Germany notifies the EU it will bring in controls on ALL land borders

Reality dawns in the wake of the recent big vote for the AFD

Germany will bring in controls on all its land borders to deal with the 'continuing burden' of migration and 'Islamist terrorism', the country's interior minister has told the EU.

Nancy Faeser of the struggling Social Democrat party (SPD) has finally accepted that Germany has no choice but to enforce proper border controls if it has any hope of coping with the staggering amount of unauthorised entries.

According to German newspaper Bild, the new rules will see 'harsh rejections of migrants at the borders'.

Faeser has reportedly already informed the EU Commission of the decision, which is fuelled by deep-rooted panic over Germany's current migrant situation and internal security threats.

It marks, however, a U-turn from her stance just last month when she refused to extend strict controls first introduced last year on Germany's borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.

This policy has already seen more than 30,000 people turned back at the borders since mid-October last year amid concerns over the rise in first-time asylum requests.

Now the rules will be applied across the length of Germany's 2,300-mile land border with Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland.

The latest action comes shortly after an 'emergency' migration meeting between the conservative CDU/CSU parliamentary group and regional representatives, where discussions focused on tightening immigration policies.

Austria, however has not welcomed the development, saying it would not accept any migrants turned away at the border.

'There's no room for manoeuvre there,' Austria's Foreign Minister Gerhard Karner told Bild. 'It's the law. I have directed the Head of the federal police to not allow any returns,' he added.

Concerns about immigration have already been pushed to the forefront of German politics, heightened by a series of attacks carried out by Islamists, most recently in Solingen.

The German government has also been facing increased pressure to respond to migration as support for right-wing party, the AfD has rapidly gathered pace.

And at the end of last month Germany's police union announced that Schengen was making Germany's security crisis even worse and must be abandoned immediately.

Manuel Ostermann, deputy federal chairman of the Federal Police Union, has launched a fierce condemnation of Schengen, the EU's hair-brained border-free scheme, in an interview with Focus magazine.

'The crisis in Germany's security is a direct consequence of Schengen's ineffective policies. Schengen's inability to manage migration effectively has put Germany's safety at stake.'

'Germany must realize the current failure of Schengen and either make a concerted effort to return to the current legal situation or terminate Schengen,'

Here he pointed to the rising crime rates in Germany, exacerbated by the migration crisis, as proof that Schengen is no longer viable.

He said Schengen's open borders have made it easier for criminals to operate across Europe, impacting Germany's safety.

'Schengen has failed to protect Germany from the influx of criminals, necessitating immediate action.'

'We must continue to notify our internal borders because border controls, whose effectiveness has been proven, are no longer maintained under Schengen.

'The failure of Schengen is evident in the increased crime rates, making it clear that changes are needed.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13830071/Germany-EU-border-controls-Islamic-extremism.html

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

Why have we allowed the woke elites to declare war on history, our values - and on America itself, asks FRANK FUREDI

`It was almost 9pm in Portland, Oregon, when the police department warned that a mob was gathering on a corner of Southwest Park Avenue.

This was October 2020, and American streets were still ablaze from the Black Lives Matter rioting that followed the murder of George Floyd.

‘Some are trying to pull down a statue with a chain,’ said a tweet from the authorities. And quite a statue it proved to be.

Within an hour, the revered figure of Abraham Lincoln, the founding father of modern America, had been hauled from his plinth – assassinated for a second time.

A telling new low in the culture wars that today engulf America and the west, this mindless act of vandalism was, for me, the moment that crystalized the terrible danger we now face.

The past itself is under attack.

We are witnessing nothing short of a war on history, a moral crusade which seeks to make people ashamed of their origins and who they are.

Nowhere is this crusade more aggressively pursued than in the United States of America and nowhere are the consequences more wide-reaching and destructive. The tentacles have reached into every corner of education and public life, as I explain in my new book.

The importance of Lincoln in all this can hardly be overstated.

Born in a log cabin in Kentucky, he rose to become not just the 16th President but among the most consequential of all to hold that office.

It was Lincoln who invoked ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ in his Gettysburg address.

A prominent opponent of slavery (for which he was gunned down), Lincoln is a hero, surely, to all reasonable Americans who believe that black lives matter.

Yet not, it seems, to the rioters who desecrated his memory and not to their fellow travelers among the liberal elite.

Today, it’s these cultural commissars – those who dominate the seats of learning and the media – who drive this narrative of hate against America’s achievements and its legacy.

Often, they do so through the pages of their favorite mouthpiece, The New York Times.

It is the Times which sponsors, the 1619 Project, for example, a program instructing children that the American Revolution was not so much a war of independence as an act of great selfishness to preserve the racial oppression of exploited peoples.

Taking its name from the year the first recorded slave ship arrived in Virginia, the project is enthusiastically endorsed by online influencers, by the leaders of America’s cultural industry and by celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey.

The power of such people helps explain why so many children have been brainwashed through anti-American indoctrination.

Books that remind children of the positive features of history have been taken off school shelves. So have masterpieces including The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

Libraries have taken objection to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s depiction of native Americans in her Little House on the Prairie books. In 2018, the American Library Association retrospectively cancelled her lifetime achievement award.

These are no mere details. When books are cancelled by libraries, they are rendered invisible to future generations.

Instead, our past is relentlessly demonized as a story of shame. Inspiring human achievements are routinely downplayed or called into question – part of what the Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey has called the ‘Black Armband’ view of history, invoking a past haunted by abuse and exploitation. History, in this view, is malevolent and the hold it exerts perpetuates oppression and misery.

Academics such as Professor Robert Meister of the University of California, Santa Cruz, have stated it directly: the ‘past is evil’.

If attacking the memory of Lincoln was egregious, an official decision to smear the 1776 Declaration of Independence is bewildering.

Executives from Washington’s National Archives, where the document is displayed, are critical of the language used to describe the indigenous population of the time.

So, it’s been disfigured by a trigger warning telling visitors that views expressed in the Declaration are ‘outdated, biased and offensive’.

This might seem unnecessary, bizarre even, as almost anything produced in the 18th century is likely to be outdated. But it’s worse than that. This sour commentary is misleading and destructive.

The Declaration of Independence was way ahead of its time, a document that would inspire independence movements for centuries to come.

Written mainly by Thomas Jefferson and famous for its insistence that ‘all men are created equal and possess certain inalienable rights’, it is, arguably, the foundation document of America itself. A blow for liberty around the world. Far from being outdated, the Declaration retains its relevance today.

By treating its content as ‘biased and offensive’, America’s official National Archives imply that the very creation of the United States was flawed. Everything that has followed since must, presumably, bear the same sinister hallmark.

And, yes, that is very much the view of those now trying to tear down America and the West.

The harm done by vandalizing the past in this way is all too evident. Young people, the human casualties, are growing up with a weak and troubled sense of connection with what preceded them.

We must remember how to learn from those whose footsteps we are following and embrace their achievements – if we are not to lose an entire generation to ignorance and falsehood.

We must counter this malevolent crusade, this war on history.

And we should take note of Winston Churchill’s prescient warning: ‘a nation that forgets its past has no future’.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13829883/woke-elites-declare-war-history-FRANK-FUREDI.html

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

The BBC has been CAPTURED by radical gender ideology

“The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output”. So says Section 4 of its Editorial Guidelines. If only this were true. Unfortunately, like the Financial Times, which I looked at last week, our national broadcaster, now also worships the cult-like religion that is radical gender ideology. And many of us have the privilege of paying £169.50 every year to watch the BBC embrace this dogma.

Don’t believe me?

Here are some of the most shocking examples of the BBC actively promoting radical gender ideology and throwing impartiality completely under the bus.

When looking at journalistic ethics, what better place to start than the BBC’s own editorial “style guide”, which instructs BBC staff how to present coverage.

Here, BBC journalists are told:

“a person born male who lives as a female would typically be described as a transgender woman … we generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question”.

This one line alone signifies that the BBC is clearly content to completely disregard factual reporting based on reality.

For example, just a few weeks ago, there was significant international coverage of the grooming allegations made against MrBeast’s co-host, Ava Kris Tyson.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with MrBeast, he is a social media celebrity, with one of the largest online followings in the world.

Now, let’s make one thing clear, Ava Kris Tyson is a man. He had a wife and fathered a child. Then, in 2023, he decided to ‘transition’.

Yet, in line with the ‘style guide’, the BBC chose to refer to Tyson as a woman, writing: “MrBeast’s YouTube co-host Ava Kris Tyson has quit the channel after grooming allegations, which she denies”.

Here is a man, who claims he is a woman, accused of sexually grooming a young child. Yet, the BBC appears more concerned with using his preferred pronouns.

We witnessed more of this gender madness at the recent Paris Olympics, not to mention many other shocking examples of how it is being embraced by the BBC.

