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

 

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

Big Media • Post • race

CNN Tries, Fails to Get GOP Women to Denounce Trump’s ‘Racist’ Tweets

CNN tried but failed to get a focus group of Republican women to denounce President Trump’s recent tweets slamming four far-left congresswomen (known as “the Squad”) as racist.

As everyone on the planet is now surely aware, Trump blasted the women — without naming names — on Twitter Sunday, suggesting that “they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

Many in the media have conveniently forgotten to mention his next line: “Then come back and show us how it’s done.” Trump’s tweets were understood to be targeting Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).  All of the women except for Omar were born in the United States.

Broadcasting from Dallas, Texas, CNN’s Randi Kay put forth her best effort Tuesday night, but was unable to get anyone on the panel to agree that Trump is a racist.

“It seems as though there is nothing that Donald Trump can do to shake these eight Republican women,” Kaye declared at the start of the segment. “And even in this most recent controversy, they feel that these congresswomen are racist — and Donald Trump still has their full support.”

All eight women raised their hands when Kaye asked who thought Trump’s tweets were not racist.

“They hate America,” panelist Dena Miller said. “If it’s so bad, there’s a lot of places they can go.”

Kaye seemed taken aback when another panelist said, “I’m a brown-skinned woman, I am a legal immigrant, I agree with him.”

“You don’t think that’s racist?” Kaye asked.

No, not at all,” the woman replied.

Another woman suggested that it is the Squad’s far-left ideology that makes them seem un-American to conservatives — not their skin color: “It’s a demonstration of how their ideology spills over, even though they’re American now — so to speak — they’re not acting American,” she explained.

One of the GOP voters said the left-wing congresswomen were “inciting hatred and division — and that’s not what our country is about.”

“Don’t you think that’s what the president is doing with his racist comments?” Kaye pressed.

“But he didn’t say anything about color,” the woman replied. Another panelist chimed in, saying “the president is not racist” and that he loves all people “across the board.”

The CNN host then read the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “racism,” apparently under the mistaken impression that it buttressed her argument.

“A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” she said, quoting Merriam-Webster.

Of course, nothing the Trump said in his tweets — or has ever said — suggests that he believes in the superiority of any particular race.

Kaye asked the panelists: “Based on that definition, do you not think that what the president has been saying …”

The women jumped in to disagree before Kaye could finish her question.

“He dated a black woman for two years, two of his wives are immigrants,” said Gina O’Briant. “He is not a xenophobic racist.”

“The first black billionaire is endorsing Trump. How can you call him racist?” another woman asked.

She was referring to media mogul Robert Johnson, who said in a recent video that the Democrat party has moved too far to the left and gave Trump an A+ on the economy.

“I give the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large number of Americans,” Johnson said on CNBC, last week. Overall, if you look at the U.S. economy, if you look at the number of people who are no longer looking for jobs but are now seeing the opportunity for job growth, you’ve got to give the president an A+ for that.”

Perhaps because of this, the president has enjoyed historic approval ratings among black voters.

Kaye pointed out that the congresswomen claim they ran for office “because they explicitly love this country,” seeming to take them at their word.

But the Republican panelists were skeptical.

“So they say,” one woman said.

“You’re saying they hate this country?” Kaye asked.

“Yes,” another woman replied.

“Do you think it’s just a coincidence that these four congresswomen that the president is going after, none of them are white?” Kaye asked.

“Yes,” several of the women replied in unison.

Dena Miller, one of the Republicans on the panel, asked why none of four congresswomen were white.

“Why are they not racist?” she asked. “How come they haven’t befriended one of their white, female, congresswoman colleagues?”

“Because they won’t,” one of the Republicans said. “That’s a good point,” another added.

“Because they don’t like white people,” Miller concluded. “They’re racist.”

(Photo by Ronen Tivony/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Democrats • Elections • Identity Politics • Post • Pro-Life • race

President Trump Was Right About Sleepy Joe Biden

President Trump was right about Joe Biden. Something is definitely “off” about the former vice president. On the debate stage Thursday night, he seemed confused, defensive, and just generally out of it.

Consider his response to the inevitable attack regarding his boasts about working with notorious segregationists and his own remarks during the 1970s supporting school segregation. Biden and his entire campaign knew that he was going to have to answer for that at some point. Yet when the criticism came, he didn’t even seem to comprehend what the fuss was about.

In one particularly memorable exchange with Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Biden tried to claim that he wasn’t actually against desegregation, just federally mandated desegregation, forcing Harris to explain to him that—at the very time he was making his pro-segregation comments in the 1970s—the federal government was compelled to intervene because states and cities were refusing to implement civil rights laws.

Biden never quite managed to shake the bewildered expression from his face throughout the debate, but perhaps the lowest point came when he replied to a question with, “I’m sorry. I beg your pardon. I didn’t hear.”

Even after he and the moderator had straightened out that he did, in fact, raise his hand to indicate that he supported giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, Biden’s response bordered on the incoherent. It’s all here if you have the stomach to read the transcript.

“All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare,” President Trump pointed out on Twitter shortly after Biden’s awkward effort to jump on that bandwagon. “How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”

Biden can learn the language and say what he needs to say, like an old rock-n-roller trying to stay hip with the latest trends in music, but he can’t change what he is: a 76-year-old white guy in a party that’s abandoned most serious policy and coherent ideology in favor of the intersectionalist dogma that old white men are responsible for all the world’s problems.

It doesn’t help that Biden has, at various times, held the kinds of positions these evil straight white male oppressors are supposed to have used to oppress one victim group after another.

For instance, the modern Democratic Party stands in complete opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies, and is flirting with abolishing ICE and open borders. Yet, in the past, Joe Biden voted to build 700 miles of border wall and punish “sanctuary cities.”

It’s also a party that considers on-demand abortion up to the day a baby is born to be a mother’s human right, but Biden is a Roman Catholic who entered the U.S. Senate determined to overturn Roe v. Wade and even voted to remove exceptions for rape and incest from restrictions on federal abortion funding into the 1980s.

Today’s Democrats also take immense “pride” in their sycophantic support for the LGBT community. But in the 1990s, Biden voted in favor of banning homosexuals from marrying or serving in the military. He did not come out in favor of gay marriage until the Supreme Court was on the verge of allowing it.

Biden is also a guy who spent the 1970s arguing in favor of school segregation while getting along “civilly” with the old segregationist Dixiecrats—and his opponents raked him over the coals about that during the debate in Miami.

Joe Biden has always been a consummate politician. He has recanted, apologized, caved, and adopted the intersectional party line on each and every one of these issues, and plenty of others, too. For years, he has conspicuously self-flagellated in public appearances, extolling, for example, how great it is that America is becoming minority-white. He’s clearly aware that his “unbearable whiteness” requires him to atone for his membership in the oppressor’s club.

That instinct for ideological malleability wasn’t evident during Biden’s first debate performance of the 2020 campaign, however. His halting, fumbling responses to entirely predictable criticisms is surely forcing many Democrat primary voters to reconsider their support for the party’s supposed frontrunner.

President Trump was the first to notice that Biden has “lost a step,” but everyone who witnessed the former vice president’s performance in Miami is now painfully aware of just how accurate the president’s observation really was.

Photo credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

America • civic culture/friendship • Donald Trump • Elections • Free Speech • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Culture • The Left

Wokescolds Won’t Let Us Knit in Peace

The ways of the “woke” have seeped into every part of American life. No activity or outlet is safe. Even my beloved crafting community is no longer immune. Suddenly, knitters and crocheters need to “examine their privilege.”

For months, I’ve been unfollowing wokescolds on Instagram who, in their earnest desire to awaken me to the apparent and horrendous lack of “inclusion” in the fiber world, have made me question the hobby’s utility as escapism. 

Tin Can Knits is perhaps one of the larger, and most egregious, companies to jump on the wokewagon. Concerned about the lack of BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of color) used as models in their photographs of finished pattern projects or their inclusion in your local crafting circle, they felt the need to out themselves as unconscious oppressors and ask for contrition from the Woke crowd. 

In a February 28 blog post, the company issued this statement: 

We are sorry that our Instagram feed and our publications have, overwhelmingly, reinforced white norms of beauty, instead of challenging them. We are sorry that we personally have been ignorant and not educated ourselves beyond a superficial level on issues of racism, nor considered our white privilege critically.

Apparently, white privilege is a knitted toboggan. Among the resources recommended for overcoming this scourge is White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, which, these newly awakened grannies tell us, will allow whites to “overcome your discomfort around speaking about race,” a crucial first step in managing the tricky intersection of knits and purls. 

For a more recent example that is not surprising yet has caused a great deal of controversy, Ravelry issued this statement on its website on Sunday: 

New policy, effective immediately

We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is unambiguously support for white supremacy. For more details, read this document: https://ravelry.com/content/no-trump

In this statement, the editors at Ravelry have decided that “[y]ou can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here.” But be careful. You may be banned if you “support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content.” 

And what can you do to rid Ravelry of all mention of President Trump? 

You can help by flagging any of the following items if they constitute support for Trump or his administration:

Projects: Unacceptable projects will be provided to the member or made invisible to others.

Patterns: Unacceptable patterns will be returned to drafts.

Forum posts: right now, only posts written after Sunday, June 23rd at 8 AM Eastern

That’s right, fellow knitters! Become a snitch!

This is censorship. Ravelry, once filled with amazing and creative people, has now become an enforcer of leftist groupthink. They are weaponizing their members to report fellow members. Members, no doubt, will be seeking out profiles and turning in conservatives and Republicans when the ability to flag member profiles is up and running. 

