Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • Great America • Identity Politics • Post

Don’t Kill Whitey

In the cult classic “Black Sheep,” the lead character, played by the late Chris Farley, takes the stage before a raucous audience at a Rock the Vote event in support of his big brother, played by Tim Matheson, who is running for governor of Washington.

After winning over the crowd with a robust routine of slapstick demagoguery (“You gotta fight for your right to vote!” “I have a dream!” “Power to the people!”), Farley’s character beams giddily over at his newfound Rastafarian friends offstage, before turning back to the audience to shout: “Kill Whitey!

The crowd instantly falls silent, their raised fists wilt away stunned, while Matheson’s character sits agape and mortified. Even the Rastafarians frantically wave their hands and shake their dreadlocked heads shouting, “No! No!”

It is telling that in our current political hour the top comment for this clip on YouTube reads: “‘Kill Whitey’ huh? I didn’t know this was the Democrat National Convention.” Funny as that is, it wouldn’t be the whole truth. Republicans are often just as eager as Democrats to virtue signal their disgust with “whitey.”

President Trump’s fusillades aimed at Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Al Sharpton, have been met with return fire from Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Mr. President, your reprehensible comments are like water off a duck’s back when it comes to this community. It just washes off of us,” said Steele, at a press conference in Baltimore with Sharpton.

If only everyday Baltimoreans could deflect bullets as ducks deflect raindrops or hack politicos do criticism.

“Baltimore homicides exceeded 300 each year from 2015 through 2018,” reports Awr Hawkings, citing figures compiled by USA Today and the Baltimore Sun, “and 2019 is on track to cross the 300 threshold for the fifth year in a row.”

Testifying to the brutality of the predators who stalk this concrete jungle, the Baltimore Police Department’s annual homicide analysis show that more than half of 309 homicide victims in 2018 were shot in the head. “The large majority of killings,” writes Jessica Anderson in the Sun, “271, or 88 percent—were from gunfire. And of those, 199 victims were shot multiple times.”

Alas, Charm City has lost its charm.

But facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things, and so the politico-media complex has rejoined in one voice that any criticism of “diverse” politicians or activists is implicitly racist. Reuters informs us that Trump is “again stoking racial divisions” for stating what is obvious to those with ears to hear, eyes to see, and noses to smell, simply because the blame falls on the shoulders of sable race hustlers.

Nevertheless, Trump persists, untroubled by criticism and taking aim at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for the sordid state of San Francisco. But the most interesting thing to tumble out from the fracas so far has gone largely unnoticed.

Sharpton, said Trump, “Hates Whites.”

With two words the president shoved rightward the window through which mainstream political discussion filters in, shining a light the anti-white animus that stains our culture and politics.

It is no secret that white Americans have become the punching bag of our politics. According to former Texas Rep. Robert Francis O’Rourke, if America is great—though surely it “was never that great,” as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has said—it became so only on the “backs of blacks.”

Just about every presidential hopeful among Democrats supports reparations to one degree or another. Democrats high and low agree that America can only be redeemed of the sin of slavery if whites acquiesce in submission; and if they refuse, said whites reveal themselves as the vile racists that they are.

“Wolves in sheep’s clothing,” is how former congressional candidate Saira Rao describes white people, and she cautions minorities against befriending whites, for they are always “penetrating your inner circle and soul, only to betray.”

Sally Boynton Brown, executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, agrees. She believes that “training” to teach people “how to shut their mouths if they are white” is imperative, and has made it her “job” to “shut other white people down when they want to interrupt”; that is, when they want to have a voice about the way that they will be governed.

White people must “shut their mouths” when it is announced that America “is not going to be the country of white people,” as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has said.

White people must “shut their mouths” when the “face of the future” is declared “brown skin and brown eyes,” as Nancy Pelosi has said.

White people must “shut their mouths” when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) insists “ethnicity and racism” alone drive Trump’s policies and, by extension, his supporters’  enthusiasm for them.

Trump’s shots at Cummings and Sharpton, then, were not errant rhetorical missiles, but the latest round of calculated fire against the Democratic Party’s anti-white platform. The polls, for what they are worth, show that Trump has found the mark.

Earlier this month, after the president took to Twitter to tell the “squad” to “go back” to countries they or their forebears came from, if they hate America and its historic demographic so much, his approval ratings actually remained stable and in some cases improved.

Reuters/Ipsos public opinion polling showed a 5 percent approval increase among Republicans, while polling from USA Today/Ipsos reported that 57 percent of Republicans approved of Trump’s tweets directed at the “squad.”

Though the pollsters say over and over that “most Americans” disagree with Trump’s message, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist polling conducted nationally and immediately after the “go back” salvo among registered voters showed a new job approval high of 44 percent.

It appears that sticking up for America and calling out ingratitude is a winning strategy.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Black Lives Matter • Democrats • Great America • Identity Politics • Post • The Left

Who’s Using Baltimore?

The truth behind President Trump’s recent tweets about Baltimore became crystal clear the moment Al Sharpton got involved and the media echoed “racism.” It’s all just another race-hustling con game from the masters of exploiting fake grievances.

When the president riffed on Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and his failure to help his constituents in West Baltimore—home to some of the most blighted ghettos in America—every liberal journalist in the country jumped to see who could be the first among those outraged by Donald Trump’s supposed “racism.”

The winner, undoubtedly, was CNN’s Victor Blackwell—who went full “Oscar clip” and pathetically choked back tears while describing the tweets on national television.

It’s Sharpton’s shameless participation, however, that really pulls the curtain down on the whole farce. As the president aptly pointed out Monday morning, Sharpton basically pioneered this race-hustle game. Reflecting on his 25 years of knowing Sharpton, President Trump warned that “Al is a con man, a troublemaker, always looking for a score.”

Sharpton has made a career out of promoting hoax hate crimes—most notably the unbelievably harmful lie about New York police officers raping black teenager Tawana Brawley. Sharpton also incited poor black New Yorkers to attack Jews in “Hymietown,” and regularly supports fake accusations of racism  against the heads of companies and politicians until they pay up—the “shakedown,” as they call it in New York.

Nothing has changed. That’s exactly what Sharpton is doing now. The only difference is that, with President Trump in the White House, every liberal journalist wants in on the action.

None of the people slamming the President are actually looking for “justice” or are genuinely concerned about racism. They’re just looking to score political points.

The media didn’t bat an eye when Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) described parts of Baltimore by saying, “You would think that you were in a Third World country.” They didn’t care when Baltimore’s own disgraced Democrat mayor, Catherine Pugh, complained about the same infestation of rats and dead animals that the President mentioned in his tweet.

“Oh, my God, you can smell the dead animals,” Pugh said during an unguarded walk through part of Cummings’s district last year. “What the hell? We should just take all this [expletive] down.”

Nor did they call out President Barack Obama when he, in a much more formal setting than a silly Twitter battle, used the phrase, “crime-infested,” to describe Democrat-controlled cities such as Baltimore. Now that President Trump has used it, however, that phrase has the entire left-wing media up in arms, absurdly accusing the President of equating black people to an “infestation.”

The difference isn’t the language. It’s that, just like Sharpton, the Democrats know their marks for a shakedown—or at least they think they do.

If the people attacking the president were really concerned about the residents of Baltimore’s blighted neighborhoods, they’d be addressing the concerns those residents raised in the very videos Donald Trump tweeted out. They’d be outraged that the Democratic Party has been taking Baltimore’s votes for granted while consistently failing to improve conditions in that city. They’d be looking for solutions to literal rat infestations.

They would not, however, keep using the same tactics that led to Baltimore’s latest, horrific murder wave—a crime spree that started exactly the moment Black Lives Matter used Sharpton’s signature shakedown tactics to accuse the city’s police of racism after a drug dealer died in police custody.

Luckily, President Trump is wise to this game. He was a prominent businessman in New York City throughout Al Sharpton’s heyday. He knows this race-hustling game, and he knows that it never pays to back down to a notorious con man.

Photo Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • Greatness Agenda • Identity Politics • Post • The Left

Donald Trump at the Overton Window

I shall leave it to the theologians to decide whether it is providential or merely coincidental that it was this very week in 1729, on Tuesday in fact, that the city of Baltimore was founded. I think we can say that, for the genus rattus, the city has been providential, at least since 1967. That was the year Thomas D’Alesandro III—the brother of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (and son of Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., a former mayor of Baltimore)—began the city’s 50-plus years of uninterrupted Democratic Party rule. (If you except the younger Mr. D’Alesandro’s immediate predecessor, you can push the run of Democratic mayors of Baltimore all the way back to 1947.)

Things have been good for the rats in Baltimore. For homo sapiens sapiens? Not so good. Drugs. Violence. Poverty. Squalor. “The Wire” was more documentary than fiction.

But rats have, as the book of Genesis recommended, been fruitful. Also, they have multiplied. Quoth Catherine Pugh, mayor of Baltimore until just a couple of months ago, when she stepped down because of charges of corruption, rats were so plentiful in Baltimore that “you could smell them.”

But that was in September of last year, before Donald Trump turned his gimlet eye on Baltimore, a city that has suffered not only from more than half a century of local Democratic control but also from nearly 25 years of representation by Elijah Cummings, a race-hustling confidence man right out of central casting.

Over the weekend, the president opened up on “King Elijah” in a series of tweets. “Baltimore, under the leadership of Elijah Cummings,” he wrote in one, “has the worst Crime Statistics in the Nation. 25 years of all talk, no action! So tired of listening to the same old Bull . . . Next, Reverend Al will show up to complain & protest. Nothing will get done for the people in need. Sad.”

The president continued: “Baltimore’s numbers are the worst in the United States on Crime and the Economy. Billions of dollars have been pumped in over the years, but to no avail. The money was stolen or wasted. Ask Elijah Cummings where it went. He should investigate himself with his Oversight Committee!”

In short, Baltimore was “a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

It was one thing when Christine Pugh dilated on the rodent theme in 2018.

It is quite another when Donald Trump does it in 2019.

The cries of “racism” came fast and furious against the president, from, among many others, the Rev. Al Sharpton. (I always love writing “the Rev. Al Sharpton”: the incongruity is positively giggle-making.)

That did not faze the president, who promptly repeated and broadened his attack. “There is nothing racist in stating plainly what most people already know,” he wrote, “that Elijah Cummings has done a terrible job for the people of his district, and of Baltimore itself. Dems always play the race card when they are unable to win with facts. Shame!” And then there was this on Sharpton: “I have known Al for 25 years. Went to fights with him & Don King, always got along well. He ‘loved Trump!’ He would ask me for favors often. Al is a con man, a troublemaker, always looking for a score. Just doing his thing. Must have intimidated Comcast/NBC. Hates Whites & Cops!”

Politico, along with the rest of the virtue-signaling, chest-less media, sobbed in impotent disbelief. “President Donald Trump on Monday opened new fronts in the bitter tirade he launched over the weekend against Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings and the city of Baltimore, lobbing insults at civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.”

You know that the president’s observation was impermissible because Politico called it “bitter,” which ever since Obama’s “bitter clingers” remark has been code for “right-wing redneck.” But the best thing about Politico’s little melodrama was its description of Sharpton as a “civil rights leader.”

What Al Sharpton really is, as the president noted, is a “con man,” a race-hustling mountebank. Thomas Sowell was less polite but more accurate when he said that Sharpton headed “a trail of slime going back more than a quarter of a century, during which he has whipped up mobs and fomented race hatred from the days of the Tawana Brawley ‘rape’ hoax of 1987 to the Duke ‘rape’ hoax of 2006 and the Ferguson riots of 2014.”

Exactly so.

I suspect that those who see an element of calculation in the president’s tweets about Baltimore, Cummings, and Sharpton are correct. As Monica Showalter noted at The American Thinker, the president has just dramatized a real problem and made the Democrats, and their enablers in the media, defend the indefensible, just as he did with his comments a couple of weeks ago about the racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American tetrarchy of “the squad.” President Trump, Showalter noted, is “now forcing Democrats to own the urban shambles and filth that characterize one-party blue-city rule, putting all Democrats on their backfoot. That’s what’s behind his surprise Twitter assault that began with Rep. Elijah Cummings and his rat-infested Baltimore district, which pretty much came out of the blue.”

I think that’s probably correct. But there are a few larger issues at play in this episode.

One was articulated several decades ago by the philosopher Sidney Hook, who, writing about the danger of spurious charges of “racism” and kindred epithets, noted

as morally offensive as is the expression of racism wherever it is found, a false charge of racism is equally offensive, perhaps even more so, because the consequences of a false charge of racism enable an authentic racist to conceal his racism by exploiting the loose way the term is used to cover up his actions. The same is true of a false charge of sexism or anti-Semitism. This is the lesson we should all have learned from the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Because of his false and irresponsible charges of communism against liberals, socialists, and others among his critics, many communists and agents of communist influence sought to pass themselves off as Jeffersonian democrats or merely idealistic reformers. They would all complain they were victims of red-baiting to prevent criticism and exposure. [Emphasis added.]

You see the dynamic Hook outlined at work everywhere today, not least in the ridiculous charges that Donald Trump is racist because he attacks people who do bad things who also happen to be black.

Their color has nothing to do with his criticisms. Trump attacks “the squad” not because they are female or “people of color,” but because the are anti-American fanatics. He attacks Elijah Cummings not because he is black but because he is a corrupt pol who has done ill by his district. He attacks Sharpton not because he is black but because he is a race-baiting con-man.

