Category: Links from other news sources.

Categories
Biden Cartel Crime Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Social Venues-Twitter The Law

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

Rep. Jim Jordan: Facebook Docs Tie WH to Censorship.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, released a Twitter Files-like thread Thursday, where he revealed what he called a Facebook censorship operation by President Joe Biden’s White House.

Jordan’s “Facebook Files Part 1” alleged the White House and administration officials pressured Facebook to censor Americans with “unconstitutional” force, including work to block “a meme” about vaccination, and a Tucker Carlson video.

There are so many more tweets to this travesty.

Categories
Education Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Racism Reprints from others.

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.

Telling it like it is. Twitter Photo.

Giving Up the Bad Faith of Affirmative Action.

GLENN LOURY

with John McWhorter and Peter Arcidiacono

One of the more interesting footnotes to the Students for Fair Admissions case doesn’t involve what happened. It involves what didn’t happen. After the decision came down, liberals and the left voiced their dismay at the result. There was a little organized protesting, but it was nothing compared to the massive waves of mobilization that attended the Dobbs decision on abortion, despite the fact that the result was predictable in both cases.

Perhaps that’s to be expected. Dobbs is, in my view, the more consequential decision. It has the potential to directly affect far more people than Students for Fair Admissions. But I think there is another factor at play. Most people already suspected what the latter case demonstrated—that race-based affirmative action is a discriminatory practice. It was both unjust and unpopular, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. The relatively muted response from some of the left could signal a tacit decision to relinquish the legerdemain and enforced silence and bad faith necessary to keep the policy going. I can’t help but think that, whatever attitude they present to the public, some affirmative action defenders are secretly relieved that they can now turn their attention elsewhere.

Of course, I’m only speculating. And the fight over racial preferences in college admissions is not nearly over. It’s too big a business to simply vanish; elite institutions have invested too much in it to just give it up. This week’s episode features Duke economist Peter Arcidiacono, the man who led the herculean effort to analyze the data that made Students for Fair Admissions’ case. As Peter says, that data is clear. Now that it’s out in the open, any of the “good liberals” who defended affirmative action as a matter of principle while privately harboring doubts as to its logical and moral coherence have an offramp. They can let it go. The questions is, will they?

GLENN LOURY: Peter was the main guy—correct me if I get anything wrong, Peter—in the data analysis marathon that had to be undertaken in order to parse through the information made available by Harvard University, quantitative information on its admissions policies, what exactly was going on. And he faced off against the estimable David Card—Nobel fame, UC-Berkeley—who was the lead witness for the defendant, Harvard University, in the litigation. And he prevailed.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Not at first, but in the end, yes.

So what were the scientific questions, the academic questions, which you’ve been engaged with that were relevant to the litigation.

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, what was relevant to litigation was, was there a penalty against Asian Americans? And also how big the preferences were at these different schools.

JOHN MCWHORTER: There’s nothing sadder than the position of an individual Asian student today at these universities. They are so muzzled. You can often tell what they do think about all of this, but you can’t say that in their social circles. And so they don’t. I’ve seen a couple of them actually change color as they talk about it. It’s weird.

I told one of them, I’m sorry that you are in selective university at this time, because this must be a really tough thing to have any kind of constructive conversation about. Except, I imagine, among yourselves. And one of them kind of smiled. I mean, you can tell what’s going on. It’s hard, but this had to happen. It was time.

Peter, I’m glad that you did this. What in your gut got you onto this? Because, of course, some people are going to say, “Peter, it’s just racism,” and there’s a certain kind of crowd who will applaud. I know it’s not that, but what interested you about this?

PETER ARCIDIACONO: Well, I think that came about through my own experience as an undergraduate and seeing how much easier the economics classes were than the chemistry classes, so then studying higher education. And then back in 2011 when there was a protest over one of my papers on this, seeing universities not really willing to engage in dialogue about how best to improve the experiences here.

That probably set me on this path. What that paper showed was, it was really about a data fact. You look at white males, they come in, those who want to do STEM and economics, they switch out at a rate of eight percent. This is at Duke. Black males interested in STEM and economics switch out at a rate of over fifty percent.

And nothing happened after that. You know, we just sort of let the protests happen, everything sort of died away, nothing changes. And I think it relates, actually—I know you wrote about this—the Georgetown Law professor who got caught on video lamenting the poor performance of her black students.

