Friday, October 30, 2020

There's Something Happening Out There The Elite Refuses To See

Okay, I know what the media polls say…they say exactly what the media wants them to say. I also know that the non-media polls, and literally every other indicator, say that Donald Trump is going to win in six days. And one reason is the excitement for the president that is bubbling up out there. I‘ve never felt excitement like this about a presidential election, and I was literally at Ronald Reagan’s final campaign appearance ever in 1984 (November 5th, Mission Valley, San Diego).

Okay, if you want to despise millennials even more than you ever thought possible, watch this nightmare.

Also, doesn’t it seem kind of weird that the biggest corruption scandal in American history is entirely AWOL from the mainstream media? No? Exactly. I’m not surprised either and that may be the scariest thing about this unprecedented flex toward soft totalitarianism.

The Excitement Is All For Trump

I’m sitting with Irina at a diner in the heart of Ted Lieu’s district, munching on a patty melt after an evening out with the genius behind this soon-to-be-a-classic classic anti-Badfinger ad, and these cars and trucks waving Trump flags start going by. They’re honking, I’m pumping my fist, and some lumpy tuber who looks like a CNN anchor starts whining and it’s awesome. Then a dude in a Porsche Cayenne rolls up and steps out with a MAGA hat. And just down the road, a couple thousand people gathered for a rally – with no Trump or Pence or anyone in sight.

Again: Ted Lieu’s district.

You can tell me about polls and the electorate make-up and all that stuff, but even in deep blue Cali people are coming out for Trump. And this does not undermine the “shy Trump” theory. A lot of these out Trump folks work for themselves, or are not married to shrews, or are otherwise invulnerable to anti-Trump retaliation by the wokestapo. The fact is, people are pumped.

But you look at Hoover’s baby’s baby-daddy’s daddy and he couldn’t attract a crowd if they were pouring free Mad Dog on skid row. Kamala is doing her awkward booty-shaking on stage before spare audiences and it’s cringe central (while Trump’s perky two-step to YMCA is hilarious and joyful). They airdropped Obama into Philly to pester a few passersby with a bullhorn and it’s pathetic.

My anecdotal experience – and right now, I trust that over all the MSNBCNN polls in the world showing Biden +37 – is that 1) a lot of folks who did not go for Trump in 2016 are coming around, and 2) almost no people are migrating from Trump to Biden. Now, the non-Trumpers in 2016 might have disliked him, or gone for McMuffin, or didn’t vote at all. Some are like a rapper known, for some reason I don’t want to know, as “Lil Pump,” who tweeted Trump hate in 2016 and in 2020 tweeted a foul vid expressing his support for Trump’s tax policies in impolite terms. I’ll not bother linking. But in short, there are lots of reasons more people are moving to Trump. As for those moving to Biden? That brings us to our next topic…

What The Hell Is Wrong With These People?

What is the thought process that leads you to not only hassle your dying dad about who he is voting for but to post a video about it with this look on your mug like you are expecting a pat on the head?

This lunatic’s father is terminal, and he was a Trump voter. So, nightmare daughter decides to pester him to the point where he finally tells he her voted for Biden. I hope he lied to shut her up. But the really horrifying thing is that this hellspawn thinks this was OK.

Basically, like many Democrats, she considers emotional blackmail and intimidation to be just fine. Think about that. She can’t win an argument. She can’t convince him. No, she basically has to tell him to do as she commands or he can die alone.

That’s not sick. Sick people can’t help it. That’s evil. And evil is a choice.

Like I said, I hope he lied.

Let’s Just Not Do The News

Here’s the strangest part of the unanimous mainstream media blackout of the outrages of the Biden Crime Clan. It’s that we aren’t more shocked. Imagine ten years ago if someone told you that all the mainstream media outlets would give a full and complete pass to a presidential candidate in October whose brat was there in black and white hustling influence and dollars from foreigners (let’s not even get into what’s there in full and atrocious color). We all knew the media was garbage back then, but if someone told us that the media outlets would conspire and consciously decide to jointly to refuse to report on it (except in the vaguest “GOP Pounces!” terms) we would think he was nuts. Why, they would be all over it.

Fast forward to 2020 and that’s exactly what has happened (aided by giant corporations who own the social media platforms) and we’re like “Oh, yeah, figures.” And that Twitter has shut down a newspaper’s account (The NY Post) because it is reporting things Twitter does not think you should hear, and that the entire mainstream media support this corporate censorship of the press, likewise gets a shrug if not applause.

This should shock the hell out of us. But no one is surprised.

Yeah, I’m sure the short-term advantage in this election gained at the cost of any remaining shreds of credibility will be totally worth it for the media in the long run. When that mean old Trump is gone, things will totally go back to normal.


Look, I hate the mainstream media and would detonate it like Eniwetok Atoll given the chance, but nothing I could ever do could even approach inflicting the damage upon it that the mainstream media has inflicted upon itself.

The clock is ticking. Support great conservative candidates who can win back purple seats, like Sean Parnell in Pennsylvania and Michelle Steele in California. They can do it if you help!

Which Way Will John Roberts Move?

John Roberts has a decision to make: right or left?

Roberts, our nation’s chief justice, now presides over a 6-3 sort-of-conservative Supreme Court majority

The Court’s liberal wing now has just three justices: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. By themselves, these three are powerless to decide cases. But for a time, they, along with their fellow liberal justice, the now-deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were able to cobble together a majority in numerous high-profile cases by virtue of Chief Justice Roberts’s willingness to move leftward and join them.

Constitutional conservatives were disappointed to say the least, because they’d seen this movie before. Since 1970, Republican presidents have appointed a whopping 15 of our nation’s 19 Supreme Court justices. The only ones appointed by Democrats during the past half-century? Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. That’s it. Heck, if one counts Nixon appointee and Roe v. Wade majority opinion author Harry Blackmun, Ford appointee and Second Amendment opponent John Paul Stevens, Reagan centrists Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, George H.W. Bush disaster David Souter, and now Roberts, Republican presidents have appointed more liberal justices than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama combined.

And for those Democrats inclined to whine about this being Donald Trump’s third nominee in a single term, consider this: William Howard Taft seated five justices in a single term, and Warren Harding seated four in just two years before dying in office.

Regarding the leftward swing of Roberts in recent years, even Vice President Mike Pence, the most gentlemanly of Christian gentlemen, has seen enough. “We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Pence said in August, “but Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives, whether it be the ObamaCare decision or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel.”

Why Roberts did this, it’s hard to say, but maybe he’ll write a book one day. Conventional wisdom is that he feels an obligation as chief justice — a duty, even — to protect the reputation of the Court by ensuring that his side doesn’t run roughshod over the other. As of yet, though, we’re unable to lay our finger upon that section and clause within Article III that addresses roughshod running.

Another theory is that Roberts simply hates Donald Trump, and that he can’t pass up an opportunity to poke a stick in the president’s eye. This would explain the idiotic opinion he authored to preserve Barack Obama’s unconstitutional DACA diktat, as well as his 2019 decision against adding a simple and helpful citizenship question to the Census. But what about siding against a Nevada church and in favor of COVID restrictions? What about his overreach on workplace discrimination laws, and his striking down of a Louisiana law that put modest restrictions on abortion providers?

Still another theory is that the chief justice has an acute case of Swamp Fever and he’s gotten too used to being a darling of the Beltway cocktail scene. Perhaps it’s a bit of all of these.

In any case, the days of Roberts meaningfully siding with the Court’s liberal wing are over. He’s no longer the swing vote, no longer the new Anthony Kennedy. And that’s a good thing for those who love and respect our Constitution.

And so, Mr. Chief Justice: right or left? Let’s hope he isn’t listening to lefty columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post. “Whether the court regains its independence or cements itself as a third partisan branch of government is now largely up to Chief Justice John Roberts,” opined Milbank. “If he does not act, and fast, to mitigate the court’s politicization, Democrats will be fully justified in expanding the court’s membership to restore balance — and indeed will face a public outcry if they don’t.”

