The Democratic Socialists of America supports the same policies that have destroyed Venezuela’s ability to feed itself

The New York Times just published this article, which is titled “The Millennial Socialists Are Coming.” The article talks about the growing popularity of socialism among Millennials, and points out several examples of socialist candidates beating long term Democrats in primary elections.

The New York Times article includes this link to the constitution and bylaws of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is a brief excerpt from it (the bolding is mine):

“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships.”

Let’s take a look at what those two bolded parts manage to achieve when they are adopted in the real world. Specifically, let’s take a look at what’s currently going on in Venezuela, which I have previously described in great detail in this lengthy and well sourced blog post, which I have titled, “The Maduro diet: How most Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds in 2016, plus another 24 pounds in 2017.”

The Democratic Socialists of America claim that they “reject an economic order based on private profit.” That’s exactly what Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was doing when he started implementing price controls on food in Venezuela in 2003. These price controls caused shortages of food. Anyone who understands Economics 101 knows that price controls cause shortages.

The Democratic Socialists of America claim that they support “popular control of resources and production.” This is exactly what Hugo Chavez did when he had the government seize more than 10 million acres of farmland from private owners. As a result of these land seizures, food production fell substantially.

Before Chavez died, he appointed Nicolas Maduro to be his successor. After Chavez died in 2013, Maduro continued Chavez’s policies.

In 2018, all of Chavez’s food policies are still in effect. The profit motive has been taken away from food production. Ownership of the means of producing food has been collectivized.

Because the Venezuelan government adopted the exact same polices that are supported by Democratic Socialists of America, most Venezuelans lost an average of 19 pounds in 2016, plus another 24 pounds in 2017.

And you don’t have to take my word for this. My blog entry that I mentioned earlier contains a very large number of links to sources which document exactly how this happened.

One thing that’s interesting about the links in my blog entry on Venezuela is that many of my sources are links to articles in the New York Times. And yet the current article form the New York Times on the Democratic Socialists of America makes absolutely no mention of the the kinds of horrible disasters that happen when such policies are adopted in the real world.

And before anyone goes and mentions the Scandanavian countries, I would like to point out that those countries have by no means adopted the polices supported by the Democratic Socialists of America that I quoted and bolded above. They have not abandoned the profit motive, and they have not turned their means of production over to collective ownership.

On the contrary, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark all have thriving private sectors with huge corporations that make massive profits.

 

June 30, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Communism, Economics, Venezuela. 1 comment.

Media bias on the cover of Time magazine: Obama covers vs Trump covers

I found this image at this link and thought I’d post it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CringeAnarchy/comments/8u280m/left_wing_bias_101/


June 27, 2018. Tags: , . Media bias. Leave a comment.

Attention Peter Fonda! It was Obama – not Trump – who gave child molesters access to the children of illegal aliens.

Peter Fonda recently said:

“We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”

On January 28, 2016, the Washington Post reported:

Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says

The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers…

The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children…

It detailed nearly 30 cases where unaccompanied children had been trafficked after federal officials released them to sponsors or where there were “serious trafficking indicators.”

 

June 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump. Leave a comment.

Media bias and Hollywood’s double standard: Roseanne Barr vs. Peter Fonda

Peter Fonda recently said:

“We should rip Barron Trump from his mother’s arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles.”

Fonda’s statement is worse than Roseanne Barr’s earlier statement, because:

1) Fonda involves an innocent child who never chose to put himself in the public eye.

and

2) Fonda tries to incite violence against an innocent person.

When I first found out about this, I said to myself, “Let’s see if the media pays less, as much as, or more attention to Fonda’s quote than to Roseanne’s quote.”

But then I soon realized that it had already been five days since Fonda had made his statement. So I already know the media isn’t giving it anywhere nearly as much attention as it gave the Roseanne’s statement.

