The creeping dictatorship of the Left...

The primary version of "Political Correctness Watch" is HERE The Blogroll; John Ray's Home Page; Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism. This site is updated several times a month but is no longer updated daily. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). See here or here for the archives of this site.

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.


12 July, 2016

Boy, eight, who died of SCURVY was ‘denied basic human rights’ by his parents who refused to let him see a doctor

What most readers will find in the story below is an account of fanatical or unbalanced parents trusting their own weird ideas right up until they unintentionally kill their child.  But more context is needed.

The important context is the vicious social services of Britain and the fact that all doctors are obliged to report to them all instances of unexplained harm inflicted on a child.

Resulting from that have been many instances of innocent parents being accused of child abuse.  Just the accusation is devastating enough but a substantial number of cases do result in the child being taken away from its family.  So any family with unconventional beliefs or practices -- even belonging to a minor political party -- will rightly fear what will happen when they present an unwell child to a doctor.  That would almost certainly have been involved below.

What is needed is strict judicial supervision of the social workers with full normal legal safeguards -- presumption of innocence, verdict beyond reasonable doubt, trial open to public scrutiny, and competent legal and medical representation for the parents.  At present very little of that applies and some of it is expressly forbidden.  Taking a child from its family is a most serious decision that should have all possible legal protections

Had such protections been in place already, the child below might have been presented to the doctors earlier -- and still be alive today.  Vicious social workers can kill

An eight-year-old boy who died of scurvy was 'invisible' to the authorities after his parents refused to allow officials to see him from the age of 13 months.

Dylan Seabridge died aged eight at his family's isolated farmhouse in Pembrokeshire, Wales, and had no direct contact with doctors, nurses or teachers for seven years.

His parents Glynn, 47, and Julie, 46, who home-schooled him, initially believed he was suffering from growing pains but the true cause was revealed after he collapsed in December 2011 and later died in hospital.

Scurvy is caused by a deficiency of vitamin C and was once common among sailors due to a lack of access to fruits and vegetables, but is almost unheard of now in modern society.

An independent report into his death commissioned by the Welsh Government found that he may have been denied 'basic human rights' by being withheld from mainstream services and was 'not given the right to appropriate health care'.

The report accepts parents have the right to educate their child at home rather than at school - and that home education was not in itself a risk factor for abuse or neglect - but recommended creating a register of home-schooled children to keep tabs on them.

Author Gladys Rhodes White said that the current legislation is in 'stark contrast' to the Welsh Government's commitment to the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.

In the report, she said: 'He was not routinely having access to play, leisure, sporting and cultural activities along with friendships and age appropriate socialisation.

'When he encountered health problems he was not given the right to appropriate health care.'

The review said it appeared that the child's emotional and physical well-being had been compromised.

It stated: 'His parents had parental responsibility and a duty to provide appropriate care, including the need to seek medical attention for his health needs. This did not happen.'

Ms Rhodes White added: 'It is particularly poignant that in conducting this review we have no sense whatsoever of this child. Who was he, what did he like, what were his thoughts and aspirations?.

'There is a total lack of information on him other than very limited glimpses gleaned from the information presented by the family. 'It is tragic that there are many references that the child was 'invisible'.'  

Mr and Mrs Seabridge were charged with neglect after Dylan's death but the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case in 2014, and not guilty verdicts were entered.

The parents also disputed an inquest ruling that their son died from scurvy, a rare condition caused by lack of vitamin C. 

It emerged earlier this year that concerns were raised about Dylan more than a year before he died. Education officials visited the Seabridges but they were not allowed access to the home, and they had no power to see Dylan.

Welsh Government officials said the findings would be carefully considered. 'This is a very sad case and it is vital everyone working with children and adults learn lessons from the review,' a spokesman said.

'This will include us looking at our guidance across the public services and the third sector to see if there are areas we can change and improve.' 

A previous inquest in Milford Haven heard how Mr Seabridge called 999 after his son collapsed and paramedics were rushed to the family home. They found Dylan unconscious and not breathing with bruising to his ankle and knee along with swollen legs.

He was rushed to hospital but suffered a heart attack and doctors were unable to save him.

Home Office pathologist Dr Deryck Simon Jones, who carried out the post mortem examination, concluded that Dylan's death was due to a vitamin C deficiency, commonly known as scurvy but the family reject this finding.

Their lawyer Katie Hanson told the inquest: 'The parents don't accept that Dylan died of scurvy.'

A specialist from Belgium, professor Joris Dlanghe, also questioned whether Dylan had scurvy claiming that other deficiencies such as folic acid would have been present too but were not.


When a Culture Unmans Itself

Men need to "be better.” —Michelle Obama in conversation with Oprah.

Western civilization is clearly coming part at the seams. There are so many destructive elements at work, they are almost impossible to list. But one of the most destructive of these elements, incited by a punitive feminist ideology, is the relentless campaign to delegitimize the very idea of manhood. And the most effective way to do that is to impugn male sexuality.

We are told constantly that we live in a virtual rape culture, a culture in which rape is widespread and condoned, victims are blamed, and rapists receive little or no punishment. There are rape cultures in the world. If one wants to see one in action, all one need do is look at the Muslim world or at Muslim enclaves and populations that have burrowed into Western nations, where atrocities and scandals continue to multiply. In the Western world, by contrast, rape and other forms of sexual misconduct—even mere allegations of sexual misconduct—are universally condemned and harshly punished.

No matter. Islamic culture gets a free pass while Western culture is said to be ravaged by gynophobia under the reign of male supremacism. In the new sexual paradigm that has clamped succubus-like upon the culture, the heterosexual male mainstream is under attack for the crime of harboring a normal sexual drive, which must be ruthlessly expunged in an offensive characterized by media propaganda, legislative bias and institutional practices. Respectable-seeming websites promote the total reform of masculinity using terms such as “mascupathy” to define masculine traits such as aggression and competitiveness as forms of disease needing to be cured. Western men are being progressively demasculanized, a deficiency which results, as Andrew Klavan argues, in “tremulous feminists who hysterically fear rape culture on college campuses where it is not, and Western leaders who don’t dare to see the rape culture inherent in invading Islam, where it is.”

What the Feminization of the West Has Wrought

The signs of anti-male bias are everywhere we look. The university, for example, has become a veritable minefield for male students, who may at any time be hauled before an administrative tribunal and their careers put in jeopardy for sexual misconduct, however trivial or ambiguous. A recent memo from my wife’s university mandates a statement against “sexual violence” in all course syllabi—mind you, nothing against harassing and lying about one’s professor for a better grade, shutting down conservative, Zionist, pro-Life or anti-feminist speakers, perpetrating racist hoaxes, denouncing the teaching of good English and male authors as forms of “microagression,” or any of the other violations of civil conduct that we have witnessed on university campuses recently. The only sexist harassment that takes place regularly in academia is feminist harassment of male students and staff—but that is considered not intimidation but enlightened practice.

Is it any wonder, then, that even our military is being insidiously weakened? Responding to a vehement attack on supposed martial dishonor by a former Supreme Court justice, it has turned from its primary task of defending the country to counseling its soldiers against what it regards as sexual delinquency by issuing wallet cards listing “inappropriate behaviors.” These include “sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, offensive sexual remarks or unacceptable language or jokes, unwelcome requests of a sexual nature or verbal abuse of a sexual nature, voyeurism, indecent acts and publishing intimate images of a person without their consent.” The fact is, most men in the civilized West are not sexual predators or unreconstructed brutes but most men do tend to joke and flirt and make off-color remarks and otherwise show an interest in women, whether sexual or romantic, in virtue of being men. More to the point, if men are no longer permitted to be men, how then can they be soldiers?

When manliness is eliminated from a culture fixated on the supposedly corrupt and vicious nature of masculinity, while armies of apologetic White Knights and self-abnegating feminist allies (aka “manginas”) come to replace a diminishing platoon of alpha males—“We live in a world run by betas and their lady friends,” quips J.R. Dunn in a prescient article for American Thinker—the writing is on the wall. As Michael Ignatieff reminded us in The Lesser Evil, a culture, a nation or a civilization cannot expect to survive if it is defended by herbivores. It needs a Praetorian cohort of carnivores, determined men proud of their masculinity and unafraid to confront the enemies outside the gates as well as the fifth columnists, defeatists and appeasers within—i.e., politicians on both sides of the aisle, spineless university administrators, media abettors, tergiversating liberals, tenured academics who indoctrinate from the left rather than educate from the tradition of reputable scholarship, and the feminist Furies acting out their faux version of Lysistrata—if a culture is not only to survive but to flourish.

The feminist hordes in their anti-male animus, along with their Beta and Delta collaborators, have overrun a once-great and hardy civilization. As Klavan puts it, “The future goes where men go and does what men make it do. If men go down the drain, the future will follow.” The expression of male sexual desire in Western culture is hedged by rules of appropriate conduct and a code of chivalry, occasionally honored in the breach, yet relatively intact. But when male sexuality in its natural manifestations is regarded as an evil that must be controlled, reviled, prosecuted and ultimately bred out of men, societal collapse is inevitable. The irony is palpable. For a culture that targets men can neither defend nor reproduce itself and its days are numbered.


Pastor Says State Law Threatens His Right to Teach the Bible in His Church

An Iowa pastor, saying the government needs to stop “meddling in religious affairs,” is at odds with the state over a law focused on sexual orientation and gender identity that he says hinders his First Amendment right to teach on matters of sexuality.

“The state of Iowa is not the self-appointed pope of all churches,” Cary Gordon, pastor of Cornerstone World Outreach, a nondenominational church with around 900 members in Sioux City, Iowa, told The Daily Signal.

An Iowa Civil Rights Commission brochure on sexual orientation and gender identity says churches are places of public accommodation and generally are not exempt from the law, according to First Liberty Institute, a legal organization that defends religious freedom and represents Gordon’s church.

The brochure says the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Chapter 216, “was expanded to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.” The change took effect in July 2007.

“It is now illegal in Iowa to discriminate against a person because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity,” the brochure says.

Gordon told The Daily Signal:

As it reads, according to their interpretation of the Iowa code, if you discuss anything out of the Scripture that relates to sexuality or marriage … you’re not in compliance with the law and you can be sort of treated like a criminal.

Gordon, senior pastor of his church for over 21 years, said his greatest concern with the issue is the “flagrant disrespect for the First Amendment of the Constitution, where the state retains the power to correct or control what I say and teach out of the Bible.”

“It’s fundamentally wrong and I can’t comply with that,” Gordon added. “I’ve taken an oath to the Lord Jesus Christ, and I obey the Bible above all men. … I have to obey God, and that puts me in a precarious position.”

The state Civil Rights Commission’s brochure “also indicates that the government has the authority to force churches to allow men in women’s restrooms,” First Liberty Institute says in a case summary.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission has not made any changes in its interpretation of the law, nor does it intend to ignore the exemption for religious institutions when applicable,” Kristin Johnson, the commission’s executive director, wrote in an email to The Daily Signal. Johnson wrote:

"The Iowa Civil Rights Commission enforces Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code, which in part prohibits discrimination by public accommodations. The code also provides for an exemption for ‘Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any qualifications the institution may impose based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose.’ This law was enacted in 2007 and has been consistently enforced, and the exemption consistently applied, since its enactment"

First Liberty Institute’s letter requests that the civil rights panel publically acknowledge that Gordon’s church will be exempt from enforcement action.

“I would hate to see a day when a pastor for doing his duties is arrested or something and taken to jail,” Gordon said, adding:

"What we’re facing right now is quite literally a pastor being drug into court and having to spend a lot of church money to defend himself for doing something that pastors have been doing faithfully for hundreds of years and that’s teaching orthodox, Christian doctrine"

A federal lawsuit was filed July 4 on behalf of Fort Des Moines Church of Christ in Des Moines, Iowa, against members of the state Civil Rights Commission over concerns similar to those expressed by Cornerstone World Outreach.

Gordon, the father of three girls and two boys, said the state doesn’t “have any right to tell us what to teach or how to teach it or how to apply our beliefs in real life.” “The state needs to stay out of our business,” he said.

Over the long term, the pastor said, this issue should affect all Christians:

The Bible teaches us to be modest and it teaches us certain roles that are honorable and beautiful about both sexes, male and female. You have to try to survive in a world that seems more and more hostile to what you believe whether you’re at church or at the shopping center.

Chelsey Youman, chief of staff and counsel for First Liberty Institute, told The Daily Signal it is hoping to avoid litigation. “We … wanted to give the state commission a chance to do the right thing here,” Youman said.

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission has by 10 a.m. Aug. 5 to respond.

“We think it’s an absolute wake-up call to churches across America that we’re now having a state government say what you can and cannot say about your own doctrinal beliefs within the confines of your church, let alone having to open your facilities up in a way that is against your doctrine,” Youman said. 



Why Switzerland is one of the hardest countries to gain citizenship in

Once again Switzerland shows the way

LAST week, two young girls had their citizenship applications rejected by the Swiss government.

The girls, aged 12 and 14, were denied a Swiss passport because they refused to participate in school swimming lessons and camps, saying the proximity to men in these contexts was forbidden by their religion.  Swimming lessons are compulsory in the Swiss city of Basel, where the incident took place.

Stefan Wehrle, president of the naturalisation committee, said that young people who wish to become citizens need to prove they’re meeting the requirements of the country’s education system.  “Whoever doesn’t fulfil these conditions violates the law and therefore cannot be naturalised,” he told the Swiss TV station SRF.

It’s the first in a string of cases where individuals and families have seen their citizenship requests denied on the basis of not properly integrating into the country’s society and culture.

In Switzerland, the rules are stringent. Foreigners with no direct blood ties to Switzerland must live in the country for at least 12 years before they can apply for citizenship (although years spent in the country between ages 10 and 20 count for double).

Unlike in Australia or the United States, general knowledge of the country is considered less important than provenly integrating into society.

Authorities can and will do regular check-ups to determine whether or not a migrant is making genuine attempts to assimilate into their local neighbourhood, and adopting the national customs and traditions.

According to the Basellandschaftliche Zeitung, one of the country’s largest newspapers, it is very rare for a naturalisation application to be denied. But a string of recent cases suggest otherwise.

In an incident last month, a Bosnian Muslim father was fined for refusing to allow his daughters to take swimming lessons at school.

He also forbade them from going to camps and other school events, claiming such activities ran counter to his religious beliefs, the AFP reported.

He was ordered to pay 4000 Swiss francs (almost $5,000), and the prosecutor additionally requested he serve four months in jail, saying he had been living in Switzerland since 1990 and had made no attempts to integrate.

The Swiss government is not shy about threatening fines over a lack of integration. A case of this a few months ago sparked national outrage after two Muslim schoolboys refused to shake their female teacher’s hand, saying any physical contact with a non-related female was prohibited by Islam.

The incident largely sparked fury after the school agreed that the boys would no longer have to shake their female teachers’ hands, with the country’s Justice Minister insisting “shaking hands is part of our culture”.