Donald Trump is an equal opportunity scourge. He doesn’t care if you are black or white, male or female, if you behave badly and violate the public trust, he will call you out, baldly. And note this above all: If you attack him, he will attack you back. As Brit Hume pointed out recently, “People discerning a racist motive for Trump’s attack on Elijah Cummings are missing a key point: Trump attacks those who criticize him and his administration, black or white.” Hume follows up with an amusing and color-coordinated list of people Trump has put in their place (Bernie Sanders: crazy, Elizabeth Warren: total fraud, Justin Amash: loser, Joe Biden: low IQ, Harry Reid: insane, etc., etc.).

Beyond the elements of political calculation and polemical style, however, Donald Trump’s recent tweet fests suggest that he may be on the threshold of shifting the Overton Window on race.

Named for the policy analyst Joseph Overton, the famous fenestration describes the range of ideas and rhetoric that are acceptable in public discourse, from the unthinkable and radical at one end to popular ideas and settled policy at the other.

Public discourse in America has long been held hostage to a species of racist moral blackmail that has made it almost impossible to tell the truth about many central social realities. Trump opened the window on that paralyzing darkness when he dared to violate the taboo against criticizing failure when it happened to be presided over by blacks. But to do so is not racist. In fact, it is anti-racist, because it dares to hold everyone, blacks as well as whites, to the same standard.

The ethic of one-sided discriminatory intimidation has been the Democrats’ meal ticket from Jim Crow through the comically misnamed “Great Society” right down to our current crop of race hustlers like Elijah Cummings, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, not to mention the hundreds of academics who have based their entire careers on race, not scholarship.

Trump was elected partly because he was “politically incorrect”: he dared to bring the engine of common sense to bear against the malodorous carapace of left-wing ideology.

The president has a long way to go. But he has been the first chief executive in a very long time to have the rough courage to challenge the entrenched, sclerotic establishment that promulgates an agenda of dependency in order to protect its power and perquisites, surrounding the whole with the sleepless sentinels of politically correct interdiction.

It is a rotten, and a deeply un-American, spirit that has risen up among us. Donald Trump will not vanquish it single-handedly. But simply by tearing the scab off this festering infection, revealing it to all in its hideous profusion, he has earned the gratitude of everyone who values liberty and the boundless opportunities of what we used to be able to call, without embarrassment, the American way.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Rob Carr/Getty Images

Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

How to Tell If a Trump Supporter Is Racist

Every non-liberal leftist—that is, nearly every Democrat running for president, New York Times and Washington Post columnist, CNN and MSNBC host, and your left-wing brother-in-law—labels every Trump supporter and, of course, President Donald Trump, a “racist.”

And they don’t stop there. Leftists don’t only label the half of the country that supports the president “racist,” they label all whites and America itself “racist.” If your son or daughter attends or recently attended an American university, it is close to certain he or she was repeatedly told that America and all whites are racist. According to the Left, whites are divided between those who admit they are racist and those who don’t admit it.

Every conservative and many liberals know this is a big lie. The great question is: Do leftists believe it? It is impossible to know. But this we do know: If you repeat something often enough, and if your Weltanschauung (worldview) and that which gives your life meaning are dependent upon believing something, you will eventually believe it.

So here is a way to show it is a lie.

Ask any white conservative, including one who supports Trump, the following three questions:

1) Do you have more in common with, and are you personally more comfortable in the company of, a white leftist or a black conservative?

2) Would you rather have nine white leftists or nine black conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court?

3) Would you rather your child marry a black Christian conservative or a white non-Christian liberal?

A white racist would prefer the whites in each case.

I have asked these questions of thousands of Trump supporters at lectures and on my radio show. Not once has a white Trump-supporting conservative said he or she would be more comfortable in the presence of a white leftist than a black conservative or would prefer an all-white liberal Supreme Court to an all-black conservative Supreme Court. Not once has a white Christian conservative said he or she would prefer their child marry a white non-Christian liberal to a black Christian conservative.

If you’re an honest leftist, this should present a powerful challenge to your belief that all white conservatives are racist.

But it won’t. Leftists have too much at stake to confront the truth about conservatives. Everything the left has ever believed has depended upon lying about opponents. From the day Stalin labeled Trotsky—who served as the head of the Red Army and who, along with Lenin, founded the Bolshevik Party—a “fascist,” leftists have lied about their opponents.

Some liberals lie and some conservatives lie, but the truth is both a liberal and conservative value. It has never been a left-wing value. Any leftist who would commit himself to the truth would cease being a leftist. He would either become an anti-left liberal or an anti-left conservative.

“America is racist.” “Whites are racist.” “Trump supporters are racist.” These are all big lies.

So, then, given how important it is to leftists to maintain the lie of conservative racism—along with xenophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and Islamophobia—how would they rebut conservatives’ answers to these questions?

Presumably, they would argue that every conservative who responds to these questions as I described is lying.

But these questions are important—no matter how much leftists ignore or dismiss them—because they perform an important service for conservatives.

I know this from Jewish history. There was so much Jew-hatred in the medieval Christian world that Jews sometimes wondered if there was any truth to the attacks on them. When a whole society denigrates a group, members of the denigrated group start wondering whether any of the attacks on them have any truth. But when the charge of blood libel—that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to bake matzos for Passover—arose, it liberated Jews from taking any of the anti-Semites’ attacks seriously. Every Jew knew the blood libel was a lie—Jews never consumed animal blood, let alone human blood.

Every conservative knows his responses to these three questions are heartfelt and true, so these questions can help conservatives come to see the Left’s charge of conservative racism as medieval Jews came to see the anti-Semites’ blood libel charge: as a lie.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Photo credit: Jay Shaw Baker/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Left

A Visit to Trigger Town

The Drudge Report on Thursday featured an arresting headline: “D.C. Tourist Savagely Beaten, Stomped, Spit on by Gang of Youths.” Who could resist clicking on that?

The link went a Gateway Pundit story, which supplies the additional information that the attack took place outside the Washington Hilton Hotel, where President Ronald Reagan and three others were wounded by John Hinckley Jr. in 1981. (The immediate aftermath of that shooting is pictured above; the scene of this month’s mayhem is a few steps to the right.)

The same place where Reagan was shot. Now, there’s a news hook for you. Not that people wouldn’t normally care about tourists getting beaten up at a swank hotel in the nation’s capital, but to capture the public’s attention amid the sea of routine mayhem elsewhere in the District, you need an angle. What better one than this? “Ah, for the dear, dead days of the 1980s, when all you had to worry about was being shot by some lovelorn loser who hoped his derring-do would impress a Hollywood actress. And that’s only if you are president.”

Actually, people had a lot more than that to worry about in 1981. The crime wave that erupted 15 years before was in full flood, and it would not crest for another 10 years. When things were at their worst, almost as many murder victims were piling up in Washington D.C., per capita per year, as Londoners died under the Nazi Blitz and “Vengeance” rockets during World War II (about 75 per 100,000 inhabitants annually, from 1990 to 1995 versus about 80 per 100,000 annually, from 1940 to 1945).

America has quieted down a great deal since then, so much so that a lot of people nowadays act as if crime is no longer a pressing problem for us.

That may be true for some, but not for all. Crime is real, crime is here, and far too many Americans have no way of putting it out of their lives. Without quoting John Donne, let me say that it’s those people we should be thinking about. Even if you’ve never been beaten, stomped, and spat upon, and never expect to be, you need to understand that unprevented and unpunished crime is poisonous for our country.

The Hilton attack happened about 1 a.m. on July 14, 11 days before it was featured on Gateway Pundit and linked to on Drudge. It would never have made the national news at all, had police not released security camera video of the attack in hope of getting a tip from the public as to the identity of the perpetrators.

Uh-oh. Video. That’s a problem, because now everyone can see what the headline writer meant by “gang of youths.” Sure enough, the youths were black, their victim, white.

The Gateway Pundit story quickly garnered more than 5,000 comments. Trigger Warning! Anyone who ventures into the comment section of a story like this will find himself awash in triggering verbiage. He’ll be in the Grand Central Station of Trigger Town.

Gateway Pundit has a reasonable set of guidelines for comments. Profanity, racial slurs, and threats of violence are not OK with them. But in this case, it seems the moderators just threw up their hands and cried, “What’s the use?”

Threats of violence? Many of the commenters lamented that the victim was unarmed and therefore unable to plug the first of his attackers and scatter the rest. Much lip-smacking accompanied discussions of what would happen if the mob tried it in Georgia, Indiana, Texas, Arizona or some other jurisdiction where (unlike in D.C.) “concealed carry” or “constitutional carry” is the law.

Regarding the question of what should be done with the perps in this case, raw blood lust was often on display. Many wanted vengeance not just on the culprits themselves but on the communities that produced them. Suggestions went so far as to include genocide by germ warfare. There was much wistful sighing about how grand it would be if black Americans would all simply disappear.

Vituperative disputes arose among the commenters about what or who was ultimately responsible for the crime. Candidates for blame included the liberal culture, the Baby Boomers, the Boomers’ elderly Pied Pipers (Timothy Leary, Alfred Kinsey, Allen Ginsberg, Dr. Spock, et al.), abortion on demand, violent rap music, irresponsible absentee fathers, the welfare state, the sidelining of Christian faith, and much more.

Race hustlers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson came in for criticism, naturally. Barack Obama, Lyndon Johnson, and Democrats generally were slammed, too, but Republicans from Lincoln to Trump drew some knocks as well. Not to mention Adam and Eve for eating the apple. And don’t forget Satan cast down from heaven.

Swear words were usually disguised by deliberate misspelling, as was the N-word; both were often deployed in tandem. Racial insults frequently took creative forms, such as: “Good ole DC, District of the Congo,” “If Obama had a son, he’d look like these creeps,” and so forth.

One such insult was seconded by this mock retort: “Racist! Wait but it’s true. I’m so confused.”

The more printable descriptions of the attackers included “black thugs,” “animals,” “bestial devils,” “a pack,” “hyenas,” “hood ratz,” “cockroaches,” “human filth,” “like a disease,” “just like dogs,” “worthless, useless burden on society.”

Much sarcasm was expended on the use of “youths” as a euphemism for all that.

I scanned only about a fifth of these comments, but I can’t go on. You get the idea. Even if I could reach the end of them, this is only one of dozens (hundreds?) of similar Internet news stories that each carry similar comment threads.

The angry, race-focused remarks recounted here may reflect racism, but it’s not the conceited, head-in-the-clouds racism indulged in by self-congratulatory eugenicists and “master race” theorists of decades and even centuries ago. Alexander Hamilton had those people’s number when he wrote this in The Federalist  No. 11:

The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. . . . Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation.

As the Proverb says, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” “Master race” racism died in the rubble of Berlin. Only pathetic shreds of it remain today, resembling nothing so much as the Japanese holdouts who kept emerging from the jungle in the decades after their Emperor surrendered.

Most of the Gateway Pundit comments are not as malignant as that. They’re even understandable, if people would take the trouble, or develop the self-awareness, to understand them. But in the dispute about ultimate culprits, I come down on the side of culture as the cause of the Hilton attack, if only because culture is much easier to change than skin color.

People generally will rise, or sink, to the level that’s expected of them. The problem is that liberalism has expected way too little of blacks, for way too long.

Midge Decter, wife of neoconservative author Norman Podhoretz, wrote all about it in Commentary magazine after a NYC blackout in 1977 sparked a citywide orgy of looting and arson—this in contrast to the neighborly, cooperative spirit with which New Yorkers had met an even more widespread blackout 12 years earlier. Decter’s bottom line:

Young blacks are getting the message from the liberal culture, more subtly but just as surely as from any old-time Southern sheriff, that they are, inherently and by virtue of their race, inferior. There are virtually no crimes they can commit that someone with great influence does not rush in to excuse on the grounds that we had no right to expect anything else. . . . The message they are given, in short, is that they are not fully enough human to be held morally responsible for their own behavior. They are children, as the Southerners used to say, or ironically, they are, in the terminology the New York Times editorialist so much objected to but so inevitably himself implied, “animals.” This is the message that has for some time now, at least since the late ’60s, been consistently transmitted by the “best” people, and certainly widely received by their intended interlocutors. It is, to be blunt about it, the message of liberal racism.

That calamitous New York blackout riot ran from the night of July 13 through the 14th and, in some places, into the following day. This was exactly 42 years before the Hilton attack. Has anything changed since then?

Decter concluded her reproof of the liberal culture that led to the looting by paying tribute to those among its “intended interlocutors” who resisted it:

In the course of the radio coverage of July 14, two little black boys, sounding about twelve years old, were interviewed and announced that they had taken no part in the looting going on all around them. They seemed a bit sheepish. When asked by the interviewer, “Why not?” one of them said, “I was scared of the cops,” and the other one said, “Because my mama would have killed me.” A brave and lucky woman, that mama—no thanks to the culture intent on whispering sweet nada into her little boy’s ear.

Such bravery is what we need now. We need people brave enough to confront the mob—not just the mob on the street, but the mob of social justice warriors who stand ready to condemn any American who battles thug culture as a racist, if white, and as a sellout, an Uncle Tom, an Oreo cookie, if black.

One such courageous voice belonged to Roy Innis. The civil rights figure started out as a black nationalist, but after he lost two sons to murderers, his disgust with crime led him to join the NRA and to support Presidents Nixon and Reagan, New York’s crime-busting Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and conservative Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Innis even applauded and befriended subway vigilante Bernhard Goetz.

In 1988, Innis distinguished himself by going all Sumo on Al Sharpton and choking neo-Nazi John Metzger in separate TV talk show appearances. The latter incident is usually described as being triggered when Metzger called Innis an Uncle Tom, but actually, just before pronouncing those words, Metzger had called an elderly rabbi sitting next to Innis a “kike”—perhaps the ugliest of antisemitic slurs. When the show resumed after Metzger and his friends had been expelled from the studio, Innis explained that he would not sit still when someone was being verbally assaulted in his presence. He was standing up for the rabbi.

