New Poll Shows Democrats Want the Party to Move Further Left

Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison / Getty Images

BY:

A new poll found that 52 percent of Democrats polled say they support “movements within the Democratic Party to take it even further to the left and oppose the current Democratic leaders.”

That belief was especially strong among younger Democrats: 69 percent of Democrats ages 18-34 said they supported those movements, according to an October Harvard-Harris poll. The Democratic Party has had an ongoing feud between its left wing and the party establishment, while younger voters have supported candidates further to the left.

Urban Democrats were more likely to support a leftward push than suburban and rural Democrats.

Although a majority of Democrats polled wanted a leftward push, only 29 percent of Democrats said that would help their party’s politicians to win elections.

The only age group that said a more liberal Democratic Party would help Democrats win is the youngest demographic, Democrats aged 18-34.

Investigations into President Trump’s ties with Russia also broke down along age lines. Older Democratic voters don’t trust that the investigations are beneficial to the country as a whole.

Far more young voters support the investigations, but even still, only 51 percent of Democrats say they’re helping the country. Overall, only 37 percent of voters think the Russia investigations are helping the country.

The poll also showed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) has the highest favorability ratings of any major politician.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Trey Gowdy Officially Cleared to Go After Lynch, Clinton

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy has announced, along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, that the two will be jointly investigating the Department of Justice’s handling of the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, saying that the department’s actions have left “a host of outstanding questions that must be answered.”

“Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales… No entity or individual is exempt from oversight,” the two chairmen said in a statement Tuesday.

The “host of outstanding questions” pertain to subjects including, but not limited to:

Advertisement – story continues below

“FBI’s decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified information but not to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;

“FBI’s decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;

“FBI’s decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather than the DOJ;

Advertisement – story continues below

“FBI’s timeline in respect to charging decisions.”

In other words, a good number of the goofy, ridiculously fishy goings on of the Obama-era DOJ are on their way to being brought into the light, and we couldn’t be happier.

Former President Barack Obama’s Justice Department is as scandal-ridden as scandal-ridden gets, with former Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder potentially on the hook for a bevvy of misbehavior.

Advertisement – story continues below

Let’s take a look at a couple of the worst incidents:

  • Operation Fast and Furious, in which thousands of guns ended up in the hands of Cartel members and Holder became the first sitting cabinet member to be held by the House of representatives.
  • Lynch’s infamous “tarmac meeting” with former President Bill Clinton before the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails was announced complete, an incident that even former FBI Director James Comey found problematic, according to Fox News.
  • Lynch’s insisting to Comey to refer to the Clinton investigation as a “matter” instead of an investigation, a seemingly-blatant attempt to quash any Democrat scandals during the race for the presidency.

The list could go on, and with so many questions being linked to the FBI, I’d imagine that the walking-and-talking scandal that is James Comey will be a name in the news for some time to come.

We may grow tired of hearing the same names and hearing about the same issues, but it is absolutely vital that justice prevail in Washington.

Obama’s DOJ failed the American people. It’s time things were set straight, and I can’t imagine a more capable man to sort the matter out than the bulldog that is Trey Gowdy.

Advertisement – story continues below

Like and share on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word that Trey Gowdy is taking on Hillary Clinton and the Loretta Lynch-era Department of Justice.

How much will this new investigation uncover? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Men Are Taking Classes to Unlearn Masculinity After Weinstein Scandal Grows

The scandal of accused serial sexual abuser Harvey Weinstein has raised awareness regarding the abuse of women in the workplace, and that is a good thing.

However, the Weinstein scandal has also provided an avenue for liberals attack masculinity, which isn’t such good thing because it leads them to assume all forms of masculinity are bad.

The term “toxic masculinity” has gained steam over the past couple of years, and it suggests that masculinity is bad for men.

Advertisement – story continues below

Weinstein’s exploits will no doubt add fodder to the liberal cause of feminizing men.

Already, the left has come up with a way to counter the evils associated with “toxic masculinity.” For example, men can attend classes to help them combat their manliness.

