Thursday, February 27, 2020

Bernie exposed

Bernie Sanders Praises Slave Owners For Free Housing Program

U.S.—In a televised interview, Bernie Sanders has praised slave owners for their free housing program offered to all slaves working the plantations.
"Of course, the slavery was bad, but the slaves were housed, for free I might add, for their entire employment," Sanders said in an interview with 60 Minutes. "So it's unfair to criticize the whole thing. Also, the slaveowners were pretty impressive guys. The plantations were very clean, very nice buildings. I actually honeymooned at one in Virginia back in 1845, and it was an eye-opener for me as to how much propaganda has been used to malign slaveowners and their healthcare, housing, and literacy programs."
At publishing time, sources had also confirmed that Bernie Sanders had defended hell itself, saying the place of eternal torment has "gotten a bad rap" and "isn't such a bad place."

Hillary, Bill, Harvey and Epstein....see a pattern?

Hillary Clinton took more cash from Harvey Weinstein than any other Democrat

Is there a Jussie Smollet award?



Cops repeatedly called on Bernie backers

Cops repeatedly called on Bernie backers 

Their late-night bullhorn protests at public officials' homes come as Sanders' opponents are increasingly calling out his supporters' behavior.

Radical egalitarianism...tell me are you rich?

New proposal for income-based parking ticket fines in Boston

Councilor Julia Mejia introduced the legislation to help low-income families.

A new proposal on the docket in Boston on Wednesday could determine how much residents pay for parking tickets.
The Boston City Council was to meet at noon Wednesday to discuss new legislation which will include a hearing order for potential income-adjusted fines on parking violations.MORE: Woman Settles With Chicago Over $100,000 Parking Fine
Recently elected city councilor at-large Julia Mejia filed the hearing order on Monday and has been vocal about the idea on Twitter.
"I am introducing legislation on income-adjusting parking tickets so low-income families don’t have to decide between paying a parking ticket or putting food on their table," she wrote.

There are times when Western Europe fails to acknowledge evil


The European Union’s political director Helga Schmid and Iran’s deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, from left, wait for a bilateral meeting as part of the closed-door nuclear talks with Iran in Vienna, Austria, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2020. (Roland Zak/Associated Press)
The European Union’s political director Helga Schmid and Iran’s deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, from left, wait for a bilateral meeting as part of the closed-door nuclear talks with Iran in Vienna, Austria, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2020. (Roland Zak/Associated Press)
Feb. 26, 2020 at 7:30 a.m. PST
VIENNA — The world powers that remain party to the nuclear deal with Iran expressed “serious concerns” Wednesday about Tehran’s violations of the pact, while acknowledging that time was running out to find a way to salvage it.
Wang Qun, Chinese ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, told reporters after talks in Vienna between the parties to the deal, including Iran, that they are “racing against time to work out a specific solution so as to safeguard” the landmark 2015 agreement.
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the deal is known, promises Iran economic incentives in return for curbs on its nuclear program, with the goal of preventing Iran from developing a bomb — something the country’s leaders insist they do not want to do.
Since President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. unilaterally out of the deal in 2018 and reimpose American sanctions, Iran’s economy has been struggling. Tehran has gradually been violating the deal’s restrictions to pressure the remaining parties to the agreement — China, Russia, Germany, France and Britain — to provide new incentives to offset the American sanctions.
In response, the Europeans in January invoked a dispute resolution mechanism, designed to resolve issues with the deal or refer them to the U.N. Security Council.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters that Iran still remains “open to any initiative which can ensure Iran’s dividends of the JCPOA.”
“We are fully prepared to reverse the steps we have taken so far in return for the fulfillment of the other side’s commitments in the JCPOA,” he said.
In a statement following the meeting, the EU’s top official for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell, said “serious concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of Iran’s nuclear commitments under the agreement.”
Borrell who chairs the joint commission of the JCPOA, was represented at the meeting by EU official Helga Schmid.
He said that “participants also acknowledged that the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions did not allow Iran to reap the full benefits arising from sanctions-lifting.”
He also said that “all participants reaffirmed the importance of preserving the agreement recalling that it is a key element of the global nuclear non-proliferation architecture.”
Britain, France and Germany have developed a system known as INSTEX designed to facilitate trade with Iran while protecting companies from sanctions, but so far it has found little success.
Borrell said that everyone at the meetingacknowledged the importance of further strengthening INSTEX, and Iran seemed somewhat optimistic after the talks.
“We discussed about different waysonhow to strengthen this mechanism, how to provide it with more liquidity and funding, how to make sure that this mechanism can work, and I think the willingness is strong,” Iran’s Araghchi said. “Also the methods we discussed today can be utilized to expand trade between Iran and the EU.”
—-
Rising reported from Berlin

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

What a grotesque woman

Pelosi, Who Said Democrats Don’t Support Socialism, Would Support Sanders as Nominee

Peter Nygard resigns as head of fashion company after sex-trafficking raid

Peter Nygard resigns as head of fashion company after sex-trafficking raid

Fashion mogul Peter Nygard is stepping down as head of the international women’s clothing giant he founded, a spokesman for the Canadian-born multi-millionaire announced following an NYPD/FBI raid of Nygard’s Manhattan offices Tuesday.
“Recognizing the priority of the welfare of the thousands of Nygard employees, retail partners, loyal customers, vendors, suppliers, and business partners, Peter Nygard has made the decision to step down as chairman of the Nygard Companies and will divest his ownership interest,” Ken Frydman, a spokesman for the wealthy playboy, said in a statement.
“The wonderful Nygard employees who rely upon the companies for their livelihoods must now be the priority,” he said. “Peter Nygard thanks his employees for their years of dedicated service.”
Tuesday’s raid came in the wake of a Feb. 13 federal lawsuit by 10 unidentified women who claim they were raped during wild sex parties at Nygard’s estate in the Bahamas.
Nygard blames the lawsuit — and the federal probe — on neighbor and hedge-fund billionaire Louis Bacon, who has been involved in a years-long legal battle with Nygard over their Bahamian properties.

Bernie's wet dream: "Before his death in November 2016, Fidel Castro’s net worth was estimated at $900 million."

It’s idiotic to believe Castro was good for the Cuban people or that socialism would be good for the U.S

We’re supposed to believe that it is a wonderful thing in Communist countries where the leaders care so much for their people. They teach them to read. They have free education and health care. Cubans have very strict gun control. Abortion is available on demand in Cuba, and in 2019 they raised the mandatory minimum wage. All things the Democrats running for President support. It looks like an ideal Democrat platform
After 60 years of Castro Brothers control, they have raised the minimum wage to $16 (per month, not per hour). The average wage will shoot up from $24 to $42 per month. Thank goodness Cuba doesn't have the problem with wealth and income inequality that the United States does because that would cause division and strife.
Higher education professors will now receive $56 to $68 per month, very similar to the fake Indian running for President, who wants to move towards socialism, who is worth millions and got paid $400,000 for the tough task of teaching one course. I wonder why the cost of education is so high in the U.S and why student debt is so high when Warren only got $400,000 plus benefits for such a tough schedule.
The Cuban journalists pushing government propaganda will go from an average salary of $15.50 per month to $50 per month, which is very competitive with the millions that our talking heads receive as they push the Democrat talking points. Actually, I am having trouble justifying $50 per month for Maddow, Joe & Mika, Acosta and Tapper. A copier and leaflets would be a much cheaper way to push the Democrat talking points.
We clearly need a millionaire with three houses who has fed off the public trough to lead our country in order to get rid of wealth and income inequality. We have to get to a place where all the wealthy people around DC get more of the money from the greedy people throughout the rest of the country. We need to pay their fair share.

We need leaders like Castro, who cared so much about the common folk. He was very smart and obviously a good investor and saver. Like the common man in Cuba, he only earned an estimated $150 million per year and was worth in excess of $900 million when he died. Thank goodness he cared so much, just like the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, and others who have lined their pockets very successfully as they claimed they cared about the poor and middle class. There never will be enough for greedy politicians. There are no moderate Democrats running. They all want more power and money. It is they who strive for a much more powerful, dictatorial government.
There is only one reasonable choice for president, and it is the person who is trying to give the power and purse back to the people as fast as possible while most journalists, bureaucrats and other Democrats seek to destroy him and anyone surrounding him or supporting him.
There’s a widely used saying in Cuba that state workers pretend to work, and the government pretends to pay them.  Few people believe the announcement of minor wage increases on Friday will alter that relationship.
Under the plan announced by President Miguel Diaz Canel, the government will step up controls to keep consumer prices from rising both for products and services in the state and private sectors, noted the Communist Party’s Cubadebate website.
The new minimum monthly wage was set at 400 pesos (US $16.00), said the president.  He further noted that an average salary would go up from $24 a month to $42 a month.  Pensions below $20 will also get an undisclosed boost, he said.
The president noted that a top-level University Professor would now receive 1,700 pesos (US $68 a month and the lowest level university educator would receive the equivalent of $56 dollars a month.
He added that government journalists, whose basic salary was only $15.50 a month, will now receive in the neighborhood of $50 a month.
Throughout 2019, Cuba has been suffering growing shortages for many basic products due to slumping national production and a lack of money in the government coffers for imports. Diaz Canel and the Council of Ministers hope the wage hike will stimulate the nation’s economy “at a time of increased hostility from the United States against Cuba.”
One estimate suggests he had an annual income of $150 million, allowing Fidel Castro’s net worth to grow over the course of his adult life. Plus, he likely had a range of other assets, like vehicles, boats, and valuables, which are part of the total.
Before his death in November 2016, Fidel Castro’s net worth was estimated at $900 million. However, as certain information about the infamous Cuban leader is hard to come by, it could have been higher.

Democrats do not solve problems. They get the money and then miraculously find a new unicorn to chase.

Critics argue Gov. Newsom is diverting gas tax money to projects voters did not approve of

Gov. Gavin Newsom is coming under fire for an executive order he signed that redirects voter-approved gas taxes initially designed to expand transportation and infrastructure repair projects to “climate change”-related projects not authorized by the voters. 
SB1, proposed by Senate President Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, was a gas tax repeal initiative, called the “Road Repair and Accountability Act.” Tax revenue from the bill would repair the state’s failing roads, highways and bridges. 
SB 1 was passed to “invest $54 billion over the next decade to fix roads, freeways and bridges in communities across California and puts more dollars toward transit and safety,” according to RebuildingCA.gov. “These funds will be split equally between state and local investments.” 
“California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure is allocated half of the tax revenue of $26 billion; the other half is allocated to repair local roads, fund transit agencies and expand pedestrian and cycle routes. 
In 2018, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 69, which requires that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee enacted by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 only be used for transportation-related purposes. It also exempts revenue generated by SB 1’s tax increases and fee schedules from the state appropriations limit. 
Newsom's Executive Order N-19-19 redirects gas tax money to fund railroad projects instead of highway expansion projects like fixing the congested Highway 99, critics say. Additional north and south freeway lanes on Highway 99 in Tulare and Madera County were scrapped as a result. 
“Instead of building capacity on our highways to move people and freight, Governor Newsom is funding his pet rail projects throughout the state,” state Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, said. “This theft of funds meant to improve our roadways is a glimpse into the future of transportation in our state and Newsom continues to execute his September 2019 Climate Change Executive Order. The Central Valley is just the beginning. Other road projects will likely be next.” 
“This is theft of our gas taxes by Executive Order,” Patterson added. “Governor Newsom is intentionally starving us out of our roads. Voters approved SB 1 with the promise that our crumbling highways would get the attention they deserve. Instead of building capacity, our gas tax funds are being siphoned off to fund Newsom’s favored pet-projects ... Governor Newsom’s promise not to forget about the Central Valley is full of hot air, just like his climate plan.” 
The order directs the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) to invest its annual portfolio of $5 billion toward construction, operations and maintenance to help reverse the trend of increased fuel consumption and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the transportation sector. 
CalSTA released a statement in response, saying, “The state is confronting the climate crisis head on. In doing so, Caltrans will use available transportation dollars to prioritize projects that manage congestion and reduce vehicle miles traveled in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Those who claim the state is canceling projects funded by gas tax dollars are incorrect. Aligning climate goals with transportation goals requires new thinking, not obstructionism. With the long lead time to plan, design, and construct transportation projects, we must act now to achieve our climate goals.” 
“This is worse than a shell game or bait-and-switch,” Patterson posted on Facebook. “It is taxpayer theft by executive order. Promise voters that road taxes will fix our highways and streets, then siphon off $5 billion for his Climate Change plan – a new scheme to get us to give up our cars.”

Harvard virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got in on race...is this true for their medical school?

Harvard virtue-signals: DoJ brief finds that 45% of its black and Latino admissions got in on race

Imagine being a talented black or Latino applicant who got into Harvard University. Now there's news that 45% of the blacks and Latinos have been found to have been admitted on race over merit, according to a new Justice department brief, which credibly argues that Harvard engaged in illegal "race-balancing."
Almost half of all blacks and Hispanics who attend Harvard were admitted because of illegal racial preferences in admissions according to a brief just filed by the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice filed the brief in a federal lawsuit filed by Students For Fair Admissions. It says Harvard's race-based admissions process violates federal law. 
Every employer is going to be looking at your diploma and wondering if you were part of the 45%.
Which is a pretty nasty burden to throw onto the talented 55% who got in on merit alone. Everywhere they go, they'll be suspected of not being Harvard material but for the color of their skin. Make a mistake at work? It's because of the Harvard affirmative-action advantage. What an ugly thing to have to worry about for the rest of your life, solely because you are black or Latino. It's the typically lefty good intentions and virtue-signaling that in the real world does blacks and Latinos absolutely no favors.
According to the DoJ brief:
The school considers applicants’ race at virtually every step, from rating applicants to winnowing the field of applicants when attempting to avoid an oversubscribed class. And its inclusion of race in the analysis frequently makes a dispositive difference. The district court found that Harvard’s use of race was “determinative” for “approximately 45% of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.” ADD84. Moreover, Harvard meticulously tracks and shapes the racial makeup of its emerging incoming class throughout the process, continuously comparing the new class’s racial composition with that of the previous year. 
The DoJ brief argued that the funnily consistent number of admissions among minorities proved there was some intense "racial balancing" going on, which it notes, is explicitly unconstitutional in a university that takes massive federal funding:
These numbers speak for themselves. The minimal variation, including in the percentages of underrepresented minorities that Harvard seeks to benefit, over a multi-year period is much narrower than the 6.6-percentage-point range in underrepresented minorities the Supreme Court sustained in Grutter.
Asian-Americans, of course, were the ones knocked out on the old subjective 'personality' factor, with Harvard apparently claiming most have bad ones:
 Second, Harvard’s process imposes a racial penalty by systematically disfavoring Asian-American applicants. It does so in part through the subjective personal rating that admissions officers apply with minimal guidance or supervision. That rating produces consistently poorer scores for Asian Americans. Harvard did not prove that the personal rating is race-neutral. 
The DoJ brief notes that the personality rating is a big one in determining who gets admitted - applicants who got 1's and 2's, the highest ratings, were 80% of the incoming class:
With the personal rating excluded, both experts’ models show Harvard’s program inflicts a statistically significant penalty against Asian-American applicants.
So what is there to unpack here? 
Minorities are getting shortchanged on the values of their diplomas, now that news is out that their admission, unlike those of the others, was disproportionately based on race over other more qualified applicants. That's the impact of Harvard's white leadership looking to virtue-signal at the top instead of confront failing black schools and poor cultural outcomes in Great Society-poisoned black and brown cultures.
We see a lot of the effects of this affirmative-action shortchanging in lower-tier schools, which often feature huge dropout rates of minority students who as admitted minorities, cannot keep up with the other kids in the classes.
We don't see that pattern at Harvard - the 2019 statistics show that 99.04% of black students, or, 103 out of 104 graduate (presumably within the 6-year time period noted), and 98.68% of Hispanics -- 150 out of 152 -- do the same. Whites, by contrast, have a 97.6%, or 733/751 rate, and Asians have a 97.73%, or 733/751 rate. Students of mixed race have a 96.19%, or 101 out of 105 graduation rate.
All pretty hunky dory, but it's still possible this may be manipulated to keep the virtue-signal going. 
The DoJ charges that racial bean-counting is continuous at Harvard. It's also noteworthy that the school has a gargantuan "diversity" staff -- which needs to somehow keep busy. Might it be that these students are expressly guided to be graduates over other students? That's one possibility. 
Another way the graduation rate can be manipulated is through grade inflation and gut majors. Are these ultra-high black and Latino graduation rates the result of the students taking easy majors? Such as a major that ends in '-studies'? Well, to take one benchmark, about half the student section of Harvard's African-American Studies department, based on appearances, is African or African-American, or about 13 out of 27 students. That would be about 10% of the black student body, a rather disproportionate enrollment. 
The Harvard physics department, by contrast, doesn't feature faces of its students as the African-American Studies department does. The site features a gigantic eight-person committee on 'diversion and inclusivity' though, but no student facebook listings, quite unlike the African-American Studies page. A jaunt to the Harvard 'Women in Physics' section, though, features 22 female faces, nearly all students, it appears, and none apparently African-American or Latina, in the two pictoral line-up photos showing 22 faces and 25 faces. They all appear to be white, South Asian, or East Asian. Since I couldn't find any information about what black and Latino students are majoring in, the photos serve as a suggestion, particularly since the physics page has a 'diversity and inclusion' link that the African American Studies section does not, suggesting the school thinks someone might notice.
But something probably even more significant was brought up by Henry Louis Gates of all people: It's not the ghetto kids getting into Harvard under the checkbox of 'black' - it's the rich and upper middle class black kids -- and the children of African or Caribbean immigrants, who have a significant work ethic and sense of excellence, probably putting a lot of them in the 55%.
The race-balancing going on at Harvard seems to be primarily a subsidy to the rich black and Latino kids who enroll when admitted, as this academic sums up
University of Illinois professor Walter Benn Michaels put the question most bluntly when he said, “When students and faculty activists struggle for cultural diversity, they are in large part battling over what skin color the rich kids have.”
And that does seem to be going on with the Harvard race-balancing, using the richer kids. That is supported by the fact that only 76% of blacks admitted to Harvard actually go to the school. Harvard itself attributes that to the appeal of historically black colleges such as Howard University and full scholarships offered by other ivy league schools. The Journal of Black Higher Educationthinks it's black kids going to high-grade selective state schools, which serve their needs better. The admissions committee, it seems, is throwing things at black kids that a lot of them might not really want. Some may see themselves as more successful at Howard University, or U.C. Santa Barbara, and meet more people in the same boat as themselves.
Meanwhile, over at Harvard, a combination of gut majors, grade inflation, and admitting the rich kids with the requisite background to at least minimally sudceed at Harvard seems to be what keeps the Asian-American kid with poor immigrant parents from the Flushing or Jackson Heights neighborhoods in Queens from getting in - which is fundamentally discriminatory, and a nasty surprise to their American dreams. All because of those supposed bad personalities.
The DoJ fundamentally shows how kids of all races are getting shortchanged by Harvard's racial bean counting, which far from serving kids, serves as a sop to the whites who run these programs -- to virtue-signal to other whites. It's nonsense. Racialism by any other name is still racism. The black and Latino kids get shortchanged, and so do the Asians. The case shows that Harvard needs to scrap that whole thing and move to race-blind admissions more than anything else, or else go without federal funding. Better still, they might just start speaking out on why ordinary African-Americans are condemned to such bad union-run schools that keep them from out of the competition at Harvard as richer kids with the same skin color glide right in.

Transgendering

The California Teachers Association added "transgender and binary youth" to the students who can leave class for medical reasons without their parents' permission. (Photo: Sigrid Olsson/Getty Images)
Even in California, you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, 16 to drive a car, 21 to buy a gun, alcohol, or pot. But if you want to change your gender? Well, then, you just have to be 12. And your public school will be more than happy to help.
Need an abortion? Tell your teacher. Want to refill your birth control? Go to the school clinic. Thinking about starting hormone treatments? Your parents will never find out. At least, not under the policy the California Teachers Association is pushing. 
That’s the amazing revelation from last month’s union meeting. On Jan. 26, the California Teachers Association decided to go big on the LGBT agenda—adding “transgender and binary youth” to the students who can leave class for medical reasons without their parents’ permission.
Concerned teachers leaked the new language to The Epoch Times, worried that no one in the state knew: “CTA believes comprehensive school-based health care clinics are needed to bring caring and responsive services to young people. The clinics shall provide cisgender, transgender, and non-binary youth equal and confidential access to decision-making rights for students and their families.” 
Translation: A student can secretly pursue that transition at school without parents ever finding out.
And although the policy doesn’t expressly say “hormone therapy” is a part of that “access,” the California Teachers Association committee made it clear: “That’s the final goal.” 
As far as the union is concerned, the current law is an outrage, since “it does not allow trans students to begin … hormone therapy without the consent of both legal guardians.” Kids, it argues, should be free to take those drugs without the “barrier of parental permission.” 
Just like they’re free to get “excused absence” abortions without calling home, or pop birth control pills from the clinic’s nurse. In a country where millions of parents entrust their kids to public schools, it’s time for everyone to realize: Education has become the least of concerns for these school districts.
What’s happening in Wisconsin schools—where kids can assume a completely different identity without parents knowing—has gone on in California since 2013. Michigan since 2016. New Jersey since 2018. If this hasn’t made it to your state, trust me. It’s coming. 
The other side is moving as fast as it can to get its hands on your sons and daughters. And in so many horrifying cases, it’s too late for anyone to stop them. How many stories start out like this mom’s? “I only found out after the fact,” she says:
I went to the school counselor and asked why they would let this happen. Why weren’t her parents contacted to see ‘what issues’ she may be going through [before she ‘came out’ as a boy]? The school counselor relayed to me: ‘We’re following the guidance passed in Michigan 2016, that parents are not to be notified if a child self-identifies as a transgender.
Her daughter was 12 years old. There are literally hundreds of parentsexperiencing the same trauma—or worse. In California, where sixth-graders will probably be able to start hormone therapies without permission, how many children will come home completely and radically altered? Healthy, normal teenagers like Sydney Wright, who cried when she saw what she’d become on hormones. 
“Two years ago, I was a beautiful girl heading toward high school graduation. But after taking testosterone for a year, I turned into an overweight, prediabetic nightmare of a transgender man.” 
The system, she says, failed her:
I was treated with mega-doses of powerful testosterone that ravaged my body, caused me to gain 50 pounds, and put me at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and teenage menopause. They didn’t even talk to me about other treatment options! [No one] suggested I give myself time to grow up or wait and see what happens with counseling sessions. … The only advice I got was to take mega-doses of testosterone.
Right now, there are parents all across this country who are sending their kids into the hands of the enemy and they don’t even know it. As one mom in Santa Ana said, “Even though it seems peaceful here in America, there is a war waging for the minds of our children.” 
And the other side is doing everything it can to accelerate the process before you find out–locking more kids into a lifetime of agony that can’t be reversed. Increasingly, over the past several decades, many government schools have become indoctrination centers for the left, but the aggressiveness of their efforts in the last few years is staggering.
If you have children in public school, they’re in danger. Knowing that there are deliberate efforts in school districts across the country to evade and deceive ought to drive parents everywhere to act. 
To prepare yourself and your family, take the time to read through FRC’s “A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in Education.” And then prayerfully consider what other choices you have for educating your kids.
Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.