, however, and make a choice about what to do with the 125-year-old statue, vandals and rioters took matters into their own hands. Operating under the guise of achieving racial justice in the name of George Floyd, they toppled the Colston statue and chucked it into the Bristol Harbor in early June. They also painted graffiti with myriad accusations of racism and bigotry on the statue base.

But unlike the statue destroyers that have come to be embraced by elected leaders in the United States, the mob set against destroying monuments in Bristol went one step further. They created their own replacement statue and hoisted it onto the pedestal involuntarily vacated by Colston last month.

On Wednesday, protesters snuck back to the previous site of Edward Colston's statue in Bristol and installed their own replacement: a statue created by London artist Marc Quinn of Black Lives Matter activist Jen Reid with her fist raised in the air. Protesters and other advocates of statue destruction and various other forms of "racial justice" celebrated the sneaky, extra-legal move on the part of the protesters.

But the Bristol City Council saw it a bit differently. They saw the illegal placement of a politically charged statue in the place where one that had been vandalized and removed as a no-go for their community. The statue of Colston, still beloved by many in Bristol and admirers of history and art throughout the world, was funded and approved by the public more than a century ago.

Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees agreed with the decision, saying that while Reid's activism was notable, no permission was given for the public placement of her likeness.

"This is not about taking down a statue of Jen, who is a very impressive woman,” Rees said. “This is about taking down a statue of a London-based artist who came and put it up without permission."

The decision of the Bristol City Council and the support of the mayor seems almost antithetical to the rhetoric currently being delivered by Democratic leaders in the United States. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flippantly responded to the vandalization and destruction of a Christopher Columbus statue in her home city of Baltimore when a reporter asked if a commission or the City Council should have been involved.

"People will do what they do," Pelosi said, ignoring the blatant acts of vandalism and destruction of property involved in the removal of the statue. Pelosi and other prominent Democrat members of Congress are known for repeatedly saying "no one is above the law" when referencing President Trump's tax records and forming partisan attacks against conservatives. However, when leftist protesters deface statues and burn cop cars, that refrain is seldom heard from the left.

Like the statue of Colston in Bristol, rioters threw the Baltimore Columbus statue into the harbor. Unlike the statue of Colston, Columbus was totally destroyed. Officials in Bristol were able to recover the water-bound Colston statue and take it to a safe location.

Condoning crimes such as trespassing, vandalization, and destruction of federal and private property has become commonplace among leftist American lawmakers looking to placate activists in recent days. President Trump has stood firm in his vow to punish lawbreakers, with varying support from members of the Republican Party.

Black Lives Matter activists bemoaned the removal of the statue of Reid just one day after it was illegally placed, before they got a chance to travel to the rural English community to see it. The council said the statue "will be held at our museum for the artist to collect or donate to our collection."

SOURCE 






Reparations Sticker Shock

Quick: Picture in your mind a quadrillion of anything. Having trouble? Here's some help: The Great Lakes have a volume of about six quadrillion gallons, and it takes 210 years or so for a quadrillion gallons to cascade over Niagara Falls. Or, if entomology is your thing, we have around 10 quadrillion ants here on planet Earth at any one time.

We mention all this by way of preparing you for some sticker shock — namely, the price tag of a study on slavery reparations recently conducted by three college professors: $6.2 quadrillion. That's a six and a two followed by 14 zeroes. Or, to put it in a way that drives home the fiscal enormity of that number, if we were to divide 6,200,000,000,000,000 one-dollar bills into 16 even stacks, each of those stacks would reach the moon. (If you don't believe us, this graphic will help you check the math.)

We know what you're thinking: Not even Jeff Bezos has a spare six quad lying around, so what's the point? Well, one of our nation's two major political parties is currently dancing with this reparations devil, and Democrats are likely to keep dancing until Election Day — or at least until they think they've got 90% of the black vote sewn up for the cognitive calamity called Joe Biden.

And we shouldn't be surprised that the topic of reparations seems to reappear every four years. After all, that's when the Democrats are desperate to mobilize their most loyal constituency. So here we go again.

As Paul Bedard reports in the Washington Examiner, "The nation's mayors on Monday backed a national call for reparations to 41 million black people, a program that could cost taxpayers $6.2 quadrillion. The U.S. Conference of Mayors released a letter backing a Democratic plan to form a reparations commission to come up with a payment for slavery."

This is how far left the Democrats have lurched. What had long been a fringe issue beset by all manner of legal and logical conundrums is now spoken of freely and opportunistically among mainstream Democrats. As Bedard notes, "The study suggests a payment of $151 million [for each of 41 million black American recipients], and the cost to every person would be $18.96 million. The calculation is somewhat complicated, but it essentially studies the unpaid hours slaves worked, calculates a price for massacres and discrimination, and adds in interest."

We suspect the average eighth-grader will need to bump up his lawn-mowing price if he's on the hook for $19 million.

In a column he penned last year, Jeff Jacoby pulled together the commonsense case against reparations. "Slavery was a toxic evil," he began, "and its bitter impact didn't end with emancipation. But any attempt to discharge the moral crimes of the 18th and 19th centuries with monetary payments in the 21st century is doomed to fail. The logistical and definitional obstacles alone would be a nightmare. The majority of white Americans have no ancestral link to antebellum slavery — they are descendants of the millions of immigrants who came to the United States after slavery had been abolished. Of the remainder, few had any slaveholding forbears [sic]: Slavery was abolished in most Northeastern states within 15 years of the American Revolution, while in most of the West it never existed at all. Even in the South at the peak of its 'slaveocracy,' at least 75 percent of whites never owned slaves."

