53percenter's Blog

Connecticut high schooler Selina Soule appeared on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday night to discuss transgender athletes in women’s sports. Soule recently competed in a high-stakes competition where two biologically male transgender sprinters beat the field, taking first and second place by significant margins. Soule finished in 8th place, missing an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places.

“I am very happy for these athletes and I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Soule told host Laura Ingraham. “But, in athletics, it’s an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cis-gender girls.”

Ingraham, a former athlete at the same high school, jumped in to rhetorically ask what happens when transgender athletes start infiltrating other sports, too. What happens to girl’s sports, she wondered aloud.

The Fox host mentioned recent comments made by gay advocate and tennis star Martina Navratilova, who warned that women’s sports are headed down a dangerous path if biological males, who have a clear advantage over women physically, are allowed to compete in women and girl’s sports. Ingraham noted that Navratilova has been “trashed” for making such an obvious, data-proven point.

“What are other members of your team saying about this?” asked Ingraham.

“My teammates and my fellow competitors — we are happy for these athletes, of course — but we do think it’s unfair, and for us it is upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort, only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this,” said the high schooler.

Soule said student-athletes applying for colleges are already running into “major issues” because there is no specified way in Connecticut to differentiate between transgender girls and biological girls. So when college coaches review stats, they are looking at major discrepancies in times without any explanation, she explained.

The student-athlete has previously made similar comments about the issue. “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” she said, according to Fox News. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Andraya Yearwood, one of the transgender athletes who bested Soule, will likely attempt to qualify for this year’s National Scholastic Athletics Foundation (NSAF) national championships held in March, reported The Daily Wire.

“The group recently adopted new rules allowing pre-pubescent girls to participate with their affirmed gender, though no ages are specified. Post-pubescent transgender girls must have completed sex-reassignment surgery and ‘a sufficient amount of time must have passed’ after the operation or hormone therapy ‘to minimize gender-related competitive advantages,'” The Washington Times noted.

According to the NSAF website: “Freshman and Junior High School miles are limited to first 30 entries per gender that both meet the entry standard and pay for the entry … Junior High Mile is limited to the first 30 entries per gender that both meet the entry standard and pay for the entry.”

WATCH:

Earlier this week, an 81-year-old man was assaulted at a grocery store in New Jersey for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Even though the story was yet another example of President Donald Trump supporters getting attacked for supporting the president, it didn’t get national attention. To be fair, it had to compete with three other stories of people being attacked for supporting Trump just this week alone.

The elderly victim in this case was leaving a ShopRite grocery store in Franklin Township when a 19-year-old, identified as Ryan M. Salvagno, lashed out over the MAGA hat, prosecutors told NJ.com. The two went back and forth over the hat, briefly, before the victim turned to leave.

“As the victim turned to walk away, defendant Salvagno was able to grab the victim’s hat and the two struggled for sole possession of the hat,” Prosecutor Michael H. Robertson said in a statement to NJ.com. “Salvagno then took the victim by the arm and threw him to the ground, tipping over the victim’s cart of groceries and ultimately throwing the hat to the side.”

Salvagno was charged with disorderly persons offenses of assault and harassment, NJ.com reported.

The elderly victim received minor injuries but declined medical treatment.

NJ.com’s reporting of the assault has been factual and accurate, but their headlines have oddly downplayed the assault. They likely were not written by the author, since they differ from the reporting in the article.

The original article reporting the assault did include the phrase “physically assaulted,” but referred to the incident as a “dust-up over his MAGA hat.” Hard to say a physical assault resulted from a “dust-up,” but here we are.

In the follow-up article announcing Salvagno’s arrest, NJ.com went a step further. The words “physical assault” no longer appear in the headline, and the incident is now referred to as a “tug-of-war over MAGA hat that left 81-year-old injured, grocery cart toppled.”

Really? “Tug-of-war,” is what we’re calling it now? There’s no way this language would be used if a right-leaning person attacked a left-leaning person.

This NJ.com article was written the same day the Washington Post wrote about an assault on a right-leaning campus activist from the angle that conservatives were “enraged” about the response, making sure we all know only the Right cares that Leftists are physically assaulting right-leaning people. The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax was the story of the month until it was shown to be a hoax, but actual crimes against conservatives are completely acceptable to the Left.

After far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez railed hard against “farting cows” and beef, she was caught at dinner with a staffer who was eating a juicy hamburger.

Ocasio-Cortez was widely mocked for her attack on “farting cows” in her Green New Deal, but she doubled down on her stance last week on Showtime’s “Desus & Mero” late-night show.

The self-identified socialist explained that she wanted to “take a look at” factory farming and went on to suggest against eating beef.

“But it’s to say, ‘listen, we gotta address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real,’” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Ocasio-Cortez defends wanting to regulate cow farts: “Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.”pic.twitter.com/X3WBz7wWhO

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) February 22, 2019

TRENDING: James Woods Shares Incredible Moment from Iranian Hijab Protests: ‘This Is What a Hero Looks Like’

But apparently the socialist’s own staff doesn’t follow her advice.

On Tuesday, conservatives on Twitter began circulating a photo of Ocasio-Cortez at dinner with a hamburger-clutching staffer. Fox News identified Ocasio-Cortez’ companion as her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti. The restaurant was unidentified.

pic.twitter.com/i9uivY2CZZ

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

pic.twitter.com/48MxWOJDNr

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

Instead of addressing the blatant hypocrisy here, Twitter liberals, including Ocasio-Cortez herself, had a meltdown and slammed the photo as “creepy.”

The conservative obsession with AOC manifests itself in the strangest ways. This creep-shot thread is really something. https://t.co/ExHHgoALQv

— Will Sommer (@willsommer) February 27, 2019

RELATED: Lying AOC’s ‘Affordable’ Green New Deal Would Cost 12 Years’ Income for Every American Household

Tonight a dude was creepily (and obviously) taking a picture of me while pretending he wasn’t and I had to break his imaginary fourth wall and say “Hi! I’m a person! This is weird!” https://t.co/JnybvVubVh

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 27, 2019

But the representative’s complaints would have more weight if liberals applied them to their own supporters.

In fact, the whole outcry just  proves the left’s hypocrisy even further because they’re known to ambush politicians in restaurants while their representatives cheer it on.

In comparison, a simple photograph is harmless.

As conservative journalist Caleb Hull pointed out, the left has “endorsed confronting people in the Trump administration anywhere in public and has run them out of restaurants repeatedly.”

My dude your party literally endorsed confronting people in the Trump administration anywhere in public and has run them out of restaurants repeatedly. I think you can handle someone sending me a pic of her COS eating a hamburger after she told the country to eat less of them.

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) February 27, 2019

Sometimes the conservative outrage toward Ocasio-Cortez gets a bit out of hand, such as the “controversy” over an old video of her dancing.

But this instance isn’t misplaced outrage. Ocasio-Cortez wants to control what Americans eat and disrupt an important industry in rural America, but her own staffer is unwilling to comply with her advice.

So you think a powerful politician who is trying to impose her will on Americans and force them to make the food choices she wants shouldn’t have her hypocrisy pointed out? Interesting.

— EducatëdHillbilly™ (@RobProvince) February 27, 2019

With many ridiculous far-left policy proposals, Ocasio-Cortez and her staff are following the old hypocritical liberal practice of “it’s good for thee, but not for me.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Every elementary school in Ontario, Canada, will be forced to fly the gay pride flag for at least one week in June, which is Pride Month in the province. Greater Essex County District School Board nearly unanimously voted on the motion last week; the only dissenting voice on the board was swiftly shut down.

“The rainbow flag, symbol of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, will fly in front of all public elementary schools for at least one week during Pride Month in June,” reported Windsor Star.

Greater Essex County District School Board vice chairman Julia Burgess, who introduced the motion, said the flag will let students know that “we have their back.”

“When you’re in elementary school, and you’re just coming into adolescence, it’s a very vulnerable time. You may not have a lot of peers like you. The Pride flag tells them we have their back,” said Burgess at the board meeting, adding: “It’s a statement that we are going to recognize we’re a diverse, safe, welcoming board.”

According to Windsor Star, the main office and all high schools within the district have been flying the gay pride flags — which includes the color purple, representing gender identity, or transgenderism — during Pride month since 2016. The new measure expands the compulsory flag-flying to also include elementary schools.

Linda Qin, the sole trustee to question the mandate explained that the flag might confuse such young children, particularly with concern to gender identity. Qin, however, was swiftly shut down.

“The kids are so young,” she argued. “The flag may make them confused. I wonder if we’re misleading them about the idea of gender. We want to be careful.”

The trustee noted that she has knowledge of a student being bullied by “aggressive” pro-LGBT folks.

Qin was told her time was up, according to Windsor Star, and was cut off by chairwoman Jessica Sartori.

“Who wouldn’t be proud to fly that flag?” an emotional Sartori asked, who said she flies the gay pride flag at her home.

Another trustee, Gale Simko-Hatfield, suggested the mandate be optional for schools, and mandated down the road, instead.

“It’s what the community is comfortable with,” argued Simko-Hatfield. “I don’t think we’ve reached out to elementary schools to see what they think.”

It’s unclear how or if schools will be punished for refusing to fly gay pride flags, but Simko-Hatfield’s idea to make the measure optional was outright dismissed by Burgess.

Others at the meeting said flying the flag at elementary schools was not enough.

“We also need to have a lot of (LGBT) education,” said trustee Cathy Cooke.

A woman named Melissa Piva, whose child began identifying as “gender creative” at age five, was seemingly onboard with Cooke, too.

Piva’s son allegedly told her while they were shopping that he was a girl and needed to buy dresses so that others knew, too. “When she was in Grade 1, Piva said in a moving presentation, school staff liked to debate which bathroom her daughter should use. The next year, her teacher kept referring to her as ‘he’ and ‘him.’ Other kids said, ‘She’s just a boy who likes to pretend she’s a girl,'” Windsor Star reported.

As noted by LifeSiteNews, Peel District School Board similarly voted in May to fly the gay pride flag. “The board was lobbied by Pride Employee Resource Group (PERG) and heard emotional appeals in favor of raising the flag from parents of ‘gender-creative’ children and homosexual parents in a May meeting packed with LGBT activists wearing pink,” reported the outlet.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unveiled a plan Thursday that would provide $5 billion to federalize school choice by setting up a nationwide federal tax-credit scholarship program.

DeVos is taking her federalized school choice plan to Congress where it will be introduced in legislation in the Senate by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) and in the House by Rep. Bradley Byrne, a Republican from Alabama.

Many who have been urging the Trump administration to dismantle the federal education department, however, warn another federalized program will further expand overreach into education. The U.S. Constitution provides for no federal role in education, except in the nation’s capital, in the military, and among Native American tribes.

“While school choice is critical and often undervalued, a federal school choice program reaches beyond the constitutional mandate of the federal government, and presents a real danger to private education in the future,” wrote Inez Feltscher Stepman at the Federalist Thursday. “If it passes, this latest example of federal overreach could be the Trump administration’s equivalent to the Common Core debacle, and worse, could taint one of the most important reforms advanced by conservatives in the states.”

As U.S. News & World Report observed, under DeVos’s proposal, individuals and companies would obtain a federal tax credit if they donate to organizations offering scholarships to students to attend the schools of their choice.

Individuals and companies would be allowed to donate up to ten percent of their adjusted gross income.

Many of the details of the federalized program, such as who is eligible, education providers permitted to participate, and accountability for the federal taxpayer funds would be given to the states – although, as with Common Core, the incentive to create such programs would come from the federal government.

“This is an opportunity for states to take advantage of money that would be available to them, for programs that they design,” said an unnamed education department official, according to Education Week.

In her prepared remarks announcing the Education Freedom Scholarships and Opportunity Act, DeVos said her plan was not a “mandate,” but then focused on her vision of how the federal government would incentivize states to sign onto her new plan:

The key element of the proposal is freedom. Freedom for everyone involved. Students, families, teachers, schools, states can choose to participate in the program. Or they can elect not to participate. That’s what freedom is all about.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe every state should embrace education freedom. But those are decisions families and communities must make. This is not another mandate.

We know gaining this freedom will require more work in some states than others. But as more states offer more options to families, demand will rise and pressure will mount on those who have not yet embraced the opportunity.

While conservatives and constitutionalists heartily support parental choice of education options, they draw a bold line where the federal government takes over the project or incentivizes states to enact it through federal taxpayer funds.

Neal McCluskey, Cato Institute’s director of the Center for Educational Freedom, tweeted the title of his blog post that spells out his concerns about the new federalized plan:

Even Something as Great as School Choice Should Not Be Federalized https://t.co/GKbaGOKXFI via @CatoInstitute Hot take time! #CatoCEF @ChoiceMediatv @JasonBedrick @EricaLG @laurameckler @MichaelPetrilli @EducationNext @BenjaminEW @laurenonthehill

— Neal McCluskey (@NealMcCluskey) February 28, 2019

“School choice is about individualization and freedom, and almost certainly that is what DeVos, Cruz, and Byrne want,” McCluskey wrote. “But federal initiatives are a terrible way to deliver that. The reality is that what the feds fund, even indirectly, they inevitably want to control.”

He continued:

DeVos, Cruz, and Byrne are looking to skirt the control problem, sticking with tax credits instead of vouchers, and letting states opt in. But not only is this unconstitutional—taxes are authorized to execute specific, enumerated powers, not to lightly engineer state policy—it won’t, ultimately, prevent encroaching federal control. If enacted, the credit would spur people to demand their states participate, and as more schools benefited from federally connected scholarships all schools would be financially pressured to use them. But the federal government will have the power to decide which state programs are or are not eligible, and on what grounds.

Wisconsin homeschooling parent Tina Hollenbeck told Breitbart News the proposal is “well-meaning, but misguided.”

“DeVos even alluded to the fact that the federal government would use pressure to ‘encourage’ every state to take these ‘scholarships,’ which means she’d also ‘encourage’ eventual collection of data on all homeschoolers, not just the ones taking the credit,” Hollenbeck said. “That should chill every homeschooler to the bone! I do not believe such a consequence is part of Sen. Cruz’s motivation, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. ”

Lindsey Burke, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, and Adam Michel, a senior policy analyst in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, warned such an effort could actually reverse the school choice gains already made as well as recent tax policy reforms.

“It’s wonderful that the Administration wants to advance school choice but a nationwide federal tax-credit scholarship program is the wrong way to do it,” they said in a statement. “This could open the door for further education regulations down the road that neutralize the advantages of private education as well as impede future tax reform efforts.”

Burke and Michel highlighted the concerns voiced often by the conservative base of Trump’s Party, including that such a proposal “would grow, rather than reduce, federal intervention in education.”

“Future administrations could use a federal tax-credit scholarship to require that schools adhere to certain admissions and accountability policies,” they added. “That would mean the federal government could further dictate testing, reporting, academic content, and even bathroom policies for all schools involved.”

Stepman also warned that because parental choice of education options is so important, “we should be loathe to expose it to the heavy hands of federal regulators.”

“Even if Republicans get a perfectly clean version of the tax credit through Congress—a tall order given the composition of the House—the door would be open for future Democratic administrations to extend a regulatory toehold into every private school that accepted students on scholarship,” she asserted.