Posted on

Nolte: Growing Poll Numbers Show America Is Finally on the Right Track

The right track/wrong track numbers are the best we’ve seen since February of 2017, reports Rasmussen polling, and well above the dismal numbers that defined the last year of Barack Obama’s failed presidency.

Currently, the Rasmussen weekly poll of 2,500 likely voters shows that 45 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction, while 51 percent say we are headed in the wrong direction.

The previous week, the right track number was 40 percent, while the wrong track sat at 55 percent.

So what we have here is the best showing for this number, in this particular poll, in three years.

The good folks over at RealClearPolitics (RCP) also keep track of this number in their poll of polls. As of now, the RCP average is that 39 percent see us on the right track, while 54 percent say the wrong track. That’s a 15 point spread.

Granted, that is a much wider spread than Rasmussen, but the average of that number in the RCP poll of polls has been steadily improving since October of 2017, when the spread was 36 points — 28 percent right track, 64 percent wrong.

What’s more, if you look at the right/track wrong track numbers throughout Obama’s presidency, except for the very beginning of his hopey/changey administration, and a very short time in December of 2012, the right track/wrong track number was much, much wider during his eight years — we’re talking about a steady 25 to 35 percent gap.

There is just no question that under Trump, more people are satisfied with the direction of the country.

And why wouldn’t they be?

Although the fake new media have spent three years attempting to sow discord and disruption with their various anti-Trump hoaxes (Russia collusion, hate crimes, Ukraine, etc.), thanks in large part to Trump’s policies abroad and at home we are, for the first time since September 11, 2001, enjoying an era of real peace and prosperity.

Obama’s stupid economic policies — higher taxes and the looming threat of even higher ones, over-regulation, the Obamacare boondoggle, and all the uncertainty — put a boot on the throat of what should have been a robust recovery after the 2008 recession. Overseas, Obama was unsure (Syria) or stupidly interventionalist (Libya) while allowing ISIS to flourish.

And let’s not forget the non-stop anxiety with our southern border constantly under siege by waves and waves of illegal immigrants, a problem Trump is a long way from solving, but thanks to his diplomatic work with Mexico and the border wall, this is also improving.

So far, Trump has beautifully managed foreign policy in a way that has not only kept us out of foreign entanglements, he’s also tamped down aggressors such as North Korea and Iran. And let’s not forget how he whupped ISIS or how he solved an ancient border dispute between Syria and Turkey while the fake news media were yelling about a coming Kurd holocaust and World War III.

On top of that, the economy is booming: jobs are being created, real wages are up for the first time in decades, energy prices are low, and the Trump policies that have made us energy independent have ensured no spike in pump costs when things go sideways overseas — such as this recent dust up with Iran. Honestly, you cannot overestimate how this kind of stability affects people’s peace of mind.

Going back to 2015, I’ve kept a close eye on the right track/wrong track numbers. The gap in these numbers over the previous ten years, reaching all the way back to George W. Bush’s presidency, told me people were desperate for change, and that 2016 could not be a match-up between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton (as the experts predicted). People desperately wanted something new. Why would they go back to Clinton and Bush?

Well, I was wrong about Clinton. Hideous Hillary won the primary, but Bernie did give her a helluva run, and Bernie is a 485-year-old Marxist. How’s that for change?

In the GOP 2016 field, though, Republicans chose the least-conventional candidate of my lifetime, and it paid off with a White House win. Regardless of how people feel about Trump personally, the right track/wrong track numbers show a stable sense of satisfaction with the way things are going for the first time some 15 years.

That’s a big deal.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

Harvard Embraces Debunked ‘Implicit Bias’ Test that Labels You a Racist

A popular quiz on Harvard University’s website was designed in 1998 by psychologists to determine a person’s level of subconscious racism.  Although the test has been thoroughly debunked by researchers since its introduction, it has remained a fixture of progressive activism.

The “implicit bias” test, known formally as the “Implicit Association test,” is a test designed by psychologists Anthony Greenwald, Debbie McGhee, and Jordan Schwartz to determine a person’s subconscious racism. Mahzarin Banaji, who has served as the chair of the psychology department at Harvard University, also contributed to the project. The test has received much fanfare from progressives since its introduction in 1998.

