In The Wall Street Journal‘s Allysia Finley piece about Progressive-Democrats’ targeting California Republicans, this bit jumped out at me:
The Los Angeles Unified School District is making emergency budget cuts and layoffs to avoid bankruptcy, yet the teachers union is threatening to strike if its members don’t receive a 6% raise.
Hmm….
h/t Ralph
The modern Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party are showing their true heart, and there’s no room for freedom in it; there’s not even room for disagreement.
The Progressive-Democrat movement already has attempted to mass murder Republican Congressmen gathered for a baseball practice, nearly succeeding in the case of Steve Scalise (R, LA).
Now we have two Republican candidates for Minnesota state office being assaulted.
One suffered a concussion from his assault; the other was assaulted as she (!) tried to prevent the theft of campaign yard signs already erected in yards.
The campaign manager—another woman—for the Republican candidate for Nevada Governor was physically assaulted and held against a wall by a George Soros (a Party-approved 1%-er)-backed PAC employee after the thug had forced his way into a private room where a conference was in progress. This same person had previously physically assaulted the Interior Secretary’s press secretary—still another woman (is there a pattern here?), and she filed criminal charges right after—so the Progressive-Democrat-supporting PAC knew who they were hiring.
Any one of these could easily have been written off as the isolated attacks of Left-wing loons. But together they aggregate into the Party’s true attitude: they all come on the heels of attempts to intimidate Presidential Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX); Senator Mitch McConnell (R, KY); Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao; and many other Republicans with loud, deliberately disruptive protests designed to completely prevent them from going about their personal business in restaurants, even walking to their cars, milder intimidation attempts that failed.
This all comes, also, against the backdrop of Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) and Senator Spartacus (D, NJ) calling for people to harass Republicans wherever encountered or to come up in their faces, Party queen Hillary Clinton saying civility with Republicans is impossible and ex-Attorney General Eric Holder (D) calling for Republicans to be kicked when they “go low.”
This all comes, also, with the Left’s Antifa taking over the streets of Portland or assaulting those whom they simply don’t like.
This all comes with Progressive-Democrat billionaire Tom Steyer (another of the Party-approved 1%-ers) looking to buy a House impeachment claque.
This all comes with some members of the Progressive-Democratic Party leadership mildly calling for (their version of) civility but doing nothing to back their empty rhetoric, or others of that leadership remaining altogether silent.
Keep this in mind as you decide for whom to vote. And do go vote.
The discrimination suit against Harvard is underway, and the first day produced some interesting claims.
William Fitzsimmons, Harvard’s admissions dean since 1986, defended the policy [of favoring some applicants over others on the basis of race] by saying the letters to white students in more rural states help the school recruit from areas where students may be less aware of Harvard.
This is nonsense. If student awareness were the goal, instead of sending letters to favored individuals, Harvard would advertise, would communicate with the junior high schools and high schools of those rural areas.
Race is never the reason a student is admitted or rejected from Harvard, he [William Lee, a WilmerHale partner representing Harvard] said, adding the school considers race as one of many factors, in line with Supreme Court precedents.
This is disingenuous at best. If race is never a reason, it wouldn’t be missed if it were eliminated from consideration.
In addition, there is a clear designed-in disparate impact at work here, but since it’s not an impact against a favored group of Americans, it’s not discussed.
A Harvard junior has had the effrontery to write an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that’s critical of Harvard and its admission practice. In the piece, he cited a criticism he gets when he’s rude enough to comment on campus.
How can you be against affirmative action? That’s racist[.]
What a sad commentary this is on the quality of education available at our colleges and universities, especially one that pretends to superiority. Plainly, Harvard, et al., are teaching nothing of logic or history, only bald ideology. Any program that carries race (and gender, as affirmative action programs do) as criteria for admission, or any other gain, is by design racist (and sexist). And, this racist and sexist design was built in at the origin of affirmative action programs, including Harvard’s.
The People’s Republic of China, the home of rule by law (not rule of law), has retroactively legalized its “internment” camps, which the government is using to jail reeducate recalcitrant Muslims in its western province of Xinjiang.
Chinese authorities in the far-northwestern region of Xinjiang on Wednesday revised legislation to permit the use of “education and training centers” to combat religious extremism.
So far—so far, mind you—a million Muslims are…housed…in those camps.
The camps are strongly reminiscent of those of President Xi Jinping’s early predecessor, Mao Tse-tung. Mao sent 16-18 million children and millions more adults to his “reeducation” camps.
Xi is off to a good start.