The decision was later overturned, and replaced by a rule that stated a parent or guardian could be fined up to 5000 francs ($6,000) if their child refused to shake hands.

In 2015, a 76-year-old American immigrant abandoned his quest to become a Swiss citizen after living there for 43 years.

Local officials refused his naturalisation application, claiming the man — who lived there with his three children and German wife — had not sufficiently integrated.

They justified this by claiming, based on tests they conducted, that he wasn’t familiar with the local area and didn’t have any local friends.

In a comparatively stricter ruling, a family from Kosovo was denied citizenship because they wore tracksuit pants around town.

Initially, the family’s application process seemed solid: they knew the customs and geography of their region, and they could all speak German (there is a rule that citizens must speak one of the three national languages fluently — German, French or Italian).

But some panel members said the fact that they didn’t wear jeans was a hindrance, as was the fact that they didn’t greet people they passed in the street.   



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

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

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


11 July, 2016

Britain's rogue animal welfare organization forced by a judge to do the right thing

The RSPCA has been dealt a humiliating rebuke by a judge after the charity rehomed a woman’s cats without her permission.

Retired nurse Irene Brown, 68, was rushed to hospital last Christmas with meningitis, and five of her six cats were ‘signed over’ to the charity by her sister, who thought she would not return home.

One of the six cats was put down, and although three others were later returned, Miss Brown, of Wellingborough, Northants, is mounting an unprecedented legal challenge for the return of the remaining two rehomed by the RSPCA, which says it was given ‘authority’ to do so.

But District Judge Adam Taylor said last week the charity had a ‘fundamental problem’ with its defence and referred its solicitor to a legal rule in Latin: Nemo dat quod non habet – or no one gives what he doesn’t have.

An RSPCA spokesman said: ‘The court ordered the RSPCA to provide information about the whereabouts of the two remaining cats. This is being done.’


Obama Administration Refuses to Enforce ‘Right of Conscience,’ Legal Group Says

The Obama administration refuses to enforce federal law that protects Americans’ freedom of conscience, a Christian legal aid group says.

In 2014, California began mandating that employee health plans cover elective abortions. A state agency is refusing to exempt churches from the mandate, said Casey Mattox, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Churches should never be forced to cover elective abortion in their insurance plans, and for 10 years the Weldon Amendment has protected the right to have plans that do not include coverage for abortion on demand,” Mattox said in a statement.

The federal Weldon Amendment prohibits states receiving taxpayer funds under federal law from discriminating against health insurance plans that don’t cover abortion, Mattox has argued.

“The administration’s refusal to enforce [the Weldon Amendment] continues its pattern of enforcing laws it wants to enforce, refusing to enforce others, and inventing new interpretations of others out of whole cloth,” Mattox said in a formal statement.

“California has outlawed the licensing of any health care plan in the state that does not cover elective abortion. It is perfectly clear that California is violating the law and the Obama administration has frequently been refusing to enforce the law,” Mattox told The Daily Signal.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed two lawsuits in California challenging the rule.

Since the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, requires employers to provide health insurance coverage, California churches have been left without a way to opt out of paying for abortions, Alliance Defending Freedom says.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mattox said, “is obligated to go enforce this law itself, and it has decided that it is not going to enforce the law.”

The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services sent a response letter to several formal complaints filed by Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom over the California Department of Managed Health Care’s decision to force all employers to cover elective abortions.

In the letter, the Obama administration dismissed the “right of conscience” complaints after concluding that California’s law does not violate federal law, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Jocelyn Samuels, director of the federal agency’s Office for Civil Rights, wrote in the response letter: “A finding that [California Department of Managed Health Care] has violated the Weldon Amendment might require the government to rescind all funds appropriated under the Appropriations Act to the state of California.”

Rescinding the taxpayer money, Samuels added, “would raise substantial questions about the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment.”

Addressing that position, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Mattox said:

    "The Obama administration says enforcing the Weldon Amendment against California would violate the Constitution because you would be withholding all of these funds from the state. Which is very interesting because at the exact same time, you have the administration telling North Carolina that it’s going to withhold funds under the exact same appropriations bill"

The Justice Department sent North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, a letter in May saying the state’s “bathroom bill” violated federal law. The measure, which McCrory signed in March, made bathrooms in government buildings accessible based on a person’s biological sex, not his or her gender identity.

This is a “blatant contradiction,” Mattox said. “Basically, the administration is speaking out of both sides of its mouth,” he said.


UK: Putting women soldiers like me on the front line is dangerous - blame our biology


To my parents’ dismay, as a young girl I dressed in army fatigues, sported a crew cut, used to line my cuddly toys up at either end of the living toom and send them into battle.

My favourite game was to climb over our neighbours’ fences, cutting through people’s gardens, sneaking through their open back doors and slipping out the front, unnoticed. No wonder my mother and father despaired.

When I went to university, it felt like a natural progression to join the Army Reserve. I spent two years as an officer trainee, won my unit’s award as best woman officer cadet and was selected to go to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

When I came out, I was given command of my own troop in the Royal Engineers and served in the Army Reserve for five years. I look back on those years with a huge sense of achievement, pride and affection.

So I’m in absolutely no doubt as to the value of women in our Armed Forces.

Women currently occupy many roles classified as ‘non-combat’ - like those in the Royal Engineers - and are routinely right in the heart of the action. They have been a huge asset; serving with expertise, valour and distinction and gaining enormous respect from their male colleagues.

But, until now, they have not been able to join combat units – those with the primary aim of killing the enemy. That includes infantry battalions, armoured regiments and the Royal Marines.

And, even as a military woman myself, I have real concerns about the government’s decision to open up these ground combat roles to women.

David Cameron is to announce, this weekend, that he’s removing the ban on women serving in infantry and armour units. His decision comes after service chiefs, last month, unanimously recommended the move – which will see tank units and infantry jobs opened up to women in phases over the next year.

Fighting as an infantryman is the toughest job in the army. Most men are not mentally or physically tough enough for this role - and far fewer women will be. A review by the Ministry of Defence into whether women should serve in infantry and tank regiments estimated that, on current levels of recruitment, only around seven a year would pass through training to qualify for infantry units, about fourteen would qualify for the Royal Armoured Corps and just six for the Royal Marines.

We are physically different from men. It is a biological fact that the average women has a third less upper body strength and when it the comes to hand-to- hand combat - a fight to the death one-on-one; woman against a man - we will be at a physical disadvantage. 

Women are also twice as likely to get injured as men. It stands to reason, then, that women will be put in greater danger than their male colleagues purely because of their biology.

Concerns have also been expressed by senior military figures that male soldiers would feel the need to ‘look after’ their female colleagues, thereby reducing their fighting effectiveness and in turn, putting them more at risk.

Are we really ready to see our daughters gang raped, tortured and decapitated live on the Internet by Isil fighters? Because that is exactly what will happen if a female front line soldier is captured in Syria. For terrorist or extremist organisations, any press is ‘good’ in their warped world view - and the more gruesome, disturbing and inhumane the better. A captured female soldier would be gold dust for their global radicalisation campaign.

I also think a blanket approach to opening up all ground combat roles to women is too ‘cookie-cutter’.

I see no reason why women couldn’t serve in front line armoured regiments that aren't quite as physically demanding as, say, the infantry. These units do see direct combat, but the soldiers are 'mounted' in fighting vehicles, so there is less physical fitness required and they do not engage in hand-to-hand combat unless their vehicle is disabled and over-run by the enemy.

I’d suggest that the Prime Minister and army chiefs take a more measured approach and initially open up such regiments to women, monitoring that for a few years before making any further decisions about the infantry.

There is clearly a political imperative to proceed and a perceived need by the government to be seen to be politically correct in allowing women to serve in ground combat roles.

But the role of the Army isn’t to be PC. It’s to be an effective fighting force and any decision that could compromise that effectiveness in these very challenging global times would be a erroneous one indeed.


Now Controversial: 'God Bless America'

It didn’t used to be — that’s a phrase we use a lot these days, isn’t it? — but the Fourth of July festivities bring out the angriest guff from the left. In 1991 Boston Globe arts critic (and aspiring poet) Patricia Smith decided to refashion the national anthem in the leftist rag The Nation.

“Oh say, we’ve seen too much,” she began. “The Star-Spangled Banner pushes like a cough through America’s mouth and the twilight’s last gleaming is just that, a sickly flash above our heads as we ride unsuspecting in the bellies of sleek trains, plop to our knees in churches, embracing truths that disgust us.”

That stupidity never gained traction. But that doesn’t mean the idiots don’t keep trying.

The folks at the New York Daily News have embraced a mission to become the most provocative jerks in the Big Apple. One day it’s personal attacks on those praying for the victims of terrorism, the next it’s declaring the National Rifle Association to be murderous. In keeping with this stream of insulting behaviors, columnist Gersh Kuntzman has issued a demanded, saying, “Major League Baseball must permanently retire ‘God Bless America,’ a song that offends everyone.”

Everyone? Surely, this man could find a handful of people in midtown Manhattan who aren’t offended by “God Bless America.” That isn’t what he meant, however. By “everyone” he means his circle of friends, professional and personal, which says something more about his circles than his complaint.

Kuntzman began: “It’s time for God to stop blessing America during the seventh-inning stretch. Welcome to the July 4 weekend — when once again, baseball fans will be assaulted by the saccharine-sweet non-anthem ‘God Bless America’ at stadia all over this great land.” The song, he says, “should be sent permanently to the bench.”

This bilge came just days after Kuntzman drew attention for oddly comparing the AR-15 assault weapon to a bazooka: “The recoil bruised my shoulder … The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD.”

Children in kindergarten have stronger dispositions than this guy.

It’s only natural that gun owners have mocked this overwrought routine. One video showed a little girl shooting an AR-15 without getting hurt. One man shot one with the butt of the gun pressed against the tip of his nose to show how harmless the recoil is.

Since he enjoyed all the negative attention this brought, Kuntzman took to Twitter, promising, “First guns, now I take on god: Baseball must permanently retire ‘God Bless America.’” Yes, God is uncapitalized.

You can insult our Lord with impunity at the New York Daily News.

Kuntzman protested the apparent fascism of the whole exercise, the “ponderous Mussolini-esque introduction of the song, when fans are asked to rise, remove their caps and place them over their hearts.” He made wisecracks, saying it’s “as much a symbol of post-war patriotism as the flag, the space program and all the white people moving to the suburbs.” He says the song “still embodies great things about America, but also our worst things: self-righteousness, forced piety, earnest self-reverence, foam.”

He’s not alone in hating a mix of baseball and patriotism. ESPN also has lurched far left in promoting a harsh political agenda. ESPN Magazine columnist Howard Bryant recently bashed the idea of police officers singing the national anthem at baseball games. This is somehow an “authoritarian shift at the ballpark,” he asserted. Baseball-team owners ignored “the smothering effect that staged patriotism and cops singing the national anthem in a time of Ferguson have on player expression.” And “it’s indirectly stifled, while the increasing police pageantry at games sends another clear message: The sentiments of the poor in Ferguson and Cleveland do not matter.”

According to Bryant powerful people in the culture have to choose: Honor the cops, screw the poor. Honoring the poor means dishonoring the police.

Last November, Bryant attacked the Chicago Blackhawks for wearing camouflage jerseys on Veterans Day, which he said clashed with their Native American logo given that the “systematic removal of native tribes occurred at the hands of the U.S. Army.”

ESPN is the same network that fired Curt Schilling for being too political.



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

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

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


10 July, 2016

Muslim viciousness in Britain

Promising recruits for ISIS

Five teenagers have been sentenced over the 'sickening' hot iron torture of a 16-year-old boy because of a £80 debt.

The victim was lured to a house in Oldham, Greater Manchester, where he was stripped and branded on his stomach, buttocks and back before salt and lemon juice were poured on his burns.

He had also been bound with tape, slashed on his back and continuously punched and kicked, said Greater Manchester Police.

Eventually after several hours the teenager was allowed to leave the house in the Werneth area on October 5 last year having suffered terrible injuries.

Three of his assailants, Shohaib Khan, 17, of Grange Avenue, Oldham; Adam Hussain, 16, of Olivers Court, Oldham, and Sufyan Yakub, 16, of Park Road, Oldham, all pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to blackmail, false imprisonment, wounding with intent and assault.

Khan was locked up at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court for six years and six months, while Hussain and Yakub received sentences of four years each.

A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to a section 47 assault and was sentenced to a 12-month supervision programme with a night-time curfew, said police.

Ahsan Khan, 15, of Cornwall Street, Oldham, received a five-year custodial sentence after he was convicted after trial of blackmail, false imprisonment, wounding with intent, assault, theft and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Following sentencing, Detective Inspector Paul Walker said: 'This was a sickening and prolonged attack on a young boy which left him so shaken and terrified that he didn't even want to tell his parents what had happened.

'The emotional scars from this shocking attack will haunt him for the rest of his life and I could not even begin to imagine the agony and suffering that he endured.

'Thankfully, his attackers have now been sentenced but this can never fully repair the damage that this barbaric incident has done.

'I want to pay tribute to the victim and his family for having the bravery to come forward and give evidence that has helped us catch and convict the people that have inflicted this upon him.'


Interns sacked for ‘flexible dress code’ petition

THIS is it. We finally have it — proof that millennials are the worst generation.  A group of young interns at an unnamed company have been sacked en masse for starting a petition for a “more flexible dress code”.

The intern responsible has been widely panned after their plea for advice on the AskAManager website went viral over the weekend.

“I was able to get a summer internship at a company that does work in the industry I want to work in after I graduate,” the reader wrote. “Even though the division I was hired to work in doesn’t deal with clients or customers, there still was a very strict dress code.

“I felt the dress code was overly strict but I wasn’t going to say anything, until I noticed one of the workers always wore flat shoes that were made from a fabric other than leather, or running shoes, even though both of these things were contrary to the dress code.”

The intern said they spoke with their manager about “being allowed some leeway” under the dress code and was told it was not possible, “despite the other person being allowed to do it”.

Uh oh. The letter went on.  “I soon found out that many of the other interns felt the same way, and the ones who asked their managers about it were told the same thing as me,” they wrote.

“We decided to write a proposal stating why we should be allowed someone leeway under the dress code.  “We accompanied the proposal with a petition, signed by all of the interns (except for one who declined to sign it) and gave it to our managers to consider.

“Our proposal requested that we also be allowed to wear running shoes and non leather flats, as well as sandals (not flip-flops though) and other non-dress shoes that would fit under a more business casual dress code.

“It was mostly about the footwear, but we also incorporated a request that we not have to wear suits and/or blazers in favour of a more casual, but still professional dress code.”

The next day, the hapless intern wrote, “all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed”.

“Instead, we were informed that due to our ‘unprofessional’ behaviour, we were being let go from our internships. We were told to hand in our ID badges and to gather our things and leave the property ASAP.

“We were shocked. The proposal was written professionally like examples I have learned about in school, and our arguments were thought out and well-reasoned. We weren’t even given a chance to discuss it.”