While no one questions the right of the editors and their members to adhere to an Anti-Trump point of view,  Ravelry should take care when making a public announcement that amounts to a clear statement intended to squash free speech. Yet many organizations today are making similar statements and, rarely (if ever), are they challenged. 

In response to this heavy-handed scorn, Republican and conservative knitters are flocking to Love Knitting (part of Love Crafts) and Humble Acres Yarn’s new app. The app, less than a month old, promises no political discussions, and all are welcome. Humble Acres still supports Ravelry as a business and, until this episode, they’ve always had a good business model. But Humble Acres’ openness and (heh!) humility is refreshing. We don’t have to agree on political, social, or cultural issues to come together over our mutual interest in and love for all things yarn. 

As more indie dyers and others join Ravelry’s call for intolerance and hate against Trump supporters and conservatives, we will keep searching for an alternative. Knitters like me just want to find great patterns and chat with like-minded yarn lovers . . .  about yarn! 

Ravelry’s policy “inspiration” came from the gaming world’s “RPG.net,” which implemented a similar ban. The language is virtually the same. 

1. We are banning support of the administration of President Trump. You can still post on RPG.net even if you do in fact support the administration—you just can’t talk about it here.

2. We are absolutely not endorsing the Democrats nor are we banning all Republicans.

3. We are certainly not banning conservative politics, or anything on the spectrum of reasonable political viewpoints. We assert that hate groups and intolerance are categorically different from other types of political positions, and that confusing the two legitimizes bigotry and hatred.

4. We are not going to have a purge — we will not be banning people for past support. Though if your profile picture is yourself in a MAGA hat, this might be a good time to change it.

5. We will not permit witch-hunts, progressive loyalty-testing, or attempting to bait another into admitting support for President Trump in order to get them banned. The mod staff will deal harshly with attempts to weaponize this policy.

6. It is not open season on conservatives, and revenge fantasies against Trump and Trump supporters are still against the rules.

Sorry, gamers. But your escapist world is also a place where Trump supporters are not allowed. Note that you cannot have an avatar with MAGA on it. 

Needless to say, companies wearing political commentary on their sleeves, had better stick to the armbands provided by the totalitarian Left.

Recently, Daisy Cottage Quilting stated her pro-life stance on Instagram. One commenter told her to “stay in your lane” and stick to quilting before unfollowing her and she still receives hate mail almost three weeks after the incident. 

Wokescolds will make you miserable until you give in or slink away. Then they sit back smugly and congratulate themselves for their ability to silence dissent. Standing up to them takes guts these days because you will be vilified and slammed at every opportunity. Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin, Ohio proved it can be done. 

I hate, truly hate, that politics has leached into every part of society. I knit and quilt and sew. I do these things for fun, enjoyment, and escape from the outside world. Now politics have invaded my crafting world and it makes me sad and angry. Can’t we just knit and enjoy each other’s company?

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Democrats • Elections • Identity Politics • Law and Order • Post • Progressivism • race • The Left

Bizarre Democratic Politics in the D.C. Suburbs

In the Democratic primary race for commonwealth attorney in Arlington, Virginia, the prevailing principle seems to be that no good deed goes unpunished.

The moderate, much-admired Democrat incumbent, Theo Stamos, is being challenged in the primary by an unqualified radical lawyer whose campaign is being funded largely from outside the area and who has spouted one falsehood after another. She is also strangely clueless about local priorities.  

Stamos, who has served eight years in the Arlington-Falls Church district, is widely regarded as sensible, moderate, and competent. Residents are overwhelmingly satisfied with law enforcement.

Stamos’s opponent in the primary, Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, is a radical, left-wing “victim’s rights” advocate who has never tried a single case in a Virginia courtroom and seems to have no desire to prosecute anyone other than possibly “racists” and “corporate interests.” Her big issues are “racial inequality” in the courts and jails; withholding prosecution of minor drug crimes (she has announced that she will not bring charges for marijuana possession); the “school-to-prison pipeline” (which is virtually non-existent in the largely middle- and upper-middle-class district); and “police brutality,” which she alleges is not being pursued by incumbent Stamos.

Tafti cites only one case in which a man was killed by a shot in the back by police. But the incident was intensively investigated, with the authorities concluding that the man who was shot had viciously attacked an officer with a metal bar and was turned around by the force of his own blow and a first bullet in his arm. That hasn’t stopped her from condemning Stamos as a racist.

With resources obtained primarily from outside the district, including from radical billionaire investor and philanthropist George Soros, Tafti has massively outspent Stamos. Her bizarre campaign is focusing on issues that have little local relevance. In effect, Tafti seems to want to reform Ferguson, Missouri, or Baltimore, by running for commonwealth attorney in an affluent, largely law-abiding Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C.

Because Stamos is a moderate and not a raving, anti-law-and-order radical, the Virginia political establishment has the long knives out for her. Former Governor Terry McAuliffe (a long-time personal and political ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton) restored voting rights to 173,000 felons during his term. Because Stamos is influential in the Virginia Association of Commonwealth Attorneys, and because the group opposed certain aspects of McAuliffe’s reforms, McAuliffe evidently is exacting revenge by trying to unseat her. Something similar is occurring in neighboring Fairfax County.

The commonwealth attorney’s job is to prosecute crimes. She must enforce the laws passed by the legislature. She cannot ignore laws simply because she does not like them. And above all, a prosecutor must be honest and open when applying the law.

Distorting the facts to suit a personal agenda is corrupt. We can only hope that enough voters will pay sufficient attention to this local race to reelect the incumbent. Effective law enforcement is essential to a civilized society.

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

America • Americanism • Center for American Greatness • civic culture/friendship • Declaration of Independence • Identity Politics • Lincoln • Post • race • The Culture

Reparations and Diversity Are Not the Path to Equality

The revival of reparations talk signals an opportunity for a serious discussion of the revival of republican self-government or strong citizenship. Instead, we get the blithe attitudes of Democrats and the grumbling about handouts from Republicans which signal the bipartisan lack of seriousness—a deficiency also characterizing disputes over immigration and “diversity.”

The best opportunity for a serious discussion took place at Georgetown University, which had been shocked to discover the 1838 sale of 272 slaves who were owned by its predecessor, Georgetown College. Genealogists were able to track down some current descendants of those who were sold to Southern plantations in Louisiana and elsewhere. Records remain of the contemporary debate over the sales and accounts of the dividing of families

So here was a clear case of some physical connection between a wrongful deed and a living person with some connection to it. But the key question remains, what should Jesuit-founded Georgetown University (or those who benefitted from the slave sale, including the debtors that Georgetown paid off from the slave sales) do today? It’s too easy for current students to vote for a modest student fee (often paid for by parents in any case) to benefit someone or another. A tougher question is whether there should be a surtax on current Georgetown Jesuits, the faculty, and staff. Cognizant of the ties of common faith as well as a common institution, Georgetown’s Catholics may feel particular obligations, which would appropriately have included prayers and fasting. Still, the question remains of what obligations the present has concerning past misdeeds.

Current immigrants may scoff at the notion that they are financially or morally obligated to make amends for the wickedness of slavery, an institution that was abolished 150 years ago and long before the arrival of their families. In this they follow the lead of other Americans, who make the same sensible objection: It’s not right to be generous with other people’s money and deprive people of goods in order to bestow them on others you would prefer to see prosper.

If we look to Abraham Lincoln for guidance, however, we will find both the most acute American critic of reparations and its most staunch advocate. What can this mean? Despite his hatred of slavery, his argument against the institution was rooted in constitutional doctrine—which is why he insisted that his wartime Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in Union-held territory but only those in rebel-held ground. Moreover, rejecting slavery is in accord with those who defend property rights today: “this argument of [Stephen Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat….”

Or, to put it somewhat differently, “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is not democracy.” The 13th Amendment was the fulfillment of Lincoln’s Civil War statesmanship:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

The dramatic change for America was not only in a shift in domestic law and not only in putting an end to the category of slaves, but it was also in abolishing the category of masters and as well upending the relationship between states and the federal government concerning the freemen. But the amendment also respected the separation of powers and required Congress to act—there was no special empowerment of the president or of the Supreme Court.

Thus, Lincoln’s constitutional argument also advanced a moral understanding of the Civil War, stated most succinctly in the Gettysburg Address and above all in the Second Inaugural with its astounding appeal to the conscience of the re-United States: “With malice toward none; with charity for all,” following a conflict that devastated the country and would transform the South. “Reparations,” in this sense, would need to be made to all who suffered in the war. The purpose of the war he had seen thus:

This is essentially a People’s contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend.

Joining a nation is not like buying a club membership. The bonds are stronger. Its debts become those of the member’s. Each assumes the glory and the folly of the nation’s past.

In all this, the protection of the rights to property, as James Madison had emphasized at the founding, would be more important than ever. But property could no longer be held in slaves. A sensible Reconstruction policy would have assured the protection of the natural rights of freedmen and the abolition of the master class in the South. Neither took place.

Lincoln’s statesmanship was missing, and though President Grant strived to expand property rights protections for all, he was thwarted in his noble effort. The nation did not fulfill James Madison’s founding premiseas a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” Without proper protection of property rights in their full and comprehensive sense, republican self-government is illusory. The party of “you work, I eat” remained in power, though morphing to cope with new political realities and to appeal to those it once argued should be enslaved, eventually becoming the administrative state that now rules the country.

That party in its early and later Progressive forms would then recruit immigrants into their cause. The immigrants came for work, but they stayed for more, often expressing gratitude for their new home. The ethnic diversity of immigrants, in country of origin, mores, and religion, reflected the Declaration’s equality of natural rights. But there was also a disturbing lack of concern for the suitability of immigrants for republican government, given immigrants’ past under old-world tyrannies. Nonetheless, the earlier, patriotic Progressivism along with the practical effects of time for assimilation led to their recruitment into its framework.

Today, the anti-American Progressivism of the administrative state has fostered the notion of privilege for an expanded array of allegedly oppressed groups—racial and ethnic, feminist, and now sexual. The Claremont Institute has recently published symposia on multiculturalism in its Claremont Review of Books and American Mind online magazine.

David Azerrad succinctly argues “Identity politics should be rejected not because it demands justice for those who have been unjustly treated, but because it poses a threat to republican self-government by corroding patriotic ties, fostering hatred, promoting cultural separatism, and demanding special treatment rather than equality under the law.” This is not healthy pride but aristocratic arrogance.

While each of these new identity groups needs to be understood in its particular demands on American republicanism, they all need to be distinguished from connection to the tyranny of slavery and the contemporary denunciations of “white privilege.” Briefly, the American descendants of slaves should be confident in their equality of rights and not remain in debt. Any gratitude they feel should be to the founders and to those who would perpetuate the constitutional order that finally recognized—even at the cost of some 600,000 American deaths—its obligations to them as fellow citizens.  

Alexis de Tocqueville has a useful insight here about Americans being Good Samaritans, though obviously limited in the amount of aid they will offer (Democracy in America, Volume II, Part3, chapter 4). Such limitations are not based on stinginess, however, but instead on the assumption that help given without limitation would be a sign of disrespect for the unfortunate’s ability to live freely and independently.. We today lack the restraint of Tocqueville’s earlier Americans who lived out an ethic of equality that recognized the equal human dignity of the poor and others suffering misfortune demanded treating them as persons capable of living independently.

Thus, the privilege talk, with its reminder of aristocracy, rankles our republican spirit. What the American Republic faces is that “old serpent,” in a new form, oligarchy, a form of personal privilege bestowed on oneself based on one’s origins.

For the study of multiculturalism, one should add to the Claremont Institute publications the “Symposium on American National Character” in the latest issue of Perspectives on Political Science. William B. Allen offers a refreshing bon mot, “a people who cannot lift their own heads cannot lift up their nation.” Or, as a recent president put it, “through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”

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:  Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Free Speech • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Culture • The Left

Challenging Liberal Racism

About a year ago, Vice published an article by Kesiena Boom called “100 Ways White People Can Make Life Less Frustrating For People of Color.” Offered as a way for the “anxious [White] allies of the world” to “be the change,” the article serves as a pretty good example of leftist attitudes on race. But what if these leftist, liberal attitudes are themselves racist?

By now we’re all familiar with the broad outlines of this narrative. Racism is real whether you can see it or not (No. 1). Don’t engage in “cultural appropriation” (No. 11). Don’t claim to know what is or isn’t racist (No. 17). Realize that “some days are mentally exhausting for people of color” (No. 20). Make a fuss if a collection of art, music, literature, or whatever, doesn’t include proportional representation by people of color (No. 27). Understand the “intersections of race and gender” (No. 43). Shut up and “just listen” (No. 68).

Perhaps the biggest common thread in Boom’s article is its air of moral superiority. People of color will dictate the terms of any discussion on race, and white people will keep quiet and listen. The problem with accepting this premise, however, is that the stakes are too high. According to Pew Research, by 2020 one-third of America’s eligible voters will be “nonwhites.”

Colorful Symmetries, Troubling Trends
If America’s “people of color” were as diverse in their voting preferences as non-Hispanic whites, the fact that they’re about to constitute one in every three voters wouldn’t mean much. But the opposite is the case. In the 2018 election, white voters leaned Republican, 54 to 44 percent, but Republican competitiveness ended there. Only 29 percent of Hispanics voted Republican, only 23 percent of Asians voted Republican, and only 9 percent of blacks voted Republican.

The conclusions you can draw from this unambiguous data have profound implications. The voting patterns of nonwhites are nearly monolithic in favor of Democrats, and the impact of this is transforming America’s political landscape. If nonwhites were the only voters, then today—based on the proportions of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the electorate—Democrats would get 78 percent of the vote. When you bring that monolithic preference into the total electorate, the symmetry is rather neat: without nonwhite voters, Republicans get 54 percent of the national vote; with everyone participating, Democrats get 54 percent of the vote.

This fact—that America’s politics are fundamentally altered by nonwhite voters preferring Democrats by a margin of nearly four to one—makes it necessary for white Republicans not only to stop being silent on issues of race and racism, but it obligates them to speak up. It is absurd, manipulative nonsense for anyone to tell white conservatives that they have to “shut up” and just be an “ally” on issues of race, when their destinies and their futures are being decided by nonwhite voters.

Not only are nonwhite voters already delivering the decisive swing vote in elections across the nation, and always in only one direction, but this reality is just beginning.

In just 16 years, between 2000 and 2016, the proportion of non-Hispanic white children in the U.S. declined from 61 percent of all children to 51 percent. Today, three years later, it’s less than 50 percent. Based on decades of consistent voting patterns and already established demographics, America is sliding, irrevocably, toward permanent rule by Democrats.

Shutting up is not an option. Whites have as much right to comment on issues of race as nonwhites, and just as much to lose if they are silent. And after all, what if the most toxic, devastating forms of racism aren’t coming from conservative Republicans, but from liberal Democrats? Wouldn’t everyone, especially nonwhites, want to hear the news?

Liberal Racism Rightly Understood
One of the reasons Republicans lose the vote of nonwhites is because Democrats have successfully tainted Republicans as racists. Who wants to vote for a party filled with racists? But if you examine the various types of racism infecting American society, there’s a strong argument to be made that the actual racism is coming from the Democrats.

First of all, you can rule out the obvious racism that everyone deplores. If you object to two people who love each other marrying because they’re from different races, you’re a racist. If you prejudge someone before you get to know them and dislike them because of their race, you’re a racist. If you deliberately deny someone an opportunity solely because of their race, you’re a racist. These are examples of toxic, indefensible racism that no serious person in American society defends.

But the third example provides a segue into what we might call liberal racism, because liberal racism isn’t whites denying nonwhites opportunities, it’s institutionalized discrimination against whites in favor of less qualified nonwhites.

If that raises the hackles of social justice warriors and their professional enablers in the diversity bureaucracy, that’s just too bad. Because affirmative action of all kinds is racism, plain and simple. And it doesn’t do anyone any good. It places less qualified nonwhites into college classrooms and corporate offices where they are not able to compete with their peers. This tempts the underachievers to believe the diversity bureaucracy’s B.S. about needing safe spaces and special treatment, and it embitters every better-qualified college or job applicant who didn’t get the opportunity they’d earned through merit.

These laws breed corruption and resentment wherever they appear. Small business owners are told they can’t compete for contracts or loans unless they have nonwhite partners. A cottage industry is formed where nonwhite partners, with no assets to put at risk and minimal qualifications, make themselves available to business owners who have invested decades of their lives and every penny they’ve ever made into a business. Who carries more risk? Who worked harder? How is this helpful?

There are nonwhite conservatives who understand there are no shortcuts to success. The list of influential black conservative Republican intellectuals and influencers, is huge, including Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Larry Elder, Ward Connerly, Condoleezza Rice, Alan Keyes, Star Parker, Walter Williams, Mia Love, Candace Owens, and countless others. Unfortunately, their work is marginalized by the liberal press and by their ideological opponents within their communities. But it isn’t just to nonwhites that white conservatives have to be more outspoken, it’s to other whites who have not questioned the liberal catechism on race.

Enforced racial quotas that do more harm than good to both whites and nonwhites are not the only liberal policy with racist consequences. Another example of liberal racism is K-12 public education policies, where the iron grip of leftist teachers unions have denied quality education to generations of nonwhites in America. Conservative Republicans didn’t destroy our public schools, the liberal Democrats did, by supporting teachers unions that care more about pay, benefits, and job security than about the children they’re supposed to educate.

Along with eliminating the ability to fire incompetent teachers, and drowning effective instruction in a torrent of “process” rules and bureaucracy, liberal Democrats have supported so-called “restorative justice,” which in practice makes it almost impossible to expel nonwhite students for discipline problems unless a proportional number of whites have also been expelled. Lack of discipline ranks as high as bad teachers and politicized curricula among the reasons why our public schools are failing, and expulsion quotas make matters worse, not better. Liberal Democrats are to blame for all of it.

Republicans, by contrast, support increasing the proportion of classroom teachers in K-12 schools and cutting back the expensive bureaucracy. Conservative Republicans support charter schools, homeschooling, private schools, and school vouchers—all designed to make schools compete to provide quality education. Conservative Republicans support bringing discipline back into the classroom, firing incompetent teachers, restoring math and language fundamentals to the curriculum, and reforming out-of-control teacher pensions that are bankrupting public education. What’s racist about any of that?

Environmental Justice?
Another example of liberal racism is the indirect but devastating effect of “green” politics. The real world result of renewable portfolio standards is huge increases to the cost of energy. This means members of low-income communities, often nonwhite, are less able to afford to pay their utility bills. Affluent white liberals can congratulate themselves for supporting expensive renewables because paying those bills doesn’t take up such a high percentage of their disposable income.

