Report: Trump to Take University Affirmative Action Policies to Court

Affirmative Action in university admissions is race replacement. It replaces highly qualified white and Asian students with less qualified blacks, browns, trans, queers, illegals, and whatever other groups are deemed victims of white male oppression.

Once the preferred students are in, then the universities have to lower standards (grade inflation, for example) in order to push them along to graduation.

Just as the mainstream media is rotten to the core, so is American higher education.

New York Times Via NOLA

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants, according to a document obtained by The New York Times.

The document, an internal announcement to the civil rights division, seeks current lawyers interested in working for a new project on “investigations and possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.”

The announcement suggests that the project will be run out of the division’s front office, where the Trump administration’s political appointees work, rather than its Educational Opportunities Section, which is run by career civil servants and normally handles work involving schools and universities.

The document does not explicitly identify whom the Justice Department considers at risk of discrimination because of affirmative action admissions policies. But the phrasing it uses, “intentional race-based discrimination,” cuts to the heart of programs designed to bring more minorities to university campuses.

Supporters and critics of the project said it was clearly targeting admissions programs that can give members of generally disadvantaged groups, like black and Latino students, an edge over other applicants with comparable or higher test scores.

The project is another sign that the civil rights division is taking on a conservative tilt under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. It follows other changes in Justice Department policy on voting rights, gay rights and police reforms.

Roger Clegg, a former top official in the civil rights division during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who is now the president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, called the project a “welcome” and “long overdue” development as the United States becomes increasingly multiracial.

“The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well,” he said.

But Kristen Clarke, the president of the liberal Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the affirmative action project as “misaligned with the division’s long-standing priorities.” She noted that the civil rights division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups,” performing work that often no one else has the resources or expertise to do.

“This is deeply disturbing,” she said. “It would be a dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities who may fear that the government may come down on them for their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.”

The Justice Department declined to provide more details about its plans or to make the acting head of the civil rights division, John Gore, available for an interview.

“The Department of Justice does not discuss personnel matters, so we’ll decline comment,” said Devin O’Malley, a department spokesman.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the educational benefits that flow from having a diverse student body can justify using race as one factor among many in a “holistic” evaluation, while rejecting blunt racial quotas or race-based point systems. But what that permits in actual practice by universities — public ones as well as private ones that receive federal funding — is often murky.

Clegg said he would expect the project to focus on investigating complaints the civil rights division received about any university admissions programs.

He also suggested that the project would look for stark gaps in test scores and dropout rates among different racial cohorts within student bodies, which he said would be evidence suggesting that admissions offices were putting too great an emphasis on applicants’ race and crossing the line the Supreme Court has drawn.

Some of that data, he added, could be available through the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The Supreme Court most recently addressed affirmative action admissions policies in a 2016 case, voting 4-3 to uphold a race-conscious program at the University of Texas at Austin. But there are several pending lawsuits challenging such practices at other high-profile institutions, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Justice Department has not taken a position in those cases.

The pending start of the affirmative action project — division lawyers who want to work on it must submit their resumes by Aug. 9, the announcement said — joins a series of changes involving civil rights law since Trump’s inauguration.

In a lawsuit challenging Texas’ strict voter identification law, the Justice Department switched its position, dropping the claim that the law was intentionally discriminatory and later declaring that the law has been fixed. Sessions has also made clear he is not interested in using consent decrees to impose reforms on troubled police departments and has initiated a sweeping review of existing agreements.

Teacher Accused of Having Sex with Student in Airplane Bathroom


Assuming that the facts are as stated in this story, we have a first.

Plenty of teachers have been having sex with their students, but this is the first instance of drunken sex in an airplane bathroom that I’ve seen.

Although a hearing panel found teacher Eleanor Wilson guilty, there are still some questions about whether her behavior was as bad as claimed. To me, it seems extremely unlikely that a teacher and student would be having sex in an airplane bathroom.

Now that she’s been banned from teaching, what’s the lady to do? Read to the end. She has a surprising new career. And a defender who says that the allegations against her are rubbish.

New York Post

A physics teacher has been banned from the classroom after taking her student on a quantum leap to the Mile High Club in a airplane bathroom, according to a report.

British teacher Eleanor Wilson, 28, got physical with the boy during a trip back from a visit to the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, the Metro of the UK reported.

The drunken woman engaged in oral sex and had intercourse with the student during the July 2015 flight, according to an academic panel that found her guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.

“During the flight home from the trip, Pupil A gave evidence that he and Miss Wilson were flirting at the back of the plane, whilst looking after another pupil who was unwell,” the National College for Teaching and Leadership panel said, the paper reported.

“Pupil A gave evidence that Miss Wilson was intoxicated and that he had himself drunk approximately five miniature bottles of wine on the flight,” it said.

“Pupil A gave evidence that he and Miss Wilson entered the toilet, kissed and had oral sex and intercourse without using protection,” it continued. “Miss Wilson denied this allegation in its entirety, as evidenced within the notes of the school’s investigation.”

Wilson and the student continued their relationship for several months, communicating by text messages and meeting outside school, according to Metro.

“These findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include findings of both serious dishonesty and sexual misconduct,” said education official Alan Meyrick about the South Gloucestershire schoolteacher.

“I consider therefore that a prohibition order with no review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession.”

In doing more research on this story, I found this claim by Wilson’s brother that she’s innocent. According to this story, Wilson is in the Royal Navy now.

Jethro said that his sister is in the Royal Navy and is currently backpacking on Dartmoor as part of her training. Her new partner is also in the Royal Navy, he said.

He added: ‘She worked so hard to be a teacher and it’s a shame because she doesn’t want to do it because of what’s happened.

‘She mutually left the school but nothing sexually happened with the student and for it to come out that it was on the plane was a bit bizarre really.

‘A student can easily say one thing that has ruined a teacher’s career.

‘She had a drink in Switzerland and allowed students over 18 to have a drink, that was all and now it’s this big.

Wilson’s brother continues on with a passionate defense of his sister.

From the evidence available for the public to consider, it’s just impossible to determine the truth in this case. The key resides in a complete examination of the electronic evidence, represented to be text messages sent via phone. There are no allegations of exchanges of nude photos, which seems to always be a common denominator in these cases.

If any of us were innocent of charges that led to our downfall, we’d surely appreciate the way that brother Jethro is sticking up for his sister.

Zimbabwe 2.0: South Africa President Proposes Land “Expropriation Without Compensation”

South Africa’s monkey president was much in evidence at the now concluded G20 conference in Hamburg. I wonder if the West had the guts to confront Jacob Zuma. I can’t find anything about that in reports that came out of G20. Apparently, South Africa’s whites are on their own. Now, to include having their land stolen from them and given to blacks, who will have no idea what to do with it.

The same thing will happen and is happening in America, Europe, and Australia, only far more subtly. As the new white minority emerges in the West, the white property owner will be targeted and his property “expropriated” (stolen).

IQ Research reports that the average IQ in South Africa is 77. Remove the white population and it’s not a bad guess to think that the average would drop to around 70, which is functionally retarded.

Western countries should welcome our white brothers and sisters into our open arms. Nonwhites get hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits by moving to the West. Whites would produce, not parasite.

Excerpt from Zerohedge

With every passing day the formerly booming nation of South Africa is getting ever closer to the formerly banana republic of Zimbabwe.

On Wednesday, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress proposed at its 5th annual national policy conference that in addition to potentially nationalizing [4]the country’s central bank, that land expropriation without compensation should be allowed where it is “necessary and unavoidable,” President Jacob Zuma said.

There was a hard push from supporters of President Jacob Zuma for a decision on the redistribution of land without compensation‚ which would necessitate a change to the constitution. But as the Sunday Times reported [5], according to the ANC’s economic transformation subcommittee head‚ Enoch Godongwana‚ both this proposal and the current system of redistribution with compensation remain on the table for debate by branches. Zuma‚ however‚ hinted in his closing address that there could be legislative changes for expropriation without compensation.

“We agree on the imperative to accelerate land redistribution and land reform. Again we had robust discussions on the modalities to achieve this. We agree that using the fiscus for land redistribution must be accompanied by other measures if we are to achieve the goal at the required pace,” said Zuma in his closing remarks at the six-day conference held in Johannesburg.

“Where it is necessary and unavoidable this might include expropriation without compensation‚” Zuma said.

As discussed several months ago [6], land will be a key issue ahead of a December conference where a successor to Zuma will be chosen. The two current frontrunners are Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, former African Union chair and Zuma’s ex-wife. As a reminder [7], Dlamini-Zuma has made land redistribution from whites to blacks without compensation one of her main policies.

