Thursday, March 31, 2022

Disney Executives Admit: Of Course We’re Grooming Your Children

BY: ELLE REYNOLDS | The Federalist 


Multiple Disney employees admitted their own personal missions to deluge 5- to 9-year-olds with as much of their own sexual ideology as possible.

Disney isn’t just grooming children with radical sexual propaganda — now they’re bragging about it.

On the heels of Florida’s new Parental Rights in Education law, which bars educators from instructing kindergarten through third-grade students about sexual ideology, multiple executives and employees from the Walt Disney Company admitted their own personal missions to deluge 5- to 9-year-olds with as much of their own sexual ideology as possible.

One Disney executive boasted about her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” and efforts at “adding queerness to” children’s programming, in leaked audio published by investigative journalist Chris Rufo on Tuesday.

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my, like, not-at-all-secret gay agenda,” said Latoya Raveneau, an executive producer for Disney Television Animation. “I was just, wherever I could, just basically adding queerness … No one would stop me and no one was trying to stop me.”

“Something must have happened in the last — they are turning it around, they’re going hard,” Raveneau noted. On Monday, Disney vowed to keep fighting Florida’s new law, after speaking out against the bill before Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it (though Disney’s activism was not enough to satisfy a handful of employees enraged that the Mouse didn’t do more).

Another Disney employee, production coordinator Allen March, was caught in a video call advertising a “tracker” he uses to meet self-imposed quotas for LGBT characters in Disney’s “Moon Girl” TV series.

“I’ve had the privilege of working with the ‘Moon Girl’ team for the last two years and they’ve been really open to exploring queer stories,” March said. “I put together like a tracker of our background characters to make sure that we have the full breadth of expression [with] all of our gender non-conforming characters.”

But having a quota was insufficient in pushing his agenda. “It’s not just a numbers game of how many LGBTQ+ characters you have,” he continued. “The more centered a story is on a character, the more nuanced you get to get into their story, and especially with like trans characters … kind of the only way to have like these canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, canonical bisexual characters, is to give them stories where they can like be their whole selves.”

President of Disney General Entertainment Karey Burke spoke just as openly about her plan to force her own sexual agenda on the eyes and ears of young children.

“We had an open forum last week at 20th [presumably Disney-owned 20th Century Studios], where again, the home of really incredible groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years,” she said. “One of our execs stood up and said, ‘You know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.’ And I went, ‘What! That can’t be true,’ and I realized oh, it actually is true, we have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and yet we don’t have enough leads.”

In another apparent reference to Florida’s law protecting 5-year-olds from sexual grooming in schools, Burke added, “Perhaps had this moment not happened, I as a leader and we as my colleagues would not have focused on” inserting more LGBT characters into Disney stories.

“Going forward I certainly will be more so, I know that we will be,” she said, before pausing to fight back tears. She also reportedly signaled a goal that at least 50 percent of Disney characters will be LGBT or racial minorities by the year’s end.

In the same call, Burke proudly proclaimed herself the mother of “two queer children actually, one transgender child and one pansexual child.” The ages of her children, who she claims have chosen to be transgender and pansexual, are unclear.

In another leaked Disney call, “activism partner” Nadine Smith parrotted wild conspiracy theories about the Florida law. “We’re reacting from the reality that, when they can erase you, when they can criminalize your existence, when they can demonize who you are, the next step is to criminalize you and take your kids,” she said.

Never mind the fact that the bill dubbed “don’t say gay” by detractors doesn’t even include the word “gay,” much less criminalize its use or people who identify with it. Disney knows the bill merely protects very young children from being bombarded with adults’ sexual agendas, and that no one who isn’t seeking to groom children has a good reason to be afraid of the law. So Disney and its allies in government, corporations, and the propaganda press have resorted to straight-up lying about the bill’s purpose and flaunting bizarre theories like that Ron DeSantis wants to kidnap children.

Meanwhile, DeSantis slammed Disney’s weird obsession with teaching kids under 10 about sex and the company’s simultaneous double standard as applied to communist China, where effeminate men are banned from television.

“Why is the hill to die on to have transgenderism injected into kindergarten classrooms or woke gender ideology injected into second-grade classrooms?” the governor said on Tuesday. “Meanwhile, if we had done a bill that prohibited talking about the abuse of Uyghurs in China, Disney would have supported that legislation because they won’t say a word about that.”


Elle Reynolds is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism.




By Christopher F. Rufo

The entertainment company pledges to embed radical sexual politics in its children's programming.

Last year, I reported on Disney’s critical race theory–based diversity program, which taught employees that American was founded on “systemic racism,” separated minorities into racially segregated “affinity groups,” and encouraged white employees to complete a “white privilege checklist.” Now, I have obtained exclusive video from inside Disney that outlines its campaign to embed left-wing sexual politics into its children’s programming and entertainment facilities.

