News

How much do diversity, equity, and inclusion cost? If you’re the University of North Carolina, $17 million.

That’s how much the state’s university system is saving after shutting down huge swathes of DEI offices and positions in every school in the state network. Just take a look below at the table of North Carolina’s public universities, and how much they saved after ditching DEI.

That’s right, readers! The UNC Board of Governors met on September 11 and voted to cut a total of 59 staff positions and to “realign” another 132 job roles (that appears to mean the employees were sent to work in some other, non-DEI office). 

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI, has become a mind-numbingly common phrase. We hear it everywhere, all the time. At work. On the news. From the lips of politicians. Every “respectable” public figure, official, or institution talks about it as if “DEI” were the most obviously natural goal that every human should be concerned with above and beyond anything else (including academic excellence). 

We all know what this is really about: race grifting. DEI is simply a benefits and credentials program for non-white people. It’s anti-white racism that never gets called racism, because Americans have been programmed for so long to believe that the U.S. disenfranchises, impoverishes, or kills black people daily just for the sheer perversity of it. You’d never know in 2024 that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually passed, since black race baiters talk as if anti-black racism is worse today than in the days of lynching and Jim Crow. 

As far as the white portion of the population goes, the Civil Rights Act may as well never have been passed, as it certainly isn’t used to stop discrimination against white people. It’s a  legitimate question whether many Americans actually know that all racism, including the kind against white people, is illegal under the Act. In recent years companies have brazenly advertised jobs for “people of color,” “women,” and “LGBT” as if it were legal to exclude white people, men, or straight people from jobs. It is not legal, but since the law is rarely enforced when the victim is a white person, it has become de facto  legal to favor minorities in job hiring. 

Let’s see what X users had to say about the news. 

This one asks a question. . .

. . . and someone else has an answer. 

This guy said the quiet part out loud–no one wants to really admit that DEI is nothing but a scam to extract money from everyone to give to a special, sacred caste. 

Alex has a point–DEI watchers are well-advised to keep their eye on this to make sure it’s not just a monetary shell game. 

This sounds like the right lateral move for the newly “un-jobbed.”

This story is like that once popular saying, “how it started; how it’s going.”

Ex-CNN Hack Marc Lamont Hill is your typical leftist academic and media commentator. He teaches “urban education” at the City University of New York (CUNY), whatever that means.

Like fellow academic leftists, Hill is very keen for you to know that he is a DOCTOR. Not the kind the stewardess means when she gets on the plane’s intercom to ask for help; we’re talking about the “I have a PhD” kind of doctor. His website displays Dr. Marc Lamont Hill-Journalist/Scholar/Author/Activist. A renaissance man, in other words. 

There is not a Democrat or leftist policy Hill does not like, and there isn’t a right wing or Republican policy position he will endorse. The Democrats should be grateful to have him in their court, as you can’t buy the kind of loyalty Hill gives to Kam Kam Harris’ joyful campaign for president. 

As the Harris campaign tries to sell the country’s least popular vice president in history as the solution to what ails America (even though she’s been in office co-ailing the country with Biden these four years), critics are pointing out her extreme and radical policies. It’s one thing to lean to the left, but we’re talking about something much bigger. 

Take Harris’ position on whether the U.S. government should pay for so-called “gender transition” surgeries for illegal aliens stuck in prison. Yes, you read that right. During his first debate with Harris on ABC on September 10, Donald Trump claimed that’s exactly what Harris wants—to take taxpayer dollars to do Frankenstein sex-swaps on illegal border jumpers who land themselves in prison. (As an aside, it’s astonishing to even contemplate an illegal alien in a U.S. prison since border-jumpers seem to be above the laws governing ordinary mortal Americans who were born here.)

Marc Lamont Hill just cannot believe how crazy—crazy, we tell you!—Donald Trump must be to make such a bizarre claim. 

Mr. Hill, you may want to take your complaint up with Kam Kam, because Trump was telling the truth. Yes, Virginia, Kamala Harris really does want taxpayer money to do sex-changes on Jose from El Salvador. 

Price’s linked to the following article, ironically from CNN (posted below) confirming it. It seems unlikely that the rabidly pro-Democrat network would get this one wrong; it must have pained them to have to admit that Cacklin’ Kamala really is that much of a moonbat. 

CNN’s Erin Burnett was visibly shocked on air to learn that Harris did in fact support this.

“She actually said she supported that?” Burnett asked CNN colleague and the author of the above article Andrew Kaczynski (no relation to the other Kaczynski) when he explained her support for “taxpayer-funded gender care and transition surgeries for detained migrants.” Kaczynski confirmed that this was true – and that she supported it for federal prisoners too.

Never fear, X is here! Social media users were johnny on the spot to help Mr. Hill out. One might even say they were helping him to “educate himself.”

Donald Trump used one of Kamala Harris’ own tricks against her in the first presidential debate between the two.

The debate, which is the only scheduled head-to-head between the two at this moment in time, featured muted microphones to minimize shouting matches throughout the 90-minute affair. Although the television audience could only hear muffled comments when the mics were off, the overlap in words proved distracting for those in the studio.

Many speculated that Harris didn’t want mics to be muted because it would prevent her from making a snarky remark that the liberal media could turn into the “line of the night.” Her “I’m speaking” moment during her 2020 debate with Mike Pence comes to mind. In her only memorable moment from that debate (because she has no real substance), Harris said; “Mr. Vice President, I’m speaking,” when Pence interrupted her.

Instead, mics were muted – and it was Trump to deliver her own line to her.

As Trump discussed Harris’ previous support for defunding the police, the Democrat said “that’s not true” into her muted microphone.

“Wait a minute, I’m talking now if you don’t mind. Please. Does that sound familiar?” Trump replied to a stunned Harris.

Trump’s comments were a reference to the 2020 vice presidential debate between Harris and Mike Pence.

Social media held widespread praise for the former president.

Another commentor was relieved that Harris had been muted.

Vice President Kamala Harris was once recognized by everyone as the most liberal Senator of all. The liberal site Govtrack itself recognized this, until it changed its ranking system, likely to remove the “stigma” from Harris. The site has a snotty aside about how dumb “right wing media” are trying to make their action look nefarious. 

Psst: Govtrack—we don’t believe you. It’s you who make yourselves look nefarious. 

Now in 2024, Kam-Kam has been elevated to the status of secular Democratic saint, even though she was plopped in as the Democrats’ nominee when senile Joe Biden decided to drop out of the race. She came in dead last in the 2019 Democratic primaries causing her to drop out of the 2020 race, and she has managed to become the Dems’ nominee without having to face a single challenger in a primary or earn even one Democrat vote. 

It is no surprise, then, that Kamala Harris feels bold and confident about her socialist, anti-freedom agenda. She’s like a clone of Biden, but even more radical. It was Biden’s Centers for Disease Control that took the unprecedented and highly unconstitutional step of effectively nationalizing the private landlord-tenant rental market during the pandemic. Remember when the CDC decided that it had the right to force landlords to continue housing tenants no matter what, even if they didn’t pay the rent, because evicting them would create a “public health” problem?

It was a move few of us ever thought could happen in America, but it did, and a cultural and legal precedent was set that we are going to continue to pay for. 

Now, Harris is telling the world exactly what she’s going to do to put the screws to landlords and the entire housing market:

That’s right. Kamala believes she has the right to set prices on rents, and that she gets to decide what an “unfair” rent raise might be. As long as you frame it as Bad Corporations against Good Working Families, disastrous rent control policies that always kill the housing market will suddenly become good things, right? 

Opposition to rent control is practically universal among economists. When the University of Chicago polled the nation’s top economists on their opinions of it, only a whopping 1% of economists favored rent control once answers were weighted for confidence.

Or as even the liberal Washington Post puts it in a headline; “The one issue every economist can agree is bad: Rent control.”

Let’s see what the internet has to say, and why not start at the top? 

Uh-oh! Literal-minded liberals are having big trouble with understanding memes and humor again. 

Ah, Kamrade Harris is looking revolutionary today!

Yes, they are, Chuck. 

The town of Springfield, Illinois, has been inundated with so many “immigrants” from Haiti in recent years the population has swelled by one third. Haiti is, of course, a third-world country and a failed state. Successive corrupt governments and lack of infrastructure and education mean that Haitians live a hardscrabble life, and the kinds of values one develops living hand to mouth don’t fit in well with those you find in ordinary American midwestern towns. 

The U.S. has granted Haitians a special protected status that lets them stay in the U.S. because conditions in their country are so poor. But there is no such special protected status for American citizens who say their communities simply cannot absorb (in this case, 20,000 Haitians poured into Springfield, a town of 60,000) that many foreigners without life breaking down. 

Now, the fight is on between people in Springfield and the Democrats and the media. Some in Springfield are claiming that some of the Haitians are killing and eating house cats as well as decapitating ducks at city parks to take home and eat. There’s a video circulating that purports to show a Haitian woman being arrested after killing and eating a cat. There’s another video of a local man complaining to city government that the Haitians are going down to parks and killing ducks for food. 

So, we have actual residents on camera telling public officials this is going on, but media from the New York Times on down to the local level is all pretending that it’s not real. They’re coming right out and saying it, calling these claims “racist,” or suggesting that it’s just something cooked up by right wingers and capitalized on by Donald Trump. 

But regardless of whether the claims about cats and ducks are true, Springfield really has been overrun by third-world refugees. Why? Author John LeFevre discussed this on Twitter/X:

Figures, doesn’t it? I’m sure we’ll be told soon by some Paper of Record that these 320,000 people don’t actually exist, and if they do, anyway, it’s a good thing. 

Here’s what Twitter/X users had to say in response:

This one has a good point:

This is what burns so many people up; their own government paid for by local tax dollars is on the side of foreigners, and makes sure to do PR for them by calling them “legal.”

Yep, it looks this way:

You’re going to have a hard time believing this, but woke Democrat governor of California, Gavin Newsom, actually said no to a bill that would have given illegal aliens free down-payment money to buy a home in the U.S. 

The bill, AB 1840, was called the “California Dream For All” bill. It would have given taxpayer money to illegal aliens to use for a downpayment on a house. You read that right. A bill to give away your money as an American citizen to illegal border jumpers worked its way through both chambers of the California legislature and made it all the way to the governor’s desk. We are living in an era where politicians can publicly advocate stealing money from U.S. citizens to give to criminals who waltz into our country illegally. 

This should be no surprise, really, as it’s become clear that the Democrats hate American citizens and believe we are cash cows for third-world vagrants. Especially the “unhoused.” 

AB 1840 was generous, too, promising the aliens 20 percent of their dream home’s value up to $150,000. And if you live in California, you would be buying their home for them. Aren’t you nice? 

We’re scratching our heads over why Gavin Newsom, who has been likened to the psychopathic character Patrick Bateman from the movie American Psycho, would suddenly have felt a fiduciary duty to his own citizens above the desires of illegal foreigners. After all, Newsom signed a bill recently to give Medicaid (again, you pay for this with your tax dollars) to all illegal immigrants in the Golden State. 

But on AB 1840, he is signing a different tune. While he certainly did not come out and admit that it’s gallingly unfair to take tax dollars from U.S. citizens to give houses to criminal illegals, he did say he could not sign the bill because of the “finite funding” for housing in California. 

Users on X (Twitter) had their own theories about Newsom’s motivation. 

We suspect Jewels here is right; Newsom is likely positioning himself for a future presidential run. 

What do you think explains Governor Goodhair’s change of heart? 

The Biden administration is pathologically incapable of telling the truth about the “migrant” crisis at the U.S. border. They seem to pick responses at random, including:

• There is no migrant crisis
• Well maybe there is but it’s Trump’s fault
• Yeah there are lots of migrants but it’s actually a good thing

They can’t even accept the reality of the job they gave to Vice President Kamala Harris, who Joe Biden put in charge of figuring out the “root problem” propelling so many foreign nationals to jump over the very lightly guarded U.S.-Mexico border. The Democrats and the mainstream media (to be redundant) dedicated almost a week of the news cycle to shrieking about how “border czar” was not Harris’ official job title, as if that mattered. (Watch below for just a few examples)

Even the words the administration uses—sadly, conservatives have adopted this language, too—is dishonest. Have you noticed that over the past year, the terms “illegal alien,” and “undocumented immigrant” have disappeared? We’re now all supposed to call them all “migrants,” as if the millions of aggressive military-aged young men pouring into America (breaking the law) were simply jolly travelers with a knapsack on a stick coming to the Hard Rock Candy Mountain. 

Never mind the 4,000 Venezuelan “migrants” who trashed a Target parking lot in Colorado last week and fired guns into the air in what the Aurora police tepidly called a “gathering.”

The Wall Street Journal has put together a chart using data from the Congressional Budget Office showing that more than 70 percent of the “migrants” who entered the country under Joe Biden did so illegally. 

Unsurprisingly, X/Twitter users on that thread were not happy with the situation. 

“Bourbon Moon” asks a question we’d like to know the answer to; Democrats seem to have a death wish. 

Tamas asks another, and we suspect we’re never going to be told the truth about this. 

Well, yes. 

Readers, what do you think the total number of illegals is under Biden? And do you think we’ll ever be able to trust the numbers from any government? 

With Labor Day in the rear-view mirror, the 2024 election cycle is sure to heat up, and campaign-related announcements are sure to be a frequent occurrence. Some will be meaningful. Others will have zero value.

Clearly falling into the latter was former Congresswoman Liz Cheney’s endorsement of the Democratic Party’s installed designee, Vice President Kamala Harris. Cheney did not join Harris or her team on a stage or take in the adulation of a raucous crowd living on joy and vibes at a campaign rally. Instead, Cheney’s endorsement came at a very low-key event hosted by Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy.

Cheney’s endorsement comes as no surprise to political observers, given her stewardship of the January 6^th Select Committee and her outspoken animus towards her own party’s duly elected nominee, former President Donald Trump:

 “As a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris,” Cheney said. 

The endorsement represents a complete 180-degree turnaround for Cheney,  who is on record in tweets calling Harris a “radical liberal” whose positions are to the left of the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who would “recreate America in the image of what’s happening on the streets of Portland & Seattle” during the so-called “Summer of Love” from 2020. Cheney repeats those sentiments in a Fox News that has recently re-surfaced since Cheney’s endorsement:

Liz Cheney says Kamala Harris is a “radical liberal.”@Liz_Cheney has such TDS that she’s now pledged to vote for someone who goes against everything she once said she stood for.

Cheney is just an awful person. But you already know that.

🎥 @TrumpWarRoom https://t.co/VrnUWM9uSj pic.twitter.com/I5dR2mGmog

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) September 4, 2024

Notice how Cheney framed her endorsement. She did not laud Harris’s abilities to govern. She did not endorse Harris’s policy positions or plans (probably because the Harris campaign has largely communicated in platitudes.) She certainly did not endorse Harris’s values, which she claimed in a CNN interview with Dana Bash have not changed, despite her shifting her positions based upon the political winds of the say. The political hypocrisy is palpable.

 Cheney’s endorsement is mere the furtherance of her vendetta against Trump.  A vendetta which started from opportunism after January 6, 2021. A vendetta which grew after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handpicked Cheney to serve on that kangaroo court that was the January 6^th Select Committee. And a vendetta that rendered Cheney a political afterthought when she was soundly defeated in the 2022 Republic primary by her successor Harriet Hageman.

Cheney’s endorsement mirrors much of the 2020 strategy which resulted in President Joe Biden’s election: don’t vote for Harris, vote against Trump. It’s Cheney’s wishy-washy way of feigning her conservative bona fides while jumping ship from a Republican party that has cast her aside in favor of more credible, good-faith conservatives like Hageman.

One would be hard pressed to find a better example of a politician being a “Republican in Name Only,” a term reserves for the old guard of the Republican Party whose moment passed the moment Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016.

Apparently, Cheney seems to believe that her endorsement, such that it is in her diminished capacity within her own party, holds value for the Harris team in bringing in cross-over votes. But the political reality of her situation would tend to indicate this to be nothing more than vanity. In August of 2022, polling found that 2 out of every 3 Republicans held a negative view of Cheney. Other polling from around the same time found that 3 in 5 Democrats favorably viewed Cheney.

That translates into very little needle movement in favor of Harris. Essentially, Cheney’s endorsement is merely preaching to the choir.

Chalk up Cheney’s endorsement to the political equivalent of the shocking news that water is wet, and that the sky is blue. It’s political narcissism; an attempt at relevancy in a news cycle dominated by the election. If Cheney’s opinion had value, the Harris campaign would have Liz Cheney thrust into the national spotlight. Instead, Cheney is relegated to a policy forum, earning coverage from confirmation biased media making more of her statement than its actual weight.

***

Gene Berardelli is a street-smart New York-based trial attorney with a successful track record representing conservative candidates and a solid reputation as an award-winning podcaster and as the award-winning author of the Amazon bestseller Schnooks, Crooks, Liars & Scoundrels: A Field Guide to Identifying Political Buffoons. He currently hosts Buffoon of the Week! on YouTube and Rumble, featuring daily original content which seek to find the dumbest political newsmakers each week.