During BBC coverage of the women’s shotput, the commentator introduced one of the competitors, Raven Saunders —donning a mask and rainbow-coloured hair— saying “it’s good to see her back”. However, he was promptly corrected by his co-host, who said: “they are actually non-binary”.

If they’re not a woman, why are they in the women’s competition? This is something that went unanswered by the BBC commentator who, again, was clearly more concerned with getting pronouns right.

Such an embarrassing approach to journalism has even culminated, on multiple occasions, in the BBC using the ‘preferred female pronouns’ of male rapists and on one occasion even changing a rape victim’s quotes to avoid ‘misgendering’ her rapist.

This is utterly disgraceful. But it gets worse —a lot worse.

Remarkably, the BBC’s obsession with ideological language has even infiltrated recruitment procedures.

For those who wish to apply for a job there, they are forced to answer questions, including: “What is your Gender Identity?” and “Do you identify as trans/transgender”?

What the BBC considers newsworthy is also extremely telling.

With significant division and unrest around the country, including a spate of recent fatal stabbings, the BBC still found the time to report on an ‘incident’ in which someone had covered a pavement Pride flag in Forest Gate with white paint, describing the incident as “traumatising”.

When it comes to BBC Dramas, we’ve also witnessed a phenomenon in which ‘LGBTQ+’ characters are shoe-horned into programmes for no reason other than mindless virtue-signalling.

For example, it was recently announced that BBC’s Sherwood would be getting a makeover and would now feature a “young, queer and female” Sheriff of Nottingham.

More concerning is when the BBC seeks to impose moral supremacy over its viewers

https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/the-bbc-has-been-captured-by-radical ?

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

Australia: NT plan to lower age of criminal responsibility to 10 could contribute to ‘child jail crisis’, advocate says

Behind this is the tremendous nuisance caused by Aboriginal [black] boys. They do a lot of breakins and car stealings and make streets in some important NT cities -- such as Alice Springs -- unsafe at night

The Country Liberal party’s plan to lower the age of criminal responsibility back to 10 in the Northern Territory is “really concerning” and part of a “tragic shift” towards more punitive policies nationwide, the head of Indigenous legal services has said.

Karly Warner, chair of National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, is warning that such policies will result in a “child jail crisis” and should be undone or at least accompanied by greater investment in proper prevention programs.

Warner, who is going to Canberra to lobby the Albanese government this week, said it was the responsibility of “all attorneys” to ensure that “really regressive law and order policies” that harm children do not get enacted.

After a landslide victory in the August Northern Territory election, Lia Finocchiaro has promised to overhaul justice policies with repeat and violent alleged offenders to be refused bail and the age of criminal responsibility lowered again to 10.

Warner told Guardian Australia: “Wherever we are around country, there are absolutely signs of a tragic shift back to these punitive policies that obviously lead to more children in jail and more dangerous communities.

“[But] the signal from the new NT government, particularly around abandoning what is set in legislation for the minimum age of criminal responsibility, is really concerning.”

She added: “Law and order posturing about punishment is absolutely not the thing that will create safer communities”.

“They can implement evidence-based policies that will actually make our communities safer … or they can implement policies, look tough in response and create an environment and Northern Territory where crime will thrive.”

Warner cited other examples including: the Queensland government suspending its Human Rights Act to imprison children in police watch houses for adults; the Victorian government backflipping on a commitment to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14; and New South Wales bail laws.

Warner said the “dangerous” NSW bail laws would see “more children locked up in jails rather than getting the supports they need” and instead facing an “apprenticeship of crime in youth prisons”.

“We fear the worst when it comes to children in custody. We are already seeing an increase, and recent history tells us that the outcomes will be unimaginable and tragic.

“We are extremely concerned that the proven programs that actually work to prevent crime – which have never been properly supported or funded – will now be even further deprioritised.”

After national cabinet on Friday, the Albanese government announced a five-year $3.9bn national legal assistance partnership, which is $800m more than the previous agreement.

Warner said the funding announcement was “incredibly appealing” but argued it amounted to $500m, or just $100m a year more than its predecessor, once the $300m for indexation and pay parity was accounted for.

“There is no way [that] goes even close to hitting the sides of the phenomenal demands of the legal assistance sector.”

In question time on Monday the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said the package was “the biggest single investment by the commonwealth in the legal assistance sector, ever”.

“Community legal centres, including women’s legal centres, are currently turning away up to 1,000 people per day,” he said. “This investment in legal assistance will ensure that those services can help more Australians.”

Dreyfus said it was “very significant” that the package included “a commitment to ongoing funding”, arguing this would give “confidence for the future” after “the Liberals oversaw a decade of chronic underfunding”.

The independent senator Lidia Thorpe noted the commitment “falls short” of the independent Mundy review call for an additional $459ma year to be provided as a floor from 2025 onwards.

Thorpe said the announcement was “smoke and mirrors” and “mostly a rebrand of existing funding arrangements”.

“Labor’s ongoing failure to properly fund these services will see First Peoples women, children and other vulnerable groups without access to life-saving legal services.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/sep/10/nt-age-of-criminal-responsibility-lowered-10-impact#:~:text=After%20a%20landslide%20victory%20in,responsibility%20lowered%20again%20to%2010 .

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

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

The Deadliest Crack In Kamala’s Campaign Just Burst Wide Open

Vice President Kamala Harris has around 60 days left in this election to win over the American voter, but her campaign’s biggest obstacle just blocked her path.

The latest job numbers expose her fraudulent border policies and reveal just how bad her administration has been for native-born Americans in both the economy and illegal immigration.

It’s not a secret that the economy and illegal immigration are the thorn in the side of Harris’s campaign. Both issues have consistently ranked at the top of the priority list among voters for almost a decade. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) admit that there have been around 10-11 million illegal immigrants entering the country without authorization in the last four years. That number is just an estimate and does not in any way account for the millions more who come in undetected.

Harris knows this is an issue, which is why her campaign has shifted to attempting to portray her as the candidate who will be strong on the border. Her recent ad shows her standing in front of the border wall (which ironically was built by former President Donald Trump), and her campaign speeches revolve around her supposed plans to attack illegal immigration. (Biden, CNN Revive Desperate Tactic To Help Kamala Win Election)

A recent St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank study isolated data of native-born female and male workers against that of foreign-born men and women. The graph is alarming. According to the St. Louis Fed, while native-born workers have seen a steady decline in employment rates, after a massive decrease in 2020, they never fully recovered to pre-pandemic numbers. On the other hand, male foreign-born workers have fully recovered and have employment rates well above native-born Americans.

An Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank analysis of Census Bureau survey data found that the majority of these immigrants are illegal immigrants who have recently arrived in the country. The Atlanta FRED goes on to say that illegal immigrants are indeed weakening the labor market and that it will continue to trend down for Americans as the large inflows of immigrants persist. (ROOKE: Trump’s Secret Weapon To Win Gen Z Out From Under Nose Of Political Establishment)

“The documented patterns by years of immigration have important implications for the labor market. First, they imply that ignoring the distinct labor-supply behavior between newly immigrated workers and natives overstates the true impact on the labor market of the recent increase in immigration flow,” the Atlanta FRED states. “Second, going forward, they imply that the large inflows of immigrants since the pandemic will continue to weaken the labor market in the next few years as these immigrants will likely increase their labor supply gradually after arriving.”

While the August jobs report showed the country gained over 168,000 employed workers in the last month, it’s not what it seems. Most of these jobs were part-time, with 527,000 gained in August, while Americans lost almost 500,000 full-time positions.

To dive in even further, over 1.2 million native-born Americans lost full-time positions in the past year. At the same time, foreign-born workers, who we now know are predominantly illegal immigrants, gained 1.2 million jobs during that same time

Under the Biden-Harris administration, our country is hemorrhaging high-paying full-time jobs with benefits like 401 (k) and medical. It’s a sign that our country is hurting. Our middle class is being depleted, and Harris’s idea of help is to talk about price gouging and communist-style price controls, which will only continue to erase the middle class and further the transfer of wealth to the top 1%.

When there is no hope of ever obtaining the American Dream, voters will look for change.

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/06/rooke-foreign-workers-native-born-kamala-harris/

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

Israel bears the brunt of false wartime claims

Much of the world’s media is judging Israel by standards no other country could meet.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial last Tuesday about the murder of six young Israeli hostages held in Gaza since the October 7 massacre said it all: “Hamas Murders Hostages, Israel Is Blamed”.

In Australia, the painfully politically correct Nine newspapers’ cartoonist Cathy Wilcox nailed – unintentionally – the hypocrisy of the anti-Israel left. Around Wilcox’s Israeli cabinet table drawing, which was published by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age last week, one minister says: “The people are protesting in the streets! They want us to bring an end to the conflict before more hostages are killed.” Another minister responds: “What can we do?”

Benjamin Netanyahu asks: “Punish the Palestinians a little harder?”

