Friday, March 23, 2018

Trump: Sanctuary State Places ‘Innocent Americans at the Mercy of Hardened Criminals’

Mary Ann Mendoza was enraged that the illegal immigrant who killed her son—police Sgt. Brandon Mendoza—wasn’t deported for a crime committed in Colorado two decades earlier.

“They are not sanctuary cities, they are outlaw cities,” @SenTomCotton said.

Though she wrote a letter to President Barack Obama after her son’s death in 2014 expressing her concern, she found a more receptive voice Monday when participating in a roundtable discussion at the White House with President Donald Trump.

“This is actually a mass murder happening in the United States by illegal aliens killing American citizens,” Mendoza, who lives in Arizona, said Monday in a meeting that included Cabinet officials, members of Congress, and state and local law enforcement officials.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

“Over 63,000 Americans have been killed since 9/11 by illegal aliens,” Mendoza continued. “It’s a crime spree being left unchecked and these sanctuary state and city officials are putting American lives in harm every single day. We have become collateral damage to their personal agenda.”

Trump called out California, the first and only state to become a sanctuary state, making it illegal for local law enforcement to report illegal immigrants.

“California put innocent Americans at the mercy of hardened criminals, hardened murderers in many cases,” Trump said Tuesday during the roundtable discussion.

The president noted that Democrats in Congress have opposed legislation to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

“Democrats’ priority is to protect criminals, not to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said. “My priority and the priority of my administration is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States.”

Sanctuary jurisdictions reject “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens. “Detainers” are used to request that a state or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours to allow ICE to take custody and initiate removal proceedings.

A bill to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities, sponsored by Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., can’t overcome the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass. Toomey called this “frustrating.”

The Justice Department filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law.

“Federal law is supreme law of the land,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during the White House roundtable event. “It was made clear by the Supreme Court the federal government has immigration responsibilities.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal legal group, has opposed any crackdown on sanctuary cities. In a February statement, the group said:

The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act perpetuates unconstitutional immigration detainer practices, and upends hundreds of community trust policies. Rather than taking a punitive approach to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep their communities safe, the Senate should end DHS’s unconstitutional detainer practices, or fix the constitutional deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer requests.

During the White House roundtable, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said the jurisdictions defying federal law “are not sanctuary cities, they are outlaw cities.” He added, “it’s past time for Congress to give the administration the tools it needs.”

During fiscal year 2017, which began in October 2016, Immigration and Customs Enforcement made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and affected more than 225,000 removals, according to the White House. During that time, 110,000 of those arrests came under Trump’s time in office. That’s compared to 77,806 arrested for fiscal year 2016.

Of those arrests, 81 percent were of convicted criminals, said ICE acting Director Thomas Homan, who pushed back against the notion that his agency was making indiscriminate arrests. He said there have been “no raids and no sweeps” and that arrests are targeted.

“We are told on one hand to focus our efforts on criminals. … but those same folks who want us to focus on criminals say don’t come into their county jail. It defies logic,” Homan said during the round table talk.

He added that criminals are aware of sanctuary cities.

“These policies are being used by criminal organizations in Mexico and Central America,” Homan said. “It’s a selling point to smuggle aliens to a sanctuary jurisdiction where even local law enforcement won’t cooperate with them, thereby bankrolling the very criminal organizations that smuggle these aliens.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she is “horrified” that local elected officials were “pitting” local law enforcement officers and federal immigration agents “against each other.”


NBA team under fire for allegedly discriminating against a white person

Racial discrimination lawsuits, especially in the workplace, are nothing new, though they normally involve minorities who claim they were mistreated.

But in a suit filed Friday, a former employee of the Atlanta Hawks claims she was discriminated against because she is a white woman.

Margo Kline says she worked for the Hawks from June 2012 to March 2017 as a community development coordinator in the organization’s Corporate Social Responsibility Department, according to The Blast.

In 2014, an African-American man named David Lee was given a leadership position in that department, and Kline alleges that he “promoted a culture of discrimination against white individuals.” In addition, she claims she faced discrimination due to the fact that she is a woman.

Lee was allegedly “dismissive” and “exclusionary” toward white, female employees of the team, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Kline also said he would make jokes about “white culture,” as well as favor less qualified black people over white ones when making decisions regarding hirings and promotions.

Moreover, he allegedly expected more from white females in the department than he did of black employees.

“Kline said the organization ignored her complaints and instead unfairly scrutinized her work and impeded her ability to do her job, often gossiping and ridiculing her,” according to The Journal-Constitution. “The lawsuit also alleges white coworkers were told not to speak with Kline or they could lose their job.”

Kline tried her best to report what she saw as unjust treatment, “but the Hawks did not take action to stop the discrimination,” the lawsuit reads.

And after complaining, she says things only got worse for her, as her colleagues allegedly began treating her “with contempt, negativity, and a lack of respect.”

Then, in February 2017, Kline met with the team’s senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, a black woman named Nzinga Shaw, and discussed the alleged discrimination.

Just weeks later, Kline received a “Final Written Warning” that said there were “ongoing deficiencies in her conduct and/or performance.” She says that despite what the warning seemed to indicate, she had never been disciplined due to poor performance before.

Three weeks after receiving that warning, Kline was terminated by the Hawks.

Kline filed a discrimination charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and now, she’s suing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though it’s not clear what she is looking to receive in terms of damages.

The Hawks, however, have dismissed the allegations as nothing more than “baseless claims.”

“We take all claims of discrimination seriously and have performed a thorough review of these baseless claims,” the team said in a statement. “The case was quickly dismissed at the EEOC level. We deny these claims and will vigorously defend against them.”

It’s not the first time the Hawks have come under fire for alleged racial issues. Just last year, the Hawks faced a lawsuit from a former security manager who said that black celebrities entering the team’s arena faced tougher security than white celebrities. That employee said he was fired when he complained about the alleged discrimination.


Sweden: Mosque that applied to broadcast call to prayer has asked Allah to “destroy the Jews”

What did Swedish authorities expect?

The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Did Swedish officials assume that Muslims entering the country would leave all that at the door?

“Mosque that applied for prayer calls is against Christians and Jews,” translated from “Moské som ansökt om böneutrop hetsar mot kristna och judar,” Samhällsnytt, March 20, 2018:

The mosque is denigrating Jews, urging men to control their daughters and women, using Saudi Arabia’s official curriculum and books in their Islamic schools, and urging Muslims not to have contact with “kuffar” (unbelievers).

Växjö Mosque has featured in the media in recent weeks, since the foundation applied to broadcast the call to prayer, which caused a debate at the highest political levels. A survey also showed that a majority of the Swedish people want to ban the calls to prayer.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that this particular mosque deals with hatred and features hatred on its official Facebook page, which Bassam Al-Baghdady presents on his website.

When Al-Baghdady wrote the post, he predicted that the images he translated would be removed, and very correctly: some of them have been removed or made unavailable at the time of this writing.

One image that calls for the collection of money in connection with Eid al-Fitr says: “The alms of al-Fitr will be collected this year for our families in Palestine. May Allah preserve Gaza and destroy the Jews, the enemies of Allah.”

Furthermore, you will find textbooks used in the mosque school that are “official curricula for Islamic education in Saudi Arabia.”

Here’s also a call not to let their daughters dress “naked” and wear “Western clothes” as well as to “teach your daughters to dress well from childhood.”

It is also urged not to participate in the “kuffars” celebration of their feast Christmas, when seeing Jesus as the Son of God is a blasphemy.


Australia: Tony Abbott says Peter Dutton is 'absolutely right' about white South African farmers

Former prime minister Tony Abbott says Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton is "absolutely right" about the need to prioritise white South African farmers through Australia's refugee program.

Wading into the internal and diplomatic furore over Mr Dutton's remarks, Mr Abbott said the situation in South Africa was a "national crisis" and "racism of the worst sort", and backed the call for intervention - despite Foreign Minister Julie Bishop rejecting the idea at the weekend.

"There is a very serious situation developing in South Africa. Something like 400 white farmers have been murdered, brutally murdered, over the last 12 months," Mr Abbott told 2GB radio. The farmers were being murdered by "squatters intent on driving them off their land", he said, and it would be a "national crisis" if the same thing were happening to Australian farmers.

"If the boot was on the other foot we would call it racism of the worst sort," Mr Abbott said.

"I think we should acknowledge this as a very, very serious issue of justice and fairness and freedom for people who are trying to do the right thing.

"I think that Peter Dutton was absolutely right to say that under our humanitarian intake program there ought to be a place for people who are being persecuted this way."