Sandra Sellers.

SANDRA SELLERS: I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester that a lot of my lower ones are blacks. Happens almost every semester. And it’s like, oh, come on. You get some really good ones, but there are also usually some that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy

PETER ARCIDIACONO: And she got torn to pieces.

And to me, that’s a feature not a bug for affirmative action. When you come in, you’re going to be behind your peers. That’s by definition, unless we’re screening on things that we shouldn’t be screening. So that idea, you’re going to come in behind, the performance relative to your peers is going to be worse. It could still be a good thing that you’re going to the better school and have a better outcome. But it’s a definite feature of the system that you will be further down on the last rank. So now you have a system where actually they come in with the university saying, “We want you so much. We’re willing to give you big preferences.” And they come out thinking the place is racist. That doesn’t seem so good.

JOHN MCWHORTER: It’s not so good. It makes no sense whatsoever. It’s one of the aspects of all of this that really is as peculiar as discussions medieval Europeans had about matters of religion and philosophy, where again, you have to be very careful to understand what the terminology is, what things you’re not supposed to look at and why. Truly peculiar that you have that kind of preference, and yet the stylish attitude by the time you’re finished is that you’ve just gone through some sort of racist hazing.

And it really will perplex people in say a hundred years, maybe even in fifty, to look back on the state of our discussion with this and to see something like what Sandra Sellers was lamenting. And for the good thinking idea to have been that there’s nothing wrong with that, that that’s not something that we need to try to fix, and it doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. And I think that everybody will understand why a few of us weird renegades back in the early twenty-first century thought it did. It does.

I think it’s going to happen a lot quicker than fifty years. I think it’s happening before our very eyes. I mean, Peter pointed out that this decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, did not engender the same kind of backlash from the left of revulsion and political determination to do something about it that the Dobbs decision on the abortion question did, even though it is resolving in a “conservative” direction of one of the big questions of constitutional law of the last half-century. It is historic in representing a kind of transformation of the law in its way, as was the Dobbs decision. It didn’t engender the same kind of backlash.

And I think this house of cards which Peter described—I mean, the Sandra Sellers thing is a predictable consequence. As he says, it’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a predictable consequence. And then you’re going to have a witch hunt and you’re going to go around and cut people’s heads off if they observe that it’s true. And then everybody can see it. It’s not like it’s not common knowledge that there are these implications of preferences. It’s corrupt.

I think Justice Clarence Thomas deserves to be recognized here as, for decades, having made this argument about the affront to the dignity of the beneficiaries of preference, the fact that they’re not being taken seriously as persons of whom it is reasonable to expect performance like anybody else. You’re patting the beneficiaries on the head. You’re turning them into baubles to wear on a charm bracelet around your wrist, representing the various colors of the demographic universe. You’re not taking them seriously. That’s what I would say.

Categories
Biden Cartel Links from other news sources. Politics Reprints from others.

Hunter Biden Admits in Court He Made $664K from CEFC China Energy, Contradicting Joe Biden’s Claims.

Joe directing where the money should go.

Hunter Biden Admits in Court He Made $664K from CEFC China Energy, Contradicting Joe Biden’s Claims.

By Wendell Husebø

Hunter Biden’s lawyer, Chris Clark, admitted in court Wednesday the president’s son received $664,000 from CEFC China Energy Co. in 2017, contradicting President Joe Biden’s claim Hunter Biden never received money from a Chinese entity.

During a hearing before U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, Clark revealed Hunter made over one million dollars in foreign business transactions, including $664,000 from CEFC, a company linked to the CCP and Chinese intelligence. Also got money from Romania and Ukraine.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Why Democrats Want to Destroy Kennedy on Jews and Israel.

Why Democrats Want to Destroy Kennedy on Jews and Israel.

By SHMULEY BOTEACH

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi” whom the Washington Post calls “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the author of “Judaism for Everyone” and “The Israel Warrior.” 

When he was just fourteen years old, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. received a phone call at his Jesuit boarding school in Bethesda, Maryland, informing him that his father, who had just won the California Democratic primary, had been shot. He flew to Los Angeles aboard Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s plane and was with this father when he died.