Innis died two years ago. Who today will carry on for him? Maybe it’ll be “Jay D,” one of the Gateway Pundit commenters and seemingly the only one among them who is not an “angry white male.” Here is what Jay D said of the Hilton attack:

Sad. I am a black guy, and I hope they find these a-holes & throw them under a jail.

I looked up Jay D’s comments in earlier, unrelated threads, and it’s evident he’s not just pretending to be black. He’s not on the Trump Train yet, quite the contrary. But count him among the many black Americans who are fed up with crime.

While the violence that went on in front of the Hilton is despicable, the reaction to it may indeed be intemperate in many cases. We used to call this reaction “white backlash,” back when black ghettos were burning all over the country. Who could be blamed for wanting to turn away from all this unpleasantness and pretend none of it is happening? But the violence is happening, and the backlash is building, and no amount of social media “moderating” can scrub it out of existence.

Liberals love to call “law and order” a code for racism. It is not. “Law and order” is the antidote to racism. Only law and order can pull our country back from the chaos and hatred we’ve just seen on display.

Let us join hands, white and black, and require our fellow citizens to show the common decency that’s so painfully absent from that Washington Hilton footage. If we demand law and order and enforce that demand vigorously enough, we may yet find that people, black as well as white, will rise to the challenge we’ve set for them.

Photo Credit: Dirck Halstead/Liaison

 

Center for American Greatness • Cultural Marxism • Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • The Left

Woke Racism

Well before Sigmund Freud formalized the idea of “projectionism”—the defense of one’s own shortcomings and sins by attributing them to others—it was a common theme in classical literature and the New Testament: the ridiculing of the mole on someone else’s nose to hide one’s own boil.

The term projection more or less sums up much of the woke identity politics movement, in which obsessions with racial privilege and tribal exceptionalism are justified by accusing others of just such bias.

While such racist projectionism can often be a psychological tic that assuages the guilt of one’s own rank prejudice, just as often accusing others of racism is a peremptory careerist move to win media attention, lucre, or job advancement.

Racists—those who assume those of different races always act collectively in predictable ways, usually far worse than does their own tribe—who charge racism assume that unlike the proverbial wolf crier, there is currently no downside to their hysterias and fantasies.

That is, the racist who for a variety of reasons lobs “Racist!” at others assumes that, even when his tired charges are proven false, in our postmodern society he can argue that these accusations in theory always could be true, and therefore no one would ever accuse a self-identified victim as a racist perpetrator himself.

For example, a Louisiana State University student, who falsely claimed she encountered a noose on campus—supposedly planted by whites to intimidate African-American students such as herself—was hardly contrite about inflaming tensions with a false accusation when the “noose” turned out to be simply a dangling power wire cable. Instead of apologizing, the accuser redoubled her claims: “Considering what is currently happening in this country, someone hanging a noose certainly seems plausible . . . Black students all over are being threatened for speaking out. I’ve previously been threatened for talking about race at LSU.”

The Logic of the Tribe
In some sense, today’s hip new racists have adopted the ideology of Lester Maddox and not Martin Luther King, Jr. Segregation, not integration, is the new racist mantra—by dorm, by theme house, by caucus, by safe space, by graduation ceremony.

True intersectionality is impossible for racists—given that competing tribal agendas can never be reconciled. Far from creating force-multiplying woke ideologies by uniting various “identities”—black, Latino, Asian, LGBTQ, female, and non-American—intersectionality becomes a logical contest among professed victims to acquire preeminent tribal victimhood, and with it, DNA-sanctioned superiority.

The logic of the tribe leads to sectarian warfare, not harmony. We see just that when Asians revolt against black and Latino preferences in college admissions. Feminists push back against the endemic misogyny of rap music that is given an intersectional pass to demean women and freely employ the n-word. There is sometimes less, not greater, tolerance for unapologetic homosexuality in supposedly hyper-macho Latino culture. Doctrinaire Islam makes few concessions for the Muslim convert to Christianity; he is still an infidel to be shunned, even killed.

Jussie Smollett hired two black associates to dress up as white Trump-hatted supporters to stage a fake attack on himself. He hoped to gain sympathy as a victim of supposed rampant intersectional racist hatred in the age of Trump. Apparently, only that way would the pathetically desperate Smollett restore his sinking brand and jumpstart his fading acting career—through becoming an icon of the innocent black man symbolically lynched by predatory whites.

Smollett, himself half-white, accused an innocent large segment of the U.S. population as racist without any worry of the consequences from such false charges. And rightly so: Smollett has faced little pushback, remains in the news, and believes that no one ultimately will dare to charge him as a racist who committed a hate-crime.

The Covington Catholic fiasco illustrated the same modus operandi. Native American activist Nathan Phillips sought media exposure and careerist advantage by deliberately confronting a group of young Catholic students on the National Mall. Phillips hoped the resulting staged optics would show privileged, male, young, white Christians with red MAGA hats haranguing a wizened Native American elder and Vietnam veteran.

Phillips succeeded in his quest for universal victim status, media exposure, and the demonization of the Covington school students, despite being quickly exposed as a faker who never set foot in Vietnam and a serial racial provocateur.

Most of the media bought his ruse and have retreated to the usual fallback defense for faked racist accusations: in a racist America, the charges could in theory have been true, and therefore that they were demonstrably not true this time means little.

Enter the Anti-Enlightenment Squad
The new racism is epidemic among those in the so-called squad, the self-referenced nickname for four media-obsessed, first-term congressional representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who without their daily charges of bias largely would be unknown back-benchers laboring away in obscurity.

Take Pressley’s recent formulation of the new racism at a recent Netroots Nation conference:

If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.

In sum, Pressley just outlined the classic anti-Enlightenment mindset: we are all permanent captives of our superficial race, religion, and sexual orientation. We must at all times think, act, and speak in such tribal fashion—and do so monolithically and collectively, in adopting the party line as set down by such elites as those like Pressley herself.

Blacks who oppose affirmative action, or Muslims who recognize Israel, or “queers” whose sexual preferences are incidental, not essential to their personas are thus declared not authentic and thus not to be welcomed by Pressley into the new racialist Democratic Party.

In practical terms, Pressley assumes that whites, reportedly about 70 percent of the population, tune her logic out. That is, they should never take her own racist advice and vote en masse according to their superficial shared skin color. If they did, the 55 percent of actual voters who are white in her otherwise minority-majority congressional district might never have elected someone who, according to her own rationale, is not part of their own tribe.

Ilhan Omar said the following in a 2018 interview with Al Jazeera when asked about purported American paranoiac fear of “Islamic terrorism”:

I would say—our country should be more fearful of white men across our country, because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.

Omar was not merely racially stereotyping but lying as well. African-Americans, not whites, according to the various Department of Justice figures, commit a somewhat larger percentage of the nation’s likely total of annual homicides despite comprising a percentage of the population almost seven times smaller.

A Jacobin Resurgence
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of being a racist for criticizing fellow squad members. In turn, Pelosi recently had called Trump a racist for his tweeting and declared that his efforts to secure the border were racist efforts to hurt the nonwhite.

No matter. There is no exemption from being charged with racism for old, rich, white, and liberal females like Pelosi. In the new racist cosmology, the multimillionaire Pelosi can never escape her white privilege. One element of the new racism is thus Jacobinism—the idea that the circle of racists always widens until the racists devour one another with charges that everyone but themselves is insufficiently racially woke.

Smollett taught us that is was not enough for a gay man to be attacked by homophobes, or a liberal crusader to be attacked by right-wing Trumpers, or a black man to be attacked by white racists. In the ever-spiraling rules of woke racism, only a gay, left-wing, and black victim can win singular revolutionary authority—and only when invented Trump fanatics scream racial taunts and routinely patrol the liberal neighborhoods of Chicago nightly armed with bleach and nooses.

On matters of immigration, it is no longer enough to endorse the old bipartisan compromises on border security and amnesties or to see the problem as one of illegality. No longer is it sufficient to advocate making DACA the law of the land and extending amnesty to the “dreamers.” Now instead the border has become for some presidential candidates an existential racial question of bringing in millions of supposedly “nonwhite” rather than just illegal immigrants—and in public photo ops escorting them as they illegally cross the border—providing them with amnesty, legal residency, sanctuary from immigration enforcement, and free health care, while calling anyone a “racist” who complains that such caravan immigration is not diverse, legal, measured or meritocratic.

Anti-Semitism Again
Another trait of the new racism is the old anti-Semitism. Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, and Tlaib want Congress to endorse the anti-Israeli boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement to isolate the Jewish democracy—as if Israel was an international outlaw far worse than China, North Korea, or Iran.

Omar (“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”) has likened her effort to endorse BDS to the 1930s humane boycott of Nazi Germany. Earlier she claimed, with a clumsy “two Benjamins” metaphor, that naïve Americans were deluded by Jewish money and Benjamin Netanyahu into supporting Israel against their supposed own interests.

Ocasio-Cortez believes the detention centers at the border (where far fewer illegal aliens have died annually than during the Obama administration) are analogous to Nazi concentration camps and thus by extension the Holocaust. Apparently, she believes that the 218 tragic deaths in 2018 at the border (471 died in 2012), as a result of a massive wave of illegal migrants into the United States, is analogous to the 6 million Jews who were gassed or starved to death during World War II.

In the puerile mind of honor student Ocasio-Cortez, the 15,000-20,000 Jews who died on some days in the Nazi death and concentration camp archipelago are analogous to 218 accidental deaths at the border of those who entered the United States illegally en masse. When everything is the Holocaust and everyone is a Nazi, then nothing is and no one is. It is hard to calibrate whether Ocasio-Cortez’s anti-Semitic editorializations were designed to downplay the Holocaust or libel her own country—or both.

Being a woke anti-Semite is no longer any big deal. Just ask woke novelist Alice Walker, who is a fan of unapologetic anti-Semite David Icke—or for that matter the woke New York Times that published two anti-Semitic cartoons. For the woke, no one cares about having his picture taken with Louis Farrakhan (Barack Obama included) or mouths anti-Semitic tropes like Georgia congressman Hank Johnson’s comparison of Jewish settlers to “termites.”

What will put an end to this new anti-enlightenment racism of the woke that is emulating the familiar overt racism of the past? It will cease only when the majority of Americans of all racial heritages are brave enough to call out those projectionists who are obsessed with constructing or promulgating racism as the purveyors of hate themselves, the sad and the pathetic dividers who seem believe they are innately and collectively superior on the basis of their superficial appearance or creed.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: iStock/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Cultural Marxism • Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • The Left

‘Prog-Whistles’ and Safe Spaces

The Left controls the three major platforms for messaging the American people—the arts; academia; and the old, new and social media. Yet, America remains a generally center-right country—and certainly has not become the “fundamentally transformed” backwater socialist collective President Obama once promised.

Oh, sure, he and his leftist minions never explicitly called for that; but that’s because words have no meaning, only utility, to the Left. The elasticity of content within their leftist lexicon is no longer matched by their phrasemongering’s efficacy. Succinctly, the country has decoded the Left’s “prog whistles”—and they don’t like what they hear.

In turn, what the Left hears is dissent and opposition to their ideology and aims; and, being the true owners of the moniker “stupid party,” the Left is doing its damnedest to silence it.

Sure, the censorial Leftist ignoramuses doth protest too much. Still . . .

Why else would the Left call its opponents every ad hominem “-ism” in their scurrilous arsenal on all their group-think blogs, broadcasts, and sundry other sites that cater to their free speech-averse caprice and further their crusade to destroy independent thought for the sake of their “greater good”⁠—i.e., an equitable collective of human misery?

Why else would the Left expropriate religious terms for its collectivist cult acolytes, thus diminishing their ability to reason by replacing it with unquestioning secular faith of the self-anointed?

Why else would the Left conjure up “deconstructionism,” where the plain meaning of an author’s words are ignored based upon the reader’s subjective interpretation?

Why else would the Left pimp “narrative” as anything other than what it is⁠—a device for the crafting of fictional works? To deny facts and truths that don’t support their historically failed proposals, the Left refutes the logical fallacy that the number of adherents to a proposition do not validate its truth.

Instead, the Left transmogrifies civic discourse into an exercise in character assassination, whereby a proposition’s verity and/or desirability is determined by which of the dueling subjective “narratives”⁠—“good” progressive versus “evil” conservative, both of which are crafted by the Left—“wins” by muscling its way by hook or by crook into roping 50 percent plus one of the public to agree (or at least acquiesce).

Why else would the Left reject the self-evident verity that every individual is unique and possessed of God-given dignity, intellect, talent, and rights which allow for their pursuit of happiness and potential; and instead subscribe and demand fealty to the racist dogma that the group into which a person is born should dictate what he thinks. Of course, if said thinking doesn’t toe the line of the Left’s group think, they will ominously predict a myriad of detrimental consequences for the dissenter.

Consider this chillingly lucid exposition of this insidious leftist dogma from an official of the federal government:

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.

Yes, why would the Left progressively support the regression of American’s free speech by deeming words and opinions “violence”; supporting the violent neo-brownshirts of Antifa; preventing guest lecturers, speakers and faculty and cordoning off “safe spaces” to be free from challenging opinions on campus; doxxing and demanding the firing of non-leftists in both the public and private spheres; boycotting any and all platforms and their advertisers that allow for opinions not conforming to the Left’s collective delusions; chilling any speech they subjectively deem “offensive”; and on and on and on…?

Why doesn’t the Left welcome a vigorous, civil discourse and debate about the merits of its propositions and proposals?

Or, more bluntly, why does the Left fear the First Amendment?

The truth is self-evident: the Left is intellectually bankrupt.

And they know it.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post

Covenants Without the Sword

Conor Friedersdorf fancies himself The Atlantic’s resident ethnic White Knight, galloping in to the aid of minorities terrorized by the handful of genuinely conservative pundits yet standing.

Naturally, Friedersdorf entered the fray on behalf of Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) after she found herself in the crosshairs of one of Tucker Carlson’s recent monologues, which simply pointed out the obvious: Omar hates America. In her words: “We must confront that our nation was founded by genocide and we maintain global power through neocolonialism.”

Friedersdorf, armed with an interpretive decoder ring, explains that Omar is only innocently savaging “what she regards as the country’s failure to live up to its lofty values.”

Whether America has lived up to some “lofty values,” based on an entirely arbitrary definition of them by a naturalized foreigner, is irrelevant—Omar attacks America as it is, she therefore hates America as it is, and she will continue to hate it until, as Friedersdorf suggests, it conforms with the values she wants America to adopt. These may be summarized as: “This is not going to be the country of white people.”

According to Friedersdorf, Omar is merely fighting for supposed American principles such as equality and social justice; but how amazing is it that those principles are congruent with and adaptable to the political, economic, and social interests of her own particular ethno-cultural group, and that these interests conflict necessarily, as Omar suggests, with those of whites. She does not want peaceful coexistence, much less a melting pot. What she wants is submission.

But perhaps the most disheartening aspect of the Omar-Friedersdorf-Carlson debacle has developed on the Right, rather than on the Left.

Writing in defense of Tucker, David Harsanyi at The Federalist concedes that Omar, as a “philosophical matter,” is not the kind of immigrant “we” should want. But though Harsanyi defends Tucker, he actually favors high levels of immigration and writes of Tucker, “he’s wrong about immigration.”

“When my parents came to the United States as refugees in 1968, for instance, they were asked to renounce communism—because collectivism, like Islamism or fascism or any authoritarianism, is antithetical to American principles,” writes Harsanyi. “This is one reason we still give newcomers citizenship tests. We want them not only to comprehend our foundational ideas, but to adopt them.”

That’s all well and good. But how can a nation that has convinced itself it is purely propositional—that is, where membership is given to all comers based strictly on their supposed adoption (or, most commonly, lip service given to) “foundational ideas” or “principles”—maintain itself against the whims of those who manage to power their way in and rise to power in spite of them? They, not “we,” will come to define citizenship, and define it out of existence. In questions of immigration, size matters. The numbers we admit—either legally or illegally—matter.

But who are we kidding? A nation that countenances the presence of some 22 million illegal aliens has effectively lost the will to live. Of course, I do not mean to suggest that there are no uniquely American ideas; but if, as America becomes increasingly “diverse” due to immigration, enough people can be convinced that those “foundational ideas” and “principles” include open borders, what good is the truth? The “philosophical matter” that defines membership in our national community, our very way of life, is gradually being redefined by the new “we.” Propositions will not hold against a wave of willful ignorance.

Moreover, and though it might turn the stomachs of well-meaning liberals—so, to be clear, that includes contemporary “conservatives”—discrimination is a vital and natural process that facilitates both peace and assimilation; that is, the adoption of the foundational Anglo-Saxon-Protestant fashions, customs, and habits that once made up the basis of our national fabric—the vestiges of those evil “white people” Omar wants to uproot.

But today discrimination has been outlawed in every concievable form. There is no natural mechanism to make the Omars among us adopt our way of life, and it is becoming increasingly difficult even to remove those who are here illegally—those who, by their rejection of our national sovereignty, essentially spit in our faces.

“Covenants without the sword,” wrote Thomas Hobbes, “are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” There was a time when people like Omar would have been denaturalized and deported, just as the subversive Emma Goldman was, and that would be the right thing to do. But it is not hard to imagine the bipartisan support that Omar—or even Goldman—would enjoy today from the “Right” and Left if such action even were suggested.

Incredibly, the best take on Omar and other militant practitioners of identity politics, the only take in keeping with sanity, came from President Trump. “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” or from which their parents or ancestors came, if they hate America so much? Trump is on target here, and a people reasonably concerned with their own survival will see that he is.

No one, least of all Omar, Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), or Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), has a right to demand America undergo fundamental transformation to become the more “diverse,” un-American union of their dreams. They are not within their rights to demand America more closely resemble the backwaters from which they or their parents came. Republicans and Democrats entertain this fundamental transformation at the hands of foreigners and their ungrateful progeny, unworthy of their incidental citizenship. Why?

America wants to have its immigration cake and eat it, too, even as it chokes on every bite. A society that is only inviting is self-destructive, while a society that is only closed off looks like North Sentinel Island, where the odd Christian missionary is greeted with a volley of arrows. A civilized people who are too much one thing or the other cannot for long survive, for they will be consumed by foreign atavists or become themselves atavistic.

Immigrants who have come here legally and with the proper spirit thrive in America and are welcomed when they do. But identifying which immigrants are likely to do that and how many of them we can successfully assimilate is not something Americans can afford to take lightly.

Tucker Carlson, then, reminds us not only of how dangerous individuals like Omar are, but how dangerous it is to allow everyone from Conor Friedersdorf to David Harsanyi constantly to define and redefine the “philosophical matter” of membership in our society—even as we cannot bring ourselves to enforce existing laws or to assert one fundamental way of life over the many “diverse” options presented by newcomers.

America • Center for American Greatness • Foreign Policy • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post • The Left

Ilhan Omar Blames America for Illegal Immigration

Radical Somali-American and left-wing Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) argues that U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the global refugee crisis. Without question, excessive aggression from the United States in Latin America and the Middle East has exacerbated the pre-existing pathologies that pervade their political, social, and economic systems. 

Whether America made some unique contribution to these horrors, however, is an open question. Still, in this way, Omar has stumbled her way into an undeniable truth: U.S. foreign policy is too aggressive far too often, and it has caused some disruptions—and this leads to some unwanted migration.

Very often, migrants are seeking entry into the United States or Europe not out of an urgent need for safety, but for easy access to generous welfare systems and jobs. As a result, migrants tend to amass a good deal of money that they can then remit back to their families in their homelands. The fact that neither Europe nor the United States require true assimilation of these migrants into the larger culture makes migration even more attractive since the migrants will get money and protection without having to abandon their own cultures.

The longer the West tolerates this flocking of “refugees” in ever larger numbers and does not require them to assimilate, the more reverse-assimilation becomes likely. 

Already migrants in Europe and the United States are offered legal protections that few native-born citizens are offered. A faux sense of cultural sensitivity enforced by the “elites” of their host governments, causes them to go out of their way to make people who have no intention of returning the favor feel comfortable. 

It explains why in the United States, Spanish is no longer viewed as a second language but as a language to be respected as co-equal to the language of the land (and, in certain parts of the country, the lingua franca). It’s also why some European governments are willing to abandon their own free speech laws in order to placate violent Muslim migrants who become offended by cartoons that depict their religious prophet, Mohammed. 

Foreign Policy Plays a Role
There is little doubt that incessant bombings of the Middle East or an endless cavalcade of covert U.S. action directed against disliked governments in Latin America can cause instability which, in turn, can create mass migration. But Omar and her socialist Suicide Squad in Congress are attempting to craft a rather languid U.S. foreign policy in response—one that undoubtedly entails the United States turning the other cheek in response to each terrorist provocation or kneeling before a tinpot, Latin American Communist dictator (a lá Barack Obama’s approach). 

This is not the appropriate response to previous missteps and it will not even ameliorate the illegal immigration problem. And, beating our warplanes into plowshares or bringing all the troops home from the Greater Middle East tomorrow—as gratifying as that may be—will not prevent the flood of refugees and migrants into Europe either. These moves would likely make us weaker while not addressing the real problem of our current immigration policies. In fact, it’s galling to hear Omar and her comrades suggest they want to fix the ongoing immigration crisis given that they disagree with the suggestion that mass migration is even a problem! Forgive me for not trusting their solution to a problem they don’t see as a problem.

It’s Immigration Policy, Not Foreign Policy
When Omar and her fellow members of the socialist Suicide Squad argue that U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the present immigration crisis, they are not being serious. Instead, they are using these claims to distract Americans and deflect attention away from the fact that the type of lax immigration policies they support are the real cause of the present immigration crises, both in Europe and the United States. After all, Ilhan Omar is a proponent of the status quo for U.S. immigration policies. Like so many of her fellow “democratic-socialists” in the United States, she likely looks with favor on Europe’s current open borders immigration policies. 

In the United States, these open borders immigration policies have damaged many of the communities that supported Donald Trump. Similar concerns are spurring nationalist-populist movements that are destabilizing the European Union. So long as the borders of the United States and Europe remain open for anyone to walk through, we will not see any semblance of general stability, security, or sustainable prosperity in the West. The longer this paradigm persists, the less hope there will be for the West to survive in its present form.

They Hate You, Folks . . .
Make no mistake: destroying the West in its present form is precisely the intent of the socialist Suicide Squad.

Whatever kernel of truth there may be in Omar’s criticism of the past excesses of U.S. foreign policy, it is not the cause of our immigration crisis. Omar is deliberately misleading people when she makes such claims. By appealing to the general unpopularity of U.S. foreign policy (unpopular everywhere but within Washington, D.C., of course)  Omar avoids having to address the uncomfortable realities of mass migration which are really to blame for the current crisis. 

More dastardly, though, is the fact that Omar is essentially scapegoating the American people; in effect, blaming the victims of illegal immigration, for the problem of illegal immigration. The only people responsible for illegal immigration are the bureaucrats who allow for it to occur, the business leaders who encourage it, and the migrants themselves who benefit from it. 

Until President Trump not only builds his wall but gets Congress on board with a complete revision of every aspect of U.S. immigration policy, the United States will continue to decline in disturbingly similar ways that Europe has declined. 

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Great America • Identity Politics • Post • The Culture • The Left

Sorting Out the New Color Wheel

A young man from the marshes, name of Pip, has unexpectedly and from some unnamed source come into “great expectations,” so he makes his way to London to acquire some modest education fit for the gentleman that he is to be. There he meets his tutor, Mr. Pocket, and his wife, Mrs. Pocket. They have quite a few children, who are not brought up, but rather “tumbled up,” because Mrs. Pocket cannot be bothered to attend to them. She is always absorbed in a book about the English peerage.

“I found out within a few hours,” says Pip, “that Mrs. Pocket was the only daughter of a certain quite accidental deceased Knight, who had invented for himself a conviction that his deceased father would have been made a Baronet but for somebody’s determined opposition arising out of entirely personal motives—the Sovereign’s, the Prime Minister’s, the Lord Chancellor’s, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s, anybody’s—and had tacked himself on to the nobles of the earth in right of this quite supposititious fact.” And so she grew up “as one who in the nature of things must marry a title, and who has to be guarded from the acquisition of plebeian domestic knowledge.”

Such is the magic of the right kind of blood. Mrs. Pocket would have been at home among the genealogical precisians of the old American South, sorting people into correct divisions according to the percentage of negro or native blood in their veins, quadroons or octoroons as the case might be. In Sewanee, that bit of Creole might disqualify you for entry into the University of the South. I don’t know. In America today, a family legend that a thrice-great-uncle was or may have been part cigar store Indian wins you some points for enrollment at Harvard.

Ms. Pocket, and her allies Ms. Paqit, Ms. Phakat, and Ms. Octavia-Pequeta, might also be at home in the United States Congress. Donald Trump has suggested, in his boorish way, that the four self-designated members of “the squad,” newly elected congresswomen whose attitude toward the United States seems to range from contempt to hatred, should go back to the countries whence they came, fix them, and return to show us how it is done. I will not comment on the specifics of their quarrel. I note only that the president has been criticized for attacking “women of color.”

For the life of me, I do not know what that designation means. It cannot denote race—whatever that means. One of the women is African American. Two are Semitic Caucasians, and one is an Iberian Caucasian. Does it denote color in the old sense, the melanin content in the skin? Is that how low we have sunk?

I want to know specifically what the hues are on the new color wheel. A married couple emigrate from Spain to Mexico, and their children emigrate to the United States. Do they count as people of color? What about people who come to New York from Madrid without a stop at Guadalajara? Do they count?

A Spanish man marries a woman in Cuba whose grandfather was part Seminole. Do their children count? What about my friend in Cape Breton, a French Canadian who has a Mikmak ancestor? Does he count? What about his children?

The French and the native Indians often intermarried, ever since the early conversion of the great sachem Membertou to Christianity. Do French Canadians in general count, then? Or is Spain more colorful than France? Or perhaps darker-skinned Indians count more than do the lighter-skinned Indians of the north?

Do Portuguese Catholics from Lisbon count, if they have dark complexions and some Moorish blood? Do Portuguese Catholics from São Paulo count, if they have light complexions and no Guarani blood? What of the Moors and people from the Maghreb? Does a Berber with red hair count? Berbers speak a language that is neither Indo-European nor Semitic, though they are mostly Muslim in religion and Caucasian in physical features.

What about Iranians? Do they count? They speak a language that is Indo-European, and though they are also mostly Muslim, they come from a people as ancient as the Greeks—from a people who intermarried with those Greeks, and with Assyrians, Medes, Lydians, Hebrews, and many others. Would the last shah of Iran count?

Do Jews in Israel count? They are Semitic, like the Arabs, and speak a Semitic language, like the Copts and the Somalis. Do they not count if their skin is too light?

Do Turks count? They are Caucasian in appearance, but they come from eastern and central Asia, and their language, like that of the Berbers, is neither Indo-European nor Semitic. I am darker skinned than most Turks. Do Armenians count? They too are darker than the Turks, but they are largely Christian, and they do speak a language in the Indo-European family. Do Armenians win an extra point because they were the victims of a genocidal massacre perpetrated by the Turks?

Do Cossacks count—or rather Kazakhs? If they come from Kazakhstan, does that count for more than if they come from Moscow or Warsaw? If the Kazakh blood has been long mingled with Slavic blood, will it be too diluted to count? Do any Russians count? Do Russians count if they come from the far east and have Mongol blood? Does the mayor of Irkutsk count? Where do Laplanders fall, with some Mongol blood and mixed Mongol and European features?

Does a dark Caucasian from the Punjab count? If he speaks Bengali and reads Sanskrit, languages both related to English, and he is a Roman Catholic, does that count for less than if he were a Jain or a Sikh? The Maltese are Roman Catholic, situated between Europe and Africa, speaking an African language written in the Roman alphabet. Do they count? Would their shade be darker if they wrote in Arabic cursive? If they were Muslim?

I would lay $1,000 even money that you cannot tell a Maltese man from a Sicilian. In fact, you would be hard put to tell a Tunisian from a Sicilian. Do Sicilians count? Someone of Southern Italian heritage, as I am, no doubt has blood in his veins that comes from every group that invaded the island over the centuries: French, Spanish, Viking, Albanian, Greek, and Moorish. Are we “white”? What about the Ainu from the northernmost island of Japan?

At which a sane person would throw up his hands in despair and cry out, “What is all this nonsense for?”

Precisely.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: iStock/Getty Images

Democrats • Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Israel • Political Parties • Post • Republicans • The Left

Are Jews Ready to Pass Over the Democrats?

Yeah, OK, bad pun. But a bit of shtick to open this column seemed appropriate.

The allegiance of so many Jews to the Democrats is a matter of long established faith. There I go again, start over…

As far as modern records show a plurality of Jews have not voted Republican since 1920 and that year it was only because a socialist split the Jewish vote. There have been times over the last century when they have hedged their bets as in Reagan 1980 with 39 percent, Ike in 1956 with 40 percent, and Hughes in 1916 with 45 percent. The GOP has never cracked the 50 percent mark with Jews. Is there anything that could affect that ongoing loyalty in the future?

Truth in advertising: I grew up Jewish, although I converted to Roman Catholicism in my mid-30s. I am still proud of my Jewish heritage, however, and I still retain many of the intellectual and cultural habits I picked up in several years of Hebrew School before my Bar Mitzvah and in the decades that followed before I converted.

That being said . . .

Yes, possibly. Three things could nudge Jews away from the Democrats.

First, the Trump Administration’s strong pro-Israel policy. That’s good for several polling points and several more points of covert support. Second, as Trump is so clearly pro-Israel, the Democrats go institutionally anti-Israel and possibly even anti-Semitic.

And third, demographics. The growing numbers of intermarriages of Jews outside of the faith and Jews who are religiously indifferent also mixes up the political cocktail. This makes many of the next generation possibly not as tied to Jewish political habits and tradition. Against that is the simultaneous rise in numbers of Orthodox Jews who are usually more politically conservative than their Reform and Conservative brethren.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been philosemitic and solidly pro-Israel. Not even Reagan or Bush the Younger, both pro-Israel presidents, can match his record. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, strong ties with Netanyahu and Likud, and an overt hostility to the Palestinian Authority and regional foes of the Jewish state ranks him as the friendliest U.S. president in Israeli history. Inside the Trump White House the story is no different.

Daughter Ivanka and her husband are Orthodox Jews. Both are close advisors to Trump. Jews fill cabinet slots and other vital posts. You would think that on these facts alone, and the Israeli relationship, Jews would be flocking over to the GOP and Trump in droves. Yet they are not. Oh, he’s gaining points, to be sure, but nowhere near a majority, as prior conditioning takes precedence.

“Since the Jewish people came to Ellis Island, the party they have identified with most often is the Democrats,” says Alexandra Levine, national treasurer for #Jexit, a group trying to lead Jews out of Democrat bondage and into the GOP promised land. “The problem is the party has changed from the party of Truman and JFK. That party is possibly gone forever.”

The lady has a point. Which brings us to the Democrats.

One does not have to be a Talmudic scholar to understand the consequences of the words of influential Democrats such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Their casual anti-Semitism is not only tolerated but also encouraged by modern Democrats. This was heralded several decades earlier by the conversion of the entire global Left to a virulent strain of anti-Semitism as evidenced by their rabid policies and bigoted statements over Israel. One look at the British Labour Party’s very recent controversy on this question shines a light on that contention.

Though some Democrat bigfoots have remained publicly pro-Israel (Elizabeth Warren is an exception) neither do they slap down loons like Omar and Tlaib when their anti-Semitism emerges. Jews are rightly concerned about this, as sensible modern Jewish thinking has it that there are only two places left in the world Jews can feel safe: the United States and Israel. If the leftist wingnut crowd in the Democratic Party gains power, by sheer seniority and aging if nothing else, then that very short list of nations is reduced by one.

An ironic fact of the matter, however, is that there are leaders of the anti-Israel U.S. and global Left who have been and are ethnic Jews, prompting all sorts of tinfoil helmet theories regarding the so-called “Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy,” Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the lean brisket at Herschel’s in Philly.

I mean, it’s really lean.

I digress.

In the United States the J Street crowd of Vichy Jews showcases an appeasement attitude towards evil and the enemies of Israel not limited to Jews. In their case it goes past mere cowardice and, if one truly regards them as concerned about Israel, it borders on suicidal. You’d think history has shown Jews that acquiescence to threats and violence against them only leads to mass murder. J Street disregards such common sense and remind me of the Jews who entered the showers of Treblinka clutching their World War I Iron Crosses.

A question arises here. When does legitimate criticism of Israel in a purely political sense (which is possible as the Israeli state, as any other state, is far from perfect) cross into anti-Semitism and an irrational hatred of Jews? I would contend there is a line, perhaps thinish, between the two. I’m not saying that every utterance not in keeping with the Likud party line is written by Goebbels. What I am saying is that if one accepts that Israel is a Jewish state comprised mainly of Jews and is the incarnation of millennia of Jewish hopes and aspirations then an overheated animosity towards it may bespeak something other than a simple political bone to pick.

This is certainly true of the Left, which sees Israel as something akin to a Western colonial outpost in a sea of blameless Arab victims of Israeli brutality. The historical record means nothing to them. To use Israel as a hammer to beat the West is their strategic motivation.

Will these factors draw Jews away from the Democrats? Yes, to a point. The following factors may do much more in a relative sense, as they highlight the definition of who is a Jew, who remains a Jew, and who is not a Jew.

According to #Jexit’s Levine, only 41 percent of U.S. Jews, in a 2012 Gallup poll say religion is important to them in their daily life (I think the numbers have increased since then); 34 percent attend religious services monthly; 22 percent say they have no religion. Only 38 percent say their Jewish identity has anything to do with Judaism.

That last one is nonsensical.

This group of stats is a double-edged sword. Those who fall away from the faith by various means, most of them emanating from the cultural Left, will likely decrease the number of liberal Jews, as they will no longer be counted, strictly speaking, as Jews. Combine that with the burgeoning birth rates, tactical political conservatism, and cultural hard conservatism of Orthodox Jews (and low birth rates among secular Jews who still cling to Jewish identity) and the Orthodox share of the Jewish vote could increase exponentially in the years to come.

Trump, by my guess, will take over 30 percent of the Jewish vote in 2020. That would be up from 24 percent in 2016, according to the Pew Research Center. If this trend continues (and there is no foreseeable demographic barrier to it), then with the Orthodox relatively soon making up a majority of the Jewish electorate, Jewish majorities for the GOP could be a reality in two to three decades.

That is, if we define Judaism by religious practice and not ethnic heritage.

That road, bringing secular Jews into the political land of milk and honey, will be a much longer journey.

Photo Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

America • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post • The Left

Left Goals: Abolishing Citizenship

Few issues so clearly separate those who care about America from those who do not like immigration.

In recent days, Democrats have advised illegal immigrants to defy the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, suggested decriminalizing illegal entry, and even embraced free healthcare for illegal immigrants. Democrats applauded the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon the citizenship question on the 2020 census—calling it vindication for “democracy” —but denounced the ICE raids on illegal aliens with deportation orders.

While claiming fealty to the United States, the Democrats have all but proudly declared they are for open borders and against the rights and interests of American citizens. They have reached a consensus that American citizenship is a meaningless abstraction and an unearned privilege that effectively must be abolished—if not by law, then by ignoring the existence and unique rights of American citizens qua citizens.

Peel back the sentimental platitudes (does anyone really think families shouldn’t stay together?) and the Democrats’ take on immigration reveals a profound betrayal. They are more concerned with the welfare of illegal immigrants than with that of the citizens of the country they were elected to serve. By seeking to abolish American citizenship, Democrats are withdrawing from the most fundamental commitment of politics: to secure the good of the people.

Democrats have been blurring the line between citizens and non-citizens for a long time, but their opposition to the citizenship question put their true view in rather stark terms. Throughout the census battle, Democrats accused the White House of having political, “racist” motivations, as if citizenship is only distinguished from alien status in fascist regimes.

The citizenship question was political, of course, but only in the most rudimentary way. It was political in the sense that nations are political entities comprised of citizens. It was political in the sense that politics is about justice, and justice is about the common good.

It’s not surprising that a majority of Americans support the citizenship question. Americans know that discounting citizenship would be to their detriment. This is not “white supremacy,” it’s Plato and Aristotle. The Left is spurning Politics 101: the end of politics is the virtue and prosperity of citizens, a good which is impossible to pursue without first recognizing that there exists a citizenry for whom it is the purpose of politics to seek their good.

If counting citizenship is racist, then politics serves no purpose. The Left’s rejection of American citizenship, therefore, is a retreat from any obligation to care for America, its people, and its future.

Who Benefits?
Take a second to consider what a perverse, profoundly awful idea this is: people have no right to know who lives in their nation. By the same token, since there is no citizenry, the nation has no duty to care for its people. The logical consequence of abolishing citizenship is that America is an abstraction, not a real place, that its citizens are owed nothing, least of all the protection of their government.

Who might benefit from the abolition of citizenship? Certainly not the majority of citizens. Democrats say that counting citizenship is a political ploy by the Right, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Democrats are the ones throwing their countrymen under the bus for political power.

The Left insists that the real purpose of counting citizenship on the census is to intimidate immigrants, resulting in a skewed count in liberal, urban areas, the same ones where Democrats just so happen to concentrate. But what is this, if not a candid admission that Democrats no longer care to hide that they attract illegal immigrants for political reasons? The assumption is that illegal immigrants are here, and they’re here to stay, and that’s final.

This is all about power for the Democrats. But their cynical power grab intersects with the interests of America’s ruling class, to the great detriment of Americans. America’s elites are in a hurry to drop the mess their failed leadership created. Instead of listening to Americans demanding an end to illegal immigration, they plan to immiserate them more.

Rejecting citizenship allows the ruling class to relinquish responsibility for the ruled. If citizens don’t count, then America’s leaders have no particular obligation to care for them. If there is no difference between a naturalized citizen and an immigrant who has the sheer luck to avoid a court order, then Americans are owed no protection, least of all from the ravages of mass migration itself.

Americans Last
This retreat only formalizes and legitimizes the decades of neglectful leadership that led to the election of Donald Trump. But rather than address the suffering of Americans on the decline in an age of runaway globalization, industrial decline, and open borders, Democrats want to accelerate these trends.

Democrats say that not enforcing immigration law makes “everyone safer,” but this is a brazen lie. Mass migration is great for Democrats seeking political capital, billionaires seeking cheap labor, and poor families from Central America seeking opportunity, but not for most Americans. The Left is not suggesting any practical limitations on immigration. This is no mystery: liberal elites know that illegal immigrants aren’t coming to their ZIP codes or competing for their jobs.

Then comes the inevitable objection: America is a land of plenty, with more than enough to take care of every American citizen and illegal migrant alike. But on a practical level, it is not possible to prioritize the competing interests of America’s declining middle class and an endless stream of poor laborers from around the world. As a matter of principle, it can hardly be in the national interest for Americans to be denied the distinction of national belonging.

Rejecting citizenship undermines national identity, cultural cohesion, and democracy at a core level. Americans are placed last, before a numberless multitude from around the world. Not all of the Left’s policy goals are, by definition, set up to work  against American citizens—aspects of the left’s interventionist economics have grown more appealing to conservatives of Tucker Carlson’s variety—but their rejection of citizenship denies the existence of American citizens and their unique rights qua citizens.

To secure the good of American citizens, it is right and just that the law protect them from exploitation. To do that, the law is obligated to distinguish those who it exists to protect.

Remarkably, Democrats cheer the abolition of citizenship as an advance for “democracy,” but this is an absurd inversion of the truth: abolishing citizenship disenfranchises Americans in the most treacherous way.

Democrats are very good at making their own losing of power sound like a crime against humanity. Counting citizenship is “white supremacy.” Not abolishing the Electoral College is “voter suppression.” But here is a real attempt to quash democracy in the open.

Like the drive to abolish the Electoral College and the more theoretical question of eliminating the Senate, the leftist drive to do away with citizenship is motivated by a desire to drop already disenfranchised Americans, namely, “bigots” who still believe that America is a distinct nation. The liberal elite wants to suppress these Americans for good, to strip them of political representation so they are powerless to protest the brazen theft of their country.

Erasing Sovereignty
Without citizenship, American democracy has no meaning. But the Left understands “democracy” to mean the tyranny of the mob, the revolutionary progress of an abstracted, universal humanity. If there is any principle other than power that drives the Left’s abolition of citizenship, it is a dogmatic loyalty to this universal humanity and its “human rights.”

Rallying behind a founding myth which brands America an evil and undeveloped place, the left saddles Americans with a generational debt to be paid by accepting limitless migrants who, it is imagined, will improve the nation and bring it closer to its true destiny as a “nation of immigrants.”

Immigrants are imagined to have a universal human right to entry that erases the rights and sovereignty of Americans. By this same token, Americans have an obligation to care for the citizens of other countries, but not their own. The suffering multitudes of the world are owed health care, a job, every right and accommodation, but downwardly mobile Americans suffering the consequences of having their nation stolen deserve nothing.

There are no nations or citizens, only an abstracted universal hodge podge, mere “people” living within arbitrary borders. America is just a big shopping mall with a fire sale. There is nothing more to tie the nation together than shaggy abstractions, misty-eyed cliches about the Statue of Liberty and, more troubling, a compulsory hatred of America and its past. If this is all there is to unite the nation, then the country is lost. How could a country that resents its own history, that subordinates its citizens to claimants from half-way across the earth, that welcomes people who hate it and sends them to the halls of power, expect to last?

A Stunning Betrayal
The argument in favor of counting citizenship is simple and robust: every nation has an obligation to take care of its citizens. Counting citizenship is about securing the common good, about seeking justice for the people of the United States. Only the most cynical person would reject the political purpose of nations, or even the notion that nations exist. But that is what the Left is doing.

The Right opposes what follows from the Left’s sentimental platitudes about family unity: that the welfare of illegal immigrant families should trump the national interest.

Families belong together, and so do nations.

If Democrats really want to help America’s middle class, they can start by acknowledging that the American people are sovereign, that they have a right to enjoy the protection of their own government, and that they are owed a responsive government that listens when they speak. Americans voted to end illegal immigration, so why are Democrats enabling it?

The Left’s rejection of citizenship is a stunning betrayal whose long-term implications should trouble all Americans. Their position is not just absurd, it’s unjust. If they won’t support their own citizens, what are they doing in government?

Photo Credit: Jones/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

America • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post • Progressivism • race

Shallow Politics and Deep Politics

In January, three new telegenic, outspoken, and self-proclaimed “progressive” congresswomen took their seats: Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Omar, a former refugee from Somalia who has maintained political connections there, brought to Capitol Hill her baggage of Islamist political affiliations and credible claims of immigration fraud; Tlaib, born to Palestinian immigrant parents in Dearborn, Michigan, proved so devoted to Israel’s destruction as to be dumped even by J-Street. Ocasio-Cortez, born to Puerto Rican parents in the Bronx and raised in sheltered Westchester, is a political novice who won a thin primary that her opponent, the incumbent congressman, basically failed to contest. 

But AOC, as the insiders call her, quickly made up for her lack of baggage by endorsing the Green New Deal that promises to ruin America’s economy in service of impossible ecological goals, and her ideological Svengali is her chief of staff, who identifies himself with pro-Hitler Indian nationalist activist Subhas Chandra Bose.

None of these women represents the mainstream of the Democratic party of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama as Americans knew it prior to 2016. On July 14, Mike Allen published on the news website Axios data from a May 2019 poll that showed that only 22 percent of voters in the poll had a favorable view of AOC, and 9 percent (“not a typo,” Allen notes) has a favorable view of Rep. Omar. 

Unsurprisingly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), with a clearer view and more concern for what wins national elections, has tried to marginalize them together with Rep. Ayanna Presley (D-Mass.), who up until now was not nationally notorious. As might have been expected, AOC responded with charges that Pelosi was “dogwhistling” racism.

Into this struggle, which the licensed journalists at Salon have instructed us is “not a catfight,” President Trump has inserted himself:

The man from Mars might be astonished at how many commentators who previously reveled in calling the president “Drumpf” rushed to levy charges of racism, but we Earthlings are more inured. Some even among Republicans or other clearer thinkers are sure that by weighing in, Trump “stupidly” reunited the quarreling Democrats.

The picture of politics these pundits have in mind is something like this: 

  • Everybody is already either a Democrat or Republican, an opponent or a supporter of the president’s reelection. 
  • There are no voters whom some Democrats can appeal to precisely by distancing themselves from other Democrats.
  • There are no voters whom some Republicans can appeal to precisely by distancing themselves from other Republicans.

One wonders what these pundits think Pelosi was trying to do by criticizing the “squad” of four progressive representatives. In the real world of politics, politicians usually win elections by appealing not just to committed partisans, but by playing to the less committed and unaffiliated and by distancing themselves from the less popular elements in their own parties. 

Trump won in 2016 by distancing himself from Chamber of Commerce Republicans and the neoconservatives of the George W. Bush Administration, thus attracting working-class Americans, including more Hispanics and African-Americans than Romney could. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 in part thanks to his Sister Souljah moment, appealing to moderates by distancing himself from the race hustlers, and, as president, making inner cities safer and more prosperous by cracking down on “superpredators.”  

Now if national mainstream Democrats such as Pelosi have to try to distance themselves from the extremists in their own party, national Republicans such as Trump compete for swing voters by saddling national Democrats with the burden of supporting them. If Pelosi had refused Trump’s latest tweet gambit, she might have forfeited the partisan base and the extremist donors who helped send the squad to Congress in the first place.

This is the shallow politics of Trump’s tweets. I call it “shallow” because this analysis focuses on the targeting rather than the content. But the content, which of course the virtue-signallers on the Left and the self-proclaimed right-wing NeverTrumpers, distracted as they are by “racist” mantras don’t bother to read carefully. All of this points to deep issues in U.S. domestic and foreign affairs that ought to be on the table.

Immigrants to the Americas have always brought with them their old-world feuds and ideologies, and have passed them down, diluted by intermarriage and acculturation, to their children and grandchildren. 

John Jay, of Huguenot origin, could not help but see Louis XVI and his courtiers as the heirs of the bigots who had driven his family to the New World. In negotiating with Britain and France, Jay acted in 1782-83 out of suspicions that his fellow American diplomats in Paris, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, themselves of transplanted English stock, never thought to entertain. Elected and responsible politicians have no choice but to take account of those passions, sometimes exploiting them, sometimes mitigating them, sometimes suppressing them, and sometimes simply calling them by name, as the prudent pursuit of the common good and the political survival of the individual leader demand.

But there is another side to that storm of troubles from faraway shores. As my Tel Aviv colleague Yossi Shain showed in his 1999 book, Marketing the American Creed Abroad, diaspora activists and politicians are part of networks that help export American ideals to their home countries. 

This, too, is an old tradition. William Cobbett, an English immigrant to America who was one of the loudest voices among Federalists for prosecuting Jeffersonian Republicans for sedition and treason, upon returning to England was transformed by his American experience into a radical reformer who served two years in Newgate Prison for protesting Hanoverian repression. 

Why, then, is it absurd in 2019 to imagine, as President Trump asks us in these three tweets to imagine, that Omar could become an inspiration for enlightened reform in Somalia, that Tlaib could have some beneficial effect among Palestinians in her parents’ native Ramallah, or that Ocasio-Cortez could help bring genuinely progressive government to an indebted and scandal-dogged Puerto Rico?

Those of us who cherish American ideals and institutions know exactly why it is absurd: because these three members of Congress were educated in American schools and universities to have contempt for Americans and American traditions. To their ethnic homelands, Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez would only export more hatred and derision of America as well as guaranteed-to-fail green socialism, but no worthy ideals or estimable practices.

For that corruption, virtually invisible when Shain was doing his research two decades ago, both unhyphenated and hyphenated Americans are to blame. It is the teachers of these representatives, and the parents and taxpayers who fund those teachers’ salaries, who have to answer for that failure to Americanize these otherwise impressive women.

Photo credit: Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

America • History • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • The Left • The Media

When ‘The Right Stuff’ Goes Wrong

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy committed the United States to put an American on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of the decade. 

Just to be clear, nothing like this had ever been attempted. Americans, though, were uniquely suited to the task, Kennedy said: “We choose to go to the moon . . . and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

In Kennedy’s day, it was understood the American he had in mind for this dangerous mission would be a man (or, as it turned out, men) expected to perform at the highest level.

In his speech Kennedy emphasized “hard,” as in something requiring great effort, now a word heard mostly in male-enhancement commercials. Sadly, the bedroom may be the one place these days where men’s performance gets any kind of public mention—and that’s to sell pharmaceuticals. 

American men live in a very different country from the one Apollo 11 came from on July 20, 1969. That was the day when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon while Michael Collins circled above in the lunar command module, hoping to take the three of them home. 

How different? Read The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe. The book is a celebration of old-fashioned manhood in all its rocket-powered glory. In other words, most of the astronauts Wolfe wrote about would never pass a human resources screening.

Their qualifications were tested, but not by having them fill out forms. These guys, many of them former combat pilots, had already proven they had balls. That’s part of what Wolfe meant by the book title. 

In the ultrasensitive work environment of today, the mere mention of similar male attributes would get you fired. On the flight of Apollo 11, they were among the things that mattered most.

Which explains why on this historic occasion there won’t be any mainstream media salutes to “the right stuff,” as Wolfe conceived it. Putting aside the Playboy lifestyle enjoyed by some astronauts, the idea that three white men, relying solely on know-how and pre-toxic masculinity, got from the earth to the moon and back might alarm certain people. Then there are “the optics.” In addition to being all male and active duty or ex-military, the Apollo 11 crew was not ethnically diverse, culturally inclusive, or gender fluid. 

Years later, there were rumors in some parts of the world that Armstrong had converted to Islam while taking his famous moonwalk. All officially denied by the U.S. State Department in 1983.

Speaking of spiritual matters, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which manages the U.S. space program, used to allow crews to mix science and religion. During the 1968 Christmas Eve flight of Apollo 8, astronauts broadcast the first live television pictures of an earthrise as they read a passage from Genesis. Atheists sued.

Armstrong and Aldrin have never been rebuked like Christopher Columbus and other well-known explorers, largely because they never encountered and/or enslaved any indigenous peoples on their 21-hour moon visit. But they did leave an American flag behind. And that was a problem.

“First Man,” the 2018 Neil Armstrong biopic, received generally favorable reviews, except from some conservatives, who complained the film omitted an important patriotic element by not depicting the planting of a U.S. flag on the lunar surface. 

Producers were probably concerned about the effect on ticket sales in countries that hate America, or maybe ticket sales to moviegoers in this country who hate America.

Just as Nike was concerned recently when it halted the sale of a new shoe decorated with a miniature version of the original U.S. flag. (On the advice of a washed-up football player who’s made a new career for himself trashing the country’s most cherished symbols.)

Given how much has changed, it’s not hard to imagine what America’s first mission to the moon would be like if it happened today. 

The spacecraft would have to be bigger to accommodate a larger, more diverse crew, including at least one unskilled illegal immigrant. 

Leading the mission would be a commander of color, with crew members chosen by NASA and a select panel of race, ethnicity, and gender identity consultants. 

In-flight meals would feature dehydrated multicultural entrees and a special vegan menu. Tang would also be served. 

The landing would be televised and show the mission commander climbing down a ladder to set foot on the moon, followed by the non-binary co-commander who would read the following statement:

“That’s one small step for they. One giant leap for them.”

Then, as the phone rang, signaling a call from the White House, xe would say, “If that’s Donald Trump, we’re not answering.” 

It makes you glad the real thing happened 50 years ago.

Photo credit: Corbis via Getty Images

Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • The Left

The Democrats’ ‘Race Card’ Reign of Terror

During World War II, while the Germans were attempting to complete their version of the European Union by pummeling the British from the air, a favorite weapon of theirs was the V-2 rocket.

It wasn’t a very accurate weapon. In fact, it wasn’t accurate at all. But to the Nazis, that was its charm.

The V-2 wasn’t meant to take out military installations with pinpoint precision while avoiding civilian casualties. Quite the opposite. It was meant to rain down terror indiscriminately on the civilian population, destroying morale and ultimately leaving the populace so weary and shell-shocked that, rather than fight on, they would choose to capitulate to a weaker enemy just to get on with their lives.

For the past many decades, the Democrats have employed a similar weapon with a similar purpose. It, too, is a singularly inaccurate weapon but, to the Democrats, that’s its charm. It, too, is meant not to achieve a strategic victory but to leave the civilian population so frightened and jittery every time they hear what could be a whistle coming from the sky, that they choose surrender in the big war just to get on with the smaller but essential battles of day-to-day existence.

Although this weapon can be and easily is adapted for various civilian populations, the Democrats’ version of the V-2 rocket usually goes by the name of the “race card.”

The race card is a weapon of terror. One can easily imagine someone like Osama Bin Laden, as he gave the final orders to bomb the World Trade Center, saying “if there’s some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it.” But those weren’t Bin Laden’s words; they were those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

As with all terrorists, the value of the Democrats’ attack on, say, a teenager from Covington, Kentucky wearing the wrong hat, isn’t found in the success they achieve in destroying his life and visiting pain upon him and his family. To many, that’s just a perk.

The real value is found in the message the Democrats send in terrorizing this poor kid: anyone’s life can be destroyed in an instant over the smallest of things if you do not all capitulate now!

Far from this being simply some “right-wing fanatic’s” take on things, consider one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the de facto war manual of today’s Democratic Party. “Those who, for any combination of reasons, oppose the reformation, become an unwitting ally of the far political right,” Alinsky wrote.

The simple translation: it doesn’t matter who you are, what you say or do or why, if you do not share our views, you are aiding and abetting the most extreme of our enemies and thus make yourself a legitimate target for destruction.

But, while the Democrats employ Alinsky’s heartless rules, many of these Democrats—Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the Clintons and Joe Biden, etc.—aren’t, in fact, radicals. They’re not, say, William Ayers who, not coincidentally, set off real terrorist bombs before changing tactics and simply setting off rhetorical ones. They don’t seek the destruction of Western Civilization and the creation of a Marxist utopia upon its ashes. They don’t even seek to change the status quo. They are the status quo.

These Democrats don’t use the tactics of the extremists in order to change the game. They employ them only to further rig the game to their advantage. Their “view” that everyone must share under threat of becoming “collateral damage” is nothing other than their belief that they must be reelected.

That these Status Quo Democrats aren’t ideological extremists is easily proven by perusing the policies the terrorists have supported and opposed over the course of the past thirty-plus years. Every one of them has, at one time or another, taken every conceivable position on every major issue, often in utter contradiction to the stance they’d sworn allegiance to only the day before.

Whether it’s gay marriage or border security, prison reform or the Iraq War, the horrors of crack cocaine or the racism that makes people say that crack cocaine is horrible, theirs is always the market-tested, poll-watched “convictions” which can change at any given moment depending on the direction of the blowing wind.

Ideologues don’t market-test their beliefs. They don’t check the polls to decide what are their convictions. They don’t engage in politically expedient compromises even if it results in their getting to bang the gavel and call themselves the Speaker of the House and steal another couple of million from the people. These Democrats aren’t ideologues, they are terrorist whores.

The political strategy is simple: on the one hand, they ensure their reelection by rendering the opposition so evil—so beyond the pale—that no matter how corrupt and failed their own policies, it’s still better than the Republicans who, according to Joe Biden, “wanna put y’all back in chains.”

It further ensures their continued reign of terror to seek power and corruption by leaving those who might stand up and speak in opposition to their reelection so terrified of the retribution the terrorists visit upon even a sweet kid in a red hat, that their hate-filled, self-serving narratives go unchallenged.

Of late, however, the Status Quo Democrats are finding that things have changed. The “new faces” of the Democratic party are not, as Pelosi seems to think, the protegés of the Status Quo Democrats. They are, in fact, heirs to the 1960s radicals for whom Alinsky wrote his rules.

To them, the market-testing, poll-watching, politically expedient compromises that the Status Quo Democrats engage in because their end-game is nothing other than reelection is seen by the new radicals as their having, for whatever combination of reasons, opposed their Marxist reformation. This makes them as much an ally of the far political right as any kid in a MAGA hat and subject to the same terror attacks the Democrats have so cynically and cavalierly used against Republicans for years.

Not surprisingly, then, the V-2s have begun to fall on the Status Quo Democrats as well.

Now Pelosi is a “sexist,” and Biden is a “racist,” and even the man they loved and the woman they were all with just three years ago, Bill and Hillary Clinton, get booed at Madison Square Garden, not for their corruption, malfeasance and failures, but because they betrayed the revolution by not terrorizing the population enough when they had the chance.

From now on, only the most radical extremists are safe from becoming collateral damage.

Editor’s note: Evan Sayet will be performing live at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas. Visit the Freedom Fest website for more information.

Photo Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Post • The Left

The Squad vs. Trump: We Already Have the Winner

Those who portray President Trump as some kind of Vulcan who plans his moves like he plays three-dimensional chess have probably never met my old boss, let alone worked closely with him and seen how he actually makes key decisions.

He’s not a clinical plotter; he’s an instinctual pugilist. Whether it’s negotiating with dangerous dictators in Asia or dangerous Democrats back home, his actions are more Rocky Balboa than Gary Kasparov. And that’s what makes them all the more impressive. Just look at the last few days preceding his Twitter war with the Four Horsewomen of the Democrat Apocalypse.

Last Thursday, President Trump held what may have been one of the most important meetings of his presidency, at least when it comes to his chances of being reelected in 2020. In a bold move, driven in part by the good offices of his masterful social media adviser, Dan Scavino, the president invited 150 of the leading conservative internet influencers to the White House for a social media summit. This was a highly heterogeneous group, all ages, males and females, white, black, brown, yellow, Reaganite to libertarian—this author included—and all linked by one thing: their support for the president’s MAGA agenda and their roles as defined in opposition to the “legacy” media.

And of course, the FakeNews Industrial Complex was not happy, with the New York Times leading the way, lambasting the president’s guests as mere “trolls.”

Of course jealousy had nothing to do with this reportage. Nor did the response from one reporter who openly insulted all of the president’s guests in the Rose Garden, before I decided to take action against the Playboy “correspondent” who previously had verbally abused Sarah Huckabee Sanders for two-and-a-half years.

But the important point is not the unrestrained jealousy of the media or their foul and churlish response to the summit. The point is the timing, the president’s follow-through with the “Squad” last weekend, and the message he was broadcasting through his guests to the majority of Americans who believe in America and the president’s America First agenda.

First the message to you and America. If you don’t know what happened at the summit, you can watch our meeting with the President and read the full transcript here. And you really should, because the president was in fine form. It was a meeting about serious issues, curtailment of First Amendment rights, Big Tech censorship, the corruption of the media, but the president was also very funny, direct and candid. And his key message was crucial to 2020. Big Tech is censoring, deplatforming, and demonetizing voices on the Right because they and the leftist media are afraid, as they should be given the depth and breadth of their lies.

President Trump shared with us that the assembled guests in the White House have a combined audience of 500 million followers, bigger than any legacy media platform in the world today—so of course the propagandists worry they are losing their monopoly on information control. But this is exactly why we mustn’t be afraid. The president sent a message of almost biblical tone, in that we must not be afraid because the power is now in our hands, in the hands of what Andrew Breitbart called America’s citizen journalists.

Then there’s the president’s role as the troller-in-chief.

President Trump doesn’t play chess, but he knows how to win. There’s a reason his reality-TV show ran for 14 incredibly successful seasons and only ended because he entered the Oval Office. This weekend, right after the social media summit, he demonstrated his preternatural strategic communications ability when he unleashed a handful of strategic tweets.

Most American who don’t devour politics have no idea who Ilhan Omar is or what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez really believes. But after tweeting out that those who criticize America should go and fix the places where they came from (Somalia and the Bronx?) before they come back and lecture the rest of America was a masterstroke. In the firestorm of a Democrat response which led to articles of impeachment being introduced in the House and Nancy Pelosi bringing a resolution to condemn the president as a racist, the only winner is the president. Let me explain.

I keep hearing that the president’s greatest vulnerability is apolitical suburban housewives who couldn’t tell you who Antonio Gramsci was if their lives depended on it. These are voters who are not aware that the Democrat party has been taken over by extremists who hate America. Well, they do know now. The president’s tweets were the fuse to a signal cannon that has woken up all Americans to the racism, anti-Americanism, and bigoted extremism of the so-called Squad. After Sunday there is no way to hide AOC’s reprehensible concentration camp comments from the widest audience possible, or Ihlan Omar’s belittling of the 9/11 attacks, or Rashida Tlaib’s anti-Semitism, or even Ayanna Pressley’s racism.

And incredibly, the president did all this while managing to trigger Pelosi to embrace the squad, making her break all the congressional rules on decorum, triggering the presiding black Democrat to drop his gavel and walk out in disgust. The subsequent impeachment vote saw 137 Democrats jump ship and vote against the resolution. All this after more than a year of screams for Trump’s impeachment from the Democrats. If you ever doubted the power of social media—or the president’s unmitigated fluency in its use—doubt no more.

We may have more than 470 days to go until the election, but not one of those days will be a day during which the true face of the Democratic Party can be denied any longer.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo Credit: Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Big Media • Conservatives • Donald Trump • Free Speech • Identity Politics • Political Parties • Post • The Left

Of Tweets and Hysterics

Last weekend’s demented political theatrics have me enraged. I am livid this time not because leftists are calling for open borders or disarming law-abiding citizens. No, as has often happened over the past four years, I am furious more because of statements made by people who claim to be on my side. 

Sunday morning President Trump tweeted. He basically reworded the legendary 1960s-era bumper sticker: “America, Love it or Leave it.” Then a whole lot of people who claim to love America lost their teeny tiny minds. 

I am not speaking of The Bulwark “conservatives”—the people “conserving conservatism” by endorsing socialists. No, this hysteria enveloped even normally sane commentators and politicians. Conservatives who claim to support President Trump joined The Bulwark gang on their fainting couches and borrowed their pearls for clutching. “Well, I never!”

 All this drama was inspired because of statements that strike us normal Republicans not succumbing to the poisonous odors Beltway emanating from the atmosphere—you know, those of us out here in voter land—as simple, common sense. Not only was there nothing wrong with President Trump’s tweets, they were a brilliant tactical attack.

With a series of tweets that named no names, President Trump forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to own her radical wing. In very few words on a Sunday morning, Trump made an anti-Semite the face of the Democratic Party. Pelosi had two choices. She could stand up for the outright anti-American, anti-Semitic, spiteful squad, or she would be seen as agreeing with the dreaded Donald J. Trump. 

President Trump sprang a trap on Pelosi and was rewarded by the weaklings on his own side wailing like babies with wet diapers.

It astounds me that suddenly Nancy Pelosi is being portrayed as the moderate, and voice of reason in the Democratic party. Pelosi rose to power representing the radical San Francisco Left, hence the nickname “San Fran Nan.” Her election to House Minority Leader was seen as the Democrats moving as far left as possible. Once in power, she made it her life’s work to rid the party of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. She sacrificed the party’s moderates to ram Obamacare through Congress. Yes for a time that cost her the Speaker’s gavel. But Pelosi plays the long game and plays it well.

Just last year, Democrats running for Congress ran ads insisting they would be nothing like Pelosi. The American people for no earthly reason bought their pretense of moderation. Once the Democrats had their majority back, that pretense went out the window 

Then, completely out of the blue, Pelosi found herself in conflict with freshmen members of Congress. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her testy trio moved the Overton Window so far to the left that “San Fran Nan” is now supposedly a moderate. This, too, is only more of Pelosi’s long game. 

In reality, Pelosi has done nothing as the party’s radical base has grown ever more vocal. Ocasio-Cortez’s cry of racism suddenly makes Pelosi, who is as conniving as any Borgia, look like a poor old lady being called names by a mean girl Millennial. It’s been a brilliant plan. Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar make the rest of the Democrats look evenhanded. Meanwhile, the rest of the Democrats pay no price for their own party’s growing anti-Americanism.

President Trump saw through the Democrat’s kabuki theater. The president brilliantly figured out a way to tie Ocasio-Cortez and Omar to Pelosi’s tail. No more standing above the fray and pretending to be in control as the Democrats controlled us. Pelosi would have to condemn President Trump and therefore embrace the commie quad. President Trump has turned on the kitchen light and the America-hating cockroaches are scurrying. But so are those with weak stomachs who are supposed to be on America’s side.

No, the president was not wrong to tell Omar (without mentioning her by name) to go back to where she came from. He is only wrong for not deporting her for her violations of immigration law. Neither is it wrong to tell Rashida Tilab and Ocasio-Cortez to return to their parent’s points of origin if the United States is so very much to their disliking. No, the president is most certainly not wrong to tell people to love this country or get out. 

This is where a lot of conventional conservative commentators lose the thread. People often say that President Trump is playing 3D chess while everyone else is playing checkers. It is far more vicious than that. For decades, the Democrats have been playing the “Hunger Games”—no rules, no mercy. They have hit below the belt and gouged out eyes. Democrats have done whatever it takes to win. Meanwhile, Republicans and the conservative movement have kindly and gently requested if maybe just this one time perhaps the Democrats could obey the law. 

So now we are $22 trillion in debt, and states are bankrupting florists and bakers because they won’t involuntarily offer their moral support to notions they can’t in good conscience abide. That’s where the party of Emily Post has gotten us.

Here, at last, we have a president who is willing to fight the Democrats at their own game, eye gouge to eye gouge, face kick to face kick. It’s not pretty. But it is far better than letting the ignorant Ocasio-Cortez turn Pelosi Borgia into the voice of moderation.

And to all the alleged conservatives still hysterical about President Trump’s successful strategy: if you won’t fight for this country, at least get the hell out of the way of the man who does. 

Photo credit: TKTKT

Big Media • Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • The Left • The Media • The Resistance (Snicker)

Welcome to the Democrats’ ‘Truman Show’

Last week’s congressional immigration and border security hearing was a microcosmic embodiment of the “The Truman Show” world of the Democratic Party.

Remember that 1998 film, when Jim Carrey was actually a good actor? When his character, Truman Burbank, discovers that his entire life had been scripted for television from birth, he forgoes his life of comfortable fantasy for the uncomfortable world of freedom; the other side of the door Burbank walks through is frightening, but worth it. 

U.S. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who spoke (well, grandstanded is more like it) at the hearing, are the opposite of the Burbank character at the movie’s conclusion. They have spent the entirety of their brief political careers as Manchurian candidates and Manchurian congresswomen. They haven’t shunned their existences as political actresses who inhabit fantastical worlds of fake tears and faux outrage, which were on full display at the hearing; rather, they have lovingly embraced it. 

Yes, theatrics are inherent in politics; the political thespians, however, have wooed and wowed America’s useful idiots with Streepian smoothness. 

Every nanosecond of Burbank’s life was predetermined by Christof, the creator of “The Truman Show”; the taxpayer-funded activist actresses’ Christofs are the non-profits MoveOn and Justice Democrats, a political action committee formed in 2017 by Breadline Bernie Sanders alums and Cenk Uygur, one of the creators of “The Young Turks,” who was a Republican, before he was an independent, before he was a Democrat. 

Are Capitol Hill Republicans actually aware that Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, and Tlaib are taxpayer-funded activist actresses? If not, why not? If so, why not say so?

All the World’s a Stage
From crying-on-demand, to teeth cleanings, to haircuts, to sniffing hair, to cracking open coldies, to jerk chicken marinade in the kitchen and to men kissing their husbands, Democrats have created for their voters a world where truth and reality are indefinitely suspended, supplanted by fairy tales; this is manifested in their anti-American policy proposals. 

All the world’s a stage, and the men and women mere players; irrespective of influence and propaganda, adults are responsible for their own actions and decisions. But the Democrat delusions of grandeur pervasive throughout the republic—buttressed by lies, conspiracy theories and myths that the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) rarely challenge—are dangerous and deadly. 

Men are women. Hillary Clinton “won” the 2016 presidential election. Inequality is the new equality. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On and on. Democrats live in a politically manufactured world akin to Truman Burbank’s “reality” TV world.

Are Democrats incapable of recognizing truth when they see it? I’ve long said that Democrats don’t actually believe the bull dung they peddle, whether it be “fundamental transformation,” “democratic socialism” or “it takes a village.” What if I’m mistaken, however? The only people who frighten me more than those who spout but don’t believe the crap coming out of their mouths are the ones who do believe it.

Inequality Is the New Equality
When it comes to Democrats, there are myriad “Truman Show” examples to choose from, day in and day out. With all due respect, if any of you reading this can’t name one instantaneously, then you’re not paying attention. The Equality Act, passed two months ago by every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives and eight Tessio Republicans, is particularly telling. (Inspired by Sal Tessio from “The Godfather,” who intentionally betrays the Corleone family, a Tessio Republican is one who intentionally betrays America First principles of nationalism, constitutional liberties, free markets, and common sense.) 

Democrats pushed the Equality Act through because their world is one where males who decide they’re females should be able to compete in women’s sports. Democrats sell this stranger-than-science-fiction narrative because it’s what they believe their voters want to buy. The bill isn’t going to become law, thank God, because it will fail in the Senate.  

It’s not just that Democrats destroy everything they touch, it’s that their supposed Midas touch never turns anything to gold. Does any Democrat in Congress, or any of their voters, realize that? 

The “party of science” couldn’t be more anti-science. The “party of women” couldn’t be any more misogynistic (and misandrist, for that matter). The “party of the youth” couldn’t be any more anti-child, as evidenced by its fetish for 40-week abortions, as well as their zealous political exploitation-engineering of the youth in our schools, culture, and media. 

Democrats spit in the faces of Naomi Fraley, who inspired the World War II-era poster girl “Rosie the Riveter,” women’s suffrage heroines Ida B. Wells and Susan B. Anthony, and every woman who demanded—and achieved—true equality. Wham bam thank you, ma’am! Or is it “sir”? With Democrats, it can be confusing. 

Democrats have set women’s equality back a century. Are there any prominent Democrats in the country willing to stand up against their party’s apparatus? If you want true diversity and equality, strive for excellence—not pseudo-science. “Transgender” men don’t need red carpets rolled out for them to compete against the weaker biological sex; they need an intervention that prevents them from becoming the next statistic in the rising transgender suicide body count.  

Democrats are actually the exact opposite of what they proclaim to be about; it’s why they constantly employ the first rule of propaganda: to accuse your opposition of that which you yourself are guilty. This illogic is the norm, not the exception, in the “Truman Show” habitat Democrats inhabit. 

Democrats view governing as a vanity project. The AOCs, Omars, and Tlaibs (among many others) are traitorous burdens to our country and serve zero legislative purpose. They seek not to govern, or achieve, or represent—they seek to take our money and take our freedoms, and invoke ideologies shaped and influenced by the worst ideologies in Man’s history. Look how pathetic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Representative Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) are. Pelosi, 79, can barely get through a press conference. Nadler, 71, fainted a few months ago. I’m not an ageist, and I wish no ill will toward either, but rather than retire and spend time with the grandkids, they will spend their twilight years propagating Russian collusion/obstruction of justice/cover-up/whatever’s next-lies that they know are lies.

To bridge our divide, the Democrats must be conquered; perhaps then, there can be political peace. Truman Burbank overcame the false hope and tyranny of a life of fantasy and make-believe. It needs to end badly at the polls for the Democrats. We on the America First nationalist side seek calm, and to have our rights, our families, and our businesses left alone. Continue challenging us, though, and I promise we will fight back 10 times, 100 times, 1,000 times more fiercely than anything they want to toss at us from fantasyland.  

In the end, Truman defeated the world of la-la land. Conquer, or be conquered. 

Photo credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

America • Democrats • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post • The Left

Advice to Democratic Wolves: Start Wearing Sheep’s Clothing

Many prominent liberals have ripped into Democratic candidates for sponsoring ideas too far from mainstream America. Their advice? Stop being so honest and start lying.

“Candidates are campaigning in an America of their own imagination—a bit to the left of Sweden,” columnist Richard Cohen said recently.

It is important, as Cohen understands, for Democrats to find a winning platform and a plan to win back the White House. Right now, their positions come off as extreme and probably make them unelectable.

He’s right. Only 13 percent of Americans want to make private health insurance illegal, while 55 percent of Californians think free healthcare for illegal immigrants would be going too far. Both of these positions have been endorsed by the Democratic Party.

And these radical positions raise more questions.

Would Democratic candidates raise their hands in support of illegal immigrants, or foreign nationals, voting in American elections? Will it ever be a good idea to enforce border policies?

What’s chilling is how ambiguous liberal commentators are. Should Democrats oppose extreme policies or should they just hide their extremism? It isn’t clear.

Writing for Mother Jones, Kevin Drum spends a lot of time explaining to Democrats what the people are seeing: “it’s hard to see much daylight between [Elizabeth] Warren’s plan and de facto open borders.”

But what should they do about it?

If Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) admits that his “new vision for America” requires increasing taxes on the middle class, that’s true enough. But is the advice that he should lie about this or that he should find a better way to promise the cake without the calories? It’s certainly never that he should moderate his position.

Most Democrats pledge to offer illegal immigrants government provided health care. And South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg thinks it’s sensible that the 11 million illegal aliens (by extremely conservative estimates) in our country should have the same access as American citizens.

But would Cohen and Drum have Mayor Pete lie about that in order to get the votes who don’t support it, or would they scale back and recommend real limits?

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) thinks enforcing our immigration laws “is not reflective of America and our values, and it’s got to end.”

Would Cohen and Drum have her be dishonest about how she would change immigration? Or should she actually implement something even more generous than open borders when in office? Perhaps we should pay for their passage?

Anyone with eyes to see knows that today’s Democrats see no enemies to their left—they have removed any pretense of cloaking themselves in moderation and are showing voters their true plans for the country.

Of course, taking time to be honest about the real objects of the Democratic party might distract them from their one and only goal: “The urgent challenge is to rid the nation of Trump.”

After all, if President Trump really is “Hitler,” as commentators like Cohen and Drum have recklessly suggested in the past, then no candidate could be too extreme to dampen their support. Not even the Bolsheviks.

Since the only change in the Democratic Party is a push toward further left-wing extremism, Liberals had better recommend that these candidates start lying now. If they wait till later, the mean orange man will make them pay.

Photo Credit: Alex Wong/Getty Images

America • Democrats • Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Immigration • Post

Immigration by the Numbers

Democrats have renewed their vows to unwavering support of open borders. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tussled last week with former Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Thomas Homan. After she described fence-hoppers as asylum seekers, Homan reminded her that they all have the option of presenting their asylum claims at the ports of entry. Her attempt at “gotcha” backfired.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) got tongue tied on “The View,” saying that she didn’t want to “decriminalize” illegal immigration, but that “we’re not going to treat people who are undocumented [and] cross the borders as criminals, that is correct.”

Most dramatically, the entire lot of Democrats running for president raised their hands in support of giving free healthcare to anyone who makes it into the country, legally or otherwise.

Is There a Crisis on the Border?
Only a few short months ago, the Democrats mocked Trump for suggesting there was a crisis on the border. Now they agree there is a crisis, but they’re chiefly concerned with the conditions of the detainees. While kids every day are separated from parents who are caught with a bag of weed, and our prisons are chaotic nightmare worlds for nonviolent offenders, substantially better confinement conditions for illegal aliens are supposed to raise an alarm.

Trump was right the first time. There is a crisis on our border. It may not be that much worse today than yesterday, but it’s a crisis all the same, a chronic one. At least 12 million (probably many, millions more, in truth) are living here illegally, having snuck across our borders or overstayed visas. We have the equivalent of a caravan coming every day.

The problem does not end at the border. Dubious asylum claims benefit from our overly solicitous immigration courts, the purpose of which seems to be multiplying procedures and expending resources to keep every illegal immigrant here indefinitely. Many are released pending a final adjudication of their asylum claims. When they do show up after being released, their asylum claims rarely pass the straight face test. These people are desperate and poor, but they’re not Andrei Sakharov.

The Accident of Geography
The fact that so many people are fighting to get into our country is not that surprising. We have an abundance of jobs, wealth, peace, stability, and technology largely absent from the Third World. Our “poor” are rich by global standards, and our lax interior enforcement ensures that many jobs are available for those who happen to break in.

While Europe is starting to deal with a similar problem, part of the reason America is particularly burdened arises from geography. Whereas Europe has the Mediterranean Sea acting as a natural moat from its Third World neighbors to the south, America and Mexico share the largest frontier on Earth between a First World and Third World country. Mexico itself has even poorer neighbors in Central America, who can blend in as they make their way north. All of these countries have deficient institutions that guarantee a great many of their inhabitants will live impoverished lives and seek a better life elsewhere.

The diverging fortunes of the United States and its Latin American neighbors is a cautionary tale. English colonization of North America began over 100 years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, but the United States soon surpassed its neighbors to the South. The Anglo-Protestant, individualist, and liberty-oriented United States has always been very different from the Hispano-Catholic, hierarchical, and authoritarian world of Latin America. We can drink the water.

The two systems and peoples are now being thrown together through a mixture of legal and illegal immigration. More than 600 million people live in Latin America, and 150 million people in the rest of the world have expressed an interest in migrating to the United States. The ethnic mix, as well as social and political culture of the United States, is changing in the process. At first denied by defenders of mass immigration, the change to our demographics was then acknowledged, and finally employed as a triumphant boast against those uneasy with the scope and pace of the change.

The only reason America is wealthier, safer, and more powerful than its neighbors is because of our people, our culture, and our laws. But these things are not frozen in amber. Change the people, and the laws and culture will change too. Ocasio-Cortez or Ilhan Omar would not have been elected in the America of yesteryear, nor would their socialist and resentful, anti-white politics have been popular. Yet they are the archetype of America’s political future and a product of the new American people.

The Conservative Impulse
One does not have to believe that the mix of people in America before 1965 was perfect to be uneasy with a massive and sudden changes to those numbers. One simply must be a conservative. The sheer number of legal and illegal immigrants has caused an impact that would not be present if there were only 10,000 or 100,000 immigrants per year. Instead, as we have seen, a rapid demographic revolution is fraught with risk and promises changes in culture, expectations, and other dimensions of a “way of life.” While the land, laws, history, and institutions are all important to our national character, people ultimately make the country.

The 1924 immigration restrictions are often maligned as hateful and prejudiced, but the formula made a lot of sense: it was designed to match the proportions of the people already living in the country. In other words, the pre-1965 immigration regime did not disrupt the basic nature of the country and its people by design. One does not have to be a white supremacist to want one’s country to remain more or less the same; it is a natural and conservative impulse.

While Republicans were arguing about marginal tax rates and school choice, the future was being remade under the steady influence of the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration law. Come 1990 the diversity visa began being awarded to completely random people, typically from impoverished Third World states. Massive numbers of relatives of immigrants were allowed through chain migration without regard to those relatives’ skills.

Finally, the numbers themselves are enormous, and some years have exceeded 1 million legal immigrants. As a result, we now have the highest number of foreign born that we have had at any time in American history, and nearly the largest percentage of foreign born compared to any earlier period.

This is a revolution and, unlike earlier waves of immigrants, the highest proportion come from a single, impoverished region: Latin America.

Who? How Many?
Before Trump, no one seemed to ask, “Who should come?” And, if they should come, how many? Again, 150 million worldwide would immigrate to the United States if permitted. This would be 50 percent of our current population. There is little reason to think the current rate of immigration is the right number (it’s too much) or that a much larger number guaranteed by the de facto open borders policy of the Democrats would be superior.

Setting aside the stresses on our culture and social capital, an artificially growing population is not good for the people already here. There are costs to growth uncaptured by the free market, such as congestion costs and rising real estate prices, as exemplified by the Dickensian “pod living” of workers in San Francisco.

Unlike earlier periods of migration, we also bear the burden of a large and generous welfare state, a system that is supposed to benefit our fellow citizens—that is, our struggling brothers and sisters. While the Democrats caused scandal at their debate by raising their hands for giving illegal immigrants free healthcare, a great many receive exactly that today by showing up at emergency rooms. This costs all of us a lot of money, as do the burdens of a large and non-English speaking population in our public schools. We cannot take care of everyone, and the situation is unsustainable.

The Democrats’ drive to decriminalize illegal entry suggests they think Americans are clamoring for more immigrants. But the 2016 election, as well as numerous surveys, show that Americans are uneasy with this state of affairs, and this becomes more pronounced when Americans have exposure to large immigrant populations. At some point demographics may provide the Democrats a permanent majority, but this is a dynamic situation, and legacy America is starting to act more like a bloc as its destiny becomes more imperiled.

The current immigration debate is mired in slogans and sentimentality. We are told that we are a nation of immigrants, as if that settles the matter for all time. The media and prominent Democrats complain that people who broke the law are treated like everyone else who breaks the law. These are not serious arguments.

The immigration problem and the immigration debate changes dramatically when the number is 100,000 a year, 1 million a year, or extended to the 150 million likely immigrants. As the saying goes, “quantity has a quality all its own.” Today, the total population of foreign born and their children is at least 70 million, or 1-in-5 people. Enough is enough.

Photo Credit: Paul Ratje/AFP/Getty Image