I’m against canceling any of Fonda’s upcoming movies, just like I’m against cancelling Roseann’s show. (I now see the show is coming back, but under a new name, and without her. How can they kick someone off their own show? That’s just so wrong. “We hate Roseanne”s comment enough that we fired her from her own show, but we’ll still collect our paychecks for being on new episodes of the show.”)

It took less than 24 hours for them to fire Roseanne. Fonda hasn’t been fired from anything even after five days, as far as I can tell.

 

June 26, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Media bias. 1 comment.

These photographs show how the Obama administration treated illegal aliens

These photographs show how the Obama administration treated illegal aliens.

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities/
























June 19, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Immigration, Media bias. Leave a comment.

Here’s my response to Suzanna Danuta Walters, the feminist studies professor who complained that “Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs”

Suzanna Danuta Walters is a feminist studies professor at Northeastern University. In a recent Washington Post opinion column titled, “Why can’t we hate men?” she wrote:

“Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs”

So here’s my response: We should abolish feminist studies. And we should encourage more women to major in subjects that will get them higher-wage jobs, such as electrical engineering, petroleum engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, applied mathematics, business, medicine, and law.

 

June 12, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Education, Sexism, Social justice warriors. 2 comments.

Shame on Trump for continuing Obama’s insane policy of hiring air-traffic controllers based on race instead of merit!

When Obama was president, he abandoned the old system of hiring qualified air-traffic controllers who had a college degree in air-traffic control and/or were military veterans with aviation experience, because too many of these people were white males. Obama then replaced the old system with a new system that tried to achieve racial diversity by asking applicants how many different sports they had played when they were in high school. I explain this below in detail.

But first, I want to post this new video from Fox News, which shows that Trump is continuing with Obama’s ridiculous policy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh9SxqsQdpo

The Wall St. Journal has also written an article about Trump’s continuation of Obama’s absurd policy, which you can read at this link.

Now, to explain Obama’s policy in detail.

When Obama was president, the Federal Aviation Administration stopped giving preferential treatment to air-traffic controller applicants who had passed classes from the 36 FAA-approved college aviation programs across the U.S., because too many of the people who passed these classes were white males.

At the same time, the FAA also stopped giving preference to applicants who were military veterans with aviation experience.

Under the new system, applicants were asked how many different high school sports they had participated in.

In 2014, the Wall St. Journal reported:

For years, aspiring air-traffic controllers in the U.S. have enrolled in schools selected by the Federal Aviation Administration to offer special courses that could smooth the way for a job at the agency.

But at the end of December, the FAA abruptly ended that special status for the 36 participating colleges and universities…

… some critics suspect it is intended partly to increase the share of minorities and women among controllers, who are now 83% male and white…

Some school officials say their controller enrollment already has fallen off because of the FAA change.

The FAA’s new stance “just doesn’t make sense,” said Douglas Williams, aviation-program director at the Community College of Baltimore County in Catonsville, Md… “They’re not getting the best-qualified applicants this way,” he said.

Students who have studied for the controller degrees fear they wasted time and money. Navy veteran Oscar Vega recently completed the two-year air-traffic program at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, Calif. He said he passed the FAA controller aptitude test last year, so he was shocked when, in February, he failed the biographical assessment.

“They say you can take it again,” said the 28-year-old. “But it’s not a test you can study for. And we don’t know why we failed because we don’t get any feedback.”

The schools estimate that more than 3,000 graduates have been removed from the FAA’s hiring pool because of the new policy.

In 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported:

More than half of the latest batch of air-traffic controller job offers nationwide went to people with no aviation experience…

The hiring breakdown marks a major shift in FAA recruitment strategy, which is now geared toward… attracting more minorities and women to the nation’s largely white and male controller work force

For almost the last 25 years, until the off-the-street hiring process was implemented in February, the FAA recruited controllers heavily from among military veterans possessing aviation experience and from the 36 FAA-approved college aviation programs across the U.S.

A sample version of the new test includes the following question:

21. The number of different high school sports I participated in was:

A- 4 or more

B- 3

C- 2

D- 1

E- didn’t play sports

Trump has now been president for more than a year, and this policy remains in place.

Shame on Trump for continuing Obama’s insane policy of hiring air-traffic controllers based on race instead of merit!

 

June 6, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Dumbing down, Education, Politics, Racism. Leave a comment.

John Stossel exposes corrupt politicians in Edgewater, New Jersey

In Edgewater, New Jersey, developer #1 owns land and wants to build apartments.

Developer #2 has apparently bribed the local government to deny developer #1 permission to build the apartments.

John Stossel asks the mayor and members of city council if they are on the take from developer #2, but their lawyer advises them not to answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IeGqIIHj4

June 6, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Politics. 1 comment.

Wall St. Journal: The Airport Control Tower Is No Place for Racial Redress

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-airport-control-tower-is-no-place-for-racial-redress-1528240025

The Airport Control Tower Is No Place for Racial Redress

The Obama FAA grounded qualified candidates in the name of justice. Why isn’t Trump moving to reverse?

June 5, 2018

Andrew Brigida is the son of a former New York City police officer. When he was 12, his family moved to a suburb of Phoenix, and at the urging of a neighbor he decided to become an air-traffic controller. In 2013 he graduated with two aviation-related bachelor’s degrees from Arizona State University, one of the dozens of schools with which the Federal Aviation Administration has partnerships to vet candidates for its air-traffic-control training program.

Graduates of these Collegiate Training Initiative schools then must pass the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam, or AT-SAT. This eight-hour test is designed to assess numeric ability, tolerance for high-intensity work, capacity for solving problems, and so forth. The goal is to determine their likelihood of completing the requisite training to become an air-traffic controller. Training a controller is expensive—on average it costs more than $400,000—and the CTI system has proved an accurate predictor of who’s got what it takes.

Mr. Brigida completed the college program, aced the AT-SAT and received a strong recommendation from an academic adviser. He was then placed on a list with other prospective controllers, who would be sent to Oklahoma City for the mandated 15 weeks of training. Five years later, Mr. Brigida still is not working as an air-traffic controller. What happened is the Obama administration.

In 2013 the Obama FAA changed the process for hiring controllers and then applied the new policy retroactively. No longer would the FAA give hiring preference to applicants with degrees from CTI schools or military experience, as it had in the past. In order to foster “diversity” in control towers, the agency would move away from merit-based hiring and toward more subjective measures. To attract a higher percentage of candidates from racial and ethnic minorities, a “biographical questionnaire,” or BQ, was added to the screening process. Applicants were asked about their upbringing, family hardship and the like. Those who didn’t score well enough on the BQ were deemed ineligible, regardless of how well they had performed on tests measuring cognitive skills.

What’s worse, Mr. Brigida and some 2,600 others already on the FAA referral list were notified that their AT-SAT results would be tossed and that they would need to reapply. Mr. Brigida did so but was told that he had failed the BQ and was no longer eligible to become an air-traffic controller.

“The most shocking thing to me is that nobody in that room when this change was decided—not the secretary of transportation, not the head of the FAA—raised his hand and said that we’re talking about airline safety here,” said William Perry Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a public-interest law firm that is representing Mr. Brigida and other plaintiffs in a discrimination lawsuit against the federal government. “We’re not talking about somebody driving a truck. We’re talking about somebody guiding an aircraft into snowbound Chicago.”

Equally shocking is the revelation that the Trump administration is fighting in court to preserve the Obama-era policy. Like its predecessor, this administration is ignoring the fact that thousands of people like Mr. Brigida dedicated years of their lives to getting the proper schooling—in some cases incurring significant debt—only to see the rules changed in the middle of the game. Moreover, the changes weren’t to streamline the process or improve safety but rather to achieve what the government decided (for now) is the “right” racial mix.

The Trump administration should be returning to a sensible system that prioritizes objective measures of competence. After all, being a controller means making life-or-death decisions on a regular basis. Instead, the administration has opted to preserve a policy that in practice amounts to thinly disguised discrimination in the service of boosting the number of minority air-traffic controllers.

The Trump administration didn’t respond to my questions about the case, but the proper course of action is clear: Settle with Mr. Brigida and the thousands of other eminently qualified plaintiffs. Allow them to embark on careers as air-traffic controllers. And then reverse the wrongheaded and potentially dangerous hiring procedures implemented by an Obama administration obsessed with racial balance.

Mr. Pendley believes that his clients are victims of blatant racial discrimination and that the FAA’s current hiring practices won’t withstand scrutiny by the courts. If you care more about your plane landing safely than about the racial makeup of folks manning the airport control tower, you should hope his lawsuit succeeds.

 

June 6, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Racism. Leave a comment.

Real world evidence proves that affirmative action hurts black people

This article is from the Atlantic – not exactly a bastion of the political right.

It says that although the supporters of affirmative action have good intentions, the actual results are that the policy hurts black students. It hurts them by putting them into schools that are above their ability, so they either end up dropping out, or, they abandon the STEM major that they had wanted in exchange for an easier major.

It also talks about how blacks are more likely to have white friends at the school if the school does not have affirmative action, because people tend to choose friends who are of the same academic ability as their own.

It also talks about how blacks are happier at schools that don’t have affirmative action because there is never any question as to their qualifications.

It also says that the same problems happen with white students who are admitted for athletic reasons, and for legacy admissions too.

But most importantly, it says that blacks benefited when UCLA banned affirmative action. After the school ended affirmative action, the number of black freshman was cut in half. However, the number of blacks from these freshman classes who went on to graduate stayed the same.

In other words, UCLA’s elimination of affirmative action did not reduce the number of blacks who graduated from UCLA. Instead, UCLA’s elimination of affirmative action only reduced the number of blacks who dropped out of UCLA.

So instead of getting admitted to UCLA by affirmative action and then dropping out of UCLA because the work at UCLA was too hard for them, these blacks ended up going to easier colleges, where they were admitted based on merit, so they were capable of doing the work, and so they had a much better chance of graduating.

I’d also like to comment on this one sentence from a different article which was published in the New York Times:

“A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities.”

That sentence is in complete agreement with everything that is in the Atlantic article. That one sentence explains how affirmative actions sets blacks up for failure and dropping out by putting them into schools that are too difficult for them. We should get rid of affirmative action, and put blacks into schools that they get into based on merit. That way, they will have a much better chance of graduating.

Here is the Atlantic article. The bolding is mine:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/the-painful-truth-about-affirmative-action/263122/

The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action

Why racial preferences in college admissions hurt minority students — and shroud the education system in dishonesty.

October 2, 2012

Affirmative action in university admissions started in the late 1960s as a noble effort to jump-start racial integration and foster equal opportunity. But somewhere along the decades, it has lost its way.

Over time, it has become a political lightning rod and one of our most divisive social policies. It has evolved into a regime of racial preferences at almost all selective schools — preferences so strikingly large and politically unpopular that administrators work hard to conceal them. The largest, most aggressive preferences are usually reserved for upper-middle-class minorities on whom they often inflict significant academic harm, whereas more modest policies that could help working-class and poor people of all races are given short shrift. Academic leaders often find themselves flouting the law and acting in ways that aggravate the worst consequences of large preferences. They have become prisoners of a system that many privately deplore for its often-perverse unintended effects but feel they cannot escape.

The single biggest problem in this system — a problem documented by a vast and growing array of research — is the tendency of large preferences to boomerang and harm their intended beneficiaries. Large preferences often place students in environments where they can neither learn nor compete effectively — even though these same students would thrive had they gone to less competitive but still quite good schools.