Bobby served as a pallbearer at his father’s funeral, and later read portions of father’s speeches at a mass commemorating his father’s death. The man who murdered his father was a Palestinian domestic terrorist named Sirhan Sirhan. As if all that horror wasn’t sufficiently unimaginable, leaders of the Jewish community are now attacking Bobby Kennedy Jr. as an antisemite.

There is much Bobby and I disagree on, from the legacy of his grandfather Joseph Kennedy, to the Covid-19 vaccines (I’m quintuple-vaxed), to American support for Ukraine. But to call Kennedy an antisemite is an affront to decency and is a straight-out lie that demeans the term, encourages the Jewish community to “cry wolf,” and slanders a great friend of Israel. Indeed, the hordes swarming Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with allegations of antisemitism are working overtime to conceal the big picture.

Kennedy is a lifelong friend of the Jewish community who has walked in the footsteps of his great father. As of now, he is the only major Democrat to come out against the Iran nuclear deal pursued by both President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden. He praised the Israeli recent counter-terror raid in Jenin – which Biden and his ambassador compared to a terror attack – saying that Israel protected civilians in ways no army had ever done before.

In politics, context – or lack of it – matters most. Jack Schlossberg, JFK’s only grandson, released a blistering tirade against his cousin. He ignored not only his cousin’s strong Jewish ties, but failed to note the fact that President Biden appointed his mother, the excellent Caroline Kennedy, as U.S. Ambassador to Australia – which surely presents an inescapable conflict of interest. 

The red meat with the highest irony-content came from my own Congressman Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), whom I’ve known for some 30 years, ever since our days together at Oxford. Josh called Kennedy a “disgrace to the Kennedy name,” as if he were not only the arbiter of antisemitism but Lord Marshall of Camelot, as well.

Meanwhile, when Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was voted off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Gottheimer rushed to defend her. He even cooked up a fraudulent pro-Israel statement for Omar to support.

All for naught. Just days later, Omar, a true antisemite, dropped the masquerade, vowing to “continue holding Israel accountable.” Right after that, Joe Rogan used Omar – famous for telling the world how much the Jews love their “Benjamins,” as an unfortunate pretext to launch a rant about how Jews love money as much as Italians love Pizza. 

Apparently, Gottheimer only fights the antisemites running against Biden.

Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz (D-FL), another tribune in Biden’s praetorian guard, made headlines for trying to silence and discredit Kennedy during his testimony at a U.S. House hearing on censorship last week.

But Wassermann Schultz leads the crusade against Kennedy as a transparent favor to President Biden, not for the Jewish community.

Like Gottheimer, Wassermann Schultz also fought to keep Omar on the House Foreign Relations Committee, saying, “There’s no reason to remove Congresswoman Omar from her committees except revenge.” Apparently, blaming Jewish “Benjamins” for controlling American policies and comparing Israel to the Taliban didn’t qualify.

Asked if she thought all Democrats would be united behind Omar, Wasserman Schultz replied, “Of course…”.

After all, as Biden panders to extremists and antisemites on the left while heaping insults on Israel’s elected leadership, it’s Wassermann Schultz who provides his problematic policies with a “Jewish” stamp of approval. 

Biden’s National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism disappointed American Jews by refusing to adopt the Jewish community’s preferred definition of antisemitism, that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). 

In the past, Wassermann Schultz was an evangelist for the IHRA. She said the definition crucially “promotes a common understanding of the issue״ and sends “a strong message that governments understand the threat.” But when Biden decided to spurn the IHRA and sanction the Nexus knockoff, Wassermann-Schultz still praised the plan and its “fitting” release on Jewish Heritage Month – as if tokenism could atone for negating the Jewish consensus. 

Wassermann Schultz is also complicit in the President’s mistreatment of Israel.

Biden repeatedly refused to invite Israel’s democratically-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in “gratuitous public fashion.” Even after Netanyahu told the press that Biden invited him to the U.S. over the phone, the White House went out of its way to omit the invitation from its readout of the call.

Even Morocco’s King Muhammed VI invited Netanyahu before Biden did. This is the same Biden who currently criticizes Israel’s government for being antidemocratic.

Perhaps for Israel’s next election, Biden ought to appoint whomever he believes should be in power, the Israeli electorate be damned. 