In the wake of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education legislation, which prevents public schools from promoting gender ideology in kindergarten through third grade but which critics call the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, Disney executives organized an all-hands meeting, called the “Reimagine Tomorrow Conversation Series,” and pledged to mobilize the entire corporation in service of the “LGBTQIA+ community.” Executives recruited the company’s most intersectional employees, including a “black, queer, and trans person,” a “bi-romantic asexual,” and “the mother [of] one transgender child and one pansexual child,” and announced ambitious new initiatives—seeking to change everything from gender pronouns at the company’s theme parks to the sexual orientation of background characters in the company’s films.

In a featured presentation at the meeting, executive producer Latoya Raveneau laid out Disney’s ideology in blunt terms. She said her team was implementing a “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” and regularly “adding queerness” to children’s programming. Another speaker, production coordinator Allen Martsch, said his team has created a “tracker” to ensure that they are creating enough “canonical trans characters, canonical asexual characters, [and] canonical bisexual characters.” Corporate president Karey Burke said she supported having “many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories” and reaffirmed the company’s pledge to make at least 50 percent of its on-screen characters sexual and racial minorities. Disney did not return request for comment.

The ideological campaign also extended to the company’s theme parks in Anaheim and Orlando. As diversity and inclusion manager Vivian Ware explained, Disney made the decision last year to eliminate all mentions of “ladies,” “gentlemen,” “boys,” and “girls” in order to create “that magical moment” for children who do not identify with traditional gender roles. “We don’t want to just assume because someone might be in, our interpretation, presenting as female, that they may not want to be called ‘princess,’” Ware said. By eliminating “gendered greetings,” Disney believes, the company can help make it “magical and memorable for everyone.”

Finally, Disney hosted Nadine Smith, the executive director of a pressure group called Equality Florida, who told employees that Governor Ron DeSantis and his press secretary, Christina Pushaw, wanted to “erase you,” “criminalize your existence,” and “take your kids”—a wild conspiracy theory with no basis in fact. The company’s executives threw their full weight behind Equality Florida’seffort, promising to use its significant political and financial resources to repeal the Parental Rights in Education law and the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which prohibits public and private institutions from racialist discrimination and abuse in classrooms and the workplace.

Last year, after my report on Disney’s critical race theory training program, Disney quickly deleted it from the company’s internal servers. But executives did not abandon identity politics. In fact, they added another component—gender ideology—and ramped it up. Executives have empowered activists within the company and now seem unable to resist their demands. Observers should watch Disney closely in the coming years. However the story ends, the company looks like a case study in ideological capture.


Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Are We Insane?

By Judd Garrett

At the start of 94th Academy Awards on Sunday, the three hosts, Amy Schumer, Wanda Sykes and Regina Hall, shouted, “gay, gay, gay, gay!” in unison as a protest of the Florida bill which protects 5, 6, and 7-year-olds from being indoctrinated into the LGBTQ ideology by their teachers. Shortly, thereafter, actor Will Smith stormed on stage and punched Chris Rock in the face for telling a joke about Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett. Later on, after winning the Oscar for best actor, Smith gave a speech about the similarities between himself and his character, Richard Williams, both being “fierce defenders” of family. Smith received a standing ovation by the same crowd protesting the Florida bill. So, when you punch someone in the face because they told a joke about your wife, you’re a “fierce defender” of family, but when you try to protect your children from being groomed into the LGBTQ community, you’re a bigot. Are we insane? We should not care one iota about Will Smith, Chris Rock, or Jada Pinkett; We should care about our kids.

The bill in question, Florida’s HB 1557, was signed into law on Monday by Governor Ron DeSantis. The bill is often mischaracterized as the “don’t say gay” bill, but actually never uses the expression, “don’t say gay” or even uses the word “gay”. So, the people who are opposed to this bill, are lying about the bill. When people lie like this, it means they want something much more objectionable than what they claim they are fighting for. They are doing what they always do, shrouding their sinister agenda, under a more reasonable goal because they don’t want anyone knowing what they are actually up to. This is why teachers do not want parents involved in their students’ education because their indoctrination will be exposed. The at home learning brought on by Covid exposed the nefarious workings of the schools and teachers because parents saw first-hand what was being taught to their children.

So, after spending 2 years locking kids out of school, masking them, and forcing them to get vaccinated to protect them from a virus that wasn’t any deadlier to the students than the seasonal flu, the people who did all that are now vilifying the students’ parents who want to protect them from the poison of radical gender ideology and Critical Race Theory, both of which will have a more devastating effect on the students’ lives than Covid.

Should we be teaching 6-year-old children about sex, much less homosexuality and transgenderism? In any other context, a grown adult talking to a 6-year-old about sex, sexuality, hormones, and genitalia would be considered borderline criminal. Do we really want adult teachers having these types of intimate conversations with 5, 6, 7-year-olds? Medical doctors are not allowed to be alone with minor children during an appointment to protect the child from potential inappropriate interaction, yet we are opening the door for other adults to talk to children about sex. Are we insane?

Discussions of sex and sexuality with children can be seen in the same vein as teaching religion in public schools. Just as we would not want public school teachers imposing their religious beliefs onto children who come from families of all various religious backgrounds, we do not want teachers imposing their beliefs on sexuality onto children who come from families who teach differing concepts of sexual morality which are rooted in their differing religious beliefs. Beyond the teaching of the pure biology of human reproduction, the teacher should have no other role into the students’ sexuality or sex life. And the fact that these teachers and school boards are so eager to get involved in these minor students’ sex life is very disturbing and revealing.

The fervent and misguided objection to this bill by teachers leads one to believe that maybe those objecting get some sort of pleasure out of exposing young children to this type of sexuality. They pretend that since this interaction occurs with a teacher, it makes it okay, as if a teacher exploiting his or her position to have sex with a student never happens. The school environment in our country is not pristine when it comes to sexual matters between teachers and students. The incidents of teachers acting sexually inappropriately with their students is on a rise and at a disturbing level, so opening the door to teachers broaching the subject of sexuality with students is creating a potentially dangerous situation. Every week, on average, 15 students in America are sexually victimized by the educators entrusted to protect them. And we want to make it easier for teachers to talk about sexuality with the most vulnerable students in the school? Is this really what we want to do? Are we insane? The people on the left continually tell the government to stay out of their bedrooms, yet they are the ones who are opening the door of young students’ bedrooms to adult teachers who happen to work for the government.

American teachers can barely educate our children in reading, writing and arithmetic, and they want to take on the highly nuanced and complex issues surrounding human sexuality? Our teachers are failing our children across the board. Only thirty-five percent of 4th graders in America are reading at or above proficiency level. Out of the top 64 industrialized countries in the world, American students rank 30th in math, 8th in reading, and 11th in science, even though the US is in the top 4 spending on education. We spend 37% more per student than the average industrialized nation, yet our academic performance does not mirror the money invested. Maybe, we are lagging behind because we spend too much time and money indoctrinating, and not educating. And that is why many teachers want to do away with the traditional grading system and standardized testing, because those measures of the academic proficiency of the students expose the teachers’ inability to teach.

Beliefs and attitudes about sex and human sexuality are not scientific fact or universally accepted. There are many competing and conflicting attitudes towards sexuality. Do we really want adults who we barely know, and who may not have gained our trust, teaching our children about homosexuality, transgenderism, premarital sex, abortion, promiscuity? These are all subjects that will eventually come up when you open this door. How many of these teachers will be able to resist the temptation of imposing their own personal beliefs about these issue on the students? Have we looked at American politics lately? All we see are people imposing their political beliefs on others. Do we think that will stop at sex? Of course not. As we see with political issues in our schools, conservative students are continually shut down and silence by the liberal teachers and administrators who run the schools. So, the sexuality that will be taught in schools will come strictly from the far-left perspective. There will be no room for disagreement or dissenting from the morality (or lack thereof) that is being taught in these matters, and as always, those in charge want to keep the parents blind to what is going on. In New Jersey, a public middle school was caught teaching children about transgender hormone therapy without the parents’ knowledge or consent. That is how much respect schools have for the parents.

Many of these students will get conflicting messages about sex because much of what is being taught in school will be dramatically different from the beliefs and morals that many of these children’s parents are teaching in the home. And we wonder why we have a sharp increase of kids throughout our country who are confused about their own sexuality. Many believe that parents should not have a say about what is taught to their children, that the so-called “professionals” should control the curriculum. Remember, the teachers have no vested interest in the student lives, none. After the final bell rings, the teachers go home to their house, and their family, and any problem that arises in the student’s lives based on attitudes and morality that are being indoctrinated in school, the parents must deal with, confront, and work through, not the teachers.

