Month: January 2019

In 1976, Gerald Ford won 15 percent of the black vote. That’s the most of any recent Republican presidential candidate. In most elections, blacks give Democrats over 90 percent of their votes. It’s not unreasonable to ask what have blacks gained from such unquestioning loyalty to the Democratic Party. After all, the absolute worst public safety conditions and other urban amenities for blacks are in cities that have been controlled by Democrats for decades. Let’s look at it.

What cities are the deadliest for blacks? The Trace, an independent nonprofit news organization, answers that question. Using 2017 data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program, The Trace listed the 20 major U.S. cities with the highest homicide rates — factoring in both the number of people murdered in cities and their populations. Chicago, with 589 murders in 2018 — one murder every 15 hours — is often called the nation’s murder capital. But that’s dead wrong.

In 2017, St. Louis had the nation’s highest murder rate, at 66.1 homicides per 100,000 residents. Baltimore came in second, with 55.8 murders per 100,000 people. Detroit was third, with 39.8 murders per 100,000 people. Other cities with high murder rates included New Orleans; Kansas City, Missouri; Cleveland; Memphis, Tennessee; and Newark, New Jersey. With 24.1 murders per 100,000 residents, Chicago ranked ninth in the nation. It was followed by Cincinnati and Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., was 17th.

Now here’s the kicker. Of the 20 most dangerous major cities, all but one had a Democratic mayor. In many of these cities, the Democratic Party has ruled for a half-century or more. Only Tulsa, Oklahoma, with 17.3 murders per 100,000 residents, had a Republican mayor.

Who knows what conclusion can be drawn from the finding that the most murderous cities have been controlled by Democrats — and often black Democrats? I am not suggesting that Democratic control causes murder and mayhem. What I am saying is that murder, mayhem and other violent crime are not reduced by the election of black or white Democrats to run our cities. That means one cannot dismiss out of hand a question then-candidate Donald Trump asked black Americans in a 2016 campaign speech in Michigan: “What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump? … What the hell do you have to lose?”

Violent crime is not the only problem for blacks in our major cities. Because of high crime, poor schools and a less pleasant environment, cities are losing their economic base and their most productive people in droves. When World War II ended, Washington, D.C.’s population was about 900,000; today it’s about 694,000. In 1950, Baltimore’s population was almost 950,000; today it’s around 612,000. Detroit’s 1950 population was close to 1.85 million; today it’s down to 673,000. Camden, New Jersey’s 1950 population was nearly 125,000; today it has fallen to 75,000. St. Louis’ 1950 population was more than 856,000; today it’s less than 309,000. A similar story of population decline can be found in most of our formerly large and prosperous cities. In some cities, the population decline since 1950 is well over 50 percent. In addition to Detroit and St. Louis, those would include Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

During the 1960s and ’70s, academic liberals, civil rights advocates and others blamed the exodus on racism — “white flight” to the suburbs to avoid blacks. However, since the ’70s, blacks have been fleeing some cities at higher rates than whites. The five cities whose suburbs have the fastest-growing black populations are Miami, Dallas, Washington, Houston and Atlanta (http://tinyurl.com/y8avphy5). It turns out — and reasonably so — that blacks, like whites, want better and safer schools for their kids and don’t like to be mugged or have their property vandalized. And just like the case with white people, if they have the means, black people can’t wait to leave troubled cities.

Bobby Hesley — a Catholic speaker, writer and conservative political commentator — writes, “Black people are finally starting to wake up and unplug themselves from the Liberal Matrix that has ruled their reality for over a half a century.” I say good! It’s unwise to be a one-party people in a two-party system.

If you’re Christian, shut up.

That’s been the unmistakable message of our current culture in recent weeks.

Karen Pence has been lambasted for her decision to teach at a Christian school. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, after asking a judicial nominee about his membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus, has tied the organization to the “alt right.”

And a group of teenage Catholic schoolboys waiting for a bus at the March for Life, who didn’t know the mob-approved way to handle a Native American activist walking up to them, are fighting for their reputations.

Of course, this isn’t really about Karen Pence, or judicial nominee Brian Buescher, or the Covington Catholic High boys.

It’s about intimidating everyone else.

It’s telling the husband or wife of an up-and-coming lawmaker that if they want to teach at a school, it’s probably better they choose a non-Christian one, unless they want their spouse someday ensnared in a media cycle over LGBT discrimination.

It’s telling the law student who dreams of someday becoming a judge that no matter how appealing he finds joining a Catholic charitable organization, it’s probably better for his career ambitions if he doesn’t.

And it’s telling schools and students and parents that no matter if they are willing to deal with the expense and trouble of hauling dozens or hundreds of students to Washington, D.C., on buses and having them sleep on gym floors, it still might not be a good idea—because the students’ future reputations, careers, and college prospects could all be gone with one viral video.

No, that wouldn’t happen if the students came to Washington to fight for gun control or raise awareness of climate change.

Just if they’re there to speak up for the babies who can’t.

When President Donald Trump was elected—in a shock for conventional D.C. wisdom—it become obvious that there were plenty of silent Americans who, in the privacy of the ballot box, dared to defy the politically correct, woke cultural leaders of our time.

But it’s not enough to vote.

I’m glad Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, isn’t backing down and resigning. I’m thrilled Brian Buescher is remaining a member of the Knights of Columbus, and that Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., introduced a resolution saying there’s nothing wrong with a judge being in the Knights. I’m heartened that the Covington students are fighting back, and saying they did nothing wrong.

But they can’t do this all on their own.

About 70 percent of Americans are Christian, according to the Pew Research Center.

They—and everyone who believes in religious freedom—need to start speaking up.

You don’t have to agree with Buescher’s judicial philosophy to say that in the United States, there should be no religious test for judges.

You don’t have to have attended a Catholic school or be pro-life to say that a group of teen boys being awkward around an activist—an activist who later that weekend tried to bring a group of protesters to disrupt a Catholic Mass at the basilica in D.C.—should not be a news story, much less a reputation destroyer.

You don’t have to agree with Immanuel Christian School’s faith tenets to defend Karen Pence’s right to choose the school where she wants to teach.

You know what breeds intolerance? Silence. It’s easy for someone to kvetch about the Covington boys or mock the second lady as a bigot at the water cooler if he has no reason to believe any other colleague will speak up.

We need to take a lesson from the left’s playbook.

Here’s what liberals do really well: They share their stories. And they make it personal.

We need to do the same.

Did your son or daughter go to the March for Life? Talk about it. Share how proud you were that they cared enough about the lives of unborn babies to be on a bus for 20 hours and sleep on a crowded gym floor.

And share how scared you are that they, too, could become targets of social media acvistists and mainstream media because they didn’t know the appropriate public relations strategy to deal with a protest.

Does it make you feel like an alien in your own country that what you hear from the pews on Sunday could make you ineligible to do certain jobs in our system? Express that anxiety. Tell the truth about how you don’t like being treated like a second-class citizen in your own nation.

Are you appalled that your mom’s job at a Christian school could get her branded as a bigot? Say that. Share the facts: Plenty of Christian denominations adhere to 2,000 years of sexual morality, and demand no sex outside of marriage—whether you’re straight or LGBT.

If we keep talking, things will change.

Because people know that if their colleague Kelly is pro-life, or their hair stylist Melissa is Christian, or their neighbor Bob teaches at a Christian school, they will think twice.

That doesn’t mean they will agree with Kelly or Melissa or Bob.

But it does mean they will realize it’s unfair to assume all pro-lifers hate women, or that all Christians hate LGBT people. They will realize it’s more complex than the woke leaders of social media say it is.

And then we can have real discussions and real dialogues, person to person.

I get that it’s hard. I’m often more of a coward than I’d like to be—even with the job security of working at a conservative news outlet. It’s hard to speak up sometimes, especially if you’re scared people will judge you or there will be hidden consequences—promotions that never occur, networking that abruptly stops.

But we don’t have a choice.

Right now, thought leaders in the United States are working overtime to make it clear: Stand up for your Christian beliefs, your pro-life beliefs—and you will pay.

But we can rise up, too.

If there’s one thing we should have learned in this era of Trump, it’s that standing up to bullies works.

And we need to—because there’s nothing American about a future where holding certain religious beliefs makes you a second-class citizen.

Venezuela’s dictator Nicolás Maduro announced that his country would cut all diplomatic ties with the United States following the swearing in of Interim President Juan Guaidó to restore the constitutional order. President Donald Trump recognized Guaidó, and not Maduro, as the legitimate president of Venezuela on Wednesday.

Guaidó is the head of the country’s National Assembly, the federal legislative body and the only branch of government elected freely and fairly by the Venezuelan people. Guaidó organized nationwide protests Wednesday, the anniversary of the establishment of democracy in 1958, that attracted thousands of protesters in the country’s biggest cities.

Maduro spoke several hours after Guaidó took a public oath of office in Caracas, declaring himself the president of the country with the support of a broad coalition of opposition groups. He refused to name Guaidó in his remarks, referring to him only as “some nobody,” instead directing his ire towards the United States.

#EnVivo 📹 | Nos sumamos a la extraordinaria movilización del pueblo aguerrido en conmemoración del 61° Aniversario de la Rebelión Popular del #23Ene de 1958.https://t.co/mvXo9X1gFs

— Nicolás Maduro (@NicolasMaduro) January 23, 2019

Speaking before a crowd at a government-organized rally in front of the presidential palace, Miraflores, Maduro announced that all U.S. diplomatic personnel had 72 hours to leave the country.

“I have decided to cut all diplomatic ties with the imperialist government of the United States,” he announced. “Get out of Venezuela, enough is enough! There is dignity here, damn it!”

“The imperialist government of the United States is directing an operation to impose a puppet government via coup d’etat to back its interests in Venezuela. They want to choose the president of Venezuela through unconstitutional means,” he argued. “Who elects the president of Venezuela? Can some nobody self-inaugurate himself as president?”

Maduro personally accused Vice President Mike Pence of “issuing an order through Twitter yesterday” for Guaidó to take power, apparently referring to a video Pence uploaded with a message to the Venezuelan people: that Washington would support their efforts to end socialist tyranny in the country and that the U.S. supported the National Assembly. Pence referred to Maduro as an “usurper,” the preferred word Venezuelan legislators use to refer to Maduro.

Maduro “won” an election last year in which over 80 percent of voters did not participate. Those who did reported widespread irregularities and fraud at the voting booths, including harassment from Maduro socialists and violence by socialist gangs known as colectivos.

He went on to claim that he has international support, despite countries like Colombia, Brazil, and Canada joining America in rejecting him. The support, he alleged, was from Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, who he said called Maduro personally to extend Turkey’s backing.

Maduro also went on to warn the opposition against the “gringos.” “The gringos have no friends and have no loyalties to anyone,” Maduro said. “They have interests and they have gall. They want Venezuelan oil, Venezuelan gas, Venezuelan gold.”

Guaidó, the president of the National Assembly before legally taking the presidency, vowed to allow humanitarian aid into the country and organize free and fair elections in his role as interim leader. He is a member of the socialist Popular Will party, which opposes the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) led by Maduro.

President Trump welcomed Guaidó to the presidency on Wednesday.

“In its role as the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people, the National Assembly invoked the country’s constitution to declare Nicolas Maduro illegitimate, and the office of the presidency therefore vacant,” Trump said in a statement. “The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.”

“We encourage other Western Hemisphere governments to recognize National Assembly President Guaidó as the Interim President of Venezuela, and we will work constructively with them in support of his efforts to restore constitutional legitimacy,” Trump added. “As Interim President Guaidó noted yesterday: ‘Violence is the usurper’s weapon; we only have one clear action: to remain united and firm for a democratic and free Venezuela.’”

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.

Without consulting with its users, Microsoft has installed an establishment media browser extension, purportedly designed to rate the accuracy of news websites, as a default setting on mobile versions of its Edge browser. In practice, it creates a news blacklist by warning users away from sites including Breitbart News, The Drudge Report, and the Daily Mail.

The browser extension, called “Newsguard,” presents users with a red warning label if they navigate to a website that it judges to be unreliable. A “green” rating is given to websites that NewsGuard considers trustworthy.

A number of pro-Trump websites, including Breitbart News, are given a “red” rating by the extension.

The website of the conservative-leaning British newspaper The Daily Mail, which has the third-highest circulation in the U.K., is also given a “red” rating. Newsguard says the site “fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability.”

WikiLeaks, which has never had to retract a story due to false or misleading information, is also given a “red” rating.

Among the websites given a “green” rating is BuzzFeed, which was recently humiliated for publishing alleged details about the ongoing Mueller investigation that were contradicted by the speial prosecutor himself. BuzzFeed did not retract the story, and even led with it on its frontpage … after Mueller contradicted it.

But in Newsguard’s view, BuzzFeed “regularly corrects or clarifies errors.”

Many of the websites that recently fed the fake news feeding frenzy against students of Covington Catholic high school in Kentucky, who were falsely accused of taunting a left-wing Native American agitator, are also given a “green” rating. These include CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. 

Also “green” — Media Matters, the Clintonite Democrat website that regularly publishes hit-jobs against conservative media publications and personalities.

Rolling Stone, the magazine infamous for publishing a hoax rape allegation against members of a University of Virginia fraternity in 2015 is also given a “green” rating. Newsguard says the outlet has “consistently published well-researched, factual information about contemporary American culture.”

Some left-wing sources are given “red” ratings by Newsguard. However, they tend to be on the anti-establishment side of Democratic politics: ShareBlue and the Daily Kos, for example, both have “red” ratings. Salon and the Huffington Post, however, do not.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Newsguard has a bias against independent and anti-establishment media though: the team behind the browser extension include top neocons and members of America’s foreign policy establishment, including Trump-hating former CIA director Michael Hayden, and former members of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations.

Breitbart News has reached out to Microsoft for comment.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation declaring this
week, Jan. 20-26, as National School Choice Week.

The proclamation expresses concern about performance of U.S.
students in international surveys: 24th in reading, 25th in science, 40th in
math. And it ascribes the cause of these disappointing statistics to the
“consequences of the limitations imposed by a largely one-size-fits-all
approach to education.”

It makes all the sense in the world to appreciate the value
of bringing the marketplace and competition to education. Free markets serve us
extremely well in delivering goods and services. Why shouldn’t one of our
nation’s most important institutions—education—also benefit from competition?

It is ironic that the political left extols the importance
of diversity while also wanting government monopolies.

The conclusion should be the opposite. The more diverse a
customer base, ethnically or any other way, the more diversity you need among
suppliers to meet and serve the unique needs of different communities. This can
only be achieved in free, private markets.

Statistics on the changing ethnic profile of the students in
our public schools speak for themselves.

In 1997, 63.4 percent of the students in our public schools
were white and 36.6 percent were minority—black, Hispanic, Asian, and
multiracial—students. By 2014, 49.5 percent were white and 50.5 percent were
minority.

The projection from the National Center for Education
Statistics is that by 2026, 45 percent of public school students will be white
and 55 percent will be minority.

Parents of these minority communities should have freedom to
choose an educational framework for the diverse needs of their children. Suppliers
in a dynamic marketplace will listen to those parents, try to understand the
unique needs of their children, and serve them.

This is exactly the opposite of what you get with a
government-controlled monopoly and union bureaucrats.

However, the country is not just becoming increasingly
ethnically diverse. It is also becoming increasingly diverse regarding values.

At the nation’s founding, it was almost universally accepted
that education would include the Bible. “One great advantage of the
Christian religion,” said John Adams, “is that … the duties and
rights of the man and citizen are thus taught from early infancy to every
creature.”

The Northwest Ordinance, passed in America’s first Congress in 1789 said: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

This sentiment carried well into the 20th century, until
court decisions began, step by step, purging any presence of the Bible in
public education.

Did these decisions improve our public schools, making them
more value neutral? Certainly not. They simply politicized education, replacing
Judeo-Christian values with prevailing politically correct secular humanist
values.

Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia mandate
sex education in their public schools. According the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 72 percent of schools in large urban districts provide
education regarding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

What exactly are the values, the worldview, through which
issues such as marriage, sex, and pregnancy are being taught in these schools?

Black communities have already been hurt by the secular
humanism of the welfare state. Since the 1960s, the incidence of single-parent
black households has tripled.

It makes sense that black parents would want to send their children to Christian schools so that these values are transmitted as part of their education. Shouldn’t parents have this right?

In a country with widely growing diversity in religious
identification and values, the only answer is parental choice in education. It
brings the efficiencies of the marketplace and the principle of religious
freedom to schools.

Parents must fight for the right to choose where to send
their children to school.

Thanks to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, more Americans are starting to understand why the country’s biggest abortion business doesn’t need taxpayer money.

Texas has always thought so, which is why the state has worked for years to put the brakes on the organization’s government-funded gravy train. Now, thanks to the Trump administration, the Lone Star State finally has the right to try again.

Under former President Barack Obama, it wasn’t just suggested that states send a portion of their Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood—it was required. Like a lot of Americans, President Donald Trump didn’t think the government should be telling states how to spend their money. So, he overturned the rule and wrote his own, insisting that legislatures could decide for themselves.

Naturally, Planned Parenthood wasn’t exactly thrilled at the thought of losing Texas’ $3.1 million, so it took the state to court. Late last week, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court had its say—and, to the abortion group’s surprise, it ruled on behalf of taxpayers.

Writing for the majority, Judge Edith Jones explained that the lower court had no reason to issue an injunction, especially when the $3.1 million that Texas is trying to withhold from Planned Parenthood is a “smidgen” of the $57 million its affiliates earn each year.

Just as importantly, the panel also handed a huge moral victory to the Center for Medical Progress, whose undercover videos have been ruled inadmissible in other courts. In this instance, Texas used the footage as one of its major arguments for defunding the group.

“One of the incriminating videos,” Live Action points out, “was shot inside Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Texas, where a Planned Parenthood employee explained that making it look like they didn’t profit from fetal tissue was ‘just a matter of line items.‘ Another video featured abortionist Amna Dermish of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas discussing how she more effectively harvests fetal body parts during abortions.”

The left has argued since the first tape was released in 2015 that the videos have been “doctored.” This court disagreed, reminding everyone that the footage had undergone forensic review and weren’t “deceptively edited.” If other judges agree, that will destroy one of Planned Parenthood’s central arguments.

For David Daleiden, who did America a favor by exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts ring, the vindication was sweet. “The video camera doesn’t lie … The court ruled that Texas may strip Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer subsidies, finding that Planned Parenthood uses criminal partial-birth abortions to sell baby parts. Now it’s time for the Department of Justice to do its job and hold Planned Parenthood accountable to the law.”

Until then, states have a compelling argument for taking matters into their own hands when it comes to Planned Parenthood dollars. If their policies end up in the courts, as the left almost guarantees they will, then we can all be thankful that Trump is putting his own stamp on those as well.

With record numbers of men and women on the bench who respect the rule of law, it’s only a matter of time until America’s pro-life sentiment becomes its legal precedent.

Editor’s note: When the Center for Medical Progress videos were released, Planned Parenthood denied any wrong doing.

Originally published by Family Research Council’s Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The Bryan Singer sexual abuse scandal is quickly looking similar to the Harvey Weinstein case, meaning very powerful people in high places have been protecting him from damning exposure.

On Wednesday, The Atlantic published a bombshell report alleging that “X-Men” and “Bohemian Rhapsody” director Bryan Singer had sexually abused teenage boys for nearly two decades. Originally, the report was to be published in Esquire; however, according to reporters Maximillian Potter and Alex French, the story had been torpedoed by Hearst Communications executives for unknown reasons (Hearst Comms owns Esquire).

“We have been asked why a story reported and written by two Esquire writers is being published in The Atlantic,” the reporters said in a statement. “This story began with our editors at Esquire. After months of reporting, this story went through Esquire’s editorial process, which included fact-checking and vetting by a Hearst attorney, and the story was approved for publication.”

The reporters said the Hearst executives killed the story with no explanation as to why and thanked The Atlantic for publishing their carefully-crafted story.

“The story was then killed by Hearst executives. We do not know why,” said the reporters. “We are most grateful that the alleged victims now have a chance to be heard and we hope the substance of their allegations remains the focus.”

According to The Hollywood Reporter, a spokesman for Heart Magazines and Esquire did not respond to a request for comment.

Bryan Singer denied the sexual abuse allegations on Wednesday, highlighting the fact that Esquire turned the story down while accusing the journalists of homophobia.

“The last time I posted about this subject, Esquire magazine was preparing to publish an article written by a homophobic journalist who has a bizarre obsession with me dating back to 1997,” Singer stated. “After careful fact-checking and, in consideration of the lack of credible sources, Esquire chose not to publish this piece of vendetta journalism. That didn’t stop this writer from selling it to The Atlantic. It’s sad that The Atlantic would stoop to this low standard of journalistic integrity.”

Singer added, “Again, I am forced to reiterate that this story rehashes claims from bogus lawsuits filed by a disreputable cast of individuals willing to lie for money or attention. And it is no surprise that, with Bohemian Rhapsody being an award-winning hit, this homophobic smear piece has been conveniently timed to take advantage of its success.”

During the height of the Harvey Weinstein scandal in 2017, a report surfaced that The New York Times had planned to run a story about his alleged history of sexual assault in 2004 before it was ultimately killed by pressure from the disgraced movie mogul and other industry insiders.

Later, Ronan Farrow published an even more shocking report detailing how Weinstein kept his alleged victims quiet through the use of privately employed spies. From the report:

The firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.

Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.