Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Twitter Denies Freedom Of Speech To Veteran But Supports Colin Kaepernick!!



Colin Kaepernick, the football quarterback who disrespects our flag and national anthem has freedom of speech on Twitter.



Frances Rice, retired Army lieutenant colonel who spent 20 years serving our country is denied freedom of speech on Twitter.

Twitter has banned the truthful ad about Juanita Broaddrick’s rape charge against Bill Clinton and how Hillary conducted a “Bimbo Eruptions” campaign to destroy all of the women who accused Bill of sexual abuse.
Here is the message from Twitter: “We have determined that the following Tweet cannot be included in your Twitter Ads campaigns: https://twitter.com/FrancesPresley/status/918937009745485825 . This determination is based on the following Twitter Ads policy: Inappropriate Content.”
See all related tweets at:  https://twitter.com/FrancesPresley
 

Hollywood’s horror stories of sex predators long before Weinstein

By Linda Massarella and Laura Italiano

Shirley Temple; Marilyn Monroe - Imagno/Getty Images; Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images
 
Hollywood producer Darryl F. Zanuck was legendary in the industry — but not just for the movies he made.

 
 Darryl F. Zanuck - Getty Images
Zanuck worked his way through actresses on the sofa in his office faster than the credits rolled on his flicks, according to the tome “The Zanucks of Hollywood: The Dark Legacy of a American Dynasty’’ by Marlys Harris.

His daily bedding of budding starlets operated like clockwork. At 4 p.m. every day, his Fox Century City studio would shut down while Zanuck shuttled a young woman through a subterranean passage to his green-paneled office, according to Harris and Deadline Hollywood.
“Anyone at the studio knew of the afternoon trysts,” Harris wrote. “He was not serious about any of the women. To him they were merely pleasurable breaks in the day — like polo, lunch and practical jokes.”
In 1937, Zanuck won the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ first prestigious Thalberg award for producing.
It was the same decade that Variety first used the now-ubiquitous term for the abuse of power that Zanuck and other Hollywood execs were perpetuating behind the scenes — “the casting couch,” according to Slate.
Years later, in 1975, Newsweek would do a story titled “The Casting Couch” in which it quoted the words on a plaque above the couch in the office of a Tinseltown producer in the 1950s: “Don’t forget, darling, tomorrow you’re going to be a star.”
The mag wrote, “Contemporary starlets no longer take sex-on-demand lying down.”
Joan Crawford -  Ullstein Bild via Getty Images

But things didn’t change then, and they haven’t changed now.
In the past two weeks alone, more than 30 women have come forward with stories of being propositioned, harassed or worse over the past three decades by powerhouse producer Harvey Weinstein. And he’s only the latest Hollywood horndog.
Marilyn Monroe once famously wrote in a memoir about the sexual predators in her industry. “I met them all,” she said. “Phoniness and failure were all over them. Some were vicious and crooked. But they were as near to the movies as you could get. So you sat with them, listening to their lies and schemes. And you saw Hollywood with their eyes — an overcrowded brothel, a merry-go-round with beds for horses.”
Movie moguls have preyed on the ambition of young hopefuls seemingly since the beginning of celluloid.
Actress Joan Crawford, who got her start in the 1920s by dancing naked in arcade peep shows, only advanced her career by sleeping “with every male star at MGM — except Lassie,” quipped fierce rival Bette Davis.
According to ReelRundown.com, “Even at the peak of [Crawford’s] career, rumors continued to surface about how her loathed mother forced Crawford to work as a prostitute, make blue movies and sleep her way to the top.”
As with Zanuck — the longtime head of 20th Century Fox — the preferred perverted method of doing business at MGM allegedly came straight from the top.
Louis B. Mayer - Getty Images
Studio head Louis B. Mayer “terrorized Hollywood’s women long before Harvey Weinstein,” according to a recent headline in the UK’s Telegraph.

Mayer would direct a 16-year-old Judy Garland to sit on his lap, whereupon he’d palm her left breast while telling her, “You sing from the heart” — a creepy anecdote Garland recalled in a memoir.
And an 11-year-old Shirley Temple got her first — and, she thought, hilarious — peek at the male anatomy courtesy of MGM producer Arthur Freed, who once dropped his pants during a meeting. Temple burst into laughter at the sight and was promptly ordered out of the room.
Monroe was among those who allegedly suffered sexual abuse at the hands of her MGM handlers.
In the 1950s, there was a valiant attempt to bring casting-couch incidents out of the shadows and expose them for what they were — sex abuse.
Two writers with a British fan magazine called Picturegoer tried to expose the industry’s seedy underbelly in a four-part series called “The Perils of Show Business.” Their stories were filled with the same type of on-the-record accounts of power-grabbing sexual harassment that Weinstein would be accused of 60 years later.
“This is the most depressing story we have ever written,” the reporters wrote. “For weeks, we have made our investigations — over the lunch table, in studios, and from the depths of cozy armchairs. Gradually, we have built up a dossier of information, which, we believe, is an ugly scar on the glamorous face of show business.”
But while actresses Joy Webster, Dorinda Stevens, Anne Heywood and Marigold Russell allowed their names to be published, the dastardly bad guys remained anonymous.
Actress Marigold Russell - Getty Images
Russell, who appeared in bit roles in movies such as 1954’s “The Bells of St. Trinians,” said girls trying to break into the business would pass around a set of rules in the hopes of preventing unwanted sexual attacks.

“One: When you have to talk business, stick to offices — and office hours. Two: Refer invitations and offers to your agent. Three: Don’t give your home phone number, give your agent’s,” she said.
But the casting couch is not just a distant memory involving long-gone stars and their abusers.
Oscar-winner Dame Helen Mirren, who commands respect and awe wherever she goes today, has said that back in 1964, at the tender age of 19, she was just another plaything to director Michael Winner.
Mirren, now 72, said she will never forget how, during an audition, Winner made her flaunt her body as he leered.
“I was mortified and incredibly angry,” she told Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan in a 2007 television interview. “I thought it was insulting and sexist, and I don’t think any actress should be treated like that — like a piece of meat — at all.”
As Weinstein has downplayed his sexual aggressions, so did Winner, telling The Guardian he didn’t remember ordering Mirren to turn around — but “if I did, I wasn’t being serious.”
Joan Collins - Ullstein Bild via Getty Images
 
“I was only doing what the [casting] agent asked me, and for this I get reviled!” he insisted. “Helen’s a lovely person, she’s a great actress, and I’m a huge fan, but her memory of that moment is a little flawed.”

Actress Joan Collins, warned by Monroe about the “wolves” in Hollywood, also wrote in her memoir that she missed out on the title role in 1963’s “Cleopatra,” which went to Elizabeth Taylor, because she wouldn’t sleep with Buddy Adler, the head of 20th Century Fox.
“I had tested for ‘Cleopatra’ twice and was the front-runner,” she said. “He took me into his office and said, ‘You really want this part?’ And I said, ‘Yes. I really do.’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘then all you have to do is be nice to me.’ It was a wonderful euphemism in the ’60s for you know what.
“But I couldn’t do that. In fact, I was rather wimpish, burst into tears and rushed out of his office.”
Other stories are even darker.
“Rosemary’s Baby” director Roman Polanski initially had sympathy when pregnant wife Sharon Tate was murdered in 1969.
But then details emerged of how he gave a 13-year-old aspiring actress champagne and Quaaludes before having sex with her during a photo shoot in 1977, and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office stepped in.

Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski - Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
“I didn’t want to have sex,” Samantha Geimer wrote in her memoir, “The Girl.”

The Polish director fled the United States before final sentencing and still has an outstanding warrant on that charge.
Eighties child stars Corey Feldman and Corey Haim also have said they were given drugs and “passed around” by male higher-ups when younger.
Feldman told The Hollywood Reporter that Haim, who died in 2010 at age 38, “had more direct abuse than I did.
“With me, there were some molestations, and it did come from several hands, so to speak, but with Corey, his was direct rape, whereas mine was not actual rape,” he said. “And his also occurred when he was 11. My son is 11 now, and I can’t even begin to fathom the idea of something like that happening to him.”
It can take years for such abuse to come to light, leaving victims silently suffering.
Disgraced star Bill Cosby has been allegedly drugging and assaulting and raping countless women since the 1960s, but the accusations against him didn’t surface for years.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Shock: FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

By John Solomon and Alison Spann

 
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.
Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.
His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.
In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.
“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.
“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.
Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI. The probe is not focused on McAuliffe's conduct but rather on whether McCabe's attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.
Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.
The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.
One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.
Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.
But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.
The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.
By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.
The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.
The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.
On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.
Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.
“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.
Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.
“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Trump Effect: Record High Stock Market And Consumer Sentiment!

 
Update From The National Diversity Coalition for Trump

When the markets closed on a record high Thursday, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that it was the longest streak of record closes in twenty years!
According to a University of Michigan survey reported in Bloomberg news: "U.S. consumer sentiment unexpectedly surged to a 13-year high as Americans’ perceptions of the economy and their own finances rebounded following several major hurricanes."
  • The sentiment index rose to 101.1, highest since Jan. 2004!
  •  The current conditions gauge, which measures Americans’ perceptions of their finances, jumped to 116.4, highest since Nov. 2000!
  • The survey’s expectations measure increased to 91.3, highest since Jan. 2004!

GREAT things are happening in our country and in our government.  

_______________

 MORE NEWS:

CORRECTING THE FALSE MEDIA NARRATIVE ON CSR PAYMENTS
 
OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was on CNN this weekend, correcting the record on CSR payments. His full interview is here, but among the highlights:  


  • CSR payments are not payments to “folks” or to “constituents” but to billion dollar insurance companies:
    • “If you follow the money here, which is what we do at the Office of Management and Budget, are checks from the Treasury to some of the largest health insurance companies in the country… This was not a subsidy to you or me or anyone else.”
    • “I cannot believe that Nancy Pelosi was just on your screen there defending bailout payments to large corporations. Typically the Democrats are against that.”
    • “The President doesn't want to write a check of your and my tax money to these large health insurance companies that are making hundreds of millions of dollars.” 
  • But don’t CSR payments keep premiums low for individuals? Nope. Insurance companies are contracted by law to keep premiums at certain levels:
    • “And those companies are already required by law to keep the premiums at a certain level. What this was, was essentially a pay-off to the insurance companies to support Obamacare in the first place back if 2009/2010.”
  • Moreover, the insurance companies had already priced-in the risk of losing CSR payments:
    • “Most of the insurance companies who filed their proposed rates for next year have already assumed these payments are not being made. There is not going to be any additional [premium] increase.”
  • Not to mention the payments are UNCONSTITUTIONAL in that they were never appropriated by Congress:
    • “The Department of Justice came out with a letter earlier this week, said they can no longer defend the Obama position these are legal payments and we had to stop them.”
  • It’s not that the President wants Obamacare to fail, the fact of the matter is, it is failing:
    • “I think the president, along with most of us, know that Obamacare is failing on its own and didn't need any help to do so. We've made this decision because it was bad policy.”
  • “On health carethe President's interested in making this system better. We call that repeal and replace. It's what we want to do. If anybody wants to help us do that, that's fine.”
  • In the meantime, the President signed an Executive Order this week which will help lower premiums and bring back choice within the marketplace
    • “The president took sweeping actions to lower premium for millions of Americans. The Associated Health Plans, the short-term limited plans, other things we're doing in the executive order will dramatically lower problems on folks.”

Make America Great Again!
 
Darrell Scott - CEO
Michael Cohen - Chair
Christos Marafatsos - Vice Chair
Bruce LeVell, Executive Director
National Diversity Coalition for Trump

Sunday, October 15, 2017

The Left’ War On Boys: Radical Feminists Force The Boy Scouts To Admit Girls

Commentary

By Frances Rice
 
Liberals have waged a decades-long war on boys and men in this country, with the latest assault being accusing men of “toxic masculinity” as described in the article, “Houston Rescuers Prove the Lie of ‘Toxic Masculinity.’ “
The announcement that the Boy Scouts of America has caved to the demands of radical feminists and will now admit girls is the latest liberal termite that’s now eating away at our nation’s cultural foundation.
It won’t be long before the Boy Scouts of America will become female-centric, like our colleges and universities. Young boys will be infused with self-hatred and indoctrinated to believe the nonsense being spewed out by liberals as pointed out in the above article: “If we are ever to create a nonviolent, truly gender-equal world, we must rip away the false, culturally constructed fa├žade of masculinity”.
This is not going to end well.
_________________

Boy Scouts to accept girls? Thanks but no thanks, respond many involved in Girl Scouts
By Eseosa Olumhense and Kate Thayer


The members of Maureen Riordan’s Girl Scout troop have experienced everything from rafting Colorado waters and zip-lining to computer coding, career planning and pottery.