The worst part, they said, was that “just before the meeting ended, one of the managers told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear whatever kind of shoes she could walk in”.

“You can’t even tell, and if we had known about this we would have factored it into our argument,” they wrote.

The reader went on to explain that they had “never had a job before” and was “hoping to gain some experience before I graduate next year”.

“I feel my dismissal was unfair and would like to ask them to reconsider but I’m not sure the best way to go about it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.”

In response, AskAManager’s Alison Green helpfully explained the situation.

“Y’all were pretty out of line,” she wrote. “You were interns there — basically guests for the summer. Their rules are their rules. This is like being a houseguest and presenting your host with a signed petition (!) to change their rules about cleaning up after yourself. You just don’t have the standing to do that.”

While interns shouldn’t have to “suck up any and every condition of an internship”, this “wasn’t something like asking you to do unsafe work or work unreasonable hours”.

“This was asking you to abide by what sounds like a very common and reasonable professional dress code,” she wrote.

“[You] assumed you knew better (despite being in a position where the whole point is that you don’t have experience and are there to learn) and then went about it in a pretty aggressive way.

“A petition is … well, it’s not something you typically see at work. It signals that you think that if you get enough signatures, your company will feel pressured to act, and that’s just not how this stuff works.

“A company is not going to change its dress code because its interns sign a petition.”

The original post has attracted nearly 1400 comments and has been widely shared online.

“Your workplace isn’t a democracy,” wrote one reader. “At best, it’s a benevolent dictatorship. It might be a totalitarian regime. But either way, rounding up supporters and creating a petition is not appropriate.”

Another pointed out that the story was an “excellent example of how many college campus environments these days are not preparing young adults for the real world”.

“Not only are basic office procedures and politics (such as following the dress code) not taught but students are getting the idea that if their voice is the loudest, then change will happen,” they wrote.

Others pointed the blame squarely at the parents.

“If you want to blame any age group, blame the previous generation for raising kids who’ve been taught that when you get a bad grade, you argue with the teacher about it instead of studying harder next time,” wrote one commenter.

“Millennials surely didn’t invent that behaviour but rather learned it from their parents doing it on their behalf.”


Isn't government healthcare just the bees' knees?

UK: Teenager screaming in agony sent home after doctors 'fail to spot' her broken spine. Doctors allegedly failed to spot that this teenage girl had broken her spine - and sent her home.

Chloe Wilson, 16, was screaming in agony with three fractures in her spine after falling from a bannister. But her family claim medics in A&E at Glasgow’s Queen Elizabeth University Hospital did not diagnose the injury, which can cause paralysis.

Her parents Jennifer and Scott, both 32, say they were told their daughter was not seriously injured - but needed x-rays. Care assistant Jennifer told the Daily Record: “They sent her for an X-ray but she was really screaming in pain.  "She couldn’t lie down properly and said she had lost all feeling in her bum, leg and foot on the right side.

“When she came back from X-ray, the doctor came in an said, ‘Good news, nothing’s broken’.

“He came in with a pair of crutches but by this time Chloe was really upset because she couldn’t feel anything.

“The doctor said that could be normal after a fall and that she could be bruised inside.

“However, he wanted her to go to the toilet before she left. “I took her but she couldn’t even sit down and wasn’t even aware she had managed to pass urine.

“I had to buzz a nurse for help to get her back into the cubicle and got her back on the bed as best as I could.”

The original doctor had gone off shift by this time and a second doctor said there was “no reason to keep her in”.

Chloe was given a wheelchair to get the car but her dad was so distressed he tried pleading with doctors again. Scott said: “I could see she was in extreme pain and was screaming.

"She couldn’t sit down so I had no idea how I was going to get her into the car.”

The doctor who discharged Chloe told Scott they had examined her and there was nothing wrong with her.

However, when Scott pressed the issue, the doctor said she had broken her coccyx but there was nothing they could do for that.

Scott asked for her to be readmitted because of her pain but doctor said she would have to wait and still be discharged.

Her parents drove her home, but Chloe shouted in pain throughout the journey. Jennifer said: “She kept saying she was going to be sick and the pain was making her feel faint.”  She didn't sleep and cried out in pain all day, her parents said.

Jennifer said: “Scott and I agreed if she was no better by Monday we would take her to another hospital.”

But at 8.30am on Sunday they got a call from the first doctor they had seen saying when he came in for his shift he read her notes and was surprised she had not been admitted when she could not walk.

Jennifer, a care assistant, said: “He said all he could do was apologise and said he was sending an ambulance for her.”

The paramedics gave her gas and air but they had no effect and they had to give her morphine before they could move her.

During the night, her condition in hospital worsened significantly so she was given two emergency MRI scans which showed she had three fractures in her spine – one of which was in such a dangerous place it has been known to cause paralysis.

She has some feeling back in her leg but there are still large areas of numbness.

A spokesman from Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board said: “Patients discharged from any emergency ­department (ED) are given condition specific advice on what to do if their symptoms change.

“In this patient’s case, her symptoms did change and the family followed the advice given and brought her back to ED, where we carried out further tests and admitted her.

“Her care plan has been discussed with both neurosurgery and the spinal injuries unit who have agreed that it is clinically appropriate, and in line with accepted medical practice, for her to be treated in an orthopaedic ward as she has a stable spinal fracture.”


Dear Iowa Christians, Use the Right Pronouns in Church . . . Or Else

I’m old enough to remember when Christians who expressed concern that LGBT activists would attempt to regulate church services were dismissed as paranoid nutjobs. Well, welcome to our new paranoid future.

My friends and colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom announced today that they were filing suit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to block enforcement of gender identity guidelines that purport to regulate “a church service open to the public.” News flash — virtually every church service is open to the public.

The guidelines, published in a “public accommodations providers guide to Iowa law” contain the usual nondiscrimination catch-all phrases, noting that a “public accommodation” commits an act of gender identity discrimination when it, to take a few examples, intentionally uses names and pronouns inconsistent with the person’s “presented gender” (whatever that means), refuses access to preferred bathrooms, or even “indirectly” advertises that a transgender person is “unwelcome” or “not acceptable.”

Incredibly, the document contains an FAQ specifically directed at churches. Here it is:


Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).

It’s unclear to me how a branch of the Iowa state government has determined that a “church service open to the public” does not have a “bona fide religious purpose,” but there it is.

Under current guidance, churches in Iowa must become “members only” to exercise their religious liberty. It’s tough to imagine this guidance surviving even liberal judicial review, but even if struck down it shows where some on the Left want to take the law. Not even the sanctuary is safe.



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

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

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


8 July, 2016

Christian dating websites forced to cater to homosexuals

Homosexual dating websites are not forced to include heterosexuals, so why should Christian heterosexual dating sites be forced to include homosexuals. Homosexuals seem to enjoy forcing their presence onto others, and leftists like to facilitate them doing that -- and particularly against Christians, whom homosexuals and leftists both hate.  Christian dating sites should refuse co-operation on the grounds homosexuality is against Bible teachings; it may be understood and forgiven, but not encouraged and facilitated

IN A win for LGBT rights, a Californian judge has ordered a group of religious-based dating sites to cater to those in search of a same sex partner.

Among the websites which now have to open their doors to the gay community is a prominent Christian dating service called ChristianMingle.com.

Others include a CatholicMingle.com and LDS singles which advertises itself as “the largest dating site by Mormons for Mormons.”

Despite these websites catering to an audience that seems unanimously opposed to gay marriage, the company which owns the dating services has had to concede there are gay Christians and gay Mormons in the world.

Until now, ChristianSingles.com — which is considered the largest dating site for adherents of the religion — required new users to specify whether they’re a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man.

Two gay men filed class action lawsuits against the owner of the website, Spark Network Inc. back in 2013 saying they were unable to use the service.

The plaintiffs claimed the websites were in violation of a California anti-discrimination law that requires “business establishments” to offer “full and equal accommodations” to people regardless of their sexual orientation, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Spark decided to settle with the two men and this week a state judge approved the conditions of the settlement.

The websites have now altered the gateway homepage so users can only select if they are a “man” or a “woman”.

The company also agreed to change the search and profile features of the websites within the next two years to give gay and lesbian singles a more tailored experience.

“I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation,” a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs said in a statement.

While hailed as a victory for tolerance and LGBT rights by some, angry conservatives have taken to social media to denounce the outcome of the lawsuit calling it an attack on religious freedoms.


Fathers Matter: More Evidence on their Importance

Scientists concerned with the increasing incidence of early onset puberty have discovered a disturbing correlation:

Girls who grew up without a biological father are twice as likely to get their period before age 12

This is important because, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics, “the health consequences of earlier onset of puberty are myriad:” ranging from a higher risk of depression in early adolescence to risk-taking behaviors such as alcohol use, smoking, drug use, and early sexual activity.

Longer term, as adults they’re at a higher risk for obesity, Type 2 diabetes and breast cancer.

While research points to other contributing factors, including increasing rates of childhood obesity and mothers who are overweight during pregnancy, Dr. Louise Greenspan, co-author of an American Journal of Epidemiology study, says toxic stress, including growing up without a father, is an important factor in girls’ starting puberty early.

While other studies have concentrated on the negative effects of growing up without a father on boys, not surprisingly, girls need a father too. It’s tragic that the trend against two-parent homes is only growing larger.

Politicians habitually deny reality: that’s what gets them elected. But we don’t have to buy what they’re selling, and we need to universally reject policies that undermine the family. We are hurting children—our only future.


British factory which told Polish and Slovakian workers they must speak in English at work is forced to abandon the scheme following complaints it was 'discriminatory'

A factory that ordered Eastern European workers to speak English at work has scrapped the scheme amid complaints of discrimination.

Bosses at Orchid Orthopedic Solutions, which makes medical equipment, introduced the measure at the factory in Sheffield in a bid to reduce divisions between English employees and those from Poland and Slovakia, who often spoke to each other in their mother tongues.

Staff complained about the policy, branding it 'unfair and discriminatory', adding it had fueled tensions between different ethnic groups on the factory floor.

Chiefs have now scrapped the policy, apologising for any 'confusion' over the 'well intentioned' scheme.

According to the Sheffield Star, the policy was reportedly introduced after an employee complained after working with a team of Polish colleagues who spoke to each other in their own language.

Employees are also understood to have complained over feeling 'isolated and intimidated' by non-English speaking co-workers.

The policy was introduced as part of the company's updated company rules, called 'Toolbox Talk', which all employees were required to sign.

At the time, the company said the policy was decided to create 'harmony' in the workplace. It added that speaking in another language would not be treated as a disciplinary issue.

However there was reportedly a 'ruckus' in the factory when the document was presented, with one source telling the Sheffield star that Polish workers felt discriminated against.

Staff later complained about the policy, saying it was 'unfair and discriminatory'. 

One employee said instead of reducing division in the factory, the rule change had increased tensions.

The worker, who did not want to be named, said: 'I feel the company has escalated the problem and turned a small situation into a big one rather than assessing the cause of the problem.

'If two Polish guys are conversing it's going to be much quicker for them to get their job done. There's a lot of Polish and Slovakian workers - I find it unfair and discriminatory.'

A spokesman for Orchid said: 'We have rescinded this request with immediate effect and are preparing a new instruction that is intended to make everyone feel welcome at Orchid while accommodating the language needs for effective business communication.

'We apologise for any confusion our well-intentioned policy may have caused.  'Orchid values diversity as it is in the spirit of our core values and demonstrated by the variety of races and ethnicities we employ.'


Enough Is Enough in Baltimore

It’s often said that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.  While that may be true, only a bad prosecutor actually would, and fortunately, we don’t see it happen often.

Last year, in Baltimore, it did. Inflamed by the in-custody death of inveterate criminal Freddie Gray, enraged by riotous mobs who caused millions of dollars in property damage and inflicted injuries on over 100 police officers, Baltimore’s visibly angry chief prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, took to the podium last spring to announce charges against six seasoned Baltimore police officers.

And she said these words: “While I am committed to transparency, what I have revealed here today is now a matter of public record. However, the evidence we have collected and continue to collect cannot ethically be released to the public and I strongly condemn anyone in law enforcement with access to trial evidence who has leaked information prior resolution of this case. You are only damaging our ability to conduct a fair and impartial process for all parties involved.

“I hope that as we move forward with this case everyone will respect due process and refrain from doing anything that would jeopardize our ability to seek justice.

“To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for ‘No justice, no peace.’ Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.”

While some of those to whom she spoke – potential violent protesters – have kept their end of the bargain so far, Mosby has horribly failed to keep her end.

What she asked and promised was respect for due process, fairness, impartiality, and transparency.  Today, we are again processing the transparency through the eyes of Judge Barry Williams, and what we are learning is that Marilyn Mosby’s view of due process, fairness, and impartiality is hardly what is defined by Websters, or in any law book.

As the third prosecution of the Baltimore Six collapsed in Judge Williams’ court on Thursday, like the two before it, what is transparent is that Mosby did what she was accused of a year ago – rushed to judgment.  Worse, her rush also bore the stamp of grand jury indictments of six Baltimore officers, indictments that have been, for them and their families, life-changing.  And the judge who has heard and processed every bit of testimony and other evidence in the cases reaching trial so far has, brick by crumbling brick, systematically dismantled the hollow cases brought by Mosby’s henchmen.

So resounding has been her defeat that one must ask how and why these charges could ever have been brought.  Yesterday, the prosecution’s “rough ride” theory that would have sent Caesar Goodson to jail for three decades turned into little more than wisps of smoke.  The steely-eyed, hard-charging prosecutor who welcomed a Vogue magazine profile and sat onstage with Prince, turns out to be Baltimore’s Icarus – her soaring ego failing to identify her shortcomings – including her unwillingness to recognize the presence or absence of basic facts.

When prosecutors choose to ignore the facts and bring politically-motivated charges regardless, they risk wrongful convictions or, as in Baltimore, failure.  They also undermine the concepts of due process and the rule of law, rather than advancing them.  The citizens of Baltimore are ill-served when their chief prosecutor casts aside the expectations of her oath of office in order to sacrifice six police officers on the public altar.  They are ill-served when their chief prosecutor raises expectations of the trial, convictions, and speedy, harsh sentencing only to have those expectations crumble.  And they are ill-served when the prosecutors, as seems to have happened here, fail in that impartiality and transparency by withholding or ignoring exculpatory evidence from the defense.

What happens next is important.  Perhaps, today, Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who was quoted as allowing last year’s rioters, “space to destroy” will decide that her chief prosecutor should be given no such space herself.  It is overdue.



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

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

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



7 July, 2016

An independent Scotland as a bolthole for Remainers

Anybody who knows anything about the "United" Kingdom will be aware that it is anything but united. And that can be an emotional issue to many Britons.  I once took part in a debate at Cambridge university on the question of whether the kingdom was united.  It was meant to be a light-hearted debate but when I made a few basic points about the Scottish attitude to the English, I clearly stood on toes. There are many silences about certain topics in England and I had breached one such silence. So the debate became quite heated and unhappy. It's an example of why the English often call Australians "brash".

