#theleft

Saving a 52yo convicted wife-beater

B5E3B88D-2F16-4476-B0C2-EC71BA3A0DED.jpeg

Remember the self made movie starring heroine Elin Ersson preventing a plane taking off unless a man being cruelly deported was deplaned? CM always thought it was a bit odd. To be deported from a country like Sweden would likely mean one has to be a pretty unsavory character given its long standing forgiving social justice bent.

It turns out activist Ersson wasn’t rescuing who she thought she was. It wasn’t the 26yo Afghani man who’d lived in Iran for 20 years in safety she boarded to save on behalf of his parents but a 52-yo convicted wife beater who had just been released from jail so he could be deported. Which country would truly wish to welcome someone with such abhorrent values to settle? If it can’t pass Sweden’s often lenient smell test (we’ll get to that) on immigration it is probably a sign that it won’t pass anywhere else either.

Fuller story here.

N.B. Sweden has a national election on September 9th this year and the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats (SD) are polling at 25.5% according to an August Sentio survey, vs the incumbent Social Democrats at 21.1%. CM has written about the Sweden Democrats before. This was a banned commercial.

Is it any wonder the party is gaining traction when left wing politicians like  Barbro Sörman tweeted the difference with migrants commiting rape is that Swedish men culturally should know better. She tweeted “The Swedish men who rape do it despite the growing gender equality. They make an active choice. It’s worse…” When contacted by a local newspaper for clarification she replied, “Take a picture of Sweden as an equal society, where all are nurtured in equality. Then you can say that if you are brought up in it, you make an active choice to not be equal, rather than if you are brought up in a society that is not equal.” How can apologists take such views?

The Gatestone Institute highlighted some of the outcomes of migrant crime in Sweden in June 2016 alone. The list is long but here are some of the crimes which seem so lenient and moreover question why some people wouldn’t be deported for committing such acts.

June 8: Three Somali men in their 20s, who locked a 14-year-old girl in a room and took turns raping her, received very lenient sentences — and all three avoided deportation. Two of the men got two and a half years in prison. The third, who was also convicted of drug-related crimes and drunk driving, got three years. After serving their time, they will all be allowed to stay in Sweden, even though they are not Swedish citizens.

June 14: An exceptionally lenient verdict against a rapist from Yemen caused emotions to run high in Mariestad. Maher Al Qalisi attacked a 13-year-old girl, knocked her off a bicycle, knifed her in the face and raped her in a park — yet, he only got 18-months’ probation and will not be deported. Al Qalisi claims he is 17 years old, even though his Yemenite passport says he is 20. If he had been tried as an adult, he would certainly have gotten a more severe punishment. Prosecutor Jonas Lövström was disappointed with the verdict: “It is my firm belief that he is older than 21.”

June 28: An Eritrean, who raped a Swedish woman in a public restroom in Sundsvall, gets to stay in Sweden after being sentenced to one year and four months in prison. The Swedish Migration Agency apparently did not feel he could be sent back to his home country. The mild sentence was given because he claimed to be only 19 years old.

Surely Ersson might reflect on how hard it is to get deported in the first place before hijacking a plane to protect the wrong man. Maybe question why there are now as many as 55 “no-go zones” spread throughout several Swedish cities where the police have little or no ability to control rising rates of violence which is putting a huge burden on over-worked police officers. Is it any wonder many are choosing to quit the force in record numbers. The Police Union had a website Polisliv (Police Life) which allowed police to air grievances anonymously because a growing number lost faith in the National Police Commissioner. The site has since been closed.

Pathetically Priceless

23D0E64E-5772-44ED-A813-527CAC4F5613.jpeg

Double standards are a strong feature of the liberal elites and Hollywood. Instead of living up to the Chanber of Commerce’s view that it does not remove stars over public backlash by citing  historical landmark status., when it comes to Trump all bets are off. While Bill Cosby, a convicted rapist, keeps his Hollywood star, Trump’s disturbing treatment of women (locker room talk and allegations of paying porn stars) is deemed a more heinous crime. Liberal logic.

The response to Trump

The resolution on which the West Hollywood City Council voted urged the removal of Mr. Trump’s star “due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions that do not meet the shared values of the City of West Hollywood, the region, state, and country.

The Washington Time reports, “Among other things, the council’s staff report cites Mr. Trump’s border-security policies [an Obama era policy], his stance on climate change [Paris is non binding and the biggest polluters are doing next to nothing], the Vladimir Putin summit [since when did the Hollywood City Council enforce foreign policy?], and policies on transgenderism.”  

In effect, the Council endorses vandalism and destruction of public property.  Why not burn down Trump Tower or run an excavator  over the pristine greens of Mar-a-lago?