Atop the protracted insult of not inviting Netanyahu, Biden passed a mafia don message to Israel’s Prime Minister through Bibi’s foremost English-language critic, the New York Times’ Tom Friedman. After a 75-minute meeting in the Oval Office – time the President could have given Netanyahu – Friedman produced a devastating hit piece against at Bibi, topped off with a threat: “You ignore [Biden’s] sincere concerns at your peril.” 

Biden reportedly issued the warning to “correct” Netanyahu’s warm depiction of their phone call the previous day. The White House was seemingly concerned that Biden’s coldness was being overlooked. 

That saga played out just a week after Biden dressed down Israel on CNN for having the “most extreme members of cabinet…since Golda Meir.” Biden used the same word – “extreme” – minutes later to describe terrorists murdering Jews in Judea and Samaria, drawing an outrageous equivalence between law-abiding Israeli leaders and heartless terrorist murderers.

Biden claims his toughness on Israel stems from love for Jews and democracy. Oh, if only these misguided Jews simply understood where there real interests lie!

But the mask melts off when, earlier this month, President Biden gingerly met with and flattered tyrants and white supremacists. 

Turkey’s Erdogan compares Jews to Hitler, rigs elections, jails the press, and built himself a $615 million palace. Sitting on the sidelines of a NATO summit, Biden told the Turkish tyrant that “It’s a delight to be with you” and “I want to thank you for your leadership.” 

On the same trip, Biden met with the leaders of Finland, governed by an extremist right-wing coalition whose ministers openly promoted antisemitism, racism, Islamophobia, and violence against immigrants. Far from the vitriol reserved for Israel, Biden declared Finland a “capable partner” and “committed democracy.”

But these examples pale when compared to what the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted, that Biden and his administration treat Israel “worse than they do the Mullahs in Iran,” to whom he’s already released billions of dollars.   

Wassermann Schultz’s complicity in Biden’s appeasement of Iran goes back to his days as vice president in 2015. 

Initially, Florida’s first Jewish congresswoman promised she was “never afraid to stand alone when necessary” and swore to use her Jewish heart. She assured her constituents that her decision would be based “not on politics, not on anything else.”

Three days later, she backed President Obama on live TV, giving a tearful description of how “gut-wrenching” it was for her as a “Jewish mother” to support Obama’s terror-funding Iran deal. She then declared that there was no better way to “ensure Israel’s survival throughout the generations” than by forking $150 billion dollars to a regime threatening a second Holocaust. Most ridiculous was her assertion that fiscally empowering Iran would somehow allow the United States to “more closely concentrate on their terrorist activities.” 

To be fair, her support did not sway the ultimate outcome, since Obama by then had secured enough Democrats in the Senate. But as head of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz’s endorsement endowed the deal with much-needed legitimacy, helping to keep the deal alive to this day. Enlisting the support of one of America’s top Jewish lawmakers was a parting shot from Obama to the Jewish community, which had openly defied him on Iran. 

Wasserman-Schultz claims she caved after spending hours “grilling” Biden and Obama. Indeed. Good thing it had nothing to do with party or power.

On a visit to Florida to pitch the deal to Jewish constituents in her district, then Vice President Biden called Wassermann-Schultz the “face of the party” and even claimed it was he who was working for her. She returned the favor, calling Biden a “mensch” and “one of us” in “everything but blood.”  

Meanwhile she cut off the mics for the question-and-answer period after told attendees not to record or discuss what was said, in order to maintain the “integrity” of the process. It was a tactic similar to the one she used against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week in Washington, attempting to move his testimony to an executive session where it wouldn’t be broadcast live. Yet another American lawmaker committed to openness and democracy.

By unmasking their waning support for Jews and Israel, Kennedy threatens Democrats Wassermann Schultz and Gottheimer as much as he does Joe Biden.

 

 

Categories
Faked news Links from other news sources. Media Woke Social Venues-Twitter WOKE

Does this loon think that anyone believes him? MSNBC CLOWN claims no media outlets support Democrats.

Talking crazy.

 

Does this loon think that anyone believes him? MSNBC CLOWN claims no media outlets support Democrats. Mehdi Hasan actually claimed that FOX News was a propaganda news media outlet and the Democrats needed one also. What a sheltered life this boy must live.

Well some of the folks on X (Twitter ) weren’t buying it.

 

 

 

 

 

SMH

Categories
Commentary Links from other news sources. Media Woke Opinion Politics Uncategorized WOKE

Why CNN is failing.

Having terrible so called Journalists doesn't help. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

Why CNN is failing. All you have to do is look at their so called Journalists that they have. Now of course you do have MSNBC wh most likely is worse, but they have NBC as a back up and has the finances to back MSNBC. CNN does not. Below are some of CNN gem stories. Or should we call it Hoax stories.

I want to thank Breitbart and John Nolte for the list.

Categories
Links from other news sources. Media Woke Reprints from others. WOKE

What’s the media’s problem with black masculinity? The only black men now being showcased are those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

Let me guess. An Ironworker? (Photo by Amy Sussman/Getty Images)

What’s the media’s problem with black masculinity? The only black men now being showcased are those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

No experience in my many decades on this planet felt more degrading than being repeatedly referred to as “intimidating” by my former boss. As far as I know, the affluent, influential white women that I used to work with at Condé Nast lost their right to refer to their black male employees in such racially laden language long before the death of George Floyd. Especially when I was merely asking my (mostly white and female) underlings to simply do their jobs.

I’m reminded of this charge every time I see a black man done up like a woman — which is seemingly all the time these days. Take Alex Newell and J. Harrison Ghee, who were awarded Best Actor statues at the Tony Awards in June, and both accepted them clad in colorful gowns and full makeup. Or Billy Porter, who donned platform heels and a high-collared, vaguely clerical dress to receive his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame last December. Or look in the pages of Architectural Digest, which recently featured RuPaul on its cover and — during my time working there — profiled the homes of celebrity stylist Law Roach along with Christopher Griffin, also known as the Plant Kween. All black, all stridently positioned and presented as femme.

Don’t get me wrong. I am gay and African American and appreciate efforts to showcase the widest range of men like myself in popular media. The problem is that the only black men — particularly gay black men — now being showcased appear to be those who’ve conceded their masculinity.

To be clear, there is a long tradition of black men costuming themselves as women across screens large and small. Indeed, Tyler Perry — perhaps the most successful black culture creator of all time — first attained stardom as Madea, the smart-talking Aunt Jemima-like caricature who helped make him a billionaire. Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx and Martin Lawrence have also cross-dressed for Hollywood — as have Shawn and Marlon Wayans, whose 2004 cult hit White Chicks rendered them not merely as women, but as white women to boot.

 

 

But this most recent embrace of African-American gender ambiguity marks a worrisome evolution from the era of Murphy and Madea. This should come as little surprise. Back in 2007, Oscar-nominated African-American film director John Singleton was already making clear that he was “tired of all these black men in dresses,” going on to wonder, rather presciently, “how come nobody’s protesting that?”

Three years later, Dave Chappelle straight-up declared to Oprah Winfrey, “why all these brothers gotta wear a dress?” Fresh off his $50 million fuck-you to Tinseltown, Chappelle went on to describe himself as a “conspiracy theorist… connecting dots that maybe shouldn’t be connected.” Nearly fifteen years later, those dots — and the power dynamics they connect — have never been clearer.

From MSNBC to major fashion magazines, black women — propelled by the intersecting potency of #MeToo and BLM — now lead much of mainstream media. But this status shift has yet to be extended to black men. In fact, when I became head at Alexa, the New York Post’s lifestyle broadsheet, in 2016, I was the only black male editor-in-chief at a major publication in the entire nation. There are still no others.

Things appeared to be slightly better in Britain, where Edward Enninful was appointed editor-in-chief of British Vogue in 2017. Unlike me — supremely skeptical of all things “woke” — Enninful proved masterful at navigating the ideological zeitgeist now required to succeed as a top corporate creative. He aggressively adopted the race- and gender-first mantras currently powering pop culture, even going as far as to suggest that British Vogue become “gender-neutral.” Yet Enninful was ousted in early June, a casualty of a losing power struggle with his American counterpart, Anna Wintour — the white female boss of my former white female boss with the nasty habit of calling me “intimidating.”

Coincidence, perhaps — but Enninful’s demise can’t help but remind me of Chappelle’s theorizing from so long ago. Women such as Wintour remain unrivaled gatekeepers to rarified worlds of elitism and privilege that are rapidly eroding all around them. Indeed, Wintour is credited with overhauling the sartorial standards of awards shows like the Tonys, where Newell and Ghee recently triumphed so glamorously.