The fact of the matter is that the Scots despise the English and the English treat the Scots as a joke -- with their primitive bagpipes and men in skirts.  Which makes the Scots hate them even more of course.  And the two races really are different. The UK really is a bad marriage.   The Scots are very socialist and England is at heart conservative.  So when Margaret Thatcher swept to power it was on the basis of a big swing to the Conservatives in England only.  Scotland swung away from the Conservatives.

And that divergence has slowly come to a head in recent times.  In 1998, Tony Blair set up a separate parliament for Scotland with certain powers passed to it from the central government.  Similar provisions were made for Wales and Northern Ireland.  But that only stoked the fires.  It gave Scottish opinion a focus and a mouthpiece that they were not slow to use.  And the pressure built up to the point where a referendum was called in late 2014 on total Scottish independence. 

The referendum was narrowly lost. A majority of Scots voted to preserve the UK.  How come?  There were of course various reasons but the central one was money.  The dastardly English made clear that an independent Scotland could no longer use the British Pound as its currency.  That really hit at Scottish hearts.  Legends of Scottish thrift are well matched by Scottish reality.  Scots are very attached to their savings -- which are of course denominated in British pounds.  So Scots saw their savings melting away and that could not be. 

Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, is however a determined little bizzem and she has used Brexit as an occasion to revisit independence.  True to form, when the English voted to leave the EU, Scots voted to stay in it.  And Nicola wants Scotland to gain its independence from the English so that it can preserve its dependence on the EU.  That may seem bizarre but it makes sense in Scotland.  What it shows again is the Scottish attitude to the English.

And therein lies a great opportunity for England.  A great heartburn which the English Conservatives put up with through gritted teeth is the presence of Scottish MPs in the Westminster parliament.  Their solid socialist presence is a block on the English getting the government they choose. Most democratic elections are fairly close and that is mostly so in the UK too. So a UK election normally returns a small majority of Conservative MPs from England which is then outvoted by the socialist Scottish bloc.  Without the Scots at Westminster it is possible that England would have a Conservative government more or less forever.  That sounds good to Conservative ears.

So why was the Conservative government at Westminster opposed to Scottish independence?  Why did they campaign vigorously for Scotland to stay in the UK?  Power:  The one thing that politicians like even more than money. Scotland is a nice bit of real estate and the English like to come and go there. And they like to have the ultimate say in Scottish affairs.  To lose Scotland would feel like a defeat.

But Brexit has raised the issue again and this time there is a reason to rethink.  The "Remain" vote in the Brexit referendum was large and they are right now very unhappy chappies.  They have come out with the most astonishing bigotry towards the "Leavers".  The vote did largely polarize between London and the North.  The politically correct Londoners voted to "Remain" and the down-to-earth" Northerners voted to "Leave".  And there was an age divide too.  Older people remembered when Britain did quite well as an independent country so saw nothing to fear in independence.  But for younger people, the EU was all they knew so they voted to "Remain".

Inhabitants of the Home Counties (around London) have always looked down on the Northerners.  For them, civilization stops at Watford, a railway junction at the Northern edge of the Home counties. To their minds there are two Englands:  North of Watford and South of Watford.  And Northerners who move South had better lose their comical Northern accents or they will be treated as outsiders.  They will be anyway but with a "better" accent they will be harder to detect.

So the hatred of the Northerners and the old that has emerged in the Home Counties after the Brexit result has just brought old antagonisms to the surface. But it is a real hatred and does need to be dealt with in some way.  It has even brought out anti-democratic impulses in many.  And I have a proposal for a way to deal with it.

The English should give Nicola her heart's desire and Scotland its independence.  Scotland could then promptly make itself unfree again and join the EU.  So English people who really do see an advantage in EU membership could migrate North without too much disruption to their lives.

Not many would in fact do so because of the old geographic loyalties I have mentioned but it would at least take away the rational argument against Brexit.  The emotional argument would then be left to stand on its own, which would weaken it greatly.

And Edinburgh is a pleasant place.  It is to Scotland as the Home Counties are to England.  It is the traditional home of Scottish intellectuals, who are a distinguished band.  So Home Counties people should find it broadly congenial.  Scottish weather is even worse than English weather but to an Englishman that gives him something to talk about. 

And an English community would probably develop in Edinburgh to ease the transition.  Scots exhibit great reserve towards the English, which is why the English call them "dour".  Scots are in fact quite the opposite of dour, of course.  They are jolly, sentimental people who like a drink or three.  But the English will never see that side of them. 

But Australians can. Australians visiting Scotland also initially get the reserved treatment -- because to Scottish ears we "sound like the TV".  Our accent sounds English to Scottish ears. And it is.  An educated Australian accent is quite close to RP -- closer than most regional English accents.  But we just have to identify ourselves as Australians in Scotland for the mask to be torn  away.  We are seen as fellow sufferers from the English so we are greeted joyously as brothers.  So you see why the English would need their own social and business world in Edinburgh.

How could it all be accomplished?  It just needs a vote at Westminster and a treaty.  England could offer the Scots continued use of the pound as their currency in return for various Scottish concessions and the deed would be done.  England would become a very conservative nation and Scots would have to start blaming themselves for the problems they currently blame on the English. 

And the "Remainers" would have some of their teeth pulled.  Their wishes would be accommodated to some extent.  A great British compromise will have been achieved.

And the EU would presumably welcome Scotland with a gladsome heart.  They would see it as a vindication of their project and a poke in the eye for the pesky English -- JR.

The stifling of dissenting voices in the EU

The British people fed-up with Brussels dictates voted on June 23, to exit the European Union. Boris Johnson, former Mayor of London and a leading voice for Brexit, argued (Economist June18-24 issue) that “Napoleon, Hitler, and other various people tried this out (forcefully unifying Europe-JP), and it ended tragically.  The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.”  One of those coercive methods has been to limit, if not forbid, anti-immigration speech.

The elitist of the European Union (EU) have seen a rise in nativist protest movements throughout the European continent.  The voiceless people of the states of the European Union have been forced to adopt multiculturalism and political correctness as their new civil religion, and their dissenting voices are now being squashed by a series of measures that amount to the curtailment of free speech.

Earlier this month, the European Commission, a powerful and unelected European Union’s executive branch, announced plans to combat “illegal online hate speech.” The same European Commission unveiled a code of conduct that will ensure that online platforms do not offer opportunities for “illegal online hate speech to spread virally.” Unsurprisingly, it is the European Commission that will determine what constitutes “illegal online hate speech” and not the people’s elected representatives in the individual European countries that make up the European Union (EU).

A press release headline issued by the European Commission (EC) in Brussels on May 31, 2016, read “The European Commission and IT companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech.” The EC explanatory paragraphs read: “In order to prevent the spread of illegal hate speech, it is essential to ensure that relevant national laws transposing the Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia are fully enforced by Member States in the online as well as the offline environment. While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously reviewed by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.”

These provisions of the EC against hate speech have done little to prevent the rise of anti-Semitism in the EU countries, nor has it criminalized the anti-Semitic nature of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement, which singles out the Jewish state.  It does, however, seek to stifle the anti-immigrant movement, which is trying to alert Europeans of the coming Islamization of Europe.  In addition, the EC decision will adversely impact on the civil liberties of over 500 million Europeans. 

The net impact of recent “speech” laws enacted by western governments has been magnified by even greater forms of private censorship on (predominantly Muslim) anti-immigrants.  For example, most news organizations have stopped showing images of Mohammad, although no such self-censorship has been made regarding caricatures of other religious figures.  In September, 2012, French actress and animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot was fined several times for comments she made about how Muslims are undermining French culture.  In Britain, a 15-year old girl was arrested for “burning a Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook.”

The Wall Street Journal reported on September 14, 2015 that, “Facebook Inc. said that it would work with the German government Justice Ministry to fight xenophobic and racist messages on the social network’s platform, bending to German government pressure to clamp down on hate messages against migrants online.”  While (Muslim) anti-immigrant expression is verboten in Germany, anti-Jewish hate is excused.  A German judge convicted two German-Palestinian men of attempted arson against a synagogue in the city of Wuppertal, along with a juvenile accomplice. In his ruling however, the judge declared that the crime was motivated by the desire to “bring attention to the Gaza conflict” and not by anti-Semitism, which was the obvious case.  For the German judiciary, it seems, protesting against the Islamization of Europe in general, and of Germany in particular, is a hate speech, if not a hate crime.  Yet, arson against a synagogue is not…this perversion of logic has become widespread throughout the EU states.

While Germany is on its way to commit demographic and cultural suicide with the admission of millions of poor and uneducated Middle Eastern and African migrants, Sweden is already lost.  The people of Sweden are allowing its radical leftist governing parties and its equally pandering press to expedite the process.  The Gatestone Institute reported (December 22, 2014) that before the scheduled March, 2015 elections, the current Social-Democrat and Greens party had enacted “a measure far less publicized, and would come into effect that Christmas (2014). The new measure is designed to make it easier to prosecute those who offend immigrants, immigration policies, LGBT people and politicians online.”  According to Gatestone “even immigrants themselves do not seem to be allowed to challenge immigration policy or immigrant culture.  Last year a Somali-born female journalist, critical of immigrant culture, was intimidated to such an extent by the Swedish journalistic establishment that she decided Mogadishu (Somalia) was a safer place for her than Sweden.”

Only in Sweden does the government take out loans to make welfare payments to migrant Muslim gang-rapists.  Also in Sweden “the fear of being labeled ‘politically incorrect’ keeps Sweden’s main political parties from engaging in an honest debate about integration.”  And, while the government and its compliant leftist press blew out of proportion an attack on migrants, it had been silent on the rapes by mainly Arab and African Muslim migrants on Swedish women.  The U.K. Daily Mail reported (March 4th, 2016) that “What is worrying is that if the Stockholm Station story has been blown out of proportion, it could have artificially fueled pro-migrant sentiment and made ordinary Swedes less ready to voice their worries about mass migration.  Fears of a cover-up have been fueled by an investigation published by a flourishing online Swedish news outlet Nyherer Idag, showing that Swedish authorities hid from the public sexual assaults by immigrant gangs on scores of teenage girls at a popular Stockholm music festival booth last year and in 2014.”

Needless to say that in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, and in the rest of the EU states, anti-immigrant voices are stifled by archaic laws that are undemocratic to say the least.  The West has traded Christianity and pride in its civilizational accomplishment for the falsehood of multiculturalism.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet dissident, author and Nobel Laureate summed it up as early as 1978, when he was given the Harvard University Laureate Award.  Solzhenitsyn used the occasion to give a politically incorrect speech, which President Carter and the mainstream press criticized.  Nevertheless, Solzhenitsyn spoke truth to the western powers.

Solzhenitsyn didn’t mince words while he told America and the West that they were spiritually bankrupt. The West, he said, abandoned its moral and civil courage.  “The Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive.” Had Solzhenitsyn lived today, he would also witness how freedom of speech is dying in Europe.


Left-wing German politician who was raped by migrants admits she LIED to police about her attackers' nationality because she did not want to encourage racism

Looks like she is hersrelf a Turk

A young left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the racial background of three men who raped her in case it triggered reprisals against refugees in her country.

Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.

The 24-year-old was ambushed late at night in a playground where she said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.

After the assault she went straight to the police - but she did not tell them the ethnic make-up of the men, that they were speaking Arabic or Farsi.

Selin, aware of the backlash that migrants suffered after the events in Cologne on New Year's Eve - when hundreds of women were sexually assaulted and robbed by marauding gangs of immigrant youths - instead said she was robbed and said her attackers spoke German.

Now she has told Germany's Spiegel magazine why she lied. After her initial interview at the end of January she returned to the police 12 hours later to tell them the real story.

A friend talked her into going back to the police with the real story because another woman had been raped in the area - an accusation later retracted by the alleged victim.

Selin, who has visited refugee camps in Iraq where she was shocked at the squalor people are living in, did not want to stoke 'more hatred against migrants ín Germany.'

To help her cope she wrote an open letter to a fictional refugee and posted it on Facebook. It read in part: 'I am really sorry that your sexist and line-crossing treatment of me could help fuel aggressive racism.

'I'm going to scream... I will not stand by and watch, and it can happen that racists and concerned citizens name you as the problem. You're not the problem. You're usually a wonderful human being who deserves as much as any other to be safe and free.

'I will not stand by and watch and let it happen that racists and concerned citizens name you as the problem.'

She now says people must never 'twist the truth' even if it is politically expedient to do so.

A group called Gesa in Kassel - Active Together Against Sexual Violence - says that sexual assaults by many male migrants have increased.

'The perpetrators often come from cultures with a different image of women', said Steffi Burmester of GESA.

'They are alone and looking to banish their humiliation of flight with confirmation of their masculinity. This is neither to apologise nor to accept their actions, it is how it is.'


New York Times Censors Another Best-Selling Conservative Author....Writing on Free Speech

The New York Times appears to be playing games again with conservative authors, trying to keep them off its vaunted (and secretively manipulated) Best Sellers list. This has happened to Ted Cruz, to Dinesh D’Souza, and to David Limbaugh.

This case is more ironic: Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel has a new book out called The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech.

Every week, Nielsen's BookScan produces a ranking of book sales around the country, and is estimated to capture 70 to 80 percent of all retail sales. Most organizations, including The Wall Street Journal, use BookScan as their way of ranking best-sellers.  According to BookScan's list on Wednesday, The Intimidation Game was the sixth bestselling hardcover book in the nation for the past week. It came out on June 21 from Twelve Books.

When The New York Times announced its latest weekend best-seller list on Wednesday evening, The Intimidation Game was nowhere in the the top 15. In fact, it wasn't even on the extended list of the top 20 hardcover bestsellers, despite outselling books that did make the list. It did come up as No. 13 on the New York Times's e-book bestseller list for July 10. So the Times is aware of its sales, but its secret-sauce formula is somehow keeping it at bay....like other conservative best-sellers.

The dust-cover may explain why the Times is acting allergic: "Timed to arrive at the height of the 2016 presidential season, The Intimidation Game will shine a much-needed light on how liberal activists and the Democratic machine bully the political process."



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

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

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


6 July, 2016

After the Referendum: Sorting through the Rubble

As Libertarian Sean Gabb sees it:

What more to say about the past eight days? They began with a referendum vote that sent a shock across the world. They have now settled into something like business as usual. The shape of the British Constitution will be determined by the internal politics of the Conservative Party. Here, then, are some thoughts on how things might proceed between now and Christmas.

First, we shall most likely leave the European Union. A margin of four per cent is a less than solid mandate for the biggest constitutional change since the Parliament Act. Going in was nothing compared with coming out. As a whole, the ruling class would like us to stay. Membership is a useful veil for hiding the lines of accountability. But leaving suits the Conservative leadership. It will end the longest and most nagging split in party history. Virtually all the party members and most Conservative voters want to leave. The Europhile wing in Parliament will be leaned on to vote as told. The result will be a united Conservative Party facing a fractured Labour Party and a non-existent Liberal Democrat Party. Indeed, more people voted to leave than ever vote Conservative. There is a sectional opportunity in view that probably trumps the overall interest of the ruling class.

The Scotch voted to stay in. But they are a long way off and all in one place, and they are probably not brave enough to vote for independence. Their historic record is to obey the English and spend the next few centuries whining about what a hard deal they got. If they do otherwise now, that will be a problem for next year or the year after, and it will have little impact on English politics.

Yes, we shall most likely come out.

Second, the leaving terms are largely unimportant. I would like a free trade agreement and nothing more. If British companies want to export to the European Union, they will need to obey the various product regulations – just as British cars sent to America drive on the right hand side, and just as British jam sent to Turkey is labelled in Turkish. But there is no reason why these regulations should apply in our own market unless we wish them to. However, it will not be the end of the world even if we agree to the whole of the Acquis Communautaire and continued budget contributions. Inside the European Union, these things have the force of domestic law, and they are difficult to evade and impossible to change. Once we are out, they will be treaty obligations, and treaties can be renegotiated or repudiated as we find convenient. A clean break would be best. A dirty break will make no difference in the long term.

Third, and bearing in mind the above, the choice of next Prime Minister is largely beside the point for how and when we leave the European Union. But here is when those of us who share that inclination must put our libertarian hats on again. Leaving the European Union will be useful. It will allow our ruling class to move to a less compromised form of economic liberalism than has so far been possible. Politically, it will make the source of ultimate power over our lives less ambiguous than it has been since 1973. But it is not the European Union that made us into a chaotic police state. The European Union never forced us to employ armies of feral social workers, or to unleash the police, or to abolish freedom of speech and association, or to tear up the common law safeguards in criminal trials. It did not give us laws against drugs and pornography that would have made David Maxwell Fyfe rub his eyes with astonishment. It did not push us into those unjustified and lost wars. Our own rulers did all that – by themselves or on orders from their American overlords.

I have no doubt that leaving the European Union will eventually give us a set of trade and fiscal and regulatory policies more in keeping with our national interest. It will not in itself make our country free again in the traditional sense. That remains decidedly unfinished business, and is something that will occupy the minds of libertarians and conservatives for a long time to come. If, last Thursday week, a page was turned in our national history, it remains for us to ensure that we have some guidance over the hand that writes it.

I may be wrong in this analysis. Since I was wrong about the result of the Referendum, I have no right to claim any unusual power of seeing into the future. But, just over a week after the votes were counted, some important facts do seem to be drifting out of the mist, and these, rather than the details of when and by whom Article 50 will be invoked, may have the strongest claim on our attention.


When Actors Hate Racist America

There are those boorish moments when a celebrity takes to the stage at an awards show to deliver leftist political drivel. We can't decide which is worse: the predictable America-hating garbage or the journalistic hosannas that inevitably follow.

The other day, "Grey's Anatomy" star Jesse Williams launched into a Black Lives Matter-like sermon at the BET Awards when he won an award for his "humanitarian" work. When accepting the honors, Williams broke out the radical-leftist claptrap about this "invention" of abusive whiteness, exploiting all the creative blackness.

"We've been floating this country on credit for centuries," he lamented, "and we're done watching and waiting while this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us, burying black people out of sight and out of mind while extracting our culture, our dollars, our entertainment, like oil, black gold, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations then stealing them, gentrifying our genius and then trying us on like costumes before discarding our bodies like rinds of strange fruit."

How has whiteness abused Williams? Maybe we should ask his mother — who is white.

Williams can also relate to the downtrodden. To think his reported net worth is a mere $8 million.

Imagine for two seconds a white actor standing up at an awards show proclaiming, "This invention called blackness uses and abuses us, burying white people out of sight, ghettoizing and demeaning our creations." The press would metaphorically put a white hood on his head. His career would be kaput.

But ABC hailed it a "powerful speech about race." On CBS they called it "an impassioned call to action," and co-host Gayle King said, "Jesse Williams, I thought, stole the night." NBC quoted other valentines. Sheinelle Jones said, "Twitter reacted instantly, one person writing, 'Jesse Williams. Genius. Polarizing. Political. BLACK. Greatest acceptance speech I ever heard.'" News anchor Tamron Hall proclaimed: "Social media...across the board commenting and celebrating his words...a powerful speech. You should follow him on social media. He's always just a very engaged person."

Williams isn't the only leftist America-hater to draw media adulation. Comedian Aziz Ansari was granted space in The New York Times to explain "Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family." He began by recalling when he told his mother: "DON'T go anywhere near a mosque. Do all your prayer at home, O.K.?" She replied, "We're not going." He then announced: "I am the son of Muslim immigrants. As I sent that text, in the aftermath of the horrible attack in Orlando, Fla., I realized how awful it was to tell an American citizen to be careful about how she worshiped."

He protested Trump's remark that Muslims aren't doing enough to notify authorities about potential terrorists and claimed, "By Mr. Trump's logic, after the huge financial crisis of 2007-08, the best way to protect the American economy would have been to ban white males."

This man would be better served not using the word "logic" in his commentary.

Media company Upworthy called the piece "a must-read for every American," proclaiming that "It's filled with heart, common sense, and cold, hard facts." CNN, Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly all raptly quoted the piece. At Mediaite, Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah hailed how Ansari isn't religious at all, yet "Trump has brought the Muslim out of Ansari."

It doesn't matter that no one can recall a Muslim being violently assaulted or shot inside a mosque in the years since 9/11. Wait, we stand corrected. It made The New York Times when a mosque in Tucson was apparently "assaulted" by nearby college students on party nights. "A shower of crushed peanuts rained down on the mosque."

America is apparently such a horrendously racist place for black and brown people that you are celebrated by all when you announce how horrendously racist it is, especially when you're free and very rich.


The Left's Different Approach to Rights That It Opposes

I have an idea. The federal government needs to compile a list of women who shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. The criteria for getting on the list must be flexible. If an official at, say, the NIH or FBI think that a woman should be a mother for some reason or other, he or she can block an abortion. Maybe the woman has great genes or a high IQ or the sorts of financial resources we need in parents. Let’s leave that decision where it belongs: in the hands of the government.

Heck, there’s really no reason even to tell women if they’re on the “no abort” list. Let them find out at the clinic. And if they go in for an abortion only to discover they are among the million or more people on the list, there will be no clear process for getting off it, even if it was a bureaucratic error or case of mistaken identity.

Sound like a good idea?

You probably don’t think so, particularly if you took part in the celebratory riot of good feeling in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down Texas abortion regulations. In the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the court ruled that Texas could not raise the required health and safety standards of abortion clinics to match those of other “ambulatory surgical centers.” The reforms were implemented in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal in which the Philadelphia abortionist’s abattoir was revealed to be more like the setting for a “Saw” movie than a decent medical clinic.

The court held that abortion is such a fundamental constitutional right that minimal health standards are an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion, even if they might save women’s lives.

There’s a deep and perplexing contradiction here. If abortion is just another aspect of “women’s health” — currently the preferred euphemism for the procedure — why have higher health and safety regulations for dentists than abortionists?

But that’s just the first of many contradictions. The court allowed Whole Women’s Health to sue in the first place, even though the company has no right to an abortion, and third parties aren’t supposed to have standing to sue for someone else’s constitutional rights. The left loves to say “corporations aren’t people” — unless they’re suing for abortion rights. Then the new mantra is: “Corporations are people, but human fetuses aren’t.”

The contradiction I find most glaring and galling is that the euphoric hysteria from the left over the court’s decision occurred right in the middle of a conversation about guns and terrorist watch lists.

In that conversation, many of the same voices on the left argued that the federal government can — nay, must! — have the unilateral power to put American citizens on a secret list barring them from exercising two constitutional rights: the right to bear arms and the right to due process when the government denies you a right. (Both, unlike abortion, are rights spelled out in the Constitution). Congressional Democrats even staged a tawdry tantrum on the House floor about it.

Never mind that the Orlando slaughter — the event that set off the House sit-in — would not have been prevented if the Democrats had their way.

Writing for the majority in the Hellerstedt case, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the Texas statute was unnecessary because “determined wrongdoers” like Gosnell wouldn’t be deterred by new laws given that he was willing to violate existing laws.

Maybe so. But isn’t that exactly the NRA’s position on gun laws? Murderers, never mind terrorists, by definition don’t care about the law.

It gets even crazier. President Obama, who hailed the court’s decision, desperately craves the unilateral power to keep a list of people to whom he wants to deny guns without due process. But he also insists that known terrorists, particularly those held at Guantanamo Bay, have a constitutional right to due process (though presumably not to buy a gun).

Yes, there’s a lot of deviltry in the details, but the basic truth is undeniable: Those on the left — in all three branches of the federal government, along with their cheerleaders in the media — believe that the rights they like are sacred and the rights they dislike are negligible inconveniences at best and outrageous cancers on the body politic at worst. As Justice Clarence Thomas put it in his Hellerstedt dissent: “The Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors.”

In this, the court is not alone.


Tony Blair may be impeached

A dramatic attempt to impeach Tony Blair for misleading Parliament over the Iraq war could be launched in the wake of the long-awaited Chilcot report into the conflict.

MPs have begun to build support for an attempted prosecution of the former Labour Prime Minister after the 2.6million-word report is published on Wednesday.

A cross-party group is considering using an ancient Parliamentary mechanism to bring him to trial in Westminster.

They say Mr Blair should be forced to answer claims he duped the Commons over the war, which cost the lives of 179 British troops.

The MPs believe they can argue that the ex-Labour leader should be impeached over allegations he breached his constitutional duties as Premier.

The power has not been used since 1806 when Lord Melville, a Tory minister, was charged with misappropriating official funds by the Commons. He was acquitted.

Mr Blair, who made claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction that were contradicted by his own intelligence assessments, is expected to be heavily criticised in the Chilcot Inquiry report.

One Westminster source said: ‘Impeachment is on our minds but we will need to digest the report. There is definitely a feeling that Blair must be properly held to account for his actions in the run-up to what was a disastrous war.’

One MP can trigger the process by proposing a motion. He or she would need to present evidence to support their case and this would form the basis of a document called the Article of Impeachment, drawn up by a committee of MPs.

If the impeachment attempt is approved by MPs, the defendant is delivered to Black Rod ahead of a trial. A simple majority is required to convict, at which point a sentence can be passed, which could, in theory, involve Mr Blair being sent to prison.



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

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

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


5 July, 2016

UK: Multicultural teenager who kidnapped a boy and threatened to stab him unless his family paid ransom was caught after he ate a chocolate bar at the scene

A teenager who kidnapped a boy and threatened to kill him unless his family paid a ransom was caught after he left a half-eaten chocolate bar at the scene.

Mohammed Islam, 19, lured a boy to his flat in Druids Heath, Birmingham by using a girl he knew as a ruse to entice him over.

When he arrived, he held a knife to his throat, pulled his jumper over his head and dragged him into his bedroom where he forced him to sit on the floor.

He warned his 18-year-old victim he would stab him unless friends and family members transferred money into his bank account.

Islam casually scoffed a Cadbury's Wispa bar during the three-hour ordeal on March 25, and left traces of his DNA on the packet.

The 18-year-old was slapped around the head and threatened during the terrifying ordeal, and walked out of the flat with a plastic bag over his head.

As Islam led him out of the flat towards a lift, the victim was able to grab the half-eaten Wispa and, after a few minutes, he removed the bag before running to the nearest house for help.

Police arrested Islam on 3 April, after he was bitten by a police dog as he tried to make his escape. He then made an audacious attempt to run away from hospital, but was later recaptured.

Traces of DNA from the half-eaten Wispa, which was cunningly seized by the victim, were directly matched to Islam. He was later picked out in an identification parade.

Islam was sentenced to eight years in prison, with an extended three-year licence, after pleading guilty to robbery, false imprisonment and blackmail.

Jailing him at Birmingham Crown Court on Friday, Judge Simon Drew QC said: 'This was an horrific series of offences committed against a victim seriously traumatised by what took place.

'It is difficult to imagine what it must be like for someone to find themselves in a vulnerable and intimidating situation.  'Threats and violence of this sort are particularly serious. 'This was a horrific, terrifying series of events.

'Text messages recovered from your phone revealed the true nature of the planning that had taken place, you deliberately identified a vulnerable victim.  'It is the sort of case where there needs to be an extended sentence to reflect the threat you face to society as a whole.'

Gareth Walters, prosecuting, told Birmingham Crown Court the victim was contacted on Facebook by a woman he went to school with on March 25.

Text messages found later revealed Islam and the woman, who has not been traced, deliberately targeted the 19-year-old who they thought would be easy pickings. They lured him to a nearby block of flats where he was quickly confronted by Islam.

Mr Walters said: 'The defendant pulled a jumper over the victim's face and led him down some stairs into a flat.

'The defendant began waving a knife in the face of the victim, humiliating him, telling him he was worthless, a waste of space and pathetic.'

After searching the terrified teen's bag and only finding £10 and some tobacco, Islam demanded the teen call friends and family to get more cash. Islam forced the victim to phone his dad to tell him he was being held hostage and ask for cash.

But when he only agreed to send £150, Islam saw red and snatched the phone from him. He threatened the unsuspecting father, telling him that unless he transferred a further £150, he would stab his son.

Islam then headed out with the boy's bank card and PIN to withdraw the money he had just extorted.

The victim - frozen with fear - obeyed the demands to stay sat on the floor of Islam's walk-in wardrobe, as his hands were bound behind his back with a leather belt.

But when Islam got back, he demanded even more money. He made a second call to the father and falsely told him he had actually carried out the threat and stabbed his son.

Reduced to tears, the dad transferred yet another £150, which Islam then went out to withdraw.

Mr Walters added: '(Islam) told his victim he would stab him and put him in a body bag.

'After getting £150, he told his victim to phone his employer or friends to get another £150 but they didn't really believe what was going on.'

In a victim personal statement, the father said the fear he felt while speaking with his kidnapped son would live with him forever. He added: 'I hope that no father ever has to go through what I went through.'

Andrew Jackson, defending, said Islam had been all but abandoned by his family as a youngster and spent his childhood in several children's homes.

He said there had been 'glimmers of hope' the teenager, who had a string of previous offences, was turning away from offending.

DC Darran Ford, from Bournville CID, said, 'This was a callous, planned attack that had great impact on the victim and his family, who I hope have now been offered some closure.

'I would like to pay tribute to the victim and his incredible presence of mind to grab the Wispa bar immediately before escaping. This played a crucial role in bringing  Mohammed Islam to justice.

'I hope the eight-year prison term gives him some time out to think about the effects of his actions on the family, as well as serving a stark warning to anyone wishing to carry a knife on the streets.'


Britain has not become racist overnight

The post-Brexit ‘hate-crime spike’ is not all that it seems.

Following the Brexit vote there has been a panic about an apparent ‘spike’ in hate crime. An increase of 57 per cent was widely reported, and, on Twitter, a new hashtag, #PostRefRacism, started trending, with tweeters listing incidents from around Britain. It seems many people, both online and offline, have had personal experience of post-Brexit, racist Britain.

Any incident of racism or xenophobia is abhorrent and should be challenged. But the speed with which Remainers have exploited this apparent surge – in what is, at this point, largely anecdotal reports – has been shameful. Acting like the propaganda wing of the EU establishment, they have rushed to confirm the prejudices of the elites by arguing that these vague statistics and endless tweet allegations show just how racist the working-class, Leave-voting public is.

The media have been all over it. One BBC reporter asked if the vote had opened a ‘tidal wave of hatred’. Numerous articles in the Guardian have claimed that Brexit has ‘unleashed’ racist sentiment across the country. One commentator seriously claimed that ‘every Leave voter’ had encouraged racism – which was ironic, given that the same commentator voted to remain in an institution responsible for the deaths of thousands of non-European migrants in the Mediterranean every year. The onset of panic has revealed how the very publications and commentators who once claimed to stand up for the working class in fact view working-class people as a violent, racist horde.

This is unjustifiable. While many of the accounts of hate crime that have emerged online and in the media have been disturbing, others are not what they seem. Take the widely circulated image of a group of protesters from Newcastle carrying a sign that reads ‘Stop immigration, start repatriation’. Many Remainers jumped on the photo as an example of the racism unleashed by Brexit.

However, the photographer took to Twitter to distance herself from the backlash, pointing out that the far-right had a longstanding minority presence in Newcastle (an area that narrowly voted to Remain) and that the demo was not a direct response to the referendum. Northumbria Police, who cover the Newcastle area, have indicated that there has been ‘no spike’ in racist incidents reported to them over the weekend.

Another much-retweeted picture, from an EDL rally in Sheldon, Birmingham, showed around 30 EDL protesters chanting at passers-by. Again, the protest was held up as an example of ‘post-Brexit Britain’. But reports made clear that the event – involving 30 saddos – had been planned for months, and passed, according to the police, ‘without incident’. Not only was the demonstration a damp squib (which is hardly surprising considering the EDL has haemorrhaged support in recent years); it would also have taken place even if Remain had won the referendum. In other words, two of the most prominent examples of post-referendum racism have nothing to do with the referendum at all.

The broad definition of what constitutes a hate crime also makes it difficult to judge whether there has indeed been an increase in racism. Hate crimes can include anything from an off-colour remark to a racist assault. The 57 per cent increase amounted to 85 reports between Thursday and Sunday last week, which were submitted to a police-funded website that had been established to report hate crime. This was up from 54 reports during the same four-day period four weeks ago. The policeman who reported the statistic made clear that it did not ‘represent an increase in tensions’ and that similar spikes had occurred in response to other events. In any case, we don’t even know the content of what has been alleged.

We should investigate each incident and prosecute where necessary. We should offer genuine solidarity with victims of any racist incident that occurs – and feel bold enough to intervene when they happen, rather than just tweet about them afterwards. But we must also approach these hate-crime claims critically, given that there are plenty of Remainers who are willing to exploit any perceived spike. Talking up a rise in hate crime is dangerous – it can give deluded, isolated individuals the impression that the country agrees with them. Worse, this fearmongering about post-Brexit Britain, fuelled by snobby prejudices, could do real damage to solidarity between communities by sowing distrust, resentment and fear.

Britain has not become a racist country overnight. Remainers who suggest otherwise reveal their own prejudices.


UK: How the elite weaponised immigration

Using migrants to push multiculturalism has been a disaster.

Freedom of movement ought to be one of the cornerstones of an open, liberal society. The freedom, that is, not just to seek refuge, but to search for a better life elsewhere, to pursue one’s dreams and ambitions in territories far from one’s birthplace.

Yet if the commitment to free movement is to be more than a shallow, feelgood posture, we need to recognise, in the here and now of a 21st-century Britain, that immigration troubles and discomfits people. Indeed, it appears as a socially disorienting force, overturning the everyday rituals, customs and other unspoken components that make up a community’s way of life. ‘I feel we are losing our country’, ran the pre-referendum refrain.

So why does immigration appear as a profound threat to the way of life of so many? The answer is to be found not in immigration itself, but in the context in which immigration has assumed, almost inadvertently, a quasi-missionary role – the context, that is, of a Britain that no longer knows what it is, or what it is for.

This is not the cry of the everyman, who feels he is losing his cultural moorings; it is principally the angst of Britain’s ruling elite, which feels it has already lost its cultural moorings. The historical sources of British national identity – Empire, Unionism and, latterly, the Second World War and the Cold War – and the moral confidence that flowed from them, have long since dried up. National traditions, canons, values are now experienced by Britain’s elite not as the substance of Britishness, but as dead weights around modern Britain’s neck – to be cast off, dumped. And the political elite’s wilful estrangement from its own traditions has transformed the role of immigration, and, crucially, diminished the significance and meaning of national borders.

Consider the idea of the border at its most abstract. As Frank Furedi has explained, the creation of a border is born in the act of judgement, the desire and need not just to demarcate, but also to discriminate, be it between good and evil, or between humans and animals. In territorial terms, therefore, the border is the means by which a community discriminates between us and them, the means by which it judges what it is, and what it is not. The border is not just a line on a map; it is an expression of a community’s sense of itself, of what – and where – it is.

But what if a community’s sense of itself is fragmenting? What if its rulers no longer have a clear sense of what their nation means, or what it stands for? What then? A nation’s borders really do start to appear, not as the outlines of a community’s self-expression, the domain of its sovereignty, but as little more than lines on a map, arbitrary boundaries demarcating long obsolete cultural differences. For a nation whose rulers lack a sense of what that nation stands for, borders really do appear meaningless.

And here’s why immigration has become a problem. Our post-traditional, postmodern rulers, have simultaneously devalued borders and valorised immigration. And, in doing so, they have weaponised it. They have turned immigration into the means by which they transform society, bring it into line with their borderless, vacuously cosmopolitan vision. The immigrant here is not an autonomous individual, an end in himself. He is a means to an end, a political tool to create a multicultural, margin-less society.

This was the semi-conscious purpose of New Labour’s immigration policy between 1997 and 2010, a period during which annual net migration quadrupled from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009. As Labour speechwriter Andrew Neather infamously put it in 2009, ‘mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’. In 2012, UN migration chief Peter Sutherland went so far as to pay tribute to the UK’s immigration policy, on the grounds it furthered ‘the development of multicultural states’, and undermined the ‘homogeneity… of the people who inhabit them’.

There is a twofold problem here. First, diversity itself is a fact, not a value. People are different. Big deal. To try to turn it into a societal value is really an after-the-fact rationalisation of a society that can no longer generate a coherent sense of what it values, a society that lacks the ability to integrate incomers because there is nothing to be integrated into.

And second, the attempt to turn diversity into a value, and, in the process, turn migrants into the agents of the brave, new multicultural world, is experienced by Britain’s indigenous population, especially the white working class, as a cultural assault, an attack on their very identities. That’s why those who claim Britain’s working class voted to leave the EU because they blame immigrants for taking their jobs miss the point.

Immigration is experienced not just as an economic threat; it is also experienced as a threat to people’s very way of life.

The political elite is not blind. Its members know that we don’t actually live in a borderless world. They know, as one Labour MP noted, that the working class ‘feel their cultural identity is under threat’; and they recognise, therefore, that a sense of what the nation is, a sense of what binds us together, remains important. But whether it’s a Britain Day, or a call to teach British values, policymakers’ proposals to that end are weak and platitudinous. They dress up diversity as a value, multiculturalism as a virtue.

And, unsurprisingly, it is to no avail. A community’s often unspoken self-identity, its deep sense of moral consensus, can’t be invented in Downing Street or Whitehall. If it is to have any resonance, it has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

And that’s why immigration is experienced by so many as a problem: it has become a top-down means to engineer a new post-traditional, post-national, postmodern society. But it’s still possible to defend free movement. To do so, we need to de-weaponise it. We need to present the migrant not as an elite project, a means to a multicultural utopia, but as someone pursuing his own ends, an autonomous individual with ambitions and aspirations just like ours.


How is abortion protected by the Constitution but gun rights not?

As liberals around the country celebrate Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a decisively pro-choice Supreme Court ruling on abortion, they may want to consider how the precedent set would apply to gun rights.

Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt was a 5-3 decision ruling on the concept of the "undue burden" originally established in Roe v. Wade. Roe stated, "a state has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient… a statute which has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends."

In the most recent decision, the Court ruled that Texas’ law placed too much of an obstacle to getting an abortion, reaffirming that no obstacle, such as requiring clinics to meet ambulance surgery center standards, may be used to limit this right.

But abortion is not an explicit right under the Constitution. Still, the Supreme Court refuses to allow any burden to prevent it from being exercised. The Justices continue to treat the right to abortion as a right equal in strength to the right to due process, trial by jury or free speech.

By this logic, then, federal courts should equally treat the right to keep and bear arms, a fundamental right actually included in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, with the same level of respect.

When Judge Myron Thompson wrote his decision in Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Luther Strange in the Middle District of Alabama, he explained this correlation. Writing "at its core, each protected right is held by the individual: the right to decide to have an abortion and the right to have and use firearms for self-defense. In the context of both rights, the Supreme Court recognizes that some regulation of the protected activity is appropriate, but that other regulation may tread too heavily on the right."

He explains that since both inherently involve other individuals or potential individuals, there is a level of supervision but, in his view, any effort to deliberately prevent an abortion is as unjust as preventing gun ownership.

Now to be consistent the Supreme Court must use the logic they used in Hellerstedt once again, this time in the 9th Circuit Appeals case Peruta v. San Diego, which denies individuals the ability to carry concealed weapons without adhering to strict criteria which changes from county to county.

Arbitrary guidelines like "good moral character," and demonstrating "good cause" outside of simply self-defense or self-interest are vague burdens governments against gun rights impose to prevent ownership. In abortion cases the Supreme Court ruled burdens just like these which are used to limit abortion rights are unconstitutional, the rulings dealing with the right of gun ownership must be viewed by the same standard.

The next Supreme Court docket will likely include the Peruta case, making it more important than ever that the Justice replacing the late Justice Scalia be one to vote in consistency with the fundamental right of being pro-choice on gun ownership.

In the last major gun rights case, D.C. v. Heller it was Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito all voting in favor of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as an individual right. However, with Scalia’s passing it is more feasible than ever that if, for example, Hillary Clinton the presumed Democratic nominee, is elected president all of these established precedents protecting gun rights will be thrown away with a 5-4 decision against the second amendment.

Our next president will not just have power over the executive office but the fundamental rights of the Second Amendment to be practiced without undue burden.



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

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

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


4 July, 2016

Multicultural immigrant shot British Olympic diver and his wife in the head at their home in Spain

Morocco is a Muslim country

A Moroccan man who murdered former British Olympic diver David Tarsey and his wife Jean at their expat home in Spain, has been sentenced to 31 years in jail.

Painter Driss Drizi, 63, was jailed after striking a deal with prosecutors by confessing to his crimes during a pre-trial court hearing. He was facing a 42-year prison sentence if convicted killing the couple after a trial.

Judge Jose Daniel Mira Perceval ended up jailing him for 15 years for each murder plus another year for illegal possession of a firearm after his plea bargain deal.

The British couple, both 77, were found in each other's arms on their sofa in March last year at their home in Xalo near Benidorm. Both were killed by a single bullet to the head.

Mother-of-two Mrs Tarsey was shot first before her husband, a former engineer who competed in the 1956 Melbourne Olympics as well as the 1954 and 1958 Commonwealth Games, was murdered.

Drizi was arrested last September after an exhaustive police investigation.

Reports at the time said the immigrant, an acquaintance of David's, had confessed during questioning to killing the couple, originally from west London, after a row.

The horrific nature of the shootings was laid bare in an indictment released by local state prosecutors in May when they revealed they were seeking a 42-year-prison sentence for Drizi.

They said he stormed back to the caravan where he lived after an argument with David to fetch an ORTGIES 7.65mm Browning pistol he kept hidden there before returning to the Tarseys' home 'with the intention of ending the couple's lives.'

Revealing Mrs Tarsey was shot first in the face, local state prosecutors said in the indictment: 'She was sat on the sofa and taking no part in the argument and had no way of reacting. It resulted in her husband Peter David immediately turning towards her to try to protect her.

'Whilst deprived of any possibility of defence, the accused shot him in the neck, causing the instantaneous deaths of both.'

Their bodies were discovered three days later when friends they were due to have Sunday lunch with raised the alarm. It was never made clear why the killer had argued with Mr Tarsey.


Brexit: this was a vote against bigotry, not for it

The people have rebelled against the bigotry of the elites

What is a bigot? That term is now so overused — to describe everyone from foreigner-hating skinheads to feminist academics who question transgenderism — that we have lost sight of its meaning. It’s now basically a stand-in for ‘unpleasant’, deployed against people we simply don’t like or understand.

But bigot has a very specific meaning. It doesn’t mean gruff or un-PC or even ‘worried about immigration’. It means, as the Oxford English Dictionary spells out, ‘intolerance towards those who hold different opinions to oneself’. A bigot is someone who is so ‘obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion’ that he comes to loathe those of a different church, party, belief or opinion. Which raises a pressing and intriguing question: in Britain’s EU referendum debate, who, really, are the bigots?

The narrative pumped out by most of the media and political set, before the referendum and even more intensively after it, says that Brexiteers are the bigots. They voted for hate and xenophobia, apparently. Brexit was ‘fuelled’ by bigotry, says one observer, specifically ‘bigotry on the basis of national origin’. It was a ‘vote for hate’, pro-EU protesters claim. The victory for Brexit means ‘prejudice [and] xenophobia’ have ‘won out over common sense’, says one columnist.

All the talk among the well-connected of how out of sync they now feel with Britain, and how scared they are of the bigotry now finding public expression, is meant to give an impression of them as progressive and the others — the 17.5million people who voted Leave — as backward, hateful, possibly dangerous. Remainers are against bigotry, Leavers are for it — right?

This is an almost perfect inversion of reality. If we are talking about blind and obstinate devotion to a certain outlook, and a corresponding intolerance for those who hold different outlooks, then it is the Remain campaign and its media and political backers who have behaved as bigots. Their intolerance of the opposite side, of the masses who voted Leave, has been alarming. They have written them off as ‘low information’, racist, overemotional, lacking the expertise required to make big political decisions. ‘The chavs have won’, as one Glastonbury attendee told The Sunday Times. These people are ‘mindlessly angry’, says one observer. They are ‘ignorant’. They are so lacking in basic nous and intelligence that they are ‘ripe for canny right-wing operators to manipulate’. The leaders of Leave ‘lifted several stones’ to let these kind of views out, said one columnist, as if Leavers are insects. ‘It is as if the sewers have burst’, said another, as if they are shit. Newspaper cartoons have depicted Leave advocates as rats vomiting into the sewer of public opinion, and as dogs salivating at their computers.

You want to see bigotry? Look at all of that. It has been explicit and relentless and extremely ugly. After the referendum in particular, the media set has engaged in a great, long sneer at the hoodwinked idiotic public, looking with contempt, or even worse, pity, at the knuckle-draggers who have apparently destroyed our nation. Such is their intolerance that many are now demanding either that a second referendum be held or that the result simply be overturned.

At a pro-EU — but really just anti-democratic — gathering in Trafalgar Square, where people held placards slamming white people and old people, a lawyer said from the platform that there is too much ‘mass confusion’ for decisions like this to be made by the public; instead they must be made by politicians.

That is bigotry. This intolerance for people who are different, the smearing of them as morally ill-equipped for political life, the depiction of them as animals, the attempt to override their political desires — that is the living, breathing definition of bigotry, of ‘intolerance towards those who hold different opinions to oneself’.

Observers have casually asserted that Leavers are bigots, who hate immigrants, but the facts do not bear this out: a post-referendum ComRes poll found only 34 per cent of Leave voters gave immigration as their main concern, where 53 per cent said Britain’s ability to write its own laws was their big issue.

And yet even as the media elites make their unconvincing assertion about a vast swathe of British society being bigoted, they openly express bigoted views of their own, against the poor, the old, the white working class, chavs, the mindless mass of society. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to denounce your opponents as bigots even as you partake in bigotry.

Indeed, it has become clear in recent days that the worst bigotry in Britain right now is the ‘anti-bigotry’ of the liberal elite. It is through posturing against the alleged bigotry of the little people that the political and media classes express their own bigotry. Their obstinate devotion not simply to the EU but to the idea that their way of life is superior to poorer people’s way of life, that their political and cultural outlook is better than yours, has made them alarmingly intolerant of political and moral difference. It has made them bigots.

This explains why so many leading Remainers have responded with such anger and shrillness to the referendum result: because their starting point is moral obstinacy, not openness to debate or democratic change. One of the most rewarding things about this whole process is that it has exposed the hollowness of the political and media elites’ PC platitudes. The veil has been torn aside, and we can now see the utter emptiness of their claims to care for ordinary people, to consider all views equally valid, to want to listen to us and empower us. In truth, they are bigoted towards us; they wish we would not speak.

And it is precisely this bigotry of the elites that many poorer and working-class people will have decided to strike against in the referendum. They seized an opportunity to protest against an establishment which for too long has treated them and their way of life with contempt, which has sneered at them for being too fat, unhealthy, bad at parenting, overly obsessed with flags and football, and basically unpleasant people in need of correction from on high. People kicked back against that. They protested against elitist intolerance and disdain for their way of life. Here’s the thing: their vote against the EU was far more a vote against bigotry than for it.


Pentagon’s Transgender Policy Defies Common Sense

On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the U.S. military is dropping its policy of treating male and female troops according to their biology—to be replaced by a policy based on a radical new gender ideology.

This change was not precipitated by military needs but by political correctness. After all, the military is not stretched so thin that it must make special accommodations to help attract the estimated 0.6 percent of Americans who self-identify as transgender in order to effectively fight and win our wars.

Moreover, people with gender dysphoria are allowed to serve, and many have served honorably, so long as their condition or treatments do not interfere with combat readiness.

What the military did not allow before today was the disruption to morale, privacy, and readiness that results from a male serviceman demanding the “right” to dress as a female, have others address him as a female, and be granted unfettered access to showers, lockers, bathrooms, and barracks designated for females. That commonsense policy, which has served our country well, was jettisoned today.

In grappling with this issue it helps to ask why the military has separate shower facilities and barracks for women and men in the first place. As with the question of women in combat, if the answer has something to do with biological realities, privacy, and interactions between the sexes, then the implications for morale and readiness are fairly evident.

But the new gender ideology ignores these facts and replaces them with subjective self-identification, so that a person’s sex is merely an arbitrary designation “assigned at birth” and one can actually be “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female,” at least according to new mandates from the Obama administration.

Some obvious questions arise from the new policy. Will biological males who identify as female be subject to physical fitness requirements for men or women? Will they be required to do 35 pushups or 13 pushups to pass basic training? Will American taxpayers be required to pay for expensive “sex reassignment” surgeries, including breast implants in men and shaving down Adam’s apples when that money can be spent on better weapons or more training?

Will service members who have addressed an officer as “sir” for years be booted out of the military if they refuse to address him as “ma’am?” Wouldn’t the loss and impact on recruiting offset any supposed gains of allowing a relatively few transgender troops the ability to dress according to their chosen identity? These are but a few questions Carter neglected to address in his announcement.

Instead, Carter said that:

Embedded within our Constitution is th[e] very principle that all Americans are free and equal. And we as an Army are sworn to protect and defend that very principle. And we are sworn to even die for that principle. So if we in uniform are willing to die for that principle then we in uniform should be willing to live by that principle.

This is too much.

First, it doesn’t violate equality to recognize relevant biological realities and there is nothing in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution that elevates transgender people to a protected class akin to race.

Second, whatever one thinks of the latest Supreme Court redefinition of marriage, it did not redefine what it means to be a man and a woman for all Americans, especially in the military context.

There are painstakingly detailed regulations concerning uniforms, grooming, and even tattoo placement because troops must be trained to put the mission above self-expression, as lives depend upon it. Regulations that recognize relevant biological realities help, not hinder, the mission, and as admitted by Carter in his statement, thousands of people with gender dysphoria were already allowed to serve over the years because they respected the old policies.

Finally, there are hundreds of thousands of veterans and current troops who were traumatized, wounded, or died fighting against Nazis, Communist aggressors, and terrorists, yet, believe that biological men should not be allowed into the same barracks and showers as women.

Carter dishonors their sacrifices by suggesting that these Americans who actually died for the Constitution failed to live by the Constitution themselves. This decision has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with politics and a gender ideology run amok.


Vatican ecumenism leaves Egyptian Christians in the lurch

Pope Francis, who is "building bridges to build peace" around the world, has naturally reached out to embrace Sunni Muslims. Last month, for the first time after years of Vatican silence, Pope Francis summoned to his private library in Rome grand imam Ahmed El-Tayeb of Cairo's Al-Ahzar Mosque Institute. Absent a press release before this event, the Pope was quoted as saying, "this meeting is the message" - leading all to dwell on the meaning and purpose of their 25 minutes together.

Christians, especially Egyptian Coptic Christians, have observed the Catholic pope give the "sign of peace" to the grand imam who has yet been unwilling to denounce ISIS. Unity existed between the two religious branches previous to former Pope Benedict XVI condemning Islam's inclination to violence.

This message of reconciliation comes during the Al-Sisi  government which has stood opposed to the favored and protected status of an organization entwined with Al-Ahzar -- the Muslim Brotherhood - and against the ascendency of this terror network and others beginning before his presidential campaign.

Two days before their historic meeting, headlines around the world reported the violent and humiliating act committed by a Muslim mob in Upper Egypt against a Christian woman in a Christian-majority village. Homes where razed and a grandmother was stripped naked, dragged from her house and beaten in the street.

Egypt's courts are not officially Sharia but street justice involving private matters is strictly Islamic doctrine (coercion of non-Muslims), and violence has no real consequences in the courts.

No words came from either of the leaders in the "Jubilee of Mercy" meeting (its official title) to address this incident, which by the nature of this attack holds deeper, more serious implications in Egyptian culture. An elderly woman in Egypt is considered sacrosanct, and practically speaking, this means across sectarian lines she is universally respected for her tenderness and kindheartedness toward others. Even codified barbarity had had this limit before now.

Evidence of Al-Sisi's attempt at reform of Islamic doctrine met by Al-Ahzar reluctance is seen recently in the Institute's insignificant changes to public school textbooks and mosque preaching. Presently, President Al-Sisi is stifled in his efforts to expunge religious supremacy from Egypt without cooperation from Al-Ahzar and apparently even with its assistance. As these particulars are the cultural foundation used for oppressing Christians, it is now hopeful that Francis will focus on such issues.

Although Francis has not been terribly outspoken on Coptic Church destruction, he has grieved with the Orthodox of Egypt and offered his prayers over the spilled blood of Christians in Libya recognizing the Coptic Christian martyrs.

Solidarity (a hug and kisses) shown in this re-connection of Cairo's Sunni grand imam with the Catholic Pope followed by silence (no official statements) helps to bolster and propel the position of the Institute's goals for Egypt, which are far from optimal in the cause for freedom of religion and speech and the subject of human rights.

It is not likely that Francis will meet with President Al-Sisi, if he hasn't first already done so, even though by contrast Al-Sisi projects real hope for Egypt's future in his committed struggle for freedom and equality.

This we see in regard to Egypt's deep state (the tentacles of Al-Ahzar religious brainwashing), from which Al-Sisi seeks to disentangle and de-program out of the administrations of the state. He rose to office on that claim and until now has produced evidence of genuineness along with impossible odds.

It is logical to assume by Francis' exclusion of Al-Sisi and, for that matter, Coptic Pope Tawadros II, who represents 20 million Christians, that building bridges was not foremost on the mind of Pope Francis. The absence of these key figures in the room does in itself shed light onto the meaning of the meeting; in effect, by this oversight, Francis acknowledges only the deep state.

For Pope Francis, ecumenical zeal is more his quest than a real concern for solutions to the rise of jihad. However, the Vatican's ecumenism comes at the expense of Egypt's human rights. This encounter may symbolize for many an affirmation of peace attained through submission. After all, Francis now reached out to El-Tayeb in an apologetic mode for the public "insult" in denouncing Islam's violence some years back. But Francis intends his appeasement to speak for the entire Christian world.

Last year, remarking upon the slaughter of 21 Coptic Christians by Sunni Muslim jihadists in Libya, Francis told leaders of the Church of Scotland that, "I ask that we encourage each other to go forward with this ecumenism which is giving us strength, the ecumenism of blood." In that emotional moment Francis capitalized on martyrdom to bind together Christian protestant denominations under the Roman Catholic umbrella which in turn extends a hand to Islam.

 The pope's ecumenical fanaticism is blurring the lines of theological differences for the sake of one spiritual conglomerate without much thought to religious minorities preferring to remain divided from certain doctrine and the indoctrinators linked to the throat-slashers of Libya.

In the end, we are left with questions and speculation of what to expect in the aftermath of this meeting. Will the world see less vengeful opposition to the Roman pope's 12th century crusade? Will we see a new edict declaring that jihad is inappropriate for today's civilized world or Al-Ahzar denounce ISIS? Will we see a public statement by the two heads condemning the use of religion to commit violence?

And finally, might all this potential good we await be based on a designation called "heavenly," which the pope may have bestowed upon the Sunni sect during this meeting? For many decades, Cairo's Muslim authorities have sought this label to prove religious equality with the faiths of Christianity and Judaism and have looked to the Roman Catholic pope for this ultimate seal of approval.



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

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

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


3 July, 2016

Mrs. Obama as a style queen?

The article excerpted below ran under the heading:  "But who's the style queen? Michelle Obama and Queen Letizia of Spain show off their impeccable fashion sense AND toned arms".  The implication was that Mrs Obama looked as good as the Queen of Spain.  I guess that political correctness demanded that claim. I feel able to say, however, that Mrs. Obama looked like a cow in a bag.  De gustibus non disputasndum est, of course but I think my response is what you would get from an unbiased observer.

The sycophantic media have been going goo gaa about Mrs Obama's attire ever since Mr Obama was elected.  What a contrast with the way the conventional clothing of the children of Chief Justice John Roberts was despised after Bush II nominated him.  The Leftist media really are foul

It was a fashion face-off of epic proportions when Michelle Obama met with Queen Letizia in Madrid today.

America's first lady was joined by the glamorous royal in the Spanish capital, on what was the last leg of a trip to promote girls' education in poorer countries and raise awareness of gender inequalities.

The ever-chic Letizia, 43, stunned in a sleeveless scarlet dress from Nina Ricci that showcased her toned arms, adding a pair of pointed nude courts and turquoise earrings.

Michelle Obama and Queen Letizia of Spain are two of our favourite style icons, so we expected great things when they met. And we definitely weren't disappointed!

Letizia looked very ladylike in a red dress by Nina Ricci, whilst Michelle took a style risk in a white midi dress with a cape back. FLOTUS has really been mixing things up recently, wearing labels like Proenza Schouler, Peter Pilotto and Altuzarra, but Spanish label Delpozo was the perfect choice.


We’re at ‘Point of Using the Force of Government to Punish Religious Organizations’

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), spoke with CNSNews.com on Saturday and said the view that marriage is between one man and one woman is increasingly silenced as hate speech.

“We’re now at the point of using the force of government to punish religious organizations,” said Brown at the march in Washington, D.C. “This is not just undermining religious liberty this is the opposite of religious liberty.”

Brown spoke at NOM’s fourth annual March for Marriage against same-sex marriage and the first march following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized homosexual marriage  last June.

CNSNews.com asked Brown about his continued commitment to the issue following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Well, you know, just like the life movement, Roe v. Wade didn’t stop the life movement,” he said.  “There were a couple of tough years, but out of the wreckage of Roe arose a vibrant, winning coalition.”

“It’s going to take years, maybe decades, but we need a movement that has this march to be a living symbol year in and year out that we’re here, we’re not going away, and we’re growing,” he continued.

Brown said there are two observable detrimental consequences of the ruling: “the religious liberty effects” and “what’s happening with transgender issues and especially bathroom bills.”

“We’re seeing bakers, florists, videographers, anyone who’s involved in the wedding service industry who’s a Christian, persecuted, put out of business,” he said of the religious liberty consequences of the ruling.

“What’s happening with transgender issues and especially bathroom bills -- I think that is a direct consequence,” he added. “Once you say that there’s no distinction between mothers and fathers, husbands and wives in the law, then there’s no distinction between male and female. So, we’re headed in a direction where a lot of things we’ve taken for granted are now up for grabs.”

“If male and female are interchangeable, the whole notion of men showering in men’s showers, women showering in women’s showers, I mean everything’s turned upside down,” said Brown, “and that’s because you get to these ridiculous ends because the place you start with, the place you start from is wrong.”

“The first principles are wrong,” he said. “Men and women are different and that’s just a fundamental reality, and when you undermine that reality it has secondary consequences that are profound.”

CNSNews.com also asked Brown if he has seen a move to characterize any sort of position for man-woman marriage as hate speech and silence it.
“Yeah definitely,” he said. “We’re now at the point of using the force of government to punish religious organizations. This is not just undermining religious liberty. This is the opposite of religious liberty. This is exactly what our founders fled from and feared. This is persecution.”

“The consequences have been profound and I think they’re only going to get worse unless Christians band together and stand up,” Brown said.

The March for Marriage is an annual rally organized by the National Organization for Marriage. A small crowd gathered Saturday for speeches and the march to the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.


'Pro-Life Feminist' Patricia Heaton Blasts Supreme Court on Abortion, Quotes Thomas Jefferson

Patricia Heaton, a popular actress and star of the show "The Middle," is critical of the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion.

On Monday the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required abortion clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery and for the doctors who practice in the clinics to have visiting privileges at nearby hospitals.

After the news broke Heaton, who is pro-life and Catholic, tweeted:  Hey SCOTUS: "The care of human life & happiness, and not their destruction, is the first & only object of good government." T. Jefferson

Heaton also tweeted links to pieces by "pro-life feminists" Kristen Hatten and Kira Davis.

In her op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, Hatten wrote the following: "    As a pro-life feminist, I not only believe that women deserve equal human rights, but that women are strong and capable. The abortion industry tells women they can't make anything of their lives without abortion. That is the opposite of empowerment. Women were once considered property and denied basic human rights. How dare we treat our children the same way? Our liberation cannot come at their expense"


More Leftist racism

The Left are obsessed by racial quotas

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on Tuesday at an event focused on Hispanic-American Entrepreneurship that the national monuments in the nation’s capital need to be more diverse.

“If you drive around Washington, D.C., in every circle and every square you generally see a bronze white guy – sometimes on a horse, sometimes not - you have to work really hard – like in front of the Indian embassy you’ll find Mahatma Gandhi,” Jewell said.

“A handful of women – maybe – if you look really hard – sprinkled around the city, but there are very few places and memorials that tell the story of the rich diversity that has made this country great,”  Jewell said.

The panel discussion Jewell took part in was entitled “Strong Communities: Empowering the Growing Hispanic Population,” described as “an open dialogue between federal principals and invited guests to explore policies instituted under the Obama administration that have helped advance the Hispanic community and create a steady path forward.”

Jewell spoke about the role of the Interior Department and the Obama administration’s efforts to make public lands under the department’s jurisdiction more diverse.

“The other thing that President Obama recognizes and began to manifest itself with Ken Salazar’s leadership as secretary of Interior and as continuing throughout the Obama administration, is that we are, through the National Park Service, largely America’s storyteller.

“And yet if you drive around Washington, D.C., in every circle and every square, you generally see a bronze white guy – sometimes on a horse, sometimes not – you have to work really hard – like in front of the Indian embassy you’ll find Mahatma Gandhi,” Jewell said.

“There’s a handful of women – maybe – if you look really hard – sprinkled around the city,” Jewell said. “But there are very few places and memorials that tell the story of the rich diversity that has made this country great, and that is something that we have been working very diligently to do.”

On Friday, Obama designated the Stonewall Inn in New York City a national monument. The inn was a homosexual bar where riots took place in 1969 after a police raid.

The announcement of the designation was made to coincide with the gay pride parade in the city on Saturday that included a video played on billboards in Times Square that featured Obama and footage from the riot, including one image featuring a sign that read “Homo is healthy.”

Obama said the bar is the “newest addition to America’s national park system.”

“Stonewall will be the first national monument to tell the story of the struggle for LGBT rights,” Obama said.



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

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

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


1 July, 2016

'Merkel's open door policy caused Britain to leave EU'

Her actions definitely were the last straw

As Germans demand their own opportunity to free themselves from 'EU slavery', fingers are being pointed at Chancellor Angela Merkel for sparking the potential dissolution of the European Union.

Critics have branded Ms Merkel's open-door immigration policy as being to blame for a tidal wave of demands for Brexit-style referendums across several countries in the bloc.

The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) has openly branded Ms Merkel as being responsible, amid calls for a 'Dexit' - Deutschland exit.

'I think Ms Merkel with her open borders caused Britain to leave the EU,' said AfD's vice chairman Alexander Gauland on Friday in Berlin.  He added: 'I think the British have opted for direct democracy. I believe that it is good that they have done that.'

It came as party chairman Bjorn Hocke warned that the Eurosceptic AfD would be launching a campaign for a German exit.

'With the exit from the EU, the British have left the path of collective madness and opted for democracy and popular sovereignty. 'I know the majority of German people want to get out of EU slavery.'

Meanwhile Franz Wiese, European policy spokesman for the populist party and an MP in the regional parliament in Brandenburg, near Berlin, said: 'Next year the AfD will enter the German parliament and Dexit will be top on our agenda.'

The AfD is reportedly the only German political party so far to openly declare that it will be demanding a 'Dexit' vote.

German media has been awash with criticism of Ms Merkel's immigration policy, after she allegedly sparked Europe's 2015 migration crisis by announcing that refugees fleeing from war-torn Syria would be welcome in Germany.

By opening Germany's borders to refugees, critics have long blamed Ms Merkel for encouraging the flow of both refugees and economic migrants into European countries.

The German chancellor was also among EU leaders who 'blocked British demands before the referendum for an "emergency brake" on migrant numbers'.  

At his final dinner with leaders of EU countries in Brussels on Tuesday night, Prime Minister David Cameron highlighted public fears over immigration as having cost him both the referendum and his job.

Mr Cameron, who resigned following the referendum result last week, warned fellow leaders that intransigence over freedom of movement could damage any chance of a UK-EU trade deal.

He said that, while he thought British people had recognised the 'strength of the economic case for staying', he believed it was primarily concern about immigration that forced the final victory for the Leave campaign.

He added: 'I think that is coupled with a concern about the issues of sovereignty and the absence of control there has been.' 

This fear was heightened by the Leave campaign's use of poster images showing crowds of refugees and migrants entering the Bavarian countries.

Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign was branded 'fundamentally racist' following the release of the poster, which showed the Ukip leader standing in front of a crowd of refugees and migrants.

The poster uses a picture of Syrian refugees being escorted along the Slovenian border during the migrant crisis last October and tells voters the EU is at 'breaking point', adding: 'The EU has failed us all. We must break free of the EU and take control of our borders.'

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the poster was 'disgusting' while Tory Treasury minister Harriet Baldwin hit out at the Ukip leader for 'vile xenophobia'. MPs from all main Westminster parties hit out at the advert minutes after it was unveiled by Mr Farage in Westminster on June 16.

The Brexit vote has pushed freedom of movement to the top of the agenda across Europe. 


Political Correctness Puts Americans in Grave Danger

If Americans were shocked by the recent terrorist massacre in Orlando committed by Omar Mateen in the name of ISIS and other Islamist jihadis, they should be even more alarmed by the Obama administration’s response, which once again sought to obfuscate the role of Islamist ideology in motivating that terrorist attack — the largest on U.S. soil since 9/11.

In spite of Islamists having established an unparalleled record of terrorism — some 20,000 assaults globally in the name of Islam since 9/11 — U.S. law enforcement, intelligence and national armed forces have for many years been operating partially blindfolded with one hand tied behind their backs under the heel of the politically correct posture of protecting Islam and Muslims.

The tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood, with its myriad front groups, was established in the U.S. long before 9/11. We know this from the successful trial of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008. Uncovered in the discovery treasure-trove for the HLF trial was a 1991 strategy plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the U.S. Constitution via stealth “civilization jihad” and to “destroy the Western civilization from within,” the precondition to establishing a Sharia-ruled Caliphate.

The extent of penetration of Muslim influence in the Bush administration can be understood by way of a cursory comparative analysis. The lexicon found in the 2004 9/11 Commission Report, which contained hundreds of instances of the use of words like “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam,” was basically eliminated by the end of the Bush administration. In 2008, when the FBI published its unclassified Counterterrorism Lexicon, those words are entirely missing. It marked a major step in the post 9/11 world of disconnecting radical Islamist ideology from terrorism and limiting the U.S. in its investigative tools, intelligence collection, law enforcement, and war-fighting capabilities.

The process of separating terrorism from its radical Islamist roots took on new momentum in the first year of the Obama administration, simultaneous with the president’s Middle East apology tour in the spring of 2009. According to Philip Haney — a founder of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, established in response to 9/11 — DHS superiors brought in by the Obama administration ordered him in November 2009 to scrub and delete hundreds of records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Hamas, from the Treasury Enforcement Communications System database.

These records are of course the basis for Immigration Control and Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Terrorist Screening Center to “connect the dots” and identify individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations who should be denied entry to the U.S., be put on the terrorist watch list, or the no-fly list.

When self-described “soldier of Allah” Nidal Hassan killed 13 in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree, many were dumbfounded that the Defense Department recorded and has since maintained this incident as “workplace violence.” What most don’t know is that the DOD bureaucracy had no other choice as it was then in the midst of a politically correct purge at West Point and the Naval War College of all “vital references to Islamist ideology driving terrorism or conflating terrorism with Islam.”

The 2013 Islamist Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had a high-risk profile due to six months of travel to a known Islamist terrorist training center in the Dagestan-Chechnya area in Islamic Russia. But the FBI suspended its investigation of Tsarnaev in 2011 because of insufficient evidence of terrorist activity, at the same time Bureau leadership was complying with final stages of a mandatory purge of some 900 pages of FBI counterterrorism training manuals that were considered offensive to Muslims. So Tsarnaev could take his time and pick his spot to strike.

The December 2, 2015, ISIS-inspired San Bernardino killing spree, committed by the Islamist terrorist couple Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, might also have been prevented. Former DHS official Haney points out that the San Bernardino terror attack might never have happened if Farook’s ties to the terror group Tablighi Jamaat had been known. Unfortunately, those records were among the 67 deleted from the key federal database — the Treasury Enforcement Communications System — in the politically correct purge of 2009. Farook would not have been able to travel to Saudi Arabia because he would have been put on the “no-fly list,” nor would his pending fiancée, Malik, been given a visa, thus fundamentally changing the circumstances that preceded their coordinated attack.

Then there was also the neighbor of Farook and Malik, who disclosed that in the weeks before the terrorist couple’s killings there had been a flurry of activity at their home — with a multitude of package deliveries and Middle Eastern individuals coming and going at all hours. Yet that neighbor chose not to alert the police for fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic.

There can be no doubt now, in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, that political correctness puts the United States in grave danger, and it is a wonder that PC has been accepted for as long as it has.

After the orchestrated deception of blaming the September 11, 2012, torturous killing of Ambassador Stevens and three others in Benghazi on a video rather than the pre-planned terrorist attack that it was, it was contemptible that the Obama Justice Department would initially attempt a deception replay with regard to the Orlando nightclub massacre. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s initial censorship of the record of Omar Mateen’s many statements of solidarity with ISIS and the cause of radical Islam was so offensive that Obama tactically reversed course within 24 hours and was forced to release a good portion of Mateen’s transcripts uncensored.

However, the strategy that involves the hegemony of political correctness is bound to continue through the balance of the Obama administration. And the black flags will surely keep coming under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Having learned nothing from the spate of Islamist terrorist attacks, Clinton has recently stated she plans to massively increase immigration from the Middle East even without a screening plan, including a 500% increase in Syrian refugees.

It may be an irony of history, perhaps a blessing in disguise, that an unconventional presidential candidate has been raised up to break the shackles of political correctness and shock the American people into facing reality. Donald Trump’s candidacy for president raises uncertainties of various kinds in the minds of many voters. But there should be considerable certainty that Mr. Trump won’t be easily snookered on many of the key challenges facing the United States, nor will his resolve to win in the cause of patriotism be easily shaken.


Multiculturalism: A Failed Concept

Walter E. Williams

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has "utterly failed," adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side." The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.

Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one set of cultural values cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.

That's unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan. In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed. In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?

The vital achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, which saw its birth with the Magna Carta in 1215. The idea emerged that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Individuals do not exist to serve government; governments exist to protect their rights. But it was not until the 19th century that ideas of liberty received broad recognition. In the West, it was mostly through the works of British philosophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.

Personal liberty implies toleration of differences among people, whether those differences are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Liberty also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways. This is not the vision of the new immigrants. In some parts of Britain, Christians are threatened with violence for merely handing out Bibles. Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is seen as a hate crime. Women are accosted by Muslim men for "improper" dress. Many women are sexually assaulted. In many European countries, "no-go zones" -- where civil authorities will not enter -- in which Shariah is practiced have been established. According to the Express, "London, Paris, Stockholm and Berlin are among the major European cities that feature on a bombshell list of 900 lawless zones with large immigrant populations."

Both in Europe and in the U.S., multiculturalism is a leftist elitist vision with its roots in academia. The intellectual elite, courts and government agencies push an agenda that is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a live-and-let-live philosophy. Instead, multiculturalism/diversity is an agenda for all kinds of conformity -- conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what's politically correct thinking. Part of that lesson is nonjudgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another and all cultures and their values are morally equivalent.

Western values are superior to all others. But one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values. By the way, it is no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living. There is also indisputable evidence that we in the West are unwilling to defend ourselves from barbarians. Just look at our response to the recent Orlando massacre, in which we've focused our energies on guns rather than on terrorists.


More Multicultural scum

A man was arrested after allegedly 'molesting' an air hostess and taking a selfie without her permission. 

Mohammed Abubakar from Gujarat reportedly violated aircraft rules on board a Jet Airways flight from Damam to Mumbai shortly after take-off.

According to local media the 29-year-old was discovered smoking in the toilet of the aircraft.

An air hostess allegedly wrote a complaint in which she claimed Abubakar grabbed her hand as she walked past him shortly into the flight.

She also said that the man said 'C'mon man, take a selfie' to her, and repeatedly misbehaved throughout the trip.

According to The Times of India, the anonymous cabin crew member told police she felt she was being followed during the flight - and when she turned around Abubakar was standing behind her.

She claims she repeatedly told him she would not take a selfie, and he allegedly stood behind her at all times, even when she had taken her seat.

She said: 'He crossed the limit by grabbing me by the shoulder and forcefully taking a selfie.'

Four flight attendants reportedly soon came over when the woman screamed - however the 29-year-old allegedly went in to the toilet and lit a cigarette.

Speaking to the Times of India sub-inspector VS Pawar said: 'He came out after smoking in there. The crew warned him and asked him to hand over his cigarette packet and lighter.

'A probe is on to know how he cleared the security check with an inflammable item like a cigarette lighter. By smoking on board, he endangered several lives. His mobile phone has been seized and will be sent to the forensic sciences laboratory.'

Abubakar has allegedly been charged for outraging the modesty of women and endangering life or personal safety of others, as well as breaking safety violations. He is reportedly in judicial custody.



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

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

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



HOME (Index page)

BIO for John Ray

(Isaiah 62:1)

A 19th century Democrat political poster below:

Leftist tolerance


JFK knew Leftist dogmatism

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

Racial differences in temperament: Chinese are more passive even as little babies

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Children are the best thing in life. See also here.

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE


Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

Some advice from Martin Luther: Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in christo qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi: peccandum est quam diu sic sumus. Vita haec non est habitatio justitiae

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

Even Mahatma Gandhi was profoundly unimpressed by Africans

Index page for this site


"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


Mirror for this blog
Mirror for "Dissecting Leftism"
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Selected reading



Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Van Hiel
Pyszczynski et al.

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Best with broadband. Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: