Harvard’s gatekeeper reveals SAT cutoff scores based on race

Harvard’s gatekeeper reveals SAT cutoff scores based on race, by Lia Eustachewich.

A Harvard University dean testified that the school has different SAT score standards for prospective students based on factors such as race and sex — but insisted that the practice isn’t discriminatory, as a trial alleging racism against Asian-American applicants began this week. …

The trial began Monday, and has so far only included testimony from dean of admissions William Fitzsimmons.

He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

Fitzsimmons explained a similar process for white wannabe students in states that don’t see a lot of Harvard attendees, like Montana or Nevada. Students in those states would receive a recruitment letter if they had at least a 1310 on their SATs.

“That’s race discrimination, plain and simple,” John Hughes, a lawyer for Students for Fair Admissions, challenged the dean.

“It is not,” the dean insisted. He said the school targeted certain groups in order to “break the cycle” and try to convince students to apply to Harvard who normally wouldn’t consider the school.

The identity group discrimination of the left is finally being challenged in court. Harvard, of course, is one the elite US schools so beloved of the US ruling class.

Treating people differently based on their race or sex is discrimination — racism and sexism respectively. Interesting that Harvard just straight up denies it, rather than simply justifying it (“yes but we do it for these reasons…”).

Trump smashes regs, cuts $33 billion vs. $245 billion added by Obama

Trump smashes regs, cuts $33 billion vs. $245 billion added by Obama, by Paul Bedard.

President Trump’s promise to cut Obama-era regulations has gone into overdrive, with the slashing generating $33 billion in savings, far more than expected.

A new report from the White House budget office said that $23 billion in savings has occurred this year alone, with the total at $33 billion since the president took office.

Over his first 21 months in office, former President Obama impose $245 billion in new regulations.

What’s more, Trump’s promise to cut two Obama-era regulations for every new one has been pushed aside for far deeper cuts. The Office of Management and Budget reported that in the last fiscal year the administration cut 12 regulations for every new one it proposed.

That’s significant. $33 billion is a hundred dollars for each person in the US; Obama’s $245 billion is about $750 per person.

The left wants a much bigger administrative state overseeing and restraining the private sector (aka economic fascism). The right want a vastly smaller administrative state and a return to government that governs via laws passed by democratically elected representatives rather than by regulations effectively cooked up by unelected bureaucrats. Two quite different visions of society.

Six Democratic Scandals the Networks Are Burying This Election Year

Six Democratic Scandals the Networks Are Burying This Election Year, by Geoffrey Dickens.

As the midterms fast approach, there are a bunch of Democrats who find themselves embroiled in scandals and controversies. But if you only got your news from the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks, you’ve probably never heard about them. …

Beto O’Rourke Lied About DUI Arrest …

Senate Admonishes Robert Menendez for Accepting Gifts …

Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Husband Takes Advantage of Government Program for Poor to Make Millions …

Former Staffer for Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Arrested for Doxxing Republicans …

Democratic Governor Nominee Jared Polis Pushes Female Employee …

Keith Ellison Accused of Domestic Violence

Think of mainstream journalists as leftist with bylines, then it all makes sense.

via Tip of the Spear

Khashoggi fallout: Big Saudi economic initiative ‘Davos of the Desert’ sees mass cancellations

Khashoggi fallout: Big Saudi economic initiative ‘Davos of the Desert’ sees mass cancellations. By David Child.

It was hailed as the start of Saudi Arabia’s revamping of its oil-based economy, but a week before its opening the second edition of the kingdom’s prestigious economic Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference has turned into a PR disaster for the country.

More than 10 of the largest and most prominent attendees have said they will no longer go to the summit following the disappearance and alleged murder of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi.

Nicknamed “Davos in the Desert” after the world economic forum in the Swiss city of Davos, the elite get-together is a brainchild of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to forward the de facto ruler’s plans to diversify Saudi’s economy by 2030.

However, with the disappearance and alleged murder of Khashoggi, a host of companies — ranging from tech companies Google and Uber, to banking giants JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse and HSBC, to media organisations such as CNN, The New York Times and Financial Times — have said they will not attend the FII this year. …

US Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin has said he will attend but will be monitoring the situation. All eyes will be on Mnuchin for any indication of the Trump administration’s next move.

“If Secretary Mnuchin withdraws from this conference, it would signify that the US president is taking the disappearance and possible murder of this journalist seriously, and imposition of sanctions may follow,” said Mitchell.

Who wants to do business with barbarians? It matters not if it was the Crown Prince, or someone trying to embarrass him, who ordered that Khashoggi be dismembered while still alive. The whole case reminds the world that Saudi Arabia is the home to, and in the grip of, an immutable seventh century totalitarian ideology. Not good for business, even if they are temporarily stinking rich.

hat-tip Tim

Trump’s Doctrinal Problem

Trump’s Doctrinal Problem, by Srdja Trifkovic.

President Donald Trump’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 25 was met with audible disrespect from some of the assembled globalist cognoscenti (representatives of many barbarous regimes included), and with blind hostility from the media and commentariat. This was unsurprising, because the opening segment of his half-hour address sounded like the summary of a sound, conservative foreign-policy doctrine.

“We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism around the world,” Trump declared. Responsible nations must defend themselves against threats to their sovereignty from all forms of coercion and domination …

Unfortunately, all was not well with the President’s speech. … Trump’s own team — not to mention the bureaucratic apparat through which it functions — is not attuned to his declared grand design. …

The second group of problems … is illustrated by the administration’s unprecedented decision to sanction the Chinese government — specifically the military procurement agency and its director — for buying Russian fighter jets and the Russian-made S-400 air defense missile system. … China’s defense-ministry spokesman said that China’s decision to buy fighter jets and missile systems from Russia was a normal act of cooperation between sovereign countries, and the United States had “no right to interfere.” Such haughty U.S. behavior defies belief. Hostile to both Russia and China in equal measure, it reflects a hegemonistic mind-set on steroids tinged with plain stupidity and the absence of strategic sense.

The most formidable obstacle to the President’s U.N. speech developing into a “Trump Doctrine,” however, is the solid resistance of the Swamp (a.k.a. Deep State, Permanent State, etc.) to its ideological foundation and practical implications. This is truly unprecedented. …

The Department of State, the FBI, and the CIA are all wasps’ nests of Trumpophobic zealots. Most of his closest aides are neocons and global hegemonists. It would be in the American interest that he carry out a great purge, which would make the Trump Doctrine of Sovereign Realism possible. Tragically, two years after Trump’s election victory, that possibility appears increasingly remote with each passing month.


hat-tip Stephen Neil

Christiana Figueres, the Green Fairy

Christiana Figueres, the Green Fairy, by Tony Thomas.

Christiana Figueres … was secretary-general of the top-level UN climate body UNFCCC (2010-16) and spruiked doom on Stan Grant’s Matter of Fact show on ABC-TV on October 9.

Figueres is billed as the architect of 2015’s Paris Accord which commits China, India, and now the US, to nothing. Meanwhile the West is supposed to transfer $US100 billion a year to Third World leaders, such as the PNG politicians who’ve just ordered 40 Maseratis and three Bentleys. …

The $US100b is actually small change by Figueres’ standards. A year ago she challenged Principles of Responsible Investment signatories, with $US70 trillion under management, to put 1% into renewables by 2020. If I’ve got all the zeroes down pat, she’s talking $US700 billion.

Snuffles and sobs accompany her listing of future climate horrors unless we spend $US38 trillion on renewables during the next 16 years. That’s nearly half of current world GDP.

She also accused the commendably sceptical Grant of using “infantile arguments”. …

She views a halt to growth in the West with equanimity. “Industrialised countries must stop growing — that’s fine. But developing countries must continue to grow their economy in order to bring their people out of poverty … We’re saying: “Okay, you guys, you can continue to grow, you can bring your people out of poverty — but you can’t do it with disgusting fossil fuels that those guys use’.” …

A year ago, Scientific American headlined her profile: “The woman who saved the planet”. Sub-head: “By harnessing ‘female energy’, Christiana Figueres convinced humanity “to take on climate change.”

Right on sister! You’ve got yours.

The carbon dioxide theory of global warming (which happens to be wrong, according to the empirical evidence, and has a problem in the theory, according to a book that is in progress) is a vehicle for various political agendas. They all involve the transfer of a great deal of money. To you, dear reader? Not bloody likely.

Migrants ‘threaten democracy’ as they beat up members of Swedish youth party, while police turns a blind eye.

Migrants ‘threaten democracy’ as they beat up members of Swedish youth party, while police turns a blind eye. By Emma R.

Members of the Young Sweden Democrats are threatened and assaulted in their country and police don’t seem to act accordingly. Many members of the young group connected with the democratically chosen Sweden Democrats consider quitting, newspaper Nyheter Idag reveals.

Since spring, Sweden Democrat Daniel Lönn from Borlänge has been subjected to repeated threats and hatred.

Some of the threats have been reported to the police, but they have closed the cases almost immediately despite the existence of both witnesses and screenshots.

So where you going to run to?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Sweden was safe when it was a homogenous country, says populist MP

Sweden was safe when it was a homogenous country, says populist MP, by Voice of Europe.

Richard Jomshof, a member of parliament of the Sweden Democrats (SD), heavily criticised the effects of multiculturalism on the country, Fria Tider reports. …

“Madam President, the results of the recent decades of mass immigration and multiculturalism are clear. Sweden, once a safe and homogeneous country, is increasingly characterised by fragmentation, segregation, exclusion and insecurity.

The imported crime with shootings and fires, with stone fights and fires, with sexual assault and group violence is wrecking Sweden,” he continued.

A warning to others not to emulate the self-styled “humanitarian superpower”?

hat-tip Stephen Neil

‘Child refugee’ with flagship Samsung phone and gold watch complains about Swedish benefits rules

‘Child refugee’ with flagship Samsung phone and gold watch complains about Swedish benefits rules, by Emma R.

Sweden’s benefits rules upset the 19-year-old Hossein, tabloid Aftonbladet reports. The ‘child refugee’ who has a Samsung Galaxy Note 9 and a gold watch, feels bullied by the Swedish authorities.

Job? What job? No, he’s on benefits silly.

hat-tip Stephen Neil

US Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi: There Will Be ‘Collateral Damage’ to Those Who Disagree with Us

US Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi: There Will Be ‘Collateral Damage’ to Those Who Disagree with Us. By Joel Pollack.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told a gathering at the 92nd Street Y in New York on Sunday that there may have to be “collateral damage” to those Americans who do not agree with the Democratic Party agenda. …

In a long, rambling monologue, during which she stumbled on her words and appeared to lose her train of thought, Pelosi said:

We have to have total clarity about what we do, when it comes to everything — a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage … whether it’s about immigration, whether it’s about gun safety, whether it’s about climate … I think that we owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn’t be our original purpose.

It is not clear what Pelosi meant by “collateral damage,” though Democrats have advocated ostracizing and even prosecuting those who do not share their views on climate change.

Compromise is not on the agenda. The left does not even listen anymore to the views of those they dismiss with their usual barrage of insults — racists, bigots, deniers, sexists, rapists, deplorables, Nazis, etc.

Look at from their point of view. If they believe the insults they hurl, why would you speak or listen to such awful and ignorant people? The media bubble has a lot to answer for. Too many people believe the PC fantasies.

Pelosi is worth about $100m and lives in a very nice and exclusive part of San Francisco. Real leadership material with the interests of the common man in mind.

Barbarians At The Banquet

Barbarians At The Banquet, by an anonymous reader at Rod Dreher’s.

I was in a long-established, semi-scholarly fraternal organization at an elite American university. …

The paper given recently was from an old, venerable alumnus, and concerned some finer points of art history. My friend reported with horror that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS from the undergraduate men and women was on the order of “Isn’t x imperialist?” or “Isn’t y racist?” That was literally ALL the undergrads cared about, and ALL they knew to ask.

My friend, who has been attending these shindigs for many years, was horrified as much by 1) their profound ignorance of history, as 2) their outright hostility to innocuous art-historical minutiae, and 3) the extent to which they are utterly inured to simple logic / rationality. Everything — but EVERYTHING — is political for them. My friend said, further, that it was interesting to watch the dynamic between the undergraduates on one side, and the older scholars on the other. They don’t even speak the same language. The older scholars just don’t know what the kids are talking about, said my friend, and vice versa.

As Jordan Peterson has observed, the balance has been tipped in higher education. Its not just useless anymore, but its now actually doing harm. Not many normal people will be willing to accept that reality — i.e. that their children (and our culture) will be better served by their NOT going to (most) colleges and universities.

The newly university-educated are increasingly barbarians who will not learn from the past. They want to rebuild everything from scratch in their own political image. Talk about trashing civilization.

Dark ages here we come…

hat-tip Stephen Neil

Jewish Democrats Increasingly Anti-Israel

Jewish Democrats Increasingly Anti-Israel, by Caroline Glick.

For the past fifity years, Democratic Jewish lawmakers … played key roles in forging and maintaining their party’s strong support for Israel and the U.S.-Israel alliance.

In recent years, however, things have changed. As Democratic voters and leaders have become more hostile to Israel, and as Republican voters and leaders have become more supportive of Israel, Jewish Democratic lawmakers have increasingly adopted policies and accepted support from organizations that are harmful to Israel’s national security.

The current election cycle makes this point very clearly. …

Over two-thirds of the Jewish Democratic incumbents (13 of 18) supported President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the most outspoken critic of the deal, arguing that it posed an existential danger to Israel by giving Iran an open path to a nuclear arsenal. Three-quarters of Israeli Jews agreed with him.

Nearly half of the Jewish Democratic incumbents (7 of 18) have received contributions from J Street, the anti-Israel Jewish political group founded with help from George Soros. Throughout Obama’s years in office, J Street served as the administration’s Jewish fig leaf.

J Street was a central actor in the campaign to block a Senate veto of the Iran deal. It has placed the blame for the failure of the Israel-Palestinian peace process squarely on Israel’s shoulders, and campus chapters of J Street have reportedly aided anti-Israel activists in attempts to support the antisemitic “boycott, divestment and sanctions” (BDS) campaign against Israel. The organization is considered so hostile to Israel that Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, refuses to meet with its representatives.

Among the Democratic challengers, five of 18 have received funding from J Street, according to JTA’s report. Ten have received money from other far-left PACs or were endorsed by Obama.


The “Party” has left the building and that’s why I no longer support them….

hat-tip Scott of the Pacific

Senator Kamala Harris in California: $3,000 per year per person

Senator Kamala Harris from California: $3,000 per year per person, by Andrew Sheeler.

American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California.

Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year. …

However, the bill faces long odds of passing any time soon. … In part, that’s because it’s unlikely that Democrats will win enough seats to gain a majority in the U.S. Senate in 2018. …

“It appeals to the Democratic base, it appeals to low-income voters, it’s a very clever tactic to turn the tax issue against the Republicans,” [Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College] said.

The professor said introducing the bill is yet another sign that Harris is strongly weighing a presidential bid.

Harris is a leading Democrat candidate for US President in 2020. This may become a campaign issue, and become law as early as 2021.

California leads the US, which leads the world in trends. This is a new low. It’s almost buying votes, in an electorate where more than half of voters already receive more from the government in welfare than they pay in taxes. As for taxpayers, this is going to be a big extra burden — fire up the printing presses?

The ancient Greeks had a lot of experience with democracies in their city states. They noted that a democracy tends to last about as long as it takes the populace to work out how to vote themselves the content of the treasury. Then chaos and dysfunction descends, and a strong man takes over.

Hardly surprising California should be the place this is coming from. California has a huge population of recent and illegal immigrants, and the Democrats there now have a lock on government. This is one of the possible futures for the whole US and the West.

History doesn’t repeat exactly, but it rhymes. Change the nature of the population, and the nature of government changes with it.