Rethink Masculinity, a partnership between Collective Action for Safe Spaces, ReThink and DC Rape Crisis Center, is a men’s “consciousness building group in which people identifying as men collectively learn how social constructs of masculinity harm themselves and the people around them.”

Advertisement – story continues below

As the name suggests, these types of classes involve unlearning the masculinity that supposedly drives men to behave badly.

Eric Mankowski, associate chair of the psychology department at Portland State University, teaches a course titled “Psychology of Men and Masculinities” which, he says, “deconstruct[s] how masculinity is socialized as a performative mask rather than a biological imperative,” according to The Cut.

It seems like that way of thinking is backward, but that shouldn’t be too surprising coming from a bunch of liberals.

Advertisement – story continues below

These kinds of classes are dangerous because they attempt to undo something that isn’t bad.

Despite what the left would have us believe, men and women are different. God made men stronger and more powerful than women so they can, among other things, defend their families and provide for them.

Moreover, masculinity is not toxic. While liberals push to destroy the image of men being strong and powerful, they are moving to effectively emasculate them. Doing so would help the left tear down values conservatives that believe in, and nothing would make them happier.

Worst of all, though, is that the effort confuses — probably deliberately — the kind of behavior Weinstein is accused of with what it means to be a “man.”

Advertisement – story continues below

The problem of sexual abuse and violence against women can, and should, be tackled without stripping men of the characteristics that God gave them.

Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter to spread the word about how liberals are trying to destroy manliness.

What do you think of the left trying to make men less masculine? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

Clinton Campaign and DNC Paid for Research Behind Russia Dossier

Hillary Clinton

Getty Images

BY:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in the famous Steele dossier, which posited that connections exist between President Donald Trump and Russia.

Sources cited in the Washington Post story did not disclose dollar amounts paid to the firm that conducted the research, but they said Clinton’s campaign and the DNC shared the cost.

That firm, Fusion GPS, hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Marc E. Elias is a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign as well as the DNC, and made the decision to work with Fusion GPS in April 2016. At that point was funded by an unknown GOP client while the primary was still going on.

Steele gave reports and other documents to Elias, but one source claimed that he or she was not aware of the role of Steele’s work.

The people aware of the matter claimed that the Clinton campaign didn’t direct Steele’s research.

Trump on Saturday called on the FBI to release the information about who paid for the dossier.

Fusion GPS hasn’t named the Democrat or group behind Steele’s work despite congressional Republican objections, citing confidentiality agreements.

Last week, Fusion GPS invoked the Fifth Amendment to not answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. Its founder has however previously given an interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records and has until Friday to negotiate a resolution with Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.).

Immediately following the Washington Post article being published, New York Times reporters pursuing this story complained about the Clinton camp denying it. They accused Elias and Clinton’s team of lying to them “with sanctimony” for the last year.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Alert The Social Justice Warriors: White Quarterback Has Been Signed Before Colin Kaepernick

Wait for the knee jerk reaction from the usual suspects. Via The Smoke Room: The Miami Dolphins have signed free agent quarterback David Fales to the roster. ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported the news Tuesday morning in a series of tweets. Things are about to get lit on the internet. A white, free agent quarterback who […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

Conservatives Losing Patience Quickly over Senate Pace of Confirming Trump’s Judicial Nominees

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Conservatives are increasingly frustrated over the slow pace of the Senate’s confirming President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees, and are calling for swift action from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Per Article II of the Constitution, every federal judge must be nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. Nine months into the president’s term, a Senate controlled by the president’s party has confirmed only seven nominees out of 56, including one Supreme Court nomination.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was a unique case. It had been decades since there was a pending vacancy on the Supreme Court when a new president was sworn in, and there was a media frenzy that shined such a spotlight on the affable and mild-mannered appeals judge that it inescapably resulted in a speedy confirmation process. Senators get no credit for managing to confirm him, though they do deserve credit for keeping the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia open, and for invoking the nuclear option to ensure Justice Gorsuch’s ascension.

However, since Justice Gorsuch’s confirmation, the Senate has confirmed only six judges—less than one per month of the Trump presidency. At this rate, President Trump will see only a fraction of his 150-plus current and forthcoming nominations confirmed by the end of this four-year term. Supporters of a judiciary that is faithful to the Constitution as written lay all the blame squarely on the Senate, and are pushing McConnell to do several things within his power to rapidly accelerate this process.

