Friday, May 24, 2019

BREAKING: Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May Resigns!

By Ben Glaze | The Mirror

PM's tears as she announces she'll quit on June 7.

After almost three years of gridlock, Theresa May has named her resignation date and plunged the nation into a chaotic Tory leadership race.

Theresa May fought back tears as she announced her resignation date today after nearly three years of Brexit gridlock.

In a dramatic and emotional speech, the PM said she would quit her job on June 7 - after a UK State Visit by Donald Trump and D-Day commemorations are safely over.

Her exit will trigger a Tory leadership contest that gets under way next week. The rules are here while the frontrunners are led by Boris Johnson - who could steer Brexit in a dramatically harder direction.

The mutiny came after Theresa May unveiled a new compromise Brexit plan, including a possible second referendum, in a last-gasp bid to get Brexit through Parliament.

Mrs May met Graham Brady, the chairman of the Tories' backbench 1922 Committee, this morning before announcing she will resign in two weeks.

Kevin Maguire: Don't cry for me, cruel Theresa

Daily Mirror Associate Editor Kevin Maguire says Britons shouldn’t weep for teary Theresa May.

He writes: “Don’t cry for cruel Theresa when it’s her victims who deserve our tears.

“The cracking voice was as much, or perhaps more, for the collapse of her disastrous Premiership as the country she professes to love.

“May’s record shows little affection for the millions whose lives she made worse.”

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Sanders Chooses Teachers Unions Over Black Voters

By Jason L. Riley | The Wall Street Journal

The candidate calls for a moratorium on charter schools. It’s bad politics and even worse policy.

Senator Bernie Sanders pitched his plan to roll back Charter schools at a town-hall in South Carolina on May 18, 2019. His proposed cuts in Charter school funding would be redistributed to struggling public schools.

Black voters had little use for Bernie Sanders when he sought the presidency in 2016. In the South Carolina primary, exit polls showed him winning only 14% of the black vote, while 86% went to Hillary Clinton. The Vermont socialist knows he must up his game with this constituency to have any chance of winning the 2020 Democratic nomination, but his recent attack on school choice may wind up costing him minority support.

Mr. Sanders called Saturday for more regulations on existing charter schools and a moratorium on federal funding for new ones. “The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color,” said the senator. That’s true, but the effect has been positive, which is why black support for more education options is so strong.

In a poll released earlier this month by Democrats for Education Reform, 58% of black Democratic primary voters expressed a favorable view of charter schools, while 31% opposed them. Among Hispanics, the breakdown was similar—52% to 30%. But among white Democratic primary voters, only 26% supported charters, while 62% viewed them unfavorably. A racial divide also surfaces when people are asked about school vouchers. “African American (56%) and Hispanic (62%) respondents are considerably more supportive of vouchers for low-income families than are whites (35%),” according to a recent Education Next survey.

In Florida’s closely contested governor’s race last year, the Democratic candidate, Andrew Gillum, campaigned on closing charters and ending a tax-credit program that allows underprivileged kids to attend private schools. He lost to Republican Ron DeSantis, who supported school choice. According to William Mattox of the James Madison Institute, a state think tank, it was the backing of tens of thousands of black school-choice supportersthat helped put Mr. DeSantis over the top.

Donald Trump and Barack Obama don’t agree on much, but both men understand that traditional public schools aren’t cutting it for millions of low-income children. Both of Mr. Obama’s education secretaries, Arne Duncan and John King, were vocal proponents of charter schools. And Mr. Trump could not have tapped a stronger school-choice advocate than the current secretary of education, Betsy DeVos.

Mr. Sanders’s claim notwithstanding, it is the traditional public school system, not the alternatives, that disproportionately hurts minority students. Why should black parents be expected to pledge undying loyalty to an education model that has been failing their children for generations? Black and brown kids are assigned to the most violent schools with the least effective teachers and staff, while the unions and their political allies repeatedly call for—and receive—more funding and little accountability.

Mr. Sanders will find support for his attack on school choice from civil-rights groups who take money from teachers’ unions, but he shouldn’t mistake NAACP support for black support. Many black families are convinced that school choice is the solution, not the problem. Which is why there are tens of thousands of minority children languishing on charter school wait lists in cities across the country.