The protesters, of course, are not demanding the end of the war at all, but are wanting Netanyahu to prioritise freeing the hostages by accepting Hamas’s demands.

In this world view, Israel is always in the wrong, even when six young hostages held in a tunnel under Rafah are shot in the back of the head because Israel’s troops are approaching. But before the bullets they are made to film statements for their loved ones to be released later by their captors.

Never mind Israel left Gaza in 2005, or that its sovereign territory was invaded on October 7, and 1200 of its innocent civilians were murdered – many sexually defiled, some burned alive, others having their heads cut off.

And let’s not forget that 240 more, many who were enjoying a music festival for peace, were taken as hostages into the tunnels of a terror organisation.

In the eyes of the left, Israel is wrong to retaliate. It is a colonial power even though Jews have always lived in Israel, and Palestine and Judaism predates the Islam of Hamas by 2000 years.

Israel’s critics never argue the moral point. Palestinian deaths in Gaza would end if Hamas – a terror organisation with similar origins to ISIS – surrendered.

Even US President Joe Biden last week reserved his public criticism for Netanyahu over his perceived reluctance to accept a ceasefire but said nothing about Hamas’s cold-blooded murders.

The day before the WSJ hostage editorial, the Israel Defence Forces killed eight terrorists hiding near the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City.

The Times of Israel reported one of the Hamas fighters was Ahmed Fawzi Nasser Muhammad Wadiyya, a Hamas company commander who led the invasion of the small community of Netiv Ha’asara on October 7.

This was the terrorist seen on film drinking Coke from the fridge of the Taasa family, “moments after killing Gil Taasa, 46, in front of his sons, Koren, 12, and Shay, 8”.

Gil died when he jumped on a Hamas grenade to save his boys by giving them time to flee to their safe room.

While protesters in Tel Aviv desperately want the return of their hostages, Netanyahu, the IDF and the secret services have larger duties: to protect Israel from further attacks.

This column last October 14 spoke about meeting Yitzhak Rabin and PLO deputy leader Faisal Husseini in 1992 as the PLO and the Labour PM worked on a two-state solution the Palestinians have been offered several times since but have never accepted.

That column predicted Israel would struggle most in the months to come with “not bowing to the blackmail of hostage-taking”. Israel, a home to holocaust survivors, has tried to rescue every captured Jew since the Entebbe mission led by Netanyahu’s brother, Yonatan, in 1976.

Bret Stephens in The New York Times on September 3 described Israel’s hostage dilemma perfectly. Gilad Shalit, a soldier captured by Hamas and held in Gaza in 2006, was released five years later – in total exchange for 1000 Palestinian security prisoners held by Israel.

Netanyahu approved that deal. Among those released was Yahya Sinwar, mastermind of October 7 and now head of Hamas after Israel’s assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the previous Hamas leader, in Tehran on July 31.

Some in Israel’s government, the protesters in Tel Aviv and a few foreign policy analysts argue Israel should do whatever is necessary to achieve a truce to free its hostages, even withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor between Gaza and Egypt. This could allow the resupply of Gaza with weapons smuggled from the south.

Those pushing the ceasefire agenda argue Israel’s biggest success to date came with the release of 70 hostages during the previous ceasefire in November. While the IDF has freed some Hamas captives in targeted actions, the military has been less successful than diplomacy.

Yet not all is going as badly for Israel as some in the media suggest – too often taking their lines from Hamas’s backers at Al-Jazeera. In fact, Sinwar, who had hoped to precipitate a regional war, is almost certainly disappointed at the limited strike by Hezbollah on Israel a fortnight ago and Iran’s reticence to hit Israel directly after Haniyeh’s assassination.

The Jerusalem Post’s David Ben-Basat on August 27 wrote: “Sinwar … who is well aware his time is running out will not agree to any deal that does not involve significant withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah Crossing along with assurances from the US and Israel that he will not be assassinated.”

Netanyahu will be cautious about giving Sinwar anything, given the IDF has killed 17,000 Hamas fighters but paid with the loss of 704 IDF personnel.

Ben-Basat continued: “The Palestinians, who have turned their self-victimisation into nationalism, use the Al-Jazeera news network to showcase the ruins of Gaza … to the world.”

The reliance of Western media on Al-Jazeera has allowed terrorists to pose as journalists, pumping out false claims about civilian starvation and total death numbers and creating the idea the only democracy in the Middle East is populated by evil racists while a medieval death cult committed to the subjugation of women, the murder of homosexuals and the destruction of Israel is a force of freedom fighters.

Camera, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, has extracted some corrections and apologies from large US media groups in the past month.

The New York Times on August 12 corrected an opinion piece that claimed Israel had imposed “a blanket blockade on food entering Gaza”. Camera pointed out that on August 7, the day before the publication of the false blockade story, 158 aid trucks entered Gaza. On August 8, 271 trucks of humanitarian aid crossed into the city.

In July, 4629 trucks with 23,240 tonnes of food entered Gaza. In fact, as this column reported on April 7, food supplies have been higher than before the war, even using UN figures.

Camera said an average of 150 trucks a day of aid and food had entered Gaza since October 7, compared with 75.3 trucks a day in the nine months before October 7.

On casualties, Camera reported on August 21 that 80 separate US news outlets had published a correction in which Associated Press admitted claims of 40,000 Palestinian civilian deaths should have mentioned that this number, which the IDF does not accept, actually includes 17,000 dead Hamas fighters. The total figure is supplied by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health ministry.

Don’t expect our ABC to correct that, or false claims about starving Gazans.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/israel-bears-the-brunt-of-false-wartime-claims/news-story/903c2a5e38ad0ddf650d139e801fbdec

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

California Took Away a Widow’s Teenage Daughter to Transition Her

A mother in California lost her daughter to the foster care system in 2016 after she wouldn’t support the then-14-year-old girl identifying as a boy.

“I lost my husband, but this was worse than losing my husband, because I had my rights taken away,” the mother told The Daily Signal.

Years later, the daughter regrets attempting to transition, and her mother warns other parents against allowing minors to make irreversible changes to their bodies.

The mother of two, whose husband had died years earlier, was accused of emotional abuse for forbidding her teenage daughter from binding her chest and wearing male clothes. Her daughter was taken from the family and placed in a foster home for a few months.

“It was incredibly hard,” said the mom, who asked to remain anonymous to protect the privacy of her daughter. “I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.”

The Daily Signal reviewed Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services documentation in which a social worker, referring to the then-14-year-old with he/him pronouns and a male name, details the daughter’s time in foster care, her accusations of emotional abuse against her mother, and her later renunciation of the claims.

The mother had to hire lawyers to regain custody of her daughter and clear her name of the abuse charges. The charges would have disqualified her from continuing to pursue a career as a Christian counselor.

After a few months in a packed foster home in a dangerous neighborhood, the daughter asked to come home. She admitted to lying about the abuse, saying that she got the idea to accuse her mother of abuse from people online who said that was the ticket to getting away from her family.

“The process of getting her back, it was pretty difficult,” the mother said.

“She even admitted it to me later that she was influenced by people online who said you need to get out of your house if she’s not going to let you do what you want to do,” she continued.

The mother hired two attorneys to get her teenager back and clear her name. She said she felt like Child Protective Services was looking for reasons to tear her family apart.

“It was not about reunification,” she said. “It was more about, what can we do to this family to destroy them?”

After the daughter returned home, she called social workers on her mother a few more times, accusing her mom of abuse for refusing to buy her male clothing. The mother received a California Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) violation for declining to take her daughter to a program at the Los Angeles LGBT Center for LGBTQ+ youths ages 2-25 called Rise.

“I wasn’t feeling like that was really helping her, going to that center, because even when she was going to the center, I found that she was connecting with other kids, and her demeanor was even worse, even more rebellious, even more defiant,” the mother said. “I made the call. I’m not going to drive you there. And that’s when the social worker wanted to interview me, and because I didn’t do that, I immediately got a second hit for emotional abuse.”

“I just found it really crazy that they could deem that as emotionally abusive, just trying to discipline your child,” she continued.

At age 17, the daughter admitted to getting a prescription for testosterone from a therapist behind her mom’s back. She took it for a few days, but she told her mom she felt God was telling her to stop.

The mom said she couldn’t have gotten through the difficult time without her faith community. She left California a few years ago, partially because of how her parental rights were disrespected there.

“Once this was all resolved, I thought I had to get out of California, as much as it was home to me, and still is, to some point,” she said. “I didn’t feel safe there raising my daughter anymore.”

This is not the first time the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has taken a daughter away from her mother over transgender ideology. DCFS placed 16-year-old Yaeli Martinez in foster care after her devout Christian mother, Abby, expressed concerns over her daughter “transitioning” to a boy.

The government accused Abby Martinez of abuse and permitted her only brief meetings with her daughter weekly. Yaeli committed suicide three years later.

“My daughter was murdered by gender ideology,” Martinez said in a testimony before the California Senate Judiciary Committee in 2023.

The anonymous mother told The Daily Signal that in states like California and Minnesota, to which the family has since moved, “a parent does not have the rights to parent their kid or guide them from things that could be potentially harming.”

“It’s very concerning because parents’ role is to guide their children the best they can in a healthy manner,” she said, “and giving a 14-year-old those rights, it doesn’t make sense to me.”

The mother referred to a May 2023 bill signed by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz—currently running as the Democratic vice presidential nominee—that allows kids to travel to Minnesota and receive medical interventions without parental knowledge or consent and to a 2013 California law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” in schools.

In mid-July, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed Assembly Bill 1955, which barred school districts from requiring that parents be informed of their child’s gender identity.

The mother told The Daily Signal she was very concerned about the health risks of chest binding. She told her daughter it could permanently damage her body. Chest binding can cause tissue and rib damage, hormone imbalances, and breathing issues.

According to the mother, social media played a huge role in her daughter’s decision to identify as a boy.

“I think if there wasn’t social media, we wouldn’t be having this conversation,” she said. “There’s just so many things that they can get into through social media and the internet.”

Although the road has not been easy, the mom and daughter—now 22 years old—have a good relationship now.

“She regrets it, what she put me through,” the mother said. “She’s sorry that she did.”

Now, the mother urges other parents in similar situations to limit their children’s phone usage, find support systems, and never give up on their families.

“Just keep fighting,” she said. “That’s what I did. I just kept fighting.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/08/taken-california-stole-widows-daughter-transition/

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

‘Big trouble’: Australian Farmers to descend on Canberra to protest live sheep export ban

Federal pandering to "animal welfare" groups at work

Anthony Albanese has been accused of “kicking agriculture in the guts” as farmers prepare to descend on parliament house to protest Labor’s live sheep export ban.

The Prime Minister this week insisted the ban, which has sparked outrage from the farming industry but was welcomed by animal rights groups, would go ahead and would not be revisited.

The Export Control Amendment Bill 2024, presented to the public in May this year and passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate, will phase out the live export of sheep over four years by May 1, 2028 and offer affected farmers a $107 million “transition package”.

Desperate farmers are now “having to make business decisions about their merino flock”, with backlogged abattoirs unable to process the animals, according to WA livestock truckie Ben Sutherland, vice president of the Livestock and Rural Transport Association of Western Australia and key spokesperson of the Keep the Sheep campaign.

“The merino job is in big trouble, they’re taking flock reductions here … [the financial impact] has been absolutely massive,” he said.

“They’ve been taking a hit for the last month, especially with lamb prices, mutton prices at some of their all-time lows. It’s really hard to get rid of sheep through abattoirs. Some people are overstocked by 10 to 15 per cent still and they’re needing to reduce sheep numbers. Things are not looking great.”

Nationals leader David Littleproud said in July, after the ban was passed by parliament, that there were already anecdotes of farmers shooting their sheep, which they believe will be rendered “worthless” by the bill.

“That’s at the feet of Anthony Albanese, RSPCA and Animals Australia – dead sheep in paddocks – from farmers who are desperate and can’t afford to [process them locally],” he said.

Mr Sutherland said the farming community was “disheartened” by the decision, which was already having ripple effects through the WA industry after a dry start to the year.

“As a transporter, 30 per cent of our annual bottom line is starting to happen now,” he said.

“At the moment I’d say we’re in the tightest margins we’ve ever seen. We’re only at 2 to 3 per cent, that’s likely to go to 1.2 to 2 per cent. It’s not good, especially with rising fuel prices, road user charges, insurance, it’s really looking a lot like it’s anti-agriculture.”

Mr Sutherland said in all his years “I’ve never seen people so disenchanted with the federal government”.

“There’s no competence in them at all,” he said. “Everywhere you turn they’re kicking agriculture in the guts, kicking us in the teeth.”

He accused Labor of “bowing down to animal activists” and endangering the food supply chain.

“I think it’s a combination of both ideology and incompetence,” he said.

“They never consulted the industry, they have not spoken to people in the supply chain and got our perspective.”

The National Farmers Federation has called on farmers and supporters to join a rally outside parliament house in Canberra on Tuesday, September 10, to oppose what it calls “anti-farming agendas” of the federal government.

The rally was initially organised by the Keep the Sheep campaign but has been broadened to highlight a range of other concerns, including new taxes, water buybacks and energy infrastructure.

“We’re seeing a growing number of decisions being driven by anti-farming activism, not evidence,” NFF president David Jochinke said in a statement.

“We’re being drowned out by the noisy minority who want to shut us down.”

A recent survey by the NFF found fewer than one in 10 farmers say the federal government was listening to their concerns or had a positive plan for their future.

“Australian farmers are the best in the world,” Mr Jochinke said.

“We consistently deliver the highest quality produce for Aussie families. We want policymakers to work with us to grow more in Australia. Too often it feels like they’re just working with our detractors. The common thread in every issue we’re facing is that they’re all driven by niche interest groups who don’t understand or support Aussie farmers.”

Mr Jochinke said a rally was an “unusual step” for the peak body “but we hope it will send powerful message to decision-makers ahead of the next election that these decisions need to stop”.

“We just want a return to common sense,” he said.

“We want policies informed by farmers’ lived experience and designed to grow the industry, not diminish it to appease activist agendas. Whether you’re a farmer or not, I encourage you to join us to celebrate the positive story of Australian agriculture in the heart of Canberra.”

Mr Littleproud said on Friday that the Nationals “100 per cent” supported the rally.

“This Labor government has decimated our farming and agriculture industry,” he said in a statement.

“It has been over 40 years since farmers last felt so aggrieved to protest against a government. It’s easy to understand why our farmers are fed up, after being constantly attacked by Labor and its anti-farming policies, from water buybacks to reckless renewables and its senseless phase-out of our live sheep export trade.”

Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were demanding 10 key changes by Labor, including reinstating the live sheep export trade, fixing the PALM scheme “mess” and stopping the “truckie tax and vehicle efficiency standard”.

“These 10 key areas are crucial to farming, agriculture and regional Australia,” he said. “The Nationals will not stop fighting until common sense prevails and our farmers get a fair go.”

Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash claimed the Prime Minister had “sold out WA farmers by banning the live export of sheep — destroying an entire industry in the process”.

“More than 3000 Australians work in this industry,” Ms Cash said on X last week. “They face losing their jobs, and families under financial stress will have to leave country towns.”

The Prime Minister visited Perth this week to introduce Trish Cook as Labor’s candidate for the new electorate of Bullwinkel, home to a number of regional communities affected by the live export ban.

Asked whether he had met with any industry representatives to discuss the impact of the ban during his visit, Mr Albanese said he had “met with industry reps in Canberra, and I’ve also met families in Kalgoorlie when I was there”.

“This an industry that’s worth $80 million [in] exports a year,” he said.

“The money that we have on the table is at least $107 million for adjustment. We want communities to be looked after. I think that this is an industry, if you compare $80 million for live exports with $4 billion which is what the sheep meat export industry is worth, I think that indicates where the industry needs to go. We want to make sure that people are looked after and we want to work with industry on that.”

Mr Albanese insisted Labor’s focus was on job creation.

“And that’s why, in transitioning away from the live sheep meat export trade, towards the sheep meat export trade, we can create more jobs,” he said.

“One of the things about when you process, just like value adding a future made in Australia across the board, I’m for value adding in Australia whenever you can. And that’s how you create more jobs, not less jobs. The big trade in the sheep industry in Australia is for sheep meat export.”

The Prime Minister acknowledged “adjustments are hard, which is why we have that support available, and why we are engaging”.

“But to be clear, the legislation was passed overwhelmingly through the House of Representatives and through the Senate,” he said. “This is a decision that I believe has the overwhelming support of the Australian population.”

Mia Davies, the Nationals candidate for Bullwinkel, told The West Australian the Prime Minister’s comments were “flippant”.

“The Prime Minister is flippant, and it’s a disgrace when it comes to talking about this industry [that] directly supports 3000 people’s jobs,“ she said.

“He’s talking about creating new jobs. How about we keep the jobs we’ve already got?”

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/other-industries/big-trouble-farmers-to-descend-on-canberra-to-protest-live-sheep-export-ban/news-story/6e8c6acc798333d430e50566e44e0dba

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

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

White House slams Tucker Carlson's 'sadistic' interview with so-called historian who claimed Hitler was NOT the chief villain in WWII

Ultimately, I think Churchill was right to distrust and oppose Hitler but the situation was not so clear at the time. Hitler had made it clear that he had no quarrel with his British racial brethren and was quite happy to leave the British empire in place while he controlled Europe

Some prominent British politicians were inclined to trust him on that so, had their views prevailed, the outcome MAY have been a much reduced loss of British lives

The White House is slamming Tucker Carlson for his interview with a man he called 'the best and most popular historian in the US' over his claims that Adolf Hitler was not World War II's chief villain.

Daryl Cooper - a podcast host and so-called historian - caused controversy when he said that not only did the Nazis not intend to murder millions but that Winston Churchill is the main villain of the war.

The show caused outrage online, especially after X CEO Elon Musk quote-tweeted the video, writing: 'Very interesting. Worth watching'. Musk has since deleted the post.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates issued a harsh rebuke to the episode of the show.

'Giving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism, and to every subsequent victim of Antisemitism,' Bates said in a statement.

'Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history and the 'chief villain' of World War II, full stop. The Biden-Harris Administration believes that trafficking in this moral rot is unacceptable at any time, let alone less than one year after the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and at a time when the cancer of Antisemitism is growing all over the world.'

Much of what Cooper said about World War II blames Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

'Now, he didn't kill the most people, he didn't commit the most atrocities, but I believe... that when you get into it and tell the story right and don't leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did,' Cooper said.

While he didn't consider Hitler to be the hero of World War II, he says that only erred when he got Germany into 'a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners.'

'They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there,' seeming to insinuate that the Holocaust happened by accident.

Cooper hosts a podcast called 'Martyr Made' which saw a massive boost in listenership following his appearance with Carlson.

The interview has been viewed over 29.1 million times, according to the social media platform's numbers.

Cooper doubled down on his blame of Churchill, posting a lengthy thread on the UK Prime Minister - considered by many the hero of World War II - on X after the controversy.

'I know that sounds like hyperbole. Churchill didn't order the most deaths, oversee the most atrocities, or commit the worst crimes. But most of those crimes could not have been committed if the war had not happened, and Churchill was the leader most intent on making it happen,' Cooper wrote.

Cooper's statements have drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, including by many conservatives.

Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney wrote: 'Actually, this is pro-Nazi propaganda, including, 'Churchill was the chief villain of WW2' and Hitler 'didn't want to fight.' No serious or honorable person would support or endorse this type of garbage.'

'This is just the same old Hitler apologetics (“He didn’t want to widen the war,” “They didn’t know what to do with all POWs so he put them in camps,” etc.). Remarkably, there isn’t any historiography behind it. This “popular historian” just makes conclusory claims. Shameful,' added Compact Magazine Editor Sohrab Ahmari.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13818955/White-House-slams-Tucker-Carlsons-sadistic-interview-called-historian-claimed-Hitler-NOT-chief-villain-WWII.html

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

Christianity defends against tyrants

All religions, including Christianity, were created to control the population and make them docile?

You have heard the argument before. Old religion is the opiate of the masses…

This line of attack is so tired that it probably does not have much effect on any serious thinking person. However, there is a kind of lazy thinker who still finds it to be an attractive line of thought, hence its usage in this show. Let’s take a step back and consider this argument for a moment. Come reason with me, and let’s test the soundness of this position. You’ll see how far short it falls.

What is the most significant religious moment in the whole Old Testament? If you have not read the Bible you might not know the answer to this, but it is simple. Outside of creation itself, the most significant moment is the Exodus. All of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, leads toward the Exodus. The rest of the Old Testament, in large measure, harkens back to it. It is the central salvation event in the Old Testament which frames how God’s people should see their Lord, each other, and this world.

What happened during the Exodus? Moses, at the instigation of He Who Is Who He Is, the Lord Almighty, led a rebellion and an insurrection against the largest empire in the known world at that time. It was such a cataclysmic event that Egypt never fully recovered. Egypt diminished as a result of the economic and social devastation caused by that Exodus. The central narrative of the Old Testament is an account of people choosing God over comfort, stability, and loyalty to the state, and being willing to suffer in the wilderness instead. There were times when many amongst the Hebrews regretted their decision and longed for the garlic and leeks of Egypt, but still, they chose to break free of their oppressors at the instigation of their Lord.

The central account of the first part of the most influential book in history was a kind of revolution that set people free from oppression.

This event was to frame how this people saw themselves. This creates a unique kind of people. This creates a people who have a complicated and dynamic relationship with their leaders.

There is much in the Old Testament which encourages and even commands submission to authority figures. But this submission to Earthly leaders is always one link in a chain that leads to the highest authority, God himself, and those who know they can defy Pharaoh at the command of God, also know that they can reserve the right to defy any other tyrant or leader who comes between them and God.

How can such a religion be accused of being created by tyrants to pacify populations?

Those who are familiar with Sunday school classes, even if not the whole Bible, will probably remember the account of Daniel and the Lions’ Den, or Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and the blazing furnace. These two stories recount the godly defiance of unjust orders by four men who are considered heroes of the Christian faith. These men were part of the Jewish population in exile in Babylon at the instigation of the Lord himself, and they were under commands to work and pray for the welfare of the pagan cities amongst which they were sojourners. Yet they also understood that being good citizens of heaven was a higher priority than being good citizens of any earthly kingdom, and so when these two things came into conflict they chose the higher priority. This is what makes them heroes. They chose to risk terrible deaths, Daniel at the jaws of hungry lions, and the other three, the prospect of being burned alive, rather than risk defying their God.

They understood that the chain of authority is not a linear line. Yes, Kings stand at a higher point than the general populous in the hierarchy of authority ordained by God, but the authority of God overrules all other authorities at any point at which it comes into conflict with the authority of men. Therefore, everyone has a responsibility to follow God’s authority first. The kind of religion created by the Exodus creates the very kinds of heroes that we see in examples like Daniel and his three contemporaries. Men who obey God over other men. And they are not the only ones.

The most significant characters outside of the kings in the Old Testament are the prophets, who starting with Moses and ending with John the Baptist, often found themselves in conflict with the State. Tradition tells us that Isaiah, who was a high-ranking priest in Judah, was sawn in half. Jeremiah’s conflict with the authorities he is prophesying against is famous and recounted in some detail in the book named after himself. Many other prophets also found themselves in a similar situation, because they challenged the state structures that were defying the authority of God. Jesus himself describes what a prophet can expect, ‘Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.’ (Matt. 5:11-12). The whole concept of being one of these men was being willing to defy unjust orders, or general injustice when necessary. This creates a particular kind of faith, a faith where its adherents are expected to be willing to suffer for doing what is right, even when it is unpopular, especially when it is.

This brings us squarely into the New Testament. Christians serve a Lord and Saviour who was murdered by the state, both Jewish and Roman, because he refused to play along with the traditions of the Jewish leaders. Take stock of that for a minute. Atheists, in all their grand intelligence, have the gall to argue that a religion where people serve a risen saviour who was killed for defying the state, was actually created to control the masses. Could you get a dumber premise? This premise is so illogical, to even assert it you would have to work really hard to either not think deeply about it, or to have worked equally hard to make sure you have never engaged with Christianity on a serious intellectual level.

I once considered writing a piece entitled Righteous Rebels, but I decided not to do so as the Bible is clear that the sin of rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. The motivation for Christians to defy tyranny is not based on a heart of rebellion, at least it is not meant to be. It is deeply grounded in a love for God and a love for our fellow man. We know we are called to prioritise our love for God and his commands above all else, and we are to oppose that which does wrong to our fellow human beings. This can bring us into conflict with the State even when we would prefer that it did not, because often the state is directed by men who defy the commands of our Lord.

I can tell you that most Christians, along with most unbelievers, would prefer to live a quiet life, minding their own business. This is our default setting. Indeed, we are told to prefer this in Scripture, ‘…and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you…’ (1 Thess. 4:11). You will even find Christians who define their faith around this sentiment, they want to withdraw from the world, work the land quietly, stay away from people, and stay as far away from any trouble as humanly possible. But remember, this passage was written by a man who was often coming into conflict with people both inside his churches and outside of them, from both Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes entire cities were thrown into a tumult, to such a point that once he was confused by a Roman soldier of being a violent Egyptian revolutionary even though he raised a hand to no one. We should prefer peace and quiet, and even work towards that, but there is what we would prefer and then there is what we sometimes have to oppose because God would not have us go along with evil.

When evil rises this can bring quiet and peaceful Christians into conflict with the world.

The tyrants of this world have often been hammers that the devil has sought to wield to destroy the Church, but he often comes into conflict with the anvil of the perseverance of the saints of the Lord who refuse to budge.

Now, I should note before I finish, that yes, there have been times when the State has overcome the authority in the Church and used the structure of the Church as a hammer against godly men and women. But whenever this situation arises, God lifts up ordinary men and women who will even stand up to that. Every believer knows they have a direct line from their conscience to God that no priest can override, and therefore, many believers have been forced even to confront ecclesiastical authorities across history as well. So, even those times which sceptics might use as proof of their position, times when Christianity was co-opted by corrupt forces, disprove their overall thesis. Christianity is designed from the inside out to be a self-critiquing religion where every human authority is shown its limits.

If you wanted to create a religion to pacify the masses then Christianity is the opposite of what you would come up with. Christianity is the anti-tyranny faith. It is the bane of oppressors throughout history. It is the thorn in the side of many humans who seek to claim absolute power. Jesus Christ is the greatest slayer of tyrants, precisely because he overcame evil with his death and resurrection, and inspires in his believers a hope in a better world. When believed and correctly applied Christianity makes great citizens, who always reserve the right, when needed, to remind their authorities who the greatest authority is; the Lord Jesus Christ. Tyrants hate that.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/christianity-defends-against-tyrants/

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

Kamala protected by left’s curious silence about her new Trumpian policies

If Kamala is elected, will we get Trump in a skirt?

In her adoption of a swathe of Trumpian policies, only the naive would believe Kamala Harris had experienced some Damascene conversion.

Notwithstanding this, there have been no protests – not even a peek – from Democrat notables.

The explanation is that Democrat powerbrokers are agreed on three points.

First, there is no question that Ms Harris remains a radical leftist but that, for electoral purposes, she is playing a chameleon, something to which she is accustomed as recounted in Peter Schweitzer’s Profiles in Corruption.

Second, given her inability to handle a challenging interview, it is better to exclude her, as Biden was, from most of the normal cut-and-thrust of the election.

Third, given the corruption of the greater part of the mainstream media, who now act as the Democrat propaganda arm, they will provide cover on both points.

As to the real Kamala Harris, the National Review editor-in-chief, Rich Lowry, slams Ms Harris as ‘weak’ and ‘a phony’, one who doesn’t truly care about ‘the country or the middle class’, a ‘shape-shifting opportunist’ who ‘can and will change’ on ‘almost anything when politically convenient’.

Even if when she is saying something popular, i.e. Trumpian, Lowry insists she cannot ‘be trusted to hold to it once she’s in office’. Democrat grandees are no doubt delighted with this.

This election is of singular importance. It is a fork in the road, and not only for America. On the one side is the MAGA doctrine, on the other, the Obama doctrine for the managed decline of the US and the West, the core of which is the continued appeasement of the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran axis.

Associated is the endorsement of the new far-left ideology, spread by the march of Newcoms (new communists) through America’s institutions, beginning with education and ultimately extending even onto the boards of some of the great corporations.

The core has been the anti-Western, discredited dogmas of climate catastrophism and critical race and gender theory.

In the meantime, an open border policy is designed to lock in millions of future Democrat voters.

Ms Harris began her simulation of Trumpian policy with her blatant copying of ending the taxing of tips. This was despite her breaking the tie in the Senate to enable the IRS, among other things, to pursue taxpayers receiving that important part of their remuneration, tips.

Based on Trump’s policy, very popular in the battleground state of Nevada and with legislation already introduced by Senator Cruz, she failed even to acknowledge that she had taken their policy.

Following this, she has renounced the EV mandate so that people can keep their gasoline-driven cars, and her policies of abolishing private health care, defunding the police, and banning fracking. Then, she claimed, she would complete the wall on the southern border.

The impact was such that Senator Cruz jocularly referred to White House leaks that she planned to dye her hair blonde and her skin orange, while wearing enormously long red ties at future appearances.

On closer examination, the border change was not as Trumpian as she suggested.

Harris says Trump persuaded Republican senators to block a so-called bipartisan immigration bill, one she says she will sign on day one of her presidency.

But as Mark Levin points out, it entrenches ‘catch and release’, instead of Trump’s policy of requiring aspring immigrants to stay in Mexico until a decision is made, a policy overruled by an executive order signed by Biden. Capping this off, illegals will have work permits and taxpayer-funded lawyers.

This continues and legitimises the Biden-Harris policy of opening the border and letting the drug cartels bring in over ten million illegal immigrants including criminals and terrorists, as well as vast amounts of the drug fentanyl.

For those four years, she and Biden undermined or, to use a term from the English Civil War, dispensed with immigration law. When two English kings tried that, one lost his throne and the other his head. But Biden and Harris were not even impeached.

Meanwhile there has been one last, desperate use of lawfare to stop Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith, whose appointment has been ruled invalid by a Florida court, filed yet another indictment against Donald Trump over his challenge to the results of the 2020 presidential election. The indictment obviously attempts to navigate around the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity for official acts.

As it cannot be heard before the election, Smith’s action is obviously political and unlikely to affect the vote.

Meanwhile, the so-called interview on CNN was purely a propaganda broadcast, with Harris insisting on her vice presidential nominee being there to save her and that it be prerecorded, no doubt so that it could be edited. Harris had ready-made answers and frequently referred to a crib sheet which seemed to follow the order of the questions.She did not need to search for the answer. This suggested she had notice of the questions.

Harris was allowed long, uninterrupted, unchallenged answers and she received very few follow-up questions. It would have been wiser not to have done this. Americans will only compare it with Trump’s continuing availability for questioning, his obvious ad-libbing, his detailed disclosure of his agenda and the fact that in his last term, he donated his salary to various federal agencies.

Meanwhile, the united front of the anti-Trump media propaganda arm is weakening.The comments above by Rich Lowry were in the New York Times. X, previously Twitter, is now under Elon Musk and is a bastion of free speech.

And Mark Zuckerberg seems to be breaking ranks. He has apologised for giving in to White House pressure to censor comments on Covid, and for accepting FBI advice that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian misinformation. He declares that he will not repeat his 2020 contribution of $400 million to what many saw as Democrat fronts.

Meanwhile, Trump is constantly on the road, speaking to the people. His contributions are accessible on the internet.

He remains the hope of America and the West.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/kamala-trumped-by-lefts-curious-silence/

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

The Bizarre Alliance Between Transgenderism and Abortion

When discussing the transgender craze and abortion, less is often more. But the alliance between the trans movement and the pro-abortion movement has become so aggressive that we can’t avoid talking about it (as much as we might like to).

At first glance, the issues of abortion and LGBTQ appear unrelated. Same-sex relationships are sterile and can’t result in pregnancy. But the homosexual movement has actively inserted itself into the abortion debate because both the trans and pro-abortion movements are built on a shared philosophy: sexual license that accepts no sexual limitations from church, state, or culture.

Abortion advocates and LGBTQ advocates alike generally believe that sex should be free for any reason, with anyone, and with zero consequences. And they demand that this philosophy be accepted by everyone.

The two movements are locked arm-in-arm, not only in principle but financially. This is why you see so many “Pride” flags at pro-abortion events and abortion rights signs at “Pride” parades.

Enter the transgender movement.

Gay rights activists achieved total victory in 2015 when the Supreme Court forced all 50 states to legally recognize same-sex unions as marriages. But the revolution never ends—it just finds a new outlet for upending society. So it’s no surprise that the same year, the TQ (transgender/“queer”) end of the LGBTQ acronym rose to prominence as Olympic legend Bruce Jenner insisted he is a woman named Caitlyn.

Just like the homosexual cause, the trans movement has joined forces with the pro-abortion movement. Abortion appears to be next, as trans advocates shout, “Trans men are men … and sometimes they need abortions!” We are reaching peak insanity.

The pendulum may well swing back toward sanity sooner rather than later because the coalition of sexual deviants supporting the abortion industry becomes increasingly unstable.

The abortion industry long has been allied with a feminist movement built on advancing the interests of women. But now the abortion industry has joined forces with a trans movement that essentially denies there is such a thing as a woman. Increasingly bizarre rhetoric reveals that the unholy trinity of the abortion industry, radical feminism, and LGBTQ is built on a house of cards. And it’s on the brink of collapse.

Perhaps no two movements in the history of the world have put more emphasis on the reality of biological sex than feminists and homosexuals.

For more than a century, feminists have worked for equality in the workplace, equality in sports, and celebration of the many things that women can do as well as or better than men. This approach is well intentioned—even if it sometimes seriously goes off the rails by veering into advocacy of abortion and other evils.

But whether the feminist movement is right or wrong on a given issue, it’s indisputably true that for feminists being a woman matters. The difference between women and men matters.

Your sex was no more “assigned at birth” than the reproductive organs you have. Vaginas and penises are not interchangeable to feminists. They are absolutely binary, and they are relevant to feminists and to their cause.

Men cannot get pregnant. Men don’t bear the joys and pains of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Men don’t make the sacrifices necessary to breastfeed their children. The feminists know this as well as anyone, and they have traditionally been the loudest in sharing it.

The homosexual movement, too, understands that “biological sex” is a redundant term. This is why the LGBTQ movement was always destined to fracture.

On one hand, you’ve got the “TQ” side of the acronym that argues an infinite number of genders exist, genders can change, or there’s no such thing as gender. On the other hand, the “LG” side of the acronym takes the reality of biological sex so seriously that homosexual people choose their sexual partners based on the reality of their biological sex.