The test, which can now be taken online, asks participants to respond to a series of photos of human faces. As words flash on the screen, participants are then asked to categorize them as “positive” or “negative.” The test analyzes the participant’s responses and tells them whether or not they carry subconscious biases. “Project Implicit,” the organization that is in charge of maintaining the online test, has partnered with Harvard University to expand its reach. The test is currently hosted on Harvard’s website.

However, there is a problem with the test. Researchers across the political spectrum have questioned its accuracy. One study conducted of the “implicit association test” revealed that it had a test-retest reliability of 0.60, meaning that individual participants would likely receive a different test result after taking the test for a second time.

VOX Senior Correspondent German Lopez published a column in March 2017 entitled “For years, this popular test measured anyone’s racial bias. But it might not work after all.” After Lopez first took the test, it told him that he carried no preference for white or black people. But Lopez took the test again to confirm its consistency. To Lopez’s surprise, he received a different result each additional time he took the test.

I took the IAT again a few days later. This time, I wasn’t so happy with my results: It turns out I had a slight automatic preference for white people. According to this, I was a little racist at the subconscious level — against black people.

Then I took the test again later on. This time, my results genuinely surprised me: It found once again that I had a slight automatic preference — only now it was in favor of black people. I was racist, but against white people, according to the test.

New York Magazine published a column detailing the trials and tribulations of the “implicit association” test.

“The IAT, it turns out, has serious issues on both the reliability and validity fronts, which is surprising given its popularity and the very exciting claims that have been made about its potential to address racism,” columnist Jesse Singal wrote. “That’s what the research says, at least, and it raises serious questions about how the IAT became such a social-science darling in the first place.”

Breitbart News reported in July that the researchers behind the “implicit association test” still defend the project despite concerns about its accuracy.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

Watch Live: Pro-Life Advocates Lay 3,000 Flowers Outside SCOTUS to Remember Preborn

Pro-life advocates are laying 3,000 flowers at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to remember the number of babies that are aborted each day in the United States.

January 22 is National Sanctity of Human Life Day and also the marks the 47th year after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that made abortion on demand the law of the land.

“Since that tragic day in 1973, more than 61 million innocent children have been brutally killed by abortion,” the National Pro-Life Center’s website states. “That number continues to climb as 3,000 precious lives are aborted every day.”

The website covers the history of the remembrance effort:

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation designating January 22 as the first National Sanctity of Human Life Day. Part of the proclamation states: “I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life, and to reaffirm our commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of each human life.”

Pro-life supporters sponsored each of the flowers laid out on Wednesday.

On Friday, the annual March for Life takes place on the National Mall in Washington, DC, and thousands of pro-life supporters are expected to attend from across the country.

The “Remembering the Pre-born, Flowers and Prayer Vigil” takes place at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. The organizers of the event is the group Faith and Liberty.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

Supreme Court Hears Blockbuster Case On Religious School Choice

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning heard oral argument in the crucial First Amendment religious liberty case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The legal issue, as framed by SCOTUSblog, is “[w]hether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.”

Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes the importance of Espinoza through the prism of the Court’s recent First Amendment religious liberty jurisprudence:

Two and a half years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri’s policy of excluding churches from a program to provide grants to resurface playgrounds violated the Constitution. In a footnote in their opinion in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the justices emphasized that their decision was limited to the facts before them and did “not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.” [In Espinoza], the justices will return to the question they left open in Trinity Lutheran, when they review a decision by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating a tax-credit program because the scholarships created by the program could be used at religious schools.

The Montana state constitutional provision challenged in Espinoza is a so-called “Blaine Amendment” — an unfortunate area of law that has its insidious origins in blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. First Liberty Institute‘s Jeremy Dys explained the sordid history yesterday in a Daily Wire op-ed calling for the Court to end “Blaine Amendments” once and for all:

In 1875, … [James] Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.

His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.

For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”

Ilya Shapiro, who filed a “friend of the court brief” on behalf of Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, is optimistic that the Court will do precisely what Justice Thomas called for it to do in Mitchell. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Shapiro opined: “The Supreme Court has the opportunity here to remove the last legal barrier to school choice, and I think it’s poised to do so. Constitutional principles of free exercise and equal protection don’t allow Montana to exclude religious groups from public benefits solely because of their religious nature. Similarly, there’s no room in Supreme Court precedent to exclude religious schools from programs structured around private choice (as opposed to, say, direct taxpayer funding of devotional education).”

In an additional Daily Wire op-ed published this morning, Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty (JCRL) General Counsel Howard Slugh also lambasted the bigotry of Blaine’s legacy. “Espinoza has a strong legal basis for her claims,” Slugh wrote. “The Supreme Court recently indicated [in Trinity Lutheran] that excluding a religious organization ‘from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely’ because it is religious ‘is odious to our Constitution … and cannot stand.’ The Supreme Court should strike down Montana’s Blaine Amendment based on the same reasoning.”

Slugh, who filed a “friend of the court brief” on behalf of JCRL, was in attendance this morning at the Supreme Court oral argument. Speaking exclusively with The Daily Wire, Slugh described what he saw: “I was very pleased with how the oral argument went. It seemed that at least five justices understood that the key issue in this case is whether it was permissible for the Montana Supreme Court to act pursuant to a law that, on its face, requires discrimination against religious people without even considering whether such discrimination is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. The answer to that question is that it is not permissible, and at least five justices seemed to support that position.”

Proponents of religious liberty and school choice ought to hope that Slugh’s intuition proves prescient.

via The Daily Wire

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

Posted on

Every Voice Matters for Life

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  Since January 22 marks the 47th year since the U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton which legalized the killing of an unborn baby’s life for any reason and at any stage of development, President Donald Trump proclaims today as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

Since 1973, approximately 62 million unborn U.S. children have been taken from what should be the safest place—the womb.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation designating January 22 as the National Sanctity of Human Life Day as the result of the influence of one woman, Dr. Mildred Jefferson, who worked tirelessly in support of personhood for every unborn child.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

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

Posted on

Construction Worker Allegedly Kills Pro-Trump Boss After Arguing Politics, Puts American Flag Over His Body

A political argument in Florida turned deadly this week when a construction worker allegedly killed his pro-Donald Trump boss and then draped an American flag over his dead body.

“A construction worker in Florida has been accused of murdering his pro-Trump boss with a trowel after a political argument on the construction site where they both worked and then throwing an American flag on the man’s body,” reports ABC News.

The suspect, 28-year-old Mason Trever Toney, allegedly stabbed his boss, William Steven Knight, Monday morning at Florida Turnpike job site, according to an emergency phone call from Toney’s co-workers. Though the exact details of the conversation between Toney and his boss have not been disclosed, the argument was political in nature.

“The Orange County Sheriff’s Office says that the murder appears related to a political dispute between the men,” continued ABC News. “Knight was a big supporter of President Donald Trump while Toney was anti-government. … When deputies arrived they found Knight’s body lying next to an excavator on the job site with a brand new American flag thrown onto the side of the victim’s body that didn’t belong to anybody on the site, according to the arrest affidavit.”

Toney’s arrest affidavit noted he was “very outspoken about his beliefs that the government is bad and out to get him.”

Toney allegedly fled the scene of the murder in a white pick-up truck before being taken into custody after crashing the vehicle amidst a police pursuit.

Since the election of President Trump, attacks on Trump supporters, primarily those in MAGA hats, have occurred on several occasions. Newsweek provided an account of these incidences that have occurred since 2016:

Terry Price has told his children and his wife they are not allowed to wear their “Make America great again” hats in public without him by their side after a man held a gun to his head for wearing the red cap.

Price, from Bowling Green, Kentucky, previously told Newsweek that he and his wife were shopping at Sam’s Club in Bowling Green wearing the hats when James Phillips, 57, allegedly pointed a Glock .40 caliber gun at Price’s face. Phillips allegedly told Price “this is a good day for you to die.” He was arrested and charged with wanton endangerment.

Following the incident, Price said some of his friends changed their party affiliations from Democrats to Republicans because they could no longer “identify with a party that has so much hate.”