Repeated studies have demonstrated that charter schools are closing racial gaps in academic achievement. Whether the measure is test scores, graduation rates or college readiness, charter students consistently outperform their peers in traditional public schools. Charter high schools make up only 10% of the country’s 26,000 public high schools. But according to the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings, charters comprise three of the top 10 public high schools in the country, and 23 of the top 100. Low-income charter-school graduates complete college at two to four times the national average for their peers.

This debate over K-12 education reform ought to inform the one over college admissions, and if Bernie Sanders and the other 387 Democrats running for president wanted to be really bold, they’d connect those dots for voters.

To the extent that successful elementary- and secondary-school models are permitted to expand, there is less reason for college administrators to use racial preferences or “adversity” ratings. Socioeconomic determinism is a dubious notion. Low-income black charter-school students in major cities outscore children from wealthy white suburbs on standardized tests.

Economically disadvantaged Asian students outperform middle-class black kids. If family income matters so much in determining the education prospects of a child, why were fabulously wealthy families caught lying and cheating their way into the University of Southern California?

Race-based affirmative action in higher education has resulted in fewer black graduates and more racial tension than we would have had otherwise. Using “adversity” as a proxy for race is unlikely to improve the situation because holding people to lower standards for whatever reason doesn’t help them advance. The time is long overdue to end these policies, not tinker with them. Allowing successful charter schools to expand is a good first step.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Facebook Singled Out Candace Owens for Scrutiny, Potential Ban, Internal Document Indicates

BY PETR SVAB | The Epoch Times

Facebook has encouraged some of its employees to probe the background of conservative commentator Candace Owens for anything that could give the social media giant grounds to kick her off its platforms, an internal Facebook document described and partially leaked to Breitbart indicates.

The document is a spreadsheet on “Policy Review” of what the company calls “hate agents.” It was created in early April and was related to prominent figures recently banned from the platform, a Facebook spokesperson said. Owens was listed on the document under the note, “Extra Credit (We should look into these after we’re done with the above designation analysis).” The spokesperson believed Owens hadn’t yet been investigated.

Owens, who is black, came out as a conservative in a July 2017 YouTube videoand has since become one of the most popular conservative speakers in America. She’s argued that liberal policies have hurt black communities, such as by weakening family structure through welfare incentives, undercutting black workers through supporting illegal immigration, and suppressing black birthrates through promoting abortion.

Her Facebook account was suspended on May 17 for seven days after she posted a picture of her Twitter post that listed the disparity between poverty rates among blacks and whites in the United States, as well as the high father absence rate in black households. She blamed liberal policies.

“Black America must wake up to the great liberal hoax,” she wrote. “White supremacy is not a threat. Liberal supremacy is.”

A Facebook spokesperson said the account was suspended by mistake and restored later that day. The suspension was unrelated to the internal document, the spokesperson said.

Ideology, Affiliations

The document indicated that Facebook employees were to look into what Owens is “known for,” including her “ideology, actions, major news, etc.”

They were also supposed to list “Affiliated Hate Entities” of Owens. The spokesperson didn’t respond to questions on what Facebook considers a “Hate Entity,” what constitutes an affiliation, and how can users avoid such affiliations.

The spokesperson also didn’t respond to questions on why Owens was singled out for such scrutiny and why was it relevant for Facebook to determine Owens’s ideology.

“To the brave employee who leaked this— thank you,” Owens responded in a May 18 tweet. “To lawyers that follow me— is this legal? I am taking this very seriously.”

Facebook maintains that it doesn’t look at people’s political views when deciding whom to ban, but its Community Standards are, to a degree, a partisan manifesto. The standards heavily focus on suppressing “hate speech,” even though Americans are divided sharply along political lines on what does and doesn’t constitute “hateful” speech, a 2017 Cato survey (pdf) showed.

Hate Speech

While in the United States, most of what Facebook labels as “hate speech” would be lawful to utter publicly because of First Amendment protections, some European countries have laws against “hate speech,” forcing Facebook to take such content offline. Facebook could theoretically make such content only available to users in locales where it’s lawful, but the company has apparently subscribed to the “hate speech” doctrine, tripling its content policing force to some 30,000.

The document with Owens’s name was posted into an internal discussion group set up by former Facebook senior engineer Brian Amerige, who left the company due to disagreements over content policing.

“I’m glad to see the group continues to be used to raise awareness inside the company about Facebook’s slippery slope of a content policy,” he said via the Facebook Messenger app. “In a very sad way, it’s comically predictable to see people listed as ‘extra credit’ to watch and investigate. Evolution into the ‘thought police’ is the inevitable result of their dangerous and ineffective approach to promoting the truth.”

The core issue Amerige hit an impasse on with Facebook executives was their insistence on suppressing “hate speech,” which Amerige deemed misguided.

“Hate speech can’t be defined consistently and it can’t be implemented reliably, so it ends up being a series of one-off ‘pragmatic’ decisions,” he previously said. “I think it’s a serious strategic misstep for a company whose product’s primary value is as a tool for free expression.”

Facebook not only acknowledged that it can’t draw a clear line between what is and isn’t “hate speech,” but that it also keeps a portion of its rules secret.

A Facebook spokesperson previously told The Epoch Times that users are partially kept in the dark to prevent them from circumventing the rules, but didn’t respond when asked why the company doesn’t spell out its policies in full and add a rule against rule circumvention.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Are You Sure You Want to Play Russian Roulette With Your Child's Values?

By Dennis Prager |

Most Americans are not aware how morally and intellectually destructive American colleges -- and, increasingly, high schools and even elementary schools -- have become. So, they spend tens of thousands after-tax dollars to send their sons and daughters to college.

But today, to send your child to college is to play Russian roulette with their values. There is a good chance your child will return from college alienated from you, from America, from Western civilization and from whatever expression of any Bible-based religion in which you raised your child.

If you think this is in any way an exaggeration, here is some of what has happened on campuses in recent months:

Harvard University fired law professor Ron Sullivan from his position as faculty dean of Winthrop House, a student residential hall, because he was one of Harvey Weinstein's lawyers. (He has since resigned from the Weinstein legal team.) Some female Harvard students said they felt "unsafe" with Sullivan as a faculty dean.

Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law, said the decision "may be the worst violation of academic freedom during my 55 year association with Harvard." Laurence Tribe, also a professor at Harvard Law, said he could not recall a "worse" blunder in his 50 years as a professor there.

Also at Harvard, all-black graduation exercises were initiated. And like most other colleges, Harvard has long allowed an all-black student dorm to exist on campus.

If nothing else, this provides additional proof of the vast difference between liberalism and leftism. That is why liberals such as Dershowitz, Tribe and numerous liberal writers have condemned Harvard's cowardly capitulation to a few female students. Unfortunately for America, however, most liberals will not confront the fact that they have far more to fear from the left than from the right. Conservatives are not the enemy of liberalism; the left is.

In Minnesota, some students at South St. Paul Secondary petitioned the administration to allow students to wear sashes -- stoles -- with ethnic and LGBT colors to celebrate their identities. As one student said in leftist English, "I'm able to repurpose what was once an obstacle into a source of energy and pride."

As reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "If they're not allowed to don the sashes, some students have talked about wearing them anyway, said Naomi Gedey, a Black Pride Organization leader. Gedey added that many immigrant students also hope to wear flags of their nations of origin."

Other Minnesota schools already allow students "to don so-called 'identity adornments.'"

Those who still believe that one of the primary purposes of American public (and most private) schools is to Americanize students should know this is no longer the case. On the contrary, most American high schools now celebrate every identity except American identity (which the left brands a euphemism for white supremacy).

Meanwhile, at its commencement next month, the City University of New York will award an honorary doctorate of humane letters to Al Sharpton.

Among the many nonhumane activities Sharpton has been involved in was the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax, in which he fabricated a charge that four white men had raped a young black woman named Tawana Brawley.

Sharpton also runs a phony civil rights organization called the National Action Network, which has collected many millions of dollars from corporations in what essentially amounts to an extortion racket that enables those corporations to buy racial peace.

And Sharpton helped stoke the Jew-hatred that sparked black anti-Jewish riots in 1991. In a book published in 2006, Edward S. Shapiro, a Brandeis University historian, described the riot as "the most serious anti-Semitic incident in American history."

In Pennsylvania, the Sabold Elementary School in Springfield announced that its principal will no longer say "God bless America" after the Pledge of Allegiance. The school district released a statement two weeks ago stating that the principal saying "God bless America" "violated the law."

And of course, college students across the country are increasingly taught, often from their first day at college, that being male and female is a choice, not a biological fact.

Other than Hillsdale and a handful of other colleges and religious colleges, the American university has become nothing more than a left-wing seminary.

Buyer beware.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Trump has made America less racist


Anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice has declined since 2016, new study shows

The election of Donald Trump has, of course, unleashed the latent racist which lurks within millions of Americans.

We know this because enlightened opinion keeps telling us so.

The New Yorker, for example, ran a piece in November 2016 declaring ‘Hate on rise since Trump’s election’, and quoting a list of incidents collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center – including the experience of a girl in Colorado who was allegedly told by a white man: ‘Now that Trump is president I am going to shoot you and all the blacks I can find’.

TIME magazine, too, ran a story in the same month announcing ‘Racist incidents are up since Donald Trump’s election’.

In March 2017 the Nation asserted ‘Donald Trump’s rise has coincided with an explosion in hate groups’, claiming that 100 racist organizations had been founded since Trump began his presidential campaign.

And so it goes on.

Just as with Britain’s vote for Brexit, Trump’s strident language and his concentration on issues such as migration is supposed to have coarsened political discourse – legitimizing racist and xenophobic opinions in people who might otherwise have been shamed into silence.

By this narrative, even slightly immoderate speeches, posters and campaigns by politicians become magnified through the lens of public opinion into something much more sinister. A speech on migration, goes the theory, can all too easily erupt into bar room arguments and end with a Muslim or a black man having his head kicked in.

It sounds vaguely plausible, but is it true?

Not if a new paper by a pair of sociologists at the University of Pennsylvania is anything to go by. Daniel J. Hopkins and Samantha Washington set out to measure the effect of Trump’s election on anti-black and anti-Hispanic prejudice, using a randomly-selected panel of 2,500 Americans whose changing opinions have been under study since 2008.

The academics report that they had been expecting to measure a rise in racist opinions, writing: ‘The normalization of prejudice or opinion leadership both lead us to expect that expressed prejudice may have increased in this period, especially among Republicans or Trump supporters’.

They had been led to expect this, they say, through an extensive reading of recent literature in social sciences which, they say, supports the notion that racist attitudes lie dormant inside many people, waiting to be triggered by certain events – of which the election of Donald Trump might be one.

There could, after all, hardly be anything more calculated to awaken an incipient racist than the president calling Mexicans a bunch of rapists.

Yet the study found exactly the opposite.

Americans, claim Hopkins and Washington, have actually become less inclined to express racist opinions since Donald Trump was elected.

Anti-black prejudice, they found, declined by a statistically-insignificant degree between 2012 and 2016, when Trump was elected.

But then after 2016 it took a sharp dive that was statistically significant.

Moreover, contrary to their expectations, the fall was as evident among Republican voters as it was among Democrats.

There was also a general fall in anti-Hispanic prejudice, too, although this was more evident among Democrat voters.

It is a similar story to that in Britain, where the attempt to link Brexit with rising xenophobia has been somewhat debunked.

A murder of a Polish man in the town of Harlow in August 2016 was widely attributed to Brexit – but eventually declared by police not to have been a hate crime at all.

Similarly, a smashed window in a Spanish restaurant in South London on the night of the Brexit vote was initially widely reported to be an expression of euphoria on the part of xenophobes – but was later revealed to be an attempted burglary.

So has Trump actually been a good thing for race relations in the US, and if so, why?

The University of Pennsylvania study is a little shy on this point, but raises the theory that people have found Trump’s pronouncements on migrants, Mexicans and so on to be so reprehensible that it has inspired them to think about their own attitudes.

It is possible, they write ‘that Trump’s rhetoric clarified anti-racist norms. Given that the declines in prejudice appear concentrated in the period after Trump’s election, it seems quite plausible that it was not simply Trump’s rhetoric but also his accession to the presidency that pushed public opinion in the opposite direction’.

Well, maybe.

It might be added that the election of Barack Obama also caught liberal opinion unawares.

That event, it might be recalled, was supposed to be the breakthrough which led to a kinder, gentler America.