Mr Dutton's bid for some sort of special refugee program for white farmers has stoked not only internal tensions within Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's cabinet but a diplomatic furore with South Africa. That country's foreign ministry has refuted the assertion that white farmers are persecuted and demanded an apology for Mr Dutton's claim they needed help from a "civilised country" such as Australia.

The statistic cited by Mr Abbott - that 400 white farmers have been murdered in the past year - has appeared in several media reports, including in Australia, but is disputed. According to Africa Check, a fact-checking website, police and researchers counted 74 farm murders in the 12 months between April 2016 and March 2017, with victims' races not recorded.

South Africa has demanded Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton retract his comments that the country's white farmers are being "persecuted" and deserve protection with special visas from a "civilised country".

At the weekend, Ms Bishop rejected Mr Dutton's pitch for "special attention", telling the ABC's Insiders program the "credibility [of the refugee program] comes from the fact that it is non-discriminatory and that each application is assessed on its merits". There were "no plans" to alter the program, Ms Bishop said.

However, the program is Mr Dutton's responsibility as Home Affairs Minister and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Mr Turnbull is yet to publicly articulate a view on the issue.

Ms Bishop confirmed Australia's high commissioner to South Africa was "called in" for a meeting with the government in Pretoria following Mr Dutton's remarks, and explained the nature of Australia's refugee program.

Mr Dutton last week revealed he had instructed his department to examine ways of giving special treatment to white South African farmers, observing there was already a large cohort of South Africans settled in Australia who integrated well and did not live off welfare. "They're the sorts of migrants we want to bring into our country," Mr Dutton 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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


Thursday, March 22, 2018

How come school shooters are usually white?

They're not. Gun deaths in black schools are just not publicized.  Why?  Is it white privilege at work?  No.  It is because the well of Leftist outrage would run dry if black deaths were noted: The deaths are so frequent.  Plus the shooter is black too and we must not mention that

The renewed push for gun control, the nationwide “March for Our Lives” this Saturday, the school protests last Wednesday — they happened after 14 teenagers and three adults were murdered at a high school in affluent Parkland, Fla. A well-heeled school. And nobody who died was black.

This did not go unnoticed by families who’ve lost children, black children, to gun violence in Boston.

There were no calls to action when Ron and Kim Odom’s son Steven, 13, was murdered, in 2007, on his way home from playing basketball.

There was no uproar after the murder that same year of Warren Daniel Hairston, 21; or Eric Smith-Johnson, 18, in 2010; or Raekwon Brown, 17, in 2016; or before that, Quintessa Blackwell, 18, though both were gunned down in broad daylight outside Boston schools: Brown at Jeremiah Burke, Blackwell near Holland Elementary.

Thousands of teenagers, many just in the wrong place at the wrong time, have died in shootings in America’s inner cities for years. But these shootings don’t happen on the same day. They happen day after day.

During this powerful uprising after a suburban school shooting, let’s hope we hear as much about daily gun slaughters terrorizing city teens and children in school and on the street in front of their homes.

Boston families I spoke to last week have long recognized this stark, unjust double standard. Yet they did not speak with resentment.

Ron Odom, father of Steven, a minister and a retired postal worker, now works as a school crossing guard. “People say, ‘Nothing will happen until it starts happening to white children.’ Well, now it’s happened. What’s the difference between what these children are saying and what our children are saying?” Odom asked. “But if they’re able to move Congress to some centrist agreement on guns, I’m standing with them. Our children are dying.”

Ruth Rollins, mother of Warren Daniel Hairston, runs Operation Lipstick, a program to reduce illegal gun trafficking. Lipstick has two buses leaving Boston for the Washington “March for Our Lives.” Most of the riders are children, teens, or young adults. One is the daughter of Rollins’s dead son, a 13-year-old who was a baby when her father was shot to death. “We always hear from parents,” Rollins said. “Now we’ll hear from the children.”

Leonard Lee, Warren Daniel Hairston’s uncle, is a community activist who has gone to burials of dozens of gun-downed teens and young men he’s known. Said Lee, “We were conflicted around this march. But what resonated after we talked to young people was, ‘Use it as a bridge to connect.’ Don’t make this a black/white issue, an urban vs. suburban issue. Make it an American issue.

“It’s so easy to get a gun now. I can get you one in a couple of minutes for less than $35.”

Monalisa Smith, Eric Smith-Johnson’s aunt, runs Mothers for Justice and Equality, a group committed to ending the “normalization” of child gun murders.

Let’s hear about the gun deaths of young people in inner cities.

“If we get angry and bitter and focus on injustice, not justice, we can’t run the race. You’ve got to be that example, and that’s not easy,” she said. “You’ve got to fight and cry at the same time. You meet mothers who just lost children, what do you say? Young people come to you afraid they’ll lose loved ones too. What do you say? All you can do is promise them that tomorrow is coming, that weeping endures for the night,” she said, quoting the psalms, “but joy comes in the morning.”

“I pray a lot. I’m always praying,” said Smith. “You have to hold onto this unwavering faith that we’ll get through this, that we’re going to win, that the NRA is powerful but we’re going to see the change we need,” she said. “It is happening. Our children are rising up from the ashes.”


Firing Tillerson removed an obstacle to peace


As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was being fired on Tuesday, his central assumptions about the Palestinian conflict with Israel, which are shared by the entire Washington foreign policy establishment, literally blew up in Gaza.

On Tuesday morning, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah's convoy was attacked by a roadside bomb during an official visit in Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Hamdallah was in Gaza to inaugurate a wastewater treatment facility sponsored by the World Bank. The facility was approved 14 years ago, but infighting between Hamas, which runs Gaza, and Fatah, the PLO ruling faction which controls the Palestinian Authority (PA), blocked its operation time after time.

The shuttered water treatment facility in northern Gaza has long been a monument to the Palestinian leadership's incompetence and indifference to the plight of the people it is supposed to be serving. As the plant gathered dust, Gaza plunged deeper and deeper into a water crisis.

As the Times of Israel reported, Gaza has two water problems: insufficient ground water, and massive pollution of the existing supply due to the absence of sufficient sewage treatment facilities.

Untreated sewage is dumped directly into the Mediterranean Sea, and then seeps back into Gaza's groundwater.

Gaza's polluted acquifiers only produce a quarter of its water needs, and due to insufficient water treatment facilities, 97 percent of Gaza's natural water sources are unsafe for human consumption.

Hamdallah's visit to Hamas-controlled Gaza was supposed to show that the Fatah-Hamas unity deal Egypt brokered between the two terror groups last year was finally enabling them to solve Gaza's humanitarian needs.

And then Hamdallah's convoy was bombed, and the whole charade of Palestinian governing competence and responsibility was put to rest.

Later in the day, the White House held a Middle East summit that demonstrated Tillerson's basic assumptions have the problems of the Middle East precisely backwards.

Under the leadership of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law, along with Jason Greenblatt, Trump's senior negotiator, Israeli officials sat in the White House for the first time with Arab officials from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar. Representatives from Egypt and Jordan, with which Israel enjoys open diplomatic relations, were also in attendance. Canadian and European officials participated as well.

Although they were invited, the Palestinians chose to boycott the conference. Their boycott was telling. The PA claimed it was boycotting the conference in retaliation for America's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and President Trump's plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Israel's 70th Independence Day in May.

But anger over Jerusalem doesn't justify the snub. The purpose of the summit wasn't to reach "the ultimate deal." The summit was called to to formulate the means to contend with the humanitarian crises emanating from Hamas-controlled Gaza. The Palestinians boycotted a summit whose sole purpose was to help them.

As Palestinian commentator Bassam Tawil noted, the PA's boycott while appalling, was unsurprising.

The White House summit was a threat to both rival Palestinian factions. It showed that the Trump administration, which both Fatah and Hamas hate passionately, cares more about the Palestinians than they do.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is entirely the product of Hamas and Fatah actions. In an op-ed in the Washington Post last week, Greenblatt laid the blame on Hamas. "Hamas's utter failure to fulfill any of the most basic functions of governance has brought Gaza to the brink of collapse, which has necessitated the response of the international community."

Fatah, Tawil noted, is just as responsible. The Fatah-controlled PA has used the Palestinians of Gaza as a pawn in its power struggle against Hamas. Rather than work to decontaminate Gaza's water supply and provide for the basic needs of the population, for the past year the PA has imposed economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip.

Ostensibly imposed to induce the population of Gaza to rise up against Hamas, they have simply served to increase the misery of the residents of Gaza. Hamas's power remains unchallenged as Qatar, Turkey, and Iran shower the terror group with cash and arms.

As Tawil noted, Hamas and Fatah are willing to fight one another until the last Palestinian in Gaza.

The conference showed that the attack on Hamdallah's convoy was not a freak episode. The bombing was emblematic of the Fatah-Hamas leadership's obsession with their own power, to the detriment of the people they claim to represent.

The events in Gaza and the White House on Tuesday tell us two important things.

First, they reveal that the primary obstacle to both peace and regional stability in the Middle East is the Palestinian leadership - both from Fatah and Hamas.

Not only did the PA refuse to participate in a summit dedicated solely to helping the Palestinians, but also the very day the summit took place, PA-controlled Voice of Palestine Radio reported that the PA intends to file a complaint against President Trump at the International Criminal Court. Trump's recognition of Jerusalem, the PA insists, "violated all international laws and resolutions."

The report also said the PA intends to sue Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman for "crimes against the Palestinian people."

Tuesday's second lesson is that while the PA is the primary obstacle to peace and regional stability, it is easily surmountable.

Tuesday's conference was a diplomatic triumph for the Trump administration. For the first time, official representatives of five Arab states that have no diplomatic relations with Israel sat publically in the White House with Israeli officials. They were brought together due to their common concern for the Palestinians in Gaza, and for the instability that the plight of the Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza might encourage.

Although it is still unknown whether anything discussed at the conference will turn into concrete improvements on the ground, the summit itself was a concrete achievement. It showed that the Arabs are willing publicly to bypass the Palestinians to work with Israel. The fact that the conference was devoted to helping the Palestinians served to transform the PA from the critical partner in any peace deal to an irritating irrelevance.

And that brings us to Tillerson, and the foreign policy establishment whose positions he channeled.

During his 14 months in office, Tillerson insisted on maintaining the establishment's view that the Fatah-controlled PA is the be-all-and-end-all of Middle East peace efforts. The view that there can be no Arab-Israeli peace without the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) compelled successive U.S. administrations to continue to embrace it despite its support for terrorism, and despite its refusal to accept or even respond to any offer of peace by either Israel or the U.S.

The belief that there can be no peace without Fatah convinced successive American administrations to pour billions of dollars in aid money down the black hole of PA treasury accounts. Since the Israeli-PLO peace process began in 1993, the Palestinians have received more international aid per capita than any nation on earth has received in world history. And all they produced are an impoverished, sewage-filled terror state in Gaza, and a jihadist hub in Judea and Samaria that would explode in violence if Israel did not control security.

The view that the U.S. needs the PLO and its PA to achieve peace gave the Palestinian leadership an effective veto over every U.S. policy towards Israel and towards the peace process.

Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the embassy to Jerusalem was the first time any American leader since Bill Clinton had dared to reject the Palestinian veto on US Middle East policy.

Tillerson supported maintaining the PA's veto. As a result, he all but openly opposed Trump's decision.

So too, last June, in a bid to protect U.S. funding to the PA - despite the fact that fully 7 percent of its donor-funded budget is used to pay salaries to terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families - Tillerson falsely told the Senate Foreign Relations committee that the PA had agreed to end the payments. After the Palestinians themselves denied his statement, he only partially walked it back. The next day, he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the U.S. was in "active discussions" with the Palestinians regarding halting the payments.

In the event, the PA raised its payments to terrorists in 2017 to $403 million. In 2016, the PA spent $347 million to pay salaries to terrorist murderers and their families.

In other words, Tillerson is so committed to the view that there can be no peace without the PA, that he willingly misled U.S. lawmakers.

Trump administration officials keep insisting that they are almost ready to present their peace plan for the Palestinians and Israel. But whatever the plan may entail, the steps the White House has already taken - Tuesday's summit, Trump's move on Jerusalem, and his determination to sign the Taylor Force Act to end U.S. support for the PA if it maintains its payments to terrorists - have already advanced the cause of peace more than any American peace proposal ever has and likely ever will.

Those moves removed the principle blockage to all peace deals - namely, the Palestinian leadership from Fatah and Hamas alike. By bypassing the PA, the White House has focused its efforts on expanding the already burgeoning bilateral ties between Israel and the Arab states. It has encouraged the expansion of cooperation between these regional actors. That cooperation is the key to diminishing Iranian power in the region; defeating Sunni jihadists from the Muslim Brotherhood and its spinoffs; and to improving the lives and prospects for peace of Palestinians, Israelis and all the nations of the region.

Tillerson opposed all of these actions. Like the foreign policy establishment he represented, Tillerson refused to abandon the false belief that nothing can be done without PLO approval. By removing him from office, President Trump took yet another step towards advancing prospects for peace in the Middle East.


UK: The jingoistic fear of Russia is out of control

The Salisbury poisoning has exposed the hysteria of Britain’s rulers.

The speed with which Britain’s political class has descended into jingoism and anti-foreigner hysteria in the wake of the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Salisbury has been extraordinary. In mere days, before we have proof of Russian state involvement, before we know the full facts of who was behind this attempted murder, virtually every section of our political and media elites was hollering for confrontation, demanding punishment of the Russian beast, and wailing, yet again, about the threat this warped eastern entity poses to Western stability and democracy. That such an evidence-lite outburst of nationalistic and militaristic fervour has come from those who have spent the past 18 months lecturing the little people about our alleged disdain for truth and our Little Englander paranoia should be lost on no one.

We are living through a desperate, hammed-up re-enactment of the Cold War era. ‘Christ, I miss the Cold War’, said Judi Dench’s M in Casino Royale when one of her missions proved rather more complicated than she had expected. She could have been speaking for much of the 21st-century Western political establishment who, feeling all at sea, and bamboozled by a contrarian electorate that refuses to vote in the way they’re meant to, seem to long to wrap themselves in the comfort blanket of old Cold War certainties from that era when the world was binary and our politicians didn’t have to say much more than ‘I hate the USSR’ to win applause. Post-Salisbury we’ve had Theresa May doing a bad impersonation of M, telling us it is ‘highly likely’ the Russian state was behind this poisoning and that Britain will confront the evil east head-on over this matter. Hey presto, suddenly ‘Maybot’, this PM so ridiculed by the press as flat and uninspiring, looks strong. This is the magic dust of Cold War nostalgia.

For many, it’s not enough. Tory MPs and much of the right-wing press, gabbing in heated tones about Russian menace, Putin’s warped plans to destabilise Europe, and other things that exist more in their heads than in the world of provable fact, have been egging May on to say more and do more. There must be confrontation, there must be sanctions, there must be no cuts to our military resources because, who knows, we may need to go to war, they say, madly. Fancying themselves as bit-part players in a John le Carré novel, these politicians and observers clearly relish the political and personal momentum, however fleeting and opportunistic it might be, that talking tough on Russia has provided them with. And it’s not just the right. An editor at the Guardian says the poisoning was a ‘brazen attack on a sovereign country’ and ‘cannot go unpunished’. The Guardian cares about British sovereignty now? Wonders will never cease.

Such has been the fever pitch of anti-Russia sabre-rattling over the past couple of days that even to ask ‘Shall we wait for all the facts?’ is to risk being shot down, being accused of ‘Putin apologism’, being branded an enemy of Britain and friend of Russia. Witness the response to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s sensible plea that we remain in a ‘robust dialogue with Russia’ rather than ‘cutting off contact and letting the tensions and divisions get worse and potentially even more dangerous’. A politician calling for calm? For diplomacy? For dialogue? Boo! That cannot be tolerated. He has been branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘disgraceful’. David Miliband compared him to Trump: in short, he’s all but a Russia stooge. These attacks on Corbyn merely for saying we should speak robustly with Russia rather than get into a needless confrontation with it confirms that this affair has left the realm of measured political discussion and is now a needy, emotionalist search for a foreign evil entity that our political class might feel united in opposition to. No questioning, no appeals for calm, can be tolerated by the moral beneficiaries of this anti-Russia hysteria and so they seek to shut such things down with slurs and accusations. ‘What’s wrong with you? Do you love Putin. Do you hate Britain?’

Yet even Corbyn couldn’t resist milking the anti-Russian moment. Shortly after appealing for calm he attacked the Tories for taking donations from Russian oligarchs. Now all the talk is of ‘dirty Russian money’. Owen Jones at the Guardian went into full conspiracy-theory mode, accusing the Tories of being at the ‘centre of a web spun by [the Russian regime]’. Sections of the supposedly radical left are engaging in borderline xenophobic, or at least paranoid, chatter about our politicians having been bought off by ‘filthy’ money from Moscow, rehabilitating the McCarthyite panic about Russians infiltrating our political systems. Corbynite Paul Mason even called on Theresa May to cancel all defence cuts because we cannot ‘face down’ the Russian threat if we are ‘depleting our armed forces’. Behold Corbynista jingoism. Socialists for war with Russia – who saw that coming?