D4BFF0E4-3780-4C16-B6FA-D836E3BE36AA.jpeg

The Response to defacing of Bill Cosby’s star

In response, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce released a statement politely asking fans not to deface anyone’s stars, no matter how many rapes they may be accused of: “When people are unhappy with one of our honorees, we would hope that they would project their anger in more positive ways. 

Probably stands to reason for an industry that turned a blind eye to decades of  #MeToo antics because it self-served their careers would vote for someone that has outed them for the blatant hypocrites they are. Bill Cosby’s star will likely be defended with the fervor of the NYT backing Sarah Jeong. Why not replace Trump’s star for Jeong? Strike will the pick axe is hot!

It is just a star but symbolic of the radical left’s standards that it’s the side that matters, not the principle. We should be happy that the left champion victories like this. Ever more sanctimonious preaching of the highest moral standards to the masses who already have such low opinions of them most are suffering from vertigo – remember this?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a national health crisis. Perhaps POTUS should direct billions to help fund a cure. Otherwise poor old taxpayers will need to fork out for even more property damage.

Harassing “soft fascists”

Good to to see conservative journalists get harassed out of a restaurant in Philly after being spotted by leftist activists who one man qualifies them as “soft-fascists.” Even nicer to see these protestors open up to debating these soft fascists with superior intellectual acumen. No, just scream chants through microphones, blow whistles and yell obscenities. This will undoubtedly stop the #WalkAway campaign dead in its tracks. CM wonders if any Democrat voters were trying to enjoy their breakfast?

Maxine Waters would be proud of these freedom fighters. Or is this what a Russian bot actually looks like? Repeating totalitarian slogans on a loop.

Twitter, Twitter on the wall who should we shutdown after all?

F3570C69-B33D-4BA2-B56F-39A01CEA5DAD.jpeg

Black conservative Candace Owens gets a 12-hr Twitter ban for replacing the words of Sarah Jeong from “white” to ”black” or “Jewish”. Good to see the consistency in double standards from The Left. Of course Jeong suffered no such fate.

Candace Owens is an extremely articulate and intelligent person in her own right. Good to see more hypocrisy called out by her. If only Jeong could get as many likes or retweets. Perhaps Ann Coulter said it best, “Luckily for Jeong, the way “white men” saw the world in the 50s was that South Korea should be free.

#CancelIdentityPolitics

High Time The NY Times believed or changed its own self-prescribed S&E code

5D09A335-3C02-4A34-96B5-D4AC6C587448.jpeg

Integrity is a must in journalism. Rarely do we see it. It seems that the white hating “fab new editor” Sarah Jeong also hates men and cops. If we forgive her hatred because others baited such that she was just giving it back, is there any evidence police mistreated her? Could it be a question of pulling her over for a traffic violation that they were doing their job, not deserved of “f*ck the police.” ?

44740AE6-D60D-4E2A-9384-A2F544A4D921.png

Although not on Jeong’s watch, isn’t the hypocrisy telling? Several weeks before the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki the NYT was championing LGBT Pride Week. Post the summit, the paper proudly displayed a homophobic cartoon to disparage the two presidents. How is it that the champions of identity politics can’t even get their own self determined playing field equal?

In terms of integrity, fairness and truth the paper fails on all counts. Let’s see for ourselves. A quick referral to The NY Times own Standards & Ethics page we find:

Integrity

For more than a century, men and women of The Times have jealously guarded the paper’s integrity. Whatever else we contribute, our first duty is to make sure the integrity of The Times is not blemished during our stewardship.  At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

Under Fairness it prescribes:

The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,” in the words of Adolph Ochs, our patriarch — and to treat readers, news sources, advertisers and others fairly and openly, and to be seen to be doing so. The reputation of The Times rests upon such perceptions, and so do the professional reputations of its staff members. Thus The Times and members of its news department and editorial page staff share an interest in avoiding conflicts of interest or an appearance of a conflict.

And Truth

As journalists we treat our readers, viewers, listeners and online users as fairly and openly as possible. Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them. We do not wait for someone to request a correction. We publish corrections in a prominent and consistent location or broadcast time slot. Staff members who plagiarize or who knowingly or recklessly provide false information for publication betray our fundamental pact with our readers. We do not tolerate such behavior.

As CM mentioned yesterday, there is no call for a boycott of the NYT or a movement to fire Sarah Jeong. CM wants these people at the NYT to walk the talk. If there is a code that the paper lives and dies by, stand by it or change it to reflect the unhinged nature the once reputable paper has become. Once again free markets will ultimately decide the paper’s fate. If it’s subscriber ranks swell then all power to it reading the mood of the public. Not even the return of the remains of gallant Korean War veterans who fought for their freedom remains worthy front page news. No just more anti-Trump noise.

The irony is that all the Jeong saga has exposed is that standards only apply conditionally. Just like those Hollywood actors who threatened to leave the US if Trump was elected. Pretty much all of them are still here.

The NY Times no longer hides the fact that it breaches all of it’s own self-imposed governance. That racism can be defended (even if it is not condoned) and because the paper is  so proud of its new hire it publicly announced an apology on Jeong’s behalf. Oh the sincerity! Surely if she is sorry for her racist outbursts, she could openly apologize herself? Perhaps the S&E code is still in transit to her home in Portland!

Imagine if the police decided to deprioritise a distress call from Jeong? It is highly likely they wouldn’t. There is a difference in those who put their lives on the line and a Harvard trust-fund baby that tweets from the safety of the very security those she accuses provide her.

NYT hires fab new editor who hates “dumbass f*cking white people”

123DD437-73A8-4D02-9052-E57A1CAD00A8.jpeg

Zerohedge reports that The NY Times has hired a fab new addition in Sarah Jeong to the ranks of the board of editors. It has been unearthed that 48 months ago Jeong said some pretty incendiary things about white people. From a personal standpoint as a white person, CM is not in the least bit impacted or offended by her statements. Alas it is just words and free speech. On the contrary the tweets say more about Jeong than any dumbass f*cking white people.

Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.

The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?

After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.

How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.

CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.

Lucky for The NY Times, Jeong will remain in Portland meaning should they choose to uphold the highest levels of integrity the paper won’t be required to fork out her relocation costs. CM had higher hopes for the paper. When it hired a conservative columnist in Bret Stevens there was hope that there was an attempt to seek some balance. He spoke of the vile hatred of the left in his first column. Read it here. The outcome of Jeong will speak more about The NY Times defending the side rather than the principle.

Merkel’s “border camps”

B3ED5AF6-3BCF-4840-AD85-110E7BF91A88.jpeg

Perhaps the most telling piece of this article were the words, “to save her government.” Expediency and politics go hand in hand. Pretty much every country. No surprises there. The recent federal election was a clear sign that a growing number of Germans had had enough. The anti-immigrant AfD became the second largest party from relative obscurity. The result was a direct reflection of the mood of discontent over Merkel’s misguided altruism – failed migrant policy. Germans are as welcoming and liberal a society as any, if not more but they clearly have limits when their seemingly endless generosity was being repaid with diminishing levels of gratitude.

As an aside, there is a touch of irony. As socialists in the US are calling for the abolishment of ICE and an open border with Mexico, Angela Merkel, the matron saint of the liberals has done a complete backflip on their beliefs that a “come one, come all” policy has nothing but positives.

While plenty of arguments will be made by the mainstream media to show the relative opulence and dedication of care in operating ‘border camps’, in Germany vs the US the reality is that it is a tacit admission that screening is an absolute necessity. Merkel will now turn back those that have been processed for asylum elsewhere. Presumably they’ll burn their documents and start again with new identities to get around this. That is another story.

Digging below the surface reveals that the German state authorities hold much deeper concerns which they have not openly publicized. CM will spell this out a little later,

Before that, let’s get one thing straight. CM is a vigorous defender of helping those in proper need. Many years ago, CM donated considerable sums to help rebuild a school in the north of Thailand after flooding ruined it. There was no greater reward than seeing the smiles on the faces of kids on new playground equipment and studying in the new library. Naming rights were rejected out of hand. CM was never after a personal return to appeal to peers but solely to allow total strangers to benefit.

True victims of hardship will always seek to give back to those that have helped them out. They cherish the opportunity of a new start. They rarely try to exploit the good will of those that extend a helping hand. Many Vietnamese that came to Australia as asylum seekers have integrated their rich culture and become model citizens. It is not hard to see Germans wishing those they help to integrate and share common values in the same way.

So before the race-baiters and SJWs look to criticize CM’s opinions, they should ask themselves what they’ve “actually” done to personally do something about things they complain so vehemently about. Posting outrage on social media to such things does nothing. Appearing to do good is not the same as doing it. How many people protesting these laws would open their own homes to illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or others in need? It would be a safe guess to say hardly any would practice what they preach in this regard. True backers of causes actually invest the time and effort to fix problems.

There is no doubt that many Germans, a culture steeped in perfection, saw the migrant policy get exposed for its lack of due diligence in application. When women in Cologne were told to cover up to avoid harassment by their new guests, we shouldn’t be surprised if they grew upset when being asked to give up individual freedoms for people they were indirectly helping. When swimming pools became segregated to cater for the beliefs of new arrivals and sexual assaults of minors and women become more than a statistical  anomaly, no amount of media gag orders or police cover ups could have prevented a surge in people trying to take the law into their own hands. It only fueled the anger.

Despite the German crime stats being recently downplayed on social media to bash Trump’s tweet on the subject, politically motivated crime has surged. In 2017 (the latest available data), the BfV (German Domestic Intelligence Service) registered 41,549 offences in the category of politically motivated crime, an increase of 29% over the 2014 figure.

Right wing extremist party membership has risen from 22,600 in 2015 to 23,100 in 2016.

1,600 registered cases of violent criminal offences with a right-wing extremist background occurred, 1,190 of them directed at foreigners (+30%), the highest since the current definition of politically motivated crime was introduced in 2001.

Left wing extremist party membership has risen from 26,700 in 2015 to 28,500 in 2016.

In 2016, 5,230 criminal offences were classified as left-wing politically motivated, 1,200 of those violent. While marginally down, they are still way up on 2001 levels.

The BfV is so concerned they openly encourage programsto weed people from the left and right extremist groups (see below).

AE355743-1663-493C-BFFC-C07A784868C0.jpeg

Let’s make it absolutely clear that all asylum seekers Germany has imported are not of Islamic faith nor those that are identify as jihadis. Many are legitimately escaping horror, including needy Muslims willing to grasp a new chance. Who would not seek to help them? It only needs to be several bad apples to spoil the rest which is exactly what is happening. Muzzling citizens doesn’t help breed a culture of mutual tolerance. The BfV wrote in its latest Annual Report,

Islamic Extremists

Salafist movements in Germany have risen from 8,350 in 2015 to 9,700 in 2016 with the BfV noting on the whole, that all Islamist following in 2016 amounted to approximately 24,400 individuals, slightly down over 2015. BfV did note:

Although this total number is smaller than in the previous years, the threat situation has not at all eased. On the contrary: the shift towards a violence-oriented/terrorist spectrum has revealed a new dimension of the Islamist scene, which was also illustrated by the attacks carried out in Germany in 2016However, Salafism in Germany enjoys undiminished popularity. Its continuous attractiveness shows the importance of Salafism being subject to a debate in society as a whole and of intelligence collection carried out by the community of the German domestic intelligence services. This is even more significant as adherents of the jihadist tendency of Salafism not only reject the West – symbolised by the free democratic basic order – but also actively fight against it: either by travelling to so-called jihad areas or by mounting attacks in the West.”

In the area of politically motivated crime by foreigners, 2,566 offences with an extremist background were registered (2015: 1,524), including 427 violent offences (2015: 235). The total number of criminal offences in this category thus increased by 68.4%, the number of violent crimes even by 81.7%. 

The BfV documents concerns relating to the threat of returning ISIS fighters. Many other publications can be found with respect to deterring jihadism (see picture below)

04CB44C8-7621-41CC-B61F-9CB48313BF8E.jpeg

Whether one fears being labeled all manner of insults to admit it or not, the unsavory aspect is that the BfV has no other sections surrounding “issues” with other faiths. It isn’t racist or bigoted to acknowledge the facts of what a government agency reporting to a deeply socialist and virtuous political party posts on its own website. The data are there.

In a sense the wave of populism across Europe is a direct result of poor policy execution with respect to migrant policy. CM has made the point countless times that poverty and income inequality has been growing over the last decade. When those citizens not sharing in prosperity see monies allocated away from helping them into the hands of those who seem to take it for granted of course they will be upset, even if their assumptions are way off reality. Parties which feed off this sentiment only speak volumes of how big the problem is.

Yet when citizens see misguided altruism requires them to give up freedoms to limit the outward appearance of social fraying, the authorities exacerbate the very gap they’re trying to close. Whether one wants to wag the finger at Poland, Hungary or Austria for their callousness in what they see as defending their culture and societal norms, it is absolutely 100% acceptable to expect those they help save from a certain death sentence to integrate and seek to be model members of society.

Citizens are seeking shared prosperity, not shared misery. As their concerns haven’t been answered they’ve gravitated to parties that do and tolerating vigilantism to enforce the types of norms the government is not willing to.

Merkel has invited this problem with little regard for the obvious impacts. Last year she was offering financial incentives (€3,000) for the “less needy” to go home. Now a “wall” is being erected as testament to the silent admission of failure. It is a sad state of affairs because the truly needy are suffering at the hands of people that cheapen their plight by abusing the system. Moreover they’re creating ructions in the communities the needy would be willing to contribute to by those that won’t.

The messaging has been so poorly dealt with by the likes of Merkel et al that reversing the mistakes will be all but impossible because the people trust her less than those the people she opened the gates to. Don’t expect to get the media to admit it though.