Pious Pelosi takes credit for Trump's trade deal with Canada and Mexico after delaying it for over a year.
Why would she relent and allow Trump to have a trade victory? Is she feeling heat from the impeachment?
As for impeachment, radicals could only come up with two vague charges that any president could be charged with on any given day.
The entire three years has been a bust and voters should extract their own pound of flesh in 2020.
The entire episode was due to political hatred because an unorthodox and often vulgar person beat the anointed one. How did this come to be? Because deplorables were fed up with the way things were going. Patriotism was constantly under attack, our flag was being consistently besmirched, the former president lied and lied, we were having our lunch eaten time and again due to bad trading policies and everyone knew/believed they could take advantage of America because we had lost our own self-respect. Everything government touched was ruined from education to failing infrastructure which is being ignored.
If all of the above was not bad enough, impeachment radicals were continually shoving nutty PC'ism's down our throats and all traditional values were being trampled on so we could not recognize what America stood for anymore. (See 1 and 4 below.)
And:
New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt
When the FBI goes after Donald Trump with the intent of proving he colluded with Russia, and conducts "an intrusive investigation of the U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions" that in the view of Attorney General William Barr, "were insufficient to justify the steps taken," it's merely "serious errors." But Trump was corrupt from the start. This is the new narrative.
The post New Narrative: The FBI Made Mistakes, But Trump Is Corrupt appeared first on The Resurgent.
Read in browser »And more:
Steele Dossier Played ‘Central And Essential Role’ In FBI Decision To Apply For Surveillance Warrants - Read More (See 2 below.)
The IG report was devastating but Horowitz saw/found no political motivation. He ignored the illegal FISA applications etc. as evidence of having a political motive. Barr's initial disagreement is totally justified. It seems, in DC, if it barks like a dog, wags it's tail like a dog, even smells like a dog bureaucrats are incapable of petting the animal for fear it will bite. Mueller ducked, Horowitz ducked. What is with these people?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All PC'ers scream diversity but those on our university and college campuses are deaf. You pay a fortune and what do you get? A biased, narrow education. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Joel Rants again. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DORIS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the day he was sworn in as president. The fix was in.
Today, Speaker Pelosi unveiled two articles of impeachment against the President. This will be the first time in history that impeachment has been driven by partisan politics and not an outside investigation. It's all a sham!
Democrats are creating a dangerous precedent for any future president, and I think it's sad and dangerous for the American political system.
Richard, I want you to hear directly from me when it comes to these impeachment proceedings. Will you take just 15 seconds to watch what I recorded just for you? From, Sen Graham. PLAY VIDEO »+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) A Trail of FBI Abuse
The Horowitz report confirms that the bureau deceived FISA judges with the Steele dossier.
The Editorial Board
The press corps is portraying Monday’s report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as absolution for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but don’t believe it. The report relates a trail of terrible judgment and violations of process that should shock Americans who thought better of their premier law-enforcement agency.
Readers can look at the detailed executive summary and decide for themselves. But our own initial reading confirms the worst of what we feared about the bureau when it was run by James Comey. The FBI corrupted the secret court process for obtaining warrants to spy on former Trump aide Carter Page. And it did so by supplying the court with false information produced by Christopher Steele, an agent of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
***
How can anyone, most of all civil libertarians, pass this off as no big deal? The absolution is supposedly that Mr. Horowitz concludes that the FBI decision to open a counter-intelligence probe against the Trump campaign in July 2016 “was sufficient to predicate the investigation” under current FBI rules.
Yet Mr. Horowitz also notes that these rules amount to a “low threshold for predication.” John Durham, the U.S. Attorney investigating these matters for Attorney General William Barr, said Monday he disagrees with Mr. Horowitz’s conclusions on predication, albeit without elaboration for now.
Mr. Horowitz confirms what the FBI had already leaked to friendly reporters, which is that the bureau’s alarm in July 2016 was triggered by a conversation that former Trump aide George Papadopoulos had with Australian Alexander Downer. But we learn for the first time that the FBI immediately ramped up its counter-intelligence probe to include four Trump campaign officials: Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, then campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn.