Environmentalist policies in general disproportionately harm nonwhites, along with all low-income communities. Restricting housing development under environmentalist pretexts creates a real estate bubble, forcing rents and home prices up. Low-income people have to pay higher rents to live in places further from their jobs, and then they have to sit in congested roads because liberals wanted to allocate public funds to high-speed rail and other impractical, but “environmentally correct” transportation boondoggles.

None of these green policies—certainly not renewable energy or restrictions on housing development—does much for the environment. But they do make life much harder for low-income households, many of which are nonwhite.

When it comes to liberal racism, the biggest culprit is socialism itself. Mainstream Joe Biden type Democrats are just corrupt liberals, mouthing anti-racist platitudes to attract votes while their liberal racist policies do more harm than good to nonwhites. But the rising tide of die-hard socialists within the Democratic party—fueled, in part, by rising percentages of nonwhite voters—threatens to bring new levels of misery to everyone, nonwhites most of all.

Whether this new breed of Democrats are just pandering cynics like U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), or fanatical ignoramuses like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), their ideas, including reparations, redistribution of wealth, open borders, free healthcare, free college tuition, 100 percent renewable energy, guaranteed income, guaranteed jobs, and so forth, are utterly infeasible. If even half of these schemes ever became law, the United States would lose the prosperity that is the surest and, possibly, only way that nonwhites can be assured the opportunity for upward mobility.

Ultimately, that’s what liberal racism is all about. It isn’t about raising nonwhites up through equal opportunity, it’s about enforcing equal outcome, no matter what the cost. In the real world, that cost would be crushing. History is filled with examples of failed socialist utopias, and current events provide additional examples unfolding before our eyes.

America’s “people of color” need to make some tough choices. Do they want to adhere to the liberal racist temptation to blame any shortcomings in their lives on white oppression, or do they want to grab the American dream the only way it can endure, which is through hard work and merit against an immutable and equally applied standard?

It is ludicrous that conservative whites cannot join that conversation. The future of America is at stake, and everyone’s voice must be heard.

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.

America • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Identity Politics • Political Parties • Post • Progressivism • race • the Presidency

Can Biden Overcome Being an Old White Guy?

Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign launch last week was an attempt to run to the front of the white privilege caravan. He must succeed at this, or it will run him over—and he knows it. The Democrats have hitched their wagon to grievance groups and lost control. A brave man with true leadership qualities would denounce his party’s obsession with skin color and call for a return to colorblind fairness to all. Biden is not that man.

“White privilege” is an encouragement and a fig-leaf for attacking, demeaning, and discriminating against white people. It is as morally disgusting as racism against blacks or any group. It is also sacrosanct among Democrats. Every single white Democrat presidential candidate has already groveled at this satanic altar of anti-white bigotry.

Biden understands his fellow Democrats well enough to know he has to make white racism the center of his primary campaign.

Biden sees the odds are against him winning the primary of a party hooked on identity politics. All the younger, hotter candidates have weak or nonexistent qualifications and crazy platforms, but they get to check off a key identity box: gay, female, black, or even, black and female. Biden has nothing but liabilities in this competition. Not only is he white, he’s a groper, and he’s old.

White privilege and patriarchy disqualifies Biden from running among huge voting blocks of Democrats. Biden’s tactic to avoid being destroyed by the anti-white, anti-male, and anti-heterosexual sentiment in the party is to join it. Call Charlottesville the defining moment of your decision to run, the defining moment of American identity, and position yourself as the hero fighting the white racists.

Joe Biden’s choice of the Charlottesville hoax on which to center his campaign message is a sign of desperation. It tells us Biden thinks he is in trouble in the primary for being a white man. He’s right. So his campaign launch was entirely about race-baiting and hating Trump. This well-worn Democrat path failed Hillary Clinton in 2016 and it will fail Biden today. But it’s the only path open to him. So he’s going all out, to the point of absurdity.

Not only is Biden playing the race card, he’s playing it more brazenly than President Obama ever did. Biden claims that Trump (and by implication all Republicans) are a “threat to this nation unlike any I’d seen in my lifetime.” Biden tells voters he is called to run for president, in order to fight the very face of evil, “crazed faces . . . veins bulging and baring the fangs of racism, chanting the same anti-Semitic bile heard in the 1930s.”

Biden calls Charlottesville the defining moment in his decision to run, and a defining moment for America—a moment that “stunned the world” and launched a “battle for the soul of this nation.” The unstated message is, don’t hate all of us as racists, just Trump and everyone who votes Republican. Sadly for Biden’s strategy, that subtext gets a little lost. White America Bad comes through loud and clear.

Democrats said in public they loved Biden’s Charlottesville focus. Biden was praised for coming out swinging against Trump. But the message that America is a white supremacist nation in 2019 was not aimed against Trump, and doesn’t hurt him. It’s actually so offensive to fair-minded people that it helps Trump with his base and with many independents. The focus on race was aimed to overcome Biden’s liabilities with his primary voters.

Besides, what else does Biden have? Biden’s record leaves him little to boast about, as he has few achievements to show for it. He can’t run on the Obama-Biden performance on the economy, foreign affairs or even bringing down the cost of health care, as they failed on all fronts. Trump’s successes on jobs and foreign affairs dominate.

Biden’s boasting rights that he’s the most experienced candidate among the Democrats can only take him so far. Millennials don’t seem to care about job qualifications, or they wouldn’t consider Pete Buttigieg’s work as mayor of South Bend, Indiana a stepping stone to the White House. These are youngsters raised on participation prizes and affirmative action. They’ve been taught that qualifications are racist, privileged, mean, and unfair. Starting in kindergarten, they were raised on shame about being white, and anger against heterosexual males.

Biden’s strongest suit is that normal Democrats find him not scary and generally likable. Less so, perhaps, after all the groping videos. His creepiness comes through strongly, and the videos cannot be buried.

The trouble is, no Democrat wants nice in 2020. Hence Biden’s decision to launch the campaign swinging at President Trump. Ha! Good luck with that one, Biden. You are not in the same fighting league as the president. When President Trump decimates opponents with a label, like Pocahontas, it’s devastating because it’s true. Claiming President Trump praised the KKK is such a stupid, easily debunked slander, it just makes Biden look like a desperate, lying Democrat.

Biden has made crude race-baiting remarks before, as in his well-publicized attack on presidential candidate Mitt Romney, telling a black audience in a fake black accent, “they’re going to put y’all back in chains.” Still, what makes Biden more appealing to suburban and white working-class moderates is that he is an alternative to race-obsessed identity politics.

Painting President Trump as a supporter of neo-Nazis based on lies about Charlottesville throws that advantage away. It tells us that Biden sees his own skin color as his biggest challenge to winning the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Biden is in a bind. He has to put white racism front and center, with himself as the hero fighting against it. It’s the only way to overcome his liability as an old white guy in the primary. It’s not likely to work with primary voters. And it will doom him in the general election.

Photo credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

Big Media • Democrats • Donald Trump • Elections • Post • race • The Left • The Media

Biden Launches His Campaign on a Toxic Slander

Former Vice President Joe Biden hooked his entire campaign launch this week on the hoax that President Trump called white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia “fine people.” “Charlottesville” is the first word out of Biden’s mouth, what he calls the defining moment for his campaign and for the country.

Biden’s presidential message is directly in line with Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” smear. Its main effect will be to energize Trump supporters. Biden can try to ride race-baiting to the White House, as his old boss did in 2012, but Biden is not the man to do it. Leading with the Charlottesville lie is a pathetic attempt to overcome the disability of being a white man in a Democrat party obsessed with skin color.

Biden can’t hide that he’s white by attacking President Trump as a racist. And he can’t use Charlottesville to define his campaign, because Charlottesville is a lie.

Did President Trump defend the neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville and call them “very fine people.” No. This is not even ambiguous. It is as clear as two plus two. Watch the video of President Trump’s August 15, 2017 press conference yourself. Read the transcript. Biden’s video will go down as one of the most dishonest campaign launches in American political history.

The Democrats’ propaganda media, which includes not only print and TV but also social media and Google search algorithms, presents Biden’s launch video with gushing praise. Where are the fact checkers? The country is still reeling from Mueller’s revelation that the press was serving a stew of lies and frame-ups for two years. It was a stew cooked up by the Obama Administration and spread by our lying media, once respected as the “free press.” That press is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Without missing a beat, we are back to another ugly lie about President Trump: that Trump supports and praised the white supremacists in Charlottesville. Democrats can’t let go of Charlottesville, even though it is such a provable lie, because it’s all they’ve got to support the propaganda that Trump likes neo-Nazis. They need their voters to hate and despise Republicans.

Social and mainstream media does not want the public to know the facts. One lone CNN journalist, Steve Cortes, had the integrity to call out his network for spreading this ugly lie about President Trump. He was rebuked on air for telling the truth, and CNN continues its false reports. This is all the more cynical, because CNN initially reported the incident accurately.

The truth is the opposite of Biden’s claims. As Cortes wrote for RealClearPolitics, you need only read Trump’s powerful statement from the White House following Charlottesville and the death of Heather Heyer. President Trump’s succinct and direct words: “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Cortes scolds his fellow journalists in the corporate left-wing media for their “willful deception” of the public.

Democrats need to slander Americans as racist to win elections. Calling fellow citizens racist energizes their white liberal base like nothing else. They can’t win enough of the black vote without it.

Race-baiting gives cover to Democrat policies that are daily destroying the black community, the black family, and black men in particular. Democrats have robbed far too many black Americans of their independence, dignity, and hope. The Democrat kleptocracy feeds off the eternal “war on poverty” and affirmative action programs. Race-baiting is the Democrats’ big gift to the country.

The actual transcript of what President Trump said about Charlottesville is public, for all to see. Joel Pollack at Breitbart has debunked the Charlottesville hoax repeatedly, simply by citing President Trump’s actual words from his press conference. The president clearly distinguished between neo-Nazis, Antifa, and good, normal people protesting the destruction of historical statues. He clearly “condemned totally” the white nationalists.

TRUMP: . . . you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down—excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? OK, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people—and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally—but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats—you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.

Do a Google search on the Biden launch video. Not a single conservative analysis comes up. Are we really to believe that Google’s listing of page after page of liberal outlets respects the order of hits on news websites, and that not even the Wall Street Journal or a Fox News host makes the grade?

First up is Politico: “Some hailed it as stroke of genius that distinguished Biden from the crowded Democratic field by announcing in stark terms his intention to take the fight to Trump in a way no one else has dared.” As a critic, Politico quotes Neil Sroka, an Obama campaign veteran and Sanders supporter: “The video is incredibly bizarre. It’s oppressively focused on Trump while raising the question: Why did it take until Charlottesville to tell you Trump was a nightmare?”

For the country, it is the Democrats’ reliance on race-baiting lies that is the nightmare.

One disgusted Trump supporter issued a hilarious corrected Biden launch video.

No Democrats will read the corrections. Biden will not be fact checked. No major media outlet will do an exposé on race-baiting and the cost it inflicts on our country.

With his campaign launch, Joe Biden has put himself at the head of a pack of slanderers, trying to claw their way to power by lying about the sufferings of blacks and Jews for political gain.

The correction will come in 2020, unless the Democrats find a way to scam the national vote more successfully than the attempted Russian collusion hoax. Pathetic lies like Charlottesville can only carry them so far. It will be a day of triumph for President Trump’s unifying message that patriotism knows no skin color, and we are all united by our love of America.

Photo Credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

America • Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Congress • Conservatives • First Amendment • Free Speech • Identity Politics • Post • race • Religion of Peace

Candace Owens Has Shown Us the Way

How did this happen?

When did it become OK for one of the two major political parties in America to attack a young black woman, who works for an orthodox Jew, as a fascistic fan of Adolf Hitler after she was invited to testify before Congress?

When did it become OK for the representatives of the same party openly to label Israel, our closest friend in the Middle East, an “evil” state which has “hypnotized the West,” then libel their fellow representatives of having “dual loyalties” because they are Jewish, or to intimate that Israel simply shouldn’t exist?

And when did the all the leading names in that party’s list of candidates for president come to see it as obligatory to endorse a Green New Deal for the nation that has as its objective the outlawing of the internal combustion engine and air travel?

This is today’s Democratic Party. A party whose members wish to see tax rates reach 70 percent, who want to abolish the federal agencies that protect our borders, and who used to believe that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” but who now want mothers to have the right not only to kill their child in the womb, but also once it has been delivered into the world. It’s a party that is just fine with one of its freshman representatives targeting a Jewish advisor of President Trump’s as a “white nationalist” even as she belittles the events of September 11, 2001, and mocks those who take al-Qaeda and Hezbollah seriously.

This is a party in radicalizing free fall, with its new leaders vying to outdo each other in their extremism as the old guard simply surrenders to the mob.

Most Americans think the words and actions of today’s Democratic Party are un-American. By “most,” I mean those who live outside the ultra-liberal metropolises in the land where the real world exists.

Before I joined the Trump Administration, I traveled the nation to brief our military, the FBI, and local law enforcement on the evolution of the terrorist threat from al-Qaeda to ISIS, and during the 20,000 miles or so I would average in a month, I met thousands upon thousands of patriotic Americans. All of them lived in the real world. They would have no idea who Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow are, but they would have no truck with anyone who believes that America has never been great or that our president should be apologizing for who we are.

In fact, these are the people who voted for a non-politician in 2016 to fix all that the reigning political class had destroyed since the 1980s.

We are a nation divided. But we are not divided in the way the fake news media and the talking heads would have you believe.

The division is between an establishment that doesn’t care about life outside of the Acela corridor in the “flyover states” and the people who actually work in those states to make America the incredible country it is. It is a division between a radicalized Democratic Party which hates the traditional American values upon which our Republic is built, and those who shed blood on foreign fields to vouchsafe that Republic and who carry a badge and a gun and keep us safe from those who would use violence against us at home. And it is a division between the average American conservative who still believes in the model of citizen-politician typified by our Founding Fathers and our 45th president and their Republican senators and congressman who have become professional politicians, grifters, liars, and cowards.

Candace Owens’ testimony has the potential to leave an indelible mark on American politics and culture. Already, barely a week after she publicly annihilated Representatives Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the C-SPAN clip of her stand against their bigotry and rank arrogance has garnered a record-breaking 7.5 million views online. And I for one intend to repost it daily and play the magnificent audio on my national radio show, “America First,” until both disgraceful racists no longer serve on Capitol Hill.

In her interview with Breitbart Radio after the hearing, Candace spoke of her experience testifying for the first time in front of Congress, the trepidation she felt, and then about her realization of who her foes were: “I sat down in the chair, and I have to say, just looking at them, they just all seem so pathetic to me. . . . I think it was a major win for all of us.”  

Candace most definitely won. But it is now our responsibility to take her example as the catalyst we have been waiting for.

We cannot reason with the Democratic Party. Its policies are those of extremists. Its leading lights are bigoted racists who are as comfortable publicly attacking young black women now as they were when the Ku Klux Klan was the official armed wing of their party and its politicians held offices in both.

In 2016 we pulled our nation back from the precipice of disaster. Since then, incredibly, the Democrats have radicalized even more and the establishment GOP has continued its charade of pretending to represent conservative values and our founding principles.

Perhaps it is time to resurrect the Tea Party or create its new 21st-century analogue, one led by people with the courage and fortitude of young women like Candace Owens. Brava.

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

Democrats • Post • Progressivism • race • The Left

Neither Really Southern Nor Terribly Impoverished

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

On occasion, it does a soul good to gaze upon the skulls of one’s conquered enemies and smirk. That comes, of course, after you have made a rather clever pyramid out of them for the kids to use as an ill-constructed jungle gym.

And so it is with the amusing news in recent days that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is, as many of us have known for more than 30 years, a vast con instituted to take advantage of “gullible northern liberals.” This revelation is not just highly pleasing, it’s also a rare example of race hustlers getting their just deserts in today’s PC culture. Even CNN has taken up the cudgel against them. No doubt of out of sheer mortification.

If you’ve missed the fun, the group has since 1971 been at the forefront of leftist racism and radical chic. It lost no opportunity to give a forum to Chicken Little hysterics and it specialized in naming anyone to the right of Angela Davis as a Ku Kluxer. Granted, as a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, there were times the SPLC went after actual racists.

To the surprise of no sentient person, however, behind the scenes an employee described the SPLC as perpetuating a “pervasive racist culture” and added for good measure “my boss only hires white people.” Yes, you may have another puff of your cigar and another sip of Pappy. This is that satisfying.

The employee goes on to relate that blacks were generally hired for menial positions while whites had the vast majority of top administrative and supervisory jobs. Another employee says the entire group was merely a fundraising mechanism that targeted the wealthy Northern Left in order for SPLC honchos live high on the hog.

The disgruntled poverty pimps also claimed sexism was rampant. Yet the resignation of legal director Meredith Horton started the poetic justice ball rolling. A black female herself, Horton took shots at SPLC leadership on her way out the door. No doubt, that was well appreciated by the remnants. When this became public, co-founder and hustler-in-chief Morris Dees was sacked. This was soon followed by SPLC President Richard Cohen’s resignation.

The person the survivors brought in to clean up the mess? Wait for it . . . Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, and a key behind-the-scenes figure person in the Jussie Smollett affair, Tina Tchen. That’s like bringing in Mussolini to run the prosecution at Nuremberg.

Will this have any long-term repercussions in the larger race-hustling community?

Likely not.

They’ll chalk this up to the price of doing business, say a couple of platitudes over the rotting corpse of the SPLC, and skip off on their merry way to find new pigeons to plunder. They will do this with the tumultuous applause and slobbering sanctimony of the Left and their Democratic Party handmaidens ringing in their ears.

For why should other groups pause at all when the SPLC and they have heretofore done their jobs so well?

As the Smollett case showcases, there are many kinds of treatments by the law when one steps in it. Yes, there is credibility to the case that the rich and poor receive different outcomes. Well, the rich can afford better attorneys because they have more money. The rich can also afford better cars for the same reason. Not exactly a logical epiphany.

A related rule applies if you’re a black celebrity in an environment run by a political machine commanded by other blacks, or those who are beholden to liberal black votes. Then guess what? You will get kid glove treatment, lest someone raise a clamor over alleged racism and someone else (perhaps a D.A.?) get a less than subtle call from the former chief of staff of the former first lady. It helps if the first lady just happens to be from the state and city in question. Throw in gay status and you are handed a get-out-of-jail-free card quicker than a conservative speaker is shut down on a college campus.

That is how deeply Morris Dees and the SPLC have corrupted our legal system and the definition of poverty. This while innocent poor black children were shot down by thugs in places like Chicago their leadership were too busy munching on canapés with the next potential moneybags from Boston to comment; there was no money to be raised in addressing that.

Targeting Yankees, living well, and making a mockery of the law. The Southern Poverty Law Center has not only sold out its defining mission but it has also done so in grand material circumstances slimed over with all the cynically earnest cheerleading and oodles of donor money the modern Left can muster.