So the Lincoln Park mother says she was confused and disappointed when the Boy Scouts of America announced days ago that it will begin to admit girls next year in an effort to provide its benefits to both genders.
“What I’m hearing is girls don’t get the same opportunities,” said Riordan, who leads both her 12- and 9-year-old daughters’ troops and was herself a Girl Scout. “I couldn’t disagree more.”
With news of the Boy Scouts’ policy shift, national and regional Girl Scouts officials, as well as some of the local families they serve, have criticized the move, saying the Girl Scouts already offer a full range of activities to girls and do so in an empowering, confidence-boosting setting.
“We have research that shows girls really do thrive in an all-girl environment,” said L’Oreal Payton, spokeswoman for the Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana. “It’s a safe space for a girl to be a girl.”
Other critics of the change say they simply want the Boy Scouts to remain only for boys.
The latest shift has created strife between the two scouting organizations, with Girl Scouts officials claiming the Boy Scouts are making the change as a revenue grab, possibly because of dwindling enrollment and financial woes from payouts over sex abuse claims.
Boy Scouts officials say the shift is not financially motivated but rather a response to requests from parents. The move is the latest in a number of changes for the group in the past several years, including allowing in gay members and volunteers.
“This is not about a decline in membership,” said Kate Jacobs, spokeswoman for the Pathway to Adventure Council, which oversees Boy Scouts activities in the Chicago area and northwest Indiana. The council is the largest in the state and growing, she said, with nearly 24,000 youth members.
Girls have already been part of the Boy Scouts through coed activities offered since 1971, the organization said. Given this history, opening membership to girls formally was a “natural next step,” Jacobs said.
Some local families connected to scouting are wary.
“I understand what the Boy Scouts are trying to do,” said Wendy Lundgren, a Girl Scout troop leader from Chicago’s Old Irving Park neighborhood. “But if there is something lacking in the Girl Scout program, they need to work on enhancing that. It’s very condescending for the Boy Scouts to say ‘Hey, we’re better, join us.’ ”
Lundgren has a daughter in Girl Scouts and two sons who are Boy Scouts. At a scout meeting in a Jefferson Park church Thursday evening, she and others raised concerns that the move would change both programs, to the detriment of participants.
Among those displeased with the announcement was 99-year-old Boy Scout volunteer Russ Gremel.
“Believe me when I tell you, it would be horrible,” Gremel said. “Men and women are equal, but not the same.”
Gremel is something of a legendary figure in local scouting circles, having served more than 60 years as scoutmaster for Troop 979 , for which he still volunteers.
Gremel said it’s “hard enough” to plan events just for boys, and adding girls to activities and outings would complicate things for scoutmasters and other volunteers.
“If they allow girls in this group, I will drop out of Scouts completely,” Gremel said.
In fact, Boy Scouts officials said troops will remain single-gender. According to the announced plans, starting next year Cub Scout packs for ages 7 to 10 can be all-boys or all-girls, with the option of a coed pack with girls and boys dens.
A new program for girls aged 11 to 17, which will use the same curriculum as Boy Scouts and allow girls to earn the top rank of Eagle Scout, is expected to be in place around 2019.
But some confusion has arisen because the announcement is so fresh, some Cub Scout and Boy Scout leaders at Thursday’s meeting said. One assistant scoutmaster said he only learned of the plan through the news. Without knowing exactly how it would be implemented, or how their roles might change, many felt the development could overwhelm program volunteers.
The Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana boasts nearly 53,000 youth members this year, though the chapter has seen a decline from more than 69,000 girls enrolled in 2013, a trend Payton said has been seen across most youth service organizations in recent years. Nationally, both the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have reported declines over the past year.
Riordan, the troop leader from Lincoln Park, said she hasn’t heard of any Girl Scouts wanting to switch over to the Boy Scouts program, but wondered if some families might do so for convenience if they have both a son and a daughter interested in scouting.
Rosa Garcia, another Chicago Girl Scout parent, said she’s not convinced the new Boy Scouts girl track would have provided her daughter with the same experience.
“If she did (scouts) with boys, would she have had the same voice in that setting? It’s nice it’s focused on girls — allowing girls to be girls without having to compete with boys,” she said.
Garcia’s daughter, Allyson Rodriguez, 15, said she’s participated in robotics events, done community service work and learned about engineering careers during her 10 years as a Girl Scout.
“It’s a nice gesture,” Rodriguez said of the Boy Scouts welcoming girls, “but I feel like there’s already opportunities for girls.”
At the Jefferson Park scout meeting, some of the younger people present seemed to embrace the change.
“When do the girls get here?” one Boy Scout was heard saying at the start of the meeting.
Annali Martinez, 8, of Albany Park, said the announcement meant her “dream has come true.” Annali has been informally joining her brother Jayden, 9, at his Cub Scout meetings for about a year after leaving a Girl Scout troop, their mother said. The Boy Scouts’ activities were more appealing, more adventurous, Annali said. Among her favorite things: arts, crafts and playing dodgeball.
“And being included,” her brother added.

Phil Velasquez / Chicago TribMaureen Riordan, center, 12-year-old Megan, left, and Kelsey, 9, on Oct. 11, 2017, in their Lincoln Park home. Riordan leads both of her daughter's Girl Scout troops at Oscar Mayer schoMaureen Riordan, center, 12-year-old Megan, left, and Kelsey, 9, on Oct. 11, 2017, in their Lincoln Park home. Riordan leads both of her daughter's Girl Scout troops at Oscar Mayer school in Lincoln Park. (Phil Velasquez / Chicago Tribune)

The Associated Press contributed.

Harvey Weinstein and the silence of the civil rights group

By Paul Mirengoff

 
We have noted the reluctance of major Democrats to speak out against Harvey Weinstein, the serial sexual harasser and alleged rapist. As John wrote:
Hillary Clinton, whom Weinstein supported heavily, remained silent until Tuesday, October 10, when she claimed to be appalled by the revelations that have come out about Weinstein. About which, of course, she had no idea until now. Barack Obama maintained his silence even longer and, belatedly, the Obamas finally put out a typically self-righteous statement denouncing their former friend Weinstein.
 
What about the nation’s leading “civil rights” groups — e.g., the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Women’s Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Law Center? Have they joined Mrs. Clinton and the Obamas in condemning, however belatedly, Weinstein’s longstanding and egregious denial of civil rights to the women of Hollywood?

Not as far as I’ve been able to discern (though I’d be happy to stand corrected).
While turning a blind eye to blatant and nauseating sex discrimination in the highest reaches of a major U.S. industry, these groups have vociferously denounced a number of President Trump’s nominees.
Examples include Amy Barrett (nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals), Eric Dreiband (nominated to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department), and Janet Dhillon and Daniel Gade (nominated to serve as EEOC commissioners).
It is normal for these groups to take a major interest in nominees to the positions in question. But it is irresponsible of them to make unfounded accusations against such nominees.
Consider the case of Eric Dreiband (full disclosure, a friend). Various “civil rights” groups, including those cited above, have attacked Eric for alleged opposition to women’s rights, in particular equal pay for women.
These claims are baseless. During his tenure as General Counsel of the EEOC (during the fiscal years ending 2003, 2004, and 2005), Eric personally hammered out settlements that resulted in large monetary awards for women. For example, EEOC v. Morgan Stanley produced a settlement of $54 million and significant injunctive relief for women. Other examples can be found here, here, here, and elsewhere in EEOC press releases.
In addition, cases Eric filed during his tenure resulted in large awards after he left the Commission. EEOC v. Sidley & Austin, for example, an age discrimination case against a major law firm, settled for $27.5 million. (Barack Obama’s former law firm helped mediate the case) EEOC statistics show that during Eric’s tenure the Commission brought more cases, including ones alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act, than is its historical norm — both before and since.
Under Eric, the EEOC also participated as amicus in support of women alleging sex discrimination, including cases before the Supreme Court (in these cases the Solicitor General filed the brief). Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders is an example.
Opposition to Eric’s nomination is based in part on positions he took on behalf of clients after he left the EEOC. (I addressed other criticisms of Eric in this post). Obviously, though, Eric’s work as the top civil rights lawyer for the EEOC is far more indicative of how he will act as the top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department.
Eric does not, of course, embrace every legal position pushed by liberal civil rights groups. But he has demonstrated the willingness and ability to enforce aggressively the laws that protect women from unequal treatment, including sexual harassment.
It would be nice if the civil rights groups that hammer Eric and other well-qualified Trump nominees would denounce Harvey Weinstein for his systematic harassment of women. 
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-and-the-silence-of-the-civil-rights-group.php

Saturday, October 14, 2017

It's Official: Democrats Are The Extremists Today


Investor’s Business Daily
Editorial
 

Partisanship: Everyone knows that the country is more politically polarized than ever, but most don't know why.
Data from the highly respected Pew Research Center provides a definitive answer. It's because Democrats have moved sharply to the extreme left.
The Pew report — titled "The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider" — is the latest in a decades-long series of surveys it has conducted to gauge people's views on various key issues, including the size of government, immigration, corporate profits, race relations.
The authors of the report note the "divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values ... reached record levels during Barack Obama's presidency. In Donald Trump's first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger."
Given the way politics gets reported these days, it's easy to conclude that the widening gap is the result of Republicans become more extreme in their views.
That is, after all, a mantra among Democrats and the press.
The GOP is the party of racist, sexist, xenophobic, right-wing extremists, we hear over and over again, while Democrats are but humble centrists.
The Pew data, however, make it clear that the shift toward the extreme has happened among Democrats, not Republicans.

This can be seen in dramatic fashion when you look at where the center of each party was in 1994, and where it is today.

Pew used a 10-item scale of political values to determine ideological purity among those who claim affiliation with the two parties.

The results show that while the Republican center moved only slightly to the right over the past 23 years, the center of Democratic part shifted far to the left. (See the nearby chart.)

Take a look at specific value questions Pew asks and you can see why.
Pew asks, for example, whether poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return. In 1994, 63% of Republicans agreed with this sentiment, as did 44% of Democrats.
This year, 65% of Republicans agreed — a 2-point increase — while just 18% of Democrats did — a 26-point drop.
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats used to believe that most people who want to get ahead can do so if they work hard.
Today, just 45% of Democrats believe this.
Among Republicans, the change was negligible — it went from 73% in 1994 to 77% today.
How about the question of whether racial discrimination is the "main reason many black people can't get ahead these days"?
In 1994, just 39% of Democrats and 26% of Republicans felt this way.
That was 14 years before the U.S. elected a black president.
Now, after eight years of Obama in the White House, 64% of Democrats say racism is the main reason blacks can't get ahead, while 14% of Republicans do.
National defense?
Back in 1994, 44% of Republicans said the best way to secure peace was through military strength. Today, that figure is 53% — an increase of 9 points.
But on the Democratic side, the share who agreed with "peace through strength" dropped from 28% to 13% — a 15-point drop.
Pew also asked whether "corporations make too much profit."
In 1994, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on this issue was 18 percentage points.
Today, it's 30 points.
In this case, the entire increase in the gap came from Democrats. While 61% of them said in 1994 that corporations make too much money, 73% now feel that way.
There's been no change on the Republicans side —  it's remained at 43%.
One issue where Republicans shifted further out to the edge than Democrats was on whether environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.
But on one big social issue, Republicans have become far more moderate over the years.
The Pew survey asks whether homosexuality should be discouraged by society.
In 1994, 58% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats said it should.
By 2017, the share of Republicans who felt that way dropped 21 points, in tandem with the decline among Democrats.
Of course, if you want to see how extreme Democrats have become, all you need to do is look at who is now considered the soul of the party — far-left liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren — or the fact that a substantial number of Democratic lawmakers have signed onto Bernie Sanders' radical "Medicare for all" plan.
Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't even muster a majority of Republicans in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare.
Democrats and their water carriers in the press are like people on a boat that is drifting off to sea, but are convinced that it's the land that's moving, not them.