It looks likely to get worse. Ofcom is now threatening to revoke Russia Today’s right to air in Britain. Moscow is summoning Britain’s ambassadors for talks. Will it expel them? Will Britain expel Moscow’s? Trump’s Washington, keen to disprove the claims that it is in bed with the Kremlin, is getting involved, with Rex Tillerson asserting that the Russian state was probably behind the poisoning. And so international tensions intensify, in a way that could soon spin out of control. And on what evidence? None. Some experts believe it is unlikely the Russian state okayed the poisoning, given its amateurishness and pointlessness. They think it could have been a result of fallout between groups of former spies or possibly the action of the Russian mob. That is, non-state actors. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But can’t we wait for more facts before we rush to judgement, and conflict? It seems not. You’re a Putin apologist if you don’t share their longing for the ramping up of global tensions.

For nearly two years, Britain’s political class and chattering class have looked with contempt upon ordinary British people, whom they accuse of being post-truth, nationalistic, xenophobic and nostalgic for Empire. Now, these same people sniff at the suggestion that we should wait for more evidence on the Salisbury poisoning, suddenly care about Britain’s national integrity, engage in paranoid ‘vulnerable Britain’ vs ‘evil Russia’ hysteria, and want Britain to build up its military muscle to face down the Evil East. Everything they have said about us is far truer of them. That it happened so quickly, this descent from a supposedly rational political class into unstable, jingoistic war-talkers going on about filthy foreign money and influence, tells us just how thin is the veneer of reason on today’s ruling elites.


The 'patriotic' thought police came for Corbyn. You are next


Is THIS a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.

I disagree with Mr Corbyn about many things and actively loathe the way he has sucked up to Sinn Fein. But he has a better record on foreign policy than almost anyone in Parliament. Above all, when so many MPs scuttled obediently into the lobbies to vote for the Iraq War, he held his ground against it and was vindicated.

Mr Corbyn has earned the right to be listened to, and those who now try to smear him are not just doing something morally wrong. They are hurting the country. Look at our repeated rushes into foolish conflict in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. All have done us lasting damage.

Everyone I meet now thinks they were against the Iraq War (I know most of them weren’t, but never mind). So that’s over.

But Libya remains an unacknowledged disgrace. David Cameron has not suffered for it, and those who cheered it on have yet to admit they were mistaken.

Yet we pay for it, literally, every day. Along with our clinically insane covert intervention on the side of Al Qaeda in Syria, the Libyan adventure created the unending migration crisis across Europe which, in my view, threatens the stability of the whole continent.

Yet I recall a surge of anger from the audience when I doubted some crude war propaganda about mass rapes in Libya on the BBC’s Question Time. War is strangely popular, until it comes to your own doorstep.

I sense an even deeper and more thoughtless frenzy over Russia, a country many seem to enjoy loathing because they know so little about it.

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.

In any case, the crude accusation, with its implication of treachery, frightened me. I expect, as time goes by, I will be accused of being an ‘appeaser’ and of being against ‘British values’. And then what? An apparatus of thought policing is already in place in this country. By foolishly accepting bans on Muslim ‘extremists’, we have licensed public bodies to decide that other views, too, are ‘extremist’.

Because the authorities are terrified of upsetting Islam, nothing much will happen to Muslim militants. But conservative and Christian views such as mine will suffer.

Christian and Jewish schools, especially ones which have conservative views on marriage and sex education, increasingly find themselves in trouble. Even mainstream Catholic and C of E schools are under stealthy attack, with attempts made to stop them ‘discriminating’ in favour of pupils from Christian homes.

Ofsted now says that ‘all schools’ have a ‘duty to actively promote fundamental British values’, which sounds totalitarian to me. This includes so-called ‘mutual respect and tolerance of values different from their own’.

Actually, there is nothing mutual about it. The sexual revolution fanatics demand submission, and offer no tolerance in return. Now the freedom to educate children at home, always a barometer of liberty, is being seriously threatened for the first time in our history. The pretext for this is supposed fears of child abuse or ‘extremism’. The real reason is that so much home education rejects the so-called ‘British values’ of multiculturalism and sexual liberation.

What next? ‘British values’ over foreign policy, war, immigration? I expect so. TV and the internet have for years been promoting a leaden conformism, whose victims are actually shocked – and often angry – when anyone disagrees.

There’s no real spirit of liberty left in this country.

Yes, I am scared, and I never have been before. And so should you be. War, or the danger of war, is always an opportunity to silence troublemakers.



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

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

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


Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys

The finding is that black boys from well-off families tend to be "skidders" -- people who move to lower social classes than their parents.  There are many possible explanations for that but the fact that black girls in well-off families are not skidders is the revealing finding.  It isolates the cause of the skidding to something that is differentially present in girls and boys.

And that is in fact the pachyderm in the residence.  The article is from the NYT so the pachyderm is ignored.  But it is perfectly obvious what the key difference is and it is perfectly obvious why it brings on skidding.

So what is the unmentionable pachyderm? It is the fact that black males are particularly prone to impulsive violence.  The astronomically high incidence of black on black shootings in Chicago alone should tell you that.  Blacks are much more ready to reach for a gun than are either white males or black females.  And a tendency to impulsive violence will have you rapidly skidding downhill.  You will antagonize people, you will be avoided and you will be locked up.  And prison is the rock bottom of the socio-economic status scale

FOOTNOTE: Given my extensive academic background, I tend to write in a rather academic way. And I am aware that academic writing is easily misunderstood and misrepresented. So I think I should expand on what I said above. I am NOT saying that ALL affluent young black males are quick to reach for a gun. I am simply saying that SOME are and that drags down the average social success for that demographic category. Nor am I saying that skidding is normally brought on by a tendency to violence. It may be brought on by many things

Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children.

Most white boys raised in wealthy families will stay rich or upper middle class as adults, but black boys  raised in similarly rich households will not.

Even when children grow up next to each other with parents who earn similar incomes, black boys fare worse than white boys in 99 percent of America. And the gaps only worsen in the kind of neighborhoods that promise low poverty and good schools.

According to the study, led by researchers at Stanford, Harvard and the Census Bureau, income inequality between blacks and whites is driven entirely by what is happening among these boys and the men they become. Though black girls and women face deep inequality on many measures, black and white girls from families with comparable earnings attain similar individual incomes as adults.

Large income gaps persist between men — but not women.

“You would have thought at some point you escape the poverty trap,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist and an author of the study. Black boys — even rich black boys — can seemingly never assume that.

The study, based on anonymous earnings and demographic data for virtually all Americans now in their late 30s, debunks a number of other widely held hypotheses about income inequality. Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

A more likely possibility, the authors suggest, is that test scores don’t accurately measure the abilities of black children in the first place.

If this inequality can’t be explained by individual or household traits, much of what matters probably lies outside the home — in surrounding neighborhoods, in the economy and in a society that views black boys differently from white boys, and even from black girls.

“One of the most popular liberal post-racial ideas is the idea that the fundamental problem is class and not race, and clearly this study explodes that idea,” said Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “But for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

The authors, including the Stanford economist Raj Chetty and two census researchers, Maggie R. Jones and Sonya R. Porter, tried to identify neighborhoods where poor black boys do well, and as well as whites.

“The problem,” Mr. Chetty said, “is that there are essentially no such neighborhoods in America.”

The few neighborhoods that met this standard were in areas that showed less discrimination in surveys and tests of racial bias. They mostly had low poverty rates. And, intriguingly, these pockets — including parts of the Maryland suburbs of Washington, and corners of Queens and the Bronx — were the places where many lower-income black children had fathers at home. Poor black boys did well in such places, whether their own fathers were present or not.

“That is a pathbreaking finding,” said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard sociologist whose books have chronicled the economic struggles of black men. “They’re not talking about the direct effects of a boy’s own parents’ marital status. They’re talking about the presence of fathers in a given census tract.”

Other fathers in the community can provide boys with role models and mentors, researchers say, and their presence may indicate other neighborhood factors that benefit families, like lower incarceration rates and better job opportunities.

The research makes clear that there is something unique about the obstacles black males face. The gap between Hispanics and whites is narrower, and their incomes will converge within a couple of generations if mobility stays the same. Asian-Americans earn more than whites raised at the same income level, or about the same when first-generation immigrants are excluded. Only Native Americans have an income gap comparable to African-Americans. But the disparities are widest for black boys.

For poor children, the pattern is reversed. Most poor black boys  will remain poor as adults. White boys raised in poor families fare far better.

“This crystallizes and puts data behind this thing that we always knew was there because we either felt it ourselves or we’ve seen it over time,” said Will Jawando, 35, who worked in the Obama White House on My Brother’s Keeper, a mentoring initiative for black boys. Even without this data, the people who worked on that project, he said, believed that individual and structural racism targeted black men in ways that required policies devised specifically for them.

Mr. Jawando, the son of a Nigerian father and a white mother, grew up poor in Silver Spring, Md. The Washington suburb contains some of the rare neighborhoods where black and white boys appear to do equally well. Mr. Jawando, who identifies as black, is now a married lawyer with three daughters. He is among the black boys who climbed from the bottom to the top.

He was one of the 20 million children born between 1978 and 1983 whose lives are reflected in the study. Using census data that included tax files, the researchers were able to link the adult fortunes of those children to their parents’ incomes. Names and addresses were hidden from the researchers.

Previous research suggests some reasons there may be a large income gap between black and white men, but not between women, even though women of color face both sexism and racism.

Other studies show that boys, across races, are more sensitive than girls to disadvantages like growing up in poverty or facing discrimination. While black women also face negative effects of racism, black men often experience racial discrimination differently. As early as preschool, they are more likely to be disciplined in school. They are pulled over or detained and searched by police officers more often.

“It’s not just being black but being male that has been hyper-stereotyped in this negative way, in which we’ve made black men scary, intimidating, with a propensity toward violence,” said Noelle Hurd, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.

She said this racist stereotype particularly hurts black men economically, now that service-sector jobs, requiring interaction with customers, have replaced the manufacturing jobs that previously employed men with less education.

The new data shows that 21 percent of black men raised at the very bottom were incarcerated, according to a snapshot of a single day during the 2010 census. Black men raised in the top 1 percent — by millionaires — were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.

The sons of black families from the top 1 percent had about the same chance of being incarcerated on a given day as the sons of white families earning $36,000.

At the same time, boys benefit more than girls from adult attention and resources, as do low-income and nonwhite children, a variety of studies have found. Mentors who aren’t children’s parents, but who share those children’s gender and race, serve a particularly important role for black children, Ms. Hurd has found. That helps explain why the presence of black fathers in a neighborhood, even if not in a child’s home, appears to make a difference.

Some of the widest black-white income gaps in this study appear in wealthy communities. This fits with previous research that has shown that the effects of racial discrimination cross class lines. Although all children benefit from growing up in places with higher incomes and more resources, black children do not benefit nearly as much as white children do. Moving black boys to opportunity is no guarantee they can tap into it.

“Simply because you’re in an area that is more affluent, it’s still hard for black boys to present themselves as independent from the stereotype of black criminality,” said Khiara Bridges, a professor of law and anthropology at Boston University who has written a coming paper on discrimination against affluent black people.

This dynamic still weighs on Mr. Jawando. He has a good income, multiple degrees and political aspirations — he is running for county council in Montgomery County, where he grew up. But in his own community, he is careful to dress like a professional.

“I think if I’m putting on a sweatsuit, if I go somewhere, will I be seen as just kind of a hood black guy?” he said. “Or will people recognize me at all?” Those small daily decisions — to wear a blazer or not — follow him despite his success. “I don’t think you escape those things,” he said.


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Now PE is RACIST says taxpayer-funded study that claims that teaching children to play football, rugby, cricket and netball favours 'white privilege'

School Physical Education lessons are racist, according to an astonishing taxpayer-funded study.

Teaching children to play football, rugby, cricket, netball and rounders favours ‘privileged’ white students, the politically correct 20-page report claims.

The research, which was criticised last night as ‘ludicrous’ and ‘patronising’ by a top black footballer, says sports that have been taught in schools for generations hark back to Britain’s colonial past and make ‘whiteness’ the norm.

Its authors, who were given a grant of nearly £10,000 to examine PE classes in England and Norway, suggest that learning dances from different cultures should be given greater prominence. [But that would be "cultural appropriation"]

They add that the emphasis in PE on health and fitness could even be imposing Western ideals of how people’s bodies should look.

They also claim that ‘character-building’ practises such as ‘fair play’ have European roots.

But last night former England football star Les Ferdinand, a black player who is now director of football at Queens Park Rangers, derided the study as ‘ridiculous’.

He said he had never been aware of racism during his ten years of school PE and added: ‘Ethnic minorities have gone on to play football and rugby for England and they have all gone through the same PE curriculum.

‘This research is a waste of money and a waste of time. It is ludicrous.’

Lord Ouseley, who chairs the anti-racism football campaign Kick It Out, said it was ‘crazy’ to put such sports in ‘a context of ethnicity and racism’ as they were played all over the world.

He added: ‘This research is an irrelevance and also patronising because people make their own decisions about their involvement in sport.’

The report – called A Whitewashed Curriculum? The Construction of Race in Contemporary PE Curriculum Policy – says traditional games were developed in the Victorian era by ‘white privileged males’ at elite public schools that often discriminated against minorities.

The study, written in often baffling jargon and published in the journal Sport, Education and Society, says the games have been used by the British as ‘part of a civilising process’ and transported around the world ‘as an extension of nationalism and the Empire’.

The study was conducted by Anne Flintoff, Professor of Physical Education and Sport at Leeds Beckett University, and Fiona Dowling from the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences in Oslo. They received a grant of £9,940 from the largely taxpayer-funded British Academy to support their work.

Bizarrely, they say that by focusing on the need for ‘healthy, active lives’ there is ‘a danger PE lessons can contribute to a recolonisation of ethnic minorities’ physicality’.

Quoting from other research, they say: ‘It is through the monocultural and ahistorical language of discourses of fatness and fitness in schools that young people’s bodies, in subtle ways, are pedagogized to white ideals of the body.’

The report also states that PE is ‘constructed as a predominantly white, unmarked space’.


Hate-filled Arizona social worker attacks blameless woman

Heather Whitten, from Arizona, is a documentary photographer and mother of four children. She struggled with infertility, fostering, and adoption to get to the place she is at today, and it’s because of that struggle that she enjoys photographing scenes that document the downfalls and triumphs of motherhood.

One day, her son Fox fell ill, so her husband Thomas took him into the shower with him to provide him with comfort and relaxation. He helped the little boy bathe and that was it. Heather found nothing strange about it. She snapped a photograph of the two in the shower and posted it. “It was just beautiful. It was not surprising or anything out of the ordinary; it’s how he has always been with the kids,” she said.

Fox got over his illness a few days later. A few days was all it took for the photo to stir up a lot of commotion on the internet. It had been shared 32,000 times and 140,000 people reacted to it, before Facebook banned it twice. This all took place in May of 2016.

Most people loved the raw image, which portrayed raw parenthood. Parenthood isn’t always glamorous, or what some would consider “appropriate.” Sometimes you eat slobbery, discarded banana mush off of your baby’s cheek and sometimes you accidentally wipe their diarrhea on your forehead when changing a diaper. What is so different about a shower or bath with a child that is too young to even find nakedness inappropriate yet?

Regardless, people have a right to their own opinions. And one individual felt compelled to write a letter of complaint to the Sahuarita Police Department. When the police dismissed the letter without taking action, an investigator from Arizona’s Department of Child Safety spent the next few months dedicated to portraying Heather as an abusive mother, even neglectful. The investigator apparently had only a single interview with Heather about the photo, and that was the only interaction and background she had.

Heather admitted that she breastfed one of her children during the entire interview, without covering herself, which she was certain bothered the investigator. However, breastfeeding is protected by law, whether it be public or private, covered or uncovered.

The investigator’s only claim was that Heather neglected to supervise her children by allowing images of them to be online, therefore putting them at an avoidable risk of harm. But Heather argued that as an artist, she has the right to share her work with the public. Heather felt there was not enough evidence, other than the investigator’s bias against her, to put her in an unfavorable position. However, if the claim was substantiated, Heather would be added to Arizona’s Central Registry for the next 25 years. She would no longer be able to foster or adopt children, or hold a position working with children.

The hearing was on February 3, 2017. On March 8, 2017, Heather posted the verdict to her Facebook with a creative photograph she took herself.

She wrote, “All claims unsubstantiated! Thank you for your time and your patience and your support! You showed up for me through shares and comments and emails and donations and letters and signatures. It’s overwhelming and illuminating. Being able to bring my lawyer on board and to have such a big show of support behind me made all the difference! This case has shaped me, my family and my photography in ways that I can’t even begin to explain. But, this part is over and we could not be more thrilled to put it all behind us! Thank you, thank you, thank you!”


One hopes that the verdict totally discredits the horror social worker

Britain's many false rape allegations can have disastrous consequences

'I'm free from this living hell': Haunting last words of man who took his own life after fake rape claim... as police finally investigate accuser

A man accused of rape killed himself after police refused to believe that texts on his phone proved the sex had been consensual.

The accuser is now being investigated for perverting the course of justice, following an inquest at which a coroner said Ross Bullock, 38, took his own life because of the ‘distress’ caused by the allegation.

After his arrest in March 2015, Mr Bullock was questioned by police and bailed for a month despite showing them text messages that strongly suggested he was innocent. Even when officers decided against action, he was warned he could be charged at a later date.

Finally, after a ‘year of torment’, Mr Bullock hanged himself in the garage of the family home, leaving a note revealing he had ‘hit rock bottom’ and that with his death ‘I’m free from this living hell’.

His body was found by his mother Carole. His father Ronald, 76, said: ‘Ross would still be alive now if the police had dealt with the allegation sensitively.’ And Mrs Bullock, 74, added: ‘The allegation changed Ross as a person. He cut himself off.’

The Mail on Sunday has previously reported a series of cases that have exposed grave police failings over rape accusations.

Mr Bullock’s parents may now take civil action against West Mercia Police and are calling for the accuser – who was in a relationship with another man when she and Ross had sex – to be charged. Police confirmed they are investigating an allegation of perverting the course of justice.

Mr Bullock, a forklift truck driver from Redditch, Worcestershire, met his accuser in February 2015 and they had sex at his workplace. The pair shared dozens of flirtatious texts afterwards.

In one exchange, Mr Bullock said: ‘Well I hope u had a good time.’ The woman replied: ‘It was alright I suppose!! X.’

The Independent Office for Police Conduct confirmed Mr Bullock Snr had filed a complaint and the case was referred back to West Mercia. Its investigation concluded there was no case to answer.

Last night West Mercia Police said: ‘Mr Bullock was arrested and released with no further action. We would like to offer his family our sincere condolences following his tragic death.’


Hogg Releases Own Ad, Utterly Humiliates Self With High School Mistake

Liberal anti-Second Amendment voices have found their new poster boy: David Hogg.

The Parkland student-turned-activist appears to have been given not just the spotlight but the entire stage in the gun control debate … but his sanctimonious tone and weak grasp of the facts keep getting in the way of his efforts to look less like a high school student and more like an authority on gun violence.

Hogg, 17, used the Florida shooting tragedy to leap into a role he seemed to have been long preparing for: A new media pseudo-journalist, pushing an anti-gun agenda by labeling even mild gun owners as evil and condemning every NRA member in America as having blood on their hands. Subtle.

Hogg — who was shoving a camera in students’ faces for “interviews” even while the Parkland shooting was still unfolding — just released a video “PSA” that takes his already condescending and haughty attitude and turns it up to 11.

The “advertisement,” which features the over the top teenager sternly lecturing Americans while framed by a stark black background, begins with this blunt and misinformed question: “What if our politicians weren’t the b—- of the NRA?”

Apparently it’s a bad thing that when millions of like-minded American gun owners speak, their representatives listen. With an ignorant lead like that, you know the sanctimony is off to a great start. Try to hold your nose.

“In the video, Hogg seizes on Trump’s rope-a-dope of Democrats, whereby he made them believe he was open to every gun control imaginable, only to draw them out into the light and deny them every gun control they pushed,” explained Breitbart News.

“He then points to Democrat Conor Lamb’s victory over Republican Rick Saccone earlier in the week. Hogg suggests Lamb’s victory is proof Americans have had ‘enough,'” continued the news outlet.

Here’s the problem: Even though Conor Lamb is a Democrat and did manage to barely defeat his opponent in a close race … he’s not actually anti-gun. At least he claims not to be. Pretty much everybody following the race who’s not in high school knew that.

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
In fact, Lamb ran on a “Blue Dog Democrat” platform of supporting the Second Amendment, and opposes anti-gun programs like “high capacity” magazine bans.

“New gun laws aren’t the answer to preventing more mass shootings like the one at a Florida high school,” the newly elected congressman declared shortly after the Parkland tragedy.

In other words, when it comes to Lamb versus Hogg  — is this “1984” or “Animal Farm?” — the winning candidate actually opposed gun-grabbing talking points, yet the teenage wanna-be media mogul is pretending that it was some sort of referendum on gun control.

“Democrats are celebrating the victory of gun-loving Conor Lamb in the Pennsylvania special election. What would those student gun control protestors say if they knew about that?” wondered an Investor’s Business Daily editorial last week.

The answer, apparently, is that they’re either too dense to notice, or are actively pushing a false narrative to fool the American people. We used to call this “lying.”

Disingenuous statements and half-baked facts are a bit of a theme for David Hogg. “#WhatIf we could go to school without fearing for our lives?” he asked on Twitter, in a post that included the disdainful PSA.

You’d think from that question there are killers on the loose on every school campus … which are of course government-run and often controlled by liberals. It’s just dripping with fear and bordering on hysteria — but what’s the reality?

Well, there were about 51 million kids attending school in the United States as of 2017, according to data from the Department of Education.

And tragic school shootings? “Over the past quarter-century, on average about 10 students are slain in school shootings annually,” stated criminology Professor James Alan Fox in USA Today.

Ten out of 51,000,000. Let’s be clear: That’s still a tragedy, and we can and should work to make it zero, but this is the statistic that in David Hogg’s words makes students stage walkouts based on “fearing for our lives.”

Do you know what kills ten times the number of school kids every year? Not guns. Bicycles.

“Compare the school fatality rate with the more than 100 school-age children accidentally killed each year riding their bikes or walking to school,” Fox pointed out.

“Congress might be too timid to pass gun legislation to protect children, but how about a national bicycle helmet law for minors? Half of the states do not require them,” he continued. “There is no NRA — National Riding Association — opposing that.”

In other words, Hogg and all the rest of the anti-gun crowd are spreading panic to push an agenda. The mainstream media presumably knows these facts or could look them up, but can’t be bothered. The truth might get in the way of of their Constitution-shredding motives.

If the teenage media darling wants so badly to play an adult and influence key laws in our nation, then he needs to face facts like an adult — and they’re not even remotely on his side.



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

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

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


Monday, March 19, 2018

Evidence From Norway Shows Gender Quotas Don't Work For Women

The country of Norway has many American admirers, from President Trump to Sen. Bernie Sanders. Progressives like Sanders consider Norway a progressive paradise, because it has implemented almost every progressive policy under the sun, from universal health care to government mandated gender equality policy in the work place.

But have these policies achieved the desired outcome that the progressives are seeking? The latest data on gender quotas in the work place from Norway and some other European countries shows a policy with a good intention doesn't necessarily translate to a good outcome.

We've all heard the argument, especially in these days, that women are well represented in the educational system and the labor force, but at the top of the power hierarchy they are still surprisingly poorly represented.

UK Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman repeatedly said "only seven women run the FTSE 100 companies" in a recent interview of Jordan Peterson, to back up her view that male dominance in the workplace prevents women from reaching the top.

Ten years ago, Norway, the progressive paradise, took a drastic step to address this gender gap at the top of corporations. Its Minister of Trade and Industry Ansgar Gabrielsen of the Conservative Party introduced a mandatory gender quota of 40 percent for the boards of all public limited companies. The passing of this draconian law means, "If a company breaks the gender quota rules in Norway, it will be denied registration as a business enterprise in the Bronnoysund Register Centre and be subject to forced dissolution by the courts."

 Following Norway's example, a dozen other European countries, including France, Germany and Italy, adopted similar gender quotas- - 30 to 40 percent of corporate boards must be made up of women.

Ten years later, The Economist reported how the policy turned out based on data from Norway and other European countries with similar gender quota policies. On the surface, it seems the gender quota mandate achieved its desired outcome - female representation on corporate boards in these European countries increased. "In some countries the share of women among directors of large companies has increased four- or fivefold since 2007." But as always, the devil is in the details.

The Devil In The Details

Did the higher female representation on corporate boards improve corporate profitability and corporate governance as proponents promised? The data is inconclusive. Some companies saw improvement in both areas but some didn't. Did the higher female representation on corporate boards improve board's decision making as supporters claimed? Data shows that although decision making processes might have changed, the substance of the decisions and the quality of decision didn't improve by simply having more women on boards.

Now corporations in Europe are facing a shortage in finding qualified women to fill the gender quota mandates on their boards. Some reached for less qualified and less experienced women to meet the quota, which doesn't help improving corporate performance or governance. Since the law in Norway only applies to public companies, some Norwegian companies became private. The number of public limited companies in Norway dropped from 452 in 2008 to only 257 in 2013. The number of board seats dropped from 2,366 in 2008 to 1,423 in 2013. So there are fewer seats for women to fill.