Who says poverty doesn’t pay?

Photo Credit: Amanda Edwards/Getty Images for Discovery Communications

Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • race

Kamala’s Confusion

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats’ 2020 presidential hopefuls, was a district attorney in San Francisco, attorney general of California, and author of Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer. For all this knowledge and experience, when the Cook County State Attorney’s office sealed records and dropped 16 felony charges against actor Jussie Smollett earlier this week, Harris responded, “To be perfectly honest, I’m completely confused. I don’t understand. I don’t know.”

The presidential hopeful, who rose through the ranks by a process of poontronage, did have cause to be puzzled. As Andrew Napolitano told Fox News it was “almost unheard of” for the government to indict someone then decline to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Those who remain confused might find enlightenment in the Monty Python sketch about the notorious Piranha brothers, Doug and Dinsdale.

Stig O’Tracy (Eric Idle) fell afoul of the brothers but furiously denied that Dinsdale nailed his head to the floor. But as the interviewer (Terry Jones) explains, “the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.”

“Oh yeah, he did that,” O’Tracy concedes. “Well he had to, didn’t he? I mean there was nothing else he could do, be fair. I mean, he didn’t want to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off.”

In similar style, Chicago police had the $3,500 check Jussie Smollett wrote to two Nigerian men as payment to beat him up, which prompted NBA great Charles Barkley to quip, “do not commit crimes with checks.” Smollett claimed the attackers were white racist homophobes proclaiming, “this is MAGA country,” in the actor’s upscale Chicago neighborhood.

As Chicago police superintendent Eddie Johnson lamented, with the charges dropped and records sealed, the evidence was not going to be presented in court. Worse, Smollett was claiming, “I have been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one . . . I would not be my mother’s son if I was capable of one drop of what I’ve been accused of.” So in his own mind, the actor was an innocent. That recalls a movie character who made the same claim.

In “The Godfather,” mob soldier Carlo Rizzi throws a beating on his wife Connie. As Connie’s brother, Sonny Corleone (James Caan), rushes to the scene, he is assassinated by members of a rival gang. The setup does not fool Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and later in the story, he confronts Carlo.

“Don’t tell me you are innocent,” Michael says, “because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.”

Across the country, people of all persuasions are angry that Jussie Smollett will not face trial and still portrays himself as the innocent victim of an actual hate crime. Kamala Harris was just confused, but she shouldn’t have been.

In February, Harris and fellow Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) backed the “Justice for Victims of Lynching Act,” legislation that would “criminalize lynching for the first time in American history.” Harris said, “Lynchings were acts of violence—they were horrendous acts of violence, and they were motivated by racism.” As Booker explained, “lynching is not a relic of a painful past—it is a present and pernicious evil that we still have yet to confront.”

True to form, Jussie Smollett claimed that the MAGA racists hung a noose around his neck as they poured bleach on the actor and assailed him with racial slurs. Both Booker and Harris claimed the attack on Smollett was “an attempted modern-day lynching.” Any observer could be forgiven for seeing Smollett’s gambit as a dramatization of the Harris-Booker legislation, plus the Democrat narrative that the election of Donald Trump launched a tide of hatred.

As a producer, the actor Smollett was something of a bust. But he got plenty of help from a crack post-production team. Cook County State Attorney Kim Foxx is a George Soros protégé and a favorite of the group Reclaim Chicago. This group is on record saying the “Jussie Smollett case is a sad commentary on our celebrity-obsessed society as well the fact that real hate crimes against Black LGBTQ in Chicago each year go without the same attention from police and the media.”

As the case played out, Foxx got a call from Tina Tchen, a former advisor to President Obama and chief of Staff for First Lady Michelle Obama, both big fans of Jussie Smollett. It wasn’t clear whether Tchen, who earned her law degree at Northwestern, had a client in the case, but she called Foxx on behalf of “the alleged victim’s family who had concerns about how the investigation was being characterized in public.”

Foxx claimed she recused herself from the case, but after Smollett walked free, it emerged that the state attorney had recused herself only in a “colloquial” sense, not in any legal manner. So the prosecution was also fake, and at this writing, the hoaxster Smollett and his handlers are still claiming innocence.

People across the country have every right to be angry, but they shouldn’t be confused.

Photo Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

feminists • First Amendment • Free Speech • Post • Progressivism • race • The Left

Woke’s on You!

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ [fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

Those who doubt the operation of a beneficent, or at least an amusing, providence should consider the case of the British writer Titania McGrath. Margaret Ann Bulkley may have decided to move to South Africa and live her life as a man. But Titania McGrath, a Twitter sensation and the author of the forthcoming Woke: A Guide to Social Justice, is “a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice, and armed peaceful protest. A regular on the live-slam poetry scene, Titania regularly performs at arts festivals, deconsecrated churches, and genderqueer spiritual retreats.” Nice! Ms. McGrath was guyed by Private Eye for the way she commended her book to the public: “I have written the most important book of 2019. Do not buy it for my sake, but for the sake of humanity.”

Shameless? Or in-your-face intersectional wokeness?

We incline to the latter view. Ms. McGrath burrows deep into the contradictions of late capitalism, patriarchal privilege, toxic masculinity, white supremacism, and heteronormative binary exclusivity. She is so woke she makes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez look like Sleeping Beauty. Consider: “If you don’t think exactly the same way as me,” she points out, “then you’ve clearly got a lot to learn about diversity.” Could any triggered academic put it better? “I despise whiteness. Literally nothing about me is white except for my skin colour.”

Although she is British, Ms. McGrath outdoes Bill Kristol at his own game: “It’s a broken kind of democracy that allows a majority of voters to impose their wishes on the rest of us.” Yes! Ms. McGrath cracks open the hard nut of oppression lurking inside all of us, all men anyway. “Men who are attracted to women clearly have feminine tastes and are therefore probably gay.” Again: “I have posed nude for Penthouse in an effort to dismantle the patriarchy from within.” And how’s this? “If you only have sex with people you find attractive, you might want to ask yourself why you’re such a superficial bigot” . . .

Read the rest at The New Criterion.

Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Donald Trump • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Culture

Even More ‘Reasonable’ Conservatives

background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_position=”all” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” class=”” id=””]

One can almost imagine the scene.

David Brooks. Sitting in a bathrobe in his living room. With a cup of coffee. Scanning over the opinion section of the New York Times.

He sees a column by his colleague Ross Douthat arguing that Republicans should give up the fight over stricter voter ID laws. He lets out an exasperated sigh. Why didn’t he think of that?

Out of the corner of his eye he sees his copy of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me prominently displayed on his book shelf. He keeps it there mainly to show his dinner guests that he is open minded and a “reasonable” conservative.

A light bulb flashes over his head.

On Friday, not to be outdone by Douthat’s recent capitulations to the Left, Brooks published a piece purportedly making the case for reparations for slavery.

The term “purportedly” is apt because, despite its protestations, the piece doesn’t make the case for reparations at all. A highly subjective interpretation of an Abraham Lincoln quote strung together with a few tear-jerking anecdotes and some vague moral pontification is not an argument. At best, it’s an emotional appeal. At worst, it’s plain sophistry.

At one point, Brooks highlights all of his initial practical objections to reparations, and then dismisses them out of hand simply based on his “experiences” over the past year. Experiences that include sitting with an elderly black woman who was “shaking in rage” because she believed that the kids in her neighborhood faced greater challenges than she had as a child living under legal segregation.

It takes an incredible lack of self-awareness and imprudence to recognize the many practical problems with reparations, gloss over how you plan to deal with those challenges, and then continue to advocate the policy without any specificity.

But even if we ignore all of the superficial practical difficulties that Brooks mentions, the reparations debate will still end as an uncontrollable dumpster fire of vitriol.

Brooks says America is “a nation coming apart at the seams” and that we are made up of different tribes each of which has its own “resentment narrative.” So he calls for a consolidated and reconciled narrative that highlights the possibilities our country has. It’s an appealing vision, on one level, to imagine that we can shed this carefully cultivated animosity between “tribes” if only we could placate certain animosities. But it won’t work out that way.

Brooks then calls for the implementation of a “drastic” and “hard to execute” policy that would certainly enrage many groups in this country. And he somehow believes that the act of talking about and designing this policy would heal wounds and open a new story.

No. This conversation would lead to more strife and turmoil and would further rip our country apart. It certainly would not reconcile different “narratives” and lead to a “possibility narrative.”

First, we’d have a massive debate over who should pay for reparations. As Brooks notes (and then ignores) there are many people whose ancestors weren’t in America when slavery existed. And some of the people who were in America fought, bled, and died to try to help wipe away the immoral stain. Are we really going to force the descendents of abolitionists to pay reparations?

And then it’s clear that many other racial and ethnic groups, to a much lesser degree, also faced discrimination. They would demand proportional reparations and we’d quickly end up competing in the victimhood Olympics and arguing over what recompense different people deserved. (I’d settle for $10,000 for the portrayal of Italian Americans in “The Godfather” and “Goodfellas.”)

Far from unifying the country, Brooks’ proposed conversation would rehash all of the most painful parts of our history. And nothing divides a country or a family like reexamining all prior transgressions with a fine-tooth comb. The different narratives would clash and every single resentment and perceived grievance would bubble up into the public’s consciousness.

The people happiest with paying reparations would be the wealthy, white pseudointellectual elite who have more than enough material wealth to part with a decent percentage and remain comfortable. And given that they’re ensconced in the liberal cultural scene, they’d happily pay for the privilege of not being called racist by their friends. Consider it a “woke tax.”

This would create a further divide between the elites and an already disenchanted lower and middle class, who have increasingly signaled their displeasure. If Van Jones considered the 2016 election a “whitelash,” Brooks would likely shudder watching an election after reparations were pushed through.

Oh, and this would all provide a treasure trove of fodder for white identitarians to galvanize their base and continue recruiting formerly centrist and not racialized whites. Pushing black identity politics always leads to more white identity politics. Especially when the former is trying to extract material concessions from the rest of the country.

If we accept the Left’s premise that most of the country was already racist, it’s not clear how people would become less racist after the government took their money on behalf of the descendants of slaves. This would just lead to greater racial tensions with added resentment from poor whites in middle America who never cared about race beforehand.

This racial tension could lead to increased violence that—more than anything that Brooks suggests in his piece—would “harden the heart” and “separate Americans from one another.” The country would splinter with each additional act of racially motivated violence, making it increasingly hard to ever pull it back together.

And then do we really believe that reparations would help the black community? Federal and local governments have shown consistently that they don’t know how to help people. The welfare system? Broken families, fostered instability, and increased reliance on the government. Would reparations actually improve lives, or would they just increase dependence?

If reparations didn’t help black communities, we would have wasted an inordinate amount of money and further destroyed many more lives by increasing dependence. Oh, and we probably wouldn’t have improved race relations at all. If anything, we would have strained them greatly.

And if reparations did work—a highly dubious “if”—it would raise a painful question. How could monetary reparations ever actually compensate for slavery? Greater economic success thanks to reparations would be a painful reminder of what could have been. A reminder of the lives wasted and the years of misery and the knowledge that it could have been rectified sooner.

Even though insurance companies can put numbers on the value of a life, it is nearly impossible to estimate the human cost of the institution of slavery. For many, this would lead to an insatiable appetite for further reparations. And it would never be enough. If it’s plausible that the Washington Post owes Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann $250 million for his ordeal on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, there isn’t enough money in the world to cover the sin of slavery in America.

We also quickly come to the fact that slavery has been around since the beginning of history. And it is still around to this day. Almost all groups have experienced slavery at one point or another in their lineage. Almost all groups have experienced some form of discrimination. And the sad truth is that most groups will continue to experience it.

Perhaps instead of trying to adjudicate the past, we should concentrate on the future?

Brooks is right. We need a new “possibility narrative.” But we won’t get it by tearing at old wounds and relitigating history. We won’t get it by catering to identity politics. And we certainly won’t get it by punishing people who weren’t involved—and in many cases aren’t even related to anyone involved—with slavery and Jim Crow.

We can only unify this country if we put our differences and the past behind us.

Many years ago, a promising young politician captivated the country when he passionately posited that “there is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America.”

We create a “possibility narrative” by seizing on this new and independent identity. One that transcends race, ethnicity, and cultural background and tries to unite us based on the ideals that we’ve imperfectly tried to uphold since our inception. One that binds us together with a unified culture that is informed, but not overtaken, by the people who have joined the country. And one that looks forward with optimism, not backward with resentment.

David Brooks will likely continue to appeal to divisiveness under the pretense of trying to unite us. President Trump, however, will continue touting the unified vision of America that he ran on and continues to promote.

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: Robert A Tobiansky/Getty Images for SXSW

Black Lives Matter • Identity Politics • Post • race • The Left

Why Do Blacks and Leftists Wish the Attack on Smollett Happened?

The reactions of many on the left to the case of Jussie Smollett prove two important things:

  1. There is little racism in America.
  2. The left—white and black—is morally and psychologically impaired.

There is no doubt that most Americans on the left, including black Americans, are distraught over the fact that Smollet faked the “racist” attack on him. Apparently, leftists, Democratic leaders and, most depressingly, many of his fellow blacks wish Smollett had been attacked by white racist homophobes.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a white leftist, tweeted: “I hope this was not something that Mr. Smollett did to himself, or created . . . .”

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart told MSNBC there has been “an atmosphere of menace and hate” since Donald Trump was elected president, which made “people want to believe” Smollett’s story. Exactly. Capehart a black leftist, wanted to believe that racists yelling “This is MAGA country” beat up blacks.

Another black leftist who writes hate columns for the Washington Post, Nana Efua Mumford, wrote: “I wanted to believe Smollett. I really did.” Again, exactly. Mumford wanted to believe that racists yelling “This is MAGA country” beat up blacks.

Corey Townsend, the social media editor of The Root, a black-oriented website (founded in 2008 by Harvard black studies scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr.), opened his column on his private doubts that Smollett was attacked as he claimed with the words, “I wanted to be wrong.” Three paragraphs later: “But still, I wanted to be wrong.”

This should tell you a great deal about how morally and psychologically sick the left is. And their reactions prove how little racism there really is in America.

Here’s the proof of both these assertions: When American Jews, even most left-wing Jews, heard of the mass killing of Jews at a Pittsburgh synagogue, how many were hoping the shooter was truly an anti-Semite, and how many were hoping he was a mentally deranged individual who could have just as easily shot up a church? Or, if a well-known Jew had been beaten at 2 a.m. on a Chicago street, how many American Jews would have wanted the attackers to be Jew-haters, and how many would have wished they were just thugs who wanted money?

As a Jew who has been deeply involved in Jewish culture all my life, I am pretty certain the majority of Jews—certainly liberal and conservative Jews, and even most left-wing Jews—would have wished that neither the Pittsburgh synagogue nor the theoretical attack on a Chicago street I conjured up was perpetrated by anti-Semites.

Why is that? Why do almost all Jews wish attackers of Jews not be anti-Semites, but so many blacks and so many white leftists wish Smollett had been attacked by racists?

Because Jews want to believe there is little anti-Semitism in America while most black leftists and most white leftists want to believe there is a lot of racism in America.

And why is that? Because the left and many American blacks are politically and personally dependent on one of the greatest mass libels in history—namely, that America is a racist country. If just one 1 of 5 black Americans woke up tomorrow and announced, “You know, this a great country for anyone, including a black person, to live in, and the truth is the vast majority of white Americans bear no ill will toward blacks (or any other race or ethnicity),” that would end the Democrats’ chances of winning national elections. The Democratic Party is dependent on nearly universal black acceptance of the leftist libel of America. And what about the personal? Why do so many black Americans, living in the freest country for all its citizens—and in the least-racist multiracial, multiethnic country in history—want to believe America is racist? That is one of the most important questions all Americans need address at this time.

And there is another one, which I posed in my column last week: Does the left believe its own lies?

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Photo Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Image

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

A Fine and Dangerous Madness

To make sense of the recent spate of hysteria on the Left, it helps to understand how their minds work—or, as they like to say, connect the dots. The shortest route between an isolated instance (Jussie Smollett, John Wayne) and a knee-jerk cry of racism, sexism or some other pet -ism is from one neuron to the one directly adjacent to it in a progressive’s brain. Every event, even ones faked or misleadingly reported, must have both a political cause and a coercive resolution: the Narrative demands it. Amplified by social media, it’s driving us all mad.

Any random weather event can trigger cries of the apocalypse from the likes of Al Gore or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A putative but wholly implausible attack during the sub-zero arctic chill of a Chicago late night instantly is seized upon as proof of America’s incorrigible (and thus de-legitimizing) racial prejudice. A wrongly interpreted word, or gesture, or smile, even the use of a personal pronoun, is cause for alarm, insults, or legal action. J’accuse! has become the national motto as the Twitter tumbrels roll. Heads dutifully roll into the baskets as the Madame Defarges of the media click their knitting needles and fashion the next installment of the Narrative tapestry.

In his much underrated comic masterpiece, “Bowfinger,” Steve Martin (who wrote and starred alongside Eddie Murphy in the 1999 Frank Oz film) lampooned this way of thinking in the memorable scene in which superstar Kit Ramsey (Murphy, at the top of his game) is unhappy with a new script his agent (Barry Newman) has brought him (language warning):

It’s not Shakespeare, but . . . connect the dots.

Connecting the dots that rattle around in their skulls is what occupies a good deal of a liberal’s cogitation, such as it is. In their world, there are no accidents, no mistakes, and no coincidences. Everything is connected, delivering a constant stream of Narrative as the arc of history bends toward something or other—but in any case toward the leftist nirvana the sane among us call Hell. The malignance of their theories whenever put into effect is not the fault of the theories themselves—socialism, take a bow!—but because the implementation either was flawed or sabotaged by reactionary forces. (As Walter Lippmann, referencing Herbert Spencer, wrote in Public Opinion, “the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts.”)

Ah, but in the dot-connecting business, the theory is everything, the facts are fungible and the outcome is real even when it is imaginary.

Kit Ramsey may have thought that linking “Cliff” and “cliff” was too cerebral, but he was delighted to discover that the letters KKK appeared in the script for “Chubby Rain” 486 times, sending his agent fleeing for his life. To the “global warming” racket, for example, everything is proof of the theorem, which is therefore both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Never mind that “man-made climate change” is instantly rendered absurd by even a cursory glance at a history book. It is real, because it must be real, because the Left’s ulterior program of ever-expanding governmental power demands it.

Connect the dots. All women must be believed because historically men have raped women. Rape was once regarded as a byproduct of warfare; as recently as World War II, after the Battle of Berlin, rape was systematically employed by the Russians against the German women—most of the German fighting men having been killed or captured. Today, we rightly regard rape as a serious crime, ferociously prosecuted. But not all men are rapists.

Similarly, an attack on a black man can only be attributable to racism—and even when it’s not, it could have been: QED. If, as seems increasingly likely, the Jussie Smollett story turns out to be the hoax of a minor actor desperate for attention (he’s got it now), it won’t matter at all to the Left, who will (and in fact do) reply that we still need to have a conversation about racism. The noose was meant to evoke the lynch mobs of the South— the largest mass lynching in American history occurred in New Orleans in 1891, but its victims were Italians.

Connecting the dots means never having to accept an apology. All grievances must continue to be redressed, long after they have ceased to exist. But the Left cannot let them go, and use them as battering rams in their war on Western civilization. How different the fate of race relations in the aftermath of the Civil War and emancipation would have been had not the Democratic Party spent the next 100 years trying to overturn Grant’s victory. Indeed, Grant’s presidency, which was largely dedicated to ensuring and enforcing the rights of African American citizens in the teeth of implacable opposition from the Democrats, has been slagged off by left-leaning historians and only now is getting the reassessment it so richly deserves. And still the Democrats have the gall to raise the issue of reparations for slavery.

Wielding the simpleton’s version of Occam’s Razor, the dotty Left has a ready explanation for every social and political event. Donald Trump was not elected because the Electoral College gave him a majority of its votes, but because his voters were racists, sexists, white supremacists—Hillary’s whole “basket of deplorables.” For two years, they have been salivating for the conclusions of the Mueller investigation into the non-crime of “collusion” as payback for the lost election. They even went so far as to try and stage a soft coup involving the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Clinton campaign. When the final history of this fiasco is written, who will be surprised if all roads lead to Rod Rosenstein—the man who wrote the memo that got James Comey fired, and who then appointed Mueller at Comey’s urging in order to investigate . . . the firing of James Comey, among other things.

Sometimes the dots form a perfect circle of jerks.

And then, like Mardi Gras necklaces, someone pulls the string and down the beads come, pinballing off the walls of Twitter and Facebook and rattling around on the floor, propelling everybody headlong into the next imaginary crisis, the next hallucinatory outrage, the next manufactured frenzy over something or nothing at all. Facing the cliffs of their own lunacy, they howl in rage like King Lear, unable to bring reason to bear where emotion rules.

Alas, it’s not Shakespeare, but rather a fine, and very dangerous, madness. We indulge them in it at our peril.

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: Getty Images

America • Democrats • History • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • race • The Culture

Bill Clinton’s History of Injustice Toward Blacks

This month, which also happens to be Black History Month, is no exception to the rules of nature. It offers no exemption from human nature, not so long as color blinds our ability to see character, not so long as our mutuality as sinners minimizes the worst sins against people of color. We are not, however, all guilty of the same sin: the exploitation of black lives for political power.

So long as there are politicians like Bill Clinton, there will be black prisoners to execute or exhibit. So long as politicians use the calendar to not only evade controversy but to escape it, injustice will persist. So long as executions are on the calendar, politicians will choose consistency over conscience. So long as criminals shock the conscience of voters, politicians will do the unconscionable. But no politician played the calendar so well—no governor transformed four days in January into nine January’s as president—like Bill Clinton, when, to spare the citizens of Arkansas the cost of a long-distance call from Little Rock to New Hampshire, to give switchboard operators at Southwestern Bell and NYNEX a reprieve, he returned to the governor’s mansion to pull the switch—to have prison staff insert the needle, rather—on a self-lobotomized cop killer named Ricky Ray Rector.

It took 50 minutes to find Rector’s vein. Two days later, Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared on “60 Minutes” in a post-Super Bowl interview about their marriage. Whatever the state of their union, then or now, they said enough for Bill Clinton to become president, and deliver eight State of the Union addresses.

Whenever candidate Clinton was in trouble, he used the calendar to benefit his campaign at the expense of blacks. He chided them. He criticized them. He condemned them. He insulted them—and us—by denouncing a black female rapper; the supposition being, that more whites hate blacks than blacks hate whites; that regardless of who hates whom, what matters is what a white politician says to blacks—about blacks—so whites will vote for that politician.

That Clinton said what he said, while Jesse Jackson sat to his immediate left, that Clinton stood—and admonished the audience by raising his index finger—while Jackson sat with his hands under his chin, that Clinton said what he said, after Jerry Brown had said he would choose Jackson as his running mate, may not have been what voters wanted to hear—but it was what the media said Clinton had to say to win the White House.

Between Rector’s execution and Jackson’s humiliation, Clinton used the calendar to stage the most infamous photo-op of his campaign. Two days before the Georgia primary, with a trio of Democrats, all of them white, behind him and a pair of microphones in front of him, like a televangelist with a divining rod placed upright—with its wires wrapped around a serpentine stand—Clinton preached to a captive audience; he preached to voters by using black prisoners as a backdrop. He later said no one had a better civil rights than he did.

To prove it, Clinton visited the last surviving venue of the Chitlin’ Circuit at Stage 29 at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. There, where so much history had happened; where Steven Seagal called a former Army captain and recipient of the Bronze Star a “5-foot-2, fat, little male impersonator”; where Vanilla Ice talked about breaking the color barrier in hip hop; where Jason Voorhees, the slasher villain from the “Friday the 13th” horror franchise, said nothing; there, before a posse of musicians and a fist-pumping crowd chanting “woot woot woot,” Bill Clinton summoned the spirit of “Abraham, Martin and John” by way of playing a saxophone solo of “Heartbreak Hotel.” Then, he sat on Arsenio Hall’s couch.

It was an impressive—and spontaneous—performance, but for Clinton’s change of ties, his choice of music, his borrowed sunglasses, and his rehearsal with the band. It was his attempt to “recreate a sense of commonality, to try to cut through all the superficial bull that tends to dominate politics.”

Less impressive is how many people refuse to stop believing in Bill Clinton. With little rhythm and no soul, he won the support of blacks while bashing whites for what he alone did to specific blacks. He patronized them like children. He punished them like incorrigible children. He ordered the ultimate punishment against one of them, who also had the IQ of a child.

He disgraced all Americans.

Photo credit: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images

Democrats • Identity Politics • Post • Progressivism • race • The Left

Moore, Kavanaugh, Northam: The Left’s Assault on Repentance

From a material perspective, life in America gets better and better. From a moral perspective, the same claim cannot be made. One manifestation of our moral decline is how the country, thanks to the Democratic Party and the left, is getting meaner.

The case of Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and a 35-year-old racist photo from his medical school yearbook is the latest example.

A generation ago, Americans not only forgave the sins of public figures; they sometimes forgave too easily. But throughout American history, Americans understood that sinners can turn their lives around. They understood that what someone did 30 or 40 years ago does not forever disqualify the individual from being deemed a decent person if he or she led a decent life after that.

Americans understood that people can morally change, and that we should embrace such change. It was called repentance. And in a religious America, penitence and forgiveness were considered vital to the moral health of society. The most famous Christian prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, recited by both Catholics and Protestants, is about forgiving others: “Our Father, who art in Heaven … Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Judaism’s holiest day is the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and its most sacred work after the Bible, the Talmud, teaches, “In the place where penitents stand, even the righteous do not stand.” In other words, those who have done wrong and then repented are on a higher moral plane than those who’ve never had to repent.

Having abandoned the Bible and religion, the sources of wisdom in America and the West, our society has become both dumber and meaner.

To our grandparents, the notion that a man who had exhibited no racism in 30 years should be driven from office because of a racist photo in his medical school yearbook page would have struck them as un-Christian, un-Jewish, stupid and mean. Not today. Thanks to the corrosive influence of the left and the party that has forsaken liberalism for leftism, America is a less compassionate nation. Its heart has been hardened. And its mind has been weakened.

I said this with regard to former Judge Roy Moore, who was accused of having acted inappropriately with teenage girls 40 years ago, and who has led an honorable family life all the decades since. I said it when Judge Brett Kavanaugh was accused of having sexually assaulted a girl at a party 30 years ago, when he was in high school—after having led a universally acknowledged honorable family life since. And I say it here. Gov. Ralph Northam had a racist photo on his medical school yearbook page but has led a life free of racism for the 30 years since. All three of these men should have been forgiven. (I need to note here that I believe Judge Kavanaugh was falsely accused of sexual misconduct). None of them should have had their names and reputations dragged through the media mud, or been driven from office or driven from seeking office. But thanks solely to the left, we are an increasingly mean and foolish nation.

Having said that, Northam brought this treatment on himself. His race-baiting ads attacking Ed Gillespie, his Republican opponent for Virginia governor, were vile and, by all counts, played a significant role in his winning.

Northam’s campaign defended what is one of the most morally obscene ads in American political history. The 60-second video shows a pickup truck flying a large Confederate flag driving toward children of color—a Latino, a black, a Muslim and an Asian—who are urging one another, “Run! RUN!” as they flee for their lives. During the pursuit, the camera pulls back, showing the truck from the rear and a bumper sticker that reads, “Ed Gillespie for Governor.”

In other words, because of Northam’s cynical and immoral use of the racism card, he deserves these calls for his resignation. As I watch the monster he and his Democratic Party have created devour one of its own, I can only conclude that maybe there really is karma. The tragedy is that while he deserves it, America doesn’t.

The only hope for America is if liberals and conservatives awaken to the mortal threat leftism poses to everything good about us. Let’s pray that what happened to Moore, Kavanaugh and now Northam sounds the alarm that will awaken them.

Photo Credit: Alex Edelman/Getty Images

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM