Displaying the most recent of 91299 posts written by

Ruth King

Augusto Zimmermann: Women Can Be as Violent as Men

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/09/women-can-violent-men/

Violence by women against men receives little attention, yet nearly four decades of research reveals they are also targets of physical abuse. Why the silence? Because the activists’ ultimate goal is to tar all men, not just the relatively few perpetrators, as a collective and universally guilty group.

You may have heard of a Perth-based family counsellor who was forced to resign from Relationships Australia WA (RAWA) after posting on his private Facebook page an article social commentator Bettina Arndt wrote a few years ago for the Weekend Australian.[1] The article summarised the latest official statistics and research on domestic violence, providing evidence that most domestic violence is two-way, involving women as well as men.[2] This was regarded as a breach of policy, because, on its own website, RAWA says its domestic violence policy “is historically framed by a feminist analysis of gendered power relations” which, contrary to the international evidence, denies women’s role in domestic violence.[3]

By endorsing a feminist policy that is so morally bankrupt (and punishing a well-respected counsellor for refusing to do so)[4], this government-funded institution displays a disturbing lack of compassion for the wellbeing of all the male victims of domestic violence. RAWA’s policy is based on a discredited approach that perpetuates the false assumption that domestic violence is always perpetrated by men against women. And yet, data keeps mounting which indicate that domestic violence may be perpetrated by both men and women against their partners. A decade ago an official letter by the Harvard Medical School declared that “the problem is often more complicated, and may involve both women and men as perpetrators”. Based on the findings of an analysis of more than 11,000 American men and women aged eighteen to twenty-eight, the letter concluded:

When the violence is one-sided … women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time. Men were more likely to be injured in reciprocally violent relationships (25%) than were women when the violence was one-sided (20%). That means both men and women agreed that men were not more responsible than women for intimate partner violence. The findings cannot be explained by men’s being ashamed to admit hitting women, because women agreed with men on this point.[5]

The Harvard Medical School’s letter was based on a seminal work published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007. Written by four experts in the field (Daniel J. Whitaker, Tadesses Laileyesus, Monica Swahn and Linda S. Saltman), it seeks to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (that is, two-way) and non-reciprocal domestic violence, and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence and injury.[6] After analysing the data, which contained information about domestic violence reported by 11,370 respondents on 18,761 heterosexual relationships, the following conclusions were reached:

● A woman’s perpetration of domestic violence is the strongest predictor of her being a victim of partner violence;[7]

● Among relationships with non-reciprocal violence, women were reported to be the perpetrator in a majority of cases; [8]

● Women reported greater perpetration of violence than men did (34.8 per cent against 11.4 per cent, respectively).[9]

One explanation for these significant findings is that men are simply less willing than women to report hitting their partner. “This explanation cannot account for the data, however, as both men and women reported a larger proportion on nonreciprocal violence perpetrated by women than by men.”[10] In fact, the authors explain that women’s greater perpetration of violence was reported by both women (female perpetrators = 24.8 per cent, male perpetrators = 19.2 per cent) and by men (female perpetrators = 16.4 per cent, male perpetrators = 11.2 per cent).[11] Based on the information available, the authors concluded:

Our findings that half of relationships with violence could be characterised as reciprocally violent are consistent with prior studies. We are surprised to find, however, that among relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were the perpetrators in a majority of cases, regardless of participant gender. One possible explanation for this, assuming that men and women are equally likely to initiate physical violence, is that men, who are typically larger and stronger, are less likely to retaliate if struck first by their partner. Thus, some men may be following the norm that “men shouldn’t hit women” when struck first by their partner.[12]

California Passes Law Allowing 12-Year-Olds To Get Tax-Paid Transgender Treatments In the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.By Denise Shick

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/california-passes-law-allowing-12-year-olds-get-tax-paid-transgender-treatments/

You have to be 16 obtain a driver’s license in California, 18 to buy a rifle, engage in consensual sex, or get married without parental consent, and 21 to buy a handgun, alcohol, or marijuana. But in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.

The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”

The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”

That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter.

The law’s authors seem to mean well. The bill also states:

It is the policy of the state that all minors and nonminors in foster care shall have the following rights:

(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.

(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.

Those provisions within this law—and many of the others that follow them—are laudable at first glance. Who would oppose kids living in safe homes and being free of abuse? But meaning well often differs from doing well. The difference can be found in the sub-provisions that enunciate the methods for the well-meaning provisions. One provision says, for example:

The right of minors and nonminors in foster care to health care and mental health care described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 16001.9 includes covered gender affirming health care and gender affirming mental health care. This right is subject to existing laws governing consent to health care for minors and nonminors and does not limit, add, or otherwise affect applicable laws governing consent to health care.

Jane Mayer: Accuser Told Ronan Farrow She Wasn’t Sure of Story By Jack Crowe

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/jane-meyer-accuser-told-ronan-farrow-she-wasnt-sure-of-story/

Jane Mayer said on Monday that Deborah Ramirez, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexually harassing her, told her New Yorker colleague Ronan Farrow that she couldn’t be sure of the Supreme Court nominee’s guilt.

Confronted with a New York Times report indicating Ramirez expressed doubts about Kavanaugh’s guilt to former Yale classmates, Mayer said Ramirez shared those doubts before they published their bombshell report on Sunday.

“To Ronan she said she wasn’t absolutely certain, she needed to make certain before she was going to say anything publicly. She remembered the specifics, the graphic specifics, and she tried to remember for sure who that man was who was in her face,” she told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.“With all due respect to the New York Times, which is the best paper in America, just because they couldn’t get the story and speak to her or find the person that we found, who remembered it from back then, doesn’t mean it’s not true.”

Ramirez, who opted to come forward after learning Senate Democrats were independently investigating the incident, claims Kavanaugh drunkenly thrust his penis in her face during a dorm party at Yale when he was a freshman.

Who Will Lead the Tories Next? By Madeleine Kearns

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/tory-leadership-candidates-theresa-may-replacement/

A look at the likeliest contenders to replace Prime Minister Theresa May should conservative discontent spark a battle for her job

Speaking at the E.U. summit in Salzburg last week, Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, humiliated Prime Minister Theresa May by saying that her Brexit plan “will not work” because it “risks undermining the single market.” To many conservatives, this was further proof of the E.U.’s uncompromising approach to the Brexit negotiations, and of the need for the cleaner break with Europe favored by the Vote Leave campaign.

In other words, the E.U.’s rejection of May’s plan was welcome news to many pro-Brexit Tories. The so-called Chequers deal, which May announced in July, offers a strikingly diluted version of the Brexit the country voted for. When it was unveiled, then-foreign secretary Boris Johnson called it a “turd” and resigned along with some lesser-known ministers.

Nevertheless, Britain must reach a deal with the E.U. by March 29 or else leave without one – and with the clock ticking, even some Brexiteers now favor a more “pragmatic” approach. For instance, Michael Gove, the environment secretary, a self-described “realist” who worked with Johnson on the Vote Leave campaign, has since defended the Chequers deal as “the right one for now,” saying it can be adapted later.

But not everyone within the Conservative party is happy with May’s proposal. In Westminster there are rumors of an imminent leadership challenge. Earlier this month, the London Times revealed that 50 Tory MPs had recently met to discuss getting rid of her. Those party insiders who remain loyal to the prime minister fiercely deny the rumors of an impending no-confidence vote. One told National Review that this story is “categorical bollocks.” Likewise, Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg oftentimes deny these claims, reiterating that it is Chequers, and not the Prime Minister, that they wish to “chuck.”

Still, given May’s political struggles and the discontent with Chequers brewing to her right, one wonders how many Tory MPs are quietly hoping to force her out. Referring to a leadership challenge, one Conservative MP told National Review, “If her policy doesn’t change, we’d end up with a very bad deal for Britain. Then the unthinkable [getting rid of her sooner rather than later] might become the essential.”

Whether or not a leadership challenge is upcoming, conservatives will likely not want Theresa May to run in the next election. They need someone who is capable of leading in decisive times, but also someone with enough grassroots appeal to win a general election. Who might this person be? In no particular order, here are some names being floated around the House of Commons.

University Researcher: ‘Kinky’ People Should Be a Protected Class By Katherine Timpf

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/researcher-kinky-people-should-be-protected-class/Should other groups, like people who curse, get special treatment, too?

A researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, recently argued that “kinky” should be a protected class of people.

Sam Hughes made the argument during an interview with City on a Phil Media. According to Hughes, “kinky” people deserve protection because they are often discriminated against in many of the same ways that people in the LGBT community are discriminated against. They therefore need the legal protection against employment or housing discrimination that comes with being a member of a protected class.

As evidence for his argument, Hughes referenced a study he had conducted on the subject, in which he had apparently found that kinky people were “terrified about losing their jobs over their boss finding out if they were kinky.”

“I want to be clear, if you show up to your job in a latex catsuit, you can be fired for that,” Hughes said. “Not because you’re kinky, but because it’s not the uniform of the job, because it’s disruptive, that sort of thing.”

“But your boss should not be able to go search online, find photos of you somewhere wearing a latex catsuit, and then fire you because they think you’re a pervert,” Hughes continued.

Sorry, but this is completely and totally ridiculous. What’s more, I think it’s actually a little offensive to compare the supposed adversity that someone who is kinky may have to face with the adversity that people do face in the LGBT community. If you’re gay, you have to worry that your normal, everyday public life choices might result in discrimination. For example, you might worry about someone judging you for bringing your same-sex spouse to a company Christmas party. Kinky people don’t have to face issues like that in their everyday lives, because there would never be a situation — at least in any reasonably normal job — where their sexual fetish would come to light in their work environment.

We have a lot of rights in this country, including the right to do anything sexually as long as it’s with other consenting adult(s). This, of course, includes kink. We also have the freedom to post about our lives on the Internet. Yes — if you want to post about your kinky sex life online, you’re totally free to do so. This doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to judge you for what you’re doing. Should you be fired over it? I personally don’t think so, because I personally couldn’t care less what anyone in the world does in his or her sex life. But that doesn’t mean that “kinky” should be a protected class. After all, there are a whole host of other things that you could post online that someone might choose to fire you over — such as tweeting things with offensive words in them. Are we going to make “people who curse” a protected class, too? And, as far as strange sexual preferences go, why is “kink” the only variation that would get to be a protected class? Hell, a boss could easily fire someone over a video of him or her having normal, non-kinky sex online, depending on what that person’s profession was. Why should “kink” get this kind of special treatment? The only reasonable answer is that it shouldn’t and that this is totally insane.

Feminism’s Male Enablers By David Solway

https://pjmedia.com/trending/feminisms-male-enablers/

It is hard not to feel a certain Schadenfreude for that community of men in the universities and professions who are feminism’s enablers, “femimen,” as we may call them. These “white knights” have jumped on the feminist bandwagon in an access of estrogen complicity, for a number of parallel reasons: career prospects, self-doubt, cultural acquiescence, fear of exclusion, docility of character, self-promotion, or sexual advantage. Some may even regard themselves as “survivors.” I give three notable instances of the pathology at work.

Michael Kimmel is the founder of the journal Men and Masculinities, the voice of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Stony Brook, author of many popular books, and a committed feminist. His Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, described in his university bio as “a comparative study of the extreme right, White Supremacists, and neo-Nazis in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia,” has acquired near-legendary status. His reputation in the field of gender studies is immense and, until recently, untouchable. Now, Kimmel has himself been accused of sexual harassment, a case of a strenuous advocate for women’s rights hoist on his own petard.

So far as I can tell, Kimmel is an unabashed and self-aggrandizing careerist who has never understood the lives of working men. He has thrived on his university authority, popular books and speaking engagements touting the need for understanding of and sensitivity to the plight of women on the part of men enslaved to their own raw and turbulent masculinity. Though he assumes the mantle of enlightened fairness, I regard him as a fraud who has done much harm in promoting the social and cultural dysfunction from which we now suffer. There is a kind of poetic justice in his recent troubles. Naturally, Kimmel immediately played the apology card and lobbied for survival by wishing to “make amends to those who believe I have injured them.” The creepy and patently insincere mawkishness of this star feminist is par for the course. Kimmel is not to be pitied, nor is the feminist sorority to be pardoned. They are equally complicit in acts of malfeasance.

On The New Yorker’s Grossly Irresponsible Story By Charles C. W. Cooke

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/on-the-new-yorkers-grossly-irresponsible-story/

Judge Kavanaugh labels The New Yorker’s report a “smear, plain and simple.” He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of “journalism” in a major outlet.

The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (“People are saying!”). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent “six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.”

There are no corroborating witnesses. None. Of the “dozens” of classmates The New Yorker contacted, all either failed “to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.” Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there. “The New Yorker,” the tenth paragraph begins, “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” The only “evidence” provided comes from a “classmate” who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from “another classmate” who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.

Two Big Takeaways From the Rosenstein Bombshell by Charles Lipson

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/24/two_big_takeaways_from_the_rosenstein_bombshell_138146.html

What should we make of the New York Times’ shocking story that Rod Rosenstein, the second highest official in the Department of Justice, wanted to “wear a wire,” secretly record President Trump, and gather evidence to oust the president via the 25th Amendment? Rosenstein has effectively admitted that he did say something like that, but he has termed it scathing sarcasm, mocking colleagues who pushed him to investigate Trump more aggressively. All this happened when the administration was young and Rosenstein had only been in office a couple of weeks.

The Times’ story has huge implications, both for its substance and for its provenance (who leaked it and why). The two most important takeaways are these:

First, the insiders who tried to nail Trump before the election and afterwards are now turning on each other as they try to wriggle out of their own criminal exposure.
Second, the leak sets a dangerous trap for Trump. He is bound to be infuriated and might be tempted to fire Rosenstein before the Senate votes on Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice and before the American people vote in November. Walking into that trap would be political malpractice.

Let’s look closer at each implication. At this stage, we don’t know who leaked the damaging comments. But we do know they must have come from a top law-enforcement official present at a very contentious meeting with Rosenstein. Parts may have come from a one-on-one meeting between Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, who was then the FBI’s second-in-command and whose boss, James Comey, had just been fired.

These are the same insiders from Loretta Lynch’s DOJ and Comey’s FBI who cleared the gonna-be-president Hillary Clinton of her legal liabilities and then tried to pin those liabilities on her opponent. Their weapon against Trump was America’s powerful counter-intelligence surveillance capabilities. Those are supposed to be used only against suspected spies and require warrants from a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hence, FISA).

The safeguards broke down because they were deliberately—and cleverly—evaded. To get the court’s authorization, top DOJ and FBI officials relied on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee without clearly informing the court about their biased source. Instead, they hid the vital information in an indirectly worded footnote. They failed to tell the court that key supporting evidence (a news article) actually came from the same source. It wasn’t additional evidence at all. Nor did they disclose that the FBI had officially severed its ties to this source for leaking but that the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr was still meeting with him and providing the bureau with his information. They apparently failed to tell the FISA court that the subject of the warrant, Carter Page, had willingly cooperated with U.S. authorities when they asked to interview him.

THE LONG REACH OF GEORGE SOROS

Kavanaugh’s accuser and the curious George Soros links By Cheryl K. Chumley
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/

Look at what’s going on with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court, and the fingerprints of George Soros are all over it.First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.

What are those ties?The group, Demand Justice, established in 2018, gets its money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — and the Sixteen Thirty Fund received roughly $2.2 million from the Open Society Policy Center, one of Soros’ outlets, between the years of 2012 and 2016.
Who is Christine Blasey Ford, Part II: The Soros connection
https://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-part-

The lawyer representing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser is a leader in an organization that has been directly funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, reports say.Debra Katz, who is representing Christine Blasey Ford, is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight. Last month, Katz’s organization, along with several other left-leaning groups, co-signed a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Charles Grassley demanding Kavanaugh records. Katz has also donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.Fox News noted that Katz “also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians – including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.”In June, the Daily Caller found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties” to Soros.
FORD’S ATTORNEY DEBRA KATZ HAS CLOSE TIES TO GEORGE SOROS https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/fords-attorney-debra-katz-has-close-ties-to-george-soros/

Debra Katz, who is the lawyer for Christine Ford, is a long-time political activist, with strong ties to George Soros, also known as “The Evil One”. Even though the Democrats insist that Ford is not political, she has marched in several anti-Trump demonstrations, works for a company that makes the abortion pill, has a lawyer with ties to Soros and has an adviser who has worked for Biden, Clinton and Obama. She is also the one that brought Anita Hill to the spotlight.

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION IS A TACTIC OF WAR DARRELL CASTLE

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2018/09/23/constitution/character-assassination-tactic-war/
Casualties of war

War normally brings casualties and lots of them, and this one is no different. One of the casualties is Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Today’s Report will use the battle surrounding Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination as an opportunity to discuss the war itself. Please keep in mind that the real issue is not how Judge Kavanaugh treated women when he was in high school 36 years ago. The real issue is Judge Kavanaugh’s conservative view of the Constitution when he is on the bench today.

A war of survival is a war of desperation, and the closer one side comes to losing the more desperate that side will be. Both sides might respect a set of rules for “civilized warfare”, such as the Geneva Convention, until one starts to prevail and then its gloves off for the other. Losing means the loss of everything that side holds dear for itself and for future generations, so the rules no longer apply.

The Democrats have tried very hard to destroy freedom in America. I say that with some doubt but it is true from at least one standpoint; we are no longer free to say or even think whatever we want without suffering the most dire consequences. That seems to be one of the Democrat goals then, to make only expression and thought that they agree with legally and socially possible.
Weakening of control

Despite holding all the high ground in the battlefront, such as the media high ground, the education high ground, the Silicon Valley high ground, and the high ground of Hollywood, they can see that they do not yet control a majority of America and their control of America’s future is weakening. This slipping of their control came about because of the election of Donald Trump and his unique opportunity to appoint two and possibly more Supreme Court Justices, thus swinging the ideological scale back toward the side that elected Trump to do just that.

Since there is no honest reason to reject Judge Kavanaugh, dishonest ones must be devised. Character assassination is one dishonest tactic that should be expected, after all, in war it’s quite a common tactic to use. When one has no ammunition to win a debate honestly, then one will usually resort to a personal attack against the opponent. Should we be surprised then when Judge Kavanaugh has his character assassinated, and his reputation damaged or destroyed by people who have no character but do have a lot to lose.
The character assassination campaign