The bureau quickly moved to a full-scale investigation it called Crossfire Hurricane. The FBI’s justification, as related to Mr. Horowitz, is that the risk of Russian disruption of the 2016 election was too great to ignore.
Yet the bureau never told anyone in the Trump campaign, or even Donald Trump, whom or what it was investigating so he could reduce the danger or distance himself from those advisers. The FBI was investigating the campaign but wouldn’t tell the candidate who would soon be elected.
***
The FBI abuses escalated when it was presented with the now infamous Steele dossier. Mr. Steele was hired by Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, the oppo-research outfit hired by a law firm for the Clinton campaign. Mr. Horowitz confirms that the FBI then used the Steele dossier to trigger its application to the FISA court to spy on Mr. Page.
“We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order,” Mr. Horowitz says. This confirms what Rep. Devin Nunes and House Republicans first disclosed in February 2018, which was denied by Rep. Adam Schiff and sneered at by the press at the time.
Mr. Horowitz also finds that the FBI told the FISA court that Mr. Steele was credible without having tried to confirm the details or verify his sources. Mr. Horowitz found no fewer than seven key “errors or omissions” in the FBI’s original FISA application, and 10 more in the three subsequent applications. The latter were especially egregious because they ignored information that the FBI’s own Crossfire Hurricane team had later gathered that cast doubt on the Steele claims.
The omissions include the stunner that Mr. Page had been working as an “operational contact” for what Mr. Horowitz calls another U.S. agency from 2008-2013. Mr. Page has said this is the CIA, which Mr. Horowitz doesn’t confirm, though he does say that Mr. Page was reporting on his Russian contacts, which the agency deemed credible.
In other words, the FBI was using Mr. Page’s Russian contacts as evidence against him to the FISA court even as the other agency considered his reports on those Russians to be helpful to the U.S. Mr. Horowitz says the FBI never disclosed this information to the FISA judges.
“Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the [FISA] applications,” the report says. This is the Inspector General’s bland way of saying that the FBI deceived four FISA judges.
***
Democrats and the press are making much of Mr. Horowitz’s conclusion that he “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation” influenced FBI decisions. But his report does show that political bias was conveyed to the FISA court from the Clinton campaign via the Steele dossier through the FBI.
It was conveyed by Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official whose wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS. Mr. Horowitz may not have found a memo with the words “let’s get Trump,” but his evidence shows that getting Mr. Trump was the goal of Mr. Steele and Fusion GPS. Mr. Ohr met 13 times with the FBI to discuss the Steele findings.
Even if you buy the “no bias” line, all of this had major political consequences. Fusion GPS used its media contacts to spread word of the Steele dossier’s accusations, and news of the FBI’s use of that dossier became a media hook to suggest the accusations were credible. This became another part of the false Russia collusion narrative played up by the press and the likes of former CIA director John Brennan.
Mr. Horowitz says Crossfire Hurricane investigators never verified any of the Steele dossier allegations against Mr. Page. Even a year after the first FISA warrant, in September 2017, the report says the FBI had only “corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting.” Robert Mueller later spent two years looking for proof of collusion and found nothing, while the Trump Presidency was besieged.
The Horowitz report should not be the end of this tawdry tale. Whether or not there are prosecutions, Messrs. Barr and Durham should release the entire FISA record to the public. The GOP Senate also needs to call the FISA judges to tell their story under oath.
The FISA process was established in the 1970s as a check on FBI abuse, though we and others warned that it would hurt accountability instead. So it has played out in this case. The U.S. doesn’t need a process that uses Article III judges as political cover to justify abusive wiretaps on innocent Americans, much less on presidential campaigns.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pressure to join the “herd groupthink” in New Haven.
Nobody looks to the Ivy League for balanced political discourse. But a new report suggests that on at least one campus, the stifling of conservative views among faculty members is nearly complete.
Valerie Pavilonis and Matt Kristoffersen report in the Yale Daily News:
According to computer science professor David Gelernter ‘76, faculty political diversity at Yale is low: “0%,” he wrote in an email. He added that while there are a “few conservatives, including prominent ones,” their numbers are not high enough to have a significant impact on campus culture.