This is court-packing blackmail, of course, but Milbank doesn’t care. In fact, he goes on to suggest how Roberts can rescue his Court from its five duly seated conservative justices. First, he says, Barrett must recuse herself from any cases arising out of the election. Then the Court must uphold ObamaCare and put an end to all those pesky constitutional challenges to it. It must side with same-sex couples and against Catholic Social Services in an upcoming adoption case. Milbank had some additional demands, but we’ll stop there.

Our Harold Hutchison is more of a realist than Milbank, and he suggests that the new 6-3 Court may actually pull Roberts back to the right. How? By appealing to his desire to either write majority opinions or assign them, which he can do only when he’s part of the majority. So there’s hope.

Speaking of hope, in 1990, long before he ascended to the High Court, John Roberts wrote a brief on Roe v. Wade that stated, “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

Would it be too much trouble to ask for that John Roberts to reappear?

The Democrat Party of Division and Hate

The Democrats' primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division, creating fear, anger, and hate.

If Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their socialist Democrat cadre take control of our national government, at least we’ll have First Amendment protection from our Supreme Court to continue our advocacy of Liberty and Freedom.

That is, protection to continue until the Biden-Harris leftists pack the Court on their way to packing the Senate with statehood for Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, while simultaneously abolishing the Electoral College. As a reminder, achieving the latter would give the people of Los Angeles County alone (population 10,040,000) more voice than those of 41 states with fewer people.

Should the oppression of our constitutional rights be accelerated, we will defend Liberty more vigorously than ever, side by side with tens of millions of grassroots Patriots, by whatever constitutional means necessary.

If my concerns about the Biden-Harris threat sound too strident, let me say that in context, my perspective is based on the leftist progression of three Democrat presidential administrations since I was first able to vote: those of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. In each of those administrations, the surge toward statist socialism was arithmetic, measurable by significant magnitudes. After Carter, Ronald Reagan turned back the tide, but neither Bush (41) nor Bush (43) did anything more than hold the line.

However, a Harris-Pelosi administration, once Biden has resigned, will take an exponential leap to the left, supported by a growing populist movement.
Looking back over almost 25 years of my political and policy analysis for The Patriot Post, advocacy firmly rooted in the previous 220 years forming our national legacy of American Liberty, one common denominator about the Democrat Party and its protagonists emerges: Invariably, over the years, their primary political strategy has been, and remains, to foment division along identity lines, creating fear and anger, the outcome of which irrevocably devolves into hatred.

They then collude with their powerful Leftmedia and social media propagandists and influencers who ensure that division metastasizes.

Imagine, if you will, what the American political landscape would look like if the mass and social media platforms were actually politically neutral. That landscape would take a seismic shift to the right.

Ironically, Joe Biden visited Gettysburg this past week, where he channeled Abraham Lincoln’s famous address, declaring, “A house divided could not stand. That is a great and timeless truth. Today, once again, we are a house divided.” Biden was thus feigning a call for unity, but note the irony: If not for the Democrats’ perennial success at dividing the nation into political-identity constituencies, they would be powerless.

The Democrat Party is, in fact, the party of division and hate — and demonstrably so.

It is not Donald Trump supporters and young conservatives who form the violent BLM and so-called “antifa” fascist movements. These are not the “deplorables” for whom Hillary Clinton harbors so much arrogant disdain — or, likewise, those Trump supporters whom Biden calls “chumps.”

The leftists who were burning, looting, and murdering in urban centers all summer long are haters who have acted with the tacit approval of Biden and Harris and the rest of the Democrat Party.

To be clear: I’m not saying that all Democrats “feel” that hatred, though many are besieged by fear and anger — but hatred is the driving motivation for the protagonists, both those elected at all levels of government and the social activists who are funded by the Archenemies of Liberty — George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg.

Most of the suburban “white privilege” Democrats would like to believe they simply belong to a woke party, a progressive party of inclusion and peace. But it doesn’t take much to pull back the elitist facade far enough to expose the underlying fear and anger.

This is particularly true of Democrat women, who Demo strategists consider to be emotionally incontinent dupes. The Democrat Party is completely dependent on female voters — majorities of whom have elected every Democrat president since 1960 and have been a major force in midterm elections. In 2016, Trump won 52% of votes cast by men but only 41% of those cast by women, and that 11% gender gap was the largest in four decades of presidential elections. While that gap is understandable given Trump’s “style,” it cost him two years of a legislative agenda and an impeachment charade.

One thing common to almost all urban and suburban Democrat women: Few have ever been obliged to “support and defend” our Constitution at risk of blood and life, which in part explains the gender gap.

To keep women voters in line, Democrats create division primarily along two lines: gender and race. The latter line of division is also critical to co-opting the second most important Demo constituency, black voters.

The most prevalent division in this presidential campaign cycle has been, of course, race.

The Democrats have institutionalized “systemic disunity” in the name of “systemic racism,” giving rise to leftist mob rule while ignoring the pandemic of black-on-black murders nationwide.

Arguably, Democrats are the racist party, which is why racists are backing Biden. Unfortunately, urban and suburban Demo voters won’t consider the evidence supporting claims that are diametrically opposed to their perception of their Democrat Party.

Demonstrably, that party is loaded with constituents who are “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.” That is also the definition of a bigot.

I asked our Patriot editors to list a few of the ways they see Democrat Party hate manifest itself. They responded: Demos demonstrate hate in their opposition to freedom of faith, traditional families, free and fair elections, freedom of speech, diversity of viewpoints on campus, school choice, and a rejection of ideas that do not comport with their own views. They demonstrate hatred with their embrace of censorship, so-called “critical race theory,” cancel culture, Big Tech blackouts, and genocidal abortion on demand. Only haters would divide the nation on so many lines. Only haters would politicize a pandemic only to then foment race riots as the nation suffered. And the Democrats’ hatred of our Constitution and Rule of Law was on full display with their treatment of the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.

As for their unmitigated and unhinged hatred of Trump, this often manifests as hatred of and contempt for Trump supporters.

Trump, of course, did not create the hate, he exposed it — though admittedly he has, unfortunately, widened the gap. But the fact is, the Trump administration’s long list of accomplishments cross political lines — which is the Democrats’ greatest fear. For that reason, they have obstructed his path to reelection with their bulk-mail-ballot fraud.

As for where we find ourselves today, fellow Patriots, recall the words of George Washington in 1777, when the obstacles to American Liberty seemed insurmountable: “We should never despair, our situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new exertions and proportion our efforts to the exigency of the times.”

Fear not.

Coronavirus: Sad side-effect is our meek acceptance of Premiers’ power grab

And so the recovery begins. Lily-white Victorians are emerging from their homes, their forearms shielding themselves from the sun as they take tentative steps. Young children are discovering there is another world outside their five kilometres radius.

Cafés and restaurants on Carlton’s Lygon Street are chockers, families amble through the botanical gardens, crowds flock to St Kilda beach, and in the city’s south-east region marauding gangs will once again commit home invasions and carjackings.

Normality will not be restored overnight, however. Paradoxically, the absence of circling police drones will keep many awake who are accustomed to hearing their sound. Likewise, it will be a disconcerting experience for motorists to drive without stopping at checkpoints to produce papers. People will chat with their neighbours over the fence as opposed to reporting them to the authorities. East Germany made the transition, and surely Victoria can. Assuming of course there is no third wave.

Artists, musicians, and poets are probably writing peans for the Andrews government. You can expect soon to hear actor Magda Szubanski will be narrating the upcoming production “Dan, the Musical” in honour of the Victorian Premier.

The official Victorian version of the state’s recovery will make for amusing reading.

Yesterday Health Minister Martin Foley claimed the state’s contact tracing system had withstood the “stress test of the real world”; while Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton maintained it was the best in the country. Spare us. This is the same department which only two months ago was using spreadsheets, pen, paper, and fax machines for contact tracing.

It would be premature to talk of Australia having beaten COVID-19, but not so to talk about the virus’ legacy. Sadly, it is a depressing one overall. To begin with, it has shown how ill-suited a federation is to deal with the crisis. Unlike New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who presides over a unitary system of government, the preferred approach of Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his cabinet largely meant naught when it came to the issue of a co-ordinated response.

Even calling our country a federation is a stretch. We are at best a confederation. Apart from NSW, the states have become fiefdoms. Almost overnight, being an Australian meant nothing if you attempted to cross a state border. South Australia, for example, at one stage was denying entry to Victorians in border towns who needed lifesaving medical treatment in Adelaide, while at the same time making plans to fly in 800 foreign students to its three universities.

Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein even ordered all non-Tasmanians to leave the island in March, declaring “I make no apologies for working hard to keep Tasmanians safe”.

Presumably he does not plan to expel GST allocation, which makes up 40 per cent of the state’s revenue.

A panicked response that leads to an arbitrary closure is one thing. But premiers playing to populist sentiment in closing their borders is another, as demonstrated by Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in her re-election campaign. As someone with a reputation as a vacillator and a mere figurehead, she seized on the virus to portray herself as a resolute leader. In doing so she shut out far north NSW residents, many of whom are dependent on Queensland hospitals for treatment.

In his maiden speech to Western Australia’s Parliament in 1996, a young Mark McGowan made much of his background as an officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a role in which presumably he put aside provincial yearnings. “It was Labor that successfully led this nation through the darkest days of both World Wars,” he said, lauding in particular the leadership of Prime Minister John Curtin.

As leaders, both Curtin and McGowan shared a couple of traits. Both were elected by the citizens of WA, but neither was born or raised in that state. That is where the similarity ends. Curtin was a principled man who unified the country under his leadership. Conversely, McGowan has opportunistically used the greatest threat to Australia since World War II to pick a fight with the rest of the country, having closed WA’s borders since March, even to residents from states and territories that have long recorded no cases of community transmission of the virus.

McGowan has insisted he is acting on health advice. But being a parochial braggart, he gave himself away earlier this month with his audacious declaration that opening WA to South Australia and the Northern Territory would bring no economic benefit. “All we would do is lose jobs, were we to open to those states,” he said. “They’re only saying all this for very self-interested reasons because we have higher incomes and people who are more used to travelling and therefore we will have more tourists from West Australians go to the east.”

As they say, if you wish to ascertain a man’s character, give him power.

Every Australian has a constitutional right to cross state borders, but that means little if the federal government does not act against those who would infringe it.

By and large, the Morrison government has only made token efforts to defend this right, instead relying on a proxy, that being mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who has initiated proceedings in the High Court against the WA Government.

According to Attorney-General Christian Porter, the Commonwealth simply wanted to realise “moderate middle ground” when it intervened when the matter was before the Federal Court, but he later withdrew from proceedings. It was both pusillanimous and disheartening. As such, any subsequent protest by Morrison against state closures merely emphasises his government’s impotence.

But only a fool would leave it to governments to protect civil rights, and this is an area where Australians have let themselves down badly. This virus has proved the anti-authoritarian element no longer exists in the Australian psyche. We have largely accepted questionable restrictions on our liberty but have condemned journalists who have insisted leaders account for these decisions. As evident in polling regarding support for border closures, premiers such as McGowan and Palaszczuk have delighted in our malleability.

And it is not just the politicians who increasingly exercise control over our lives. Thanks to the creeping effect we largely accept that officials in the form of anti-discrimination tribunes and human rights commissioners will regulate our behaviour. Now the virus has accelerated the rise of the bureaucratic class. Who could forget Queensland’s chief health officer Jeannette Young, who, having blocked interstate relatives from attending funerals, decided to admit Hollywood actor Tom Hanks because “entertainment and film bring a lot of money into this state”. Excuse me?

That is not to say that everything that follows this virus is bad. For example, it is refreshing to see people have little time for the climate change evangelists and rent-seekers. Yes, I am talking to you, Zali Steggall, the federal MP and self-proclaimed “climate leader” who is desperately seeking relevance. And for us OCD types, it is joyful to see the proliferation of automatic soap dispensers.

But perhaps the most evident legacy is the burgeoning government debt, which is expected to rise to $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade. We simply cannot continue this taxpayer-funded largesse. Instead we need innovative ideas to instigate an economic recovery.

On that note, it is vital when deciding that issue to utilise those parts of industry that have been dormant because of the virus. My big idea is to lobby Parliament to allow the deportations of non-citizens in cases when the person commits an offence that results in six months or more imprisonment (currently the minimum is 12 months).

This could be the answer to Qantas and Virgin’s recovery. Just think: we would need to commission an entire fleet of planes for the trans-Tasman route alone. I am not sure what is the most attractive proposition: the recovery of our airline industry or the thought of Jacinda losing it. What is your big idea?




Thursday, October 29, 2020

The Electoral College Didn’t Protect Slavery

The presidential election in 2016 reminded Americans of the role played by the Electoral College in electing our president.

Proponents of abolishing or nullifying the Electoral College and replacing it with a direct-election scheme are trying to delegitimize the traditional process by claiming it is a remnant of America’s racist past, created as part of the Founding Fathers’ effort to protect slavery.

The claim is completely false. The Founders did not create the Electoral College for the purpose of bolstering the power of slave states, nor did it have the effect of doing so.

The records of the Constitutional Convention plainly show that the Founders designed the Electoral College to keep the president independent of Congress, which would have selected the president under both the “Virginia Plan” and the rival “New Jersey Plan.”

Direct election of the president wasn’t seriously considered for several reasons, and it lost the few times delegates voted on the idea.

Using electors to select the president was proposed several times during the convention by anti-slavery delegates such as Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and William Paterson. Opposition came largely from Southern delegates.

When the convention passed an early version of the Electoral College in mid-July of 1787, only three states voted against it—Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Delegates removed that version several days later and put congressional appointment of the president back in, but delegates remained concerned about the independence of the president.

In the end, the Electoral College won out over congressional appointment with only North Carolina and South Carolina voting against it.

It should be obvious that if delegates created the Electoral College as part of a scheme to bolster the power of the slave states, its proponents would not have been anti-slavery delegates and votes against it would not have come from slave states.

Some have argued that even if the Electoral College was not intended to strengthen the power of slave states, it nevertheless had that effect and helped to elect pro-slavery presidents because the three-fifths clause gave the slave states more representatives (and thus more electors).

History doesn’t support this claim either. With one possible exception, the additional electors provided under the three-fifths clause didn’t have a decisive role in any presidential election. The candidates who won the Electoral College in every election would have won without those electors.

The possible exception is the 1800 election for president, when Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams. But it is impossible to know how the result might have differed without the three-fifths clause, because both Adams and Jefferson received enough electoral votes from slave states to affect the election. There’s no way to know who would have prevailed without those electors.

What is known is that in 1824, the Electoral College prevented victory for Andrew Jackson, a staunch defender of slavery. Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes, but did not receive a majority of either.

The election was sent to the House of Representatives, which selected the anti-slavery candidate John Quincy Adams over Jackson.

Hamilton said of the Electoral College that if it was “not perfect, it is at least excellent.”

Those who wish to abolish or nullify the Electoral College might want to start looking for any of its real imperfections to press their case, rather than ignoring history and trying to falsely tie it to the vile institution of slavery.

Calls for British government to define 'anti-Sikh hate' after reported cases soar

The government should establish an official term for hate crimes against Sikhs, an MP said today after reported cases soared by 70 per cent in two years.

Preet Kaur Gill, who was the first female Sikh MP, has written to Home Secretary Priti Patel calling for urgent action to address anti-Sikh hate.

Ms Gill is the chair of a cross party group of MPs who have produced a report on the abuse of Sikh people in the UK.

The report, by the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs, aims to establish an official name for and definition of hate crimes against Sikhs through a consultation with government and the wider public over 60 days. They propose that the term “Anti-Sikh hate” be used.

They argue that while terms such as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are very well established, hate crimes targeting Sikhs are often “overlooked”.

The report also argues that some religious hate crimes against Sikhs are “almost certainly” being reported under Muslim hate crime based on the assumption of the perpetrator.

According to official Home Office figures, 117 hate crimes were recorded against Sikhs in 2017-18 compared to 202 in 2019-20.

Ms Gill, the shadow International Development Secretary said: “The scale of hate crimes targeting the Sikh community is a phenomenon that is largely invisible to government and the wider public.

“Official Home Office data for the last two years shows the level of reported hate crimes targeting Sikhs has increased over 70 per cent.

“However, the increased reporting is the result of Sikh community organisations raising awareness of the need to report and has been achieved with no government funding or support.

“This must now change as hate crimes against the Sikh community are on the increase and should not be hidden away and ignored.”

The Labour MP said the rise of hate crimes against Sikhs and Gurdwaras was a “grave concern” and that she had heard many “upsetting experiences” from victims.

The report said hate crimes against Sikhs became a “worldwide phenomenon after 9/11” and the lack of an official term or definition was a contributing factor to why this type of crime goes largely “unnoticed, unreported and unrecorded”.

Get Woke, Go Broke

We all know someone who, when it comes to politics, simply can’t let it go. Whatever it is – how you vote compared to them, some politician you like that they hate, a single issue on which you disagree – they simply can’t get past the difference. The obsession has ruined friendships and families. The thing that is new in year of the pandemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome is it’s ruining businesses now, too.

I’d never heard of Expensify before this weekend. It’s apparently a company that helps people and companies keep track of their expenses. It’s likely not a factor in your life, but it could be a factor in your business. Now it will likely not be a factor ever for millions of Americans because the founder and CEO, a guy named David Barrett, decided to call anyone who isn’t voting for Joe Biden an idiot.

Apparently, Barrett just couldn’t help himself, he couldn’t just let it go, and emailed every customer the company had, all 10 million of them, to tell them to vote for Biden. A member of the “tolerant” left could not tolerate someone voting differently, someone thinking differently.

Barrett’s email was a cross between a diary entry from a demented loner and a cry for help. “If you are a US citizen, anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy,” he started.

Like a child raised only on MSNBC, Barrett rambles on about “democracy” and how Donald Trump is a threat to it. How, like MSNBC, he doesn’t really say. He’s a believer, believers in conspiracies don’t need proof or facts, or even a grip on reality.

On whether the company should remain neutral, Barrett spews paranoia. “Expensify depends on a functioning society and economy; not many expense reports get filed during a civil war. As CEO of this business, it’s my job to plot a course through any storm -- and all evidence suggests that another 4 (or as Trump has hinted -- 8, or more?) years of Trump leadership will damage our democracy to such an extent, I’m obligated on behalf of shareholders to take any action I can to avoid it. I am confident our democracy (and Expensify) can survive a Biden presidency. I can’t say the same about Trump. It’s truly as simple as that,” he writes.

Expensify took in $108 million in 2018, but I’d hate to be one of his investors at this point. The compulsion to slam half the country, half his customers, for “thinking wrong” is the suicide bombing of the business world.

That’s what the left is - the equivalent of a terrorist organization. They demand conformity, they demand obedience. Deviate from what is acceptable and you are the enemy. And nothing is beyond the pale when it comes to defeating or destroying the enemy.

There is no corresponding purity demand on the right, Republicans fight with each other almost more often than they do with Democrats. If backstabbing were an Olympic event, Republicans would sweep the medals. A brilliant, unquestioningly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court is going to be confirmed this week and not a single Democrat will break ranks with their party to vote for her, two Republicans will vote against her.

Expensify isn’t the only company to cram politics into its business, it’s become a trend. And that trend will continue if they win. The mantra will morph from “you should do this” to “you must do this or we want nothing to do with you.” The “bake me a cake as fast as you can” crowd will make it clear they wish for our submission or else.

“So one final plea,” Barrett closed his email. “As a fellow citizen, I fully support and respect your Constitutional right to disagree -- and as an avid supporter of democracy, I value that disagreement. Constructive, well-informed debate (hopefully using the most accurate, least biased news source available) is what makes this nation so exceptional.” He linked that to a left-wing “analysis” site on media bias that ranked the Huffington Post as more honest and less extreme than Fox, and Buzzfeed and Vox among the “most reliable.”

That’s what we’re up against, insanity with a healthy budget and a deputized cadre of extremists willing to destroy themselves to win.

Like I said, I didn’t know Expensify before this weekend, but everyone knows it now. If you use their services, do you still want to? For a lot of their customers, the answer turns out to be a resounding “no.”

'We're full!' Overwhelming number of Australians say the country doesn't need any more immigration as voters reject 'leftist elites'

An overwhelming majority of Australians oppose high immigration, fearing it could affect their way of life, a study has found.

Before the pandemic saw the border closed to non-citizens and non-residents in March, Australia's net annual immigration rate was approaching 200,000.

Australia's population also surpassed the 25million mark in August 2018 - 24 years earlier than predicted in the federal government's inaugural Intergenerational Report of 2002.

With Sydney and Melbourne among the world's least affordable housing markets, 72 per cent of respondents have told The Australian Population Research Institute (TAPRI) Australia was full.

The survey of 2,029 people was taken in October and November 2019 - four months before Prime Minister Scott Morrison closed Australia's border to slow the spread of COVID-19.

Half the people polled wanted a reduction in immigration, fearing it caused more pollution and congestion.

Study authors and sociologists Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell said rapid population growth before the pandemic had worried a majority of Australians, who regarded both major parties are representing the interests of 'leftist elites'.

'High immigration was responsible for the deterioration of the quality of life in Australia's big cities, as well as stressing its natural environment,' they said in an opinion piece for News Corp.

'Moreover, at least half the electorate do not support the progressive cultural values that left elites (including Labor’s leaders) regard as legitimating high immigration. 'This is a key finding since it shows that there is only lukewarm support for the core Big Australia strategy of high immigration.

'We can say with confidence based on our and other surveys that half the electorate are prepared to say, within the safety of an anonymous survey, that immigration should be reduced.'

Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd a decade ago declared himself to be a supporter of a 'big Australia', with business leaders also favouring high population growth.

His Liberal predecessor John Howard two decades ago increased net immigration levels to the six-figures, putting them well above the 20th century average of 70,000 a year.

The TAPRI survey however found people no longer believed it was 'possible' to accommodate more immigrants.

'The conditions that made it possible to sustain a Big Australia and ignore this concern no longer exist in the post-Covid environment,' the study read.

'If the Coalition, or Labor, does try to revive a Big Australia many of these voters would respond readily to any attempt to mobilise them.

Australia's population stood at 25,715,134 as of October 27, 2020.

The survey found that most respondents who took a stance against more immigration were not university educated, while those with a degree were more likely to back immigration.




Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism

On 6 October, when Samuel Paty, a popular history and geography teacher in a quiet Paris suburb, presented a copy of the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad which provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine five years ago, he self-evidently had no idea of the tragic consequence for his own life, French society or France’s relations with the Islamic world. What was intended as a classroom exploration of the freedom of thought has turned into a mini-clash of civilisations.

Ten days later Paty was killed, allegedly by a Russian-born teenager of Chechen heritage, sending an electric shock into France’s long debate about secularism, or laïcité. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, responded by saying France would not “renounce the caricatures”.

Since then Macron has been described as mentally ill by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan; his ambassador to Pakistan has been summoned to condemn incitement of Islamophobia; and from Sana’a to Riyadh he has become a one-man axis of evil. French products are the subject of a boycott. Le Train Bleu restaurant in Doha, “a quintessential Parisian dining experience” in Qatar, is for instance hurriedly re-sourcing its products.

It would be easy to think that Macron, facing record Covid infections, might look at his in-tray and back off. But he appears to have done the opposite, ringing the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, with the Chechen origins of Paty’s alleged assailant in mind, to urge him to redouble Russia’s efforts to cooperate on terrorism. Macron has long sought a reset with Moscow by joining forces against terrorism. The call in some accounts took the form of a lecture, and in others an appeal to cooperate more closely in a common cause.

Either way this is not a fight Macron is likely to abandon. Domestically he faces the first round of the French presidential elections in April 2022, and his challenge will come from the security-minded right, either the centre-right Les Républicains or the far-right Marine Le Pen, with whom he is neck and neck in the polls. His net disapproval rating as president is -24%.

His calculation will be that so long as he makes the final round, the left as before has nowhere else to go. Being tough on Islamist separatism, and paying a price globally, hardly wounds him with waverers on the right.

But to diminish his conflict with extremism into a narrow calculation of personal political advantage is to misunderstand his intellectual journey on secularism in office, and the way in which the issue is central to his foreign policy outlook including his attitude to Turkey, Russia, Nato and the Middle East.

By raising the stakes, and keeping them high, Macron is also trying to make others recognise they cannot stay neutral.

Macron after all had tackled the debate about Islamist extremism before Paty’s death in his speech on 2 October on secularism – an hour-long address in which he attempted to be nuanced on how to integrate Islam and French secularism. It contained a number of proposals to regulate imams and mosques.

In the passage has proved most provocative in Turkey he said: “Islam is a religion that is experiencing a crisis across the world,” in reference to Islamic State jihadism and also Wahhabism, the Saudi extremist ideology, and Salafism. “We don’t believe in political Islam that is not compatible with stability and peace in the world.”

Islamic separatism, which he describes as a deviation of Islam, is “a conscious, theorised, politico-religious project, which is materialised by repeated discrepancies with the values of the republic, which often results in the creation of a counter-society and whose manifestations are the dropping out of school of children, the development of sports, cultural and communal practices which are the pretext for the teaching of principles which do not conform to the laws of the republic”. There were also balancing passages about the state as guarantor of the freedom of religion, economic disenfranchisement, and the French colonial legacy.

A complex speech such as this does not take long to be distorted and become a source of grievance abroad, especially in Turkey, since as many as half of the imams in France are Turkish.

But more importantly Turkey is already in a number of disputes with France.

These disputes – over Syria, Libya, Nato, gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean and Armenia – each have their own context and specifics, but they all stem from a French suspicion of Erdoğan’s ambitions to lead a revived Sunni Islam.

In Syria Macron objects to the Turkish attacks on the Kurdish YPG militia, France’s allies in the war against Isis. In Libya his initial objection to Islamist influence in Tripoli’s Government of National Accord has morphed into a conflict with Turkey after Ankara sprang to the GNA’s aid. He warns that the Nato alliance may become brain dead since Turkey, a fellow member, is ambivalent about the defence of western values. In the Mediterranean, he equates Greek interests with those of Europe, leaving Germany to mediate. He more and more openly sides with Armenia.

Many Europeans worry about Macron’s somewhat Gaullist, or France-first, approach. Bruno Tertrais at the French Foundation for Strategic Research argues: “France itself does not always consult its allies or seek their support before taking diplomatic initiatives. It barely did so in Libya and didn’t do so at all with regard to its Russia reset. Perhaps if Macron had nurtured ties with France’s eastern European Nato allies and EU members, he would have gained more early support for his stance against Turkey and more trust for his Russia diplomacy.”

The French calculation is that Erdoğan will succumb to pressure. The Turkish lira is at a new low, and there are only so many fronts on which an autocratic leader can fight. But Erdoğan will draw his own strength from the condemnations of Macron across the Arab world. On Monday he explicitly joined the call for a boycott of French goods, and claimed: “It becomes more and more difficult to be a Muslim and live an Islamic lifestyle in Western countries.” This has a long way to run.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for unlawful monopolisation

The department says Google's conduct harms competition and consumers, and reduces the ability of new innovative companies to develop and compete.

It's the most important monopolisation case in the US since 1998, when the DoJ brought proceedings against Microsoft.

It's possible the current proceedings, given their timing, are politically motivated. US President Donald Trump and other Republicans have repeatedly voiced the view that Google is prejudiced against conservative beliefs.

But even if Democratic candidate Joe Biden is elected president, this action against Google is unlikely to go away.

The ramifications for Google, if the court rules against it, could ultimately be dramatic. The DoJ's associate deputy attorney general, Ryan Shores, has refused to rule out seeking orders to break up the tech giant, saying "nothing is off the table".

Google's monopoly power
People walk in front of a black Google logo.
the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising.(Getty Images: Mario Tama)
Google's economic power is no secret. Regulators around the world, including in the European Union, are investigating the company’s conduct and bringing actions under competition, consumer and privacy laws.

US Attorney General William Barr said the new DoJ action:

[…] strikes at the heart of Google's grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.

Specifically, the DoJ claims Google is illegally monopolising the markets for online search and search advertising (the advertising that appears alongside search results).

According to the DoJ, Google's US market share is roughly:

88 per cent in the market for general search services
70 per cent in the search advertising market.

However, holding a dominant position isn't against the law. A company is allowed to enjoy a dominant position or even a complete monopoly, as long as it doesn't do so by unlawful means.

So what has Google allegedly done wrong?

The DoJ's main complaint is Google has entered into several "exclusionary agreements" that preserve its monopoly power by hindering competition from rivals (and potential rivals). Exclusionary agreements are deals that restrict the ability of at least one party to deal with other players.

The DoJ says Google spends billions of dollars each year on:

long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser

exclusivity agreements that forbid pre-installation of competing search services by certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors

arrangements that force certain mobile device manufacturers and distributors to pre-install Google search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference

using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers and other search access points.

The DoJ claims these agreements have created a "continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolisation" in the market for online search and search advertising (which relies on Google's dominance in online search).

Google has responded by describing the court action as "deeply flawed". In a blog post it said: […] people don't use Google because they have to, they use it because they choose to.

It also said users are free to switch to other search engines.

But even if that's technically true, Google's agreements for pre-installation, default settings and preferential treatment give it a substantial advantage over its rivals.

Does any of this matter when Google is 'free'?

Google provides services that are hugely valued the world over — and with no direct financial cost to the user. That said, "free" services can still cause harm.

According to the DoJ, by restricting competition Google has harmed search users, in part "by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data)". This is an important recognition that price is not all that matters.

The logic behind this claim is that other search engines with better track records on privacy, such as DuckDuckGo, might otherwise be more successful than they are.

Or, to frame that another way, Google might actually have to compete vigorously on privacy, instead of allegedly imposing privacy-degrading terms on its users.

What might happen if the action succeeds?

If Google is found to have contravened the prohibition against monopolisation under the US Sherman Act, it could face substantial fines and damages claims.

But perhaps more concerning for Google would be the prospect of the DoJ seeking to break up Google's various businesses.

Google owns a range of highly successful services, including Google search, Google Chrome, the Android operating system, and numerous ad tech ("advertising technology") services. Google's position and access to data in one business arguably give it advantages in its other businesses.

Eleven Republican attorneys-general from various US states have joined the proceedings and could individually seek remedies.

The action won't be having a major impact any time soon, though. Google's lawyers estimate the case would only come before the US District Court for the District of Columbia in a year.

James Woods Calls Democrats 'Virulent anti-Semites' After 'Jews for Trump' Clash With Protesters

Actor and prolific Donald Trump supporter James Woods has labeled Democrats "virulent anti-Semites" after a clash between protestors in New York City.

A fight erupted in Manhattan on Sunday, as Trump supporters clashed with counterprotesters in the city amid rising political tensions ahead of the election next week.

A 'Jews For Trump' convoy of hundreds of cars covered with American flags and Trump 2020 paraphernalia paraded through Manhattan and Brooklyn and was met with counterprotesters where the skirmish escalated.

Videos shared on Twitter show cars being pelted with eggs and stones as shouted insulted are exchanged with phrases like "New York hates you" can he heard.

The New York Times reports that 11 people were arrested and all were released except for one man who threw eggs in police officers' faces.

Woods shared a link to a Fox News article about the clash, saying: "Hard to remember a time now when Democrats supported Jewish causes. Now it appears they are become virulent anti-Semites."

Per the Fox story a family of seven—including four children—were pepper-sprayed during the scuffle.

A member of the family said they were driving down Fifth Avenue with the car windows down and Trump flags displayed while the children were in the vehicle.

Videos and pictures of a woman being arrested for using pepper spray have been shared on social media.

Trump's attorney and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani was present at the event and he later spoke about it on his radio show, where he condemned what he called the "group of foul-mouthed" counterprotesters.

"I would love to have had a campaign commercial of it and put it on in the middle of America and say, 'Who would you prefer for the next four years?" he said. "This group of foul-mouthed people who don't seem to have a vocabulary beyond three words, or these very nice Jewish people who are driving in the car and not saying anything back and not doing anything other than exercising their right to say they're for Donald Trump."

During an appearance on Fox & Friends on Monday, Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, called Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, to denounce attacks on the president's Jewish supporters.

"I really hope that Joe Biden, his campaign, will come out and condemn these anti-Semitic actions that were taken against Trump supporters and be respectful again," Kushner said.

Australian cop to stand trial for murder after an Aboriginal teenager was shot dead as prosecutors allege he was right to pull the trigger once - but not three times

It's easy to miss when firing a pistol so it is normal to fire off a string of shots to ensure an effective hit. And a person who is hit often does not react immediately so may give the impression that further shots are needed to subdue him

All that is perfectly normal and unremarkable so why is this phony charge being levelled at the cop? It is just to placate black activists who are baying for blood. It reflects the huge racial sensitivities of the era. The authorities have to be seen as taking the death very seriously

The deceased was an habitual law-defying criminal so his aggressive behaviour was in keeping with his record. But because he was black there is a furore. He was released from prison in October last year after serving eight of a 16-month sentence for unlawful entry, property damage and stealing offences with the remainder suspended. But he had allegedly breached his parole by removing an electronic monitoring device, among other offences.

There was “face-to-face combat” between him and the two officers. One officer was reportedly stabbed, which allegedly led to the teen being shot.

A Northern Territory police officer who shot dead an Aboriginal teenager will stand trial for murder, with his lawyers arguing he acted in self-defence.

Constable Zachary Rolfe, 29, was charged with murder after shooting Kumanjayi Walker, 19, three times during an arrest in the remote community of Yuendumu in November last year.

The teen's death was protested at rallies around Australia in the wake of African-American man George Floyd's death in the United States in May.

Judge John Birch on Monday ordered Mr Rolfe to stand trial following a three-day preliminary hearing in the Alice Springs Local Court.

Prosecutors agree that the first shot fired at the teenager was self-defence, after the officer was stabbed and attacked with scissors.

But they claim the second and third shots, fired just 3.6 seconds later, were murder.

Mr Rolfe was part of a four-member elite Immediate Response Team that drove 290km from Alice Springs into the Tanami Desert to arrest Walker.

The preliminary hearing in September heard evidence that Mr Walker wounded Mr Rolfe and his partner Adam Eberl with a pair of scissors in a darkened room.

Mr Rolfe allegedly shot Mr Walker with a Glock pistol three times as Walker grappled with Eberl.

Prosecutors alleged the second and third shots were not justified, arguing the IRT 'disregarded' an arrest plan by Sergeant Julie Frost from the Yuendumu police station.

A criminologist said that two of the shots were 'excessive, unreasonable and unnecessary'.

The case comes amid rising tensions about the treatment of black and indigenous people by police.




Tuesday, October 27, 2020

'We have to erase men': Lesbian author who urges women to 'eradicate' men from their lives racks up 5 star reviews on Amazon - but some argue it's 'a form of apartheid'

Just another version of Leftist hate

A lesbian activist has urged women to 'eliminate' men from their minds and lives in a controversial new book that claims to provide the ultimate solution to female emancipation.

Paris city Councillor Alice Coffin, has revealed in her debut book, Lesbian Genius, that she doesn't listen to music, read books, or watch films made by men and her partner Yuri also only consumes things that have been produced by women.

Reflecting on feminism and lesbianism in the years since French feminist Simone de Beauvoir penned The Second Sex, she claimed that the only way for women to be truly emancipated is to eradicate men from their lives completely.

'It's not enough to help one another, we have to erase them. Erase them from our minds, from our pictures, from our representation. I don't read books by men anymore, I don't watch their movies, I don't listen to their music', she writes.

Alice admits she imagined herself as a boy when she was younger, but now believes being a lesbian is a 'greater' achievement.

The author who says she's aware that generalising may annoy people, claims men are a 'permanent war on women' and her book is a response to the favour men continue to receive.

Speaking about the male role models and those currently in leadership, Alice writes: 'There's only men like Macron at the head of our political, economic and cultural institutions and in the media.

'Some worse than others. Let them go. They sow misfortune, we want joy. Being a lesbian is a party, they won't spoil it.'

Hinting at the reason why she doesn't watch films made by men, Alice argues the media objectifies women.

'Following into a well-oiled mechanism created by the Catholic state, the movie industry turned women into objects to massacre, while still putting them on the highest of pedestal.

'Be beautiful and shut up, be beautiful and I rape you, be beautiful, you're going to die, this is the movie industry,' she says.

Alice argues men erect monuments to celebrate their heroes, meanwhile women are abused for centuries and their history is lost without a trace.

'I never say that men have everything to win with feminism. It's false. They have everything to lose. Their privilege, their monopoly, their power,' she adds.

Arguing women are blasted for speaking out, she says: 'When we, feminists, put together lists, produce data, are outraged, they have the nerve to ask: "But you don't think, you just hate men".

Despite the book receiving a flood of five stars reviews on Amazon as readers gush that the author makes points they haven't heard before, fellow French feminists have blasted Alice's call to action.

Marlène Schiappa who is France's former minister for gender equality, accused the author of advocating for 'a form of apartheid,' reports The Economist.

She was asked to share her views about the book promoting a 'form of totalitarianism' in a discussion with radio host Sonia Mabrouk.

Meanwhile, author Agnès Poirier argues Alice's new French feminism would be dubbed 'ridiculous' by Simone de Beauvoir.

Simone who published The Second Sex in 1949, was bisexual and flouted convention to give French women a voice.

Blue-Check Ignorance and Intolerance Threaten Freedom and Our Way of Life

Last week the Twitter blue-check mob tried to cancel one of the nicest and most decent people on the planet: actor Chris Pratt.

His crime? Pratt exercised his freedoms of speech and association by declining an invitation to publicly support Joe Biden. Twitter’s little hate engines went to work on him, until the Avengers actors assembled and clapped back at them. Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, the whole gang who defeated Thanos (an environmentalist extremist, by the way) on the big screen stood up for their friend Star-Lord, and good for them. It’s all too easy for actors to just go along with whatever nonsense the blue-check chuckleheads come up with. Actors tend not to be the most morally courageous lot. If they were, Harvey Weinstein would never have happened.

All in all, it was a good ending to yet another moment of mass stupid in 2020, but the moment should never have had to happen. Silence is speech (not violence). When you’re arrested, the cops even tell you that “you have the right to remain silent” as part of your Miranda rights. In that case, silence is a defense against self-incrimination. Silence can also be a defense against groupthink, and it can be an assertion of your basic human right to be left alone.

Pratt’s decision to keep his mouth shut is not only one that many more of the famous should exercise, it literally lines up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What if the Avengers actors hadn’t defended Pratt? Would we have seen cancel culture destroy a good and decent man not for saying something offensive, but for saying nothing at all? Probably.


Recent blue-check stupidity doesn’t stop at the Avengers’ defense of the Bill of Rights. During the final presidential debate, President Trump brought up the issue of “coyotes” smuggling people across the border. Twitter idiots erupted with guffaws. Because they’re stupid.

Someone went and gathered blue-check reaction to the president’s factual and accurate coyotes remark. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

Blue-checkers exhibit their ignorance about a key border problem.
A couple of those blue-checkers are actually famous. Peri Gilpin, originally from Waco, Texas, played Roz on Frasier. Lexa Doig has starred in a few B-grade and below TV series and movies.

As both of them and all Americans ought to know, coyotes are human smugglers and traffickers. They charge poor people exorbitant sums of money to get them into the United States against our laws by whatever means their evil minds may devise. Coyotes do not care about the welfare of their customers at all. They care about cash and breaking laws. They tend to move the human cargo in the backs of trucks and in conditions that subject them to the real threat of injury and death. No food. No water.

Coyotes are very bad people. They are also fixtures on the border and have been for ages. Trump was right to bring them up during the debate. That he was mocked for it betrayed the arrogance and, again, stupidity that is rampant across the blue-check mob and across too much of our culture. Blue-checkers are not better than the rest of us. They tend to know a whole lot less than your average American. But they were probably handed trophies for doing nothing when they were kids, they’ve been treated like demigods for landing a TV role at some point, and the “I’m the center of the whole universe!” mentality stuck like flypaper.

The left’s combination of self-righteousness and arrogant ignorance pollutes our public discourse, threatens our fundamental rights, and may yet be the death of our freedoms and our republic.

Biden is Wrong: U.S. Didn’t Have a Good Relationship With Hitler — But the New York Times Did

Did the United States really have a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before he started World War II? Joe Biden made this bizarre claim during Thursday’s debate with President Trump. Trump said of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: “North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. People don’t understand. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.”

Biden shot back: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.”

Come on, Joe! The U.S. didn’t have a good relationship with Hitler before he “invaded Europe. The German dictator was, however, beloved in certain quarters, including the editorial offices of the New York Times.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t attack Hitler directly before the war began, but relations between the U.S. and Nazi Germany were by no means good. In September 1938, Roosevelt sent a telegram to Hitler lecturing him about the importance of keeping the peace and stating: “The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.” Implying that Hitler was a warmonger was hardly a hallmark of cordial relations between the two countries.

Failing to get a satisfactory response from Hitler, on October 11, 1938, Roosevelt announced that he was increasing national defense spending by $300 million (over $5 billion in today’s dollars). No one thought that money was going to build up our defenses against Britain and France.

Some in America, however, loved the Führer.

The historian Rafael Medoff recently noted that on July 9, 1933, just over five months after he became Chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become notorious worldwide, the New York Times published a fawning puff piece on Hitler that rivals even today’s media adulation of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi in its one-sidedness, myopia, and disdain for essential facts.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she was an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, as in the presence of this man whose name has become justly synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.”

As if that weren’t enough, she continues with a description of the Führer as outlandish and adulatory as likening the supremely zaftig Stacy Abrams to a supermodel: “His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”

McCormick labored to portray Hitler as more modest than his public persona might suggest: “In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.” He is also, she signaled to her readers, reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”

The intrepid New York Times reporter doesn’t seem to have asked Hitler if he had a significant other, but no one would have been surprised after reading all this if the two of them had become an item.

However, McCormick’s interview was not all about Hitler’s sun-browned face and blue larkspur eyes. In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.

Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would still be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs. And old Joe Biden, as he contemplates the approaching end of the presidential race from his Delaware basement, can rest secure in the certainty that no matter what outrageously false or crazy thing he says, that same New York Times will cover for him, too.

Handling diversity-talk

These days, when we hear academic folks uttering new holy words —“diversity,” “intersectionality,” “systemic racism”— many conservatives deny in knee-jerk fashion that such a goal is important or such a thing exists. Christians should be different. Instead of denying problems, we should acknowledge them, then expand understanding by viewing them Biblically.

Instead of scoffing at diversity-talk we should say, “Your diversity is too thin: Let’s have hyper-diversity.” Paul famously wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Yes: We should welcome into our churches or colleges different nationalities, different legal statuses, and of course both male and female.

Today, instead of limiting “diversity” to the big three of race, sex, and sexual orientation, let’s say, “I’ll see your three and raise you three: Let’s add religion, ideology, and abortion orientation,” since the current Supreme Court battle shows abortion is our most divisive current issue.

After all, is it harder now for a lesbian or an openly pro-life woman to get a tenure track position at a major liberal arts college? Who is more likely to get a promotion at most Fortune 500 companies, someone who sports a Black Lives Matter sticker or someone who keeps an open Bible on his desk?

If we’re asked why a particular dispute like abortion should be singled out, let’s respond, “Fine. Let’s add issues such as socialism versus free enterprise, or evolution versus creation, and do all we can to let students hear a diversity of views.”

Christians who bristle about “intersectionality”— the idea that people can face discrimination for a multiplicity of reasons — should instead say, “Of course. Because of original sin, life is hard, for multiple reasons. Your intersectionality is too small.”

All have sinned — see Romans 3:23 — and sinful individuals create sinful systems. Mega-intersectionality includes structural problems in housing and banking that liberals have pointed out — “redlining” was a long-term sin — and also a welfare system that discourages marriage, a lack of school choice that traps poor kids in awful schools, and an abundance of cohabiting relationships that often lead to children growing up without dads.

And while we’re examining IN-famous problems, let’s be sure to emphasize street-level reality rather than suite-level theorizing. If we’re into castigating “white privilege,” let’s acknowledge that one of the most privileged people of 2020 is Robin DiAngelo. She’s white and reportedly charges $10,000-and-up to give a speech attacking whites and — according to black linguist John McWhorter — condescending to blacks.

McWhorter applies critical thinking to “critical race theory” and DiAngelo’s best-selling book,White ­Fragility: He wrote inThe Atlantic and said on NPR that it “openly infantilized Black people” and “simply dehumanized us” by teaching that “Black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree [since] Black people are unusually weak.”

His critique is just. DiAngelo and others teach that fragile white folks who feel defensive when charged with racism must not say things like “I marched in the ’60s” or “You don’t know me” or “You are generalizing.” Such comments will purportedly make fragile black folks furious.

The Bible emphasizes not fragility but strengthening. Proverbs 27 IN-famously tells us, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Ecclesiastes 10:10 adds, “If the iron is blunt, and one does not sharpen the edge, he must use more strength, but wisdom helps one to succeed.”

I’ll end with a theological twist from famous pastor Tim Keller: “Doubt doubt.” When a materialist professor discounts Christian testimonies by saying people believe only because they’re part of a particular social group, we should neither nod nor get angry. Instead, let’s ask, “Why do you disbelieve? Why shouldn’t we discount your argument?”




Monday, October 26, 2020

'I have made mistakes': Vogue editor Anna Wintour apologizes as black staffers call for her to resign and reveal she used a racist word and dismissed concerns when Kendall Jenner and Karlie Kloss were accused of cultural appropriation

Vogue editor in chief Anna Wintour has apologized after black staffers called for her to resign and revealed she used a racist word and dismissed their concerns about cultural appropriation.

In a lengthy New York Times article published on Saturday, 18 black journalists who have worked with Wintour said Vogue favored employees who are thin, white and from elite backgrounds.

Eleven of them called for her resignation following offensive incidents involving Wintour's use of the word 'pickaninny', and cultural appropriation controversies involving Kendall Jenner's false gold teeth and Karlie Kloss's Vogue photo shoot as a Japanese geisha.

However, Naomi Campbell, one of the first black supermodels, who appeared on the cover of Wintour's first September issue in 1989, vehemently defended the editor.

And three other people of color told the Times that Condé Nast had made positive changes and that Wintour had promoted them to top roles.

Wintour recently split with her partner of 20 years, telecoms tycoon and entrepreneur Shelby Bryan, and is rumored to have grown close to actor Bill Nighy.

Wintour, who has been Vogue' editor in chief since 1988 and Condé Nast's artistic director since 2013, making her the editorial leader of all its titles, responded to the latest allegations in a statement to the Times: 'I strongly believe that the most important thing any of us can do in our work is to provide opportunities for those who may not have had access to them.'

'Undoubtedly, I have made mistakes along the way, and if any mistakes were made at Vogue under my watch, they are mine to own and remedy and I am committed to doing the work,' she added.

The Times article details a number of examples of alleged racism under Wintour's leadership.

In 2017, Wintour used an offensive racial term in an email as she raised questions about whether a photo shoot of black models wearing bonnets would itself be perceived as offensive.

'Don't mean to use an inappropriate word, but pica ninny came to mind,' Wintour wrote.

In a statement to the Times, Wintour said: 'I was trying both to express my concern for how our readers could have interpreted a photo and raise the issue for discussion, and I used a term that was offensive. And for that, I truly apologize.'

When Wintour asked a black assistant to weigh in on the photo shoot, the assistant said the image was not offensive, but expressed displeasure at being asked to render a verdict as a junior staff member, according to the Times.

In another 2017 incident, Kendall Jenner appeared at a London fashion week party wearing fake gold teeth, which a white Vogue writer described as 'a playful wink to the city's free-spirited aesthetic — or perhaps a proverbial kiss to her rumored boyfriend, A$AP Rocky.'

The Times reports that a black Vogue staffer expressed outrage, saying that the gold teeth were cultural appropriation.

A top lieutenant brought the issue to Wintour's attention, writing: 'If Kendall wants to do something stupid fine but our writers (especially white ones) don't need to weigh in and glorify it or ascribe reasons to it that read culturally insensitive.'

Wintour appeared dismissive of the cultural appropriation crisis, responding: 'Well I honestly don't think that's a big deal.'

Also in 2017, white model Karlie Kloss drew cultural appropriation accusations when she appeared in Vogue in a geisha outfit, with her face in pale makeup and her hair dyed black.

The photo shoot in Japan drew immediate accusations of 'yellowface'.

After internal cries of alarm over the feature, Wintour reportedly replied that it could not be cut because of its 'enormous expense.'

Kloss later apologized, tweeting: 'These images appropriate a culture that is not my own and I am truly sorry for participating in a shoot that was not culturally sensitive.'

That tweet reportedly angered Wintour, who received a personal message from Kloss saying 'I imagine the feeling is mutual, that it was hurtful to see the criticism from our Japan trip.

'I had written a short piece on social media as I wanted to make known that it was never my intention to offend or upset anyone from this spread.'

Wintour dryly replied: 'Thanks Karlie another time please give us a heads up if you are writing about a Vogue issue.'

Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner threaten to sue over billboards linking them to COVID-19 deaths

US President Donald Trump's daughter and son-in-law are threatening to sue a group of anti-Trump Republicans for posting billboard ads in New York City's Times Square linking them to the country's almost 225,000 coronavirus deaths.

The Lincoln Project says the billboards are there to stay
A lawyer representing Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, made the threat on Friday in a letter to the Lincoln Project, calling the ads "false, malicious and defamatory".

Marc Kasowitz, who is acting on behalf of the couple who are White House aides, also wrote the ads were "outrageous and shameful libel".

"If these billboard ads are not immediately removed, we will sue you for what will doubtless be enormous compensatory and punitive damages," Mr Kasowitz said in his letter.

One of the ads features a smiling Ms Trump gesturing towards text showing the number of coronavirus deaths in New York and nationwide.

The other is a photo of Mr Kushner next to a quote attributed to him last month by Vanity Fair magazine, citing an unidentified source: "(New Yorkers) are going to suffer and that's their problem."

"While we truly enjoy living rent-free in their heads, their empty threats will not be taken any more seriously than we take Jared and Ivanka," the group said.

The group, which includes former campaign consultants to president George W Bush and senator John McCain, is the most prominent Republican-led organisation opposing Mr Trump's re-election on November 3.

It has produced barrages of ads calling for his defeat, attacked pro-Trump Republican politicians and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The billboards have appeared during a week where the US President said his country was "rounding the corner" on COVID-19 despite new figures contradicting his view of the pandemic.

The US recorded 84,218 new COVID-19 cases on Friday eclipsing its one-day record high of 77,299 new cases on July 16.

A Stake Through the Heart of the Market System

Letter to a critic:

I urge skepticism of calls for government to compel corporations to attend to the welfare of so-called “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of shareholders. The quotation at my blog from Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi nicely summarizes many reasons for such skepticism. I stand by that quotation and encourage you to consider it more carefully. But I here add one more reason – one built on the truth of your wise recognition that “corporate decisions impact communities and families outside of ownership.”

Given this truth, should government, then, compel individuals and households to attend to the welfare of “stakeholders” at the expense of the welfare of the individual and members of the household? After all, if you choose to shop at Safeway rather than at Kroger, your decision contributes to possible job losses at Kroger. In light of this fact, would it be wise to enable government to compel you to shop at Kroger despite that store’s higher prices or greater inconvenience?

Or if your parents are considering moving to another town, should government be able to override their decision – forcing them to remain where they are – because the sale of their current home will depress property values in their town and, thus, negatively affect their neighbors?

My point is that every economic decision has impacts far beyond the individual decision-maker. This reality isn’t confined to corporations; it’s true of each and every economic decision that you personally make, that each household makes, that each small business makes. And it’s fundamental to an economy built on specialization and trade. To ensure that as many as possible of these impacts are positive rather than negative, market economies rely upon private property and contract rights as well upon economic competition and market prices. (To better understand how these institutions promote positive impacts and lessen negative ones, I recommend a well-taught course in principles of economics.)

And so – “Stakeholder capitalism” is not, contrary to Elizabeth Warren’s claim, a means of saving or improving the market economy. It’s a frontal assault on it. By allowing government to suppress private property and contract rights, we’d move, not in the direction of what you call “a more humane capitalism” but, instead, in the direction of a more arbitrary and, hence, authoritarian means of dictating the use of resources, including labor. The end result would not be what you expect and hope.

National anthem non-protest decision by Australia's Rugby football team

Wallabies coach Dave Rennie has confirmed the national men’s rugby side will not take a knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement before their Bledisloe Cup match against the All Blacks next weekend.

Sporting teams and organisations around the world have opted to show support for the BLM movement since the death of George Floyd by taking a knee.

On Thursday, Wallabies fullback Dane Haylett-Petty revealed the Australian squad were considering a silent protest during the national anthem before their Test match against New Zealand in Sydney on Sunday, October 31.

The Wallabies would become the first Australian national side to take a knee during a national anthem if they went ahead with the silent protest.

“I think it’s great,” Haylett-Petty said. “I think sport has an amazing opportunity to have a say and join conversations and a lot of sports have done that and it would be a great thing for us to do.”

It led ex-Wallabies captain Nick Farr-Jones to speak out against the idea.

“To take the risk of basically splitting the support the Wallabies are starting to earn through their gutsy performances in Wellington and Auckland – just don't do it guys, it's too risky,” he told 2GB radio. “You run the risk that a few (viewers) would just turn off. They don't want to see politics in national sport. That's a real risk. I think it could be divisive. I don't think here in Australia that we have a major issue in relation to discrimination of coloured people."

Which led to a response from former player Gary Ella. “That's just stupid talk. That obviously shows that Nick doesn't have a full appreciation of the history of Aboriginal people in this country,” Ella said. “If you're talking about reconciliation, we're talking about sharing and acknowledging the history that we’ve come past and are working towards a better future. Those type of comments are totally ignoring the history."

On Friday, Rennie told reporters the Australian squad came to a “unanimous decision” not to perform the silent protest.

“We met with the leaders and then the leaders met with the rest of the team and it’s a unanimous decision,’ Rennie said. “The key thing is, this is about honouring our indigenous people and we want the focus to be on that.

“Everyone’s got their own opinions around the other situation, but we want the focus to be on reflecting on our history and our past.

“All I’ve said is that our focus is around the First Nations People and the indigenous jersey. We’re not looking to make a political statement.”