General

Who Really Cares About Dead Kids?

/13 Comments/in /by
Who Really Cares About Dead Kids?

We’ve heard a lot lately about how Republicans don’t care about dead kids — just keep your hands off their guns! The bullhorn insurrection staged by Tennessee legislators, for example, was justified on the grounds that they were JUST TRYING TO SAVE CHILDREN’S LIVES!!!

As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell put it, the bullhorn episode showed “who is trying to protect the children of Tennessee and who isn’t.”

The amazing statistic that’s supposed to make us give up our guns PRONTO is that since 2020, gun violence has become the leading cause of death for American children.

You’re supposed to be thinking of the little kids killed in school shootings, like in Uvalde or the Christian school in Nashville. In fact, the odds that a child will be killed in a mass school shooting are 1 in 10 million.

The trick is that “children” includes 16-to-19-year-old gang members.   Exclude 16-to-19-year-olds, and the number of kids killed by guns every year plummets from 2,811 to a few hundred.

It turns out, Black teenagers are using guns to kill a lot of other Black teenagers.

This will come as a surprise to most people because Black-on-Black violence is not considered newsworthy. (By contrast, any White-on-Black violence, even the sort of thing that wouldn’t make local news if the perp were Black, will get front-page coverage at The New York Times, international headlines and a call from the president.)

Based on arrests reported in the local news, here are a few recent examples of “children” being killed by gun violence. You will notice that none of these suspected homicides would have been prevented even if Republicans gave up all their guns.

And consider that, in most urban areas, the huge majority of murders never result in any arrests at all. For example, the “clearance” rate for murder — which is much higher than the “arrest” rate — is only 22% in Chicago, 43% in Baltimore and 37% in Philadelphia.

According to police arrests:

— On March 29, 2023, 16-year-old Vincent Lee Bradley III and 17-year-old Devonte J. Pool fired at least 33 shots, gunning down a 16-year-old high school student, Larry Marshall III, in Tacoma, Washington.

— A few days earlier, 16-year-old Lorenzo A. Brooks and 19-year-old Aaron Randolph Carter allegedly shot and killed 18-year-old Jasiah Smith in a Fredericksburg, Virginia, parking lot.

— A week before that, 19-year-old Adrian Daeshawn Granville and 24-year-old Teonjenique Elizabeth Lashay Hudson Howard were shot and killed at the Embassy Suites hotel in Portland, Oregon, by an unknown suspect — the same hotel where 15-year-old Deandrae Barber fatally shot 18-year-old Parnell Badon Jr. on Nov. 19, 2022. (Can’t wait to read the Yelp reviews.)

— On March 7, 2023, two brothers, Jacob Tobias Bryant, 18, and John Aalen Bryant Jr., 20, along with an unnamed 16-year-old juvenile, fatally shot a 17-year-old in Georgetown, South Carolina.

— On Feb. 23, 2023, Keith Melvin Moses, 19, shot and killed a 9-year-old girl, T’yonna Major, and her mother in a shooting spree in Orlando, Florida, that left several others wounded or dead.

— On Jan. 23, 2023, 18-year-old Preston Walls removed his ankle bracelet before gunning down rival gang members, 18-year-old Gionni Dameron and 16-year-old Rashad Carr, at a violence reduction program in Des Moines, Iowa.

— On Jan. 4, 2023, 18-year-old Jakari Harps fatally shot 17-year-old Breck Gerard Williams Jr. and 14-year-old Adrian Daniels in west Fort Worth, Texas.

— Right before Christmas last year, 17-year-old Lavon Semaj Longstreet and 18-year-old TaeShawn Adams-Wright killed 19-year-old Johntae Raymon Hudson at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, standing over Hudson’s body and firing “multiple rounds into his body.”

— Earlier in December, 17-year-old Tejuan Johnson and 18-year-old Jaylan Dubose shot and killed 15-year-old Nonaisha Jones and 19-year-old Logan Lawson in the Roselawn neighborhood of Cincinnati, Ohio.

All these incidents of “children” dying by gun violence consisted of Black teenagers killing other Black teenagers — and a 9-year-old.

More than half of all Black teenagers who died of any cause in 2020 were killed by guns. Black males 15- to 34-years-old were more than 20 times more likely to die by gun homicide than White males that age.

Unfortunately, there is probably no story of less interest to our media (or the president) than the epidemic of Black teenagers killing one another. In Jill Leovy’s acclaimed book, “Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America,” there’s a full page of racist quotes explaining why, historically, “Black-on-Black killing drew so little notice.” This one is from a White Tennessean during Reconstruction: “[N-word] life’s cheap now.”

Or, as Cook County (Illinois) State’s Attorney Kim Foxx put it in declining to prosecute a gang shootout, it’s “mutual combat.”

Far from highlighting the crisis of Black teenagers shooting one another and declaring a national emergency, the media, corporate America and Democrats mightily egged on Black violence after the death of George Floyd. It’s fun for them. They get to watch riot porn from the safety of their lily-White neighborhoods.

The only people who actually give a damn about Black people getting killed are the police. And who have the bien-pensants declared war on? You guessed right.

Propose anything that would actually reduce the plague of Black-on-Black crime, such as arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning criminals, and liberals scream, STOP PUTTING BLACK BODIES IN PRISON!

Needless to say, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, the Tennessee representatives who attacked democracy because they were JUST TRYING TO SAVE CHILDREN’S LIIIIIVES, are huge BLM supporters. They prattle about “ending police violence,” Blacks being “lynched by police officers,” and accuse the police of running a “system of White supremacy.”

Jones told Teen Vogue that “more policing does not lead to community safety.” (The thousands of Black men who are still alive thanks to Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s more policing policy would disagree.) Instead, Jones proposed “more funding to social workers, public education [and] ending poverty.” (Why didn’t anybody else think of that?)

On NPR, Pearson blamed “White supremacy” for the death of Tyre Nichols. (“White supremacy” is such an awesome force, it even infected the five Black Memphis police officers charged with Nichols’ death.)

You want to know who doesn’t care about “our children’s lives,” MSNBC? You, the rest of the media, George Soros-supported prosecutors and the entire Democratic Party. Their motto: “[N-word] life’s cheap now.”

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

 

Matthew Goodwin: A cynical Establishment type, or a future friend of British Nationalism?

/16 Comments/in , /by

This article was posted by Anglo-Celtic.org on Wednesday 12 April 2023.

Matthew Goodwin

Matthew Goodwin 

Matthew Goodwin is not a British Nationalist. He is Professor of Politics at Kent University. He is well in with the likes of Penguin/Pelican Books and the BBC.

He is a respectable figure and he wants to stay that way. Occasionally, he is one of four guests on the BBC2 lunchtime programme, Politics Live, where I learned of his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics.

The hostess there is Jo Coburn, an active member of the Ealing Liberal Synagogue. She is married to Mark Flanagan, former head of strategic communications for both the Labour government and the following Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. Coburn’s guests frequently include another Jew of some variety.

I do not know whether Coburn personally chooses her guests, or whether that is done for her from either above or below. But we can tell the kind of company that Matthew Goodwin keeps.

As an academic, Goodwin has to demonstrate a certain amount of objectivity, although a host of Marxist sociology lecturers etc. seem to get by quite nicely without doing that. Just as the BBC is obliged by its charter to be politically impartial. Martin Webster and Philip Gegan have shot down that myth, on the Anglo-Celtic website. “Anglo-Celtic is campaigning to abolish the BBC”.

Matthew Goodwin has co-authored a number of books where British Nationalism is either implied to be, or openly stated to be, “fascist” or “far right”. But Nationalism seems to be a major interest of Goodwin’s. I do not know what first attracted him to his subject.

But as he developed his interest, he also developed an understanding, and an empathy with some modern nationalist ideological positions. He might have developed a sympathy with moderate nationalist positions. But, as he is based at a politically correct university, he dares not say so openly, if in fact that is the case. Many have been driven out of universities for not taking the right line.

In 2018, Goodwin co-wrote with Roger Eatwell, National Populism – The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. They concentrated on ‘national’ populism, rather than populism in general. In that book they wrote:

One point that has recurred throughout is that people who support national populism are not merely protesting: they are choosing to endorse views that appeal to them. So we need to look more closely at the promises being made by these politicians and examine whether, contrary to the popular claim that it is a new form of fascism, national populism strives towards a new form of democracy in which the interests and voices of ordinary people feature far more prominently.

I enjoyed that book and even wrote a letter to the Hull Daily Mail about it – see the published text below.

Goodwin’s new book

The back cover of Values, Voice and Virtue states:

What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes?

British politics is coming apart. A country once known for its stability has recently experienced a series of shocking upheavals. Matthew Goodwin, acclaimed political scientist and co-author of National Populism, shows that the reason is not economic hardship, personalities or dark money. It is a far wider political realignment that will be with us for years to come. An increasingly liberalised, globalized ruling class has lost touch with millions, who found their values ignored, their voices unheard and their virtue denied. Now, this new alliance of voters is set to determine Britain’s fate.

In chapters one and two, Goodwin discusses the new political elite and how it accomplished a revolution. He writes in chapter two:

It opened the economy to a new and very disruptive model of hyper-globalization. It opened the country’s borders to a new and unprecedented era of mass immigration. And it opened up and hollowed out its national democracy, handing much greater power, influence and control to supranational institutions.

Nowhere in the book is there any mention of the Jewish role in all of this. Some time ago, I wrote to Matthew Goodwin and asked him if he was aware of the books by Kevin MacDonald. I did not receive either a reply or an acknowledgement of my letter.

But I am reminded of Ruling the Void – The Hollowing of Western Democracy, by the Irish academic, Peter Mair, and Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s commentary on United States society. Edward Dutton has things to say about some of this in his co-authored book, The Past is a Future Country.

Kevin MacDonald has much to say in his fourth book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, in the last two chapters, eight and nine. This includes comments on another book, by Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, a book describing how Westerners (read White people) do not look after their own, like other peoples in the Third World do, and the way this situation developed.

I think that there is hope for some Establishment academics. Remember, even Kevin MacDonald started out as a leftist, and later became a Reagan-supporting conservative. Only later did he become a racial nationalist.

All of these books, including the two mentioned of Goodwin’s books, are worth reading. Because British Nationalists should be well-read and well-informed.

There is some evidence that Establishment academics, in Britain and America, and elsewhere, are aware of the political situation, and are currently cautiously commenting on it. Of course, most of them will not mention the Jews. MacDonald is the honourable exception.

Some intelligent people know that there is a potentially revolutionary situation developing. The Establishment is trying hard to crush all Nationalist thinking. I have little doubt that people like Charles Murray in the United States, and Matthew Goodwin in the UK, would furiously deny having any sympathy with racial nationalism (at this stage, probably honestly). But they are noticing things that we know about.

All political revolutions start off as an Idea, and then develop slowly at first. Later, when they have gained momentum and more public support, there are always some among the old Establishment who come over to the new regime. Some of those people are braver than others. Some want to see which way the political winds are blowing before they will jump ship. Some are cynical and self-serving, but want to be well in with the new rulers — and they can be used by the new regime.

But I almost think that it is a pre-condition of the success of all revolutions that they win some  sympathisers among the old order that they want to replace. Are we seeing the first tentative signs of that with people like Goodwin and Murray?

If we do not make significant progress, such types will turn their professional interest elsewhere and play down their previous comments.

But a revolutionary situation demands a revolution. Goodwin’s book has five chapters. The first two are, The Rise of the New Elite, and Revolution, by which he means Cultural Marxism’s revolution. He does not call it that, but chooses “Hyper Liberalism” instead. In this he echoes the Tory writer, Nick Timothy, in his book, Remaking One Nation – The Future of Conservatism. Timothy refers to “Ultra Liberalism”.

Chapters three, four and five are about how the political elite are out of touch with the public. He devotes these chapters to the “Values, Voice and Virtue” of his title to the book. But interestingly, the conclusion to the book is called “Counter Revolution”.

Is he advocating that, or warning against it? Read the book and form your own opinion! I hope to comment again on this book, in a future letter.

Best Wishes

Will

© Will Wright 2023

*****

Published in the Hull Daily Mail, on Friday November 30, 2018, as:

Local politicians could learn a lot from this book 

Recently, I read National Populism, the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin. Although this book is by a couple of academics, it is an easy read and a good buy at £9.99 from Pelican books. Published on 25th October, 2018 it is right up to date and in my opinion, a must read for anyone who is interested in contemporary politics.

But more than that, I think some of our local politicians could benefit from reading it. Colin Inglis and David Nolan might find it useful in understanding why they were on the losing side in the EU referendum. But they are not the only ones.

Stephen Brady, who thought that immigration had been good for Hull, might see things from a different perspective once he has read this book. Regular Mail contributor, Michael Somerton, might realise that not everyone thinks in purely economic terms. Middle class feminists might gain insight into why America rejected Hilary Clinton and embraced Donald Trump.

Most of all I hope lots of Mail readers rush out to buy this book. The writers devote a chapter to each of the four ‘D’s:

• The distrust of the political class.

• The threatened destruction of nation states and indigenous populations by super-states and mass immigration.

• The relative deprivation of ordinary people compared to the global, jet-setting super-class.

• The de-alignment of the old political parties with their traditional voters.

Trump, Brexit and the rise of continental nationalist movements — the new force is populist nationalism.

The writers explain that this is different to fascism. This nationalism threatens the future of ‘centre-right’ parties and ‘centre-left’ parties.

According to the authors, the right’s only answer is to steal nationalist policies. The left hasn’t found an answer and faces terminal decline. The left cannot please both politically correct, middle class liberals and immigrants on the one hand — and their traditional working-class supporters on the other.

Much of Labour’s new recruits are in London, rather than that party’s traditional northern heartlands.

This is a very timely message, let’s see it in a few Christmas stockings!

Will Wright

Jim Goad: The Film

/11 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: I think you’ll agree that this video combines excellent insight (e.g., “There never were any goalposts”) with an entertaining presentation.

 

 

Comment on ZMan’s blog: “Cofnas Versus MacDonald”

/8 Comments/in /by

The ZMan wrote an interesting blog on the conflict between Cofnas and me. My comment:

I completely agree that Cofnas is a sophist who cares nothing for the truth and keeps making the same arguments while ignoring my counterarguments. But re group selection: My perspective is cultural group selection which is entirely in the mainstream of evolutionary thinking these days. It’s not important to get into how it works genetically. From my review of Joseph Henrich’s The WEIRDest People in the World:

Without mentioning cultural group selection, Henrich describes social norms as “arising directly from cultural learning and social interaction, that is via cultural evolution” (p. 69). Within the group, reputation is important; people with a bad reputation may be penalized, exiled, or even murdered — essentially acknowledging that human groups become, like a military unit, vehicles of selection because they are able to police group membership by expelling cheaters who accept the benefits of group membership without paying the costs. Groups with better norms, especially the ability to inculcate high levels of intragroup dependence and cooperation, are able to prosper by growing faster, and this has genetic consequences. “Wherever we look, from the Arctic to Australia, hunter-gatherer populations compete, and those with the best combinations of institutions and technologies expand and gradually replace or assimilate those with less effective cultural packages”; e.g., the Inuit replaced the “fragmented and isolated communities that had lived there for millennia” (p. 80). The relevance to the expansion of the West after 1500 is obvious.

This is my approach to Judaism, as presented in my first book, A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: The culture of ethnic separation, endogamy, dietary restrictions, promoting marriages of high IQ people, within-group altruism, enforcing penalties for Jews who violated community norms (which likely selected for ethnocentrism), etc. They developed a culture that had evolutionary advantages (at times Jewish population growth has far exceeded non-Jewish, as in 19th-century Russia; but, as the history of anti-Semitism shows, there are serious disadvantages as well). There are obviously genetic payoffs for groups with successful strategies, as Henrich’s comment shows. But Jews are also highly ethnocentric, as you seem to agree.

I rather doubt that my use of the word ‘strategy’ was a trigger. The first book got good reviews. What triggered people is that in The Culture of Critique I discussed conflicts of interest between Jews and Europeans over the construction of culture, Jews as a substantial part of the post-WWII elite in America, Jewish influence on culture, immigration, multiculturalism, etc. Anyone who takes a less than positive view of Jewish influence will certainly trigger a lot of people. And yes, Jewish cultural influence has been an evolutionary (genetic) disaster for European peoples.

Expel Them Again

/16 Comments/in /by

Expel Them Again

The vote to expel two Democrats from the Tennessee House of Representatives last week reminds us of one of the immutable laws of politics: Whenever Democrats accuse anyone of racism, demand to see the videotape.

     Hey — remember the 2016 racist bus attack on three Black coeds at the University at Albany that caught Hillary Clinton’s attention? They claimed a group of White men shouting racial epithets started hitting them, but no one on the bus cared! Foolishly, in retrospect, they didn’t check to see if the bus had cameras. It did. Rallies, hysteria, a Hillary tweet … and then it turned out they were the ones beating up a White girl.

Or how about the Princeton professor who claimed she’d been the victim of a vicious racist policeman in 2016? “Many women who look like me,” she wrote on Twitter, “have a much more frightening end to such arrests.” After a hue and cry, the police released the officer’s dashcam footage. The officer had been almost comically polite to her, despite her going 20 mph over the speed limit, as well as driving on a suspended license.

In 2015 in Connecticut, another BIPOC lady professor decided that, instead of simply paying a small traffic fine, she’d wreck a cop’s life. In a blizzard of letters to government officials, she accused the policeman of racism and demanded that “action be taken against the officer.” The police released a recorded transcript of the entire interaction — and guess what? The officer never said any of the racist things she’d alleged. He, too, was a model of professionalism.

The list goes on and on and on. And on and on. And on and on … (Though it’s important we avoid reflexive cynicism. Only the most callous among us would doubt Jussie Smollett.)

In any case, the moral of the story: Democrats say RACIST!!, you say “Show me the video.”

Which brings us to the allegedly racist Tennessee Republicans who expelled two of their colleagues this week just because they were Black!  (Didn’t Republicans notice these guys were Black before now?)

MEDIA: The expelled lawmakers did nothing that others didn’t do!

Normal people: Show us the video.

MEDIA: Trust us, these lawmakers were the picture of decorum.

Normal people: Show us the video.

MEDIA: We must have left it in the car. We’ll try to remember to bring it tomorrow.

There’s a reason Tennessee Democrats frantically tried to prevent the playing of the video.

What it shows is two black Democrats, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, on the Tennessee House floor carrying on for more than an hour, shouting into a bullhorn, waving protest signs, banging on the podium like a drum, and leading chants with protesters in the gallery:

Power to the people! Power to the people!

No justice, no peace! No action, no peace!

Whose house? Our house! Whose house? Our house!

Gun control now! Gun control now!

Please explain how the Jan 6 QAnon Shaman showed more contempt for the democratic process than Jones and Pearson did. How about compared to a representative sending naughty texts to female colleagues outside of business hours — the casus belli of the last expulsion in 2016.

But according to MSNBC, the only reason Jones and Pearson were expelled was because the “predominantly white, predominantly male” lawmakers refuse to “coexist with representatives who are female or young or black” — as Nicole Wallace put it. (Nicole: Relax. You’ve got the job.)

In bafflement, Wallace asked, “Why did they have to be expelled? Why did this come to this?”

Idea: Show the video, Nicole!

Rep. Gloria Johnson, the body-positive white representative, begged not to be expelled, pointing out with some justice that, unlike Jones and Pearson, she broke no House rules — never shouted, pounded the podium, displayed a protest sign or used a bullhorn.

But as soon as her argument succeeded and she wasn’t expelled, Johnson rushed to MSNBC to say racism was the only reason she wasn’t. The sole deciding factor, she said, was “the color of our skin.”

If so, then why did she flap her gums about not breaking any House rules? Why not just say, Hey, guys! I’m White! (Amazon is now accepting pre-orders for her forthcoming memoir, “Profiles in Craven.”)

Some conservatives say the Republicans should have expelled the White lady just to avoid (false) charges of racism. Yes, and innocent Whites and Asians should be sent to prison so no one can say our criminal justice system is racist.

I’m sorry if Black people break rules out of proportion to their numbers in the population, but we don’t punish the innocent to achieve some childish idea of “equity.”

Rep. Johnson is a liar, but she didn’t break any House rules. Jones and Pearson did.

Johnson defended the assault on democracy by her Black colleagues, saying, “The younger generation has a different way of speaking. They have a different way of addressing things.” So get used to bullhorns during legislative sessions, America! It’s just Black style.

Apparently, we’ve returned to the Treating-Black-People-Like-Children phase of “Diversity.” I just wish liberals would state their racism plainly: We simply can’t expect Black people to abide by White norms of dignity and decorum.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

You’re Being Played, Republicans!

/40 Comments/in /by
You’re Being Played, Republicans!

A few years ago, I posted this riddle on Twitter:

      What’s easier to roll than an Easter egg?

Answer: Donald Trump.

Now, I can add:

What’s easier to roll than Donald Trump?

Answer: Republican voters.

Democrats are playing Republicans like a fiddle. The left’s sole objective is to make Trump the Republicans’ 2024 presidential nominee. He’s already lost three election cycles for the GOP — why not make it four?

A month ago, things were looking bad for the Democrats.

Immediately after Trump announced for president last November, he may as well have gone into the witness protection program. Even Fox News cut away from his announcement speech. He had to have dinner with a noted Hitler enthusiast to get any attention, and, when he spoke at CPAC in February, the room was half-empty.

Looming before them was the threat from Florida: Gov. Ron DeSantis. He was beating Trump in the presidential polls without even announcing. He’d scored victory after victory against Democrats and won his reelection bid — in a purple state! — by 20 points, despite attacks from Trump.

Against DeSantis’ smarts and energy, the Democrats would be running President Senile Dementia and a vice president whose sole credentials are that she is black and a woman.

They had only one hope: Get Trump the nomination. Liberals: HE’S A DANGER TO THE NATION! NEVER HAVE WE FACED SUCH PERIL! Now let’s do everything we can to make sure he gets the nomination.

And that’s why Democrats indicted Trump on absurd charges this week, with the media covering the event like it was the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Today, the party mandarins are sitting around laughing as Republicans trip over themselves to defend Trump.

This was the whole point of my book, “Resistance Is Futile: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.” Instead of attacking Trump for the things he’d actually done, liberals would run off and make wild charges, forcing normal people to say, I don’t like the guy, but he’s not a Russian agent.

The endless stream of preposterous charges against Trump only helped him.

So why not launch another ridiculous accusation to help him get the nomination? That’s exactly what they did in last year’s GOP primaries, supporting Trump’s nut-bar candidates, knowing they would go on to lose the general election. By boosting Trump’s candidates, Democrats managed to pull out a historic midterm victory for Biden.

And now, they’re doing it again, trying to trick Republicans into choosing the worst possible presidential nominee. Guess what? It’s working! New GOP motto: Unable to learn from the third kick of a mule.

In response to Trump’s arraignment on Tuesday, all conservative media swept aside news of out-of-control crime, chaos at the border, fentanyl overdoses and the looming recession. Their No. 1 job became: SAVE TRUMP! A major conservative talk radio host even suggested DeSantis stand down and endorse Trump.

True, everyone at MSNBC is a Trump-hating zealot. But this helps obscure the real objective. Half the Democrats genuinely hate Trump, and the other half are saying, This is fantastic. We’re going to win him the nomination.

Politico reports that Biden’s senior advisers reacted to Trump’s recent surge in the polls with unmitigated joy. “We beat Trump once, they say, and will again.”

They’re absolutely right. After voters reject you once, they almost never change their minds. In all of U.S. history, losing presidential candidates have run again about a dozen times. Only three of those renominations were successful — and only one since 1892. (Nixon was the only one to do it in the past 131 years. Of course, that first election probably was stolen from him, but Nixon graciously conceded, instead of running around making a complete ass of himself.)

Everyone acts as if Trump’s 2016 win was a gigantic, stupendous victory, when in reality he barely squeaked by. Don’t confuse “startling” with “big.”

He was running against the most hated woman in politics.

Moreover, the country had been incessantly told that Hillary had it in the bag. On Election Day, The New York Times put her chances of winning at 85%. Princeton professor Sam Wang — who’d correctly predicted 49 out of 50 states in 2012! — said Clinton was more than 99% likely to be the next president. How many Clinton voters saw those polls and thought, I’ll just say I voted for her and go get my nails done.

Yet and still, out of 139 million votes cast in 2016, Trump won with a mere 80,000 votes across three states. Flip those votes, and Hillary wins.

Trump’s winning was a shock, but it wasn’t an amazing, spectacular victory, indicative of some sort of electoral magic.

And then, of course, Trump went on turn his presidency over to Jared and Ivanka, betray his voters (But he moved the embassy!) and lose the next three election cycles.

Republicans: No matter how angry you are at Democrats for politicizing the law, please remember: Trump. Will. Lose. To. Biden. There is absolutely no scenario in which he wins. The good news is there’s virtually no scenario where Biden wins — unless Trump is his opponent.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

Uncivil Discourse at Stanford Law School: Judge Subjected to Staged Shaming

/9 Comments/in /by

Respect for judges, free speech, and the rule of law seems in its death throes today at law schools, especially so-called “elite” law schools.  A case in point is the speech Judge Kyle Duncan gave, or rather attempted to give, on March 9, 2023 at Stanford Law School.

Judge Duncan, a Trump appointee who serves on the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, had been invited by the law school’s Federalist Society to give a speech on the bland topic of the relationship between the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court.  The judge, however, had aroused the ire of the school’s woke students and faculty by some of his judicial opinions, especially U.S. v. Varner, in which he denied the request of a biological male (who was serving a term for attempted receipt of child pornography) to be called by feminine pronouns.

Judge Duncan described his reception at the law school in an article he wrote for the Wall Street Journal:

When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font.  . . .  Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”

Before my talk started, the mob flooded the room. Banners unfurled. Signs brandished: “FED SUCK,” “Trans Lives Matter” (this one upside down), and others that can’t be quoted in a family newspaper.

When the Federalist Society president tried to introduce me, the heckling began. “The Federalist Society (You suck!) is pleased to welcome Judge Kyle Duncan (You’re not welcome here, we hate you!). . . . And so on. As I began, the heckling continued. Try delivering a speech while being jeered at every third word. This was an utter farce, a staged public shaming.

Given that students, at least theoretically, are subject to discipline by their school’s faculty and administration, why did these hysterical students believe they could get away with yelling down, insulting, and even threatening a federal judge who had been invited on campus?  The answer is simple: the students assumed the faculty and administration would not only permit their tantrums but approve them. And in this premise the students were, of course, entirely correct. As Judge Duncan further described the event, the Stanford dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, Tirien Steinbach, was watching the mob behavior from the periphery.  Ms. Steinbach had never introduced herself to Judge Duncan.  But, as Judge Duncan describes, finally she asked to address everyone:

 . . . Students began screaming, and I reluctantly gave way. Whereupon Ms. Steinbach opened a folio, took out a printed sheaf of papers, and delivered a six-minute speech addressing the question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

While the students rhythmically snapped, Ms. Steinbach attempted to explain. My “work,” she said, “has caused harm.” It “feels abhorrent” and “literally denies the humanity of people.” My presence put Ms. Steinbach in a tough spot, she said, because her job “is to create a space of belonging for all people” at Stanford. . . . And she repeated the cryptic question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

I asked again what she meant, and she finally put the question plainly:  Was my talk “worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?” Again she asserted her belief in free speech before equivocating: “I understand why people feel like the harm is so great that we might need to reconsider those policies, and luckily, they’re in a school where they can learn the advocacy skills to advocate for those changes.” . . .  In closing, she said: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ”

The students’ school-sanctioned tantrum was in fact a manifestation of a leftward-skewed ideological imbalance in law school faculty that has been brewing its pernicious effects for many decades.  A study in 1980 found that 74% of law faculty were drawn from a small number of elite and very liberal law schools, causing one American Bar Association reviewer to comment caustically that “[w]ere we biologists studying inbreeding, we might predict that successive generations of imbeciles would be produced by such a system.”  The inbreeding and ideological imbalance have not improved in subsequent decades. Surveys in 1998, 2005, 2013, and 2022 confirmed that over 80% of law professors at the most highly rated and influential law schools self identified as “liberal” (including over 20% as “very liberal”) and only 7% as “conservative.” “Harvard Law School has over 100 people on the faculty and I would be surprised if there are more than two people on the faculty who voted for Donald Trump,” Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School, recently told Scholastic (a Notre Dame student magazine),  “and I would be surprised if there are more than five to 10 who consider themselves Republicans.”

As law faculties’ leftist bent has become more and more entrenched, its proponents — as so often happens in a one-party system — have become more hypocritical, intolerant of dissent, and out of touch with large segments of the population they purport to serve. Law schools purport to be advocates for diversity  — gender and racial, for example.  With respect to ideological diversity, however,  little is permitted.  The barbarous treatment of Judge Duncan at Stanford Law School is an example of this.  Regrettably, there were many similar instances before this incident and more will come in the future.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes penned his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States.  In that dissent, Justice Holmes articulated what dozens of later Supreme Court cases have adopted as the essence of First Amendment freedom of speech:  “free trade in ideas.”  But Holmes, a Civil War veteran, had many conservative views.  So here’s a question: If Justice Holmes, one of the greatest jurists America has produced and the avatar of the First Amendment, could be brought back to life and was invited to speak at Stanford Law School, would that super-woke institution allow him to speak?

I doubt it.  I gravely doubt it.

Reprinted with permission from the American Free Press.
Glen Allen is an attorney and founder of the FREE EXPRESSION FOUNDATION, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation dedicated to the defense of citizens denied their Constitutional right to free expression See more at Free Expression Foundation,org,  or write FEF, PO Box 65242, Baltimore, MD 21209-9998