Readers might assume that Mr. Gelernter, an occasional contributor to the Journal, is poking fun at the school’s overwhelming leftism rather than expressing mathematical precision. But via email, another Yale faculty member who chooses to remain anonymous tells this column, “I agree with the calculation.”
A third Yale faculty member, a self-described liberal, says the faculty is “moving further to the left” and has become increasingly intolerant of conservative viewpoints. This faculty member, who also requests anonymity, says that some faculty bias is subconscious: “They think people who agree with them are smarter than people who disagree with them.” This professor adds: “Universities are moving away from the search for truth” in favor of a search for “social justice.”
This is similar to the critique offered by former Yale Law School dean Anthony Kronman, another liberal who’s been mugged by “progressive” reality. In July this column noted his analysis of how ideology is “killing” important conversations on campus.
Last month, campus activists disrupted the annual Yale-Harvard football game to express themselves on climate change and other causes—interrupting an event for which some of their fellow students had spent years preparing. In fact, for many of the players the game represents the realization of a dream they’ve been pursuing for much of their young lives—and an event they’ll remember as long as they live. What might appear to be a stunning act of selfishness on the part of the protesters is perhaps not surprising if the university community now regards a particular set of political views as the only moral option.
Ms. Pavilonis and Mr. Kristoffersen of the Yale Daily News also interviewed history professor Carlos Eire, another occasional contributor to the Journal. According to their report:
“Yale talks a lot of diversity, but basically all that diversity means here is skin color,” Eire said. “There’s definitely no diversity here when it comes to politics. The liberal point of view is taken to be objective — not an opinion, not a set of beliefs... There’s an assumption that goes unquestioned that if you’re not part of the herd groupthink there’s something wrong with you,” he said.
Eire, who escaped from Cuba as a child, said that having lived in a totalitarian regime he often has views that differ from his “coddled” American colleagues. While Eire advocated for human rights and for a change of regime in Cuba, he said, he mostly keeps quiet on political matters.
Even so, Eire said his political beliefs are the source of faculty whispers, which he said can prevent open dialogue and contribute to a culture of silence. In turn, this leads to alienation that Eire said also weeds out conservative graduate students, resulting in a faculty hiring pool filled with liberal-leaning professors.
“[It’s] not helpful if you want to have an open society with creative and productive political dialogue,” he said. “If everything you say is immediately invalid because you are not virtuous then there’s no dialogue.”
Rachel Treisman and David Yaffe-Bellany reported in 2017 on the results of a Yale Daily News survey:
Nearly 75 percent of faculty respondents described themselves as “liberal” or “very liberal,” with only 7 percent reporting conservative leanings. Just 2 percent of respondents said they are “very conservative.” And nearly the entire faculty expressed opposition to the administration of President Donald Trump.
More than ten liberals for every conservative certainly marks an extreme philosophical tilt. But it could be even worse and closer to Professor Gelernter’s projection if the few conservatives generally avoid expressing their views. The reluctance of even some tenured faculty to address the issue suggests an intellectual culture in dire need of reform and renewal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) USMCA TRADE AGREEMENT REACHED
A trade agreement has been reached between the United States, Mexico and Canada.
- Republicans reportedly had been pushing for the House to approve the NAFTA trade deal replacement before year-end so Washington can focus its attention on the impeachment inquiry and the upcoming elections in 2020.
- AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka represents over 12 million workers and has been a key party in the negotiations. Trumka said that a deal was in place and would be reviewed within the next 24 hours by his executive committee.
- The agreement can be looked at as a success for both U.S. political parties. Trump had signed USMCA over a year ago but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats held up the pact on enforcement concerns and labor requirements. Democrats had been hesitant to side with Trump on many issues but passing legislation in light of the impeachment process could be viewed as a positive.
- Reports are also suggesting that China is hopeful to move forward in the trade deal with the United States as soon as possible and prior to a new set of U.S. tariffs hitting Chinese imports that are scheduled to kick in next week.
READ MORE  |
5)Sorry this is so long, but there is so much historic happening all at once
Not only was there a huge pickup in jobs, defying all the experts, but wages rose 3.1% avg while the lower income cohort rose at 6% on average. The number of jobs in September and October was adjusted up by 41,000. Hours worked stayed the same. Participation is improving. 350,000 people reentered the workforce. Clearly people who had given up are back working. 435,000 who were not actively looking for a job took jobs over the past year. Temporary workers -people who just need to, or want to work few hours, has also picked up, suggesting that many who were not working at all are now at least working enough to put some cash in their pocket. Part time employment remains the same at around 27 million workers. This includes many want a regular employer but to only work part time -- students, actors, or who just want some extra income, or are retired and just want some place to go. 80% of part time workers do not do so for economic reasons. 460,000 workers who did work part time, but wanted full time got full time jobs. Many previously part time workers who wanted full time jobs now have those jobs. All of this has big social payoffs for the family and community.
Pay attention. Here is the flip side. Moodys Analytics produces the ADP report. Mark Zandi runs Moodys Analytics economics. Here is his analysis. ADP was 70,000, Labor was 266,000. Per Zandi, it was a matter of the samples used, and the different populations of those samples. GM was the other major difference. ADP uses companies with 23 million employees. BLS uses a potentially different set of companies with also 23 million employees at 148,000 businesses and agencies on 689,000 work sites. The total workforce is 165 million. The 266,000 was based on the payroll survey which is different than the second survey by BLS which is the household survey. The household survey uses a sample of 60,000 households including farms, and self-employed, and unpaid family members working in the family business, and is subject to a variety of sampling and other statistical errors. They then adjust those numbers for an adjusted household number which usually more closely tracks the payroll number. The payroll survey is bench marked annually to the unemployment insurance records, and more accurate after benchmark adjustment. None of the data sets is fully complete or completely accurate. ADP and BLS use differing samples and so differing outcomes. That led to a 100,000 difference in November. In addition, ADP was lower by 50,000 due to taking account of the GM strike. BLS was increased by 50,000 by taking the GM strikers and related companies being back to work. Zandi claims the real underlying payroll number when fully adjusted, and reconciling the differing samples, and eliminating the GM issue, was 125,000. He says when the January final adjusted BLS November numbers come out in January with all these adjustments, it will be the 125,000 number. He still projects slowing labor markets and rising unemployment in 2020. I believe he is wrong about the trend, but he has reams of data and a staff of very smart analysts, and I have my gut. This is a classic contest between data driven experts, and an old guy's gut. It will be interesting to see which wins. If he is correct, the market will not react well, and the election results could be impacted.
Workers know they can easily get a new job locally at similar pay, within days, if laid off. That is employment security which leads to more spending. Personal balance sheets are as strong as they have ever been. Long term unemployed is only .74%. Unskilled wages rose 11% vs 4.3% for high skilled, and average wages overall rose 3.1%. annualized. So when the Dems talk about those left behind, they must be referring to high skill people. This is classic trickle-down economics. According to Bloomberg News, wages in October rose more than the rate on a mortgage for the first time since 1972. According to Bloomberg News, wages in October rose more than the rate on a mortgage for the first time since 1972.
A record amount of retail money fled the stock market this year. If you are one of them you missed one of the greatest bull markets in history. I have been and remain 100% in equities.
The way we beat poverty and make stable families, is with jobs, and on the job training, not more entitlements, not government run training programs, and not guaranteed minimum income. There are now lending companies that are not payday lenders, and these make small loans ($300 on average) to low income workers at relatively high, but not unreasonable rates like payday lenders. They only loan to people who can prove they can repay by reviewing their detailed budgets and paychecks. So there is debt available to low income workers for emergencies. They may not have the extra $400 in a checking account, but they can borrow it to get the car fixed if they have a steady job. When someone defaults they try to collect, but then just write it off if not collected. Their loss ratio is low.
The stock market is near record highs, so that creates a wealth effect right at holiday time. That induces more spending. All in, these things together means holiday sales will be historically good, and that will roll into inventory reductions, which then rolls into increased factory production to refill the shelves. If there were more skilled workers to hire, GDP would be higher. We should roll into 2020 with a tailwind. Anyone who wants to work can work. It might take moving to another town, but the jobs are there unless you are a drug abuser. Even former inmates can now get a job. This is going to do a lot of good in minority communities by giving these formerly shunned people a real job. It can potentially change the culture of these communities. It is why polls show Trump with over 30% approval from blacks. The index of aggregate weekly payrolls is up 4.8% in a year. Combined with low energy prices, and tax cuts, consumer confidence and spending are reaching record highs. It does not get much better than this. So what do the Dems claim- inequality, people left behind, raise taxes, break up corporations, government run healthcare, jailing executives, and ending fracking and all fossil fuels. You choose.
If you got past the initial headline of Horowitz that there was no bias, then the real meat was the 17 violations of rules and possibly criminal violation. The fact that Durham contradicted him in public is huge. Horowitz could only talk to current employees and had no real investigative authority as we understand it. Durham on the other hand can investigate the whole world with all the resources of the US government and other intelligence agencies. For him to publicly say the Horowitz conclusion is wrong sets this up for a real massive hammer on all the people like Comey and Clapper and Brennan who think they got away with it. Durham, has a lot one can assume or he would never have gone public. In the meantime it is clear the FBI ignored facts and mislead the FISA court, and when Durham comes out with indictments it is going very high up and my prediction of it maybe going all the way to Obama might prove correct. I expect his report may not be until spring which is perfect timing for the election. Stand by, with that public rebuke of Horowitz it is going to be devastating to the Dems.
There are 81 entitlement programs for poor people costing $920 Billion this year. $22 Trillion over 50 years, and no appreciable change in poverty rates until the recent strong economy. The collapse of marriage rates began when entitlement programs began to ramp up in the sixties. In 1964 there were 7% single mom households in black communities, and now that number is 41%. Single moms are 4x as likely to be poor as married women. Out of wedlock births create poor households, which creates inequality, which creates poor school performance, which creates the next generation of poor, which just creates more wasted entitlement spending and more unskilled labor. Despite welfare reform, the rules of most of these programs are still designed to reduce the payout as the recipient gets more income. That seems logical. However, what happens is, if a man moves in with a single mother to form a family, and they were both on some type of entitlement, the combined incomes of the two now disqualify them for part of their entitlement. Thus they experience reduced combined income. This is a big factor in why there are so many single mother households in poor areas. The earned income tax credit program may be the solution, but I do not know how all of these work so I can't comment other than, the way we waste tens of billions on 81 programs that create disincentive for two parent family's needs to be materially changed. If that could be redone the way the basic welfare program was changed by Gingrich and Clinton, we would solve a lot of the social dysfunction in poor communities. You were led to believe welfare reform solved the problem, but that is not what happened. There are now 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. Getting the fathers back in the home would make a huge positive difference in educational achievement and social stability. Now, combined with historic low black unemployment, there is a chance to really make a difference in the culture, which is the real issue.
Various of my developer friends tell me it has never been better. Capital is readily available, rates are as low as they have ever been, and terms from lenders are relatively easier. Demand for multi is strong, as it is for other products in most markets. It is easy to refi a cash out loan on most projects provided a 1.25 debt cover is reached, and the project is stabilized, regardless of type of real estate. For most real estate other than retail, it does not get better than this. The problem now is lack of skilled labor and the cost of land. The great times mean big demand for developable lots, and that means high land prices, and now we are at a point where land prices in many markets are just too high. We may be at the top of the land value curve as developers start to walk away from buying at these prices.
As more jurisdictions adopt rent control, there will be a shift in where investors put their money. It will be more likely to go to states and cites that do not have rent control. As NYC has proven, left wing administrations can destroy value in an instant with rent control laws that make it uneconomic to own and maintain properties falling under rent control laws. Despite the history of rent control in NYC over decades, the left continues to think price controls will work. They never do. In NYC developers simply built high end product for the most part because these were exempt from rent control over a certain rent and income level. Be careful where you invest in multi. Be aware of rent control, and potential rent control laws. They invariably screw up the market, and could destroy your property's value if you go to a place like New York where the city and state governments have no clue about market forces and the economics of investing. They never seem to understand that if you limit investor returns then housing shortages occur because investors go elsewhere.
The impeachment circus has reached its crash point. When it became known Schiff got phone records he was not entitled to, that was the turning point. It may, or may not be illegal, but it is outrageous and unethical to get phone records of Trump's lawyers and another Congressman. Nancy announces they are going to impeach even before the supposed judicial committee hearings are held. Now they are not even sure what the charges are. Quid pro quo did not work, then it was bribery because a focus group liked the word, then obstruction, then abuse of power, and now they are making noise again about Russia. Nancy went on about that this week. "It all comes back to Russia". Clearly they can't find a handle that will sell, but they are caught in the rushing river current of impeachment with no life jacket. I listened to the Republican counsel give the facts that had been buried by Schiff. He had detail dates, quotes, etc and it clearly wiped out any idea of guilt for impeachment. Voters are not going to go along with this and when Durham comes with indictments, Republicans win the House. Impeachment was a rally stupid mistake by Pelosi. Then comes the jobs report, and they look ridiculous. The Republicans just need to keep asking every day -where is USMCA, where is drug pricing, where is infrastructure. Where is anything. Nancy has blown it for the Dems by allowing Schiff to take over after Nadler made such a fiasco out of the hearings. What was she thinking? I know she is dumb, and will say anything she thinks at the moment will sell, regardless of truth, but I did not think she is that dumb. In January the Republicans will hear the Judiciary report and charges, and then vote to exonerate Trump according to Lindsey Graham, and it will be done. However, there will likely be a separate hearing about the whole impeachment process, and the use of phone records. If the economy holds, Trump wins by a landslide, and the Dems lose the House. Maybe Bloomberg gets nominated after Joe is crushed by the impeachment trial. For the Dems, this is huge loser. Then add Durham indictments of Dems in mid-year.
If you wasted any time listening to the hearing, you heard reference to the interagency groups. Those are formal get togethers of various top career execs at the different agencies to decide on policy issues, namely foreign policy. When a president comes along like Trump who exercises his constitutional obligation to decide foreign policy and it does not match the career people version, they get very angry. That is part of what we are seeing in the hearings play out. Trump did not adhere to the playbook of the bureaucrats.
In 1970 protestors demanded that City College open up to all, instead of only to those who could pass its rigorous admission test. They were protesting there was not enough diversity. All through the depression and post WWI, the school was considered the poor mans Harvard. Many poor guys went to Baruch, which was the business school, and became highly successful. The liberals caved and changed it to open admissions. Anyone could go to City College who had a B average which was given out easily in high schools. Free tuition in today's politcal world. Here are the results of diversity and free tuition. The solution to unprepared students was remedial classes in math, reading writing. A study done 22 years later showed: students with poor academic backgrounds cannot be rehabilitated by the time they are 18. It is too late. A group of 155 students was studied by the college, and were placed into remedial English. Only 7 made it to graduate in 6 years, and only 6 more in 7 years. The rest dropped out. In 1998, 28 years after the diversity and free tuition experiment started, the university stopped it, and went back to testing for reading, writing and math. Studies show if the preparation for college is poor, the flunk out and dropout rate is high. Obvious. Colleges with average 1100 SAT scores had a drop out rate in year 1 of 8%. At schools with 700 or less the rate was 45%. So what are the liberals now pushing so hard to get. Stop the SAT tests and free tuition for all. It is not about money for tuition. It is about high schools turning out unprepared students who demand equal access as those who worked hard to learn, and left wing ideology that demands diversity and inclusion despite a lack of educational background to do the work. The other finding is that when classes are free, then other things get to be an equal or greater priority during the day for the student. As with anything in life, if there is no cost, then there is no incentive to excel, or even to try hard since there is no immediate cost to failure. So when Amy Wax at Penn Law said the diversity admits never achieved the top half of the class, she was merely stating the proven and obvious. For this simple truth they tried to fire her. Diversity is lovely, but the students who get in on this basis need to be able to do the work or they will not succeed, and someone who did work hard in high school will be denied admission, and the chance to succeed. The left never learns because they never want to study history- in this case, City College.
Look what we have come to with social media mobs. Even a very nice Peleton ad gets slammed by absurd reasoning by the PC mob. Peleton deserves an award for not backing down and not apologizing. Their stock got hit just because the left wing mob attacked, not because sales or earnings went down. It will now make advertisers leery of nice normal holiday ads. What a stupid world we now have
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment