wnd--2020-02-13--Stop apologizing for saving black lives

Stop apologizing for saving black lives

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week , screaming `` racism ! ''
in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk , one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels .
They were n't being ironic .
In the 2015 tape , Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if `` 95 % of murders and murder victims are young male minorities '' – as is true in New York City – then police should be questioning about 95 % young male minorities .
To stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put a lot of cops where the crime is , which means in minority neighborhoods . ''
Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally : `` And the way you get the guns out of the kids ' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them .
And then they start , they say , 'Oh , I do n't want to get caught . '
So they do n't bring the gun .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they leave it at home . ''
Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this ?
By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping , Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600 .
No one thought it could possibly go any lower – and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined .
In New York City alone , at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations ( and The New York Times ) .
Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another ( that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele ! )
, stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for .
Well , guess what ?
Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals .
For that , he deserves the contempt of all men of goodwill .
Why not attack him for the gutless apology ?
Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives ?
Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible ?
Is he a pandering coward ?
Can we trust anything he says ?
But small-bore conservatives did what they always do : Give up winning a war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a skirmish .
They called Bloomberg 's earlier , logically insuperable point `` RACIST ! ''
Great , so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism – calling everything `` racist . ''
As I wrote in 2016 , when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president `` disavow '' David Duke , these `` racism '' orgies never have anything to do with black people .
It 's part of the Fabulous White People competition , where black people are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to call other people `` racist '' has only gotten stronger since then , so I 'll quote myself : '' Sad people with meaningless lives [ are ] suddenly empowered to condemn other people .
I beat you in blacks yesterday ; I 'm going to beat you in women today .
This is what makes them feel superior to other people , especially other white people .
It 's not about racism , sexism , homophobia , etc .
; it 's just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this game ?
For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg , they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1 ) grasps basic math and 2 ) is opposed to gun crime is a `` racist . ''
Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another `` racist , '' as if we 're trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate .
At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night , Tom Steyer – hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` racist '' remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian , a Biden supporter .
`` One of the leaders of Joe Biden 's South Carolina campaign , '' Steyer said , `` made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign . ''
Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to `` disavow '' the remark and the man who made it .
`` Be on the right side , '' he implored .
The story : Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat , state legislator Jerry Govan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after being paid `` almost $ 50,000 '' by the Steyer campaign .
Calling Steyer `` Mr. Moneybags , '' Harpootlian concluded , `` This is what happens when billionaires get involved .
… They do n't have to persuade anybody , they just buy them . ''
I 've assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian 's racism , and their response is : Keep reading .
Get to the racism part .
Nope , that 's it !
Govan is black , so pointing out that Steyer paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` racist . ''
I would have gone with `` anti-Semitic '' myself , but what do I know ?
I guess I 'll check with the conservative `` racism '' fighters !

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming "racism!" in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren't being ironic.
In the 2015 tape, Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if "95% of murders and murder victims are young male minorities" – as is true in New York City – then police should be questioning about 95% young male minorities.
To stop crime, he said, you "put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."
Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally: "And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, 'Oh, I don't want to get caught.' So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home."
Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this? By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping, Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600. No one thought it could possibly go any lower – and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Giuliani and Bloomberg did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined. In New York City alone, at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations (and The New York Times).
Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another (that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele!), stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for.
Well, guess what? Bloomberg apologized for it. He began his presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals. For that, he deserves the contempt of all men of goodwill.
Why not attack him for the gutless apology? Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives? Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible? Is he a pandering coward? Can we trust anything he says?
But small-bore conservatives did what they always do: Give up winning a war in order to land a quick blow in a skirmish. They called Bloomberg's earlier, logically insuperable point "RACIST!"
Great, so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism – calling everything "racist."
As I wrote in 2016, when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president "disavow" David Duke, these "racism" orgies never have anything to do with black people. It's part of the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips.
If anything, the urge to call other people "racist" has only gotten stronger since then, so I'll quote myself:
"Sad people with meaningless lives [are] suddenly empowered to condemn other people. I beat you in blacks yesterday; I'm going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people. It's not about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it's just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues."
Why are conservatives leaping into this game? For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg, they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1) grasps basic math and 2) is opposed to gun crime is a "racist."
Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another "racist," as if we're trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate.
At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night, Tom Steyer – hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere – kept hammering Joe Biden about some "racist" remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Biden supporter.
"One of the leaders of Joe Biden's South Carolina campaign," Steyer said, "made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign." Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to "disavow" the remark and the man who made it. "Be on the right side," he implored.
The story: Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat, state legislator Jerry Govan, flipped his support from Biden to Steyer after being paid "almost $50,000" by the Steyer campaign. Calling Steyer "Mr. Moneybags," Harpootlian concluded, "This is what happens when billionaires get involved. … They don't have to persuade anybody, they just buy them."
I've assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian's racism, and their response is: Keep reading. Get to the racism part.
Nope, that's it! Govan is black, so pointing out that Steyer paid him $50,000 and got his endorsement is "racist."
I would have gone with "anti-Semitic" myself, but what do I know? I guess I'll check with the conservative "racism" fighters!


wnd--2020-02-13--Will Pelosi's act of 'tearism' lead to a GOP House?

In chess , the counter-move of an inexperienced player , eagerly trying to beat a more experienced one , often results in the latter ending the game with the word `` checkmate . ''
Politically , President Donald Trump is a neophyte compared to an old pro , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif .
However , he outshone her at the State of the Union ( SOTU ) address .
Eager to counter Trump 's brilliant speech , Pelosi arose to tear up her copy in an embarrassing , and possibly even criminal , act .
Apart from ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may now also have improved chances for a real Republican long shot .
Pelosi justified her inexcusable behavior , saying , `` It was such a dirty speech '' so `` it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives . ''
But her general allegations offered no specifics why the speech was `` dirty '' or what `` alternatives '' existed .
Furthermore , her SOTU assessment certainly was not shared by a staunch anti-Trump liberal .
Commentator Chris Cuomo said of the speech , Trump `` celebrated what the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual SOTU address provides an incumbent president the opportunity to toot his own horn to show why America is better off under his administration .
A president would be foolish not to avail himself of the opportunity .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova In recent years , presidents have incorporated `` flashes '' of showmanship into the event , usually introducing as guests fellow Americans with a story to tell .
These provide the very political audience facing him a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose and the sense we are all cheering for Team USA .
Despite several such flashes during Trump 's address , one would have thought Democrats were attending a funeral .
There were few cheers or standing ovations .
The sea of Democratic female representatives – all dressed in white , surprisingly without anyone crying out `` white privilege '' – and their somber-looking male counterparts took cues from head , non-cheering cheerleader Pelosi .
She demonstrated immense discomfort for the 80-minute speech , avoiding looking at Trump , fidgeting with the speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and even mumbling loud enough to distract Trump .
Sadly , when those flash opportunities arose , Pelosi failed to rigorously lead her troops to cheer or stand .
Her recognition of the last surviving Tuskegee airman , 100-year old Charles McGee , came slowly .
Having won the fight overseas during World War II only to return home to fight another war for racial equality , McGee was totally ignored by two Democrats – Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , and Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. Had any Republicans done this to the African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would still be echoing throughout the halls of Congress .
There were numerous other common-ground moments Democrats ignored , such as low black unemployment .
Another moment deserving of celebration – the removal of 7 million people from the food stamp program – only earned hisses from Democrats fearing a tool of their enslavement of the poor was slipping away .
Most annoying among Democrats ' failure to extend simple courtesies to a speaking president were the antics of the Tlaib and Omar dynamic duo .
Like two little school girls acting up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of color '' – always quick to cry racism when affronted – laughed , giggled and talked as Trump spoke .
The sergeant at arms probably should have relieved them of their cellphones as they laughingly shared photos or messages .
They eventually walked out on the speech – a grand exit calculated to play up to the television cameras .
Later , they claimed – ignoring their own childish behavior during the speech – they departed because , `` it was all beneath the dignity of the office . ''
These two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future events to prevent them from playing together .
Pelosi 's actions during the speech reveal that her destruction of her copy was no spur-of-the-moment decision .
One sees , despite efforts to hide it , her doing `` prep '' work .
Taking a small number of pages at a time , she ever so slightly ripped the edges so , at the right moment , she could effortlessly make the `` grand finale '' tear .
At the speech 's end , Trump barely finished `` and God bless America '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few pages and tore them in half .
The entire text was not that thick – a single tear would have sufficed – however , for dramatic effect , she chose to do it piecemeal to ensure the cameras captured her theatrics .
Like a spoiled child who , having lost a chess match , knocks all the pieces to the floor before stomping off , Pelosi 's was an Oscar-worthy Academy Award performance .
This was a far cry from Pelosi 's pledge , after taking a House majority in midterm elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we can . ''
Common ground was there in Trump 's speech , but she refused to acknowledge it .
Her shenanigans were an embarrassing display of Trump hatred , unchallenged by her cowered lemming followers .
Unaffected by the biblical assertion vengeance belongs to the Lord , Democrats took it unto themselves by ignoring recognition of deserving citizens .
Pelosi 's `` act of tearism '' will forever taint the dignified role of House speaker .
It also raises the issue – political correctness be damned – of a woman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , occupying the seat .
Sadly , her conduct questions a woman scorned 's ability to exercise the self-control demanded .
Telling too is that criticism of Pelosi 's behavior has been bipartisan .
Even Martin Luther King Jr. 's niece , Alveda King , criticized Pelosi for failing to see `` the forest for the trees '' to grasp the beautiful America blooming beyond .
Pelosi supporters claim her act demonstrated strength ; King suggested it takes no strength to tear up a speech honoring our heroes .
This November , Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' as voters reelect him .
It would be great if swept out of office in the same Republican victory wave were a bitter , over-the-hill speaker whose only leadership contribution has been fanning the flames of national division .
Trump could ask for nothing more if Tlaib and Omar were caught up in the washout as well .
It is a long shot but Trump 's ultimate revenge would be a reelection that generates a Republican-controlled , Pelosi/Tlaib/Omar-free House which then expunges the `` forever '' impeachment they so cherish .