 

 

Yet while they front as champions of diversity, these women actually promote a limited view of inclusiveness that reinforces the worst stereotypes of black men — scary, uncivilized, minstrel-like, dangerous. Rather than remedy such outdated views with truly comprehensive displays of what black manhood can be, they erase and neuter them instead. And there’s no better way to do so than to put these men in a dress.

As evidenced by Wintour’s now infamous banishing of the late Vogue editor André Leon Talley — who actually preferred elaborate capes rather than dresses — in the eyes of many powerful white women, powerful black men are little more than dispensable and disposable. Widely regarded as an inevitable successor to Wintour herself, Enninful is now making do with lucrative commercial ventures while staying on at Condé Nast in a hastily-manufactured “global advisory position.”

Meanwhile, as nearly 60 percent of black kids grow up without fathers, this year’s Pride month offered endless additional examples of dudes done up like ladies. Again: representation is a good thing — it matters. But most black men — gay or straight — bear little resemblance to Billy Porter in full make up. Sadly, with black men mostly absent from media C-suites, this is unlikely to change anytime soon — just as women like Wintour have probably always wanted it.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s August 2023 World edition. 

Categories
Child Abuse Education Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized

California Travel Ban Stalls Students’ Hopes to Contend in National Chemical Engineers Competition.

The Cal Poly Pomona Chem-E-Car team has been hit hard by the state-imposed ban on state-funded travel. (Courtesy of Cal Poly Pomona Chem-E-Car team)

California Travel Ban Stalls Students’ Hopes to Contend in National Chemical Engineers Competition. California students denied.

Brad Jones
By Brad Jones

A group of chemical engineering students was denied state funding to participate in a national competition in Florida because of California’s travel ban to certain states that don’t allow biological male athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports.

The ban, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2019, was recently expanded to include three new states, boosting the total to 26.

As a result, Will Donahue, College Republicans of America president, told the Epoch Times the Chem-E-Car team at California Polytechnic State University—Pomona, was denied state and university funding to participate in the prestigious national American Institute of Chemical Engineers conference in the fall.

“It’s a ridiculous reason why they can’t have state-funded travel,” Mr. Donahue said.

 

The students, he said, have worked hard to earn their spot in the competition after defeating other California college teams at the Western Regional Conference in the spring.

“It’s a talented team—really smart engineers, and it’s unfortunate that the state is not sponsoring them,” he said.

The cost of travel for the team is estimated at about $6,500 for airfare, hotels, and restaurants, he said.

 
Epoch Times Photo
Streetview of Cal Poly Pomona in March 2019. (Google Maps/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

California lawmakers imposed the initial travel ban in 2016 with the passage of Assembly Bill 1887, a law that prohibits employees of state agencies to travel to any state that has enacted laws California deems discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. It also prohibits state-funded travel for employees and students to states on the list.

Legislation targeting the transgender community is part of a “concerning trend of discriminatory practices in states across the country, aiming to roll back hard-won protections,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a July 14 press release.

The law, authored by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell), requires the California attorney general to post and update a list of states that have been targeted under the ban.

Brittani Daniels, vice president of public affairs for the College Republicans, told The Epoch Times that as a former track-and-field athlete, she is “appalled at the unfairness” of letting biological males compete in girls’ and women’s sports.

 

“It is insane to me that we’re acting like there’s really a debate whether or not boys and girls [should] compete in the same sports [teams],” she said.

Just as athletes compete in national championships, the Chem-E-Car competition is important to chemical engineering students.

“It’s national,” she said. “This is a big deal … and they’re missing out on the opportunity because Governor Newsom wants to let boys play with girls.”

The Cal Poly Pomona team stands a good chance of winning the competition, according to Ms. Daniels, who added the event can open up job opportunities for students after graduation.

“They can’t even go, and they’re brilliant,” she said. “It’s extremely disappointing that students—especially students of color [and] women students—[who] put so much time and energy into being chemical engineering students are not going to have the opportunity to showcase their talents and all their hard work because of a travel ban based on not allowing biological males to compete with women in sports.”

In the competition, students must build a miniature vehicle that starts and stops as a result of a chemical reaction. Each team is given a specific distance that their car must travel, with the goal of achieving as close a distance as possible to the prescribed target.

At the regionals this year, the goal was a distance of 18 meters, and the Pomona team came within 10 centimeters of the target, claiming first place by a wide margin.

The University of California (UC)—San Diego came in second, missing the target by 1.1 meters, and UC Berkeley came in third at 1.75 meters.

Epoch Times Photo
Students pass through Sather Gate of the college campus at the University of California–Berkeley, in a file photo. (David A. Litman/Shutterstock)

Mr. Donahue said College Republicans are “incredibly disappointed” and blamed the travel ban for “stifling student growth.”

“Governor Newsom is preventing Cal Poly engineers, a team comprised mostly of women of color, from competing in a prestigious student competition—at the biggest chemical engineering conference in the world—because Florida doesn’t allow men to compete in women’s sports. This is absurd,” Mr. Donahue said in a July 21 press release.

The College Republicans have started a campaign to raise the funds within the next couple of weeks to send the student engineers, Mr. Donahue said.

“If Governor Newsom doesn’t want to sponsor women of color in STEM, the College Republicans will because this isn’t about political orientation. It’s about doing right by students when radical progressive policy restricts their ability to flourish academically,” he said.

Categories
Corruption Elections Links from other news sources. Reprints from others.

Neither Trump’s Election Challenge nor His Electors Were Illegal.

The man,myth, the legend.

Neither Trump’s Election Challenge nor His Electors Were Illegal.

By Marisa Herman

The accusations forming the basis of a federal investigation of former President Donald Trump and his activities relating to the 2020 election do not represent illegal acts, say law experts and analysts on both sides of the political aisle.

These experts also say that Michigan citizens who were charged for acting as Trump-supporting “alternate electors” for the 2020 Electoral College committed no crime.

Challenging presidential election results is nothing new — and was never considered illegal — until the 2020 election.

Controversies and claims of “stolen” elections have occurred and notably marked the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1912, 1960, and 2000.

And 2020 wasn’t the first election in which “alternate” electors played a role in trying to shape the outcome of the election.

Although Michigan’s attorney general filed felony charges on Tuesday against 16 Republicans who acted as alternate electors for Trump, legal precedent indicates that those alternate presidential electors committed to Trump in seven battleground states likely did not commit any crime.

Curtis Hill, a former Indiana attorney general who is a Republican gubernatorial candidate, said going after alternate electors is “nothing more than another attempt to weaponize our justice system against political opponents.”

“Three times now, the Biden Justice Department has tried to silence President Trump and his supporters because they see him as a threat to their power next year,” Hill said, referencing the 2024 presidential election in which Trump is a front-runner to win the GOP nomination.

“These liberal prosecutors are targeting President Trump and anyone who supported him in the 2020 election because they are worried about their own election chances in next year’s election.”

Michael Markey, a Republican congressional candidate for Michigan’s 3rd District, said that the investigation by the state’s Democrat attorney general, Dana Nessel, “should be concerning for all Michiganders across the state.”

“Election integrity is important, but we secure our elections through legislation, not political prosecutions against our opponents,” Markey said.

Even though Nessel is charging 16 people with eight criminal counts, including forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery, not every state dealing with the so-called “fake” electors has treated them as criminals.

Last year, the Wisconsin Elections Commission decided unanimously against sanctioning 10 Republicans, including one of the commissioners, for claiming to be presidential electors in 2020.

In a letter and legal memo, the commissioners determined that there was no reasonable suspicion that the would-be electors violated any of the laws the commission oversees.

“Wisconsin law does not prohibit an alternative set of electors from meeting,” the commission’s attorneys wrote in the memo.

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who is now the state’s governor, told The Associated Press that he doesn’t believe there was evidence that the actions of the “fake” electors in his state met the legal standards for forgery.

Nevada’s Democrat attorney general has stated he won’t bring charges, either.

In Georgia, a prosecutor has already cut immunity deals with at least eight of the alternate electors as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis investigates Trump’s purported efforts to overturn the election in the Peach State.

Wren Williams, a sitting Republican Virginia delegate who served on Trump’s Wisconsin legal team, said there is nothing illegal about selecting alternate electors.

“Selecting alternate electors is not illegal,” Williams said. “In fact, there is no legal precedent to say alternate electors should be prosecuted for doing their assigned tasks.”

He said Biden’s Justice Department “has its man, but continues in search of a crime” by tapping state attorneys general to “carry on this absurd witch hunt.”