The teachers have no real concern about the life outcomes of the students. How much sleep are American school teachers losing from the fact that only thirty-seven percent of 12th graders are reading at or above proficiency level, and are not prepared to be a productive citizens? Not only aren’t the kids being taught, their lack of proficiency is not being identified by the teachers, as they are pushing kids ahead who are not working at grade level. The teachers’ unions have made it virtually impossible to fire teachers for poor performance. And what happens after the teacher gets involved with the students, talking to them about sexual issues, injecting their own beliefs and ideologies onto the child? The teacher goes home. But the parents are the ones who have to deal with the fallout from their child’s indoctrination or miseducation. The parents are going to have to pick up the pieces of their child’s shatter life if they made a poor decision as a result of what they “learned” in school. The teacher disappears from the student’s life, never be heard from again while the parent is the parent of the child for the remainder of their lives.

This desire to teach 5, 6, and 7-year-olds about radical gender ideology, progressive sexual beliefs, and critical race theory, is solely about getting to the children as early as possible, before their sense of self, and their morality is developed, so they can indoctrinate the children into their neo-Marxist, post-modernist worldview, which many parents are fighting tooth and nail against not only in the schools but throughout most of popular culture. Nothing good will ever come of this type of indoctrination. What would the outcry be if a pro-life group we’re able to get access to these children and teach them about their pro-life beliefs? The same people objecting to the Florida Bill would be objecting to that practice because they are not about teaching children, they are solely about indoctrinating them. And the best way to indoctrinate the masses is get to them as young as possible. They cannot allow these children to start thinking for themselves beyond their indoctrination.

It is absolutely no business of any adult teacher in any school to have any conversation with any child about their sexuality. None. Not their business. None. 100% inappropriate. The children in question are prepubescent, their bodies have not even begun to develop sexually so their thoughts and minds are not on sexual matters, yet these teachers want to inject sexuality into these young minds. If the parent believes that there is an issue with a child, the parent can take the child to a trained professional to have those types of discussions. The teacher is not qualified to have those conversations. And any teacher who wants to or is forcing himself into those discussions, suspiciously appears as somebody who gains gratification from talking about sexual things with minors. These people in the education establishment are hell-bent on corrupting the innocence of the youth, and they will label anybody a bigot who fights to protect their children from their corrupting influences.

This is why Jesus said, “whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in me – it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” Mark 9:42


Judd Garrett is a graduate from Princeton University, and a former NFL player, coach, and executive. He has been a contributor to the website Real Clear Politics. He has recently published his first novel, No Wind.

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

Pipe Down, Ladies, and Know Your Place: Female Cyclists Warned Not to Complain About Men Competing in Their Sport


British Cycling, the end-all, be-all institution of competitive cycling in England, has thrown down the gauntlet to female cyclists: Shut up and allow men to take your spot on the team or face punishment.

It is now considered “hate” for female athletes to stand up for their rights.

The threat comes just as a trans dude with a history of racing other men and winning has decided he is now a she and wants to try to take opportunities from women cyclists. If he scores high enough, real women will be dropped from the team to make room for him.

British Cycling will not tolerate real women speaking out against their insane rules, and the organization let its female cyclists know they mean business.

British Cycling members are able to report any concern. If British Cycling are notified of an individual who is taking advantage of the inclusive nature of this policy, or an individual who has been subject to any conduct which is in breach of the Code of Conduct due to their Gender Identity, the matter shall be considered under the British Cycling Disciplinary Regulations.

Speaking of the rules, here they are:

  • Welcome all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants, just as you would any other Participant;
  • Treat all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants with dignity and respect, just as you would any other Participant;
  • Respect the private and confidential nature of all Transgender and Non-Binary Participants’ situations and information;
  • Accept all Participants in the gender they present; verification of their identity should be no more than expected of any other person;
  • Report any incidents of inappropriate or offensive behaviour and language to the British Cycling Integrity and Compliance Department;
  • Avoid making assumptions about the Participant, ask their name and take your lead from the information they may, or may not, offer you;
  • Be clear about what language you use, all Participants should be referred to as the gender that they inform you they are;
  • If asked, refer Transgender and Non-Binary Participants to this policy to understand the parameters in which they are able to take part in both Recreational Activity and Racing Competitions.

British Cycling’s entire policy can be read here.

FACT-O-RAMA! Brit press is so “woke” that the UK Sun actually (and hysterically)  wrote about a trans dude trying to get a Brazilian wax for “her scrotum.”

We in the U.S. aren’t much better when it comes to women’s rights in sports. A man calling himself Lia Thomas is dominating the NCAA women’s swimming competitions. Thomas is allowed to roam naked with real women in the locker room. Thomas claims to be a chick but is also sexually attracted to women. Some of the real female swimmers have complained about having to see Thomas’ twig and berries, and, as PJ Media’s Rick Moran wrote,

The school’s response? They’re offering mental health services to the athletes. In other words, if a man walking around your locker room exposing himself upsets you, obviously there’s something wrong with you and you need a mental health check.