Jacoby then addressed some of the complications: "To whom would reparations be owed? Millions of black Americans are recent immigrants or the children of those immigrants, and have no family link to slavery. Are they entitled to compensation for what slaves endured? How about whites whose ancestors were slaves? Or blacks descended from slaveholders? What of the 1.8 million biracial people who identified themselves in the last Census as both black and white? Should they expect to collect reparations, or to pay them?"

Slavery is and always will be the great stain on our nation's history — indeed, the great stain on all of human history. But no amount of money forcibly transferred from one group of innocent Americans to another group of aggrieved Americans will ever make it right. Nearly $30 trillion in "Great Society" wealth transfers since the mid-1960s have made this all too painfully clear.

Leftists don't want to hear any of this, of course, because the racial grievance industry is a lucrative one. But the solution to our nation's original sin will only arrive when all of us — black, brown, and white — commit to judging each other just as Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed it: not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character.

SOURCE 






UK Rightly Pushes Back on Gender Transitioning for Minors

On both sides of the Atlantic, advocates for transgender rights are increasingly substituting ideology for biological reality.

But while here in the U.S. the Supreme Court last month was writing into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act legal protections for people who identify as transgender that the authors of the law never intended, the United Kingdom appeared to be moving in the other direction, standing up for common sense.

On the other side of the pond, just five days before the Supreme Court handed down its decision, bestselling “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling published an intensely personal essay in response to criticism of her position on the issue of gender identity.

In the essay, Rowling, who is British, revealed her past experiences with sexual assault and domestic abuse, and expressed concern about transgender activists’ attacks on single-sex spaces for women.

As a former teacher and a supporter of children’s charities, Rowling also stated her discomfort with the rush to medically transition children with gender dysphoria and especially the massive increase in young girls suddenly identifying as transgender.

Despite the vitriol she received in response from the left, Rowling refused to back down from her stance.

The comments by Rowling, along with other recent developments in the United Kingdom, show promising signs that the relentless advance of transgender ideology in medicine and public policy finally might be encountering some resistance across the Atlantic.

Britain’s minister for women and equalities, Liz Truss, recently announced plans to ban sex-change procedures for anyone under the age of 18.

Truss told a parliamentary committee April 20: “I believe strongly that adults should have the freedom to lead their lives as they see fit, but I think it’s very important that while people are still developing their decision-making capabilities that we protect them from making those irreversible decisions.”

Transgender activists frequently recommend those medical interventions—which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery—for children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Parents of children questioning their biological sex are advised to unquestioningly affirm the child’s new, self-identified gender and help them to transition socially with the help of a new name, pronouns, and wardrobe.

Little attention is paid to the adverse effects of that treatment, however. As Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George have written, such interventions “should be prohibited”:

Prudent legislation is needed to prevent adults from interfering with a child’s normal, natural bodily development.

‘Gender affirmation’ procedures violate sound medical ethics. It is profoundly unethical to intervene in the normal physical development of a child as part of ‘affirming’ a ‘gender identity’ at odds with bodily sex.

Activists have frequently brushed off concerns about possible regret following gender transitions, ignoring evidence that shows that they carry a number of physical and psychological risks.

The use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones can lead to increased cancer risk, decreased bone density, and adverse effects on brain development. In addition, hormones and surgeries can sterilize children who would normally be considered far too young to make such a serious—and permanent—medical decision.

In contrast, a “watchful waiting” approach allows children time to accept their biological sex instead of rushing to alter it and can help address any underlying issues causing the distress.

Studies show that 80% to 95% of children experiencing gender dysphoria who do not transition eventually come to accept their bodies, while nearly all children who are placed on the path of social transition go on to pursue medical interventions.

The U.K.’s decision to prevent those under 18 from being subjected to those unproven procedures demonstrates the importance of considering the best medical and scientific evidence, even if it contradicts the activists’ narrative.

Britain’s National Health Service recently made another change related to its treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.

The Health Service’s website, which provides information about medical conditions and treatment, includes a section on gender dysphoria in children. A section on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to prevent puberty in children who identify as transgender previously stated, “The effects of treatment with GnRH analogues are considered to be fully reversible, so treatment can usually be stopped at any time.”

That’s a common talking point for transgender activists, often employed to support early transitions while avoiding discussion of detrimental side effects or the lack of medical evidence supporting the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria.

Surprisingly, that section on the National Health Service website was recently updated to read:

Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. …

It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue, and mood alterations.

Rowling noted those concerns in a tweet, writing, “Many health professionals are concerned that young people struggling with their mental health are being shunted towards hormones and surgery when this may not be in their best interests.”

The National Health Service site also notes that the use of cross-sex hormones can lead to irreversible physical changes, such as deepening of the voice in females and breast development in males, as well as permanent infertility.

The changes to its site were made without fanfare, suggesting that the Health Service still fears activists’ outrage against even reasonable medical cautions.

Despite its own update, the Health Service continues to recommend and administer these medical treatments to minors. The Minister for Women and Equalities’ report on banning some of those treatments is not expected until later this summer, and its exact recommendations remain to be seen.

The changes to the Health Service’s website and the minister’s comments provide reason to hope that they will move toward a more cautious approach to treating children with gender dysphoria, protecting vulnerable youth from rushed, ideologically motivated—and often irreversible—interventions.

Policymakers in the United States would be well advised to do the same.

SOURCE 

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

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

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

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