Journalist Behind ‘1619 Project’ Hit with Bad News as Cushy Tenure Offer Goes Up in Smoke, University Reveals She’ll Have to Earn the Position Instead

Photo Credit: Image by Wynn Pointaux from Pixabay

In her wildest dreams, The New York Times Magazine’s Nikole Hannah-Jones couldn’t have imagined the monumental impact her 1619 Project essay, a warped, dishonest revision of American history, would have on race relations in the U.S.

Of course, the fact that it was the opening salvo of The Times’ editor Dean Baquet’s meticulously orchestrated master plan to put a Democrat in the White House the following year, helped.

The idea that most conservatives found so duplicitous and repugnant, that slavery stood at the center of the American story, was carefully and massively promoted by The Times and then immediately embraced by the rest of the liberal media, eventually winning Hannah-Jones a Pulitzer prize.

Following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, Hannah-Jones achieved super-star status.

In the summer of 2020, according to NC Policy Watch, Hannah-Jones was invited by UNC Chapel Hill’s Hussman School of Journalism and Media, her alma mater, “for its Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism, a tenured professorship.”

Policy Watch reported last week that due to “political pressure from conservatives who object to her work on the 1619 Project,” the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees rejected the tenure committee’s recommendation to grant Hannah-Jones tenure. “Instead, she will start July 1 for a fixed five-year term as Professor of the Practice, with the option of being reviewed for tenure at the end of that time period.”

Knight Chairs, the article explains, are sponsored by the Knight Foundation. “They are important and influential journalists who bring their expertise to the classroom at some of the nation’s most respected universities. While continuing their work in journalism, Knight Chairs offer students the perspective they’ve gained through their experience in the industry.”

Susan King, dean of UNC Hussman, spoke to Policy Watch. She said, “It’s disappointing, it’s not what we wanted and I am afraid it will have a chilling effect. … I’m not sure why and I’m not sure if that’s ever happened before. It was a work-around.”

The university has been working with the Knight Foundation since the early 1980’s, and all of their Knight Chairs have been tenured from the start, according to the report.

One of the board members spoke to Policy Watch on the condition of anonymity. This individual said there was one word to describe what happened to Hannah-Jones and that was “politics.”

“This is a very political thing. The university and the board of trustees and the Board of Governors and the legislature have all been getting pressure since this thing was first announced last month. There have been people writing letters and making calls, for and against. But I will leave it to you which is carrying more weight,” the trustee said.

The trustee blames the Republican-dominated UNC Board of Governors and claimed that several conservatives groups exerted pressure on board members. “The groups,” according to this individual, “have been highly critical of Hannah-Jones’s work and the idea of her teaching at UNC-Chapel Hill.”

Policy Watch reported that a second trustee, who also wished to remain anonymous, “confirmed the political environment made granting Hannah-Jones tenure difficult, if not impossible.”

The trustees seem to miss the fact that the conception and promotion of the 1619 Project was itself a political act.

The editor of the most influential newspaper decided he would set a narrative he knew every major media outlet would follow that would inflict so much damage on then-President Donald Trump, he would lose his bid for reelection.

It happened in August 2019. The occasion was a “crisis employee town-hall,” a staff meeting held by The Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet. A recording of his remarks was leaked to and published by Slate. (The full transcript of the meeting can be viewed on Slate.)

At the time, Trump had just delivered a positive and widely praised speech on two mass shootings that had taken place nearly simultaneously in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The President had denounced racism in the strongest possible terms.

The original headline in the The Times’ article on this speech read, ““TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM.” Following harsh criticism from the left for their positive take on the speech, the newspaper changed its headline to “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS.”

The Times’ title change became a huge story, as it should have.

Baquet opened the meeting with a discussion of the “significant missteps” they had made in handling what he called the crisis. “But there’s something larger at play here,” he told employees, referring to their coverage of Trump.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller had given his disastrous testimony several weeks earlier which pretty much ended their attempt to take Trump down with their bogus Russian collusion story.

“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” Baquet said. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

The story that would dominate the news over the next two years, he said, would be race.

The newspaper would fabricate a new story, the ‘Donald Trump is a racist’ story.

He told his staff: “Race in the next year and I think, to be frank, what I hope you come away from this discussion with – race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration.”

Baquet offered his “vision” of what this meant for them.

“I think that we’ve got to change. I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump? How do we grapple with all the stuff you all are talking about? How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”

The 1619 Project has plenty of problems by itself, but moving to make Hannah-Jones a tenured professor in a prestigious and respected university was simply a bridge too far for the Board of Governors. This was seemingly done to cash in on her name and the infamy of the woke garbage she peddles.

No doubt she will receive tenure at the end of five years, but at least for now, she’ll have to prove she has something to offer the university as a professor before being handed one of the most coveted positions there.

This article was originally published by The Western Journal.

Anti-Semite Ilhan Omar: It’s an ‘Act of Terrorism’ For Israel to Strike Back at Hamas

Photo Credit: Image by Ekaterina Vysotina from Pixabay

When I think of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), I think of anti-Semitism. I also recall the look of moral superiority as she told an audience that “ignorance was pervasive in this country” and the evil smile on her face when she downplayed the 9/11 attacks, saying that “some people did something,” I remember her introduction of a House resolution to support the anti-Israel BDS movement.

But the moment she truly took my breath away came just one month after she’d arrived in D.C. She was questioning then-U.S. Special Envoy to Venezuela Elliott Abrams during a House hearing. Addressing him with a look that was a mixture of utter disdain and amusement, she asked, “Do you think that massacre [a bloody conflict in San Salvador] was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?” (The relevant portion comes at 2:00.)

Anti-Semitic, contemptuous remarks have become this disrespectful, ungrateful woman’s calling card.

Hamas initiated a new offensive against Israel as its capital city celebrated Jerusalem Day on Monday.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were quick to condemn the unprovoked attacks.

The Israel Defense Forces announced they had responded to the rocket attacks by striking “numerous Hamas terror targets in Gaza, including: two rocket launchers, two military posts, and eight Hamas terror operatives.” They ended with the message, “Terror targets civilians. We target terror.”

Lawmakers were all mostly all in agreement that Israel had the right to defend itself against these acts of violence. All, that is, except for the congresswoman from Minnesota and her allies from the squad, Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Omar quickly fired off a tweet which said, “Israeli air strikes killing civilians in Gaza is an act of terrorism. Palestinians deserve protection. Unlike Israel, missile defense programs, such as Iron Dome, don’t exist to protect Palestinian civilians…. It’s unconscionable to not condemn these attacks on the week of Eid.”

We should condemn Israel because they defended themselves after they were attacked? What? Does Omar even believe half of the stupid remarks she makes?

This woman, along with her extremist pals, should be frog-marched out of Congress for their toxic, divisive, anti-Semitic, and anti-American rhetoric.

One would think Omar might express a little gratitude to the country which took her in as a refuge so many years ago, paid for her food, shelter and education and made it possible for her to enjoy the full, rich and free life she has today. Instead, she feels nothing but contempt for America.

Fox News’ host Pete Hegseth picks up where I left off in the video below. He compares an Iraqi friend with whom he fought shoulder to shoulder with against Al Qaeda in Iraq. This young man has immigrated to America. He is grateful to be here and is making the most of every opportunity.

Hegseth compares his friend to Omar, whom shall we say, is less enthusiastic about America. Watch the clip. (Omar segment starts at 6:00.)

Black Iowa Professor Tries to Limit Interactions with ‘Yt People as Much as Possible’

Photo Credit: Image by Irina Kuzmina from Pixabay

The compassionate left insists that anti-white racism is impossible. Iowa State University professor Dr. Rita Mookerjee, who teaches sociology, gives us yet one more reason why that’s not true.

In a February Twitter post, @RitaMookjee, a.k.a. Dr. Rita Repulsa, responds to an invitation to speak on a student government “Diversity and Inclusion panel” the following month. She writes: “Lately, I try to limit my interactions with yt people as much as possible. I can’t with the self-importance and performance esp during Black History month.”

Campus Reform, which reported this story, explains that “the term ‘yt’ is often used online in place of the word “white” in conversations involving race.”

In October, she tweeted: “whyte men with dirty hair and wrinkled clothes will always be liked and higher ranked” and “Someone called me white the other day so #NewProfilePic because I think the f**k not.”

Now, pardon me for saying so, but these tweets tell me that Dr. Rita Repulsa does not like whites. And she’s not alone. Not even a little bit.

In fact, among some extremely liberal groups, we’re even seeing white people turning against white people.

After catching a glimpse of the young man behind the Boulder, Colorado, grocery store shooting in March, liberals took to Twitter to express their rage at the evil white man. Most of these tweets were quickly deleted when the shooter was identified as Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, a Syrian-born Muslim.

Hemal Jhaveri, USA Today’s ironically named “Race and Inclusion” editor, was very upset after seeing that an angry white man had killed 10 innocents. In response to a tweet posted by Deadspin writer Emily Julia DiCaro, which said, “Extremely tired of people’s lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not,” she wrote, “It’s always an angry white man. Always.” Once she realized she’d been mistaken, she promptly deleted it. I posted about this story here.

Recently, even the U.S. government has jumped on the bandwagon. The $1.9 trillion COVID relief package “offers socially disadvantaged farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of no-strings dollars per farmer. But white men needn’t apply. … It limits aid to racial groups who faced historic discrimination.”

The New York Post’s Betsy McCaughey wrote that this measure had been proposed by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). He “says it will make up for years of discrimination.”

Last month, I wrote (here) about two Harvard neurologists who practice at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s hospital. They have a plan to prioritize healthcare for POC. They hope to offer “preferential care based on race.” It calls for an “antiracist agenda for medicine” based on critical race theory.

Even Canada is on board. Last month, Hamilton Public Health (Ontario) announced that “COVID-19 vaccine appointments are now available for Black and other racialized populations/people of colour.”

Although people have become more vocal about expressing their anti-white sentiment since the death of George Floyd, anti-white bias is not new.

Two years ago, Professor Philip Carl Salzman wrote an article entitled, “The War Against White People” in Minding the Campus, in which he makes the case that “anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture” and “not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter.”

He described Webster University’s new “safe space” that would be offered that fall “for recovering white people to admit that they are, by virtue of being white, anti-black racists. Only whites are welcome in these meetings, where students can confess to their racism and their white privilege. Note that it is presumed that being racist is simply part of Caucasian DNA, and since “students of color” can’t be racist, they have no need to go to such meetings.”

Salzman asks, “How did we get to this place, in which hating white people, the majority of Americans, not to mention wishing them all murdered, is deemed a virtue? The answer is that our liberal democratic culture emphasizing individual freedom and equality has transitioned, particularly among university and media elites in large cities and on the coasts, to a new culture that classifies and treats people by race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity.”

“This ‘social justice’ culture replaces the individual with census categories and ranks these categories on a hierarchy of power and a converse hierarchy of virtue. Categories are distinguished between those with power, which are oppressor categories, and those without, which are victim categories.”

Anti-white racism is not a myth. It’s real and it’s becoming too big to ignore.

No, Actually the 2020 Election Has NOT Been Resolved

Photo Credit: Image by heblo from Pixabay

While reading an article about Liz Cheney in The Spectator earlier, I came across the following:

“Liz Cheney erred neither in condemning the riot nor in castigating Trump’s Ahab-like obsession over his loss but in remaining stuck in January 6 as the calendar moved on for the rest of us. Cheney’s position that Joe Biden legitimately beat Donald Trump, as readers of this column and the Spectator A.M. newsletter know, found endorsement here back in November. Trump lost by 74 electoral votes, after all, not seven. But that argument took place in the media, in courts, and in Congress more than four months ago. Cheney, perhaps more so than Trump, needs to get over this as a resolved question.”

It is not a resolved question. In fact, it’s far from a resolved question. The argument took place in the media and for about five minutes in Congress, but former President Donald Trump was never given his day in court.

The anomalies in the days following the election quickly multiplied. Over 1,000 election observers signed affidavits stating they had witnessed wrongdoing. Judges refused to hear their cases. No court would hear Trump’s cases. Not even the Supreme Court.

Immediately, the media set the narrative that the election was settled. When over 90 percent of the media unites around the same narrative, a phenomenon we witnessed repeatedly during the Trump years, the power is overwhelming.

Before too long, anyone who questioned Biden’s legitimacy was labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Then it simply became taboo to mention it.

But it still wasn’t settled.

In reporting a February Quinnipiac poll which revealed that 76 percent of Republicans believed widespread fraud had occurred in the election, CNN’s Chris Cillizza wrote “three quarters of Republicans believe a lie about the 2020 election.”

Stealing the presidency is a pretty audacious thing to do.

But, after watching the Democrats orchestrate the Russia Collusion hoax, a bogus impeachment, then a second impeachment against Trump, and turn Gen. Michael Flynn’s life into a living hell for four years to further their political goals, it’s not crazy to believe they would steal a presidential election.

In November 2020, over 2.1 million people voted in Arizona’s Maricopa County. These votes represent over 60 percent of all ballots cast in the state. The Republican-controlled state Senate is currently conducting a thorough forensic audit of all ballots cast in the County which has put the election back into the national headlines.

Almost eclipsing the story of the intensive audit that’s been underway for two weeks is the Democrats’ fury over it. (I posted about those efforts here.)

One of the first to cover the topic again was Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, host of “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Bartiromo spoke to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton about the issue. “Let me switch gears and ask you about election integrity. This is a subject that has become taboo. We’re not allowed to question the 2020 election. We’re not allowed to question what is going on in Arizona or in Georgia. What do you say to what is going on in Georgia and how Texas is similar to that situation around election 2020?”

“Yeah, so if you look at election results from four years ago, Georgia and Texas were very similar,” the Republican responded. “We fought off 12 lawsuits. We were sued 12 times over mail-in ballots. It was Harris County, it was Travis County, these big urban counties that wanted to mail out all of these mail-in ballots in violation of state law. Clearly what was not allowed by the state legislature. And so, we fought these off.

“They didn’t want signature verification. We were told by a federal judge that was unconstitutional. So we had state lawsuits, different counties, federal lawsuits, we had 12 of them. We won every single one of them.

“Had we not won every single one of those lawsuits, I’m convinced that those ballots would have gone out and we would have been just like Georgia, who decided to capitulate and sign consent decrees and say, ‘It’s OK. We’re going to let these mail-in ballots go out. We’re going to allow no signature verification. We’re going to allow drop boxes.’

All of those things had an impact, and instead of Georgia and Texas having similar results this time because we defended those lawsuits, Trump won. We’re able to have a Republican legislature here, and in Georgia, it was completely turned.”

“So, are you saying that, because of what we saw in mail-in ballots in Georgia, you’re questioning the results?” Bartiromo asked.

“I absolutely am questioning,” Paxton replied. “I know what would have happened here. They would have stopped counting, just like they did in those states, and they would have been counting mail-in ballots until they get the right number of votes and suddenly Trump loses and we lose the state House here. We lose some of our Supreme Court justices. And it wouldn’t have been a legitimate count because we wouldn’t have followed state law.”

“So are you questioning what happened in the 2020 election?” she said.

“Absolutely,” he said. “They didn’t follow state law in these states. It’s clear. Whether you think there was fraud or not … we do know they didn’t follow state law.”

(The clip can be viewed here.)

Victor Davis Hanson Asks If Americans Are Becoming ‘Sovietized’; The Answer is Yes

Photo Credit: Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Speaking at a campaign event for Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin on Thursday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told supporters: “Can you imagine, a year and a half ago, if I said, okay, here’s what’s gonna be the issues. We ought to let businesses open up. We ought to let kids go to school. And how about, let’s not abolish the police.”

That any one of these items is a political issue today is a testament to how far America has strayed from its founding principles.

On Thursday, conservative commentator and historian Victor Davis Hanson published a list of ten symptoms of Sovietism. He encouraged readers to ask themselves if America is “headed down this same road to perdition.”

1. There was no escape from ideological indoctrination — anywhere. A job in the bureaucracy or a military assignment hinged not so much on merit, expertise or past achievement. What mattered was loud enthusiasm for the Soviet system.

2. The Soviets fused their press with the government. Pravda, or “Truth,” was the official megaphone of state-sanctioned lies. Journalists simply regurgitated the talking points of their Communist Party partners.

3. The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.

4. The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.

5. The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.

6. The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.

7. The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.

8. Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.

9. The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.

10. The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted that they were advocates for equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege — and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.

Our mainstream media is “fused” to our government. The New York Times has tried to rewrite history via its 1619 Project. Last summer we watched as the “woke” canceled historical figures they objected to by toppling statues across the country. And “critical race theory” has been introduced into American educational curriculums.

Americans are being surveilled in ways we never dreamed possible – by government agencies.

A small group of Big Tech leaders now wield more power than the U.S. government by controlling what information we can and cannot see.

Hanson points out that, “where and for what reason you riot determines whether you face any legal consequences. Politically correct sanctuary cities defy the law with impunity. Jury members are terrified of being doxxed and hunted down for an incorrect verdict. The CIA and FBI are becoming as ideological as the old KGB.”

It would be difficult to make the case that we’re not being “Sovietized.”

That America was ready to cross the line into Soviet territory became clear during the 2020 Democratic presidential debates which began in the summer of 2019. Suddenly the “radical” ideas proposed by Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont during his 2016 run for the White House were embraced by most, if not all, of the candidates.

In June 2019, Sanders delivered a major speech about Democratic Socialism. Knowing that many Americans viewed the term “socialist” as a “slur,” he was eager for an opportunity to clear up some of the myths and show us how great socialism could be.

He told supporters, “In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision.” Sanders then presented himself as a modern day FDR and said he hopes to complete the work which FDR began.

Finally, Sanders introduced the centerpiece of his platform, which he called “a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.”

There was something deeply disturbing about Sanders’ proposal. In an appearance on Hannity, political commentator and historian Mark Levin pointed out that Sanders had “stolen his agenda from the 1936 Soviet Constitution.”

Levin was entirely correct.

Here is an excerpt from Sanders’ speech:

A Bill of Rights that establishes once and for all that every American, regardless of his or her income in entitled to:

  • The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
  • The right to quality health care
  • The right to a complete education
  • The right to affordable housing
  • The right to a clean environment
  • The right to a secure retirement

These six “rights,” which define Sanders’ platform, are indistinguishable from the rights identified in the 1936 Soviet Constitution, which is also known as the Stalin Constitution.

Please read Articles 118-122 of this constitution. (Source: Bucknell University)

(Emphasis mine.)

ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and alsoin case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.

ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

The only “right” not stolen from the Stalin Constitution was the right to a clean environment.

The National Review’s Kevin Williamson provides a more appropriate definition of socialism: “solidarity that is enforced at gunpoint, if necessary.”

America is on a dangerous path.

Babylon Bee: CIA Replaces Waterboarding With 12-Hour Lectures On Intersectional Feminism

Photo Credit: Image by Sarah Richter from Pixabay

On Wednesday, I posted about the completely over the top new CIA recruitment ad which must be seen to be believed.

I wrote that the left has taken their “woke” identity politics way too far and have now entered parody territory. They’ve become so unreasonable in fact, I suggested we launch a ridicule campaign against them which, according to the late radical “community organizer” Saul Alinsky, is one of the most effective tools in politics.

Rules for Radicals No. 5:  “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

In that spirit, I present to you a little parody from the Babylon Bee:

‘You’re a Murderer!’ Driver Berates Cop as He Calmly Writes Ticket

Photo Credit: Image by Diego Fabian Parra Pabon from Pixabay

Rarely do we hear an individual so thoroughly disgrace themselves as a Los Angeles woman did following a traffic stop by a Latino L. A. County Sheriff’s deputy last month.

She had been pulled over for using her cell phone while driving her son to his therapy appointment. We immediately grasp why her son might be in serious need of therapy.

The deputy approaches the car and tells her, “I pulled you over today because — ”

“Because you’re a murderer,” she says, interrupting him. During their brief encounter, she calls him a murderer eight times. She insists that he call his supervisor because “you’re threatening to kill me and my son.”

The deputy is the model of restraint. He remains calm and polite as she spews her poison.

She concludes by informing him that he will never be white. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican, you’ll never be white, you know that? You’ll never be white which is what you really want to be.”

Her race is unclear, because her image has been blurred.

According to Fox News’ reporter Bill Melugin, who obtained the video, the deputy is a 14-year career officer. He told Melugin that he uses both a department-issued body camera as well as one he purchased privately to “protect himself from false allegations.”

Melugin spoke to L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva who said he was “appalled” by this woman’s behavior. He praised his deputy’s restraint.

Villanueva noted, “She claims to be a teacher. I’m not so sure where she is teaching … but if she represents her profession, is that an indictment on her profession and the caliber of people?”

“You have one incident like George Floyd … but some people want to label the entire profession as if everyone was a Derek Chauvin. It shows you that bigotry, racism comes in all, colors and all ages — that’s proof of that right there. If you want to call all of the deputies murderers, unfortunately, you are doing the exact same thing you’re accusing other people of doing against your own kind.”

Melugin learned that, following this encounter, the woman “called internal affairs and filed a harassment complaint against the deputy” and that she “has a history of making false claims against deputies.”

This is a “grade A example of the kind of animosity that some of the officers out there are encountering on the streets,” Melugin said.

Here are a few responses to Melugin’s Twitter thread about this story:

“Insanity on full display. The scary thing was, she claimed to be a teacher. Does anyone want their kids taught by this woman?”

“If she is a teacher than I feel where ever she teaches should see this video and decide if they want someone that is obviously racist towards Hispanic people and talks to police officer this way teaching children. If she were teaching my children I would be demanding her be axed.”

“She needs to be exposed. No hiding her face and name. She shouldn’t be teaching anyone.”

“If this was a white male cop and the person breaking the law was a drug abusing ex con, the cops name would be released and he would be fired and Lebron would have already put a hit out on him. Let’s return the favor. Release her name so we can call the school and terminate her.”

“They always seem to make it until the very end, and then their true side comes out. Such a piece of garbage. I bet she has a “hate has no home here” sign in her front yard.”

This is what the repeated vilification of police officers does. It gives this woman and countless others like her a license to treat cops as if they were sub-human.

I wrote yesterday about a video recorded by a police officer who had reached the height of his frustration over being painted with the same brush as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

It’s heartbreaking to watch. The officer is exhausted, heartbroken with the state of America. He, like many others, has to go to work every day and face the anti-cop rhetoric that has ripped through the US. Most cops are good. But the good ones have to face hatred every day.

I think most Americans were unanimous in their revulsion toward this woman. Demonizing all police officers because of Chauvin makes about as much sense as tarnishing all teachers because of this woman’s loathsome behavior.

But this is where the left’s campaign against police officers has brought us. It’s a dangerous state of affairs.

Street Justice: Man Trying to Block Car at Antifa ‘Abolish the Police’ Protest Gets a Rude Awakening



Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Antifa held an “Abolish the Police” protest in Portland on Thursday which blocked an intersection. As one car followed a truck through the crowd, a protestor tried to punch the driver through his open window.

Another, carrying an umbrella which said “Abolish the Police,” stood in front of the vehicle – which kept going. He wound up on the hood of the car, momentarily, until falling off. The driver then accelerates leaving behind an angry group. One female protestor is heard yelling, “Get it, get it, get it.”

Street justice.

An independent reporter covering the protest took the side of Antifa.

Hey Maranie, maybe people are enraged because they’re tired of being held hostage by antifa groups and others like them. Maybe people have decided it’s time to take our country back.

Additionally, maybe it’s not a good idea to try to punch a driver or stand in front his car to force to him to stop so a bunch of thugs can beat him to a bloody pulp.

Has this reporter’s common sense left her as it has the rest of the Democratic Party?

What will Antifa do? Report this driver to the police they’re trying to abolish? ‘We tried to punch him, damage his car and block him officer. But he kept moving. We were in danger.’



H/T: Town Hall

Father Withdraws Child From Elite Manhattan Private School; His Goodbye Letter Is a Withering Indictment of Woketopia

Photo Credit: Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

Brearley is a prestigious all-girls private K-12 school, located on the Upper East Side of Manhattan that is deeply committed to indoctrinating the next generation of social justice warriors. On its admissions page, prospective parents and students are informed that “The Brearley School condemns racism in the strongest possible terms and is committed to building an anti-racist community.” In addition to the privilege of paying $54,000 per year for your daughter to attend, at least one parent or guardian is required to participate in anti-racist training and active introspection and must sign an anti-racism pledge.

At Brearley, they take diversity seriously. An entire department is dedicated to promote a “welcoming, inclusive and affirming community.”

Independent journalist Bari Weiss came across what she calls “a barn burner of a letter” written by Andrew Gutmann, a father whose daughter attended Brearley for seven years. After becoming fed up with the school’s increasingly radical policies, he decided she will not return to the school this fall. Gutmann then wrote a blistering goodbye letter in which he excoriates the school for what it has become and sent a copy to each Brearley family.

The result is a withering indictment of Woketopia.

He encourages other families to “act before the damage … to your own child’s education is irreparable.”

“It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. … If the administration was genuinely serious about diversity,” he wrote, “it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.”

I applaud Mr. Gutmann for his courage to speak out against the radicalism that has now infected the entire U.S. educational system.

His letter is a call to action. He states the problem. And a potential solution. Hopefully, some parents will be inspired by his message and take action.

It is a masterpiece.

Full Letter by Andrew Gutmann, April 13, 2021 (via Common Sense with Bari Weiss):

Dear Fellow Brearley Parents,

Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten. In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult. I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child’s education is irreparable.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley’s antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed.

I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died.

I object to the charge of systemic racism in this country, and at our school. Systemic racism, properly understood, is segregated schools and separate lunch counters. It is the interning of Japanese and the exterminating of Jews. Systemic racism is unequivocally not a small number of isolated incidences over a period of decades. Ask any girl, of any race, if they have ever experienced insults from friends, have ever felt slighted by teachers or have ever suffered the occasional injustice from a school at which they have spent up to 13 years of their life, and you are bound to hear grievances, some petty, some not. We have not had systemic racism against Blacks in this country since the civil rights reforms of the 1960s, a period of more than 50 years. To state otherwise is a flat-out misrepresentation of our country’s history and adds no understanding to any of today’s societal issues. If anything, longstanding and widespread policies such as affirmative action, point in precisely the opposite direction.

I object to a definition of systemic racism, apparently supported by Brearley, that any educational, professional, or societal outcome where Blacks are underrepresented is prima facie evidence of the aforementioned systemic racism, or of white supremacy and oppression. Facile and unsupported beliefs such as these are the polar opposite to the intellectual and scientific truth for which Brearley claims to stand. Furthermore, I call bullshit on Brearley’s oft-stated assertion that the school welcomes and encourages the truly difficult and uncomfortable conversations regarding race and the roots of racial discrepancies.

I object to the idea that Blacks are unable to succeed in this country without aid from government or from whites. Brearley, by adopting critical race theory, is advocating the abhorrent viewpoint that Blacks should forever be regarded as helpless victims, and are incapable of success regardless of their skills, talents, or hard work. What Brearley is teaching our children is precisely the true and correct definition of racism.

I object to mandatory anti-racism training for parents, especially when presented by the rent-seeking charlatans of Pollyanna. These sessions, in both their content and delivery, are so sophomoric and simplistic, so unsophisticated and inane, that I would be embarrassed if they were taught to Brearley kindergarteners. They are an insult to parents and unbecoming of any educational institution, let alone one of Brearley’s caliber.

I object to Brearley’s vacuous, inappropriate, and fanatical use of words such as “equity,” “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Instead, the school would foster an environment of intellectual openness and freedom of thought. And if Brearley really cared about “inclusiveness,” the school would return to the concepts encapsulated in the motto “One Brearley,” instead of teaching the extraordinarily divisive idea that there are only, and always, two groups in this country: victims and oppressors.

l object to Brearley’s advocacy for groups and movements such as Black Lives Matter, a Marxist, anti family, heterophobic, anti-Asian and anti-Semitic organization that neither speaks for the majority of the Black community in this country, nor in any way, shape or form, represents their best interests.

I object to, as we have been told time and time again over the past year, that the school’s first priority is the safety of our children. For goodness sake, Brearley is a school, not a hospital! The number one priority of a school has always been, and always will be, education. Brearley’s misguided priorities exemplify both the safety culture and “cover-your-ass” culture that together have proved so toxic to our society and have so damaged the mental health and resiliency of two generations of children, and counting.

I object to the gutting of the history, civics, and classical literature curriculums. I object to the censorship of books that have been taught for generations because they contain dated language potentially offensive to the thin-skinned and hypersensitive (something that has already happened in my daughter’s 4th grade class). I object to the lowering of standards for the admission of students and for the hiring of teachers. I object to the erosion of rigor in classwork and the escalation of grade inflation. Any parent with eyes open can foresee these inevitabilities should antiracism initiatives be allowed to persist.

We have today in our country, from both political parties, and at all levels of government, the most unwise and unvirtuous leaders in our nation’s history. Schools like Brearley are supposed to be the training grounds for those leaders. Our nation will not survive a generation of leadership even more poorly educated than we have now, nor will we survive a generation of students taught to hate its own country and despise its history.

Lastly, I object, with as strong a sentiment as possible, that Brearley has begun to teach what to think, instead of how to think. I object that the school is now fostering an environment where our daughters, and our daughters’ teachers, are afraid to speak their minds in class for fear of “consequences.” I object that Brearley is trying to usurp the role of parents in teaching morality, and bullying parents to adopt that false morality at home. I object that Brearley is fostering a divisive community where families of different races, which until recently were part of the same community, are now segregated into two. These are the reasons why we can no longer send our daughter to Brearley.

Over the past several months, I have personally spoken to many Brearley parents as well as parents of children at peer institutions. It is abundantly clear that the majority of parents believe that Brearley’s antiracism policies are misguided, divisive, counterproductive and cancerous. Many believe, as I do, that these policies will ultimately destroy what was until recently, a wonderful educational institution. But as I am sure will come as no surprise to you, given the insidious cancel culture that has of late permeated our society, most parents are too fearful to speak up.

But speak up you must. There is strength in numbers and I assure you, the numbers are there. Contact the administration and the Board of Trustees and demand an end to the destructive and anti-intellectual claptrap known as antiracism. And if changes are not forthcoming then demand new leadership. For the sake of our community, our city, our country and most of all, our children, silence is no longer an option.


Andrew Gutmann

Watch Joe Scarborough Torch DCCC Chair for Refusal to Take Position on Defunding the Police

Photo Credit: Image by Foundry Co from Pixabay

The police shooting in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, of a black man, Daunte Wright, last Sunday sparked a new round of calls from Democrats for defunding the police.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Rep. Sean Maloney of New York joined MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Friday morning and was asked if Democrats support “defunding the police.” Maloney repeatedly evaded the question telling Scarborough, “My argument is what are you doing about racial justice? Our party is going to do something about it.”

“Forgive me for repeating the same question. Maybe I need to say it a different way.” Scarborough asked, “Do Democrats support defunding the police first of all? And secondly, the Cook Political report said that Democrats lost 25 of 25 contested House races in 2020. And I think most analysts believe that, at least in the House races, Democrats badly underperformed expectations. So, again, address those two again and if you could specifically answer the question. Again, it’s not the question I’m asking. It’s a question Republicans will continue to ask: Do Democrats support defunding the police?”

“Right. The answer is no and you are asking the question and you are repeating a Republican talking point for reasons I don’t know,” clearly not happy to have answered.

Scarborough dug in. “You guys did a damn poor job of answering that, such a poor job of answering socialism questions, such a poor job about answering cancel culture questions. That’s why I’m repeating it. Because if you believe that Kevin McCarthy should be Speaker of the House, keep pretending that none of that happened. And keep pretending that the House did a good job in 2020, because they did not. House Democrats did a poor job. So my question is are you going into 2022 with eyes wide open?”

“Right, so as my friend Maxine Waters said to Jim Jordan, ‘You’re ranting again,’ Maloney said chuckling. A stupid joke that deserved to fall flat.

Scarborough, who was most definitely not amused, told Maloney, “If you don’t really care whether Democrats win or not in 2022, okay, let our viewers know that.”

“The answer to the question is that Kevin McCarthy is the minority leader and we hold the gavels, Joe,” replied Maloney.

Continuing, Maloney said, “Can we learn from 2020? You bet. You didn’t hear me say everything went well, what I told you is I’m not going to run the other way because on shows like this you insist on repeating these Republican talking points when you know it’s a lie that we want to defund the police. Look at the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.”

“If your point is that we need to communicate better, well fair enough. But do me a favor, please also acknowledge that when you echo and amplify these talking points of the Republican Party, you give them life,” Maloney concluded.

Scarborough said, “I don’t need that reminder.”

I rarely take Scarborough’s side on anything. But Maloney is wrong. Many Democrats have called for defunding the police. And the chorus grows after each police shooting. AOC led the calls to abolish the police, saying it was “an indefensible system.”

Within hours of the Daunte Wright shooting, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted, “It wasn’t an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.”

Even Democrats believe this position hurt the party in 2020. In a recent interview with Bill Kristol, Democratic strategist James Carville said, “I mean, this defund the police was just a terrible drag on the Democratic Party. It really was. Don’t kid yourself.”

Defunding the police was one of the Democrats’ more extreme positions ahead of the 2020 elections. It could be among their most moderate going into 2022, as the party embraces truly radical positions like open borders, stacking the court, adding two states, eliminating the use of fossil fuels and abolishing the electoral college so that elections can be decided by New York and California, to name a few.

Democrats know they’re likely to lose the House and the Senate majorities in 2022, so they’re going to ram as much of their radical agenda through while they can. But Maloney is kidding himself if he truly believes that Democratic support for defunding the police is just a Republican talking point.