The policy conference – which has been the top news item in South Africa for the past six days – made a dramatic turn-around and ditched the term “white monopoly capital” as being the main hindrance to the rapid socio-economic transformation of the black majority. Most of the delegates appeared to have given President Jacob Zuma and his supporters the thumbs down on this issue. They have recently used the term “white monopoly capital” in what appears to be an attempt to regain lost support among the masses.

White Sheriff’s Deputy Fired After Social Media Post: ‘Nothing Like Almost Shooting Someone’

Another white person has lost a job because of a social media post.

Austen Callus, 23, has been fired from his position as a sheriff’s deputy.

You can read the single sentence that led to his firing. It’s in the photo above.

The question is whether the conclusion that Callus is a threat to society based on a single sentence is a fair conclusion.

I consider his firing to be Orwellian. It’s not reasonable for government bureaucrats to infer that he’s itching to commit murder based on that single sentence.

Sometimes I ask you to convince me that I’m wrong. Not this time. Nothing will change my mind.

If Callus had a history of behavior problems or if he had a history of making threats, it would be a different story.

What happened here, reading between the lines, is that he answered a domestic violence call at a black household and left feeling agitated at almost having to kill a human being. It’s actually a statement that could be interpreted as that of a sensitive man.

I’m pretty sure, reading between the lines again, that blacks pressured the Sheriff to fire him.

The takeaway is again, don’t post under your real identity on social media. Share your thoughts in private only with a close family member.

Big Brother is watching you.


A sheriff’s deputy in Florida has been fired after posting on social media about almost shooting someone, officials said.

Austen Callus, 23, was initially put on administrative leave from the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office after a photo he posted to Snapchat, which included a caption about firing his weapon, made its way back to the department, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said.

“Nothing like almost shooting someone to set your head right lol,” Callus wrote on the picture of himself in a plain blue shirt. “God I gate [sic] people with knives.”

On Sunday, Callus was sent to a “family trouble” incident in Dunedin, where it had been reported that one person was armed with a knife.

But the reports of a knife-wielding person were unfounded and the situation was handled, Gualtieri said. Later that day, Callus reportedly posted the troublesome photo to Snapchat.

News of the photo left fellow social media users outraged and questioning who their local law enforcement had hired.

Continue reading

Trump considering ‘terminating’ Special Counsel Robert Mueller, friend says


Let’s put our heads together and ask what the consequences of terminating Mueller would be.

1. Mueller is a close personal friend of fired FBI Director (leaker) James Comey. With Mueller on the job, it’s impossible to believe that an aggressive investigation into Comey is possible. Comey damn well needs to be investigated, however.

2. Trump will be compared to Nixon. The firestorm of outrage from Democrats and the media will be yuuuuuuuge. Many RINOs will join in–people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham. Firing Mueller would make it even less likely that Trump’s agenda will go forward as his enemies harp on his Nixonian qualities (or whatever drivel they can make up about Trump = Nixon.)

3. An investigation into the Clintons, Obama, Loretta Lynch, and other Obama administration officials would be more likely with Mueller gone. Comey admitted Clinton broke the law, but ended the investigation. Comey admitted that Trump is not under investigation, but continued the investigation in spite of it. Odd. And what about the murder of DNC operative Seth Rich?

4. Mueller has been staffing up with Democrats out to get Trump. It’s clear that he intends his investigation to last for at least four years and probably eight. The leaks of falsehoods that would probably be coming out of Team Mueller in the future can be nipped in the bud.

5. There are smart legal experts who will take the possibility of Mueller’s termination and give us a clearer picture of what it means over the next 24 hours.

Mueller is a Deep State plant whose mission it is to destroy the Trump presidency. He was FBI Director when the 9/11 attacks occurred and he led the FBI to the politically correct conclusions.


WASHINGTON — A friend of the president says Donald Trump is considering “terminating” special counsel Robert Mueller.

Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy tells Judy Woodruff of “PBS NewsHour”: “I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel. I think he’s weighing that option.”

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about Ruddy’s claims.

Under current Justice Department regulations, such a firing would have to be done by Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein, not the president– though those regulations could theoretically be set aside.

Mueller is leading the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and potential ties between Moscow and Trump’s presidential campaign. Sessions has recused himself from the investigation.

In the interest of fairness, I point out that The Conservative Treehouse favored the Mueller appointment.

Newt Gingrich has come out with the opinion that Mueller will not conduct a fair investigation. Read more at Salon.

Muh Discrimination: Weird Hawaiian Faggot Couple Demand You Pay for their Children

Well, this is retarded. Sean Smith and his sodomite “husband” above want insurance companies to pay for their test tube baby expenses.

A sane society would put them in work camps, not be passing special legislation so they don’t have to pay their baby making expenses.

Apparently, Sean’s sperm fertilized an egg in a test tube. Then the fertilized egg was implanted in a woman. Nine months later our two dads have their baby, seen above. But while Sean and “hubby” enjoy life with baby, you get to pay.

Associated Press

HONOLULU (AP) — Sean Smith and his husband paid more than $20,000 for a fertility procedure when they decided to have a child using a surrogate mother. They did not know at the time that if they were a heterosexual couple, they might have saved that money.

Now, Smith and other members of Hawaii’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are lobbying for equal access to the financial help married, heterosexual couples enjoy under state law.

They are pushing legislation that would require insurance companies to cover in vitro fertilization for more couples, including making Hawaii the first state to require the coverage for surrogates, which would help male same-sex couples who must use a surrogate.

“Now that marriage equality is the law of the land and is accepted, now let’s turn to family building, and let’s figure out how we fix all these inequities that exist,” said Barbara Collura, president and CEO of Resolve, a national organization that advocates for access to fertility treatments.

Hawaii is one of eight states that require insurance companies to cover in vitro fertilization, a costly procedure where a doctor retrieves eggs from a woman, combines them with sperm from a man and then implants an embryo into a woman’s uterus.

But Hawaii’s mandate applies only to married heterosexual couples because it covers the medical intervention only if a woman uses sperm from her spouse, leaving the LGBT community and single women behind.

“At the end of the visit, I would be going into the office and pulling out my credit card, and other people are probably just walking out and insurance is picking up the tab,” Smith said. “We had to borrow money, refinance a second mortgage, and I’m sure there are people who don’t even explore the option because the expenses are too great.”

The measure pending in the Hawaii Legislature removes requirements that the egg and sperm come from a married couple and includes surrogates among the people to be covered.

No other state has included surrogates in their laws, Collura said.

“It is definitely groundbreaking,” Collura said. “And it’s an often-overlooked way that people choose to build their family, and it should not be left out. It’s great to see that Hawaii is taking the lead.”

Kaiser Permanente Hawaii opposed the measure, saying the medical provider and insurer does not perform in vitro fertilization with donor eggs or surrogates because of complex legal issues and medical risks. The company asked lawmakers to remove egg donors and surrogates from the bill, saying requiring coverage of additional procedures would raise costs for the company and its customers.

A similar measure in Hawaii failed in previous legislative sessions. But aside from Kaiser, the bill has seen little opposition this year.

A broad coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission and the Democratic Party of Hawaii are working with LGBT groups to push for change. The proposal passed the state Senate and is up for a vote in the House this week.

Maryland had a law that also excluded same-sex couples until about a year ago, when the Legislature changed the provision so it no longer required using a husband’s sperm. That helped lesbian couples, but gay men were still left out because the law didn’t cover surrogates, Collura said.

Most state mandates limit insurance reimbursement to a certain number of in vitro fertilization trials or allow coverage only after years of infertility. Some states also allow religious or small employers to get out of the requirement.

“We need to change these laws,” Collura said. “We need to update them and make them so that they are no longer discriminatory.”

You can look at the picture above and see how unnatural it is. It’s bad enough that society has to pay for AIDs treatments for fags. It’s time to stand up to them and say no.

Texas Judge Wears Pussy Hat in Courtroom

It seems never to occur to anyone, or maybe they’re afraid to say it, that women are not temperamentally fit to be judges. That’s a generalization that would have exceptions of course. But on the whole, women do not make good judges.

Is everyone too afraid to say that? I’m not. From Ruth Bader Ginzberg to Sonia Sotomayor, etc., women judges have no ability to understand the law and render good decisions.

Judge Janine is an exception. I can’t think of another one. Certainly not Judge Judy.

Read more at Twitchy