Female Swimmers Complain Trans Teammate Lia Thomas Exposes Male Body Parts in Locker Room


AP Photo/Josh Reynolds

There are plenty of legitimate objections raised against allowing transitioning transgender athletes to compete as a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth.

But it’s the practical objections that resonate the most with the rest of us. And for those objections, trans activists have no good answers.

One such practical objection is the locker room situation. Anyone who has ever competed in any sport — either as an individual or as a member of a team — knows that segregating the sexes in a locker room is necessary to maintain a comfort level for everyone. And comfort is vitally necessary to aid in creating an atmosphere that allows for peak performance from an athlete.

But what if a transitioning male athlete is allowed to walk around naked in a locker room full of women? That’s the situation that is facing members of the University of Pennsylvania women’s swim team who are forced to share a locker room with transitioning male Lia Thomas.

And at least one swimmer is speaking up about it.

Daily Mail:

While Lia covers herself with a towel sometimes, there’s a decent amount of nudity,  the swimmer said. She and others have had a glimpse at her private parts.

She stated that team members have raised their concern with the coach, trying to get Thomas ousted from the female locker room, but got nowhere.

‘Multiple swimmers have raised it, multiple different times,’ the UPenn swimmer said. ‘But we were basically told that we could not ostracize Lia by not having her in the locker room and that there’s nothing we can do about it, that we basically have to roll over and accept it, or we cannot use our own locker room.’

‘It’s really upsetting because Lia doesn’t seem to care how it makes anyone else feel,’ the swimmer continued. ‘The 35 of us are just supposed to accept being uncomfortable in our own space and locker room for, like, the feelings of one.’

It’s not just the “feelings of one” that’s at issue. It’s that the school has decided that Lia Thomas is worth more as a human being than others.

‘The school was so focused on making sure Lia was okay, and doing everything they possibly could do for her, that they didn’t even think about the rest of us,’ the teammate told

‘It just seems like the women who built this program and the people who were here before Lia don’t matter. And it’s frustrating because Lia doesn’t really seem to be bothered by all the attention, not at all. Actually she seems like she enjoys it. It’s affected all of us way more than it’s affected her.’

The school’s response? They’re offering mental health services to the athletes. In other words, if a man walking around your locker room exposing himself upsets you, obviously there’s something wrong with you and you need a mental health check.

Lia Thomas is going to break the silence and tell the story to Sports Illustrated. We can expect a whiny appeal for “understanding” as Thomas is proclaimed a Martyr First Class by the media.

Meanwhile, women and girls are being forced to endure circumstances in the privacy of a locker room that 20 years ago would have resulted in Lia Thomas’s arrest for indecent exposure.

Monday, March 28, 2022

Senile Biden is bumbling us into World War Three!


Tucker demonstrates how senile Biden is a danger to America and the world. 


Sunday, March 27, 2022

Democrats Facing Fallout: Trump Not Guilty

By Tiffany Layne | The Kevin Jackson Network

Once again the facts destroy the fiction. 

More anvils are falling on the heads of the Democrat Party, as the Manhattan DA ended one of many Trump-directed witch hunts. So what’s the next move against the iconic orange man?

Apparently, the investigation is over. As it should have been months ago. Actually, it never should have started. But Democrats were holding out hope that they’d finally catch Trump doing something. Anything they could use against him.

DA Alvin Bragg came into office after the investigation commenced. And he promised to follow the facts. Of course, we were confident that facts would clear Trump. Still, it comes as a bit of a surprise that Bragg closed the book and decided not to press any charges. Because when it comes to Donald Trump, there are a lot of power players that want to keep him far away from public office. Those power players enlist Democrats and Republicans alike to further their cause. So when truth prevails, it is an absolute victory for conservatives.

Like most victories, there were definite casualties. In fact, two top investigators stepped down over Trump’s vindication.

Fox News elaborates:

Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne, who had been leading the investigation under former DA Cyrus Vance, submitted their resignations last month, after Bragg began raising doubts about pursuing a case against Trump.

“You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time,” Pomerantz wrote in his resignation letter, first reported by the New York Times. “The investigation has been suspended indefinitely.”

“Of course, that is your decision to make,” Pomerantz wrote to Bragg. “I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely.”

However, Pomerantz said that “a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong.”

“I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest,” Pomerantz wrote. “I therefore cannot continue in my current position.”

Pomerantz wrote that he believed Trump was “guilty of numerous felony violations” and said it would be a “grave failure of justice not to prosecute him.”

Pomerantz and Dunne had previously agreed to stay on in the district attorney’s office after Vance’s term expired in January and Bragg took the helm.

At the time, Bragg said he was getting up to speed on the Trump investigation and vowed to “follow the facts.”

“It’s a matter that’s personally, as you would imagine, on my radar screen and that I’m mindful of and paying attention to,” Bragg said.

But while Pomerantz and his team were prepared to move forward with charges against Trump, Bragg was not.

Despite that decision, Pomerantz, in his resignation letter, claimed his team that had been investigating Trump “harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes—he did.”

But did he? Really?

Is anyone else having flashbacks here? Because I remember when Rachel Maddow was scooped by President Trump a few years ago. She promised viewers (all ten of them) that she had the goods on Donald Trump.

For the entire day, MSNBC played clips of Maddow waving around Trump’s 2005 tax return. Maddow’s intent was to prove that Trump didn’t pay his taxes.

This became a Leftist mantra, “Trump never paid taxes.” Interestingly, Trump never bothered to acknowledge the accusation. Thus Maddow joined the witch hunt.

As it turns out, despite the ability to not pay taxes due to earlier losses, Donald Trump had paid taxes. A lot of taxes. $38 MILLION in taxes.

Allow me to spare you the details, except to say that Maddow spent almost the entire show stalling. She’d been scooped. Thus, her narrative was blown.

If only there had been a way to tie Trump to RUSSIA!

Ironically, Maddow didn’t even acknowledge that Trump paid $38 million in taxes. Nor did she explain that he could have avoided the tax burden due to his $916 million loss in 1995, an exemption he could use for up to 18 years.

The story here isn’t all that different. Trump did the opposite of what leftists accused him of doing.

Back to Fox:

[A] source familiar with the investigation pointed Fox News Digital, specifically, to Trump’s “Statement of Financial Condition,” which reports an entity’s assets, liabilities and abilities to raise and use funds.

The source told Fox News Digital that Trump did not inflate his financial statements, as prosecutors had anticipated, but instead, undervalued his assets.

Re-read that. Trump “undervalued” his assets.

In other words, he made himself look worse, not better.

The source also told Fox News that Trump never defaulted on payments to banks, and said his statement of financial condition included “caveats” which “refuted” claims by the DA’s office.

One source familiar with the investigation claimed the case against Trump was political and fueled by the former president’s political enemies, and told Fox News that Pomerantz “shouldn’t have been in the DA’s office in the first place.”

Before joining Vance’s office, Pomerantz was of counsel at New York law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. He took leave from the firm last year to join Vance’s office to investigate Trump’s financial dealings.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s brother, Robert Schumer, is a partner at the firm. Pomerantz donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“It is a great tribute to the system that Alvin Bragg came in and stopped the unfairness against Trump,” a source close to the investigation told Fox News. “Bragg and his team did the legally and morally correct thing, and they didn’t go the typical political route.”

The source added that Bragg and his team “realized they had no case, they stopped it.”

Let’s break it down here. Bragg took over the DA’s office, and he was willing to face the facts. He asked for provable information against Donald Trump. No one could ante up. Case closed. As it should be here in the United States of America. It’s a little thing we like to call “innocent, until PROVEN guilty.”



Trump Goes Nuclear: Files Charges Against Clinton, et al

By Kevin Jackson | The Kevin Jackson Network 

Donald Trump just went nuclear.  He filed charges against Hillary Clinton, et al.

Trump v. Clinton. (Filed Mar. 24, 2022).

COMPLAINT, Case No. 2:22-cv-14102-XXXX, 108 pgs.

Below is a list of plaintiffs: 


Bottom of Form

Here is a link to the document:

Trump may do what feckless AG Barr didn’t accomplish. And he might zip past John Durham, who certainly took his sweet time.

What are the ramifications?

I love how Trump’s legal team framed the argument:

1. In the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot – one that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation’s democracy. Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.

The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme—falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly-sensitive data sources – are so outrageous, subversive and incendiary that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison.

2. Under the guise of ‘opposition research,’ ‘data analytics,’ and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public’s trust. They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump. Indeed, their far-reaching conspiracy was designed to cripple Trump’s bid for presidency by fabricating a scandal that would be used to trigger an unfounded federal investigation and ignite a media frenzy.

3. The scheme was conceived, coordinated and carried out by top-level officials at the Clinton Campaign and the DNC—including ‘the candidate’ herself—who attempted to shield her involvement behind a wall of third parties.

The complaint goes on to describe in depth what Clinton, et al did to thwart Trump.

What’s next?

Needless to say, this lawsuit will be in the media for a bit. I can only suspect that Trump’s legal team has done it due diligence so that this case is foolproof.

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that Trump is only beginning with lawsuits. I think Dominion might get their legal team on notice that Trump is now on the warpath.

And for the anti-Trump naysayers, what will you say when Trump wins? He already has one trophy in the case with Stormy Daniels head on it.

Saturday, March 26, 2022

Resistance is rising to woke colleges’ race and sex discrimination

By Glenn H. Reynolds | New York Post 

College campuses are seeing resistance to the "woke." Shutterstock Photo

People used to talk about “resistance” to President Donald Trump. That’s old hat. Now it’s resistance to the woke.

And we’re seeing more and more of that resistance. University of Michigan economics professor Mark J. Perry is working with numerous folks across the nation to file equal-opportunity complaints with the federal Department of Education when colleges and universities discriminate on the basis of race and sex.

Perry recounts that in three years of research, he’s found more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI violations — and continues to uncover more. “The significant and troubling frequency of violations of federal civil rights laws in higher education demonstrates unaddressed systemic sexism and racism that needs greater awareness, exposure and legal challenges,” he writes.

“Typical and frequent” Title IX violations “that have gone unchallenged for many decades,” he says, include “female-only scholarships, fellowships, awards, study spaces, mentoring, tutoring, special freshman orientations, industry meetings, summer STEM programs, summer STEM camps, coding clubs, leadership programs, entrepreneurship programs, gym hours, etc. that operate exclusively for women while illegally excluding and discriminating against boys and men.”

Perry says that “racially segregated or racially preferential” programs and events that violate Title VI have also “become increasingly common in higher education.”

So far, he reports, the federal government has opened 218 investigations against offending schools, and 133 have been resolved in his favor. More are on the way. And even the schools that escape punishment may think twice before doing this sort of thing again.

Perry, by the way, invites people to contact him if they’d like help filing their own complaints.

Professors are suing, too. With help from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Michael Phillips, a historian at Texas’ Collin College, is suing his employer for trying to discipline him over Facebook posts critical of university policy. He’s the third Collin College professor to sue over what he calls an “atmosphere of terror.”

The proper response to an atmosphere of terror is, of course, to stand up to it. And he is.

And the American Civil Rights Project forced Coca-Cola’s general counsel’s office to stop an openly discriminatory and illegal program of racial quotas. Coke had said it would only hire outside law firms that met its standards for racial makeup. Law firms doing business with Coke were supposed to present quarterly reports on the racial background of the attorneys doing Coke’s legal work — and risk losing the account if the numbers didn’t reach the quotas.

This was clearly illegal race discrimination barred by 42 US Code Section 1981 as well as other anti-discrimination laws. As the ACR Project’s Dan Morenoff put it, “It’s amazing that neither the general counsel of a large corporation like Coke, nor the large, prominent law firms the policy involved, seem to have considered its direct conflict with American civil rights laws. It’s even more amazing that so many other sophisticated American corporations have similarly disregarded obvious legal problems to adopt comparably ‘woke’ policies.”

After pressure from ACR, Coke backed down and ended the program (after claiming the loudly proclaimed policy was never really policy at all). Now ACR is writing other major corporations with similar policies — Starbucks, McDonald’s and Novartis AB — demanding that they stop the illegal discrimination too. The group is also in negotiations with Lowe’s Companies about illegal racial preferences in promotion.

Meanwhile, Nathaniel Hiers, who was fired over his criticisms of the University of North Texas’ “microaggressions” policy, is suing and won an important victory when a US District Court held that university officials could be made personally liable for the firing. They should have known that firing a professor for his speech on issues of public concern was a First Amendment violation and thus won’t be allowed to claim “good faith” immunity. A few months ago, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit found University of Iowa officials personally liable for discriminating against a student religious group on similar grounds.

More lawsuits and administrative complaints are likely on the way, with similar outcomes: There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit there. Most corporate and academic officials seem to think the law doesn’t apply so long as they’re politically correct. Time for them to learn otherwise.


Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.



Harvard cancels a black academic who debunked woke orthodoxy

By Peter W. Wood | New York Post

Harvard University, just like its Ivy League counterparts, have attempted to silence professors who question critical race theory. Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

Roland G. Fryer is a tenured professor of economics at Harvard — an anointed member of the elite by most definitions. He is also black, widely published and the recipient of numerous awards, including a MacArthur “genius” grant for his work on the black “achievement gap” in grade school. Fryer was a student of Nobel laureate Gary Becker and a close associate of other economists who focus on rigorous analysis of empirical data.

That’s led him to observations that were a bit unsettling to higher-education orthodoxies. For example, Fryer found that the academic achievement gap accelerates between kindergarten and eighth grade. He also found that, controlling for a few variables, the initial disparity disappeared.

“Black kindergartners and white kindergartners with similar socioeconomic backgrounds” achieved at similar levels. “Adjusting the data for the effects of socioeconomic status reduces the estimated racial gaps in test scores by more than 40% in math and more than 66% in reading.”

The number of books in a child’s household also made an appreciable difference. “On average, black students in the sample had 39 children’s books in their home, compared with an average of 93 books among white students.” Adjusting for that “completely eliminates the gap in reading” as children progress through first grade. These findings contradicted the standard view that black children are already locked into academic last place before they even reach school.

This is good news, in that it means the problem is not as intractable as it seemed. Or rather, it would have been good news to anyone who wants the racial disparity to disappear through interventions that are known to work.

But it was terrible news to activists who are invested in the idea that “systemic racism” explains everything. Socioeconomic standing and household reading, after all, can be improved.

I have borrowed from Fryer’s 2006 article “Falling Behind: New evidence on the black-white achievement gap” for my summary. Fryer, however, was just warming up to further provocations against racial orthodoxy. He also decided to take a look at the data about police stops and shootings. He confirmed that blacks were more than 50% more likely than whites “to experience some form of force in interactions with police,” something that Fryer said was “the most surprising result of [his] career.”

But when it came to shootings, he could find “no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.” This flat-out contradicts the Black Lives Matter assertion that has been uncritically embraced by the academy, the press and numerous politicians who hold that police readily resort to deadly violence in dealing with blacks.

Fryer’s paper on this, “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” was written in 2016 and published in final form in 2019 in the Journal of Political Economy, well before George Floyd’s death ignited riots and a frenzied affirmation in academe that police are the agents of brutal, racially motivated oppression.

From this, one might conclude that Professor Fryer had learned how successfully to kick over the traces of the liberal academic establishment. He was by no definition a conservative, but a kind of independent contrarian who was willing to go wherever the evidence took him. And for a while it appeared to have taken him to the heights of academic achievement. His work received a lot of criticism in places like The New York Times, but he also won substantial funding for his Education Innovation Laboratory at Harvard.

The Black Lives Matter movement has poisoned academia with the myth that African Americans suffer from “systemic racism.” CHRISTOPHE ARCHAMBAULT/AFP via Getty Images

Then the bottom fell out.

I have no shortage of bottom-falling-out stories for academics. They are sometimes caught doing atrocious things, sometimes punished for speaking up against academic policies they disagree with and sometimes disciplined because administrators seem entranced with bizarre ideas. We are in academia, after all, where egos are fragile and reputational destruction is the favorite sport. Reputational destruction, of course, comes in two popular flavors: race and sex. Since Professor Fryer is black, you might expect the line of attack will involve sex, and you’d be right.

According to The New York Times, Professor Fryer was accused in 2018 of engaging in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature toward four women who worked in the Harvard-affiliated research lab he created.”

I have no access to the details of the allegations, but Harvard did its work and came back with a report that amounted to a finding that he had flirted with a graduate student years ago, and that a woman he had fired found some of his language annoying. Naturally, these claims were stretched to their outer boundaries, but the initial faculty committee saw nothing of great moment.

In the #MeToo era, rules of double jeopardy don’t apply. Harvard decided to put the case before another tribunal — a secret one, but one that happened to include two black faculty members whose work had received some shade from Fryer’s academic writings. Sure enough, the second tribunal decided that Fryer had crossed all sorts of invisible lines.

As a tenured member of the Harvard faculty, Fryer couldn’t easily be fired, though administrators pushed to fire him, which would have been a first since the Civil War. But there are lots of other ways to ruin a faculty member. They suspended Fryer for two years, during which he was barred from teaching or using university resources. And they permanently closed his off-campus lab, the Education Innovation Laboratory.

Harvard University attempted to suppress economics professor Roland G. Fryer by denying access to academic resources. Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images

This looks like an academic death sentence for an obscure violation, yet Fryer may well stage a comeback. In a new documentary, professional filmmaker Rob Montz has assembled, for the first time in video form, a compelling 25-minute presentation on what happened to Fryer at Harvard, complete with scary music.

Fryer didn’t participate in the documentary, which perhaps allowed Montz to say things that Fryer himself probably wouldn’t. I’ve never met Fryer, but we have several mutual friends who alerted me to his story, and I have heard several grapevine versions of what happened that run in the same direction: a tale of a vindictive former employee and others sharpening grievances for their own ends and a total denial of due process in favor of putting the man in the hands of his campus adversaries.

It is more or less what we have come to expect from higher education. The higher the educational institution, the more lowdown the tactics. Perhaps I’m all wrong about this, and Fryer is a serial sexual harasser, and his contrarian writings about race and education and race and policing had nothing to do with his cancelation. Who can say for sure?

But I will place my bet on Fryer as another human offering to the gods of wokeness. They breathe in the incense of a burning reputation and smile in satisfaction.