What’s Behind College-Educated, Suburban Women Flipping To Democrats

• 2018

What’s Behind College-Educated, Suburban Women Flipping To Democrats

These women who reside in wealthy suburbs are an odd group. Sometimes they vote on the economy, but their loyalty to the pocketbook only goes so far.

NOVEMBER 7, 2018 By D.C. McAllister

Suburbs in Northern Virginia, New York, and New Jersey, among others across the nation, swung for the Democrats in the midterms, securing their control of the House. College-educated white women in these areas are being credited for the win, giving credence to the women’s movements that have dominated the headlines for the past two years. But this is only part of the story.

These women who reside in wealthy suburbs are an odd group. Sometimes they vote on the economy, but their loyalty to the pocketbook only goes so far. If they think their equality is threatened or health care won’t be available to everyone, they’ll abandon the economy in a heartbeat.

In the 2018 midterms, exit polling showed that voters’ main concern was health care—a whopping 40 percent. Immigration came in second at 23 percent, followed by the economy at 21 percent. Given the Republicans’ goal to whittle away at Obamacare and the notion that this will leave people without coverage or access to health care, it’s not surprising that these women weren’t inspired by the economy to keep the Republican agenda going.

Another issue that affects how many women vote is fear of inequality. For two years, activist groups and politicians beat the drum that the Republicans are threatening women’s rights. New Supreme Court justices could mean overturning Roe v. Wade. Free birth control might end with changes in health care. The Me Too movement created an environment of fear that men are predators, especially those in the Republican Party.

The rhetoric of Trump as sexual deviant in chief filled the pages of women’s magazines. Protests, pussy hats, celebrities wailing about the dehumanization of women even as they objectified themselves rained down on female voters, enlivening their allegiance to equality, even when it’s not actually being threatened.

These two issues, along with hatred of Trump, drove these women to vote blue. They despise Trump, and they always have. They voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, 51 percent to Trump’s 45 percent. Some were Never-Trumper Republicans going for other candidates. They are, at the core, elitist. They didn’t like him then, and they don’t like him now.

Their feelings about Trump negated any objective judgment of his job performance or recognition that his policies and programs have benefited them greatly, including a strong economy and greater security for our nation. Emotionalism won the day.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won this group over Obama by six points because they had catapulted the economy to the top of their concerns. Many college-educated wealthy white women weren’t swayed by the war on women narrative at that time, nor were they concerned about health care as much, although it was still high on the list. They weren’t too worried; after all, Romney had instituted government health subsidies in Massachusetts.

Romney also soothed their elitist sensibilities. He was dignified. Their feelings could take a back seat to objective concerns because those fires weren’t stoked effectively enough to deter them. This wasn’t true for all women at that time. Some were swayed by the “binders full of women” attack, but not all.

This changed both in 2016 when they supported Clinton and even more significantly in 2018 when they flooded the polls to usher in a Democratic House majority. As reported by Ronald Brownstein just before the midterms, “Over two-thirds of college-educated white women, an unprecedented number, said they planned to vote Democratic for Congress, according to figures provided by CNN polling director Jennifer Agiesta.”

But they weren’t the only ones. College-educated suburban white men who were also offended by Trump’s behavior showed up to kick out Republicans. “Just over half of college-educated white men preferred Democrats in the survey,” Brownstein wrote. “That represents a sharp swing from their usual congressional voting behavior: Democrats haven’t won even 40% percent of college-educated white men in any congressional election since 2008, according to exit polls.”

This combination of elitist voters who can go Republican under some circumstances but will vote Democratic if they’re offended or worried about inequities made a difference in key suburbs.

Additionally, some of the congressional districts that had previously been favorable to Republicans because they were mostly rural—a stronghold for Trump—were redrawn to include wealthy suburbs, shifting the vote Democratic. As reported by USA Today, a fifth of the districts now under control of the Democrats had been redrawn in Pennsylvania.

The changes weren’t trivial: Democrats increased their share of the vote by an average of 20 percent in the districts they flipped in the Keystone State. The biggest change came in the 5th congressional district, a sprawling, mostly rural district in central Pennsylvania. Democrats won an anemic 33 percent there in 2016. In 2018, with the new boundaries in place, they won over 65 percent of the vote.

The suburban slaughter in the midterms, therefore, can be attributed to three things: motivated college-educated white women who put their fears about women’s issues and health care over economic and national security; both college-educated white women and men who are personally offended by Trump’s personality and rhetoric; and redrawing of district lines to include these groups to curb Republican advantages.

It’s uncertain if Trump can do anything to attract these voters. Probably not. That ship has likely sailed. The best he can do is shore up his base for the next election. The rest of us—conservative women in particular, who don’t vote by feelings and unfounded fears—need to step up. It falls on our shoulders to educate our suburban sisters about the role of government in their lives, the dangers of government-run health care, and the lies of feminism regarding “inequalities” in America.

Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.

Photo Pxhere.com / CC0

2018 2018 Midterms feminism Midterms suburban women womenwomen voters

Democrats Aren’t Losing Faith In Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like It

Democrats Aren’t Losing Faith In Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like It

Many liberals see 'the system' as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of idealistic values.

By David Harsanyi

In the liberal imagination there are only four ways to lose elections — and none have to do with their increasingly leftist turn, their hysterics, or their one-dimensional identity politics. Democrats lose because of “gerrymandering,” “voter suppression” (sometimes known as “asking for ID”), Russian mind-control rays deployed by social media, and our antiquated and unfair Constitution.

The final one of these excuses is becoming increasingly popular among liberal pundits who continue to invent new crises to freak out about.

Take Vox’s Ezra Klein, a longtime champion of direct democracy: “I don’t think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority,” he tweeted before the midterms. “After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so).”

The “House popular vote” now joins the “national popular vote” and “Senate popular vote” (a particularly dishonest one considering California didn’t have a Republican on the ballot) as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren’t brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.

Otherwise, why would Democrats lose faith in a “system” that is doing exactly what was intended? The Constitution explicitly protects small states (and individuals) from national majorities. The argument for diffusing democracy and checking a strong federal government is laid out in The Federalist Papers and codified on an array of levels. This was done on purpose. It is the system.

I mean, do Democrats really believe the Electoral College was constructed to always correspond with the national vote? Do they believe that the signers of the Constitution were unaware that some states would be far bigger than others in the future? If the Founders didn’t want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018? If you don’t believe this kind of proportionality is a vital part of American governance, you don’t believe in American governance.

You can despise Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee? Why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used? Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech? When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.

It’s because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.

It’s not a civics problem, either. One hopes liberal activists like Ken Dilanian, who wonders “how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority,” understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn’t give “disproportionate weight” to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea “disproportionate” because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn’t “bully” people like Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. The non-“forward moving” America—those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington—doesn’t very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions Americans aside to make this argument. We don’t know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don’t involve themselves in the futility of state politics. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made “democracy”— a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence—into a sacramental rite. Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in the document. Unless, of course, that right happens to incidentally intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, like birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists. Everything else is up for discussion. Well, up for discussion now. It wasn’t a big topic for the hundred or so years Democrats were vastly overrepresented in the House.

The only reason these folks, who claim to want to save Constitution from Trump, see crisis in the “system” is that it fails to deliver for them politically. They’re not losing faith in the system. They just don’t like the system.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

Constitution democracy Democrats Electoral College institutionsmajoritarianism partisan hacks partisanship Senate the left

Twitter and AP are fake news

Twitter and AP are fake news

If you've ever wondered why it is that all coverage by the mainstream seems essentially the same, all you have to do is take a look at Twitter.

Twitter has become a mainstream press echo chamber in which the self-important journalists with blue check marks beside their names decide what stories are important and what is the proper politically-correct slant to put on them. Independent journalism in the mainstream media — that journalism where editors in the newsrooms were driving the journalists to do their best work and "scoop" the other media outlets rather than conspire with them — has long gone.




Twitter has become the lifeblood of professional journalists. Researchers Shannon McGregor of the University of Utah and Logan Molyneux of Temple University engaged in a study to find out whether that's a bad thing.

As the Columbia Journalism Review points out:

"Our results indicate that the routinization of Twitter into news production affects news judgment," the researchers write. "For journalists who incorporate Twitter into their reporting routines, and those with fewer years of experience, Twitter has become so normalized that tweets were deemed equally newsworthy as headlines appearing to be from the AP wire. This may have negative implications." Among those implications, they argue, is that journalists can get caught up in a kind of pack mentality in which a story is seen as important because other journalists on Twitter are talking about it, rather than because it is newsworthy. The researchers argue it can also distort the way a story is reported. For example, when the photo of Chris Christie looking uncomfortable while standing behind Donald Trump in 2016 was published by the AP, Twitter exploded with jokes, and multiple news outlets wrote about it, but those familiar with Christie said there was nothing unusual about his expression.

But one aspect of the study was interesting. Two-hundred Twitter-using journalists used as subjects for the research were given tweets with headlines from the Associated Press website and what they supposed were random tweets that contained AP headlines but were designed to look like tweets from anonymous sources. When asked to rate the newsworthiness of the tweets, journalists who spend a lot of time on Twitter ranked the "anonymous" tweets as more newsworthy than the AP stories; indicating even mainstream journalists recognize that AP is fake news.

Russian bots still at work

Despite Twitter's efforts to crack down of fake accounts — in which Twitter is purging conservatives and alternative media from its platform — the researchers found that more than 80 percent of the users and accounts alleged to have spread "misinformation" during the 2016 election are still active.

"Twitter has absolutely taken some measures to take some sites down, but they have not taken the vast majority of what we looked at down," one of the researchers told Politico.

The study also noted that more 30 mainstream news outlets — including NPR, The Washington Post and BuzzFeed — had posted stories with embedded tweets from the Russian "troll farm," Internet Research Agency.

Fake Dead Sea Scrolls

The Museum of the Bible opened to much fanfare in Washington, D.C.,last year It is the largest privately-funded museum in the city. Its funding comes from 51,000 donors, the largest of which is Hobby Lobby, the arts and crafts chain founded by the conservative Christian Green family.

Among the Green family's donations are about 1,000 biblical artifacts from its collection of 40,000 ancient artifacts, which is said to be among the world's largest biblical collection in the world. The Green's donations include items from Dead Sea scrolls to ancient copies of the Bible thought to be more than 1,000 years old.

But it turns out some of them are fakes. Last week the museum revealed that five of its most highly-coveted Dead Sea scrolls are forgeries, and other scroll relics from its collection may also be phonies.

As ScienceAlert.com reports:

According to the museum, independent tests by researchers in Germany indicate five of the institution's 16 Dead Sea Scrolls fragments "show characteristics inconsistent with ancient origin". "Though we had hoped the testing would render different results, this is an opportunity to educate the public on the importance of verifying the authenticity of rare biblical artefacts," explains the museum's chief curatorial officer, Jeffrey Kloha.

It's not known how much the Museum of the Bible paid for its forged fragments, but estimates run into the millions.

The five identified forgeries have been removed from display and replaced with three others. But the authenticity of those has also been questioned.

This is not the first controversy surrounding the Green family's collection. Last year Hobby Lobby agreed to pay a $3 million fine and forfeit thousands of ancient Iraqi artifacts that federal prosecutors claim were smuggled illegally from the Middle East.

Who's really in that "migrant caravan"

To hear the mainstream media tell it, the migrants currently marching northward in anticipation of picking vegetables, waiting tables in Mexican restaurants, making up hotel room beds and roofing houses in the United States are simply everyday Honduran/El Salvadoran/Guatemalan moms, pops and kids — but mostly moms and kids — eager to march 1,400 miles for a better life. And while there are some of those in the group who, as Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández described it, were fooled into joining the northward trek, many more of them are men with criminal histories and past deportations who are aggressively demanding the U.S. take them in.

Judicial Watch found some of them in the Guatemalan town of Chiquimula. The men were aged 17 to 40 and some of them were chanting "vamos para allá Trump!" (We're coming Trump) as they clenched their fists in the air while marching.

"We need money and food," said a 29-year-old man who made the trek with his 21-year-old brother.

Another man in his 30s contradicted media reports that caravan participants are fleeing violence and fear for their life. "We're not scared," he said waving his index finger as others around him nodded in agreement. "We're going to the United States to get jobs."

Guatemalan intelligence officials confirmed that the caravan that originated in the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula includes a multitude of Special Interest Aliens (SIA) from Africa, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India, as well as other criminal elements and gang members.

The fake news AP is reporting that about 1,700 of the original group of migrants have given up, turned around and gone home, but many vowed to drag their kids all the way to the U.S. despite the obstacles. 

Demand an End to Liberal Privilege

PJ MEDIA

Demand an End to Liberal Privilege

 

BY SARAH HOYT OCTOBER 20, 2018

CHAT 91 COMMENTS

First of all, before I start this, let me say I disagree with most of the usages of the word “privilege.”

The left refers to people of “privileged background” for instance, when what they really mean is “rich” or, these days, “middle class and with parents who insisted on education.”

I suppose this makes some sense in the context of a leftist world view, but it makes no sense in reality.

You see, privilege means “private law.” In terms of the past, noblemen were privileged because the law either didn’t apply to them (at all) or they had special laws that applied to them. For instance, in many jurisdictions, noblemen were exempt from the capital penalty. In most “clergy” were exempt from the death penalty. And the benefit of clergy would be given to anyone who could read and write. That was privilege. Private law. “The laws don’t apply to us, and you can’t make us obey them” if you prefer.

So in terms of left-Marxist world view, it makes sense to think that anyone who has more has somehow cheated the existing laws. Or to believe that anyone who has better outcomes than someone else is taking advantage of a “private law,” that is, cheating.

The problem is that this only makes sense if you buy into the leftist world view, in which every human being is a widget, or if you prefer a game piece, with exactly the same qualities as any other game piece.

In actuality, humans can get rich without cheating anyone and outcomes of anything vary a lot depending on the qualities of the human beings involved and, yes, on their level of effort too.

Which brings us to real privilege: the de-facto exertion of a private law.

For instance, take the Kavanaugh hearings when all the liberals were assuring us that we didn’t need to presume innocence until guilt was proven. Did you notice that not only didn’t any of them revise their opinion of the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton – against whom guilt was overwhelmingly proven – but they were also adamant that the same principles they were trying to apply to Kavanaugh didn’t apply to Keith Ellison?

This makes absolutely no sense. If you “believe all women” (and btw, that too is privilege. Where is the “believe all men?”) why not believe Ellison’s battered girlfriend, who has the hospital visit to prove it, or Juanita Broderick before you believe Christine Ford?

The liberals handwavium explanation amounted to a lot of handwavium and what my grandmother used to call “trying to remove the butt from the path of the syringe.” I.e. “it’s a job interview” or “she is credible” or whatever were not so much arguments for believing one person and not believing the other as attempts to make you look elsewhere and forget to argue.

You see, they know the principle but can’t say it aloud – some of them not even to themselves – because that would cause them to admit that they are chock-full of privilege, which their theories force them to view as a sin.

In fact, all their claims of other people’s privilege are to excuse their own establishment of a private law for themselves.

For instance, how many discussions have you seen in which some white man is told to stop talking because he’s full of “white privilege” and should “educate himself.”

And yet, I can honestly say that in my decades in this country and in association with white men (husband, friends) I’ve never seen any of them have recourse to private law that excuses their crimes or gives them an easier time in surviving. In fact, and contra one of my colleagues in science fiction, who claimed that being a white male in America is “life on the easiest setting,” white people in the US (and white men in particular) get fewer opportunities at scholarships, fewer set-asides in either positions in education or employment, and preference in promotion, and in general a rougher path through life, regardless of background. (Of course, those who come from greater wealth have an easier time relatively, and sufficient wealth makes up for all other conditions. That’s just part of being human.)

Then there is the time my son was told he was privileged because we had lots of books in the house and encouraged reading. That particular teacher must have been having a flash back to that “benefit of clergy.” Or something.

And yet, there is one glaring form of privilege in the United States today.

In fact, I think that’s what my colleague was confused about. You see, he’s a vocal liberal, and I think that’s why he’s experienced a meteoric rise through the field, despite a … passable talent and an absolute refusal to work harder or reach higher than strictly needed.

The same could be said about other liberals in the public eye, male and female and of every race: for instance, can anyone imagine a Republican of any race of sex having the meteoric rise Barrack Obama experienced, from Freshman Senator to President?

Did anyone see Sonya Sotomayor, a woman stupid enough to think that being Latina confers special wisdom, being questioned about her obvious racism and sexism? Does anyone think a Republican nominee of any race – remember Clarence Thomas? – would get as easy a ride into the Supreme Court of the United States?

Has anyone noticed that when there’s any reason to call on a speaker to explain a public disaster or event, outside explicitly conservative venues, the “expert” called upon is always leftist?

I’ve been jaw-dropped on more than one occasion to see a freshman colleague of mine called to comment on say space developments when this person might have written one or two books and none of them concerned with space. But, you know, it’s liberal privilege.

Liberal privilege ranges from quite literal private law — anyone see a Republican who left a girl to die in his car go on to become the Lion of Senate? — To an easing of the way, a magic carpet ride to the top for good little boys and girls who express the right (left) position.

Being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

And you know why as well as they do: for near on a hundred years, they’ve had control of the bureaucracy, as well as of those fields that shape the narrative, including the news, entertainment, and literature.

Their crimes are excused, while crimes are invented in the account of everyone who opposes them.

All of which would be galling enough without the newest wrinkle.

It started a long time before the Kavanaugh hearings. For a long time, they’ve been trying to deny anyone to the right of Lenin the rights secured to us by the Constitution of the United States. Their attacks on the Second Amendment are legendary, but latel,y they’ve been trying to extend the fight. For instance, we’ve seen them not only declare that certain words should be crimes, but working through those companies they control to prevent the free speech of those they don’t like or consider dangerous (often the same thing.)

And in Kavanaugh’s hearing, they tried to deny that anyone they oppose can have the right to due process and the presumption of innocence.

It’s not just that the left wants their own private law. It’s that the rights they’re arrogating for themselves under that de-facto law are the rights all of us are entitled to.

We are not peasants. We will not get in line. And we will continue to demand equality under the law. It’s the least we’re entitled to as Americans: an end to liberal privilege.

The Entire Basis of the Mueller Operation Should be Questioned

October 18, 2018- JW President Tom Fitton appeared on “Fox and Friends First” on the Fox News Channel to discuss Special Counsel Robert Mueller expected to report key findings after the Midterms.

View Article
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-the-entire-basis-of-the-mueller-operation-should-be-questioned/

Why The Media Will Never Tell You 85 Percent Of Americans Oppose Race-Based College Admissions

Why The Media Will Never Tell You 85 Percent Of Americans Oppose Race-Based College Admissions

Mainstream media conveniently downplay or even ignore this fact in story after story on the ins and outs of race-based admission processes in colleges.

 Warren Henry By Warren Henry

This week, Harvard University went to trial over the claim it discriminates against Asian-American applicants. Affirmative action moved back onto the main stage of American politics, particularly as this is an issue where replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy with Justice Brett Kavanaugh could make a difference at the Supreme Court. Yet the political discussion of this hot-button issue again proceeds with little recognition of a basic fact: racial preferences in college admissions are wildly unpopular.

Eighty-five percent of Americans oppose considering race in the college admissions process, according to “Hidden Tribes,” a recent report from the left-of-center group More in Common. Of the seven “tribes” identified in the report, racial preferences were supported only by progressive activists, the furthest-left 8 percent of Americans. Ironically, progressive activists are almost the least diverse of the tribes, except the furthest-right 6 percent.

Only 40 percent of progressive activists oppose racial preferences in college admissions. But among traditional liberals (a group comprising 11 percent of Americans), 72 percent oppose racial preferences. Passive liberals (15 percent), who have more African-Americans, women, and younger people than average, are several points even less supportive.

Nor is the “Hidden Tribes” polling an outlier. In September, public television’s WGBH published a poll finding 72 percent of adults disagreed with prior Supreme Court rulings allowing colleges to consider race in making admissions decisions. Indeed, racial preferences were disapproved by majorities of black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents in the survey.

As the disapproval from minority groups suggests, the rejection of the policy does not appear to be solely the product of prejudice. In the WGBH poll, 86 percent of respondents opined that campus diversity is at least a somewhat important goal. Similarly, in the “Hidden Tribes” polling, 81 percent of Americans believe there are serious problems of racism in the country, with 75 percent agreeing that acts of racism are at least somewhat common.

In short, there is a broad consensus among Americans that racism remains a problem and that campus diversity is important. Yet there is an even broader consensus that racial preferences in college admissions should not be the solution to that problem.

Of course, the fact that only 15 percent of Americans support affirmative action policies at institutions like Harvard does not necessarily make these schools wrong. What is popular is not always right, and vice versa.

However, it is fair to say that a position as unpopular as using racial preferences in college admissions should be considered a controversial, non-mainstream position. Instead, however, the public discussion of affirmative action, particularly in the media, tends to follow the tired convention that a “controversial” position is one held by conservatives, not by establishment journalism.

The New York Times, for example, will describe affirmative action in college admissions as “a major – and highly contentious – legacy of the civil rights era, and one that white conservatives have opposed for decades.” The broad and increasing unpopularity of the policy is rarely, if ever, news that’s fit to print. The Washington Post’s supposedly “straight” news coverage similarly insinuates that opposition to racial preferences is largely an exercise in white identity politics.

When The Washington Post, NPR, or CNN publish features purporting to tell their readers what they need to know about racial preferences in education, somehow they never get around to mentioning that the vast majority of Americans now oppose them. Accounts of the dueling rallies ahead of the Harvard trial, from the Boston Globe to The Atlantic, similarly avoid this inconvenient truth. Instead, given the nature of the allegations against Harvard, it is common to find – from The New Yorker to Vox to Teen Vogue – articles by Asian-Americans defending racial preferences.

The effect of this extensive web of denial in American journalism is to completely invert the public discourse. The typical media consumer would tend to conclude racial preferences in education are not merely legal, but also broadly popular, opposed only by a narrow faction of closet Klansmen who run the Republican Party.

In reality, this distortion of public opinion empowers a small number of progressive activists, inside and outside the establishment media, in their attempt to short-circuit honest debate. If opponents of racial preferences can be dismissed with ad hominem attacks of racism or racial insensitivity, progressives are never required to answer the sorts of questions they otherwise would be required to face.

The initial question progressives get to avoid is why Americans now oppose racial preferences in education. Is it simply the moral sense that racial discrimination is wrong, even when the left might see it as benign? Is it the sense that such preferences often stigmatize their beneficiaries?

Progressives would also be forced to answer questions about the efficacy of racial preferences. Do racial preferences mismatch minority students and schools in ways that set up students to fail? Do they stoke the growing grievance culture on American campuses? If schools like Harvard are using race as “only one factor among many” in the admissions process, why do they simultaneously argue that removing this marginal factor would have apocalyptic effects on campus diversity?

In a more honest debate, we would hear more from critical legal theorists like Randall Kennedy, who is skeptical of the social science rationale for diversity on campus and wonders how it can be a “compelling state interest” for legal purposes only “so long as the demands and expectations imposed on it are not too onerous.” Kennedy argues for affirmative action as a form of reparations – a rationale long rejected by the Supreme Court, but one far more consistent with the policy as originally promoted by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

As Joy Pullmann recently wrote: “It says something about the left that they are not confident enough in their ideas to subject them to a free and open hearing aimed at honest persuasion, but instead seek to coerce people into compliance through political correctness and other social manipulations.”

Political correctness is the theory. The establishment’s warped discussion of racial preferences is the practice.

Warren Henry is the nom de plume of an attorney practicing in the State of Illinois.

Academia affirmative action Asian Americans Brett Kavanaugh discrimination Harvard University higher education minorities quotas race quotas race-based admissions Racial Discrimination racial quotas Supreme Court The New York Times The Washington Post

“Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer”

Left-wing media, entertainment elites panic to censor new abortion film “Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer”

Friday, October 12, 2018 by: JD Heyes
Tags: abortion, abortion industry, Anti Abortion, Censorship, Cover-Up, Dean Cain, Facebook, far Left, Gosnell movie, Kermit Gosnell, left cult, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, serial killer

18KVIEWS

(Natural News) In May 2013, following a two-month trial and two weeks of deliberation, a jury convicted Philadelphia abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell on multiple counts of first-degree murder for killing three babies born alive at his westside clinic by severing their spinal cords.

While acquitting him of third-degree murder for the 2009 death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar of Virginia, who died from a drug overdose during an abortion procedure at his clinic, the jury nevertheless found him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter. He was given three life sentences.

The Washington Post reported at the time:

Gosnell, in a dark suit and a maroon shirt, furrowed his brow and shook his head slightly but remained stoic when the verdicts were read in a packed Philadelphia courtroom just before 3 p.m. One juror appeared to cry. Prosecutors smiled in relief and later hugged colleagues.

The jury also acquitted him of murder in the death of another infant, known as Baby E, whom prosecutors had struggled to prove was alive after delivery. Judge Jeffrey P. Minehart previously dismissed three additional first-degree murder charges against Gosnell, each involving other infants.

Before the trial prosecutors were fairly certain that Gosnell had killed many more babies than he was charged for, but they simply did not have enough proof, so they didn’t pursue additional charges. When it was all said and done, however, they came to believe that Gosnell was one of America’s biggest serial killers.

Now, a new film set for release tells this grisly story, including how arrogant Gosnell was during the investigation and subsequent trial. And while the movie doesn’t take a hard pro-life stance – it’s not political – the Left is nevertheless terrified of the impression it will leave in the minds of millions of Americans who see it, especially now that there is a rock-solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

As such, the usual suspects – big tech, the mainstream media, and the Left-wing entertainment industry – are doing all they can to censor the movie, “Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer,” because, you know, they’re all about the First Amendment when it isn’t being used to skewer one of the Left’s sacred cows.

As Infowars notes, Facebook has already refused to allow filmmakers to advertise the film on their platform. And one of the more popular crowdfunding sites, Kickstarter, have refused them as well. In addition, National Public Radio (which is taxpayer-funded) also refused to carry ads for the film.

NPR’s problem with the ads? They won’t allow filmmakers to call Gosnell two things that honestly and truthfully describe him: An “abortionist” and a “murderer.”

Besides these censorship efforts, the filmmakers have also been stopped from showing the film in private screenings.

The Left is afraid of the truth about Gosnell and abortion

The film, directed by Nick Searcy, produced by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, and stars Dean Cain of “Superman” fame, is based on Gosnell’s 30-year abortion practice as well as the political media establishment that tried to cover up his crimes. It was announced in 2014, less than a year after Gosnell was convicted. It opened Friday, Oct. 12.

The story begins with Cain’s character, Philly police Det. James Wood, as he and fellow officers serve a search warrant for drugs and other paraphernalia at a building housing Gosnell’s clinic over suspicions of illegal prescription drug sales. As officers search the premises, Det. Wood and others detect a strong, foul odor – rotting flesh – from an office. Once they get inside, they make gruesome discoveries including parts of babies kept in jars. (Related: Patricia Heaton takes new role as pro-life activist for OneLife LA Rally.)

From there the film expertly captures the charged atmosphere that quickly built around the case: The legal questions, issues of race (Gosnell is black; Cain’s character is white and Catholic), pro-life, pro-choice, and other cultural, social, and political issues.

“Everyone needs to see the Gosnell movie, particularly young people,” noted Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List. “I can’t recommend this movie more strongly. The Gosnell movie faces viewers with the brutality and inhumanity of abortion and it achieves this in a movie that looks as good as any Hollywood film. This movie will change hearts and minds about abortion. It needs to be available widely.”

Added Kristan Hawkins with Students for Life of America, “After watching the Gosnell movie, I’m angry, I’m sad, and I’m more motivated than ever to end abortion. Every American should watch GOSNELL. If pro-choice, they need to watch it and be able to defend their beliefs. If pro-life, they need to watch it and ask themselves why they aren’t active in ending this atrocity. This movie should be screened on every college campus in our nation.”

But of course, Americans will have to actually see it to know and understand its impact and why it’s so important at this point in our history. And the truth-hating Left is doing all it can to prevent that from happening.

To find out if “Gosnell” is showing at a theater near you, click here.

Read more about the Left’s obsession with abortion at Abortions.news.

Sources include:

NaturalNews.com

Infowars.com