As a recent memo from the Conservative Action Project pointed out, in recent years the Senate has often been working only 2.5 days per work week. This does not even consider days or weeks when the Senate is in recess. Since May 1—days after Justice Gorsuch joined the High Court—the total number of Monday-Friday standard work days where the Senate has been in recess exceeds 31. In other words, more than a full month in recess during what are working days for most Americans.

The number of vacancies in the federal judiciary is skyrocketing. President Trump inherited 107 open seats when he took office, more than any of the past five presidents except President Clinton. George H.W. Bush had 41, Clinton had 117, George W. Bush had 84, and Barack Obama had 55.

The initial number has increased rapidly; there are currently some 145 judicial nominees. When you add the number of judges who have explicitly signaled their retirement but not yet stepped off the bench, that number jumps to 166.

The roadblocks to judicial appointments have arisen at two levels: the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) and the Senate floor. Most of the committee roadblocks have been plowed through, but not so on the floor.

Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) of the SJC has recently taken major action to move nominations forward. Just last week, Grassley held  hearings for five judges on Tuesday, then a full dozen on Thursday, for an impressive total of 17.

Groups are urging Grassley to take the one remaining measure within his power, pertaining to blue slips. Home-state senators receive a blue piece of paper when someone in their state is nominated for a federal judgeship, asking if the senators support or oppose the nomination.

While most SJC chairmen do not treat this as a one-senator veto power by refusing to return the blue slip, Grassley has. This has blocked the nomination of Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, because Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) refuses to return his blue slip.

Grassley has signaled that he is getting impatient, however, so that final roadblock may move soon. And Grassley’s recent pace at moving nominees through his committee is earning him a lot of goodwill on the issue.

No so yet with the Senate floor. Senate Democrats are slow-walking nominations, including requiring cloture votes on many nominees, then consuming all 30 hours allowed under Senate rules of post-cloture debate. But those rules are subject to reinterpretation by a simple majority of 51 senators. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate, plus Vice President Mike Pence to cast tie-breaking votes.

Senate Republican apologists point out that Bush 43 and Trump have both made 56 nominations to date, and that the Senate has confirmed an equal number for both at this point on the calendar.

That analogy fails, however, because Bush had to deal with a 50-50 tied Senate that shortly thereafter became 51-49 Democrat-controlled. Moreover, President Trump has twice the number of vacancies to fill that Bush had, so it is imperative for conservatives and Republicans to confirm the pending nominees to make room for more.

McConnell is promising to take major action on judges now that the budget has been passed. Voters are watching to see what will happen next.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

So, when does Ben Sasse announce that he’s not running for reelection either?

I’m trolling with that headline, inspired by today’s double-barreled shots at Trump from retirees Corker and Flake. But I’m only trolling a little.

The key difference between Sasse and his two anti-Trump colleagues is time. They’re up for reelection next year, he’s not up until 2020. That’s good news for him twice over. Maybe Trumpism or populism will run out of gas within the party by then, at least enough to allow the incumbent Sasse to prevail in a primary in Nebraska. Flake said today that he believes “the fever” will break eventually, although not in time for his primary against Kelli Ward. Could it break by 2020? Well … not break, perhaps, since Trump himself will be back on the ballot but it could cool to the point where it’s survivable for Sasse. That’s the other good news for him, that Trump is also running in 2020 and will be too busy with his own race to worry much about knocking off Republican senators. McConnell and the donors will put heavy pressure on him too not to divide the party with the stakes so high by trying to take down any incumbents. With Trump ignoring the race, Sasse stands a better chance of hanging on.

But.

Trump’s base will be raring to punish Sasse for his criticism of the president, regardless of how often he ends up voting with Trump over the next two years. (Flake aligned with POTUS 92 percent of the time and that didn’t help him.) Steve Bannon will still be looking for scalps, if only to show off his power. Sasse will be his prime target and of course Sasse knows that. He doesn’t need to make a decision on reelection for another two years but one thing that’s interesting about him is how distinctly he gives off the sense that he’d be just fine leaving Washington behind. He’s the most conspicuously “normal”-seeming guy in the Senate. It wouldn’t surprise me if he decided to take Bannon on and run again, as Flake did not, just to force voters to choose between the Sasse vision of the party and the Trump/Bannon vision: If Republicans prefer nationalism to “the better angels of our nature,” as Flake noted today, okay, but put ’em on the record. It would surprise me less, though, if Sasse concluded “to hell with it” and followed Corker and Flake into retirement by declaring himself a one-termer earlier than expected. It’ll be no fun for him serving another term in the Senate anyway if it’s controlled by Chuck Schumer and the president is either Trump or a Democrat. If he takes reelection off the table early, he’ll be as free to speak out against Trump as Corker and Flake now are and he’ll have much more time to do it.

Speaking of Flake, Ben Shapiro makes the case that his anti-Trump pageant in the Senate today was mainly a fig leaf aimed at disguising the real reason he’s retiring. Namely, he had so alienated Republican voters on policy that he stood no chance of reelection, Trump or no Trump. He’s going out as a fake martyr because that narrative is more flattering to him:

Here is the reality: Jeff Flake was one of the most unpopular senators in the country nearly from the point of his election in 2012. In April 2013, The Atlantic ran a piece titled, “How Jeff Flake Became the Most Unpopular Senator in America.” At that point, Trump wasn’t a gleam in Steve Bannon’s eye, and Bannon wasn’t a gleam in the media’s eye. Flake began his career in the Senate as a popular hard-line Republican; he quickly shifted to the middle, embracing Gang of Eight immigration reform (many immigration reform Senators have fallen askance of the base), siding against the Obamacare defunding effort, voting repeatedly for debt ceiling increases, pushing gun control, working with President Obama to open trade with Cuba.

Eh. Those points are fair enough but (a) I doubt the average Republican voter could name any Flake heresy on policy apart from immigration and (b) I don’t agree at all that Flake’s public criticism of Trump was something he undertook to give him a pretext of leaving. Shapiro concedes that Flake’s attacks on Trump were sincere but believes Flake “purposefully exacerbated” his weakness with the base by taking on POTUS publicly to give himself an excuse to quit. I don’t think there was any political calculation to it. I disagree with Flake on amnesty but have always thought he spoke up about Trump because he felt morally obliged to do so, even to his own political detriment. Shapiro’s right that that was a kamikaze mission but I doubt the point of the mission was to build a feelgood storyline for his eventual retirement. I think he attacked Trump because he felt he had a duty to do so and trusted that the polls would eventually turn around for him. They didn’t and there was no longer any denying what that would have meant for the primary next spring. That’s why the criticism that Flake should have faced primary voters in Arizona and given them a chance to support or reject his vision for the party doesn’t add up. His polling was so bad that running again would have handed the seat to either Kelli Ward or a Democrat, neither one of whom shares his vision. His agenda stands a better chance with someone else running on it. If anyone’s willing to.

Here’s Rush Limbaugh on Corker/Flake Day (before the Flake news, though) marveling that the key difference between pro-Trumpers and anti-Trumpers isn’t about policy, it’s about Trump and his personal peccadilloes. Well, yes: Hence the label “Never Trumpers,” not “Never Republicans” or “Never Conservatives.” Much of Flake’s criticism in his floor speech today had to do with Trump’s personal behavior and seeming indifference to the country’s civic heritage — although he did reserve some harsh words for protectionism and immigration restrictionism. In any case, a thought worth pondering from Tim Carlson: “The people who told you the power of conservative ideas would win over the American public are saying Jeff Flake is the problem, not Trump.” Indeed. Apart from immigration, Flake is much more of a traditional conservative than Trump is. And yet the Rushes of the world, who touted Reagan-style conservatism as a foolproof winning formula for years, now say it’s Flake who needs to go. Flake’s great sin isn’t that he’s a RINO or a “moderate,” it’s that he’s emphatically not a populist. And as we learned starkly last summer, in a battle between a populist and a conservative, “conservatives” will side with the populist every time.

The post So, when does Ben Sasse announce that he’s not running for reelection either? appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

WATCH: Brave Officers Risk Their Lives To Prevent Armed Man From Committing Suicide-By-Cop

Two brave Arkansas officers risked their lives wrestling with an armed, unstable man looking to commit suicide-by-cop.

In the body-camera video below, one officer is seen trying to wrestle a firearm from the hands of the unwell man, named Marcus, who is begging to be killed.

“Please take me out,” pleads Marcus. “I don’t want to live.”

Another officer, wearing a body-camera and aiming a gun at the man, is heard yelling: “Marcus, put it down! Put it down! Drop it, Marcus! Drop it!”

“Shoot me,” begs the man, still wrestling with the officer and clinging onto his firearm. “Shoot me, please. … I want to die.”

After the man is finally taken to the ground, the officer tases him.

The man, now in tears, still begs, “Take me out, please. .. I don’t want to live.”

The video has just recently surfaced online, but appears to have been initially taken mid-January.

WATCH:

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r

It’s finally happened: Professor claims math perpetuates ‘white privilege’

Galileo Galilei may have declared, “Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe,” but Professor Rochelle Gutierrez of the University of Illinois sees sinister white privilege in the language of math. Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform spotted the latest absurdity to make its way down from the ivory tower to the unwashed masses:


A math education professor at the University of Illinois argued in a newly published book that algebraic and geometry skills perpetuate “unearned privilege” among whites.



Rochelle Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Illinois, made the claim in a new anthology for math teachers, arguing that teachers must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.


“On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White,” Gutierrez argued.


Gutierrez also worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that “curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.”


Oddly enough, this Euro-bias or white privilege does not seem to have prevented East Asians from excelling at math, as any glance at the classrooms at MIT or CalTech will demonstrate. But according to Professor Gutierrez:


…evaluations of math skills can perpetuate discrimination against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts.


“If one is not viewed as mathematical, there will always be a sense of inferiority that can be summoned,” she says, adding that there are so many minorities who “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”


Sorry, Professor, but analytical reasoning is an incredibly important skill in an era where technology is continually revolutionizing life. The beauty of math is its anchoring in pure reason, available to anyone who cares to take the logical steps and is capable of understanding them. The problem for the racialists is that functional math skills are very unevenly distributed among various demographic slices. One hopes that this is a matter of cultural conditioning, not innate ability. But whatever the origins of the demographic contrasts, the hard reality is that math is difficult, it requires concentration, focus, and the ability to reason. It is hard work that not everyone is prepared to make the sacrifices for.


But Professor Gutierrez sees a different reality:


Gutierrez stresses that all knowledge is “relational,” asserting that “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.”


Would Professor Gutierrez like to be the first person to cross a bridge engineered by someone who felt that math was “relational” and that things cannot be known objectively? How about boarding an airplane designed by someone with her own convictions?


Western civilization gained the power to transform the world thanks to hard-won intellectual achievements rooted in math and science. The peoples of the world had available to them the entire cornucopia of benefits of this intellectual achievement. Some of those non-western peoples chose to adapt to the available intellectual bounty and throw themselves into the realm of science, engineering, entrepreneurship, and achievement, with Japan as the prototype. Race had nothing to do with their success. Other nations and groups have followed suit, with great success.


The opposite posture, alas, one of victimization and rejection of the value of the world-changing knowledge, is a trap. And Professor Gutierrez not only fell into the trap, she is baiting it for her students and those who follow her lead.


Galileo Galilei may have declared, “Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the universe,” but Professor Rochelle Gutierrez of the University of Illinois sees sinister white privilege in the language of math. Toni Airaksinen of Campus Reform spotted the latest absurdity to make its way down from the ivory tower to the unwashed masses:


A math education professor at the University of Illinois argued in a newly published book that algebraic and geometry skills perpetuate “unearned privilege” among whites.


Rochelle Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Illinois, made the claim in a new anthology for math teachers, arguing that teachers must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.


“On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness. Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White,” Gutierrez argued.


Gutierrez also worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that “curricula emphasizing terms like Pythagorean theorem and pi perpetuate a perception that mathematics was largely developed by Greeks and other Europeans.”


Oddly enough, this Euro-bias or white privilege does not seem to have prevented East Asians from excelling at math, as any glance at the classrooms at MIT or CalTech will demonstrate. But according to Professor Gutierrez:


…evaluations of math skills can perpetuate discrimination against minorities, especially if they do worse than their white counterparts.


“If one is not viewed as mathematical, there will always be a sense of inferiority that can be summoned,” she says, adding that there are so many minorities who “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.”


Sorry, Professor, but analytical reasoning is an incredibly important skill in an era where technology is continually revolutionizing life. The beauty of math is its anchoring in pure reason, available to anyone who cares to take the logical steps and is capable of understanding them. The problem for the racialists is that functional math skills are very unevenly distributed among various demographic slices. One hopes that this is a matter of cultural conditioning, not innate ability. But whatever the origins of the demographic contrasts, the hard reality is that math is difficult, it requires concentration, focus, and the ability to reason. It is hard work that not everyone is prepared to make the sacrifices for.


But Professor Gutierrez sees a different reality:


Gutierrez stresses that all knowledge is “relational,” asserting that “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.”


Would Professor Gutierrez like to be the first person to cross a bridge engineered by someone who felt that math was “relational” and that things cannot be known objectively? How about boarding an airplane designed by someone with her own convictions?


Western civilization gained the power to transform the world thanks to hard-won intellectual achievements rooted in math and science. The peoples of the world had available to them the entire cornucopia of benefits of this intellectual achievement. Some of those non-western peoples chose to adapt to the available intellectual bounty and throw themselves into the realm of science, engineering, entrepreneurship, and achievement, with Japan as the prototype. Race had nothing to do with their success. Other nations and groups have followed suit, with great success.


The opposite posture, alas, one of victimization and rejection of the value of the world-changing knowledge, is a trap. And Professor Gutierrez not only fell into the trap, she is baiting it for her students and those who follow her lead.






via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1c2jbfc

CNN: After 7 Days, Only 4 Minutes On Clinton Uranium Scandal

For the first seven days after The Hill published startling new information about the Clinton/Russia/Uranium scandal, the 24-hour cable news giant CNN had produced less than five minutes (3 minutes, 54 seconds) of actual news coverage about the case.

From the morning of October 17 through the morning of October 24, CNN’s reporters and anchors only mentioned the scandal twice: first, on October 19, after President Trump scolded reporters for failing to cover the story, anchor Wolf Blitzer offered a 19-second explanation of what Trump was talking about.

Then, on October 20, Blitzer’s 5pm Situation Room included an interview with an ex-Obama administration official, Jake Sullivan, who told Blitzer that Trump’s charge of corruption against the Bill and Hillary Clinton “had no basis in fact.” Blitzer, to his credit, at least pushed back, asking Sullivan about how “some of these Russians who were involved were giving the Clinton Foundation thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Bill Clinton was going to Russia to deliver speeches for huge speaking fees?”

That interview lasted a total of 3 minutes, 35 seconds. CNN also aired live coverage of a Wednesday morning hearing in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley discussed the case for 4 minutes, 53 seconds, without any additional comment by CNN. Additionally, the network carried live coverage of President Trump on Thursday talking about the need for more attention — his remarks on this subject totaled 61 seconds, followed by Blitzer’s short comment (noted above).

This afternoon, CNN also went live for a press conference by House GOP members announcing an investigation into the story CNN hadn’t bothered to cover in the past week.

After the press conference, CNN Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash dismissed the story as little more than a conservative conspiracy theory. “What we do know is that the President tweeted about it a couple of days ago, on the 19th of October. Sean Hannity, Fox News, the conservative media, from Breitbart to talk radio, they have been aggressively pushing this story, saying that the mainstream media is ignoring it.”

If conservative media was aggressively pushing this over the past week, CNN certainly wasn’t listening.

Bash then accused the committee of only bringing this case up to appease the GOP base – not because of its own merits: “obviously the fact that all the Republicans, not the Democrats, but just the Republicans on the House intel committee gathered to announce that they’re investigating this, you know, means that there is – that they’re listening to their base.”

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2v7eUfC