Homosexual men want to have sex with other men because they’re men. Lesbians want to have sex with women because they’re women.

Homosexual people often go so far as to root their very identity in their attraction to the same sex. They dedicate an entire month to celebrating their attraction to members of the same sex. They spent decades pushing for legal and social recognition of same-sex marriage.

Christians and homosexual activists sharply disagree on the morality of sexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex. But we can at least agree on what those relationships are and who they involve.

Transgender activists throw that shared understanding—which has been in place for all of human history—right out the window. Some insist that gay men actually must be straight trans women. Others insist that lesbians are bigots if they refuse to date trans women (who are actually men).

The previous paragraph would be laughable—if it wasn’t the dominating philosophy in media, politics, business, entertainment, and academia. But the bottom line is, the transgender movement is driving a wedge between itself and some of the other progressive movements you probably think of as their natural allies: the feminist and homosexual movements.

They don’t always admit it publicly, but many feminists and homosexuals are outraged at how the trans movement has hijacked their causes. We got a peek at this when there were split opinions on whether trans women (actual men) could be part of the Women’s March. These types of divisions show why the alliance between feminism and transgenderism isn’t sustainable.

Remember these three points when transgender nonsense enters your discussion of abortion:

First, you’re not crazy. Men cannot be women and women cannot be men. There are two sexes—always have been and always will be. No medication or surgery can change this reality.

To affirm those suffering gender dysphoria is to participate in a lie. We cannot participate in the lie no matter how loudly and forcefully transgender advocates shout. If I demand that you call me a woman (or address me as Frank Sinatra or Rosa Parks or President Ulysses S. Grant), you should not acquiesce.

Second, the notion that men can get pregnant and have babies is the greatest insult to women of our lifetime. And it’s brand new. Can you imagine Jane Fonda, Whoopi Goldberg, Hillary Clinton, or any feminist from even 20 years ago saying, “Men can have babies”?

But amazingly, some of the same feminists who championed abortion by arguing, “I’m a woman, not a womb,” now reduce their identity to their reproductive capacity by self-identifying as “birthing persons.”

Clearly, the feminist movement has failed if women no longer can claim exclusive domain over the unique genius to conceive, bear, nourish, and nurture another human being. And if men can have babies, it was only a matter of time before we’d be told that men can have abortions.

Third, women who have abortions—whether they regret it or not—know it was a serious and hard decision. The way abortion supporters discuss the topic, you’d get the impression that abortion is the Vince Lombardi Trophy of what women can accomplish in post-Roe America. The staunchest and loudest abortion supporters have turned it into a sacrament.

In this brave new world, the essence of womanhood is access, willingness, and ability to get an abortion. Abortion is seen as the pinnacle of the female experience—socially, politically, and morally. There’s just one problem: Real women don’t agree.

Attacking women in the name of women’s rights isn’t something new. And it’s not something we should fear in conversation.

But the transgender attempt to annihilate women is just one more piece of evidence that the pro-life side is the side of science, reason, nature, compassion, medical alternatives, and—of course—women.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/09/06/heres-why-and-how-we-must-confront-pro-abortion-transgender-activists/

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

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

When bureaucracy fails

Ministers relied on their bureaucrats. They cannot be legislators and regulators of every detail. That is what the bureaucrats are for. Sadly, in a bureaucracy nobody cares. The Guardian below seems to think that ministers should do the job of bureaucrats too

‘Atask that only the government can undertake.” A short, seemingly unremarkable sentence, tucked away on the 225th page of the second volume of Martin Moore-Bick’s 1,700-page Grenfell Tower inquiry report. But it encapsulates in a nutshell the broken political philosophy the preceding pages so graphically outline: a state that stepped back and allowed a ruthless, dishonest industry to regulate itself.

At its heart, Grenfell is a story about human suffering. It is about the 72 victims – 18 of them children – needlessly lost in a tower block fire that could so easily have been avoided. It is about their lost futures, the family members left behind and all the grief and pain and suffering the years of delay in delivering justice and change have piled on to them. But Wednesday’s report is also a story about politics, economics and power. It is about the sort of society we have built for ourselves in 21st-century Britain.

The report opens by tracking the actions of the British government, from the aftermath of a cladding fire at a building in Knowsley, Merseyside, in 1991 through to the days immediately preceding the Grenfell fire. Here we witness a state operation fail again and again and again to amend its official guidance to restrict the use of highly dangerous combustible cladding products.

And this happened despite multiple fires, increasingly urgent warnings of a looming catastrophe and even tests – paid for with public money – that confirmed there was a major, life-safety risk from commonly used cladding materials.

But at every stage, government advisers and officials – those who should have been acting in the interests of the citizens they represented – hummed and hawed and did nothing. For years, the bereaved and survivors have thrown a two-word accusation at those they see as responsible: they knew. This report confirms that.

It sets out how at points, officials appeared to cover up the extent of the problem. A report in 1999 was edited to remove references to flaws in official guidance. A devastating test failure on the cladding later used on Grenfell in 2001 was “shelved” and “forgotten”. The official investigation into the 2009 Lakanal House fire, in Camberwell, south London, which killed six people, was halted after less than a month with many key questions left unanswered.

Why? That’s a key question for survivors and campaigners. The report seems to brand the officials responsible as worn out and incompetent rather than actively corrupt. They are described as “complacent and shortsighted”, their actions as “surprising” or “difficult to understand”. But the sense of a creaking operation left to rot in a dusty corner of a neglected government department comes through.

By the mid-2010s, the building control division within the government department now called the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, had seen its team cut from 14 staff to six and given no budget to hire additional support. They were “demoralised and demotivated”, management by more senior officials was “sporadic” or “nonexistent” and the department had neither the “ability nor capacity to issue practical guidance to industry because its systems … had become obsolete”.

But culpability goes higher. Look to government; look to ministers who no longer saw regulating industry as a priority. Ministers, in fact, who were intensely pushing the opposite agenda: they wanted economic growth and they wanted the state to get out of the way of industry’s capacity to deliver it. Regulation was red tape and needed to be removed, not imposed.

Eric Pickles, secretary of state during the key period in the early 2010s, angrily insisted when questioned back in 2022 that building regulations relating to fire safety were exempt from this push – and that he would never have allowed a deregulatory agenda to compromise life safety.

But the report says that evidence was “flatly contradicted by that of his officials and the contemporaneous documents”, which made it abundantly clear that the government believed the construction sector should be left out of the bothersome reach of meddling bureaucrats and should be allowed to forge its own, innovative path.

Trapped in this climate, officials did not recommend tougher regulations, even when they knew them to be necessary, because they realised it was not what ministers wanted to hear. This abdication of responsibility by the state is ghoulishly encapsulated by the government paying scientists at a private laboratory to monitor the risk from real world fires, but barring them from making policy recommendations that would have resulted in tougher regulation, a state of affairs the inquiry said “epitomised what had gone wrong”.

In what should probably be read as a repudiation of one of the central economic tenets of David Cameron’s government, the report concluded that it “was not in the public interest to allow policy on deregulation to impede the ability of officials to promote changes … that would improve public safety”, calling this “a serious failure of leadership”.

That was government. It should have protected the public. It didn’t. Instead, it offered the industry regulatory freedom. After recounting these failures in central government, the report examined what corporations did with that freedom. Here the report’s language hardens further. It is clear, grieving families will learn, that “systematic dishonesty” by the manufacturers of these products was a “very significant reason” why the products ended up on Grenfell Tower.

Arconic, which made the violently combustible polyethylene-cored cladding panels, was found to have “deliberately concealed from the market the true extent” of the danger of using its panels on high rises, and instead “sought to exploit what it perceived to be a weak regulatory regime in the UK” to make sales.

Then there are the insulation manufacturers. While the report may not have found the products made by these two firms contributed significantly to the spread of the blaze, their behaviour has still been savagely criticised.

Celotex, which made most of the combustible insulation that sat behind the cladding panels, “embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market”, while Kingspan, the market leader which provided a small amount of material for Grenfell, was said to have indulged in “deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty … in pursuit of commercial gain”.

This was the market at its ugliest; given full rein. These companies were all supported by private (or privatised) companies that had effectively taken on the regulatory roles the state no longer wanted: certifying products as safe, testing materials against the official criteria and even writing the guidance documents that set the rules on what could and couldn’t be used.

These firms came in for severe criticism in the report. The British Board of Agrément (BBA), an organisation that provides certificates apparently confirming the performance of construction products, was said to have displayed “incompetence” and an “ingrained willingness to accommodate customers instead of insisting on high standards”.

The Building Research Establishment (BRE), our former national research facility, which was privatised in 1997, was “marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices [and] a lack of effective oversight” and had “sacrificed rigorous application of principle to its commercial interests”.

These bodies and others failed to do the job of regulating the industry – one the government had abdicated from. The scandal of Grenfell encompasses the betrayal by those who committed bad acts and those who did nothing to stop them.

So we come back to the conclusion quoted at the start of this piece: the housing and construction sector is huge, it is powerful. Regulating the industry is a task only the government can undertake.

But our government stopped doing this. This story is complex, but also simple. Failure of governance allowed our buildings to be covered in combustible building products and disaster became all but inevitable. On 14 June 2017, this disaster manifested and 72 people at Grenfell Tower paid with their lives.

There are many other things grieving families will read in this report that confirm the allegations they have made since the day of the fire: of the “toxic” and “bullying” culture at the social housing provider in west London; the “cavalier attitude” to safety of the construction firms involved in the refurbishment; the catastrophic failure of the state to provide a humanitarian response in the aftermath or the abdication of responsibility by the London fire brigade to prepare for a foreseeable disaster in the years before the fire.

But I believe the dark heart of this catastrophe lies in this simple, depressing narrative: the state stepped back, corporate greed stepped in and innocent people died.

Now this story of inquiry must turn to justice. Moore-Bick’s report sets out in forensic detail the failures of the corporations and individuals who allowed this disaster to happen. The evidence is all there, in thousands of footnotes and publicly available documents it cites.

The state may have stepped back from regulation, but it still provides a criminal justice system. That must now do its job. Grenfell was an utterly avoidable disaster. Those who brought it to pass must be held to full account.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/sep/04/grenfell-is-simply-explained-firms-chased-profits-ministers-sat-on-their-hands-innocents-paid-with-their-lives

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

Too many people have pets instead of babies: Pope

I agree

The Pope has reignited his long-running quarrel with childless pet owners after he praised couples with five children and criticised those who prefer cats and dogs.

Addressing politicians in Indonesia on Wednesday at the start of his four-nation tour of southeast Asia, Francis said: “In your country people have three, four or five children, that’s an example for every country, while some prefer to only have a cat or a little dog.” He added: “This can’t go well.”

When Indonesia’s President Widodo laughed at the quip, Francis turned to him and said: “It’s true, isn’t it?”

Throughout his papacy, Francis has called for bigger families to counter plunging birth rates in the West, and pet owners have often come in for criticism.

In 2023, Francis recalled how a woman had asked him to bless her dog, calling it “my baby”. He said at the time: “I lost my patience and scolded her, saying many children are hungry and you bring me a dog.”

Francis has bemoaned the fertility rate in the European Union of about 1.5 births per woman, far lower than the 2.1 rate needed to sustain the population.

This year he called Europe “old, tired and resigned”, claiming: “Homes are filled with objects and emptied of children, becoming very sad places. There is no shortage of little dogs, cats – these are not lacking. There is a lack of children.”

Francis has found common ground on turning around Italy’s demographic decline with Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, who shared a stage with him at a conference on boosting birth rates.

In the US JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, has been strongly criticised for referring to Democratic politicians as “a bunch of childless cat ladies.”

During a meeting with 200 Jesuit priests in Jakarta on Wednesday, Francis said their youth was “the thing that strikes me most”.

During his 12-day visit to Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and Singapore, Francis, 87, will also focus on tolerance between faiths and the fight against interreligious violence.

“In order to foster a peaceful and fruitful harmony that ensures peace … the Church desires to strengthen interreligious dialogue,” he said in his speech at the presidential palace.

Indonesia’s eight million Catholics, who make up 3 per cent of the majority Muslim population, have been targeted in attacks, including a suicide bombing in 2021 outside a cathedral on the island of Sulawesi in which 20 people were injured.

Extremists were using “deception and violence” to divide faiths, Francis said.

Francis will celebrate Mass at a football stadium in Jakarta on Thursday and Indonesia’s religious affairs ministry has asked television channels not to air Muslim prayer videos as a sign of respect.

The Jakarta visit marks the start of a gruelling trip for Francis, who is using a wheelchair. He appeared in good spirits on Wednesday, joking at the end of his audience with the Jesuit priests: “The police have come to take me away.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/too-many-people-have-pets-instead-of-babies-pope/news-story/3537c7c70c2d48cfd49ad2282039f618

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

UK: Leftist war on the pensioners and the poor

Ruthlessly tax-hungry

Two months in, and Labour has picked its soft target… Those on low incomes and the elderly.

Recently, the Keir Starmer government doubled down on its commitment to scrap the Winter Fuel Allowance despite protests from its own MPs. Those dissenting MPs understood the devastating impact the decision would have on hundreds of thousands of elderly people, many of whom earn just £11k.

Of course, Labour didn’t scrap MPs expensing their heating bills from their second home to the taxpayer despite MPs earning at the very least £90k per year.

In addition to this, Labour are considering scrapping the £2 bus cap brought in by former Tory transport Minister Richard Holden which meant that a single bus fare could cost no more than £2. It was a good initiative that made travel much cheaper, especially for those in more rural communities. Its introduction had a profound impact on helping those on low incomes and scrapping the cap will have a disproportionate effect on those who often use public transport because they cannot afford a car.

Despite this penny pinching, Labour have dished out billions of pounds worth of including a 14 per cent pay-rise to train drivers who already earn twice the average national UK salary.

Labour have also refused to rule out scrapping the singles council tax discount that gives people who live alone a 25 per cent discount on their council tax. Those targeted by this are mainly pensioners whose partners have died or young people. These groups typically do not have high incomes and therefore massively benefited from this discount. So many are already struggling to make ends meet and this will be the nail in the coffin.

Additionally, Labour have promised more tax rises on the horizon and the introduction of a pay-per-mile scheme for cars.

All of these decisions rob the pockets of those already struggling whilst feeding the pockets of already well-off public sector workers.

None of these things were suggested in Labour election campaign because if Labour had admitted that they would go to war with Britain’s least well-off, they would have been rejected at the ballot box.

They have won on a pack of lies and have betrayed Britain’s working class. In other words, when in power, Labour have become everything they claimed to be against.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/starmers-war-on-the-pensioners-and-the-poor/

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

More "colonialism" lies in Australia

The article about Aborigines below is grossly misleading. In my usual pesky way have gone back to the original source and read the Act concerned. It is here:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/hist_act/tapa1886265.pdf

The Act was a genuinely charitable act designed to protect and support Aborigines in various ways and says NOTHING about taking part-Aboriginal children away from their parents.

It is in fact thoroughly modern in that it defines who is an Aborigine by their associations. Regardless of your ancestry, you are an Aborigine if you associate with Aborigines. A person who is of mixed ancestry can still be an Aborigine for legal purposes. That is pretty much still the law to this day

Amazng! Our ancestors have been greatly and unfairly vilified by biased reporting


The great-grandson of Australia's second Prime Minister has apologised to Aboriginal Australians for the harm inflicted by his ancestor.

Peter Sharp, a descendant of Alfred Deakin, believes the role his great-grandfather played in enabling the devastating Stolen Generations has been downplayed.

The revelation was heard at Victoria's Yoorrook Justice Commission which is investigating claims of ill treatment of Aboriginal people since colonisation.

Mr Sharp said he had grown up believing his famous ancestor was a 'wonderful man', 'a storyteller' and a 'playful' person but had discovered the truth in 2017.

'To all those viewing, who themselves have been and still are being impacted by the introduction of laws and policies in which a member of my family played such a significant role, I say that I am personally and profoundly sorry,' he said.

'It came as a shock to learn that the attempted elimination [of First Nations peoples] continued after frontier violence diminished and I say 'diminished' because it really probably hasn't ended.

'It was a greater shock when I stumbled on the evidence that indicated that a member of my own family had enabled the attempted elimination to be put into law.'

Mr Deakin was a young minister in the Victorian government that passed the Aborigines Protection Act 1886.

Commonly known as the Half-Caste Act, it sought to remove children of mixed Aboriginal and European heritage from indigenous communities to be raised by the state.

The Victorian law was matched in various forms by the English colonies that then existed across Australia prior to federation in 1901.

The practice of removing children from Aboriginal communities has been termed the Stolen Generation, and many studies have testified to the impact upon Aboriginal families then and into the future.

Mr Sharp believes Mr Deakin, then Victoria's chief secretary, had intentionally destroyed the state's Aboriginal population in order to create a 'White Australia'.

'I believe that now after nearly 140 years, the evidence shows that Deakin played a key role in ensuring that the critical element of the 1886 Act was to categorically deny any Aboriginal people of mixed heritage the right to be recognised as Aboriginal and, furthermore, to forcibly deny them contact with those deemed Aboriginal, thereby destroying their culture, kinship and language,' he said.

'I believe that the evidence shows that he intended it never to be known and disguised his hand in every way he could. Suddenly I realised he actually meant this. This was deliberate.'

The Yoorrook Justice Commission is due to deliver a report to the state government by June 2025 that will make recommendations for reforms.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13814375/Truth-telling-Victoria-Great-grandson-Alfred-Deakin-apologises.html

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

My main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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