In chess, the counter-move of an inexperienced player, eagerly trying to beat a more experienced one, often results in the latter ending the game with the word "checkmate."
Politically, President Donald Trump is a neophyte compared to an old pro, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. However, he outshone her at the State of the Union (SOTU) address. Eager to counter Trump's brilliant speech, Pelosi arose to tear up her copy in an embarrassing, and possibly even criminal, act.
Apart from ensuring a 2020 Trump reelection victory, Pelosi may now also have improved chances for a real Republican long shot.
Pelosi justified her inexcusable behavior, saying, "It was such a dirty speech" so "it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives." But her general allegations offered no specifics why the speech was "dirty" or what "alternatives" existed. Furthermore, her SOTU assessment certainly was not shared by a staunch anti-Trump liberal. Commentator Chris Cuomo said of the speech, Trump "celebrated what the country is about."
Clearly, the annual SOTU address provides an incumbent president the opportunity to toot his own horn to show why America is better off under his administration. A president would be foolish not to avail himself of the opportunity.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
In recent years, presidents have incorporated "flashes" of showmanship into the event, usually introducing as guests fellow Americans with a story to tell. These provide the very political audience facing him a chance to recognize common ground, unity of purpose and the sense we are all cheering for Team USA.
Despite several such flashes during Trump's address, one would have thought Democrats were attending a funeral. There were few cheers or standing ovations. The sea of Democratic female representatives – all dressed in white, surprisingly without anyone crying out "white privilege" – and their somber-looking male counterparts took cues from head, non-cheering cheerleader Pelosi. She demonstrated immense discomfort for the 80-minute speech, avoiding looking at Trump, fidgeting with the speech pages sprawled out in front of her and even mumbling loud enough to distract Trump.
Sadly, when those flash opportunities arose, Pelosi failed to rigorously lead her troops to cheer or stand. Her recognition of the last surviving Tuskegee airman, 100-year old Charles McGee, came slowly. Having won the fight overseas during World War II only to return home to fight another war for racial equality, McGee was totally ignored by two Democrats – Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. Had any Republicans done this to the African American war hero, cries of racism would still be echoing throughout the halls of Congress.
There were numerous other common-ground moments Democrats ignored, such as low black unemployment. Another moment deserving of celebration – the removal of 7 million people from the food stamp program – only earned hisses from Democrats fearing a tool of their enslavement of the poor was slipping away.
Most annoying among Democrats' failure to extend simple courtesies to a speaking president were the antics of the Tlaib and Omar dynamic duo. Like two little school girls acting up in class, these two "women of color" – always quick to cry racism when affronted – laughed, giggled and talked as Trump spoke. The sergeant at arms probably should have relieved them of their cellphones as they laughingly shared photos or messages. They eventually walked out on the speech – a grand exit calculated to play up to the television cameras. Later, they claimed – ignoring their own childish behavior during the speech – they departed because, "it was all beneath the dignity of the office." These two need to be seated far apart at future events to prevent them from playing together.
Pelosi's actions during the speech reveal that her destruction of her copy was no spur-of-the-moment decision. One sees, despite efforts to hide it, her doing "prep" work. Taking a small number of pages at a time, she ever so slightly ripped the edges so, at the right moment, she could effortlessly make the "grand finale" tear.
At the speech's end, Trump barely finished "and God bless America" before a frothing Pelosi reached for a few pages and tore them in half. The entire text was not that thick – a single tear would have sufficed – however, for dramatic effect, she chose to do it piecemeal to ensure the cameras captured her theatrics. Like a spoiled child who, having lost a chess match, knocks all the pieces to the floor before stomping off, Pelosi's was an Oscar-worthy Academy Award performance.
This was a far cry from Pelosi's pledge, after taking a House majority in midterm elections, Democrats would find "common ground where we can." Common ground was there in Trump's speech, but she refused to acknowledge it. Her shenanigans were an embarrassing display of Trump hatred, unchallenged by her cowered lemming followers.
Unaffected by the biblical assertion vengeance belongs to the Lord, Democrats took it unto themselves by ignoring recognition of deserving citizens.
Pelosi's "act of tearism" will forever taint the dignified role of House speaker. It also raises the issue – political correctness be damned – of a woman, described as too emotional by one critic, occupying the seat. Sadly, her conduct questions a woman scorned's ability to exercise the self-control demanded.
Telling too is that criticism of Pelosi's behavior has been bipartisan. Even Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece, Alveda King, criticized Pelosi for failing to see "the forest for the trees" to grasp the beautiful America blooming beyond. Pelosi supporters claim her act demonstrated strength; King suggested it takes no strength to tear up a speech honoring our heroes.
This November, Pelosi will hear Trump gleefully announce "checkmate" as voters reelect him. It would be great if swept out of office in the same Republican victory wave were a bitter, over-the-hill speaker whose only leadership contribution has been fanning the flames of national division. Trump could ask for nothing more if Tlaib and Omar were caught up in the washout as well.
It is a long shot but Trump's ultimate revenge would be a reelection that generates a Republican-controlled, Pelosi/Tlaib/Omar-free House which then expunges the "forever" impeachment they so cherish.


wnd--2020-02-12--The glorious alternative reality of leftism

In 1966 , there were 654 murders in New York City .
The next year , that number increased by about a hundred .
Then 200 .
By the mid-1970s , nearly 1,700 people were being murdered every year in New York City .
That insane level of violence maintained until the early 1990s .
Then , in 1994 , the level of murder in New York City began to decline .
It declined from approximately 2,000 people killed in 1993 to 289 in 2018 – a level not seen since the end of World War II .
Needless to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the murder rate had never been that low .
What , exactly , happened in the early 1990s ?
New York City residents were simply tired of living in a crime haven .
They elected Rudy Giuliani mayor , and Giuliani pledged to enforce the so-called broken windows theory to clean up so-called quality-of-life crimes , stating : `` It 's the street tax paid to drunks and panhandlers .
It 's the squeegee men shaking down the motorist waiting at a light .
It 's the trash storms , the swirling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panhandlers , and open-air drug bazaars on unclean streets . ''
In April 1994 , Giuliani 's New York Police Department implemented Compstat , a data-driven program designed to deploy police to the highest-crime areas , preemptively targeting criminality , rather than reacting to it .
Chris Smith of New York Magazine gushed , `` No New York invention , arguably , has saved more lives in the past 24 years . ''
The NYPD also began to employ the `` stop , question and frisk '' policy , designed to allow police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying weapons and frisk them for those weapons after questioning .
New York turned from a mess into a haven .
But now Michael Bloomberg – Giuliani 's mayoral successor beginning in 2002 – is paying the price for a successful anti-crime record that followed in Giuliani 's footsteps .
Bloomberg has defended NYPD policies as non-racially biased ; in 2015 , he told The Aspen Institute that supposedly disproportionate `` targeting '' of minorities was not disproportionate but based on criminal conduct and description thereof .
In crude and insensitive but statistically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O .
… They are male minorities 15 to 25 . ''
This may have been a slight exaggeration , but only a slight one .
In 2008 , for example , 88.6 % of murder and non-negligent manslaughter victims in New York were black or Hispanic , and 92.8 % of murder and non-negligent manslaughter suspects were black or Hispanic , according to New York government statistics .
And black and Hispanic suspects were actually under-arrested : By these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrestees for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were black or Hispanic .
Nonetheless , Bloomberg was widely blasted as a racist for his comments .
That criticism came from both left and right .
Bloomberg quickly apologized for his 5-year-old comments , saying : `` By the time I left office , I cut it back 95 % , but I should 've done it faster and sooner .
I regret that and I have apologized . ''
But Bloomberg should have stood up on his hind legs and defended one of his only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a world where the counter-factual can be entertained without reference to reality .
Thus , we are informed that broken-windows policing , Compstat and stop and frisk never should have been employed – and we are blithely told that even without those policies , crime would have precipitously dropped over the course of two decades .
There is precisely zero evidence to support this supposition , but that 's the beauty of writing alternative histories : No evidence is necessary .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same is true in the world of economics , where Bernie Sanders can spend his days living off the largesse of capitalism – the man has a lake house – while decrying the evils of capitalism .
It 's easy to proclaim adherence to socialistic redistribution while living high on the hog of the free market .
It 's shockingly easy to get away with maintaining that American prosperity would not have been undercut by policies precisely the opposite of the policies that have driven American prosperity for centuries .
The joy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disproved .
We can never disprove the supposition that without anti-crime measures , crime would have dropped anyway ; we can never disprove the supposition that without the free market , America would have prospered even more greatly than it has .
The acid test of reality never applies to a world in which bad ideas were rejected for more effective ones – which is why Bernie Sanders , who has produced zero things of consequence for decades but has successfully mooched off the public dime for nearly that entire period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who has produced thousands of jobs and presided over a massive decline in crime in New York City , is in the hot seat .

In 1966, there were 654 murders in New York City. The next year, that number increased by about a hundred. Then 200. By the mid-1970s, nearly 1,700 people were being murdered every year in New York City. That insane level of violence maintained until the early 1990s. Then, in 1994, the level of murder in New York City began to decline. It declined from approximately 2,000 people killed in 1993 to 289 in 2018 – a level not seen since the end of World War II. Needless to say, on a per capita basis, the murder rate had never been that low.
What, exactly, happened in the early 1990s? New York City residents were simply tired of living in a crime haven. They elected Rudy Giuliani mayor, and Giuliani pledged to enforce the so-called broken windows theory to clean up so-called quality-of-life crimes, stating: "It's the street tax paid to drunks and panhandlers. It's the squeegee men shaking down the motorist waiting at a light. It's the trash storms, the swirling mass of garbage left by peddlers and panhandlers, and open-air drug bazaars on unclean streets." In April 1994, Giuliani's New York Police Department implemented Compstat, a data-driven program designed to deploy police to the highest-crime areas, preemptively targeting criminality, rather than reacting to it. Chris Smith of New York Magazine gushed, "No New York invention, arguably, has saved more lives in the past 24 years." The NYPD also began to employ the "stop, question and frisk" policy, designed to allow police officers to spot people suspected of criminally carrying weapons and frisk them for those weapons after questioning.
New York turned from a mess into a haven. But now Michael Bloomberg – Giuliani's mayoral successor beginning in 2002 – is paying the price for a successful anti-crime record that followed in Giuliani's footsteps. Bloomberg has defended NYPD policies as non-racially biased; in 2015, he told The Aspen Institute that supposedly disproportionate "targeting" of minorities was not disproportionate but based on criminal conduct and description thereof. In crude and insensitive but statistically accurate terminology, Bloomberg pointed out that "Ninety-five percent of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. … They are male minorities 15 to 25." This may have been a slight exaggeration, but only a slight one. In 2008, for example, 88.6% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter victims in New York were black or Hispanic, and 92.8% of murder and non-negligent manslaughter suspects were black or Hispanic, according to New York government statistics. And black and Hispanic suspects were actually under-arrested: By these same statistics, just 83.9% of arrestees for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were black or Hispanic.
Nonetheless, Bloomberg was widely blasted as a racist for his comments. That criticism came from both left and right. Bloomberg quickly apologized for his 5-year-old comments, saying: "By the time I left office, I cut it back 95%, but I should've done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized." But Bloomberg should have stood up on his hind legs and defended one of his only successful policies.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where the counter-factual can be entertained without reference to reality. Thus, we are informed that broken-windows policing, Compstat and stop and frisk never should have been employed – and we are blithely told that even without those policies, crime would have precipitously dropped over the course of two decades. There is precisely zero evidence to support this supposition, but that's the beauty of writing alternative histories: No evidence is necessary.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The same is true in the world of economics, where Bernie Sanders can spend his days living off the largesse of capitalism – the man has a lake house – while decrying the evils of capitalism. It's easy to proclaim adherence to socialistic redistribution while living high on the hog of the free market. It's shockingly easy to get away with maintaining that American prosperity would not have been undercut by policies precisely the opposite of the policies that have driven American prosperity for centuries.
The joy of alternative realities is that they can't be disproved. We can never disprove the supposition that without anti-crime measures, crime would have dropped anyway; we can never disprove the supposition that without the free market, America would have prospered even more greatly than it has. The acid test of reality never applies to a world in which bad ideas were rejected for more effective ones – which is why Bernie Sanders, who has produced zero things of consequence for decades but has successfully mooched off the public dime for nearly that entire period, may become president, while Michael Bloomberg, who has produced thousands of jobs and presided over a massive decline in crime in New York City, is in the hot seat.


wnd--2020-02-12--Why robocalls are coming to get us all

Why robocalls are coming to get us all

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
When the phone rings , there ’ s a better chance than ever that a robocaller is on the other end , industry experts say : Automated calls are up 92 % since 2017 .
More than half are legitimate calls -- from , say , your school district or doctor ’ s office , or politicians running for office ( which you can expect more of in the months ahead ) .
But about 44 % of the estimated 59 billion robocalls made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were placed by scammers , according to the Robocall Index , a national database of autodialed calls compiled by a company that sells services to block them .
Making matters worse , many scam robocalls today are disguised to display local area codes to trick people into picking up the phone .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova Many are variations on themes specifically geared to get people to volunteer personal financial information , which can open a door to a swindle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer of a “ free ” trip or cruise or a quick and easy way to save on credit card balances .
In robocall land , simple , money-saving solutions are delivered right to your phone , as are threats of legal action .
Both the light and dark pitches are deceptions .
According to the Federal Trade Commission , law enforcement and consumer agency reports say these scams cost Americans more than $ 400 million in 2018 – the real number is certainly much higher .
Financial institutions usually cover some losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit card transactions .
It ’ s not known how many consumers are completely out of pocket on these frauds .
Robocalling operations are the latest version of boiler rooms .
But instead of shady brokers sitting in cubes dialing for dollars to sell dubious stocks , these operations use technology to find billions of active phone numbers and then place calls to them .
While the dialing and initial contact are usually executed by a computer , real people do the actual pitching and “ hooking.
” Like every other aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As RealClearInvestigations has previously reported , high tech has given thieves precision tools to target an individual ’ s bank accounts and other financial records .
Robocalls reflect how new technology also allows bad actors to cast wide nets among millions of potential marks , in the hopes of snaring a few .
They are working the law of averages .
While recent state and federal legislation may curtail these operations , they won ’ t shut them down , largely because they are so cheap and easy to launch and run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anyone can set up an Internet-based autodialing system with relatively inexpensive autodialing software and services , ranging from $ 30 to $ 170 per month ( per user ) .
Other plans offer billing rates of 0.7 cents to 3 cents per minute .
Another option for scammers is to buy a VOIP-ready phone , from $ 90 to $ 130 , and phone service , which starts at $ 20 a month .
Set-up instructions are found by a simple online search .
In other words , you , too , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no software development experience can set them up , ” says Alex Quilici , CEO of YouMail , which compiles the RoboCall Index .
“ And you can make 1 million calls for $ 100 to $ 200 .
So there ’ s a tremendous incentive to annoy millions of people to get your money back.
” VOIP technology and super-fast computers have triggered an explosion of robocalls .
Swindlers quickly adopted VOIP because it multiplies their opportunities and makes it hard for spam- and caller-ID software to detect where the calls are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseas .
They all look the same .
As with any new technology , the cost of using it drops over time as more people adopt it .
That ’ s good for non-profits that want to reach more potential donors .
But that also goes for crooks .
With an estimated four out of 10 calls promoting frauds , Quilici says , his company is tracking 1,500 different swindles or “ campaigns ( pitches ) , ” which he believes are being run by about 750 groups .
“ The same group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes , “ so it ’ s up to 750 scammers behind those campaigns , but realistically , we think it ’ s right now less than 50 that account for the vast majority of calls.
” He says the majority of the top robocalling frauds – pitching lower-interest credit cards – are based in India .
Travel scams are often pitched from Mexico , Guatemala , the Philippines and Costa Rica .
`` Spoofing '' -- or the ruse of displaying caller IDs that appear to be local , although they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to increase the odds the call will be answered .
The readily available software programs can typically create the first six digits of the target ’ s own phone number .
Unlike phishing emails with “ get-rich-quick ” pitches that can be easily spotted in subject lines , spoofed calls are harder to dismiss , experts say .
“ You ’ re more likely to answer an unfamiliar number if it looks close to yours , ” according to AARP , “ thinking it could be coming from your doctor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s school.
” Spoofing is hard to stop because it has legitimate purposes , including security .
Professionals who want to keep their direct phone numbers private , for example , can use the software so that when they make a call , their company ’ s main phone number will appear on caller ID instead of their private number .
Quilici , whose company uses an algorithm to extrapolate the amount of fraud based on its customer base of 10 million users , says spoofing “ is the biggest problem now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation enacted in January will “ make it easier to authenticate calls.
” While the number of people who actually lose money to robocall scams is low – Quilici estimates it at 3 % to 5 % of total call volume – crooks ’ rate of return can still be high since the cost of setting up an automated calling operation is so cheap .
A common robocall scam sends out a message that some service – phone , electricity or water – will be “ cut off unless you pay your bill.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ swindle wind up sending money to a fraudulent third party .
Other scams are aimed at acquiring Social Security , bank account or credit card numbers .
One common type of call promises a lower interest rate on a credit card .
Just to get things started , potential victims are asked to “ confirm ” or “ verify ” the card number , which gives the criminals the opening to steal the card themselves or sell the information to other thieves .
The credit-card pitch is enticing to many Americans , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ card debt , according to NerdWallet .
U.S. households on average hold about $ 7,000 in revolving debt , costing them more than $ 1,000 a year in interest .
According to Quilici , his company ’ s tracking list of scams is dominated by debt/interest-rate reduction offers ; 10 out of the top 15 fraudulent offers are immediate appeals to save money .
Other robocalls promise a free service or product ; “ free ” medical devices and prizes are popular come-ons .
The FTC sued Grand Bahama Cruise Line LLC in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoted free cruises .
The FTC accused the Grand Bahama of violating the decades-old federal Telemarketing Sales Rule , which prohibits making deceptive or misleading claims , and of ignoring the National Do Not Call Registry , established under 2003 legislation .
The registry often can not protect consumers who sign up from unwanted calls , mainly because of their increasing volume ( and business-to-business solicitation calls , hugely time-wasting , are exempt ) .
“ After asking several automated survey questions wholly unrelated to the cruises , ” the FTC complaint alleges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-recorded messages typically informed consumers that they were entitled to ` two free boarding passes for an all-inclusive cruise to the Bahamas , ’ which would cost ( an initial ) $ 59 per person in port taxes .
Consumers who confirmed their interest in the ` free ’ cruise offer either received a subsequent call within 24 hours or were immediately transferred to a telemarketer at a telephone call center.
” The FTC , which has partly settled the complaint , alleges that the initial $ 59 was a come-on often leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The nation ’ s oldest consumer protection agency , the FTC fields more than 10,000 robocall complaints per day and has filed more than 100 lawsuits against more than 600 companies to date .
Still , the agency reports : “ We ’ ve seen a significant increase in the number of illegal robocalls because Internet-powered phone systems have made it cheap and easy for scammers to make illegal calls from anywhere in the world , and to hide from law enforcement by displaying fake caller ID information.
” The Federal Communications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strike Force ” four years ago , receives more than 200,000 related complaints a year .
The group began working with telecom providers and cellphone manufacturers to begin protecting customers , but disguised calls have put investigators and enforcers at a disadvantage .
Although several providers and third parties offer call blocking and caller ID verification products , there is no ubiquitous solution that spans wireless communication networks .
To date , the strike force reports robocall abuses are “ the No .
1 source of consumer complaints.
” Many hopes are riding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence ) , signed into law by President Trump in January .
The new law restricts the kinds of calls and pitches that can be made .
It requires telecom companies to block robocalls without charge to consumers and ensure that the calls are coming from legitimate numbers .
Scammers now face fines of up to $ 10,000 per call .
The new legislation , however , does not prohibit VOIP calling .
While consumers can report the calls , it is unlikely there will be much enforcement due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last year , the FTC began a crackdown called “ Operation Call it Quits ” that shut down four operations responsible for one billion robocalls and 87 new actions with law enforcement agencies in states and counties .
And the FCC , empowered through the recently passed TRACED Act to be the prime enforcement agency on robocalls , is required to write and enforce rules that will quickly identify robocalls .
But few if any are under the illusion the new steps will wipe out the scams .
And at least one consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Although the TRACED Act will help authenticate robocall numbers – and provide a bump in the road for these scams – it won ’ t require the callers to disclose the names of the companies calling , ” observes Margot Saunders , chief counsel for the National Consumer Law Center , a consumer protection group .
“ And there ’ s no limit to the amount of numbers that can be used for calling through the Voice Over Internet Protocol ( VOIP ) .
” This story originally was published by Real @ @ @

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By John F. Wasik
Real Clear Investigations
When the phone rings, there’s a better chance than ever that a robocaller is on the other end, industry experts say: Automated calls are up 92% since 2017.
More than half are legitimate calls -- from, say, your school district or doctor’s office, or politicians running for office (which you can expect more of in the months ahead). But about 44% of the estimated 59 billion robocalls made last year – approximately 26 billion – were placed by scammers, according to the Robocall Index, a national database of autodialed calls compiled by a company that sells services to block them.
Making matters worse, many scam robocalls today are disguised to display local area codes to trick people into picking up the phone.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Many are variations on themes specifically geared to get people to volunteer personal financial information, which can open a door to a swindle:
“You are being sued…” “The IRS has a warrant for your arrest…”
Other recorded calls involve the tantalizing offer of a “free” trip or cruise or a quick and easy way to save on credit card balances. In robocall land, simple, money-saving solutions are delivered right to your phone, as are threats of legal action. Both the light and dark pitches are deceptions.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, law enforcement and consumer agency reports say these scams cost Americans more than $400 million in 2018 – the real number is certainly much higher. Financial institutions usually cover some losses when customers are scammed, particularly on credit card transactions. It’s not known how many consumers are completely out of pocket on these frauds.
Robocalling operations are the latest version of boiler rooms. But instead of shady brokers sitting in cubes dialing for dollars to sell dubious stocks, these operations use technology to find billions of active phone numbers and then place calls to them. While the dialing and initial contact are usually executed by a computer, real people do the actual pitching and “hooking.”
Like every other aspect of human behavior, technology is transforming fraud. As RealClearInvestigations has previously reported, high tech has given thieves precision tools to target an individual’s bank accounts and other financial records. Robocalls reflect how new technology also allows bad actors to cast wide nets among millions of potential marks, in the hopes of snaring a few. They are working the law of averages.
While recent state and federal legislation may curtail these operations, they won’t shut them down, largely because they are so cheap and easy to launch and run. Access is also a snap: Anyone can set up an Internet-based autodialing system with relatively inexpensive autodialing software and services, ranging from $30 to $170 per month (per user). Other plans offer billing rates of 0.7 cents to 3 cents per minute. Another option for scammers is to buy a VOIP-ready phone, from $90 to $130, and phone service, which starts at $20 a month. Set-up instructions are found by a simple online search. In other words, you, too, can become a robocaller!
“Anyone with no software development experience can set them up,” says Alex Quilici, CEO of YouMail, which compiles the RoboCall Index. “And you can make 1 million calls for $100 to $200. So there’s a tremendous incentive to annoy millions of people to get your money back.”
VOIP technology and super-fast computers have triggered an explosion of robocalls. Swindlers quickly adopted VOIP because it multiplies their opportunities and makes it hard for spam- and caller-ID software to detect where the calls are coming from – next door, or overseas. They all look the same.
As with any new technology, the cost of using it drops over time as more people adopt it. That’s good for non-profits that want to reach more potential donors. But that also goes for crooks.
With an estimated four out of 10 calls promoting frauds, Quilici says, his company is tracking 1,500 different swindles or “campaigns (pitches),” which he believes are being run by about 750 groups.
“The same group can do multiple campaigns,” Quilici notes, “so it’s up to 750 scammers behind those campaigns, but realistically, we think it’s right now less than 50 that account for the vast majority of calls.” He says the majority of the top robocalling frauds – pitching lower-interest credit cards – are based in India. Travel scams are often pitched from Mexico, Guatemala, the Philippines and Costa Rica.
"Spoofing" -- or the ruse of displaying caller IDs that appear to be local, although they could be coming from another continent – is designed to increase the odds the call will be answered. The readily available software programs can typically create the first six digits of the target’s own phone number.
Unlike phishing emails with “get-rich-quick” pitches that can be easily spotted in subject lines, spoofed calls are harder to dismiss, experts say.
“You’re more likely to answer an unfamiliar number if it looks close to yours,” according to AARP, “thinking it could be coming from your doctor’s office, or your child or grandchild’s school.”
Spoofing is hard to stop because it has legitimate purposes, including security. Professionals who want to keep their direct phone numbers private, for example, can use the software so that when they make a call, their company’s main phone number will appear on caller ID instead of their private number.
Quilici, whose company uses an algorithm to extrapolate the amount of fraud based on its customer base of 10 million users, says spoofing “is the biggest problem now,” although he said new federal legislation enacted in January will “make it easier to authenticate calls.”
While the number of people who actually lose money to robocall scams is low – Quilici estimates it at 3% to 5% of total call volume – crooks’ rate of return can still be high since the cost of setting up an automated calling operation is so cheap.
Illegal Pitches
A common robocall scam sends out a message that some service – phone, electricity or water – will be “cut off unless you pay your bill.” Those who get hooked by this swindle wind up sending money to a fraudulent third party.
Other scams are aimed at acquiring Social Security, bank account or credit card numbers. One common type of call promises a lower interest rate on a credit card. Just to get things started, potential victims are asked to “confirm” or “verify” the card number, which gives the criminals the opening to steal the card themselves or sell the information to other thieves.
The credit-card pitch is enticing to many Americans, who hold a record $444 billion in card debt, according to NerdWallet. U.S. households on average hold about $7,000 in revolving debt, costing them more than $1,000 a year in interest.
According to Quilici, his company’s tracking list of scams is dominated by debt/interest-rate reduction offers; 10 out of the top 15 fraudulent offers are immediate appeals to save money.
Other robocalls promise a free service or product; “free” medical devices and prizes are popular come-ons. The FTC sued Grand Bahama Cruise Line LLC in January, over its telemarketing operation that promoted free cruises.
The FTC accused the Grand Bahama of violating the decades-old federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits making deceptive or misleading claims, and of ignoring the National Do Not Call Registry, established under 2003 legislation. The registry often cannot protect consumers who sign up from unwanted calls, mainly because of their increasing volume (and business-to-business solicitation calls, hugely time-wasting, are exempt).
“After asking several automated survey questions wholly unrelated to the cruises,” the FTC complaint alleges, “the [Grand Bahama] pre-recorded messages typically informed consumers that they were entitled to `two free boarding passes for an all-inclusive cruise to the Bahamas,’ which would cost (an initial) $59 per person in port taxes. Consumers who confirmed their interest in the `free’ cruise offer either received a subsequent call within 24 hours or were immediately transferred to a telemarketer at a telephone call center.”
The FTC, which has partly settled the complaint, alleges that the initial $59 was a come-on often leading to several hundred dollars in additional fees.
The nation’s oldest consumer protection agency, the FTC fields more than 10,000 robocall complaints per day and has filed more than 100 lawsuits against more than 600 companies to date. Still, the agency reports: “We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of illegal robocalls because Internet-powered phone systems have made it cheap and easy for scammers to make illegal calls from anywhere in the world, and to hide from law enforcement by displaying fake caller ID information.”
New Law and a 'Robocall Strike Force'
The Federal Communications Commission, which launched a “Robocall Strike Force” four years ago, receives more than 200,000 related complaints a year. The group began working with telecom providers and cellphone manufacturers to begin protecting customers, but disguised calls have put investigators and enforcers at a disadvantage. Although several providers and third parties offer call blocking and caller ID verification products, there is no ubiquitous solution that spans wireless communication networks. To date, the strike force reports robocall abuses are “the No. 1 source of consumer complaints.”
Many hopes are riding on the TRACED Act (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence), signed into law by President Trump in January. The new law restricts the kinds of calls and pitches that can be made. It requires telecom companies to block robocalls without charge to consumers and ensure that the calls are coming from legitimate numbers. Scammers now face fines of up to $10,000 per call.
The new legislation, however, does not prohibit VOIP calling. While consumers can report the calls, it is unlikely there will be much enforcement due to the sheer number of them.
Last year, the FTC began a crackdown called “Operation Call it Quits” that shut down four operations responsible for one billion robocalls and 87 new actions with law enforcement agencies in states and counties.
And the FCC, empowered through the recently passed TRACED Act to be the prime enforcement agency on robocalls, is required to write and enforce rules that will quickly identify robocalls.
But few if any are under the illusion the new steps will wipe out the scams. And at least one consumer advocate complains the legislation is weak.
“Although the TRACED Act will help authenticate robocall numbers – and provide a bump in the road for these scams – it won’t require the callers to disclose the names of the companies calling,” observes Margot Saunders, chief counsel for the National Consumer Law Center, a consumer protection group. “And there’s no limit to the amount of numbers that can be used for calling through the Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP).”
This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.


wnd--2020-02-12--Mayor Pete and the impact of an out-and-proud gay president

It is certainly politically incorrect to say this .
In fact , in the eyes of many , what I 'm about to say is a classic example of extreme religious bigotry .
But I will say it nonetheless .
Choosing an out and proud `` married '' gay man to run for president , let alone become president , would contribute to the further degeneration and moral confusion of our society along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights .
When I tweeted this statement out on Feb. 8 , it received far more retweets and likes than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So , it obviously struck a chord .
The support was strong and consistent .
Also , as expected , there were words of condemnation and rebuke , including this tweet from Bible teacher Gilbert Gonzalez Jr .
He wrote : `` Please tell me this tweet is from a different century .
There is no way that anyone today that has any education would ever write something so generally uninformed , childish , and biblically ignorant .
This is why people do n't take Christianity seriously .
Its leaders refuse to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responses like this .
That 's why I began my tweet by saying , `` Call me a homophobic bigot , but I 'll say it anyway . ''
What else could I expect ?
The moment you say a word about Mayor Pete being `` married '' to another man , all while flaunting his deep Christian faith , you will be called a homophobic bigot .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova So be it .
I 've been called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of it , Jesus Himself , our perfect Savior , was called far worse things .
And He told us to expect the same : `` It is enough for students to be like their teachers , and servants like their masters .
If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul [ basically , the devil himself ] , how much more the members of his household ! ''
According to professor Randall Rauser , however , to call me a homophobic bigot is not out of line .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a constant basher of President Trump . )
As he wrote in his blog , `` Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people . ''
Indeed , according to the professor , `` Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump 's grotesque immorality .
… Among his latest egregious actions , last week he mocked the words of Jesus at the National Prayer Breakfast while evangelical pastors laughed in the audience . ''
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as do Gilbert Gonzalez and other critics .
( See also this excellent response to Rauser by Steve Hayes . )
First , I have never excused the president 's past immorality .
In fact , I probably called attention to it as much as any evangelical leader during the primaries .
To say , I `` fall over [ myself ] to excuse Trump 's grotesque immorality '' is to speak a lie .
Second , to this day , like a broken record , I draw attention to aspects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and harmful .
In fact , shortly after the National Prayer Breakfast , I wrote an article addressing the very issues Rauser mentioned regarding Trump 's response to the words of Jesus .
So , to brand me hypocritical for speaking out against Mayor Pete 's proud homosexuality is to be either misinformed , dishonest , or both .
But there is a much bigger issue the critics are missing .
President Trump is not flaunting his past immorality , nor is he pushing it presently .
Instead , when the ugly tape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , `` I 've never said I 'm a perfect person , nor pretended to be someone that I 'm not .
I 've said and done things I regret , and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them .
Anyone who knows me knows these words do n't reflect who I am .
I said it , I was wrong , and I apologize .
… I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never , ever let you down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete has talked about how his homosexual relationship to his `` husband , '' Chasten , has brought him closer to God .
He has kissed his partner at public rallies .
He is pushing his homosexuality , not apologizing for it .
You better believe that he will do everything in his power to normalize homosexual relationships even more in the eyes of America .
He will also do his best to marginalize those who are convinced that these relationships are contrary to the will of God .
And this leads me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( and for this article ) .
It is not so much that homosexual practice is worse than adultery or fornication .
Rather , it is the fact that there is an aggressive , gay agenda that has systematically undermined biblical morals for decades .
It has also sought to silence all dissenting voices , becoming the principle threat to our religious and moral freedoms .
That 's why I 've been active in resisting LGBT activism since 2004 , reaching out to individuals with compassion but resisting the agenda with courage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people whom I oppose .
( God forbid .
I 've made that clear hundreds , if not thousands of times . )
It is not even homosexual acts that primarily concern me ( although issues of health and safety should not be ignored ) .
It is an aggressive agenda that I oppose , one that I and others have tracked carefully for many years .
( See the important 2003 volume by Alan Sears and Craig Osten , `` The Homosexual Agenda : Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would only be fueled with great intensity by an out and proud gay president .
And so , just as President Obama 's administration pushed radical trans activism on our nation 's schools , under severe penalties , things would only intensify under a president who would flaunt his `` husband '' being the country 's first `` First Gentleman . ''
In the end , this has nothing to do with having `` an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people . ''
( How is it that Christian leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points ? )
Instead , it has everything to do with recognizing where gay activism has taken us in the last 50-plus years and recognizing where it wants to take us next .
I , for one , will continue to sound the alarm in advance .
Things are confused enough already .
We do n't need to make things any worse .
Calling me a homophobic bigot will only avoid dealing with the real issues at hand .
We avoid them to our own demise .

It is certainly politically incorrect to say this. In fact, in the eyes of many, what I'm about to say is a classic example of extreme religious bigotry. But I will say it nonetheless. Choosing an out and proud "married" gay man to run for president, let alone become president, would contribute to the further degeneration and moral confusion of our society along with further attacks on our most fundamental rights.
When I tweeted this statement out on Feb. 8, it received far more retweets and likes than my average tweet. Far more. So, it obviously struck a chord. The support was strong and consistent.
Also, as expected, there were words of condemnation and rebuke, including this tweet from Bible teacher Gilbert Gonzalez Jr. He wrote: "Please tell me this tweet is from a different century. There is no way that anyone today that has any education would ever write something so generally uninformed, childish, and biblically ignorant. This is why people don't take Christianity seriously. Its leaders refuse to learn."
Obviously, I fully expected responses like this. That's why I began my tweet by saying, "Call me a homophobic bigot, but I'll say it anyway."
What else could I expect? The moment you say a word about Mayor Pete being "married" to another man, all while flaunting his deep Christian faith, you will be called a homophobic bigot.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
So be it. I've been called worse things than that.
Come to think of it, Jesus Himself, our perfect Savior, was called far worse things.
And He told us to expect the same: "It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul [basically, the devil himself], how much more the members of his household!"
According to professor Randall Rauser, however, to call me a homophobic bigot is not out of line. (Rauser is a moderate Canadian evangelical and a constant basher of President Trump.) As he wrote in his blog, "Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people."
Indeed, according to the professor, "Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump's grotesque immorality. … Among his latest egregious actions, last week he mocked the words of Jesus at the National Prayer Breakfast while evangelical pastors laughed in the audience."
But that's where Rauser misses the point, as do Gilbert Gonzalez and other critics. (See also this excellent response to Rauser by Steve Hayes.)
First, I have never excused the president's past immorality. In fact, I probably called attention to it as much as any evangelical leader during the primaries. To say, I "fall over [myself] to excuse Trump's grotesque immorality" is to speak a lie.
Second, to this day, like a broken record, I draw attention to aspects of the president's behavior that I find destructive and harmful. In fact, shortly after the National Prayer Breakfast, I wrote an article addressing the very issues Rauser mentioned regarding Trump's response to the words of Jesus.
So, to brand me hypocritical for speaking out against Mayor Pete's proud homosexuality is to be either misinformed, dishonest, or both.
But there is a much bigger issue the critics are missing.
President Trump is not flaunting his past immorality, nor is he pushing it presently. Instead, when the ugly tape of his lewd comments went public, he said, "I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize. … I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never, ever let you down."
In stark contrast, Mayor Pete has talked about how his homosexual relationship to his "husband," Chasten, has brought him closer to God. He has kissed his partner at public rallies. He is pushing his homosexuality, not apologizing for it.
You better believe that he will do everything in his power to normalize homosexual relationships even more in the eyes of America. He will also do his best to marginalize those who are convinced that these relationships are contrary to the will of God.
And this leads me to the primary reason for my tweet (and for this article).
It is not so much that homosexual practice is worse than adultery or fornication. Rather, it is the fact that there is an aggressive, gay agenda that has systematically undermined biblical morals for decades. It has also sought to silence all dissenting voices, becoming the principle threat to our religious and moral freedoms.
That's why I've been active in resisting LGBT activism since 2004, reaching out to individuals with compassion but resisting the agenda with courage.
And so, it is not the people whom I oppose. (God forbid. I've made that clear hundreds, if not thousands of times.) It is not even homosexual acts that primarily concern me (although issues of health and safety should not be ignored).
It is an aggressive agenda that I oppose, one that I and others have tracked carefully for many years. (See the important 2003 volume by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, "The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.")
It is an agenda that would only be fueled with great intensity by an out and proud gay president.
And so, just as President Obama's administration pushed radical trans activism on our nation's schools, under severe penalties, things would only intensify under a president who would flaunt his "husband" being the country's first "First Gentleman."
In the end, this has nothing to do with having "an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people." (How is it that Christian leaders end up repeating the world's talking points?)
Instead, it has everything to do with recognizing where gay activism has taken us in the last 50-plus years and recognizing where it wants to take us next.
I, for one, will continue to sound the alarm in advance.
Things are confused enough already. We don't need to make things any worse.
Calling me a homophobic bigot will only avoid dealing with the real issues at hand.
We avoid them to our own demise.


wnd--2020-02-12--Trump economy: Dems claim 'Obama built it'

The `` expert '' predictions of economic disaster should Donald Trump win the 2016 election did not occur .
Under Trump , the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite have reached historical highs while unemployment for blacks and Hispanics have hit historical lows .
In the wake of Trump 's undeniable economic success , what is the 2020 Democratic Party argument for why voters should back their candidate over Trump ?
The morning after Trump 's election , Paul Krugman , economics professor and columnist for The New York Times , wrote : `` Now comes the mother of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work .
Effective fiscal support for the Fed ?
Not a chance .
In fact , you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence , and be bullied by cranks .
So we are very probably looking at a global recession , with no end in sight .
I suppose we could get lucky somehow .
But on economics , as on everything else , a terrible thing has just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mark Cuban , billionaire owner of the NBA Dallas Mavericks , predicted that a Trump victory could cause not just a minor stock market decline , but one as high as 20 % or more : `` When you 're flip-flopping , when you 're not sure what the candidate 's going to say from one thing to another , that uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States – that 's the last thing Wall Street wants to hear .
I can say with 100 % certainty that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge , huge correction .
… It could be 20 % .
You know , now , with high-frequency trading , accelerating , strong moves in any direction – it could be worse than that . ''
So , Democrats and their media sympathizers now resort to a new talking point : Trump merely continued the economic growth that began under the Barack Obama administration .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , in a theme echoed by his Democratic rivals , said : `` Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really move .
And just like everything else he 's inherited , he 's in the midst of squandering it . ''
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova Are Biden and the Democrats right about the Obama economy ?
To examine the Obama economy , one must compare apples to apples , similar economic conditions to similar economic conditions .
Obama dealt with a severe economic downturn , as did President Ronald Reagan .
Historically , the bigger the downturn , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recession Obama faced , unemployment reached a high of 10 % , while inflation and interest rates remained low .
During the recession Reagan faced , unemployment reached 10.8 % , prime interest rates rose to 20.5 % and inflation hit 13.5 % .
Obama raised taxes , spent nearly $ 1 trillion on a so-called stimulus plan , increased regulations and signed a new entitlement program known as `` Obamacare . ''
Reagan did the opposite .
He decreased taxes and continued deregulation .
Differences in results were stark .
Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Economic Committee , averaged an inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 2.2 % over the next 25 quarters .
The average recovery following post-1960 economic slowdowns , which lasted more than 12 months , is 3.9 % .
Under President Ronald Reagan it was 4.8 % .
Obama was the first president ever to preside over an economic recovery in which not a single year did growth surpassed 3 % .
Obama 's own economic team anticipated much higher growth .
In February 2009 , the Obama administration published its `` Analytical Perspectives : Budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Year 2010 . ''
It said : `` The Administration projects an economic recovery will begin in the second half of the year sparked by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act .
By the end of the year , real growth is expected to have reached 3-1/2 percent at an annual rate , a pace that is maintained through 2010 .
In 2011-2013 , the rate of growth in real GDP is projected to accelerate to around 4-1/2 percent annually for several quarters . ''
The economy under Obama did not come close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump boasts about `` historic lows '' in unemployment for blacks .
But in January 2016 , black liberal commentator Tavis Smiley admitted : `` Sadly , and it pains me to say this , over the last decade , black folk in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category .
Not one , two or three , but every major economic category , black Americans have lost ground . ''
Again , the big economic downturns historically produce big economic upturns .
The media insist on calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Great Recession , '' even though by many metrics , Reagan faced a more serious `` Great Recession . ''
But , unlike the economy under Obama , Reagan oversaw what should be called The Great Recovery .

The "expert" predictions of economic disaster should Donald Trump win the 2016 election did not occur. Under Trump, the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Nasdaq composite have reached historical highs while unemployment for blacks and Hispanics have hit historical lows. In the wake of Trump's undeniable economic success, what is the 2020 Democratic Party argument for why voters should back their candidate over Trump?
The morning after Trump's election, Paul Krugman, economics professor and columnist for The New York Times, wrote: "Now comes the mother of all adverse effects – and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks. So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened."
During the 2016 campaign, Mark Cuban, billionaire owner of the NBA Dallas Mavericks, predicted that a Trump victory could cause not just a minor stock market decline, but one as high as 20% or more: "When you're flip-flopping, when you're not sure what the candidate's going to say from one thing to another, that uncertainty potentially as the president of the United States – that's the last thing Wall Street wants to hear. I can say with 100% certainty that there is a really good chance we could see a huge, huge correction. … It could be 20%. You know, now, with high-frequency trading, accelerating, strong moves in any direction – it could be worse than that."
So, Democrats and their media sympathizers now resort to a new talking point: Trump merely continued the economic growth that began under the Barack Obama administration.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, in a theme echoed by his Democratic rivals, said: "Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack and me. Things were beginning to really move. And just like everything else he's inherited, he's in the midst of squandering it."
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Are Biden and the Democrats right about the Obama economy?
To examine the Obama economy, one must compare apples to apples, similar economic conditions to similar economic conditions. Obama dealt with a severe economic downturn, as did President Ronald Reagan. Historically, the bigger the downturn, the bigger the economic bounce back. During the recession Obama faced, unemployment reached a high of 10%, while inflation and interest rates remained low. During the recession Reagan faced, unemployment reached 10.8%, prime interest rates rose to 20.5% and inflation hit 13.5%.
Obama raised taxes, spent nearly $1 trillion on a so-called stimulus plan, increased regulations and signed a new entitlement program known as "Obamacare." Reagan did the opposite. He decreased taxes and continued deregulation. Differences in results were stark. Obama's recovery, according to the Joint Economic Committee, averaged an inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 2.2% over the next 25 quarters. The average recovery following post-1960 economic slowdowns, which lasted more than 12 months, is 3.9%. Under President Ronald Reagan it was 4.8%. Obama was the first president ever to preside over an economic recovery in which not a single year did growth surpassed 3%.
Obama's own economic team anticipated much higher growth. In February 2009, the Obama administration published its "Analytical Perspectives: Budget of the U. S. Government: Fiscal Year 2010." It said: "The Administration projects an economic recovery will begin in the second half of the year sparked by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By the end of the year, real growth is expected to have reached 3-1/2 percent at an annual rate, a pace that is maintained through 2010. In 2011-2013, the rate of growth in real GDP is projected to accelerate to around 4-1/2 percent annually for several quarters."
The economy under Obama did not come close to meeting his team's projections. Trump boasts about "historic lows" in unemployment for blacks. But in January 2016, black liberal commentator Tavis Smiley admitted: "Sadly, and it pains me to say this, over the last decade, black folk in the era of Obama have lost ground in every major economic category. Not one, two or three, but every major economic category, black Americans have lost ground."
Again, the big economic downturns historically produce big economic upturns. The media insist on calling the economic conditions Obama dealt with the "Great Recession," even though by many metrics, Reagan faced a more serious "Great Recession." But, unlike the economy under Obama, Reagan oversaw what should be called The Great Recovery.


wnd--2020-02-13--Students arrive to school in a caravan of Old Glory in defiance of principal's flag ban

A certain death has come to those who can not find a spot of warmth in their heart for the well-meaning teenage rebel .
We 're not talking full-on James Dean , `` Hey Johnny , what are you rebelling against ?
`` / '' What have you got ?
`` -style rebellion .
( Not that there is n't something to be said for that sort , in small doses . )
We 're talking about Ferris Bueller here .
Maybe Donnie Darko at the margins .
Ren McCormack in `` Footloose . ''
Olive Penderghast in `` Easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who , in the face of some combination of power-hungry high school apparatchiks , self-absorbed parents and malevolent anthropomorphic rabbits of unknown origin ( `` Donnie Darko '' only ) , manages to strike a blow for a certain kind of freedom from arbitrary rules and the draconian punishments visited upon those who transgressed them .
The reason people love such movies is that they know these authority figures all-too-well and either would n't have dared to transgress them during high school , or did and found out that John Hughes usually does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the fact that , in this day and age , it 'd be difficult for any of these characters to exist .
We 've seen helicopter parents and how they work .
Remember the opening scene in `` Ferris Bueller 's Day Off '' when he talks about how he never fakes a phony fever because that 's a one-way ticket to the doctor 's office ?
Well , anything else is these days , too -- and even if everything is OK , as it invariably is , they 'll probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse , bring you into work with them .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova On occasion , however , it seems that a student and/or students are able to end up with that perfect third act in real life .
In Franklin County , Virginia , we have some upstanding young Americans who would be getting a movie deal now if they had n't been standing up for Old Glory .
That still just makes it cooler .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of one of the students at Franklin County High School said it began with her son realizing he was getting in trouble .
“ My son called me from school saying that he saw an administrator around his truck and is now being called to the office , ” she said .
The woman said her son and two of his friends were told they could no longer fly American flags on their vehicles because it was “ offensive ” and “ disruptive.
” That was Monday of last week .
On Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , from what we can gather , a convoy showing the kind of support that Old Glory got in just 24 hours .
If they thought they had `` offensive '' and `` disruptive '' before , they got a lot more of it in just 24 hours .
A lot of you were hearing `` The Star-Spangled Banner '' over this , I was , too , but I was also hearing `` Footloose '' and thinking of all John Lithgow 's scowling in that movie .
And by golly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy ending .
BTW21 reported the boy 's mother said `` she received a call from the school principal Jon Crutchfield on that evening . ''
“ He has apologized to the boys and told them that it is not against the rules to fly their flag on their truck , '' she said .
`` Apparently , it was a big misunderstanding that should have never gotten this far . ''
The story is continuing to updated slowly , so the details might change .
BTW21 and The Western Journal have both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schools Administration but have n't heard back yet .
If we do , we 'll let you know .
For right now , however , it looks like the script played out for our high school rebels as it was supposed to .
The good guys won .
Petty rules were defeated .
Kids can continue to fly the flag .
And who 's to say the stars and stripes ca n't have a Hollywood ending ?
After all , you can forget sometimes , but remember what flag flies over Hollywood -- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Californians .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

A certain death has come to those who cannot find a spot of warmth in their heart for the well-meaning teenage rebel.
We're not talking full-on James Dean, "Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?"/"What have you got?"-style rebellion. (Not that there isn't something to be said for that sort, in small doses.)
We're talking about Ferris Bueller here. Maybe Donnie Darko at the margins. Ren McCormack in "Footloose." Olive Penderghast in "Easy A." The kind of character who, in the face of some combination of power-hungry high school apparatchiks, self-absorbed parents and malevolent anthropomorphic rabbits of unknown origin ("Donnie Darko" only), manages to strike a blow for a certain kind of freedom from arbitrary rules and the draconian punishments visited upon those who transgressed them.
The reason people love such movies is that they know these authority figures all-too-well and either wouldn't have dared to transgress them during high school, or did and found out that John Hughes usually doesn't write the ending.
There's also the fact that, in this day and age, it'd be difficult for any of these characters to exist. We've seen helicopter parents and how they work. Remember the opening scene in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" when he talks about how he never fakes a phony fever because that's a one-way ticket to the doctor's office? Well, anything else is these days, too -- and even if everything is OK, as it invariably is, they'll probably FaceTime you throughout the day or, even worse, bring you into work with them.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
On occasion, however, it seems that a student and/or students are able to end up with that perfect third act in real life.
In Franklin County, Virginia, we have some upstanding young Americans who would be getting a movie deal now if they hadn't been standing up for Old Glory. That still just makes it cooler.
According to Virginia-based cable channel BTW21, a mother of one of the students at Franklin County High School said it began with her son realizing he was getting in trouble.
“My son called me from school saying that he saw an administrator around his truck and is now being called to the office,” she said.
The woman said her son and two of his friends were told they could no longer fly American flags on their vehicles because it was “offensive” and “disruptive.”
That was Monday of last week. On Tuesday, this is what happened:
That is, from what we can gather, a convoy showing the kind of support that Old Glory got in just 24 hours. If they thought they had "offensive" and "disruptive" before, they got a lot more of it in just 24 hours.
More goodness:
A lot of you were hearing "The Star-Spangled Banner" over this, I was, too, but I was also hearing "Footloose" and thinking of all John Lithgow's scowling in that movie.
And by golly, the students seem to have gotten their happy ending.
BTW21 reported the boy's mother said "she received a call from the school principal Jon Crutchfield on that evening."
“He has apologized to the boys and told them that it is not against the rules to fly their flag on their truck," she said.
"Apparently, it was a big misunderstanding that should have never gotten this far."
The story is continuing to updated slowly, so the details might change. BTW21 and The Western Journal have both reached out to the Franklin County Public Schools Administration but haven't heard back yet. If we do, we'll let you know.
For right now, however, it looks like the script played out for our high school rebels as it was supposed to.
The good guys won. Petty rules were defeated. Kids can continue to fly the flag.
And who's to say the stars and stripes can't have a Hollywood ending?
After all, you can forget sometimes, but remember what flag flies over Hollywood -- no matter how much it may irk Californians.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-02-13--'Birth-Day Project': Ice-cream celebration making a difference in children's lives

( DAILY CITIZEN ) -- Robert Just remembers the day a group of police officers came to the boarding school where he was living – a home for troubled youth .
He was 8 years old .
The police put on a show to entertain the children and make them laugh .
It ’ s years later , but Just never forgot those officers in Pleasantville , NY who cared enough to sacrifice their time and energy to spread some holiday cheer to a group of children .
He ’ s grateful and knows the impact that one single event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to share what those officers did for him with other children , bringing adults into schools to celebrate the value of each child .
That ’ s the impetus behind the “ Birth-Day Project , ” a way for concerned adults to have an impact on their local schools .
It ’ s a simple idea : Adults from the community go into a school on May 1st ( or as close as possible ) and celebrate each child ’ s birthday , all on the same day , dishing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .

(DAILY CITIZEN) -- Robert Just remembers the day a group of police officers came to the boarding school where he was living – a home for troubled youth. He was 8 years old. The police put on a show to entertain the children and make them laugh.
It’s years later, but Just never forgot those officers in Pleasantville, NY who cared enough to sacrifice their time and energy to spread some holiday cheer to a group of children. He’s grateful and knows the impact that one single event had on his life. Now, he wants to share what those officers did for him with other children, bringing adults into schools to celebrate the value of each child.
That’s the impetus behind the “Birth-Day Project,” a way for concerned adults to have an impact on their local schools. It’s a simple idea: Adults from the community go into a school on May 1st (or as close as possible) and celebrate each child’s birthday, all on the same day, dishing out ice cream sundaes and interacting with the children.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-02-13--Lawsuit seeks to give girls' sports back to girls

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of several girls who compete in high-school track events in Connecticut to give them back their sport – and remove from the trophy platforms boys who have a physical advantage in the events .
`` Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field , '' charged Christiana Holcomb , a lawyer for the girls .
`` Having separate boys ' and girls ' sports has always been based on biological differences , not what people believe about their gender , because those differences matter for fair competition . ''
She continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their own sport is completely at odds with Title IX , a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics .
Connecticut 's policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women . ''
She works with the Alliance Defending Freedom .
TRENDING : 'Anonymous ' White House 'insider ' identified and will soon be gone , says DiGenova The lawsuit challenges Connecticut 's policy of letting boys compete in girls ' sports events , triggered by the transgender movement .
That change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conference to allow boys who think they 're girls to take part .
Since then `` boys have consistently deprived Selina Soule , Alanna Smith , and Chelsea Mitchell of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels .
Mitchell , for example , would have won the 2019 state championship in the women 's 55-meter indoor track competition , but because two males took first and second place , she was denied the gold medal .
Soule and Smith likewise have been denied medals and/or advancement opportunities , '' the organization reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Selina Soule , Chelsea Mitchel and Alanna Smith , all minors represented by their mothers .
Defendants include the Connecticut Association of Schools , Bloomfield Public Schools board of education , Cromell Public Schools board , Glastonbury Public Schools board and others .
It explains that the state 's ' `` discriminatory policy is now regularly resulting in boys displacing girls in competitive track events in Connecticut – excluding specific and identifiable girls including plaintiffs from honors , opportunities to compete at higher levels , and public recognition critical to college recruiting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boys – those born with XY chromosomes – in the state of Connecticut those who are born female – with XX chromosomes – now have materially fewer opportunities to stand on the victory podium , fewer opportunities to participate in post-season elite competition , fewer opportunities for public recognition as champions , and a much smaller chance of setting recognized records , '' the filing stated .
That actually `` violates '' Title IX , which mandates `` equal opportunity for both sexes . ''
The activities association is subject to the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding from its public member-schools . ''
The filing quotes `` Duke Law professor and All-American track athlete Doriane Lambelet Coleman , tennis champion Martina Navratilova , and Olympic track gold medalist Sanya Richards-Ross : `` The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty , in every sport except sailing , shooting and riding , there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition .
Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science . ''
`` If increasing number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women 's athletics , those born female – girls – will simply vanish from the victory podium and national rankings , '' the complaint charges .
The case seeks a ruling that the schools violated Title IX and an injunction prohibiting them from allowing males to compete in events designated for females .
`` In track-and-field events that do not use equipment , the physiological differences between males and females after puberty are stark in the record books , '' the complaint adds .
`` No one doubts that top male and female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excelling in their sport , and train equally hard .
Yet boys and men consistently run faster and jump higher and farther than girls and women . ''
See a video about the dispute : The legal team noted two males were allowed to compete in girls events in the 2017 track season .
`` Between them , they have taken 15 women ’ s state championship titles ( titles held in 2016 by nine different Connecticut girls ) and have taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , and 2019 seasons alone . ''

A lawsuit has been filed on behalf of several girls who compete in high-school track events in Connecticut to give them back their sport – and remove from the trophy platforms boys who have a physical advantage in the events.
"Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field," charged Christiana Holcomb, a lawyer for the girls. "Having separate boys' and girls' sports has always been based on biological differences, not what people believe about their gender, because those differences matter for fair competition."
She continued, "And forcing girls to be spectators in their own sport is completely at odds with Title IX, a federal law designed to create equal opportunities for women in education and athletics. Connecticut's policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women."
She works with the Alliance Defending Freedom.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The lawsuit challenges Connecticut's policy of letting boys compete in girls' sports events, triggered by the transgender movement. That change was adopted by the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference to allow boys who think they're girls to take part.
Since then "boys have consistently deprived Selina Soule, Alanna Smith, and Chelsea Mitchell of honors and opportunities to compete at elite levels. Mitchell, for example, would have won the 2019 state championship in the women's 55-meter indoor track competition, but because two males took first and second place, she was denied the gold medal. Soule and Smith likewise have been denied medals and/or advancement opportunities," the organization reported.
The complaint is on behalf of Selina Soule, Chelsea Mitchel and Alanna Smith, all minors represented by their mothers.
Defendants include the Connecticut Association of Schools, Bloomfield Public Schools board of education, Cromell Public Schools board, Glastonbury Public Schools board and others.
It explains that the state's' "discriminatory policy is now regularly resulting in boys displacing girls in competitive track events in Connecticut – excluding specific and identifiable girls including plaintiffs from honors, opportunities to compete at higher levels, and public recognition critical to college recruiting and scholarship opportunities."
"Compared to boys – those born with XY chromosomes – in the state of Connecticut those who are born female – with XX chromosomes – now have materially fewer opportunities to stand on the victory podium, fewer opportunities to participate in post-season elite competition, fewer opportunities for public recognition as champions, and a much smaller chance of setting recognized records," the filing stated.
That actually "violates" Title IX, which mandates "equal opportunity for both sexes."
The activities association is subject to the federal requirements "because it indirectly receives federal funding from its public member-schools."
The filing quotes "Duke Law professor and All-American track athlete Doriane Lambelet Coleman, tennis champion Martina Navratilova, and Olympic track gold medalist Sanya Richards-Ross: "The evidence is unequivocal that starting in puberty, in every sport except sailing, shooting and riding, there will always be significant numbers of boys and men who would beat the best girls and women in head-to-head competition. Claims to the contrary are simply a denial of science."
"If increasing number of males compete in girls' and women's athletics, those born female – girls – will simply vanish from the victory podium and national rankings," the complaint charges.
The case seeks a ruling that the schools violated Title IX and an injunction prohibiting them from allowing males to compete in events designated for females.
"In track-and-field events that do not use equipment, the physiological differences between males and females after puberty are stark in the record books," the complaint adds. "No one doubts that top male and female high school athletes are equally committed to excelling in their sport, and train equally hard. Yet boys and men consistently run faster and jump higher and farther than girls and women."
See a video about the dispute:
The legal team noted two males were allowed to compete in girls events in the 2017 track season.
"Between them, they have taken 15 women’s state championship titles (titles held in 2016 by nine different Connecticut girls) and have taken more than 85 opportunities to participate in higher level competitions from female track athletes in the 2017, 2018, and 2019 seasons alone."