“It’s just gone too far,” Price recently told Newsweek. “Republicans, conservatives and Christians need to stand up and take action against this kind of hate.”

However, while such attacks indeed illustrate the intense hatred that some conservatives face, especially at protests, that doesn’t necessarily mean walking down the street in MAGA hat will automatically be met with violence, despite the fact that some members of the media have likened them to Klan hoods. In fact, writing for Los Angeles Magazine, Joel Stein wore a MAGA hat to one of the most left-wing restaurants in Los Angeles and was pleasantly surprised that nobody confronted him.

via The Daily Wire

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

Posted on

British Scientists May Have Found Cure For Cancer. By Accident.

British scientists may have discovered a cure for cancer — by accident.

As The Telegraph reports, “Researchers at Cardiff University were analyzing blood from a bank in Wales, looking for immune cells that could fight bacteria, when they found an entirely new type of T-cell. That new immune cell carries a never-before-seen receptor which acts like a grappling hook, latching on to most human cancers, while ignoring healthy cells.”

What makes this new discovery so exciting is that prior therapies, referred to as CAR-T and TCR-T therapies, which use immune cells to attach to HLA molecules on cancer cells’ surface, fight cancer but are incapable of fighting solid tumors. As The Telegraph points out, HLA molecules vary in people, but the new therapy attaches to a molecule called MR1, which does not vary in humans, which gives it the chance of fighting most cancers and additionally means people could share the treatment, allowing banks of the cells to be stored and thus be offered quickly to people suffering from the disease.

Immune cells from the new treatment have killed lung, skin, blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney and cervical cancer cells. The study stated:

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-independent, T cell-mediated targeting of cancer cells would allow immune destruction of malignancies in all individuals. Here, we use genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screening to establish that a T cell receptor recognized and killed most human cancer types via the monomorphic MHC class-I related protein, MR1, while remaining inert to noncancerous cells … These finding offer opportunities for HLA-independent, pan-cancer, pan-population immunotherapies.

The study concluded, “In summary, we describe a TCR that exhibits pan-cancer recognition via the variant MR1 molecule, and, by equipping patients with melanoma T cells that lacked detectable cancer reactivity with the MC.7 G5 TCR, we rendered the T-cells capable of killing autologous melanoma.”

Professor Andrew Sewell, lead author on the study, enthused to the Telegraph, “This was a serendipitous finding, nobody knew this cell existed. Our finding raises the prospect of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ cancer treatment, a single type of T-cell that could be capable of destroying many different types of cancers across the population. Previously nobody believed this could be possible.”

Astonishingly,T-cells of skin cancer patients altered by the treatment were apparently capable of killing the patient’s cancer cells and other patients’ cancer cells as well. The team of researchers posited that trials on terminally ill patients could conceivably start in November.

Professor Oliver Ottmann, Cardiff University’s Head of Haematology, stated: “This new type of T-cell therapy has enormous potential to overcome current limitations of CAR-T, which has been struggling to identify suitable and safe targets for more than a few cancer types.”

Professor Awen Gallimore of Cardiff University’s division of infection and immunity and cancer immunology lead for the Wales Research Centre, added, “If this transformative new finding holds up, it will lay the foundation for a ‘universal’ T-cell medicine, mitigating against the tremendous costs associated with the identification, generation and manufacture of personalized T-cells.  This is truly exciting and potentially a great step forward for the accessibility of cancer immunotherapy.”

The research was published here.

 

 

 

via The Daily Wire

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

Posted on

CREEPY AND BIZARRE: Biden Has INSANE Meltdown on Reporter When Asked About His Attacks on Sanders (VIDEO)

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden had an extremely bizarre and unsettling reaction to a reporter asking him about his latest attacks on fellow candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Appearing at a campaign event in Mason City, Iowa, Biden was asked by Ed O’Keefe of CBS why he continued to attack Sanders, despite accepting his apology over an op-ed by one of the Vermont senator’s surrogates, which called the former Vice President “corrupt.”

In response to the question, Biden turned to the reporter and repeatedly shouted “why why why why why why” before telling the reporter to “calm down,” adding “you’re getting nervous, man.”