Though some critics may argue the alternate electors were “fraudulent,” an article published by liberal-leaning Slate argues that the loyal Trump electors were “acting on the basis of a well-known precedent, in the face of an even better-known feature of our Constitution.”

The article pointed out that “under our law, any candidate challenging the results of a presidential election must take steps very much like what these electors did.”

The outlet noted that under the U.S. Constitution, states have the power to set the “matter” in which electors are appointed and Congress has the power to say when those electors must cast their votes.

“In close elections, that deadline can create an obvious problem,” the article states. “If the election is still contested in a state at the time the electors are to vote, which slate of electors should vote?”

Because Congress has a strict deadline on when electors are required to cast their votes, both slates of electors have often cast their ballots on the day that Congress chooses to set the vote.

It is a scenario that played out during the 1960 presidential election.

Hawaii was participating in its first presidential election since becoming a state, in a race between Democrat John F. Kennedy and Republican Richard Nixon.

Kennedy had already secured the necessary Electoral College votes to win the presidency, but the Aloha State still gave the win there to Nixon based on a razor-thin 140-vote margin.

Democrats decided to challenge the result, forcing a recount that was still underway on Dec. 19, the federally-mandated date on which presidential electors from around the country were required to cast their votes.

On that day, electors backing Nixon and electors backing Kennedy both signed their own certificates for their preferred candidate. Both signed certificates sent to Washington.

Kennedy ultimately became the winner following the recount, beating Nixon by just 115 votes.

The decision by Hawaii Democrats to deploy alternate electors in that race is being cited as a precedent for other states that took similar steps in 2020. No one sought to indict these electors or prosecute Kennedy over the matter.

Attorney, author, and TV and radio host Mark Levin has argued that an election isn’t over until “Congress says it’s done.”

During an episode of his Fox News’ “Life, Liberty, and Levin,” he pointed out that the “system is built for objections and no election is over until Congress determines it is.”

“Congress is the last check,” he said. “Not the courts, not the ballot boxes.”

Because Congress has the last say, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was able to have “objected to a Republican president at one time” and why Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., objected to the 2004 election results, Levin noted.

When it comes to the issue of the so-called fake electors, Levin said that is “not a crime either.”

“You might not like it,” he said. “You might think it’s weird; you might think it’s unethical; but it’s not a crime.”

That there is seemingly nothing illegal about deploying alternate electors could be why former Trump election challenge lawyer John Eastman is not a target for special counsel Jack Smith’s grand jury investigation of the 2020 presidential election challenge.

Eastman has been credited with coming up with the legal avenues Trump used to contest the 2020 election, including reportedly calling for Vice President Mike Pence to kick the contested Electoral College votes back to the state legislatures to reconsider their support for them.

Eastman’s attorney, Charles Burnham, told Politico that Eastman doesn’t expect to receive a “target letter” since “raising concerns about illegality in the conduct of an election is not now and has never been sanctionable.”

Trump posted on Truth Social that he expects to be indicted by Smith’s grand jury because he received a “target letter.”

Politico reports that investigators have probed Trump’s role in the use of alternate electors.

Two attorneys with direct knowledge of the letter told NBC News that federal statutes are mentioned, including deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and tampering with a witness.

Categories
Child Abuse Education Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Uncategorized WOKE

Affirmative action Ass is shown the door. California Has No Right to Stop Parental Notification on Transgenderism.

My new American Hero.Sonja Shaw, President of Chino Valley Board of Education

Affirmative action Ass is shown the door. California Has No Right to Stop Parental Notification on Transgenderism. We did a article on this last week, but I missed this tweet.

My new American hero school board President Sonja Shaw told Breitbart News on Sunday that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the State of California were trying to intimidate parents across the state on transgender policy.

Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) sent the board a letter in which he said: “In addition to infringing upon student privacy, forced “outing” of students to their parents is very likely to result in significant emotional, mental, and even physical harm and subject students to discriminatory harassment.”  And Shaw’s response.

“They go into ed[ucational] codes and things like that, which are laws, but then there’s that area where it’s ‘guidelines’ … and guidelines, we both know, are not laws. We keep showing them, and telling them, ‘Show us the law that we’re breaking?’ … They can’t do that. That’s why they’re upset.” The state had sent Thurmond to the school board meeting to intimidate the board and the parents — and to send a broader message, Shaw said.