We refer to this problem as “mismatch,” a word that largely explains why, even though blacks are more likely to enter college than are whites with similar backgrounds, they will usually get much lower grades, rank toward the bottom of the class, and far more often drop out. Because of mismatch, racial preference policies often stigmatize minorities, reinforce pernicious stereotypes, and undermine the self-confidence of beneficiaries, rather than creating the diverse racial utopias so often advertised in college campus brochures.

The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference — sometimes because of a student’s athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student’s race — that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him — they are teaching to the “middle” of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student.

The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and his classmates race ahead. His grades on his first exams or papers put him at the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even harder.

When explaining to friends how academic mismatch works, we sometimes say: Think back to high school and recall a subject at which you did fine but did not excel. Suppose you had suddenly been transferred into an advanced class in that subject with a friend who was about at your level and 18 other students who excelled in the subject and had already taken the intermediate course you just skipped. You would, in all likelihood, soon be struggling to keep up. The teacher might give you some extra attention but, in class, would be focusing on the median student, not you and your friend, and would probably be covering the material at what, to you, was a bewildering pace.

Wouldn’t you have quickly fallen behind and then continued to fall farther and farther behind as the school year progressed? Now assume that you and the friend who joined you at the bottom of that class were both black and everyone else was Asian or white. How would that have felt? Might you have imagined that this could reinforce in the minds of your classmates the stereotype that blacks are weak students?

So we have a terrible confluence of forces putting students in classes for which they aren’t prepared, causing them to lose confidence and underperform even more while, at the same time, consolidating the stereotype that they are inherently poor students. And you can see how at each level there are feedback effects that reinforce the self-doubts of all the students who are struggling.

Of course, being surrounded by very able peers can confer benefits, too — the atmosphere may be more intellectually challenging, and one may learn a lot from observing others. We have no reason to think that small preferences are not, on net, beneficial. But contemporary racial preferences used by selective schools — especially those extended to blacks and Native Americans — tend to be extremely large, often amounting to the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points.

At the University of Texas, whose racial preference programs come before the Supreme Court for oral argument on October 10, the typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college-aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. This is the sort of academic gap where mismatch flourishes. And, of course, mismatch does not occur merely with racial preferences; it shows up with large preferences of all types.

Research on the mismatch problem was almost non-existent until the mid-1990s; it has developed rapidly in the past half-dozen years, especially among labor economists. To cite just a few examples of the findings:

Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.

Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.

About half of black college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes (and the bottom 10 percent in law school).

Black law school graduates are four times as likely to fail bar exams as are whites; mismatch explains half of this gap.

Interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, blacks and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.

Given the severity of the mismatch problem, and the importance of diversity issues to university leaders, one might expect that understanding and addressing mismatch would be at the very top of the academic agenda.

But in fact it is a largely invisible issue. With striking uniformity, university leaders view discussion of the mismatch problem as a threat to affirmative action and to racial peace on campuses, and therefore a subject to be avoided. They suppress data and even often ostracize faculty who attempt to point out the seriousness of mismatch. (See, for instance, the case of UT professor Lino Graglia, who was condemned by university officials after he observed that black and Mexican-American students were “not academically competitive” with their white peers.) We believe that the willful denial of the mismatch issue is as big a problem as mismatch itself.

A powerful example of these problems comes from UCLA, an elite school that used large racial preferences until the Proposition 209 ban took effect in 1998. The anticipated, devastating effects of the ban on preferences at UCLA and Berkeley on minorities were among the chief exhibits of those who attacked Prop 209 as a racist measure. Many predicted that over time blacks and Hispanics would virtually disappear from the UCLA campus.

And there was indeed a post-209 drop in minority enrollment as preferences were phased out. Although it was smaller and more short-lived than anticipated, it was still quite substantial: a 50 percent drop in black freshman enrollment and a 25 percent drop for Hispanics. These drops precipitated ongoing protests by students and continual hand-wringing by administrators, and when, in 2006, there was a particularly low yield of black freshmen, the campus was roiled with agitation, so much so that the university reinstituted covert, illegal racial preferences.

Throughout these crises, university administrators constantly fed agitation against the preference ban by emphasizing the drop in undergraduate minority admissions. Never did the university point out one overwhelming fact: The total number of black and Hispanic students receiving bachelor’s degrees were the same for the five classes after Prop 209 as for the five classes before.

How was this possible? First, the ban on preferences produced better-matched students at UCLA, students who were more likely to graduate. The black four-year graduation rate at UCLA doubled from the early 1990s to the years after Prop 209.

Second, strong black and Hispanic students accepted UCLA offers of admission at much higher rates after the preferences ban went into effect; their choices seem to suggest that they were eager to attend a school where the stigma of a preference could not be attached to them. This mitigated the drop in enrollment.

Third, many minority students who would have been admitted to UCLA with weak qualifications before Prop 209 were admitted to less elite schools instead; those who proved their academic mettle were able to transfer up to UCLA and graduate there.

Thus, Prop 209 changed the minority experience at UCLA from one of frequent failure to much more consistent success. The school granted as many bachelor degrees to minority students as it did before Prop 209 while admitting many fewer and thus dramatically reducing failure and drop-out rates. It was able, in other words, to greatly reduce mismatch.

But university officials were unable or unwilling to advertise this fact. They regularly issued statements suggesting that Prop 209’s consequences had caused unalloyed harm to minorities, and they suppressed data on actual student performance. The university never confronted the mismatch problem, and rather than engage in a candid discussion of the true costs and benefits of a ban on preferences, it engineered secret policies to violate Prop 209’s requirement that admissions be colorblind.

The odd dynamics behind UCLA’s official behavior exist throughout the contemporary academic world. The quest for racial sensitivity has created environments in which it is not only difficult but downright risky for students and professors, not to mention administrators, to talk about what affirmative action has become and about the nature and effects of large admissions preferences. Simply acknowledging the fact that large preferences exist can trigger accusations that one is insulting or stigmatizing minority groups; suggesting that these preferences have counterproductive effects can lead to the immediate inference that one wants to eliminate or cut back efforts to help minority students.

The desire to be sensitive has sealed off failing programs from the scrutiny and dialogue necessary for healthy progress. It has also made racial preferences a force for economic inequality: academically well-prepared working class and poor Asian and white students are routinely passed over in favor of black and Hispanic students who are more affluent as well as less well-prepared.

The way racial preferences affect student outcomes is only part of the story. Equally relevant is the way the academic community has proved unequal to the task of reform — showing great resourcefulness in blocking access to information, enforcing homogenous preference policies across institutions, and evading even legal restrictions on the use of preferences. All of this makes the quest for workable reforms — which are most likely to come from the Supreme Court — both more complex and more interesting than one might at first suspect.

 

June 5, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Education, Racism. Leave a comment.

Now that so many Democrats are convinced that Roseanne Barr is a racist, will they try to convince her to run for Robert Byrd’s old Senate seat?

In 2005, the Washington Post reported the following:

… a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the “Grand Dragon” for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.

Also known as Robert Byrd, that guy later ran for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from West Virginia, and won. And he kept getting reelected again and again and again.

In 2010, he died while in officer.

If he were still alive and healthy today, he would still be in office.

After he died, Hillary Clinton referred to him as

“my friend and mentor”

You can hear her saying it at the beginning of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA

Now that so many Democrats are convinced that Roseanne Barr is a racist, will they try to convince her to run for Byrd’s old Senate seat?

 

June 3, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , . Racism. Leave a comment.

Media bias: United Nations “expert” and Reuters falsely blame Trump for poverty that occurred while Obama was President

Reuters just published this article, which was written by Stephanie Nebehay, and is titled:

America’s poor becoming more destitute under Trump: U.N. expert

The article’s first paragraph states:

GENEVA (Reuters) – Poverty in the United States is extensive and deepening under the Trump administration whose policies seem aimed at removing the safety net from millions of poor people, while rewarding the rich, a U.N. human rights investigator has found.

For the next seven paragraphs, the article goes on and on with United Nations “expert” Philip Alston explaining how poverty is getting worse under Trump.

Not until the ninth paragraph does the article admit that none of the poverty that’s mentioned in the first eight paragraphs or the article’s title has anything to do with Trump. The ninth paragraph states:

However, the data from the U.S. Census Bureau he cited covers only the period through 2016, and he gave no comparative figures for before and after Trump came into office in January 2017.

This media bias is disgusting.

If Reuters was interested in telling the truth, then the article’s title and first eight paragraphs would have mentioned Obama instead of Trump.

 

June 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Media bias. 1 comment.

Body-cam footage proves that black woman lied about being sexually assaulted by white police officer

Body-cam footage proves that a black woman lied about being sexually assaulted by a white police officer.

Were it not for the video footage, this innocent police officer could have lost his job and reputation.

This is a legitimate case for a defamation lawsuit.

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article211734544.html

She accused a Texas state trooper of sexual assault. Then her lawyer apologized.

May 23, 2018

WAXAHACHIE – An allegation that a white Texas state trooper sexually assaulted a black woman last weekend in Waxahachie went viral on social media.

But after the Department of Public Safety published the full body-cam video of the incident, Sherita Dixon-Cole’s attorney, Lee Merritt, apologized online and said that the trooper in question had been “falsely accused.”

Cole, 37, of Grapevine, was pulled over at about 1:30 a.m. Sunday for a traffic violation and arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. She was transported to the Ellis County Jail and charged, according to the DPS.

During the stop, Cole alleged, Officer Daniel Hubbard offered her special treatment for sex, then sexually assaulted her, according to a news release tweeted Monday by Merritt.

The allegations, which the DPS denied Sunday evening, were amplified on social media by Merritt and social activist and journalist Shaun King, who wrote that Cole had been “kidnapped and raped” in posts that were widely shared and re-tweeted from his Facebook and Twitter accounts. He also alleged in an article he wrote for BlackAmericaWeb.com that Hubbard threatened to kill her fiancé if she said anything.

A Google search Monday morning for “Shaun King Sherita Cole” returned nearly 150,000 results.

King has since deleted his social media posts about the incident. He did not immediately respond to email and text requests for comment.

Merritt, a civil rights attorney who left up tweets about Cole’s allegations after the video was released, did not immediately respond to a request for a comment or indicate whether he was still representing Cole.

The DPS released the full body-cam video, which is nearly two hours long, shortly before midnight on Tuesday and said the department was “appalled that anyone would make such a despicable, slanderous and false accusation against a peace officer who willingly risks his life every day to protect and serve the public.” After its release, Merritt apologized.

“The body camera footage released directly conflicts with the accounts reported to my office,” Merritt wrote on Facebook. “There is no readily apparent evidence of tampering with the footage. Officer Daniel Hubbard seems to comport himself professionally during the duration of the traffic stop and arrest.”

Merritt wrote that without further evidence, Hubbard “should be cleared of any wrongdoing.”

“It is deeply troubling when innocent parties are falsely accused and I am truly sorry for any trouble these claims may have caused Officer Hubbard and his family,” Merritt wrote. “I take full responsibility for amplifying these claims to the point of national concern.”

DPS spokesman Lonny Haschel said, “The video shows absolutely no evidence to support the accusations against the trooper during the DWI arrest of the suspect.”

He said he had no information as to whether Hubbard plans any legal action regarding the allegations made against him. He didn’t know whether Merritt had dropped Cole as a client or if she’d taken back her allegations.

By Wednesday morning, Cole appeared to have hidden or deleted her Facebook page. Attempts to reach her online and via phone were unsuccessful.

June 2, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Fake hate crimes, Racism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.