Monday, July 04, 2022

The Crybaby Leftist Mind

When things don't go their way, Leftists throw huge tantrums

Modern progressives ASSUME moral and intellectual authority. Consequently, their supposedly superior ends naturally justify almost any means necessary to achieve them.

Among the elite, the Democrats’ “blue wall” states were once considered a testament to the wisdom of the Electoral College. When that wall crumbled in 2016 to Donald Trump, the Electoral College suddenly was blasted as a relic of our anti-democratic Founders.

The nine-person Supreme Court was once beloved. On issues like abortion, school prayer, same-sex marriage, pornography, and Miranda rights, the left cheered the court as it made the law and ignored legislatures and presidents.

Republican court picks—Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, Lewis Powell, John Roberts, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, and Earl Warren—would often flip leftward. How could they not be swayed by the greater brilliance of their liberal colleagues?

From affirmative action to Roe v. Wade to Obamacare, apostate Republican justices for a half-century greenlighted legislating from the bench.

In response, was there any serious right-wing talk of packing the court with six additional justices to slow down its overreaching left-wing majority—or of a mob massing at the home of a left-wing justice? Certainly not.

But now?

Suddenly a narrow constructionist majority has returned matters of abortion to the states. And the once-beloved court is being slandered by leftist insurrectionists as illegitimate.

Every sort of once-unthinkable attack on the courts is now permissible.

Confidential draft opinions are leaked illegally. A senior senator threatens justices by name at the doors of the court. The homes of justices are surrounded by heckling protesters. And the very life of a justice is threatened by a would-be assassin close to his home.

Consider also the Senate filibuster. Former President Barack Obama not long ago ranted that it was racist and a 180-year-old relic.

Obama’s logic was infantile. When Democrats were in the Senate minority, he was giddy that the filibuster could slow down the Republican majority. Indeed, while a senator, Obama himself filibustered the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

When Democrats were in the majority, however, a pouting Obama blasted the filibuster as a racist, Jim Crow roadblock.

Can the Jan. 6 committee issue some universal declaration that defeated candidates should not question the integrity of an election, much less call for it to be ignored?

Apparently not. In 2016, a defeated Hillary Clinton claimed the winner, Donald Trump, was illegitimate—this from the architect of the entire Russian-collusion hoax.

Clinton then trumped her own inflammatory rhetoric by urging President Joe Biden not to accept the 2020 tally of the balloting if he lost.

Former President Jimmy Carter agreed that Clinton won the 2016 election and Trump was thus illegitimate.

Hollywood actors appeared in commercials, insurrectionary-style, urging Republican electors to renounce their constitutional duties and instead elect Clinton.

On racial matters, the left is most intellectually bankrupt.

During the recent confirmation hearings of an African American nominee to the Supreme Court, federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the left alleged that tough questioners were racists and sexists for “bullying” Jackson.

Yet she got the kid-glove treatment compared with the character assassinations of past conservative nominees. Brett Kavanaugh was smeared as teen-aged rapist and targeted by former Democratic media heartthrob Michael Avenatti, now an imprisoned felon.

Currently, loud mobs of affluent, young white women have been circling the home of African American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—just 1 of 5 court justices who voted to let the states decide the status of abortion.

Thomas did not write the majority opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, but then again, leftists have a toxic fixation with blacks who do not appreciate their condescension.

In the left-wing mind, the buffoonish Capitol riot on Jan. 6 was an “insurrection.”

Yet, the much larger May 31, 2020, riot that sought to storm the White House grounds and sent the president into a bunker was the sort of mob violence that “was not going to stop,” in the words of now-Vice President Kamala Harris.

The recent pro-abortion mob assault on the Arizona state Senate, the left insists, was an apparent cry of the heart.

What would the left do if after the 2022 midterms, a Republican-majority Congress emulated its own infantile tantrums?

Imagine a new House speaker, Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tearing up Biden’s State of the Union address on live television.

How about the House impeaching Biden twice, even as a private citizen in 2025?

Envision a 22-month, $40 million investigation of the entire Biden quid pro quo, corrupt family syndicate?

What if McCarthy booted left-wing congressional representatives from key select committees?

And what if conservatives showed up screaming at the gates of one of Obama’s three mansions?

How odd that leftists are destroying the very customs and traditions whose loss will come back to haunt them when the Democrats lose the Congress in November.

Crybaby tantrums won’t win over the public. These nonstop, puerile meltdowns have turned off most Americans who tire of whiny narcissistic hypocrites.


The Revolution was America's first civil war

by Jeff Jacoby

BY THE TIME the Continental Congress approved the text of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the 13 American colonies and Great Britain had already been at war for more than a year. A copy of the Declaration was sent by John Hancock on behalf of Congress to George Washington, the commander of the Continental Army, with instructions that it be read to the troops. Washington readily complied, hoping that the Declaration's words would inspire "every officer and soldier . . . to act with Fidelity and Courage." He hoped as well that openly proclaiming that the colonies were now "free and independent states," no longer subject to the British Crown, would attract more recruits to join the fight "for the Defense of the Liberties and Independence of the United States."

But it wasn't only Great Britain with which the Americans were at war. They were at war with each other, too.

The American Revolution, not the bloody conflict between North and South in the 1860s, was the nation's first civil war. The decision by the colonies to break away from England and its empire was by no means a unanimous one. "Somewhere between 20 and 30 percent of the population retained their loyalty to the crown," notes the Library of Congress, while committed Patriots — those in favor of independence — accounted for about 40 percent. (As in nearly every conflict, a sizable fraction in the middle preferred not to take sides and just wanted to be left alone.)

By some estimates, there were as many as 100,000 active Loyalists in the United States during the Revolution. Many of them readily enlisted to fight on England's side. According to "Tories," Thomas B. Allen's 2010 history of the Americans who fought alongside the British during the Revolutionary War, Loyalists took part in more than 500 military encounters between the battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775 and the final skirmishes in 1782. Their allegiance to the king was not mere contrarianism. They deeply opposed the Patriot cause and were no less willing than Washington's troops or the signers of the Declaration to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in defense of their beliefs.

Many became refugees. When the military occupation of Boston ended in March 1776 with the evacuation of the British forces, some 1,100 Boston Loyalists and their families were forced to go with them. Abigail Adams, watching from her farm at the foot of Penn's Hill, witnessed the departure of what she called the "largest fleet ever seen in America." The ships carried away much of the population of Boston's North End, permanently changing the character of what had been a keenly Loyalist neighborhood. Many of the American dissenters fled to Nova Scotia or the West Indies; others sailed, unwillingly, to England. Few ever saw their homes again.

This Fourth of July arrives amid an atmosphere of bitter political and ideological turmoil in the United States. From deep within their respective echo chambers, left-wing and right-wing Americans, egged on by shameless politicians, shallow celebrities, and media demagogues, hurl invective at anyone who doesn't share their priorities or vote the way they do. Not for the first time in our history, countless Americans have abandoned any effort to disagree without being disagreeable, to debate those with an opposing worldview rather than demonize them.

Perhaps it is ahistorical thinking to expect anything else in a nation as big and diverse and opinionated as this one. Perhaps America will manage, as it has managed in the past, to get through the current storms without foundering and to recover the optimism and tolerance that are indispensable to decent self-government.

But on this Independence Day, it would not hurt us to remember how much sorrow and suffering can result from a refusal to countenance other points of view.

That first civil war shattered families whose members could not see eye to eye on the question of independence. Benjamin Franklin dearly loved his only son, William, who in 1762 was appointed royal governor of New Jersey largely through his father's influence. But with the advent of the Revolution in 1775, the son remained loyal to the king. That was a decision his father deemed unforgivable.

When the Continental Congress declared William "a virulent enemy to the people of this country," he was seized by Patriot militiamen and locked in solitary confinement. "I suffer so much in being buried alive, having no one to speak to day or night . . . that I should deem it a favor to be immediately taken out and shot," William wrote. His father refused to intervene. Eventually, like so many other Loyalists, William was forced to leave his homeland for England. When the war ended, he pleaded with his father for reconciliation. But Benjamin Franklin was unbending.

The pitiless fracturing of the Franklin family was anything but unique. Throughout the colonies, Loyalists and Patriots who had been fellow citizens, friends, and family clashed. Americans loyal to Britain engaged in spying, propaganda, and local insurrections to undermine the Patriot efforts. Congress retaliated. Thousands of Loyalists were denied basic rights. Many were disarmed and arrested, stripped of their property, or sentenced to forced labor. Some Loyalists were kidnapped and held as hostages. Others were ordered to take an oath of loyalty to the Patriot cause; those who refused were expelled from their jobs. Even worse, Acts of Banishment passed by Patriot legislators forced thousands of Loyalists to flee.

All told, between 60,000 and 80,000 Americans who supported the king were driven from the country. Most were never compensated for their losses and never permitted to return. Many ended their days in poverty. Yet there was no end of Loyalists who never ceased to think of themselves as Americans. "I would rather die in a little country farmhouse in New England," wrote Thomas Hutchinson, a Boston native who became governor of Massachusetts but was forced to spend his last years in exile, "than in the best nobleman's seat in Old England."

In the end, of course, the Patriots secured their independence. America grew into the world's foremost superpower, one that still strives, however imperfectly, to be a land of the free. But we ought not to forget that part of the price of American sovereignty was the loss of innumerable men and women who were thrown out of their country because their politics differed from their neighbors'.

America's first and second civil wars were terrible. Are we heading for a third? Or can we still find a way to pull back from the brink? "Crown thy good with brotherhood," implores the most beloved of American hymns. It isn't too late to make it happen. Yet.


New Model Penal Code Is Setback for Victims of Sex Crimes

The American Law Institute last month chose to unravel decades of progress that prosecutors, law enforcement, and victims’ advocates have made in the fight against human trafficking, online exploitation of children, and sexual abuse and assault.

The institute did so over the strong objections of those who prosecute sex crimes and those who work with victims, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National District Attorneys Association, and a bipartisan coalition of two-thirds of state attorneys general.

First established in 1923, the American Law Institute was formed by prominent lawyers, jurists, and legal scholars “to promote the clarification and simplification of the law.” It published its first Model Penal Code in 1962, a work which has had and continues to have significant influence on American criminal law, though it had never been updated in the decades since.

Only a handful of states have not adopted the Model Penal Code in whole or in part, but its influence remains clear even in those limited instances, and legislators and members of Congress often look to the Model Penal Code for proposed changes to criminal law. Indeed, it’s a standard of criminal law taught in law schools across the country. It’s also an oft-cited persuasive authority by state and federal courts.

The words American Law Institute members choose to incorporate in the code have very real consequences for those who may be or may become victims of crime. Yet, of the 470 members in attendance for voting last month on changes to Article 213, “Sexual Assault and Related Offenses,” more than 40% practice law in academia, at a law school, university, or college.

The changes they approved evidence a lack of real world understanding of prosecuting these crimes and working with victims.

For instance, they all but nullify effective use of the Sex Offender Registry to keep people, particularly children, safe from sexual abuse, assault, and exploitation. Since Washington state passed the first law authorizing public notification of sex offenders living in the community in 1990, states and Congress have consistently expanded use of this tool.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed Megan’s Law, giving states broad discretion for notifying the public when a sex offender is released into their communities. Megan’s Law takes its name from a 7-year-old New Jersey girl who was raped and murdered by a neighbor who had two prior convictions for sexually assaulting young girls.

In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the creation of a publicly accessible, online national sex offender database, maintained by the Department of Justice, that allows the public to search across state lines. The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website is named for a 22-year-old student at the University of North Dakota who was abducted in Grand Forks, raped, beaten, stabbed, and found dead in a ravine nearby in neighboring Minnesota.

The man convicted for her murder was classified by Minnesota as a Level 3 sex offender, meaning the state considered him likely to reoffend. He had served a 23-year sentence and was released from prison without restriction just six months before Sjodin was taken while walking to her car in a mall parking lot.

In 2016, President Barack Obama signed International Megan’s Law, requiring registered sex offenders to notify their local registry of travel abroad. Decade after decade, Congress and presidents in a rare showing of bipartisanship have worked to make the sex offender registry a stronger, more effective tool for transparency and public safety.

This work recognizes a common interest in empowering the public, safeguarding the innocent against becoming victims, and helping law enforcement protect the public from predators. The American Law Institute’s new Model Penal Code, however, stands in stark contrast by making the registry generally unavailable to the public, and that includes organizations conducting background checks for employment or volunteer positions that involve interacting with children.

The American Law Institute’s work will make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes, to obtain justice for victims, and to protect the public from sexual predators, without any clear corresponding improvements in criminal justice.

It reverses the years of progress we have made in fighting the growing international criminal industry of human trafficking. This Model Penal Code is out of step with contemporary American law as practiced by prosecutors and law enforcement, and it’s the American people who will pay the price.


Australia: Young clubber tells The Project it's her 'human right' to have traditional face tattoos after staff refused to let her into a bar because of her ink: 'This is our culture'

What a lot of nonsense! She is about as Melanesian as I am. And I have known real Melanesians since my childhood -- and none that I knew wore any tattoos at all. She is just a white attention-seeker. Melanesians have dark skin, sometimes very dark. She looks nothing like a Melanesian

image from

A young woman who was refused entry to a nightclub because of her cultural face tattoos says having her ink is her 'human right'.

Moale James, 23, who has Papua New Guinean heritage, was celebrating her partner's birthday by heading out to Brisbane's nightclub precinct in Fortitude Valley on Sunday morning.

But she soon found herself turned away from popular Latin American club Hey Chica! after security guards took issue with her traditional tattoos.

Ms James later took to Facebook to slam the 'racist and discriminatory' treatment she received.

Now, speaking to The Project, she explained why her markings are so important to her.

'There are so many groups of diverse people here that I live with and a very big Pacific Islander population in Queensland, and there's a lot of us that are wanting to practice culture, including marking our skin.

'We need to be reviewing policies and legislation that are not reflective of our community. We shouldn't have to assimilate, this is our culture and we should be allowed to practice it freely.

'It's a human right to do that so the laws that we live in should also reflect that, and they should reflect the community.'

Ms James says she 'wants to make some noise' for people who want to represent their cultural heritage.

'We went across the road to a different venue and the security guard there, all my friends said, are you going to let her in? Like look at her license, look at her.

'She looked at me and she said, "why wouldn't I let you in? We actually aren't allowed to discriminate and categorize you based on obviously what our cultural marks".

'And so we went and we spent the rest of the night in that venue.

'Now we're here trying to make some noise for anyone else that might proudly wear the marks of their ancestors too, change the legislation and liquor acts that might try to prevent us from practicing our culture.'

On the Hey Chica! website, its outline strict dress regulations.

'Dress to impress, smart casual is best, closed in shoes are a must. No face, neck or hand tattoos. Entry is at the discretion of the door host or management, dress code may vary for special events. For more information on dress regulations please contact us before your visit,' it reads.

Ms James has taken a stand saying she will be speaking with her local member about the 'rule' dictating that face tattoos are affiliated with gangs, and how this must be changed to reflect the diverse community.

She also said she expects a written apology from the venue.

In a private message to Ms James, which she shared on Facebook, the club apologised for the 'unintended distress' it caused but stood by its policy.

'Thank you for sharing your experience and for your understanding that the staff at Hey Chica! were following procedure,' the message said.

'While we appreciate that our rule has caused you unintended distress, we do enforce a blanket policy that prohibits head and face tattoos at Hey Chica! alongside other conditions of entry. While we understand this is a strict policy, we will continue to enforce this under the Liquor Act.'

Under Queensland's liquor laws, venues face penalties if they don't take reasonable steps to refuse people wearing items associated with criminal organisations including bikie gangs.

Talking to the ABC, Ms James said the tattoos are marks handed down through generations and were from her great-grandmother dating back to when her village was established.

She went onto say the chief of the village asked his daughters to carry the marks and their stories on their skin, a request which has echoed through generations.

'They hold great spiritual and ancestral value to me and my community,' she said.

After being turned away from the club, Ms James said she went to members of her community who are lawyers, and found out the club can refuse entry and service to people - but as long as it is not discriminatory.

'The fact that I was clumped into a group of people that are thugs, gang members, dangerous criminals, that is not my story,' Ms James said.

'I went back and I said, "these are cultural and what are you going to do about that?" And no response.'

Ms James says she just people to hear her story and change their point of view on facial tattoos.

She also hopes the venue reviews its policy, but at the very least educates those who made the rules to change the way they think about people who wear their marks with pride.




No comments: