After Judge Amy Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference” during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Democrats rushed to condemn the term and claim it was outdated and “offensive.”

LGBT websites jumped on the phrase as well, when as recently as last month they didn’t seem to have any issue with the term.

On September 25, one of the leading LGBT publications, The Advocate, published an interview with the cast from “Julie and the Phantoms,” in which filmmaker Kenny Ortega, who directs the show and is openly gay, uses the term.

“To come from that history to be able to now, as a director, be telling these stories that aren’t even about coming out — that are about young people who are just comfortable with who they are, no matter what their sexual preference is. It’s just glorious and so satisfying,” Ortega said in the interview.

Nowhere in the article does anyone claim “sexual preference” is an offensive term. Yet, below the article are links to recent stories from the same publication, including a recent story claiming Barrett was “blasted” for using “anti-LGBTQ+ term ‘sexual preference.’”

Here’s what Barrett said when asked if she “would be a consistent vote to roll back hard-fought freedoms and protections for the LGBT community”:

“I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. Like racism, I think discrimination is abhorrent.”

The Advocate then claimed the “term ‘sexual preference,’ while accepted decades ago, is now considered inaccurate and offensive by LGBTQ+ people because of its implication that people choose their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

LOGOtv, a channel geared toward the LGBT community, on September 20 tweeted out an article from LGBT website NewNowNext with a quote from the article saying, “Now, I’m far more attracted to men than women, but who’s to say my sexual preference won’t sway again?” The channel made no claim that the phrase was offensive at that time.

On October 13, LOGOtv quote-tweeted MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin’s tweet alleging “sexual preference” was an “offensive term” and added a link to the channels “guide to Amy Coney Barrett’s anti-LGBTQ track record,” along with an angry emoji.

In addition to The Advocate and LOGOtv, British LGBT website Pink News also had no issue with the term in April 2019, when the outlet used a quote from a 21-year-old who told the Associated Press: “Kissing someone is no crime. All we want is for there to be less divisions in this society, and no discrimination against people over their sexual preferences.”

Pink News did not at that time claim “sexual preference” was an offensive or outdated term.

As The Daily Wire reported Wednesday, the phrase “sexual preference” became offensive overnight after Barrett used it in one of her answers, for which she later apologized. Merriam-Webster dictionary updated its definition of the term to include the word “offensive,” even though last month the dictionary made no such distinction.

Further, many of the Democrats now attacking Barrett for the phrase have used it themselves in recent years, despite claiming it has been offensive for “decades.”

Sen. Mazie Hirono claimed on Tuesday that it was “an offensive and outdated term,” yet she used it herself in 2017. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden also used the phrase in May. Liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death prompted Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, even used the phrase.

The Washington Free Beacon put together a video of various Democrats using the phrase:

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: LGBT Websites Now Say ‘Sexual Preference’ Is An Offensive Term. They Were Fine With It Last Month.

Ahead of the vice presidential debate on Wednesday, Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) campaign requested the candidates be separated by a slab of plexiglass following President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis.

Vice President Mike Pence’s campaign reportedly opposed the measure at first, Politico reported, but ended up agreeing to Harris’ request with a mocking statement.

“If Sen. Harris wants to use a fortress around herself, have at it,” said Pence spokeswoman Katie Miller.

Pence and Harris will now sit 13 feet apart on the debate stage – an increase from the previous seven feet – and be separated by the plexiglass. Both Harris and Pence have tested negative for COVID-19.

As USA Today reported, the Commission on Presidential Debates made the announcement on Monday that plexiglass would separate the candidates, as well as other health safety protocols such as testing and masks. The commission said anyone who does not wear a mask inside the debate hall will be removed.

The outlet also noted that this would be the second debate to separate candidates by plexiglass. On Saturday evening, Democratic Senate candidate Jaime Harrison, who is running to unseat incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), installed a plexiglass barrier to separate himself from Graham.

“It’s not just about me, it’s about the people in my life that I have to take care of, as well, my two boys, my wife, my grandma,” Harrison said, according to MRCTV. The outlet noted that Harrison made the comment while “standing next to the partition supposedly meant to stave off an airborne flu and which only extended a few inches above his head.”

Graham had tested negative for COVID-19 prior to the debate, though several people he had been near recently had tested positive.

The pointless extra precaution will also separate the candidates from the debate moderator, who was already going to be seated more than the CDC recommended six feet away from the candidates.

Harris’ press secretary, Sabrina Singh, tweeted Tuesday that it was “interesting that Katie Miller mocks our wanting a plexiglass barrier on the debate stage” suggesting that Pence should want the barrier as well since he was “supposedly in charge of the Covid-19 task force and should be advocating for this too.”

The request comes after Democrats and their media supporters insisted Trump was sicker than he appeared to be while hospitalized after his COVID-19 diagnosis. Despite regular footage of Trump walking around and acting normally, as well as his doctors saying his symptoms were clearing, the media reported minor conflicting statements in a way that suggested Trump was near death. Outlets went so far as to claim a commonly prescribed drug – Dexamethasone – was dangerous and meant Trump had a severe case of COVID-19, even though such a severe case would be obvious during Trump’s recorded messages to the American public.

Some even tried to claim the photos of Trump working that were released by the White House were photoshopped or fake, showing their lack of knowledge surrounding cameras and lighting.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Kamala Harris Wanted A Plexiglass Shield During Debate, Pence Spokeswoman Mocks Her, But Agrees

Senate Republicans continue their own investigation into the origins of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into whether President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign conspired with the Russian government to steal the election.

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team eventually concluded, the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, and a subsequent Inspector General report found that the FBI omitted evidence that would have called into question the years long investigation into the Trump administration as part of “Crossfire Hurricane.” Following the IG report, Senate Republicans and U.S. Attorney General William Barr launched separate investigations into the origins of the false collusion narrative.

As part of the Senate’s investigation, ex-FBI Director James Comey will testify on September 30. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News host Sean Hannity Wednesday night that Comey had agreed to testify, while Mueller said he didn’t have enough time.

“The day of reckoning is upon us when it comes to Crossfire Hurricane,” Graham said.

The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross reported that the committee would also interview the two FBI employees who spoke with the primary source for Christopher Steele’s dossier, which was used as the basis for the investigation into the Trump campaign. The primary source, Russia analyst Igor Danchenko, informed the FBI and the Justice Department in January 2017 that Steele embellished parts of his dossier, but the FBI didn’t include this information when applying for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Graham’s decision to interview the two FBI employees is a chance, he told Hannity, to find out which FBI agents knew about what Danchenko said during his interviews that would undermine the investigation.

“Now who did the intel analyst and the case agent tell?” Graham said. “We’re going to talk to them in the next week to 10 days.”

More from Ross:

The case agent has been identified as Steven Somma, a veteran counterintelligence investigator in the FBI’s New York Field Office. Somma was involved in several aspects of Crossfire Hurricane.

In addition to interviewing Danchenko, he was the FBI handler for Stefan Halper, a confidential source who secretly recorded Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide.

The IG report said Somma, who is referred to as “Case Agent 1” in the report, was the first FBI investigator to propose applying for a FISA warrant against Page.

As The Daily Wire previously reported, the IG report found 17 “inaccuracies and omissions” in the FBI’s FISA warrants against Carter Page, far higher than were found in dozens of other warrant requests as part of a random search conducted by the IG.

Among the omissions were information pertaining to Page’s past known communications with Russian officials. An FBI lawyer who is no longer with the bureau pleaded guilty to falsifying an email to remove the fact that the CIA told the FBI Page had worked with the agency.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: James Comey To Testify On Russia Investigation At End Of Month

After President Donald Trump commuted the sentence of former adviser Roger Stone, Democrats went apoplectic.

On Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she would support a bill that would limit a president’s pardoning abilities. Stone had been sentenced to three years in prison for witness tampering and lying to Congress. He was also arrested in an infamous early morning bust with multiple armed police raiding the 67-year-old’s home as CNN filmed.

After commuting Stone’s sentence, the White House released a statement calling the former adviser “a victim of the Russia Hoax.”

“The collusion delusion spawned endless and farcical investigations, conducted at great taxpayer expense, looking for evidence that did not exist. As it became clear that these witch hunts would never bear fruit, the Special Counsel’s Office resorted to process-based charges leveled at high-profile people in an attempt to manufacture the false impression of criminality lurking below the surface. These charges were the product of recklessness borne of frustration and malice,” the White House statement read.

Pelosi and Democrats, however, want to make sure presidents can’t pardon allies, calling Trump’s actions “an act of staggering corruption.”

“Congress will take action to prevent this type of brazen wrongdoing. Legislation is needed to ensure that no president can pardon or commute the sentence of an individual who is engaged in a cover-up campaign to shield that President from criminal prosecution,” Pelosi said, as reported by The Times-Union.

The outlet noted, however, that such a bill would never become law with a Republican-controlled Senate and White House. “The bill would also likely face legal challenges were it to become law,” the Times-Union reported.

Trump had every right to pardon Stone, even if some don’t like it. Two former prosecutors – Brett L. Tolman and Arthur Rizer – penned an op-ed for Fox News saying Stone was “a relative bit player” sentenced to justify Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation.

“The Stone prosecution is just the latest example of a well-documented phenomena: the way special prosecutors, desperate to justify their commissions, end up charging marginal players with tangential crimes — often related obstruction of the investigation itself,” the two wrote.

Journalist and author Andrew McCarthy, too, defended Trump’s actions and pointed out multiple pardons from Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that Democrats defended.

President Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother for felony distribution of cocaine. And a key witness in the Whitewater scandal for which he and Hillary Clinton were under investigation. And three others convicted in independent counsel Ken Starr’s probe. And Marc Rich, in what was a straight-up political payoff. And his CIA director. And his HUD secretary. And eight people convicted in an investigation of his Agriculture Department,” McCarthy wrote.

“Obama also commuted the sentence of a U.S. soldier who passed top-secret information to WikiLeaks. He pardoned his former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman, who’d been convicted of making false statements about a leak of classified information to The New York Times,” McCarthy added.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: After Stone Commutation, Pelosi Planning Bill To Limit Presidential Pardons

Suicide is a major, yet not often discussed, issue in modern society, and on Tuesday, the Trump administration took a step toward reducing high rates by launching a national campaign called REACH.

Fox News reported that digital ads will be appearing on the Internet Wednesday displaying a message that “suicide is preventable,” and that together, we can reduce the rates.

“As we face the tragedy of suicide in our nation, we must reach beyond what we have done before. We must change the way we think about, talk about, and address emotional pain and suffering. Suicide is preventable – but only if we empower ourselves and others with the knowledge, tools and resources we need to reach those who feel hopeless,” the website for the campaign says. “REACH is about preventing suicide. It is for and about everyone because we all have risk and protective factors that we need to recognize and understand.”

The website, which is maintained by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, provides information about the risk factors of suicide and what can be done to prevent it, with a note at the top that includes the phone number to the Suicide Prevention Lifeline.

“Suicide is preventable. If you are struggling, or you are concerned about someone you know, please REACH out and call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (press 1 if you are a Veteran or service member), or chat online at”

Second Lady Karen Pence is leading the effort in the administration to reduce suicides.

“Working together, we can implement this road map and end this national tragedy of suicide,” she said, according to Fox.

“All of us have been facing anxieties and isolation,” Pence said. “It’s OK to not be OK. … The best thing is to talk about it more, not less.”

“No one should be afraid to ask for help,” she added.

The effort is aimed particularly at veterans, who, according to Fox News, commit suicide at “a rate about 1.5 times higher than those who have not served in the military.” The outlet reported that about “20 veterans, guardsmen and reservists die by suicide each day.”

Surgeon General Jerome Adams is helping with the effort and explained that the stigma around mental health issues needs to disappear, saying it is a much bigger threat than cigarettes or even the coronavirus.

“When we feel comfortable seeking help, and unless more people feel comfortable offering help without judgment, we’ll never reach those who need it the most,” Adams said, according to Fox.

In 2018, NBC reported that mental health and suicide is an issue particularly affecting men and boys, who are taught not to share their feelings.

“While teenage girls attempt suicide more often than teenage boys, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, boys are more likely to die by suicide. Suicide rates for teenage boys and girls rose steadily from 2007 to 2015. In 2015, there were 1,537 suicides documented for boys ages 15 to 19 and 524 for girls, according for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” the outlet reported.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Trump Administration Launches Campaign To Reduce Suicides

Democrats are actively hoping for the economy to continue to collapse so that presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden can beat President Donald Trump in November.

In an article titled, “The general election scenario that Democrats are dreading,” Politico reported that multiple Biden campaign officials and Democratic strategists are dismayed at the possibility of an economic boom in the months before the presidential election. The coronavirus pandemic caused much of the country to shut down, which has led to the highest number of people filing for unemployment since the Great Depression.

Democrats – who have led the charge forcing people to lose their jobs and plummet the country’s economy – were hoping the economic downturn would get them back into the White House. But Jason Furman, one of the Obama administration’s top economists, threw cold water on their hopes during a Zoom conference call in early April, Politico reported.

Instead of validating Democrat hopes, Furman said, “We are about to see the best economic data we’ve seen in the history of this country.” As Politico reported, the conference call included officials from both parties, including former cabinet secretaries and Federal Reserve chairs.

“Everyone looked puzzled and thought I had misspoken,” Furman told Politico. He told the outlet he explained on the call how the months before the November election would see an economic boom that would allow Trump to boast about huge employment gains and GDP growth.

Furman, Politico reported, has been sharing this same prediction with others since that April call, including top members of Biden’s campaign.

More from Politico:

Furman’s counterintuitive pitch has caused some Democrats, especially Obama alumni, around Washington to panic. “This is my big worry,” said a former Obama White House official who is still close to the former president. Asked about the level of concern among top party officials, he said, “It’s high — high, high, high, high.”

And top policy officials on the Biden campaign are preparing for a fall economic debate that might look very different than the one predicted at the start of the pandemic in March. “They are very much aware of this,” said an informal adviser.

Furman said the economic collapse tied to the coronavirus pandemic was unlike the Great Depression or the Great Recession, after which recovery was slow. Furman predicted this economic downturn was more like what happens after a natural disaster, which is followed by a quick recovery. Furman said data already suggest this to be the case.

Consumption and hiring, he noted, began to increase “in gross terms, not in net terms,” after states and localities began reopening on April 15. Furman said that a “partial rebound” was already underway. This rebound “can be very very fast, because people go back to their original job, they get called back from furlough, you put the lights back on in your business. Given how many people were furloughed and how many businesses were closed you can get a big jump out of that. It will look like a V.”

Trump’s White House economic advisers and the president himself have made the same argument. Kenneth Baer, a Democrat strategist who worked for the Obama administration, told Politico that the economy will still “look historically terrible come November.”

“But relative to the depths of April, it will be on an upswing — 12 percent unemployment, for example, is better than 20, but historically terrible. On Election Day, we Democrats need voters to ask themselves, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ Republicans need voters to ask themselves, ‘Are you better off than you were four months ago?’” he added.

Another Democrat operative worried about recent polling that shows Biden loses to Trump on who can better handle the economy.

“Trump beats Biden on the economy even right now!” the operative told Politico. “This is going to be extremely difficult no matter what. It’s existential that we figure it out. In any of these economic scenarios Democrats are going to have to win the argument that our public health and economy are much worse off because of Donald Trump’s failure of leadership.”

“Even today when we are at over 20 million unemployed Trump gets high marks on the economy, so I can’t imagine what it looks like when things go in the other direction. I don’t think this is a challenge for the Biden campaign. This is the challenge for the Biden campaign. If they can’t figure this out they should all just go home,” the former Obama White House official told the outlet.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Democrats Are Actively Rooting For Economic Collapse

Tara Reade publicly stated on March 25 that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Bide sexually assaulted her in 1993. She said Biden once “pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers,” according to an account in The New York Times

The Times took 19 days to report the allegations, even though the outlet immediately reported allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican.

CNN waited an additional five days to finally publish something about the allegations, meaning the outlet waited a whopping 24 days to cover serious allegations against a prominent politician. In contrast, CNN published nearly 700 articles about the Kavanaugh allegations in the span of 19 days between the time the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public and the Senate confirmed him.

CNN has now published something about Reade’s allegations that Biden sexually assaulted her nearly three decades ago while she worked for his Senate office, but the story written by CNN has less to do with the allegations and more about how other Democrats are “grappling” with them.

“Top Democratic leaders and allies of Joe Biden are being asked to respond to an allegation of sexual assault leveled against the former vice president by Tara Reade, at a moment when many in the Democratic Party are eager to consolidate support for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee,” the outlet wrote.

Notice how Biden doesn’t seem to be grappling with the allegations, as no one has asked him about them. His campaign has denied them, but Biden himself has not had to answer for anything.

CNN went on to quote Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who was asked about the accusations against the man she hopes will pick her as vice president.

“Well, I think women should be able to tell their stories. I think that it is important that these allegations are vetted, from the media to beyond. And I think that, you know, it is something that no one takes lightly,” Whitmer told NPR when she was asked about the accusations. “But it is also something that is, you know, personal. And so it’s hard to give you greater insight than that, not knowing more about the situation.”

NPR also asked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Biden’s former primary opponent, about the allegations. Klobuchar explained that “all women in these cases have the right to be heard and have their claims thoroughly reviewed.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Biden’s biggest challenger to the nomination, said that “any woman who feels that she was assaulted has every right in the world to stand up and make her claims.”

As Fox News reported, Biden has done 10 TV interviews since Reade made her allegations, including three with CNN. Not once during those interviews was Biden asked about the allegations.

Many of the same anchors who ignored questions about Biden were adamant about accusing Kavanaugh of being a rapist and treating his accuser as a saint. When the Times defended its handling of the Biden allegation, Executive Editor Dean Baquet actually used the fact that outlets ignored Reade’s allegations as a defense for ignoring Reade’s allegations (emphasis added):

Kavanaugh was already in a public forum in a large way. Kavanaugh’s status as a Supreme Court justice was in question because of a very serious allegation. And when I say in a public way, I don’t mean in the public way of Tara Reade’s. If you ask the average person in America, they didn’t know about the Tara Reade case. So I thought in that case, if The New York Times was going to introduce this to readers, we needed to introduce it with some reporting and perspective. Kavanaugh was in a very different situation. It was a live, ongoing story that had become the biggest political story in the country. It was just a different news judgment moment.

And none of this even scratches the surface of the hypocrisy surrounding the Left and the #MeToo movement, which claims to believe all women until a favored man like Biden is accused.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: CNN Finally Covers Sexual Assault Allegations Against Biden, Had Nearly 700 Articles On Kavanaugh Accusations

Way back in January, when Democrats only cared about removing President Donald Trump from office, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was sounding the alarm on the coronavirus, which at that time appeared contained to China.

Cotton kept asking questions about whether China was telling the truth about how the coronavirus outbreak originated.

“We don’t know where it originated, and we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” back in mid-February “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”

Cotton went on to acknowledge that the U.S. needs more information about how the disease originated in China.

“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”

The Washington Post and other media outlets “fact checked” Cotton’s statements, except they fact checked something Cotton never said. The Post’s fact check consisted of talking to a chemical biology professor at Rutgers University who said, “There’s absolutely nothing in the genome sequence of this virus that indicates the virus was engineered.”

Another professor said it was “highly unlikely” the virus infected the general population due to an accident at China’s super lab, but then also said it was wrong to suggest China intentionally released the disease – again, something Cotton didn’t say.

Cotton responded to the “fact checkers” by saying he didn’t say the coronavirus was bioengineered. He then listed four hypotheses – not theories – about how the virus originated and again said China needed to provide more information. The four hypotheses were: 1) The virus came from natural causes, 2) it was accidentally released from the lab, 3) it was bio-engineered and accidentally released, and 4) it was bio-engineered and deliberately released. He said the third and fourth hypotheses were the least likely. He also listed these after so-called fact checkers claimed he suggested China deliberately released a bioweapon into the world.

Now, in early April, Post columnist David Ignatius begrudgingly accepts that maybe Cotton was right to suggest the coronavirus was accidentally released from the lab that studies the coronavirus. Of course, Ignatius couldn’t say Cotton was right, and instead downplayed Cotton’s early talk of an accidental release by claiming “Cotton’s earlier loose talk about bioweapons set off a furor, back when he first raised it in late January and called the outbreak ‘worse than Chernobyl.’”

Ignatius also worked in a dig at President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for referring to the coronavirus as the “Chinese virus” and “Wuhan virus,” even though major media outlets – including the Post – were using those terms until the Chinese Communist Party said it was racist to use them.

Ignatius then said “China dished wild, irresponsible allegations of its own,” even though he provided no evidence the U.S. also dished “wild, irresponsible allegations.”

Still, Ignatius finally admitted that “the initial ‘origin story’ — that the virus was spread by people who ate contaminated animals at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan — is shaky.” He then spoke to the same Rutgers professor from the Post’s earlier fact check who now acknowledged that “the first human infection could have occurred as a natural accident.”

More from Ignatius:

Ebright described a December video from the Wuhan CDC that shows staffers “collecting bat coronaviruses with inadequate [personal protective equipment] and unsafe operational practices.” Separately, I reviewed two Chinese articles, from 2017 and 2019, describing the heroics of Wuhan CDC researcher Tian Junhua, who while capturing bats in a cave “forgot to take protective measures” so that “bat urine dripped from the top of his head like raindrops.”

And then there’s the Chinese study that was curiously withdrawn. In February, a site called ResearchGate published a brief article by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao from Guangzhou’s South China University of Technology. “In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan. Safety level may need to be reinforced in high risk biohazardous laboratories,” the article concluded. Botao Xiao told the Wall Street Journal in February that he had withdrawn the paper because it “was not supported by direct proofs.”

Yet the Post refused to accept Cotton may have been right to suggest the virus came from that lab that was just down the street from the epicenter of the virus. Instead it used the opportunity to paint the Arkansas senator as a conspiracy theorist.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Washington Post Now Admits Maybe Tom Cotton Was Right To Suspect Coronavirus Outbreak Originated in Chinese Lab

Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.

Of course, that’s not how the senators worded their letter to DeVos, sent Tuesday, but that is the gist of their argument since they are demanding DeVos delay new Title IX regulations that change the way schools across the country adjudicate claims of sexual misconduct. DeVos’ proposed rules would require schools to provide accused students the ability to properly defend themselves from allegations, a basic tenet of the justice system that has been absent in college Title IX tribunals.

Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were the only three senators to sign the letter, saying that “while schools are grappling with how to maintain basic services for and supports to their students, it is wholly unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule that fundamentally will change the landscape of how schools are required to respond to incidents of sexual harassment and assault, and we urge you to reconsider this misguided plan.”

“K-12 schools and institutions of higher education face unprecedented uncertainty about the end of this school year and the start of the next school year. The federal government should be doing everything possible to help them navigate these uncertain times. To ask K-12 schools and institutions of higher education to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that, as proposed, would force them to significantly alter how they handle allegations of sexual harassment and assault is reckless and inappropriate,” the senators continued. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.”

The lack of due process rights have led to students (almost exclusively male students) finding themselves with only one option to clear their names and defend themselves: Sue their schools in a court of law. Unfortunately, many of the students accused do not have the financial means to file a lawsuit. Still, more than 600 lawsuits have been filed alleging Title IX violations by accused students since the Obama administration urged schools to find more students responsible.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance that suggested schools needed to find more students responsible in order to show they were taking sexual misconduct seriously, while providing almost no due process rights for accused students. Women have since used Title IX to punish men who rejected them, avoid getting kicked out of school, or for sympathy. To date, more than 200 court rulings have favored accused students and blasted schools for ignoring evidence that the male student was not guilty of what he was accused.

In response to the senators’ letters, criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield tweeted sarcastically: “To ask schools to implement in this moment of crisis and extreme uncertainty a rule that would force them to [provide male students with minimal due process] is reckless and inappropriate.”

Samantha Harris, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, added: “These transparent efforts, from people who have made clear from the get-go that they will do anything they can to stop these regs from ever being implemented, are absurd. They are exploiting this crisis, plain and simple.”

H/t K.C. Johnson

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: Three Democrats Use Coronavirus To Demand Delaying Due Process Rights For College Students

The New York Times editorial board, which claims to be “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values,” appears to have deliberately mislead readers on the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.

Wednesday’s editorial, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Tax Cut,” completely ignores the fact that tax revenue increased after the tax cuts were passed and blames the tax cuts when it should be blaming government spending.

Entrepreneur and best-selling author Carol Roth took the editorial board to task for its claims, writing on Twitter that the opinion article was “Incredibly misleading.”

“With the tax cuts, ‘revenue’ was up 4% – we collected more taxes w the cuts,” she tweeted. “The problem is increased spending- which is a huge problem that I have written on/talked about extensively- but should not be conflated w receipts.”

In a follow-up tweet, Roth explained that “while our population has grown 15% since 2001, Govt spending has grown 137%.”

The Times’ editorial board predictably leaves out any mention of how much revenue was brought in after the tax cuts, something one would expect to see in an article claiming the tax cuts weren’t helpful. Instead, the Times’ claims it was a “risible fantasy” for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to claim that the tax cuts would bolster economic growth, when the Times believes the government lost money by lowering taxes.

This is the Leftist premise on tax cuts on the whole: All your money belongs to the government, so anything you are allowed to keep costs the government. Therefore, tax cuts are bad for the government.

The problem, as always, is that the government continues to spend more than it brings in. Despite Republicans’ constant complaining during the Obama administration, the annual federal budget deficit is now over $1 trillion even though until early 2019, the GOP controlled the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.

The Times goes on to claim the tax cuts “were designed to provide the largest benefits to wealthy households and big companies.” As with any tax cut, the people who pay the most in taxes (the wealthy and large corporations) are going to get the largest cut. The Times then harps on Trump for predicting economic growth would reach 6% a year. That may not have happened, but the U.S. Real GDP growth rate under Trump has consistently been over 2%, approaching 3% at the end of 2017.

The Times simply fails to provide evidence counter to its claims that tax hikes are better than tax cuts. It even bemoans the alleged exacerbation of “economic inequality” created by the tax cuts, which, again, are going to be higher for people who pay more in taxes.

The Times tries to claim the tax cuts were akin to Keynesian stimulus, even though that kind of stimulus actually costs the government money, while tax cuts allow citizens to keep more of their own money.

The Times may want their readers to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy and the country, but real Americans saw more money in their pockets throughout the year, allowing them to spend more and feel more secure about their own budget.

Author: Ashe Schow

Source: Daily Wire: New York Times Editorial Board Predictably Misleads Readers About Trump Tax Cuts

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!