Biden went on to say that Sanders apologized for saying he was corrupt, but did not say anything about whether or not he was telling the truth about social security.

True to form, Biden had his hands all over the reporter during the incredibly creepy exchange — even jabbing him in the chest before walking away.

The post CREEPY AND BIZARRE: Biden Has INSANE Meltdown on Reporter When Asked About His Attacks on Sanders (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

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

Posted on

Texas Church Hero: Bloomberg’s Gun Controls Would Have Meant ‘Carnage’

Texas church hero Jack Wilson said that Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg’s gun control positions would have rendered congregants defenseless on the day of the church attack.

On December 29, 2019, an attacker opened fire on congregants at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. Within second the attacker was killed by armed congregant Wilson, while other armed congregants also drew their guns and walked toward the shooter.

On December 30, 2019, Breitbart News reported Wilson commenting on his actions, saying, “I feel like I killed evil.”

Bloomberg addressed the Texas church shooting by saying he does not believe congregants should be armed.

On January 3, 2020, Breitbart News reported that Bloomberg did praise the heroics of armed congregants, but said gun possession ought to be reserved for law enforcement.

Wilson warned that Bloomberg’s gun control would have cost congregants’ lives the day of the attack, because they would have been defenseless until police arrived, Fox News reported.

He said, “Even though the White Settlement police department did arrive in roughly two minutes from the time the first call went it, by that time…the carnage would have been much, much worse.”

Wilson suggested that if Bloomberg would give up his armed guards he could better understand the struggle of the common man.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

via Breitbart News

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

Posted on

Florida GOP Leader Joe Gruters: Politicians Are Afraid of Standing Up to Big Tech

Florida state senator and GOP chairman Joe Gruters joined Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alex Marlow on Breitbart News Daily Tuesday to discuss his bill to defeat social media censorship.

Identifying the social media giants as the new “digital public square,” Sen. Gruters said censorship is a “First Amendment thing — it’s freedom of speech, the right to be out there, the right to be heard.”

Gruters went on to thank Breitbart News for helping to spread the truth about social media censorship.

“This is the second time we’ve brought it up. The good news is there’s momentum growing. There are now fourteen variations of this same bill that [have] now been introduced across the country. And it’s bipartisan — we’ve got [state] senator Gabbard to introduce it in Hawaii of all places, the father of the presidential candidate.”

“I think it’s unfair that conservatives are being targeted [in] the way that they are. I think we need to step up, and I think we need to realize that these large social media companies [are] the digital public square.”

“I never see [Breitbart’s] news in the Google searches, it never comes up. They definitely suppress conservative voices.”

“We are in the fight for our lives in this presidential cycle, there’s no question about it. We’re fortunate here in Florida to have America’s most popular governor, Ron DeSantis, and that’s really going to help us carry the day.”

“A lot of times these bills take a couple of years to filter through the system. I think we can get a senate hearing this year; I’m hoping to move it past one or two committees. I think we’re still a year out from passing the actual bill — so I don’t think it will happen in 2020, I’m thinking maybe 2021… [but] there’s an outside chance we could pass it this year.”

“We’re going to push, and do everything we possibly can, but this a difficult subject — a lot of people don’t want to take on these big social media companies because they’re afraid of the repercussions. And listen, they are heavy-handed, they do play a role in the political system here in Florida, and no-one wants to get on their bad side.”

“The problem, as a candidate, if you get banned — look at Laura Loomer: she can’t do anything on social media, she can’t even take an Uber or a Lyft, she’s been banned from all the platforms — it is a problem … Look at everyone looking at their phones, all day long, they’re on all these social media giants, checking their status, checking other people, and when you can’t communicate, for me, it comes right back to violating your freedom of speech and being able to be out there in the digital public square and say your peace.”

“We’ve got to continue to push this across the country — once we get one state that passes it, hopefully it [gives] courage and strength to other leaders around the country to do the same thing, to make sure we protect conservative candidates and conservatives overall from being censored.”

Are you an insider at Google, Facebook, Twitter or any other tech company who wants to confidentially reveal wrongdoing or political bias at your company? Reach out to Allum Bokhari at his secure email address allumbokhari@protonmail.com. 

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News.

via Breitbart News

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