South Korean soldiers in protective gears sanitize shacks at Guryong village in Seoul, South Korea, March 3, 2020. (Heo Ran/Reuters)

On the menu today: how the coronavirus is both more deadly and more contagious than the seasonal flu, wondering about the track record of old warhorse presidential candidates, and Mike Bloomberg breaks some more promises.

Why We Fear the Coronavirus More Than the Seasonal Flu

There have only been [insert current number here] coronavirus cases, way fewer cases and deaths than the flu!

As mentioned a few days ago, the term going viral means something that spreads rapidly through a population by being frequently shared with a number of individuals. This means numbers dont grow steadily and gradually. They grow quickly and exponentially.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the coronavirus primarily spreads when someone coughs or sneezes and the droplets get on someone else. The secondary way of spreading is by touching contaminated surfaces or objects.

There is some research from Chinese epidemiologists indicating that the virus may spread much easier than originally thought:

The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 can linger in the air for at least 30 minutes and travel up to 4.5 metres further than the safe distance advised by health authorities around the world, according to a study by a team of Chinese government epidemiologists.

The researchers also found that it can last for days on a surface where respiratory droplets land, raising the risk of transmission if unsuspecting people touch it and then rub their face.

The length of time it lasts on the surface depends on factors such as temperature and the type of surface, for example at around 37C (98F), it can survive for two to three days on glass, fabric, metal, plastic or paper.

This research is fascinating and ominous. On January 22, an infected passenger boarded a fully booked long-distance coach and settled down on the second row from the back. He stayed on the bus for four hours and the windows remained closed. Reviewing security camera footage, the researchers found the passenger did not interact with anyone else. The person next to him was not infected, but he did infect two people behind him, one person three rows ahead of him, four people who were six to seven rows ahead of him, and one person who got on the bus after the initial passenger disembarked.

Scientists are still getting a handle on how contagious the coronavirus is, but the current estimate of the R0 (reproduction number) is between 2 and 2.5 meaning that the average infected person spreads it to two or two-and-a-half people. For the seasonal flu, the R0 is about 1.3 people.

Coronavirus cases in the United States and broader world are not going to stay level; they may eventually level off, but we are probably a ways away from anything resembling herd immunity that is, when a significant enough portion of a population is immune to a disease, making it more difficult for a disease to spread. In the absence of dramatic steps to reduce peoples interaction with each other, the number of cases will continue to increase.

Scientists are still calculating the death rate from the coronavirus, and the death rate is probably going to continue to vary from country to country depending upon the countrys quality of medical care and preparedness. But it is already clear that the coronavirus is much more deadly than the usual seasonal flu.

The CDCs current estimate of the death rate for the flu in the 20182019 flu season is 35.5 million cases, and about 34,000 deaths. That is a death rate just shy of 0.1 percent, or one out of every 1,044 people.

Many doctors and public-health officials strongly suspect that there are a lot of Americans walking around who have already caught the coronavirus and are asymptomatic and they either will not show symptoms, or they will suffer such mild symptoms that they wont even realize they have it. As of this writing, the United States has 729 cases and 26 deaths. That comes out to a 3.5 percent death rate. Thats 35 out of 1,000 people.

Because there are people walking around who have it and who arent tested, it is possible that when all is said and done, the U.S. death rate will be significantly lower. But any way you slice it, the death rate for the coronavirus is significantly higher than the death rate for the seasonal flu. And with both coronavirus and seasonal flu, those most at risk are the elderly and the immunocompromised.

There is an odd tone to some of the commentary around the virus. Ann Coulter declares, Average age of the coronavirus dead in Italy (the country theyre using to scare Americans since its European): 81.

What the hell is this, Logans Run? I guess your perspective on the coronavirus being particularly dangerous to octogenarians depends upon how many people you know who are in their eighties or approaching it. Weve got about 13 million Americans over age 80. About 1.5 million Floridians are in their eighties. Sure, a death toll among the elderly, who have hopefully lived full lives, is somewhat less tragic than a virus that cuts people down in their prime or children. But that doesnt make it any less sad or worth attempting to prevent or mitigate. A virus that has even a 2 percent death toll among elderly Americans is going to mean a lot of funerals.

But wait, theres another factor to take into account. It is surprisingly difficult to get a reliable and recent figure for the number of Americans who are immunodeficient, immunocompromised, or otherwise have immune systems that wouldnt be able to fight off the coronavirus. A 2008 estimate puts it at ten million Americans and thats only counting those with HIV/AIDS (diagnosed and undiagnosed), organ transplant recipients, and cancer patients.

Secondly, the elderly and immunocompromised who are infected but survive are going to use up a lot of beds and time in intensive care units, and that will have far-reaching effects for those who are well under age 80. As Christopher Mims puts it, If we dont collectively slow the rate of spread of this virus, what he called suppression, it endangers everyone else because of the capacity crunch: People who need surgery. People who have accidents. Cancer patients. Everyone who would normally use our healthcare system. Every resource put towards controlling coronavirus is a resource that cant be used towards other health problems.

Some good news is that South Korean health officials have found that so far, only about 10 percent of coronavirus patients required hospitalization, while the rest had strong enough immune systems to fight the virus on their own.

When people ask, Why isnt there this kind of panic over the seasonal flu? the answer is, Because the coronavirus is both more deadly and more contagious than the seasonal flu. As noted above, the death rate for the seasonal flu is one in a thousand; the current coronavirus figure is roughly 35 in a thousand. Even if thats elevated because were not testing enough, if the figure is cut in half, youre at 17 in a thousand or nearly one out of every fifty.

For what its worth, the death rate in Italy is currently at 5 percent one in 20!

Italy is more or less in lockdown. Japan is preparing steps to instruct residents to remain indoors. Major countries do not shut down their populations because of media hype or a desire to make the American president look bad.

This is why we have to flatten the curve. We ordinary citizens have to take those basic steps of washing hands frequently and avoiding big gatherings, to reduce the rate of increase in cases, delay the peak of cases, and ensure that the hospital systems dont get overwhelmed.

The number of people who are currently insisting that preparedness is panic is amazing. None of us want a public-health disaster, but part of being responsible is being ready for the worst-case scenarios and taking action to ensure the worst-case scenarios dont come to pass. We have a lot of mayors of Amity and Chip Dillers among us.

If You Need to Beat an Incumbent, Is an Old War Horse Candidate the Best Choice?

An astute observation from Dan McLaughlin: Parties looking to unseat an incumbent have settled before on Biden-style old warhorse candidates, and lost. John Kerry in 2004, Bob Dole in 1996, and Walter Mondale in 1984 are the classic examples of this type of campaign. Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and Tom Dewey in 1948 were rerun candidates who lost to an incumbent, as was Bryan in 1900. John McCain in 2008 and Hubert Humphrey in 1968 were both old warhorses who failed to hold the White House a third time for their parties. The most encouraging parallels for Biden in modern elections would be the two former vice presidents to win the big job: George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Richard Nixon in 1968. The 1988 election, however, was a choice for continuity.

Yesterday I noticed that Biden campaign sources were mentioning both Senator Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, as a potential Treasury Secretary. Those two dont agree on much in economic policy. The fact that Biden could conceivably pick either suggests his economic policies are currently something of a blank slate, to be decided, or at least forged in greater detail, later.

The nomination of Biden represents the Democrats preferring to not have to choose a particular ideological or policy path.

Bloomberg: Hey, Never Mind about Those Guarantees I Made

Mike Bloomberg may never be president, but he can break promises like one: Mike Bloombergs shuttered presidential campaign is dismissing staffers across the country and inviting them to reapply for jobs on his new independent committee despite extending guarantees of being paid through the November election when they were hired. The consolation prize: They get to keep their Bloomberg-issued iPhones and MacBooks.

This is not surprising Bloomberg just wasnt going to need all of these people for his post-campaign Elect the Democrat effort. Judging from their own stories about their work ethic, he was wasting his money on them anyway.

ADDENDUM: Yesterday I chatted about coronavirus, the giant stock market drop, and the state of the presidential race with Brady Leonard.

Go here to read the rest:

Yes, Coronavirus Is Worse Than the Flu - National Review

When I first heard that Michelle Malkin was going to speak to a bunch of anti-Semitic, racist, and homophobic groypers, I thought (1) Oh, thats where shes been and (2) What happened to her? So I did some digging and what I found was even more disturbing than you might have guessed.

Those who have followed Malkin over the years know that she has always beenhow to put this politelyan immigration restrictionist. Though maybe thats too polite, since over the years shes championed not only racial profiling, but roundups of minorities, too. In 2004, she wrote a book titled In Defense of Internment. One of the websites she founded, Hot Air, thrived touting her anti-immigration cause through the mid-2000s and she considers the defeat of the McCain-Kennedy 2006 amnesty bill one of her great accomplishments. During those years, Malkin was put on a pedestal by mainstream conservative organizations such as CPAC, Regnery Publishing, and the Young Americas Foundation as a leading voice for the movement. She had a Fox News contract and appeared on the networks highest-rated shows.

And she now seems to have turned her back on all of that in order to link arms with the most vocal elements of the white nationalist movement. Oh, Im sorry. They insist on being called America Firsters. Same difference.

If the name Nick Fuentes sounds unfamiliar to you, consider yourself lucky. Think of him as a younger, Catholic fundamentalist version of Milo Yiannopoulos. Only more militant and irresponsible. The only reason to mention Fuentes is that he turns out to have been a key figure in Malkins spiral into the world of online extremism.

While Yiannopoulos paraded around in flamboyant costumes, Fuentes marched alongside aspiring Nazis in the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville and praised it as a tidal wave of white identity. Yiannopoulos mocked the mainstream media. Fuentes has said, I want the people to run CNN to be arrested and deported or hanged. Where Milo tried to be droll, Fuentes doesnt really do jokes, aside from making anti-Semitic noises about how long it takes to bake cookies in the oven because look how it triggers people who think the Holocaust was a bad thing.

You get the gist, Milo turns out to have just been a gateway drug to Fuentesism because the alt-rights red pills come in different strengths and flavors.

Fuentes and his followers loathe what they call Conservative Inc.a group of fake conservative establishmentarians who are insufficiently observant of traditional values. One of those values is severely restrictionist immigration policy, which at some point, began to tickle Malkins ears. So, too, has she adopted the anti-Conservative Inc. language, even though her entire career had beenif we are being honesta product of the actual Conservative Inc. Which is to say, CPAC, Regnery, YAF, Fox, and all the rest.

Malkins break with this main body of movement conservatism came last fall, amid a series of competing lectures on college campuses delivered by Malkin, Turning Point USAs Charlie Kirk, and the Daily Wires Ben Shapiro. During that time Fuentes and his followerswho see Kirk and Shapiro as avatars for Conservative Inc.began plotting ways to attend the events and embarrass them.

These followers of Fuentes werent students looking for a vigorous policy debate over green cards. Shapiros speaking schedule, for example, was posted on the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, and circulated among white nationalists. The motivation was sinister and the goal was disruption.

Strangely, as they started harassing Kirk, Shapiro, and Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw at various events, Malkin began giving cover to Fuentes and his groypers, tracking the drama on her Twitter account and in her syndicated column. She was quick to adopt their lingo, too. Cringe.

Then, on November 7, it was apparent that Shapiro, who happens to be an Orthodox Jew, felt compelled to say something about the anti-Semites who were trying to hijack the conservative mantle.

Hiding behind the lulz, Fuentes had recorded himself playing Grand Theft Auto and chasing down an Orthodox Jewish man wearing a business suit. He laughed about killing Ben Shapiro. In other videos criticizing Shapiro, Fuentes fondled a switchblade, opening and closing it dramatically, and flourishing it to emphasize his points. Needless to say, hostile signals were being sent. Only a very unwell person would find them funny.

In a YAF-sponsored speech at Stanford University, Shapiro devoted his remarks to condemning the alt-right, saying its members were playing a dangerous game. At one point he was booed. I have one question, Shapiro asked. Are you protesting the part where Im condemning the Nazis? You hear what Im doing right now. Do you have ears? Im literally condemning Nazis and youre telling me to leave. Do you hear yourselves?

Which is what finally sent Malkin over the edge. In the days after Shapiros speech, Malkin ran to the defense of the groypers. She used a November 14 YAF-sponsored speech of her own at UCLA, which she titled The Torch Is Being Passed, to burn every last bridge with her former friends and supporters.

She began by saying that usually her YAF speeches are intended to show how wrong or evil Democrats are, but that that evening she would be speaking to America First conservatives.

She criticized Shapiro for denigrating an entire movement of young men who watch a YouTuber named Nick Fuentes and said, Heres my message to the new generation of America Firsters exposing the big lies of the anti-American open borders establishment and its controlled opposition operatives: If I was your mom, Id be proud as hell.

Malkin went on to express solidarity with Fuentes, as well as the Proud Boys, Laura Loomer, and Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King (who was stripped of committee assignments by his fellow House Republicans for making racist remarks in January 2019).

This was too much even for YAF. Malkin had used her YAF-sponsored UCLA event to attack YAFs most in-demand speaker and to stand with bigots. YAF severed ties with her on November 18, issuing a statement that said, Immigration is a vital issue that deserves robust debate. But there is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists.

Later that week organizers at Bentley University in Massachusetts, who had planned to host an event promoting Malkins book Open Borders, Inc., canceled their event. Malkin went apoplectic. She tweeted and tweeted, doubling down on her new alliance. In one radio interview, she called for a widening of the Overton window and said that these are good kids who didnt deserve to be spurned.

She wrote a column titled Cancel Culture Hypocrites on the Left and Right in which she blasted the Keepers of the Gate who called on me to be de-platformed and cast out of the conservative mainstream.

I cancel you, she huffed.

All of that transpired during the fall of 2019. Last month, Malkins wayward progression continued. For years she had been a star at CPAC. But on February 28, instead of going to CPAC, where she was now banned from the stage, Malkin stood before a crowd at a new event organized by Fuentes. In that speech, she opened her remarks by saying, Thank you. Thank you. Mommys in the house.

It seemed a little odd that Malkin would again describe herself as a mom to these bigots. But it turns out that her imagery was deliberate. This is Malkins new identity: Mother of groypers.

In her speech, she addressed accusations of anti-Semitism with the same sort of mocking I talked about it, but didnt say ittone that is so common on the alt-right:

Already right out of the gate, before I even knew who Nick Fuentes was, before I knew who Groypers were, I was being tarred as an anti-Semite. Its become a useless, meaningless term and everybody knows it. And thats why theyre so desperate to tar all of us as that. Its anti-Semitic to mention George Soros billions. Its anti-Semitic to criticize the Anti-Defamation League. Its anti-Semitic to question whatever the precise number is of people who perished in World War II. It is anti-Semitic for me, being married to a 100 percent Ashkenazi Jew, to question dual loyalties of people who are working here as agents of a foreign country.

Oh, and it is an unacceptably anti-Semitic to point out the rank hypocrisy of people who are fiercely protective of an ethno-state and an immigration enforcement system that workswho turn around and call those of us who believe, whatever our backgrounds are, who only have one homeland that theyve ever known, to call uswhat is it now?white majoritarianism I believe is the term. Thats me. Thank you.

Moreover, Malkin sees herself following in the footsteps of one of her matriarchal heroines. There was a time when CPAC did at least give the grassroots nationalists a seat at the table, Malkin said. And Ill never forget this, because this was a very pivotal moment for me in my young career. Seventeen years ago, when I had the privilege of teaming up with the original Godmother of America First, the Catholic author, lawyer, and social conservative, mom of six and grandmother of 16, Phyllis Schlafly.

Today, Malkin seems to see herself as the figure to bridge the gap between Schlafly and the groypers. She spoke affectionately about the affinity she has for kids who do video from their basement, given her past experience developing online videos for Hot Air. Then, she turned serious and returned to the torch theme of her UCLA speech:

I really do believe that my role as a mother informs the choices that I have made and at some point, there will be a passing of the torch. I will not be doing what Ive done for 25 plus years. I had always woken up, especially in the last couple of years, thinking before I knew all of you, that I would have to do it until I was 70 or 80 or 90 because there was no one else to take up the legacy. I feel very confident that you, the Light Brigade, the America First Brigade, are well positioned to do what so few other grassroots revolts and rebellions have succeeded in doing. I believe in you. I honor your charge. I honor your mission. You may not have finances, but you have faith in this country and you have many more friends than you know.

The Daily Stormers Andrew Anglin described Malkins speech as beautiful.

In that same speech Malkin helpfully talked about others she considers part of the family. Among them were Fuentes, Yiannopoulos, Identity Evropa director Patrick Casey, VDARE president Peter Brimelow, VDARE writer (and former National Review writer) John Derbyshire, National Review contributing editor Dinesh DSouza, Ann Coulter, the Canadian white nationalist Faith Goldy, Frank Gaffney, and Pamela Geller. (Not all of them were thrilled by the honor. Geller posted the video of Malkins speech, calling it unconscionable and breathtakingand linked to an open letter posted on Robert Spencers Jihad Watch website asking Malkin to rethink her defense of a Jew-hater and Holocaust-denier.)

The great irony is that even now, Malkin still has friends in Conservative, Inc.

The Trump administrations senior official performing the duties of the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ken Cuccinelli, gave Malkin a shoutout from the same CPAC stage she was banned from. Although many outlets, such as National Review and the Daily Wire, stopped carrying her syndicated columns, the Salem Media-owned Townhall.com still does. (When I emailed a Townhall.com executive asking why the site continued to publish her column, I received no reply.)

And Malkins columns continue to be carried by Creators Syndicate, which has placed more than 1,500 of her columns over various outlets over the last 20 yearsa record Malkin celebrates.

In fairness, its difficult to tell which newspapers are actually carrying her Creators column these days. A Lexis-Nexis search of her recent columns turned up only a handful of regional print publications, several of which are based in Louisiana, that run her.

When I reached out to Malkin to ask where her columns are now published she said I should contact Creators Syndicate. She added:

I look forward to your morally courageous call to continue lying, purging, and gatekeeping in the name of responsible conservative journalism. LOL

(After receiving no response from Creators, I circled back to Malkin to ask if she had a specific point of contact she would like me to use. She declined, and thenshe took to Twitter to say Creators Syndicate has proudly stood by her for 20 years and to tell her followers I was trying to cancel her. Rasmussen Reports tweeted it was proud to carry her columns every week.)

From the outside, it can certainly look as though Malkin tanked her career and is on the way to days filled with crocheting, hot yoga, and pickleball. But, her fierce commitment to this new crowd seems like something more, though.

So, why does the Joker smile?

Malkin is, if nothing else, a successful businesswoman. In 2006, as the blog revolution was remaking digital journalism, Malkin founded Hot Air. Four years later, she sold the enterprise to Salem Communications, a conservative media company. As the social and mobile revolutions sped up in the early 2010s, Malkin saw another opportunity, and founded the site Twitchy.com, which aggregates Tweets on a blog-style platform. A year later she sold this enterprise to Salem as well.

Its possible, of course, that by embracing the groypers, Malkin is just finally deciding to let her freak flag fly. Or its possible that her new views really do differ in kind from her old viewsthat some precipitating event changed her basic outlook on the world.

But it seems just as possible that Malkin may be positioning to build a new platform. The old trifecta of column writing, dead-tree book publishing, and cable news contracts is a dying model and whatever else you want to say about Malkin, shes always been entrepreneurial.

Lots of people seem to think that the alt-right is a phenomenon that will disappear when the Trump administration ends. It seems equally likely that the alt-right is waiting to be monetized by someone able to look past the bigotry and see it as an asset ready to be put to work. Why couldnt Alt-Right, Inc. be the new Conservative, Inc.?

If so, then it makes sense that Malkin is courting Fuentes and his young, loyal audience. Especially if they are all cancelled and cant find any other basement to dwell in. Because it sure seems like Mommy wants to give them a home.

Correction, 3/9/20, 8:01 a.m.: The article originally identified the head of the blog Jihad Watch as Richard Spencer. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch.

Correction, 3/9/20 1:20 p.m.:A previous version of this article mistakenly identified Ken Cuccinelli as the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, rather than as the senior official performing the duties of the director.

See more here:

Michelle Malkin: Mother of Groypers - The Bulwark

Woke" politics is killing the Democratic Party. Michael BloombergMichael BloombergBiden surge calms Democratic jitters The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden riding wave of momentum after stunning Super Tuesday Delegate battle ahead likely favors Biden MORE, the former mayor of New York City, clearly has the best chance of beating Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump says Biden Ukraine dealings will be a 'major' campaign issue MORE, but hell never be in a position to do so because of his habit of stating empirical truths. Thats totally disqualifying to the party's Social Justice Warriors.

Theres plenty to dislike about Bloomberg principally, his refusal to accept the science on guns and his longing to dump low-wage workers on the country to manicure his golf greens at half the price. (Also, he banned the Big Gulp!)

But those arent suicidal positions in the Democratic Party. No, its Bloombergs grasp of the obvious that appalls the party's base as was obvious from the gasps of debate audiences and the media.

The Feminist Division of the Woke Brigade:

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann Warren Sanders condemns his supporters' 'ugly, personal attacks' against Warren The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden riding wave of momentum after stunning Super Tuesday Delegate battle ahead likely favors Biden MORE (D-Mass.) has been universally praised for hounding Bloomberg during the last two debates,demanding that he release former female employees from any nondisclosure agreements made as part of workplace lawsuits.

Assuming Bloomberg even has the authority to release parties to a contract, which in many cases he likely doesnt, this would be a disaster for plaintiffs.

The precise reason defendants are quick to offer handsome settlements in exchange for nondisclosure agreements is to protect their reputations. If such post hoc, one-sided revisions of the agreements were to become commonplace, the offers will come a lot less frequently and theyll have a lot fewer zeros.

Victims of sexual harassment will be forced either to accept a much smaller settlement, or to waste years of their lives on expensive legal proceedings, which they might lose. Juries are unpredictable.

And as Bloomberg has said, its not only the accused who want privacy in these cases. Just askHarvey Weinsteins accusers if they enjoyed having their dirty laundry aired at his criminal trial.

But in the name of "Girl Power" feminism, liberals are happy to screw over all future victims of sexual harassment.

The Racial Division of the Woke Brigade:

After slashing the murder rate in New York City to unimaginable lows, the former mayor bluntly explained how it was done:"Put a lot of cops on the streets, put those cops where the crime is, which means minority neighborhoods.

Logic is patriarchy!

If95 percent of murders murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. male, minorities 16 to 25, he said, then police should be questioningabout 95 percent young male minorities.

Math is patriarchy!

True, Bloomberg was off by a few percentage points: Typically, only about 90 percent of murder suspects in New York City are minorities(as are their victims.)On the other hand, the mayor was under-counting black and Hispanicshootings.About 97 percent of shootings in New York are committed by minorities.Thats precisely whatstop and frisk stops.

Overwhelmingly, their weapon of choice is a gun.Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street? Answer: They go to high-crime neighborhoods and stop and frisk young men.As Bloomberg explained, "they say, Oh, I dont want to get caught. So they don't bring the gun. They stillhavea gun, but they leave it at home.

The aggressive policing of former mayors Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiRevolution forecast: When a tsunami becomes a thunderstorm Bolton book release delayed due to government review Trump's three-track clemency process just might work MORE and Bloomberg saved thousands, if not tens of thousands, of black and Hispanic lives.But to "The Woke," saving such livesis an unforgivable sin if that means a few minutes of humiliation for young men in high-crime neighborhoods.

TheTa-NehisiCoates Division of the Woke Brigade:

During the 2008 financial crisis, Bloomberg explained how it happened:

It all started back when there was a lot ofpressureonbanksto make loans to everyone. Redlining, if you remember, was the term wherebankstook wholeneighborhoodsand said, Peoplein these neighborhoods are poor, they're not going topay offtheirmortgages, tell yoursalesmendon't gointo thoseareas.And then Congress got involved, local elected officials as well, and said, Oh, that's not fair, thesepeopleshould be able to getcredit. And once you started pushing in that direction,banksstarted making more and more loans, where thecreditof the person buying thehousewasn't asgoodas you would like.

Forget everything else he said.The moment Bloomberg mentioned redlining, liberal brains froze.

Theres nothing the matter with talking about redlining per se; author and journalist Ta-NehisiCoates does it all the time. But thesole purposemust beto blame this FDR-era policy, which was outlawed in 1968, for black poverty today.

Contrary to most news accounts, Bloomberg didnt blame theendof redlining for the financial crisis. If that were true, it would have been calledthe financial crisis of 1968.

He blamed politiciansgargantuanoverreactionto redlining, decades later, for the financial crisis.Thats whats known as "an indisputable fact."

As was reported extensively at the time, every governmental and quasi-government agency having anything to do with housing during the Clinton administration forced banks to jettison standard measures of creditworthiness in order to issue more mortgages to low-income and minority homebuyers specifically to make up for the legacy of redlining.

Because of redlining policies that had ended 30 years earlier, banks were required to ignore credit scores, W-2s,debt-to-income ratiosand, say, the fact that the borrowers husband was in prison. (True.) The Federal Reserve of Boston directed mortgage lenders to acceptunemployment benefitsas a source of income.(Also true.) Other housing authorities followed suit.

Fannie Mae then bundled the bad mortgages with the good and sold them to banks, which spread the bundles to investment portfolios throughout the country. When real estate prices tanked,the bad mortgages went belly-up, and the entire financial system collapsed.

Bloomberg knows what caused the 2008 financial crisis. But that is intolerable to the new woke Democratic Party.

Ann Coulteris a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter@AnnCoulter.

Read more here:

Coulter: Democrats are killing their best chance to beat Trump with 'woke' politics | TheHill - The Hill

You might not have heard because Trump is still president, so MSNBC and CNN were required to give hair-on-fire coverage of some mundane action hes taken this week but on Monday, Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape and a criminal sexual act.

I have some random thoughts on the case and the whole #MeToo movement. Apologies in advance that this has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Dictator.

1) Every time I hear about Weinsteins predations, I wonder how many waitresses, real estate agents and housewives in Los Angeles might be celebrated actresses today, except that when Weinstein barged out of the bathroom stark naked and lunged at them, they fled the room and didnt look back.

Our media are so infantile. Cant we agree that Weinstein is a psychopathic scumbag without calling the witnesses against him heroes?

The true heroes are the girls whose names we dont know not the ones who were grossed out by the pig, but had sex with him anyway, then sent him emoji-filled, suck-up emails because they wanted to be stars.

True, we know there are some, like Gwyneth Paltrow, who turned him down flat, so kudos to her and to Brad Pitt, who accosted Weinstein afterward and told him, If you ever make her feel uncomfortable again, Ill kill you.

Not to take away from that magnificent episode, but Paltrow is Hollywood royalty (the daughter of director-producer Bruce Paltrow and actress Blythe Danner), and her boyfriend at the time was an A-list actor. Still: heroes.

But how many actresses whom were supposed to envy and read about their skin care regimes and Hollywood Hills homes and how they were ugly ducklings as children (they all say that) are really no different from the average L.A. waitress, except they were willing to have sex with Harvey Weinstein or some similarly hideous beast?

Definitely keep getting your political opinions from them, America.

2) After the verdict, I looked at the list of movies Weinstein produced. There are nearly 200, maybe more. I have zero interest in seeing any of them, and the ones Ive so much as started were terrible except the three or four by Quentin Tarantino and one called Benefit of the Doubt, which sounds good.

Weinsteins talent wasnt in producing movies; it was in staging aggressive campaigns with the Oscars judges.

But lets be generous and say 10 of Weinsteins movies were great.

Thats worse than the music industrys practice pre-iTunes of selling $20 albums or CDs that had one, maybe two good songs. One good to 12 bad, versus 10 good to 200 bad.

My main takeaway from the Weinstein trial is that Im so glad theres Amazon Prime and Netflix now, so pushy freaks cant get rich producing schlock that the public hates.

3) There was fleeting coverage of the Weinstein case on Monday immediately after the verdict came in, with a bank of microphones set up outside the courthouse in anticipation of the defense lawyers making a statement.

Theyre the interesting ones here. Will they appeal? What do they expect from the upcoming trial against Weinstein in Los Angeles? Also, considering who the defendant was, they did pretty well.

News cameras were focused on the empty microphones, as TV anchors chit-chatted with guests, one eye on the courthouse door. On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell interrupted her guest when she thought she caught a glimpse of defense attorney Donna Rotunno. False alarm! back to the guest.

Finally, Rotunno emerged, headed toward the microphones and guess who leapt in front of her and got there first? GUESS!

No, not Michael Avenatti.

Gloria Allred, who proceeded to recite a lot of boilerplate about the accusers being heroes and speaking their truth. (She did not say: We know Weinstein was horrible because he hired my daughter to attack his accusers.)

Hilariously, Rotunno just kept walking, while TV viewers everywhere wishes a lightning bolt would strike Allred.

4) In light of the plague of white men, its notable that the majority demographic on the Weinstein jury was this hated group. The jury was composed of two white women, two black women, one black/Hispanic woman; one black man; and seven white men.

Despite Weinsteins repulsiveness, the case was far from a slam-dunk. Luckily, white men have not yet adopted the modern propensity to view the world as an identity group cage match. I would wager that it never occurred to a single white man on the jury to think: We cant send a white man to prison!

5) Also relevant to the white male pestilence infecting America: If wed cut off immigration around 1880, certainly by 1850, there would be hardly any #MeToo cases at all. (I cant think of a single #MeToo perpetrator of founding American stock i.e., the group that gets blamed for everything.) We need way better assimilation programs.

6) There was one notable exception to the medias refusal to budge off their 24-7 Trump Is an Authoritarian Monster coverage on the day of the Weinstein verdict: the Kobe Bryant memorial! All news was interrupted for hours and hours of live coverage of the Kobe event. No mention of Kobes rape case.

Ann Coulter is the writer of 12 best-selling books,

including In Trump We Trust.

Continue reading here:

ANN COULTER: Harpooning the toxic whale | Opinion - MDJOnline.com

New York Times best-selling author and populist conservative columnist Ann Coulter says Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) hurt his campaign this election cycle when he dropped the anti-open borders position that he held for decades.

During an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriots Breitbart News Tonight, Coulter said Sanders once defended working-class Americans against the negative impacts of open borders and mass immigration but has since hurt his campaign by endorsing decriminalizing the U.S.-Mexico border, taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, and an end to deportations of all illegal aliens.

LISTEN:

[Bernie Sanders] really would have helped himself if he had not flipped on immigration, Coulter said. And Im not just saying because I think he shouldnt have switched on immigration. But if not flipping your support for Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro doesnt hurt you, if instead that can be seen as admirable consistency. For one thing, hed get huge consistency points.

This crazy idea that only members of the Republican National Committee believe and apparently a lot of our media is that what Hispanics living here legally really really want is for their deadbeat brothers-in-law is to come up and sleep on the extra couch and undercut their wages, Coulter continued. No, its the entire working class, African-American working class, the Hispanic working class, the white working-class who are hurt the most by mass low wage immigration.

Sanders agenda has swung so far to the left on immigration that the United We Dream Action organization, a leading open borders lobbying front, endorsed him ahead of the California Democrat presidential primary.

Coulter said that while the GOP donor class and Republican establishment have failed to realize the unpopularity of mass illegal and legal immigration, even former President Obama understood amnesty was not what would win Hispanic Americans over.

Consider that in 2012 when Romney was running against Obama, all the Republicans, Rupert Murdoch were haranguing Romney to drop that self-deportation thing. No, no, youve got to be for amnesty. We need the Hispanic vote,' Coulter said. Democrats just sit back with their feet up on the desk thinking Oh yeah, you do that Republicans.'

In Obamas ads in 2012, in Spanish, running on Spanish language radio stations, never mentioned amnesty, Coulter said. He talked about how he was giving them all free healthcare.

Meanwhile, Coulter said black American voters and issues that most impact them are being left behind.

The one saving grace from this because Im just about to the point of writing my final book Screw It, Were Doomed at which point all there really is left for us to is take revenge on the people who have wrecked our country, Coulter said. And were getting the initial taste of it right now.

Hispanics are voting for Bernie, not because of immigration, hes had the toughest position on immigration, just like they voted in Venezuela, they want socialism, Coulter said. When the countrys over, Im volunteering to go work for Sanders and AOC to make sure we have a really strict wealth tax. I want to clean out the Chamber of Commerce-types, I want to bankrupt the Koch brothers

The 2020 presidential election will be the first time in history that black Americans are outnumbered in the U.S. electorate by Hispanic American voters a direct result of the nations legal immigration system that continues to import about 1.2 million foreign nationals every year, primarily from Central and South America.

Estimates project that the number of eligible Hispanic voters in 2020 will tick up to a record 13.3 percent of the entire U.S. electorate, while eligible black American voters will make up about 12.5 percent of the electorate. This translates to about 32 million Hispanics who will be eligible to vote in the 2020 election and about 30 million eligible black American voters.

John Binder is a reporterfor Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at@JxhnBinder.

.

Continue reading here:

ExclusiveAnn Coulter: Bernie Sanders Would Have Helped Himself If He Had Not Flipped on Immigration - Breitbart

Say what you will about Chris Matthewsat least hes consistent. In more than two decades as the host of MSNBCs Hardball, he was a force of nature, plowing through each days news with a mix of enthusiasm, petulance and wonkish bluster. His exit on Monday was equally chaotic. Let me start with my headline: Im retiring, Matthews greeted viewers. After a short monologue in which he apologized for the way hed treated some women during his tenure and said he was ceding his platform to younger generations, the 74-year-old commentator did just that, leaving his apparently shocked 40-year-old colleague, Steve Kornacki, to cover the rest of the hour.

For those frustrated by the extent to which Matthews generation has shirked its responsibilities to future citizens of Earth, there was a hint of symbolism in that moment. Here was a quintessential baby boomeran individualist who gravitates toward personalities more than policies, a journalist whod written speeches for Jimmy Carter and books on the Kennedys, a man with no fear of publicly expressing his wildest opinionsleaving a workforce where hed spent decades at the advantageous end of massive systemic power imbalances. Despite the scandals that preceded it, Matthews was allowed to frame his speedy departure as retirement. And as soon as hed done so, on the eve of Super Tuesday no less, he offered a vague mea culpa and vanished into the night. Sorry, kids! I screwed it up! Hope you do better!

Its trueMatthews did screw things up. The circumstances surrounding his sudden retirement, whether voluntary or not, are no mystery. Following a painful post-debate interview on Feb. 25, in which he grilled Elizabeth Warren for bringing up crass, sexist, intimidating comments Michael Bloomberg had allegedly made to female employees, GQ columnist Laura Bassett published an account of the crass, sexist, intimidating comments she says Matthews made when she was a guest on his show. After Bernie Sanders won the Nevada caucuses, just three days earlier, Matthews had to apologize for likening the Democratic Socialists rise to the fall of France during World War II. (Casual Nazi comparisons are rarely prudent, but it seems obvious that theyre an especially bad idea when the object of your criticism is a Jew with relatives who died in the Holocaust.)

Bassett notes, in her essay, that several other women have confided in her about Matthews behavior. His whole modus operandi, she concludes, seems to be inviting smart women onto his show, flirting with them or otherwise making them uncomfortable before or while the camera rolls, asking them a question on air and then immediately interrupting them to tell them why theyre wrong. The observation reminded me of Matthews former rival Bill OReilly, who was notorious during his time at Fox News for shouting down guests with whom he disagreed and who was fired in 2017 when it came to light that the network had settled multiple sexual harassment suits against him. If #MeToo has taught us anything, its that this kind of misconduct isnt confined to boors. But its hard to believe talk-show hosts who let their anger and sexism run wild on live TV are keeping them under control, or even recognizing them for what they are, after the cameras stop rolling.

For much of its existence, cable news has been defined by vitriol on both sides of the aisle, from Donald Trumps Fox News hype man Sean Hannity to Matthews short-fused former MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann. (CNNs calmer anchors tend to fan the flames of existing political controversies rather than ignite new ones along partisan lines. Its the lowest-rated of the three networks.) With Matthews gone and a new election cycle revving up, it seems like the right time to ask whether the young people he talked up on his way out stand a chance at saving cable newsor if the best Gens X-Z can do is hope this monster our parents and grandparents generations created dies out now that cable is itself becoming obsolete.

If Super Tuesday was any indicationand if a bigger-than-expected night for Joe Biden didnt inhibit any potential for colorful invective among in-house pundits who, like Matthews, seemed nervous about Sanders early surgeMSNBC is going to be a tamer place from now on. Anchoring a rotating panel of commentators were Brian Williams, who has carved out a role as the networks blandly authoritative answer to Wolf Blitzer, and Rachel Maddow, whose wry delivery and fondness for background research made her its biggest Gen X success story. The only real source of amusement was Kornackis nervous energy as he parsed stats in real time.

Spotlight Story

How to Manage Your Anxiety About Coronavirus

If you are worried about getting COVID-19, here's how you can manage your coronavirus anxiety and stay calm.

But as entertaining as it could be to watch Matthews and his ilk put their feet in their mouths, its hard to make a case that 24/7 cable news was ever healthy for the national discourse. One of the first shows on a pre-left-of-center MSNBC, The Contributors, helped launch the careers of far-right provocateurs Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Jon Stewarts unexpectedly sober observations on CNNs Crossfire during the 2004 election cycle, when he famously chastised partisan hack co-hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for treating political debates like professional wrestling, still apply.

In the 20th century, cable news channels at least served a comprehensible purpose, as forums for real-time news and on-the-fly analysis. But since the turn of the millennium, digital platforms have owned breaking newsand millions of Americans now turn to social media for political conversations in which they can actually participate. Its hard to tell, these days, whether Twitter has adopted the tone of cable news or vice versa. Together with a President who couldnt stop making headlines if his life depended on it, theyve created an anxious new normal where it feels like no one is ever not obsessing over politics.

All cable news does is filter the endless feed of information through a series of TV personalities who are most entertaining when theyre mad, wrong or offensive. Which suggests that remaking the medium to suit younger viewers isnt just a risky business proposition; its a dangerous one. At the risk of sounding like the oldest fossil of all, heres an idea: Maybe news shouldnt be entertainment. Maybe it should just be news.

Most Popular on TIME

1

Should You Cancel Travel Plans Amid COVID-19 Concerns? Here's What to Consider

2

Elizabeth Warren Ends 2020 Presidential Bid

3

Despite CDC Guidance, Why Are So Many Wearing Face Masks?

Contact us at editors@time.com.

Read more:

Chris Matthews Ceded Cable News to a New Generation. But Theyd Be Better Off Without It - TIME

EXCLUSIVE: Top Republican senators, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., plan to meetThursday at the White House with President Trump to discuss possible immigration measuresin case the Supreme Court strikes down an Obama-era ruling shielding illegal immigrants from deportation, Fox News has learned -- a push likely to revive concerns among Trumps base of an election-yearamnesty push.

Thelawmakers are set to meet, at the invitation of the White House,with Trump around noon to discuss what would happen should the top court strike down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, asource familiar with the negotiations said. A decision on DACA is expected in June. The Republicans are said to include Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.;Martha McSally, R-Ariz.;Mike Lee, R-Utah;Ron Johnson, R-Wis.;Thom Tillis, R-N.C. and David Perdue, R-Ga.

SANCTUARY CITIES MAKE ARRESTING CRIMINAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HARDER, PUT OFFICERS AT RISK: DHS WATCHDOG

Graham, on Thursday morning, told Fox News that the meeting was going ahead and it was related to the coming DACA ruling.

"Just to see, you know, where we are in terms of the DACA Supreme Court case, [there's a] pretty good chance that the president will win, being able to set aside the Obama-era DACA regulations and what's the play after that," he said.

The source told Fox News that a comprehensive immigration reform deal was to be discussed, but a Graham spokesman pushed back, saying thatthe meeting is to discuss DACA, andcomprehensive immigration reform was just one of a broad range of topicsthatcould potentially be discussed.

A spokesman for Lee confirmed toFox News that the senatorhad been invited to the White House to talk immigration, but that he hadn't heard anything about a deal for Dreamers. The offices of Sens. Johnson and Cramer also confirmed their attendance at the meeting.

Trump vowed during his 2016 campaign toendDACA but has also said he is open to a broader bill that would allow those affected -- young migrants dubbed Dreamers who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- to stay as part of broader immigration plan that sees funding for border security in exchange for a "pathway to citizenship" as well as expansion of visas and green cards. Even as Republicans fight DACA in court, there is some bipartisan appetite for finding a legislative way to protect Dreamers, considering that in many casesthe decision to illegally enter the U.S. was not their own.

An eventual, if elusive, immigration pact, particularly one that succeeds by pickingup Democratic support, could essentially boost the presidents image among moderatesas a deal-maker who can get things done where others have failed. Yet,it is risky and likelyto fuel furtherconcern among immigration hawks in Trumps base.

"It is risky, it makes sense that Graham is the one taking the lead givenhis prominent role in past efforts...but itwould make a lot more sense if someone hawkish took the lead on this," Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of immigration, told Fox News.

Krikorian said that Trump risks being seen as "selling out" on his signature campaign promises on immigration, but the White House could deal with thatrisk by coming up with a deal the president can defend, andincluding provisions that no-one beyond the actual DACA recipients, such as their relatives, gets legal status as well.

"A tough enough deal that he could justify it, because there is political support for legalizing people who lived here for years and came here as 8-year-olds," he said.

While the delegation includes a range of immigration hardliners whose involvement could potentially dilute anything too far-reaching, Grahamhas been eyed with suspicion by conservative activistsfor years for his pushes on immigration reform.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh once dubbed the South Carolina senator Lindsey Grahamnesty for his repeated efforts, alongsidethen-Arizona Sen. John McCain, to try andget immigration reform through Congress -- a move that was killed during the Bush administration aftera push by conservative activists.In 2018, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called Graham the "single worst person to negotiate" such a deal.

Pushes for immigration reform have also been blamed for helping doom the presidential aspirations of a number of top Republicans, including Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and even Graham himself.

ICE CHIEF RIPS NEW YORK FOR SHARING DRIVER DATA WITH CANADA, BUT NOT US IMMIGRATION AGENTS

A call for a comprehensive immigration reform plan was included in a post-2012 election "autopsy" report by the Republican National Committee. The nomination of Trump in 2016 was seen as a rebuke to that call, particularlyby the party base.

"What Lindsey Graham is trying to do isn't only bad policy, it's bad politics. His amnesty agenda is in line with the 2012 GOP autopsy report that should have been dead and buried after President Trump was elected," the source familiar with negotiations told Fox News.

Graham himself has at times taken a tough stance on illegal immigration. Last year, he introduced a bill that would end asylum claims at the border and return unaccompanied minors to their home countries, as part of an effort to end the then-escalating crisis at the border.

Trump has racked up a series of wins at the border, securing funding for the wall, and dramatically reducing border crossings by implementing international agreements with neighboring countries. But there remains in some pro-Trump circles a sneaking suspicion that a betrayal on so-called amnesty for illegal immigrantsis just around the corner, considering the hefty appetite in Washington D.C. for a deal.

While its not immediately clear what the deal could include, there are a number of bills and proposals already circling that could be covered-- in measures both passed by the House or mentioned in prior stabs at immigration reform.

Krikorian said he believes there will likely be enforcement measures in any agreement, butsaid there should also be an offsetting reduction in legal immigration if DACA-recipients are going to end up with legal status.

"If we're giving away 700,000 green cards, that's almost an extra year of immigration, there needs to be some reduction," he said.

The Democrat-controlled House passed a farm bill in Decemberthat granted a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants working in the agriculture industry. While it hasnt yet been taken up by the Senate, it could be brought in to discussions. Other aspects, including green card reform, legal status for DACA recipients and visa reforms, could also be part of the deal, the source said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump too has tried to push a DACA deal before, in January 2019 offering Democrats legal status for DACA recipients in exchange for money for the border wall. He later backed away from the deal after pushback from immigration hawks.

Politico reported last month that a White House proposal was in the works to overhaul America's immigration system to replace it with a merit-based system.But that too has struggled with hawks, as it doesn't make the E-Verify work verification system mandatory, nor does it reduce overall immigration levels.

Fox News' Jason Donner contributed to this report.

More:

Lindsey Graham to lead group of senators to White House for immigration talks - Fox News

HONEY, WE MOLESTED THE KIDS!

I wonder if any liberals are re-thinking their insistence that the Boy Scouts allow gay men to take 13-year-old boys on overnight camping trips.

HEADLINE: Boy Scouts Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Face of Thousands of Child Abuse Allegations

The Boy Scouts of America have long been on the lefts hate list. Any organization that has the temerity to train young men in the virtues of integrity, patriotism and self-reliance is putting itself on the fighting side of liberals!

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, a little group of Boy Scouts took the stage as part of the opening ceremony and were promptly booed by the delegates.

For decades, the BSA has fended off lawsuits demanding that they embrace the holy trinity of Gs: girls, gays and godless atheists. (If only it had occurred to the plaintiffs to start their own organizations! They could have given them names like The Girl Scouts.)

Why would any liberal want to join an organization that was, according to them, sexist, Bible-thumping and bigoted? They didnt. The lawsuits were kill shots.

For the left, whats not to hate about the Boy Scouts? Their oath is: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Nearly 200 NASA astronauts were Boy Scouts. The great outdoorsman, Teddy Roosevelt, was such a BSA booster than he was made the one and only Chief Scout Citizen, a scout for life.

A Louis Harris & Associates study in 1996 found that men who had been scouts placed a higher value on honesty than those who had not.

But now the lawsuits have killed them. Congratulations, Democrats, The New York Times and corporate America. (I hope all their future employees steal from them, after being raised on Grand Theft Auto instead of the Boy Scout oath.)

From the beginning, BSA has had to deal with child molesters eagerly signing up to go camping with 13-year-old boys in isolated areas away from all observation.

Within a decade of its 1910 founding, the BSA began keeping internal files on ineligible scouting volunteers, known as the perversion files.

Scout leaders were not to be alone with boys and, starting in 1988, all adult applicants were subjected to aggressive background screening. The organization promptly removed any scout leaders based on mere suspicion and alerted law enforcement in about a third of the cases.

Nonetheless, between 1970 and 1991, up to .04% of Boy Scouts may have been molested. Thats about 2,000 out of several million boys.

Given all of this, what sort of escaped mental patient would demand that the Boy Scouts admit openly gay scout leaders?

Yes, we know most gays arent child molesters. How could we not? Its part of our secular catechism, along with the one about most Muslims not being terrorists and most immigrants not being criminals.

But men who molest boys are a small slice infinitesimal really! within a larger category known as gay. Its not two totally different things, like an architect and a dentist. Some men like blondes. Some like brunettes. But theyre all within the category of heterosexual.

No parent is going to send their young sons camping alone in the woods with an openly gay man for the same reason they wouldnt send their adolescent daughters to be alone in the woods with an openly heterosexual man.

And now the BSA has been whiplashed into bankruptcy by liberals demanding, on one hand, that the scouts allow gays to be troop leaders and, on the other hand, filing lawsuits accusing the scouts of not taking strong enough measures to prevent gay troop leaders from molesting boys.

Couldnt liberals get together and decide for themselves whether the Boy Scouts should have been more aggressive in preventing child molestation or less?

For their defense witnesses, the Boy Scouts should call New York Times editors, Democratic politicians and corporate CEOs.

Back in 1980, when a gay guy lost his lawsuit against BSA for dropping him as a scout leader, Wells Fargo, the United Way of San Francisco, Levi Strauss and the Bank of America cut off funding to the organization. San Francisco and Oakland schools prohibited the scouts from using their facilities on weekdays.

After the Supreme Courts disturbingly narrow 5-4 decision in 2000 holding that the Boy Scouts could not be forced to admit gay scout leaders, the Times denounced the decision in an editorial, calling the courts ruling one of its lowest moments of the term.

The following month, the Times ethicist, Randy Cohen, advised a reader to pull her son out of the Cub Scouts, saying it was the ethical thing to do. The ethicist explained: Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.

Also in response to the Supreme Courts decision, Chase Manhattan Bank, Textron Inc. and dozens more United Way chapters withdrew millions of dollars in contributions. More cities dropped their support of the Boy Scouts.

In his pre-Super Bowl TV interview in 2013, President Barack Obama was still harping on the Boy Scouts refusal to allow gay scoutmasters: Gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does.

On CNN, host Carol Costello haughtily informed a guest opposed to gay scoutmasters, Well, Ill just say that the American Psychological Association has studied the issue that you just mentioned. Homosexuals arent any more likely to molest kids than straight men.

Throughout the lefts 30-year assault on the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays, the Catholic Church was embroiled in its own molestation crisis. More than 80% of the molester priests were accused of victimizing teenage boys.

Instead of saying, Oh I see what the Boy Scouts are doing, liberals responded to the gay sex-abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming ... celibacy!

Isnt it a thought crime to question whether sexual preference is determined at birth? But liberals not only believed gayness was the result of an adult lifestyle choice celibacy but they knew how to cure it: Allow priests to marry!

Since the one thing we know is that men molesting boys has nothing to do with being gay, I guess this time its camping that causes sodomy.

Ann Coulter is the writer of 12 best-selling books,

including In Trump We Trust.

More here:

ANN COULTER:The Boy Scouts have long been on the left's hate list - MDJOnline.com

I wonder if any liberals are re-thinking their insistence that the Boy Scouts allow gay men to take 13-year-old boys on overnight camping trips.

HEADLINE:Boy Scouts Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Face of Thousands of Child Abuse Allegations

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) have long been on the lefts hate list. Any organization that has the temerity to train young men in the virtues of integrity, patriotism, and self-reliance is putting itself on the fighting side of liberals!

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, a little group of Boy Scouts took the stage as part of the opening ceremony and were promptly booed by the delegates.

For decades, the BSA has fended off lawsuits demanding that they embrace the holy trinity of Gs: girls, gays, and godless atheists. (If only it had occurred to the plaintiffs to start their own organizations! They could have given them names like The Girl Scouts.)

Why would any liberal want to join an organization that was, according to them, sexist, Bible-thumping, and bigoted? They didnt. The lawsuits were kill shots.

For the left, whats not to hate about the Boy Scouts? Their oath is: On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Nearly 200 NASA astronauts were Boy Scouts. The great outdoorsman, Teddy Roosevelt, was such a BSA booster than he was made the one and only Chief Scout Citizen, a scout for life.

A Louis Harris & Associates study in 1996 found that men who had been scouts placed a higher value on honesty than those who had not.

But now the lawsuits have killed them. Congratulations, Democrats, the New York Times, and corporate America. (I hope all their future employees steal from them, after being raised on Grand Theft Auto instead of the Boy Scout oath.)

From the beginning, BSA has had to deal with child molesters eagerly signing up to go camping with 13-year-old boys in isolated areas away from all observation.

Within a decade of its 1910 founding, the BSA began keeping internal files on ineligible scouting volunteers, known as the perversion files.

Scout leaders were not to be alone with boys and, starting in 1988, all adult applicants were subjected to aggressive background screening. The organization promptly removed any scout leaders based on mere suspicion and alerted law enforcement in about a third of the cases.

Nonetheless, between 1970 and 1991, up to .04 percent of Boy Scouts may have been molested. Thats about 2,000 out of several million boys.

Given all of this, what sort of escaped mental patient would demand that the Boy Scouts admit openly gay scout leaders?

Yes, we know most gays arent child molesters. How could we not? Its part of our secular catechism, along with the one about most Muslims not being terrorists and most immigrants not being criminals.

But men who molest boys are a small slice infinitesimal really! within a larger category known as gay. Its not two totally different things, like an architect and a dentist. Some men like blondes. Some like brunettes. But theyre all within the category of heterosexual.

No parent is going to send their young sons camping alone in the woods with an openly gay man for the same reason they wouldnt send their adolescent daughters to be alone in the woods with an openly heterosexual man.

And now the BSA has been whiplashed into bankruptcy by liberals demanding, on one hand, that the scouts allow gays to be troop leaders and, on the other hand, filing lawsuits accusing the scouts of not taking strong enough measures to prevent gay troop leaders from molesting boys.

Couldnt liberals get together and decide for themselves whether the Boy Scouts should have been more aggressive in preventing child molestation or less?

For their defense witnesses, the Boy Scouts should call New York Times editors, Democratic politicians, and corporate CEOs.

Back in 1980, when a gay guy lost his lawsuit against BSA for dropping him as a scout leader, Wells Fargo, the United Way of San Francisco, Levi Strauss, and the Bank of America cut off funding to the organization. San Francisco and Oakland schools prohibited the scouts from using their facilities on weekdays.

After the Supreme Courts disturbingly narrow 5-4 decision in 2000 holding that the Boy Scouts could not be forced to admit gay scout leaders, the Times denounced the decision in an editorial, calling the courts ruling one of its lowest moments of the term.

The following month, the Times ethicist, Randy Cohen, advised a reader to pull her son out of the Cub Scouts, saying it was the ethical thing to do. The ethicist explained: Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals.

Also in response to the Supreme Courts decision, Chase Manhattan Bank, Textron Inc., and dozens more United Way chapters withdrew millions of dollars in contributions. More cities dropped their support of the Boy Scouts.

In his pre-Super Bowl TV interview in 2013, President Barack Obama was still harping on the Boy Scouts refusal to allow gay scoutmasters: Gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does.

On CNN, host Carol Costello haughtily informed a guest opposed to gay scoutmasters, Well, Ill just say that the American Psychological Association has studied the issue that you just mentioned. Homosexuals arent any more likely to molest kids than straight men.

The defense rests.

Throughout the lefts 30-year assault on the Boy Scouts for discriminating against gays, the Catholic Church was embroiled in its own molestation crisis. More than 80 percent of the molester priests were accused of victimizing teenage boys.

Instead of saying, Oh I see what the Boy Scouts are doing, liberals responded to the gay sex-abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming celibacy!

Isnt it a thought crime to question whether sexual preference is determined at birth? But liberals not only believed gayness was the result of an adult lifestyle choice celibacy but they knew how to cure it: Allow priests to marry!

Since the one thing we know is that men molesting boys has nothing to do with being gay, I guess this time its camping that causes sodomy.

.

View original post here:

Ann Coulter: Honey, We Molested the Kids! - Breitbart

Jewish UC Berkeley student senator Milton Zerman resigned Wednesday night in protest after a resolution he introduced to condemn a controversial Palestinian photo display was voted down.

In a letter, Zerman said the decision alienated a vast majority of Jewish students, drained the legitimacy and moral authority of the student government and revealed a culture of anti-Semitism at the university.

It was the right decision to resign, Zerman wrote in a text message to J. It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get elected to UC Berkeleys student government as an openly Zionist Jewish student. But its come to a point where the ASUC is no longer an institution I can affiliate myself with in good conscience.

The resolution, struck down on Feb. 10 by the ASUC External and University Affairs Committee in a 4-1 vote, called for condemning a photo display that includes photos of two Palestinian women involved in deadly civilian bombings and hijackings of planes going to and from Israel.

The photos are displayed in the shared office space of Bears for Palestine, a campus group that promotes Palestinian history and culture.

In his resignation letter, which was shared with other members of the student senate, Zerman said he will now refocus his efforts on helping more Jews and moderates get elected to the Associated Students of the University of California.

Zerman, a member of the Berkeley College Republicans and Tikvah: Students for Israel, has himself been a source of controversy. At a Feb. 3 vote for his resolution, which was later tabled after the meeting devolved into chaos, Zerman described the Bears for Palestine as godless, according to the Daily Californian.

Though the resolution had the support of some pro-Israel students, a number of Jewish students distanced themselves from Zerman.

In an opinion piece published yesterday in the Daily Californian, Jewish student Josh Burg said Zermans resolution was ironic considering some of his past activities, including last November when Zerman urged students to attend a campus lecture by conservative media pundit Ann Coulter. Coulter has peddled in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, Burg wrote, calling Jews globalists and claiming they are encouraging Muslim immigration to the United States.

Burg described Zermans assertion that Jewish students feel alienated by the vote as ridiculous.

Zerman has been able to co-opt representation of the Jewish community, Burg said in an interview. From the very beginning, the Jewish community wasnt behind him.

Burg also pushed back on Zermans claim that UC Berkeley is anti-Semitic. Jewish life on this campus is thriving in many ways, he said.

Some Jews have been oddly comfortable cozying up to right-wing voices, he continued. What is actually dangerous to Jews? Are a few pictures on the third floor of a room dangerous? Or is cozying up to Ann Coulter? There needs to be a much larger conversation about our values.

On Tuesday night, Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ responded more fully to the turmoil, issuing two nearly identical letters written to both sides those who opposed the resolution and those who supported it.

Christ wrote that the display of Palestinian militants who killed unarmed Jewish civilians is an affront to our Principles of Community. In the next sentence, she denounced an inflammatory comment made by a pro-Israel student during one of ASUCs meetings.

See the article here:

UC Berkeley student senator resigns over resolution against Bears for Palestine - The Jewish News of Northern California