Instead it seemed to be followed by a more fractious period in race relations, culminating in race riots in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014.

Maybe social science has got it the wrong way round: it was the sight of a mixed race man in the White House who brought out in the inner racist in Americans who are inclined towards those feelings, while the reassuring sight of white man back in the Oval Office has calmed them down.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

From Rage to Responsibility

Shows freedom is the path to success

From Rage to Responsibility showcases Peterson as a living testament to the truth that all Americans are free to achieve success in our capitalist country that offers equal opportunity, not equal outcomes, which is the failed socialist concept.”-Frances Rice, Chairman, National Black Republican Association


Order From Your Bookstore



Did They Even Read the Post? Our Story Got Fact-Checked...For a Claim It Never Made

By Matt Vespa |

 Source: AP Photo/Ben Margot

Tensions with Iran are rising. President Trump hopes no war breaks out, but we reportedly have a plan to deploy some 120,000 troops in the region in case Iran acts badly. 

I mean they already have, expanding their network of evil across the region, thanks in no part to an effete foreign policy peddled by Barry Obama. 

Yet, we have to discuss this issue that’s plaguing conservative media and their relationship with Big Tech.

Yeah, someone got upset with an article we wrote about the lack of media outrage when 18 migrants died while in the custody of border enforcement authorities under the Obama administration. 

Right now, the Trump administration is being besieged by liberal media personalities and their nauseating virtue signaling over his border security agenda. 

Obama had people die while detained and yes, there were cages too. And yet, Politifact decided to flag a December 2018 article of ours, rating it as false even though it was 100 percent accurate. 

It’s proof that these folks didn’t read the post and the criteria for the recent crackdown on various platforms is wholly subjective. Oh, and do I need to mention that subjectivity leans very much to the left? 

It was flagged because there was an inaccurate meme noting that 18 children died while in custody under the Obama administration. 

We didn’t say children; we accurately said, migrants. It’s all here in the post.

It was rated pants on fire, but even that’s a bit too far. Eighteen people still died under the Obama administration concerning border security. Oh, we fought back and won. 

The citation was removed, but there was no apology. And we don’t expect one. That would be assuming that these folks are decent.


Finally! Evidence of not one, but up to 18 deaths of migrants in US custody, seven due to subpar care.

Oh, wait. It was from the Obama admin from 2012-2015.



First a 7-yr-old girl dies after BP helicopters her to medical care.

Now an 8-yr-old boy dies after BP takes him for in treatment, and is released by doctors.

This proves that Republicans are monsters by TAKING SICK CHILDREN TO THE HOSPITAL


In other news, the Democrats are freaking out that the Trump White House is proposing merit-based immigration, which Canada, Australia, and Japan have adopted. 

They’re just opposing it for the sake of opposing it. 

Yet, the meltdown over the recent anti-abortion bills in Georgia and Alabama will probably make the reaction to the immigration proposals seem tame. 

No doubt an injunction on the Alabama law will be handed down; it virtually bans the procedure, punishing doctors by up to 99 years in jail. 

Will it make it to the Supreme Court? We’ll see. Don’t hold your breath.


Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that “merit” based immigration is a “condescending” term

“We’ve only heard titles like ‘merit,’ which is non-merit. It means merit in the eyes of Donald Trump”


With actresses Lori Laughlin and Felicity Huffman in deep trouble with this college admission scandal, the whole higher education process is about to get even more absurd, adding an adversity score to the SATs. 

In short, if you’re LGBT, female, non-binary, poor, atheist (or Muslim), and are a person of color (no Asians), then you get points added to your SAT score. 

Students won’t be told how much and the criterion is secret. 

Whites, Asians, and Christians will be penalized, especially if you’re well off and are heteronormative—using the language of the politically correct.

Whoever is best should get picked for the best schools and jobs—no matter what. That’s how it should be. 

Apparently, that’s problematic. College, which already has problems on these issues, is about to become an even bigger mess—all thanks to progressives and their fetish with bean counting who’s in the classroom. 

It’ll make for a good laugh, though probably not as big as Bill de Blasio’s 2020 candidacy. Yeah, the mayor of New York City announced, making the 2020 Democratic clown bus 20+ deep.