The `Golden Skirts' Are Stretched Thin

But what everyone is most interested in answering is the question of whether the quota really benefited women. The answer depends on who you ask. The quota has certainly benefited a small group of women who are already high achievers and are at the top of corporate hierarchies. They are called the "golden skirts" and their numbers are very limited. Since the quota mandate led to a surge of demand for these women, many of them found more opportunities and higher pay, but they also found themselves stretched thin by serving on multiple boards.

As The Economist reported, the most puzzling information revealed by the data is that the quota mandate "had no discernible beneficial effect on women at lower levels of the corporate hierarchy." Proponents of such a policy have long promised that more women in leadership positions would translate to more career opportunities and promotions for women in the lower levels, which in turn will lead to better paying jobs and a shrinking gender pay gap. But that promise turned out to be wishful thinking.

Data shows that in France, Germany and the Netherlands, which all mandate women taking 30 to 40 percent of corporate board seats, only 10 to 20 percent of senior management jobs (one level below the board of director position) are held by women and that number has been consistent for the last 10 years. The Norwegians own study shows eight years after Norway introduced the law on gender equality in boardrooms, there are zero female CEOs in the country's 60 largest companies.

There is no data to demonstrate any higher pay or more career advancing opportunities for the vast majority of women in the workforce. Thus, having more women on the board has done little to benefit 99 percent of women in the workforce. Rather, it failed to lure more women to climb the corporate ladder and it failed to open up more mid-career opportunities and better pay.

In fact, Norway is seemingly going the wrong direction. In 2015, the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap ranked Norway as the world's second most gender equality place, with a score of 0.85, where 0 is inequality and 1 is complete equality. But in 2016, Norway's ranking dropped to the third place with a lower score of 0.84.

The logical conclusion, as The Economist presented, is that "gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down." Like so many progressive policies, the mandatory quota benefits a very small elitist group at the expense of the masses, despite its slogans on "equality."

One of the reasons that we don't see more women at the top of corporate hierarchy is the choices that women make. For example, some women choose to become stay-home moms for a period of time due to the high cost of childcare. When women make that choice, they end up paying a price in their career advancement. So if society wants to see more women taking leadership roles in any organizations, one sensible policy is to make childcare more affordable.

Given the fact that the high cost of childcare is the result of government policies, getting rid of those ruinous policies will likely lower the cost of childcare, which in turn helps more women stay in workforce to climb corporate ladders. The last thing women need is a useless gender quota at the board level that does nothing for the majority of us except window dressing.


No More Crosses? A case before the Supreme Court may settle whether memorial crosses are "unconstitutional."  

Imagine Arlington Cemetery with no crosses. Imagine the word “God” sandblasted from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Imagine Biblical verses removed from the U.S. Capitol. This is the world the radical atheists want. This is the world they almost have.

First Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest legal organization dedicated exclusively to defending religious freedom, is currently appealing a case to the Supreme Court so this doesn’t happen.

Here’s how it began. In 1925, Gold Star families and the American Legion (the largest veterans service organization in the U.S.) built the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Veteran’s Memorial, also known as the “Peace Cross,” in memory of the 49 men of Prince George’s County, Maryland, who died in World War I. The names of the 49 deceased veterans and the words “Courage,” “Valor,” “Endurance” and “Devotion” appear on the monument.

The cross stood as a peaceful memorial to the fallen veterans until February 2014, when the American Humanist Association (AHA) claimed that the monument unconstitutionally violated the Establishment Clause because of its public ownership and demanded that it be demolished, altered or removed. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the monument’s constitutionality citing the cross as a military symbol for sacrifice, courage and remembrance. However, in December 2015, the AHA appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the memorial was unconstitutional. On March 1, 2018, the Fourth Circuit denied the en banc rehearing, leaving an appeal to the Supreme Court as the final option.

Hiram Sasser, chief counsel for First Liberty, notes, “If [the Fourth Circuit] decision stands, other memorials, including those in nearby Arlington Cemetery, will be targeted for destruction as well.” If the decision from the Fourth Circuit stands, and the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal case, it would mean that all crosses on public property are “unconstitutional.”

The case rests on whether the Establishment Clause — the first sentence of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — prohibits the public display of crosses.

The establishment of a religion means having an official, government-sponsored religion. Some have also interpreted the Establishment Clause as meaning government “neutrality.” According to the American Humanist Association’s website, the Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from “entangling itself in religious matters without a religiously neutral reason.” Government ought to be “neutral” toward religion and not favor one over the other. But a big difference exists between “neutrality” and “hostility.”

While the AHA claims “Good Without A God,” as its motto, is it fair or tolerant to force that belief on everyone else? Radical atheism does not say, “I believe in nothing, and you can believe in God if you want.” Rather, it says, “I believe in nothing and it is my right to not see, hear or experience anything about God anywhere.” Whether it is “No, you can’t pray,” or “No, you can’t put a Bible verse there,” or “No, I don’t want to see a cross” — even if it’s in the middle of the desert — the radical atheists do not seek to live in mutual tolerance. They cannot rest until they have converted all of society into a religiously sterile culture. Our legal system should not bow down to this dogmatic, anti-tolerant behavior as the “neutral” option. Rather, radical atheists should practice the tolerance they demand from others.

Following their Fourth Circuit win, AHA Senior Counsel Monica Miller, who argued the case, stated, “This is a big win not only for separation of church and state, but for all non-Christian veterans who are excluded from an enormous Christian cross war memorial.”

But how many of the fallen men were actually atheists? The families of the fallen soldiers decided on that particular shape to remember their fallen sons, brothers and husbands. Would it not dishonor their choice to remove or destroy it? If, in fact, the non-Christian veterans feel excluded, why do they not build their own non-cross memorial?

Further, while the AHA argues that the cross represents a sectarian, exclusionary religious symbol, the cross also represents military heroism. Some of the highest military honors include crosses such as the Distinguished Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, the Navy Cross, and others granted for exemplary military service. The cross also stands as an internationally recognized symbol of bravery and sacrifice as exemplified in the Victoria Cross in England and the Croix de Guerre (Cross of War) in France.

The cross also represents a memorial. These men lost their lives in a foreign war on foreign soil. While some of their bodies were later repatriated, many were buried overseas. For several families, the “Peace Cross” stood as the only place where grieving families could pay honor to their loved ones.

Michael Carvin, lead counsel for The American Legion and partner at Jones Day, notes, “This memorial has stood in honor of local veterans for almost 100 years and is lawful under the First Amendment. To remove it would be a tremendous dishonor to the local men who gave their lives during the Great War.”

The case also has bipartisan support. Eight Republican and Democrat members of Congress joined in support of the memorial by filing an amicus brief with the Fourth Circuit Court.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty, states, “Memorials are living reminders of our country’s history and the cost of war. How will we remember the fallen or teach the next generation about service and sacrifice if we start bulldozing veterans memorials and cemeteries across America? We will continue our work to overturn this decision and defend the memory of those who preserved freedom.”


Identity Politics Insanity

Perhaps nothing offers greater insight into the progressive mindset than what its adherents deem proper and improper expressions of identity politics   

Perhaps nothing offers greater insight into the progressive mindset than what its adherents deem proper and improper expressions of identity politics.

“Rachel Dolezal, the troubled former NAACP leader who claimed to be African-American, is the subject of an upcoming Netflix documentary that’s already causing major backlash,” Fox News reports.

The Twitter-verse was rife with derogatory comments. “There are millions of black femmes and non-binary people in the world that deserve to be heard … and the fact that I have to see her name on my screen makes me so so so angry,” stated Lorazepam Grier. “Rachel Dolezal’s choice to play pretend in black culture has now destroyed the lives of two black children,” tweeted George M. Johnson. “Hey @Netflix, Rachel Dolezal doesn’t need a documentary streamed on your site. She’s fraudulent and problematic. Why don’t you take all that money and put it towards projects made by real black women?” asks Breniecia.

Netflix isn’t paying Dolezal anything, but they remain the eye of the leftist storm for “giving the 40-year-old a spotlight with a film that explores how she portrayed herself as African-American for years, despite being born biologically white,” Fox explains.

Biologically white? The use of biology to define one’s identity left the progressive train station long ago. So much so, that even the assertion it is a defining factor has real world consequences for those insufficiently attuned to the progressive worldview. “A student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania has been barred from attending a religious studies class required for graduation after pointing out that there are only two genders,” Campus Reform reveals.

Senior student Lake Ingle was ultimately barred from class for questioning the worldview of IUP Professor Alison Downie following a video presentation featuring a transgender woman name Paula Stone. The 15-minute video was replete with tiresome progressive tropes asserting the reality of “mansplaining,” “male privilege” and “systematic” sexism.

Following the video, Downie asked the women attending the class to share their thoughts. When none of them spoke up, Ingle rocked the proverbial boat.

“I objected to the use of the anecdotal accounts of one woman’s experience to begin a discussion in which they were considered reality,” Ingle told Campus Reform. “It was during my objection that Dr. Downie attempted to silence me.”

The next day Downie did more than that. She referred Ingle to the school’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB) and presented Ingle with a document illuminating his alleged violations: “Disrespectful objection to the professor’s class discussion structure; refusal to stop talking out of turn; angry outbursts in response to being required to listen to a trans speaker discuss the reality of white male privilege and sexism; disrespectful references to the validity of trans identity and experience; [and making a] disrespectful claim that a low score on any class work would be evidence of professor’s personal prejudice.”

The “Documented Agreement/Sanctions,” part of the document reveals conditions Ingle must fulfill to be reinstated in class. They include a letter of apology to the professor, an apology to the class, and the acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for “inappropriate behavior” that has “severely damaged” the class’s learning environment and the “safety” of its “atmosphere.” Moreover, when Ingle is done groveling, he is expected to “listen in silence as the professor and/or any student who wishes to speak shares how he or she felt during Lake’s disrespectful and disruptive outbursts on 2-28.”

He or she? What about “ze,” “zir,” “ve,” “tey” or the panoply of other “gender appropriate” pronouns being force-fed to the American public, even to the point where one could be fined as much as $250,000 for failing to acquiesce? Apparently IUP’s administration is as insensitive to “reality” as Ingle himself. Regardless, Ingle’s hearing is set for tomorrow and a decision will be announced on March 19. If the administration rules against him, he won’t graduate in May.

So why would progressives pillory a woman like Rachel Dolezal who insists biology doesn’t matter and pillory a student like Lake Ingle who insists it does? Because some identity politics are “more equal” than others. Identity politics that advance the progressive agenda are embraced, and those that threaten it are vilified.

Dolezal represents a mortal threat to a racial spoils system that began relatively nobly enough, with the concept of affirmative action to redress a litany of historical wrongs, perpetrated mostly by Democrats, beginning with their establishment of the Ku Klux Klan and their enforcement of Jim Crow laws. It has deteriorated to the point where black students have demanded and received segregated dorms on University of California campuses, courses on “white privilege” have become part of the public school curriculum, and the enforcement of a policy where “students of color” cannot be disciplined in school at rates disproportionate to their statistical representation in the student population engendered the calculated disinterest in the Parkland shooter until it was too late.

Yet even the racial spoils system has its “subsets.” While Dolezal is a pariah, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren remains a respected member of the Democrat Party, despite tenuous claims of Native American ancestry and the dismissal of a DNA test to prove it, one way or the other. “I know who I am because of what my mother and my father told me,” Warren insists. “It’s part of who I am and no one’s ever going to take that away.”

Still more subsets? As a discrimination lawsuit against Harvard University indicates, Asians also remain on the outside looking in. That’s because minority groups who excel without an ideological thumb on the scale to assist them represent a threat to progressive efforts to convince the nation that victimization requires the elevation of diversity over meritocracy.

The searing irony? Meritocracy still matters — in terms of determining the hierarchy of victimization among leftist grievance groups. And nothing would roil that hierarchy and its orchestrated pity parties more effectively than “trans-racialism,” and the ominous potential that anyone could claim to be a victim, based on the exact same premise as transgenderism: self-identification is the sole standard for determining reality.

So why is transgenderism championed? Because it aligns itself quite neatly with the progressive project to “fundamentally transform” America. And nothing says transformation better than the attempt to replace biological reality with gender “fluidity.” In stark contrast to racial fluidity, which threatens progressivism’s identity politics agenda, gender fluidity enhances that agenda, because it undermines traditional religious and family values.

Values that don’t require the expansion of coercive government power to enforce them.

As the Left’s contrasting reactions to trans-racialism and transgenderism indicate, intellectual consistency and honesty can be tossed aside if they don’t serve progressive interests. Thus the same CNN that put Bruce Jenner on the air to speak about his “path to womanhood” is the one that speaks to the “scandal” of Dolezal “presenting herself as black for years” — and presents a link to yet another CNN column that calls racial fluidity a “con.”

Nothing is more of a con than the contemptible notion that reality itself can be determined by whether it accrues to the Left’s twisted identity politics agenda.


The Crisis of Fatherless Shooters

In the wake of the Parkland massacre, the age-old question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” has a newfound relevance.

As another mass school shooting stuns Americans, it is time to talk about not just how to protect students from shooters, but also about what must happen so that fewer students become shooters in the first place.

It is crucial to talk about how more American children can grow up with the emotional, psychological, and spiritual security that comes from relationships where one is deeply cared for, connected, and known.

For what lies inside so many school shooters is a deep void of identity and relationship that they tragically seek to fill through nihilistic violence.

There is a sobering theme repeated over and over in the biographies of school shooters—the fatherlessness of a broken or never formed family.

Among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Psychologist Dr. Peter Langman, a pre-eminent expert on school shooters, found that most came from incredibly broken homes of not just divorce and separation, but also infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence, and child abuse.

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, scholar Brad Wilcox called attention to the work of criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, which found the absence of fathers to be one of the “most powerful predictors of crimes .” He explained that fathers are role models for their sons who maintain authority and discipline, thereby helping them develop self-control and empathy toward others, key character traits lacking in violent youth.

The late rapper Tupac Shakur said, “I know for a fact that had I had a father, I’d have some discipline. I’d have more confidence. Your mother can’t calm you down the way a man can. You need a man to teach you how to be a man.” Shakur, who was murdered in 1996, started hanging out with gangs because he wanted to belong to a family.

In addition to structure and discipline, a boy’s relationship with his father can be a profound source of identity—or not. Dr. Warren Farrell, author of the “The Boy Crisis,” says that when a boy asks “Who am I?” the answer is that his identity is comprised of half his dad and half his mom. If he thinks his father has abandoned him, he fears he is not worthy. Boys who do not have a strong relationship with their fathers may lack a model of healthy masculinity. Many of the school shooters struggled with a sense of “damaged masculinity” and sought to become “ultramasculine.” Langman says that at the end of this spectrum  is “getting a gun to suddenly have power.”

In fact, the fathers of three of the most infamous school shooters were absent from their sons’ lives. The father of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, had not seen his son in two years and later told reporters he wished his son had never been born. The adoptive father of Nikolas Cruz died when Cruz was 5 years old. And the father of 6-year-old Dedrick Owens, the country’s youngest school shooter, was in jail when his son killed his first grade classmate. Dedrick Owens’ father has said that he suspects his son’s crime was a reaction to his absence.

Since the 1965 Moynihan report, the breakdown of the American family has been hotly debated. Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s finding that fatherlessness would lead to poorer outcomes for African-American children was published at a time when only 25 percent of African-American households were led by a single parent. Today, 24 percent of white non-Hispanic families are headed by a single parent and the rate has reached 66 percent among African-Americans. If we don’t reverse current trends on marriage, the number of fatherless children will only grow.

Ultimately, if we make fatherlessness and family breakdown a partisan issue, we all lose. Both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush promoted a National Fatherhood Initiative in their administrations. Because strong marriages promote strong bonds between fathers and their children, the Trump administration should emphasize both.

A good starting place would be to reduce the marriage penalties that have been built into our welfare system. A next step would be to elevate the contributions of ordinary men doing the extraordinary work of fathering. And if we directed 1 percent of the attention and media coverage we give to athletes, musicians, and movie stars toward fathers, perhaps more boys would grow up seeing them as role models. President Donald Trump, his Cabinet, Congress, and other leaders can also use their bully pulpits to lead in this direction.

And the good news is that communities are devising creative ways to help make up for the absences of dads. One example is in Dallas, where Billy Earl Dade Middle School held its annual “Breakfast with Dads.” To ensure that all 150 male students who wanted a mentor would have one, an organizer put out a request on a Facebook page for 50 “volunteer fathers.” Nearly 600 men from all different walks of life and careers answered the call.

We cannot provide every fatherless boy with a dad, but we can start by respecting the unique role that fathers play in the lives of boys and encouraging more men to step into the lives of children who need a male role model.

To understand the brokenness of our children, Americans must take a deeper look at the brokenness of our families. We must do this together. We must be the keepers of all our country’s sons so that they can grow up to be one another’s. If we are going to prevent the next Parkland, we need to take seriously the need all our young boys and men have for a dad.



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

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

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