Tuesday, July 23, 2019

The Biggest Threat to Black Folks In 2019

By Raynard Jackson

The biggest threat to the Black community is by far and away drugs.  No, not the drugs you might think; but the drug of liberalism!

The biggest drug dealers in America are radical liberal quasi journalists like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, and Richard Princess.  And the biggest institutional drug dealers are radical liberal groups like the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Martin, Reid, and Lemon have their own TV shows that rabidly promote the radical liberal talking points of the Democrat Party.  Princess is like the crazy old uncle that writes and says crazy things that no one pays attention to; but many Black journalists seem to revere him and his radical thoughts on racism that seem to have no end.

They all claim to be journalists; but are in daily violation of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics.  SPJ’s code of ethics are supposed to be the Bible for all journalists; they lay out the dos and don’ts of journalistic conduct.

They go on to state that the foundation of ethical journalism is: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and transparent.  You can read the details on SPJ’s website:  

Can anyone with any shred of integrity prove these quasi journalists live up to their own industry’s code of conduct?

They all claim to be registered “independents,” but they all are liberal Democrats, notwithstanding their clams to the contrary.

On a daily basis they serve as unpaid surrogates for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  They constantly assert their opinions into their quasi coverage of news and are afraid to engage with “real” Blacks who are “real” Republicans.

They either go out and find millennial Republicans who don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground or find a Black who will criticize the Republican Party and the Trump administration.

They want weak, Black Republicans that they can embarrass on national TV in order to create the perception that all Black Republicans are ill-informed, have no connection to the Black community, and are buffoons.

On the institutional side, the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus are just as bad as these quasi radical liberal journalists, if not worse.

They represent their membership, not the Black community.  There is a big difference.

Each of these groups, without evidence, claim to be non-partisan.  They all are dependent on the expansion of government programs and the continued intrusion of government into the lives of Blacks.

They all aggressively advocate for radical liberal policies that are indistinguishable from the Democrat Party.  I was once told that the sign of a great teacher is one who makes himself increasingly unnecessary.

These group’s very existence is contingent upon the constant dependency of Blacks on government programs; i.e., the governmental drug of liberalism.

Yet, the problem has not been solved and one can argue that it has gotten worse.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions have continued to get yet another generation of Blacks hooked on the drug of liberalism.

They cause more damage to and in the Black community than anyone with a white sheet over their face.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions would lead you to believe that they speak for and represent the mainstream of the Black community. 

But a lie that is repeated enough times becomes the truth.

The Black community is sold a bunch of lies daily from these sellouts to our community and because Republicans are totally disengaged in the debate, the narrative is deemed to be true.

Blacks are totally fed up with liberalism and do not consider Maxine Waters or Al Sharpton their leaders.  They are “media” appointed leaders.

I am a graduate of Oral Roberts University and Oral would always tell me, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

When will the Republican Party and the Trump administration take our message of “traditional values” to the marketplace of ideas within the Black community?

[Editor’s Note: SeeBreitbart — Trump National Diversity Coalition’s Bruce LeVell: President’s Support Among Blacks, Hispanics Will ‘More than Double’ in 2020” that is posted on this blogsite at: https://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2019/07/breitbart-trump-national-diversity.html ]

We don’t need to be persuaded, because we already believe; we don’t need to be convinced because we have no doubt that liberalism has failed us; we need only be invited to be “part of the team”.

Raynard Jackson is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur.

Monday, July 22, 2019

Breitbart — Trump National Diversity Coalition’s Bruce LeVell: President’s Support Among Blacks, Hispanics Will ‘More than Double’ in 2020

By MATTHEW BOYLE | Breitbart

Bruce LeVell, the National Diversity Coalition for Trump executive director, said on Sunday evening he predicts President Donald Trump will win even higher levels of support in the black and Hispanic communities in 2020 than he did in 2016.

“Pastor Darrell Scott is the CEO, we started this back in 2015,” LeVell said on Breitbart News Sunday on SiriusXM 125 the Patriot Channel on Sunday evening about the National Diversity Coalition for Trump.

“It is the largest diversity coalition platform in history for a Republican candidate, not to mention a sitting president, and there are millions of guests that sign on and sign up that are part of this. 

"If you look on the website, you see African Americans for Trump, Haitian Americans for Trump, Korean Americans for Trump, Chinese Americans for Trump, Hispanic Americans for Trump–all very large. 

"They all stand in one agreement that they believe in this great president and that he is here for all and wants everyone to be successful. It’s pretty flattering, honestly, to be a part of this. 

"It just totally debunks everything that they try to make him out to be–a racist, which he’s not. The numbers prove that he’s not. 

"You can see where he’s rising in terms of the Hispanic vote, and the African American vote. It’s just really going to be mind-boggling on the next go-around. I guarantee it. It’s going to more than double because people are happy; they’re working.”

LeVell, when asked for his rationale on why he thinks Trump’s support in 2020 among blacks and Hispanics will more than double, attributed it to the results President Trump has gotten for those communities.

“Sometimes you have to speak things into existence,” LeVell said. “The president said, ‘What do you have to lose?’ That challenge, especially in the underserved communities, well, yeah, what do we have to lose?

"We tried it this way for 30 or 40 years. Some of these cities and municipalities were under Democrat rule, as you might say, for many years, and then you say, ‘You know what? Let’s make the ask.’ You know, the president made the ask. Sometimes, you just have to ask, ‘Hey, what do you got to lose? Try this.’ Let’s try one of the biggest, strongest bills that he’s signed, that was so beneficial, called the Opportunity Zones. 

"This bill right here alone is bringing a lifeline to some of these underserved communities and is projected to bring in over hundreds of billions of dollars in these underserved communities, which are predominantly African American communities. 

"For example, in Atlanta, there are minority business contractors teaming up with other business contractors building a hotel in an Opportunity Zone. This community has just been blighted for God knows how long. 

"These are the things that people are starting to see–the light at the end of the tunnel. Here’s a businessman that understands what I call a balance sheet, a P & L sheet of profit and loss. The president wants to see the country profitable, not losses. So that’s what he does. He says, ‘Okay, where can we improve? What can we do?'”

He continued, “Like I said earlier, I think the Opportunity Zones is a sleeper; it has so many moving parts to it where you can sell a piece of property for $2 million and instead of paying that very high capital gains [tax] you can identify those funds over the zone, and then, you can build another little hotel or a shopping center for economic empowerment for that community. 

"So there’s so many initiatives out there for people of color, like myself, who see opportunities. You know, how about this? You live in a black community under the Trump administration, you walk down the street and say, ‘Wow, 98 percent who live in the community are African American,’ and you say, ‘Why don’t you build that grocery store? Why don’t you build that gas station?’ Wow, you’re right. I can. 

"The programs that are out there, like in the Small Business Administration, you get as little as five or ten percent down, and they can maturize it to 30 years, and if you’re a veteran, they waive the fees. There are so many tools out there, and you saw the president when he adjusted Dodd-Frank last year; that was a terrible, terrible deal they did in 2009 and 2010 that literally almost just choked and killed the business community because of the Dodd-Frank, going in there and regulating these small community banks, which were life support for these small communities especially in the African American community, where he readjusted that last year and made it work. 

"These are the things this president understands that as a businessman he can bring his lifelong talents to the White House and can help America. The biggest thing about this is, remember, the president is not beholden to any special interest group; this is a very key part of this conversation right here because he can go in there and govern without having to worry about paying back favors.”

According to NBC News analysis in the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, Trump actually outperformed now-Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)–then the former governor of Massachusetts–in the 2012 election when it came to both the black and Hispanic communities.

“Trump claimed 29 percent of the Hispanic vote on Tuesday, compared to Romney’s 27 percent in 2012,” NBC News wrote. “With blacks, exit polls show Trump claimed 8 percent of the vote to the previous Republican nominee’s 6 percent.”

If Trump is able to double support in the black and Hispanic communities in 2020, as LeVell predicts he will, no Democrat will stand even close to a chance of defeating him; the margins they would need for victories in a number of states would be significantly eroded. 

Perhaps that is why the Democrats are now attempting to paint Trump as a racist amid his battle with the so-called “Squad” of socialist Reps. Alexandria Ocasi0-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). 

The new faces of the Democrat Party, the “Squad,” in other words, is worried they may lose the election in 2020 if LeVell and other Trump backers are right.

But the scurrilous accusations of racism for quick political gains, which have also been leveled at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Joe Biden in recent weeks, LeVell warns, may undermine the ability to stand up to actual racism where it exists.

“At first, it was kind of bizarre,” LeVell, who knows Trump well and has known him prior to his run for president, said of the false racism accusations.

“Now, it’s just plainly un-American. It’s so anti-patriotic. You know, the interesting thing about it for me as a black conservative or Republican–I like to define myself as a Frederick Douglass Republican–most of the name-calling comes from people who actually look like me, 90 percent of it. It’s bizarre, and it’s because our thinking process is not lining up with theirs. It’s the only playbook they have, like I said earlier, which is, ‘Let’s just use the race card.’"

LeVell went on to say, “Getting back to the president, I’ve been around him–I was just with him at the rally–in very intimate settings, behind the scenes at the rally, and you’re right: I’ve traveled with him, been on the plane with him. I’ve been in private meetings with him. I’ve talked with him, and you know–let me tell you something: I’m 55 years old, I’ve lived my whole life in the South, and I’m world-traveled. Let me tell you: I know racism when I see it. This man is nowhere near being a racist. 

"It’s so sad because it does such a disservice to this great nation that they would throw that name and throw those words around. I mean, you have people calling Biden racist. They’re calling Pelosi racist. They’re calling the dog-catcher racist because he impounded the black dog instead of the white dog. Come on. What’s next? 

"You know, it’s kind of sad because it’s pretty much watered down things that are legitimate, to where people are just going to get so numb with it, and people are just being like, ‘Wow, are you serious?'”

Shame on Robert Mueller—Again

By Conrad Black | American Greatness

Nowhere is the collapse of the Democratic Party as a coherent political organization more evident than in the astounding metamorphosis of Robert Mueller. 

He returned to public notice as special counsel and was instantly heralded by the Democratic media as a virtual Douglas MacArthur of selfless national duty, precisely the sort of rigorous, incorruptible, no-nonsense public servant who would tear the Trump fraud of corruption and artificiality, dirty tricks, shady accounting, and outrageous misbehavior apart and expose the whole rotten mess that had, by nightmarish mischance, moved into the White House (where the Clinton pay-to-play casino should already have been installed).

Mueller looked the part: tall, slender, slab-faced, jut-jawed, and unsmiling, all business, and no soft bonhomous weakness for anything but a thorough plumbing of the depths of Trump’s unutterable hucksterism, skullduggery, and larceny. The commentariat, though well gone in the saddle after their long incumbency as the country’s political sages, dressed for the part again and took to the airwaves with the smug confidence of veterans and the zest of those addicted to tearing down administrations they found distasteful.

Disentombed from the obscurity that had long enshrouded him, Carl Bernstein resurfaced, speaking matter-of-factly of imminent impeachment and removal of the usurping miscreant. From Nate Silver to Charles Blow and even the once-professional David Gergen, like a phalanx of bobbleheads, they agreed that impeachment was coming and . . . coming and . . . just around the corner.

Bernstein became so exasperated waiting, he sanctimoniously called Trump a “grifter,” but tempered his judgment with an endlessly repeated theory that Trump’s brain had turned to mush and he was not physically and mentally fit to govern. “We have a constitutional crisis.” Not that anyone else noticed. On and on it has gone, without a thought to professionalism, balance, or anything but another partisan smear job on a non-conformist Republican.

The Bushes after all, were good old boys; you had to have a tame Republican on the top of the Democratic wedding cake from time to time, and at the start, practically all the Republicans in Congress were as appalled at the Trump imposture and intrusion as the Democrats. After all, he ran against them, too.

Mueller packed his investigative team with notorious Democratic partisans. Andrew Weissman, who had cooked his share of Republicans already, and attended Hillary Clinton’s victory party the night she lost to Trump, took over the actual work. 

He and many of those he recruited had just finished white-washing Clinton—on to the tarring-and-feathering of her opponent. Mueller, never a martyr to the work ethic, despite the Democratic media’s wall-to-wall effort to spin him as a war hero Republican, flawless FBI director, and a rail-splitting confessant to the chopping of the cherry tree, left the direction of the investigation to Weissman and his gang, all of them desperate to destroy the president. 

Perish the thought of any of this pusillanimous bourgeois rubbish about impartiality! Trump was an interloper and he had to be sent packing with such finality that no one would dare interrupt the self-enriching slumbers of the political class for at least another century.

Trump managed the considerable feat of tough-talking as he resisted the depredations of a partisan witch-hunt while completely cooperating and leaving the investigators no ground to allege obstruction. This was the tactically correct response to what instantly was a difficult position. Trump had erroneously promoted an apparently qualified U.S. senator and former prosecutor, Jeff Sessions, as attorney general. 

Sessions immediately recused himself on all Russian matters and sat like a great eunuch-toad leaving the president whom he served practically defenseless while this rampaging lynch mob ransacked his personal, corporate, campaign, and presidential records. 

The Strzok-Page text messages indicate that the Mueller team ascertained quite quickly that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and in fact, no nominee of any serious party to the presidency of the United States in its history would ever have partaken of such an evil and preposterous enterprise.

From early on, Mueller’s game was obstruction. He piled demands on the president, required sworn testimony over several days from the White House counsel (who should have immunity in respect of his chief client). The president’s tactic of talking tough while furnishing everything asked by the special counsel got him through the midterm elections.

Few commentators noticed that the big winner in those elections was not the Democrats but the president. When he started out in January 2017, there were demonstrations all around the world and though the Republicans were in nominal control of both houses of Congress, in fact they were both controlled by coalitions of Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans. They sand-bagged the president on health care reform, the Republicans strutting in their hypocrisy, having voted many times to repeal Obamacare while Obama was there to veto their votes. 

The only place Trump could get a consensus was in appointing conservative judges who would generally adhere to the Constitution and the relevant legislation, (a terrible inconvenience for the Democratic addicts to the authoritarian state). Then he cobbled together the necessary votes for his tax cut and reform package, which has proved an immense success.

The Republicans lost the House in the midterm elections, but Trump never had the majority anyway. His speaker, Paul Ryan, was a conflicted NeverTrumper and retired. But in the Senate, he added two senators as three NeverTrump Republicans—Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and John McCain—departed; in the case of McCain, by dying and causing his funeral to be a tasteless bipartisan Trump-bashing session. This shifted the balance in the Senate.

Trump then fired Sessions, appointed an unsurpassably competent and upright replacement, William Barr, who had held the position under George H. W. Bush. Barr ordered Mueller to wind down his investigation, which Mueller and his sponsors had apparently hoped to keep going through the next election. Trump’s enemies had thought it was their right to have an impeachment-launching special counsel lurking around the White House ready to pounce on anything the Trump-hating media could confect into a cause for removal.

Mueller, the lion of official redemption, failed again and again. He had to choose between keeping faith with his rabidly Trump-hating sponsors, or his claims to professional integrity. Having found no evidence of collusion by anyone, he tried to leave the door open to impeachment for obstruction. He went down with the ship, and stated his inability to “exonerate” on obstruction.

A special counsel finds adequate evidence of criminal wrongdoing, or not. No one wants or asks him to exonerate anyone. In his summary of the report, Barr said there was no conclusion on obstruction but that he and the deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, Mueller’s old side-kick who had protected Mueller all through the phantom Sessions term, and the in-house counsel of the Justice Department, all agreed that the elements of obstruction: a corrupt act for a corrupt purpose in contemplation of a legal action, were all absent in this case.

The pitiful attempt by Mueller to leave Trump a live grenade with the pin pulled was made even more absurd by his attempt to run away and hide. He spoke to the press inarticulately from a printed text for less than 10 minutes, took no questions, and said he would have nothing more to say. 

Finally, the two egregious Democratic committee chairman who still claim to have evidence of impeachable offenses by the president but can’t cite any, Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), both seriously ill-favored men, called Mueller as a witness, and designed a timetable for his appearance clearly intended to prevent the Republican members from really getting at Mueller.

If his stumbling press statement was indicative of his forensic talents, Mueller will have a real sleigh-ride with a gang of Democrats angry because he couldn’t find anything on the president and Republicans who rightly consider his entire performance an unprofessional and morally corrupt operation.

Attorney General Barr has offered him support if he wishes not to appear. The Trump lynch mob has reached the last round-up. 

It only remains for Barr and his special prosecutor, John Durham, to indict those who politicized the intelligence agencies and the FBI, fraudulently sought FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and lied to congressional committees and the FBI. 

Those who would use the wheels of justice to persecute the innocent, will be ground to powder by them. Mueller is unlikely to have committed any offenses, but his conduct has been contemptible at every stage.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

No One Really Wants to ‘Send Her Back’

Don’t exaggerate the significance of raucous chants.

The president can be very entertaining, but I don’t pay much attention to political rallies, including his famously raucous ones.

For the faithful, the rallies are fun spectacles, like rock concerts or ball games.

I don’t think they can be taken too seriously, except perhaps as a gauge of the president’s support. Not in lieu of polls, but in conjunction. And with healthy skepticism: The polls have a history of undercounting Trump supporters, but the ardor of the Trump base on display at the rallies should not be confounded with national enthusiasm for the Trump presidency — though it may signal more openness to it, especially in light of the increasingly radical alternative.

Which brings us to Wednesday night’s Trump rally in Greenville, N.C., and the ginned-up crowd of Trump fans chanting “Send her back! That was in reference to Ilhan Omar, who is a naturalized American from Somalia, a radical at the crowded junction between Islamists and leftists, and a member of Congress from Minnesota’s fifth district — the deep-blue Twin Cities area that teems with Millennials and Somali immigrants.

All good populist demagoguery needs a villain. President Trump hardly has the market cornered on this. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton studied Alinskyite community organizing. The organizer, a self-styled renegade against The Establishment, is instructed to avoid abstractions when picking an opposition target. You’ve got to make it personal, to polarize the adversary in stark terms. Trump’s persona is to hit back harder than he is hit. No surprise, then, that he is a practitioner of this demagogic art, since he is also the Left’s No. 1 target.

Most Republican villains the Left selects (the Bushes, Mitt Romney . . .) respond by trying to prove they’re not really villains. This is a futile strategy.

The demagogues making the accusation already know it’s not true. They do it because it always works. Or at least it used to. It’s different with the president, who is from the Leo Durocher School: “I come to play. I come to beat you. I come to kill you!” Trump vexes the Left because he revels in the mud wrestle. Sure, he craves admiration, but he wants to win more, and he doesn’t in the slightest mind winning ugly. In that the Left must see a lot of itself, but that doesn’t mean it has figured out an effective response.

At the 2016 rallies it was “Lock her up!” because Mrs. Clinton was the obvious target. To be sure, there is no shortage of Clinton antagonists who would like to see her in the dock. But that wasn’t what the chant was about. The point was the political narrative: Hit the villain where she is most vulnerable — on corruption, where the Left cannot defend her.

Now, for the moment (i.e., while Trump’s 2020 opponent has yet to be chosen), the villain is the “Squad,” comprising Representative Omar and three other backbench Democratic congresswomen.

It is a different dynamic from 2016. Clinton, a Washington overlord, was withered by Trump’s onslaught. For the Squad, the combat is symbiotic. There is as much personal political advantage for the radical upstarts in being perceived as the president’s chief antagonists as for the president in branding them as such. The loser in the triangulized equation is the Democratic party of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. That, for what it’s worth, is why I can’t see Biden, another relic, emerging as the nominee.

Of the Squad members, Omar is the most vulnerable. She’d like you to believe the resentment of her is racist, misogynist, nativist, and Islamophobic: She’s a black African woman, an immigrant, and a Muslim. Interestingly, though, my friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black African woman, an immigrant, and a former Muslim (who nonetheless advocates Islamic reform), is one of the most revered figures on the political right. (Incidentally, Ayaan had some excellent advice for Representative Omar this week, would that she’d take it.)

Race and womanhood have nothing to do with Omar’s problems. Women are a majority of the population and, for years, they have been voting at higher rates than men. African-American women, such as Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey, are among the most popular figures not only on the political left but in the nation.

As for Islam, this issue is not that Omar is merely a Muslim. It is that she is an Islamist fellow traveler. Despite Washington’s best efforts, Americans grasp the difference between (a) Islam as a personal religious affiliation and (b) sharia supremacism as an anti-Western political ideology. They don’t see Omar as simply a Muslim. They see someone who is hard-wired to blame the United States for jihadist terrorism. They see someone who is steeped in anti-Semitism, and indistinguishable from her Muslim Brotherhood friends in hostility to Israel’s existence.

Finally, unlike her Squad mates, Omar has potential legal problems. There are grounds to believe she may have committed marriage fraud with her brother from 2009 through 2017. And this is no gut-wrenching story about a family struggling to shield children from the horrors of war in their native land: At the time of the marriage, Omar was a 26-year-old American citizen who had been in the U.S. for 17 years; the man alleged to be her brother was a young adult living in London, not Mogadishu.

In 2002, Omar married Ahmed Hirsi, her true and current husband. It was a Muslim wedding ceremony, not a formal legal marriage; but it was quite real: They have three children, and there are indications that they continued to live together even after 2008, when Omar says she and Hirsi divorced in accordance with Islamic law. In 2009, Omar formally married a man named Ahmed Nur Said Elmi — “formally” in the sense that a state marriage license was issued. 

There is considerable evidence that Elmi is Omar’s brother. For example, the Ahmed Nur Said Elmi whom Omar married shares a birthday with a man by the same name who attended a Minnesota high school in 2003. At the time, he lived with a man named Nur Said Elmi Mohamed, whom both Elmi and Omar have identified as their father. There are also indications that Omar, Hirsi, and Elmi all lived together for a time.

Omar has summarily dismissed the claim that she married her brother as “absurd and offensive,” but she otherwise refuses to address it and has frantically purged old social-media posts and other documentation. 

Meanwhile, she filed joint tax returns with Hirsi while she was formally married to Elmi. In 2017, she formally divorced Elmi; subsequently, she formally married Hirsi.

At this point, nothing has been proved. If there was a sham marriage for immigration purposes, however, that would be just one of many issues. Potentially, there would also be tax fraud, commercial fraud, and various state and federal false statements to sort out.

Until recently, Omar was merely a Minnesota sensation. The media-Democrat complex has helped her stonewall the investigative diligence of journalists David Steinberg, Preya Samsundar, and Scott Johnson. (See Scott’s Power Line post and the links it includes.) 

Now, however, the Squad is a national hit — so much so that Omar figures she’s ready to go toe-to-toe with Trump. The president, in his inimitable way, responded by going right for the jugular: Gee, there’s “a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it. I hear she was married to her brother . . .”

Welcome to the show, Congresswoman.

The president thrives on this stuff. His supporters may chant send her back! He’s happy to have her front and center in Washington.

Of course, there has been no shortage of outrage about the chanting, which was so deplorable, as it were, that Trump himself disavowed it the next day — even if he didn’t seem too upset while it was happening. Sorry to say, I can’t get too whipped up about it. 

Yes, Representative Omar is a naturalized American. As a matter of law, she’s just as much an American citizen as any one of us born in this country. The suggestion that the government should send her back to her native Somalia — because she is “the Other,” because she has the temerity to criticize the president — is obscene. I get all that.

But . . . are we really taking this seriously?

In a column earlier this week, I observed that the president’s tweets suggesting that Squad members should go back home to their native countries were not racist; but they were factually ignorant, politically dumb, and all in all beneath the presidency. After all, three of the Squad are native Americans; the fourth, Omar, is a naturalized American who left Somalia when she was six years old and has been here since she was ten. America is the only home the four congresswomen have even known. 

Yet, because they habitually run America down, the president could not resist the urge to rail that, if they really believed it was so bad, they should leave of their own volition. Offensive outburst? 

Yes . . . but he never suggested that the government could or should send them away. No one believes that.

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-beard weirdo who burns the American flag.” I don’t know if you could quite fit that into a rally chant, but it is a memorable bit of reactionary sentiment from Justice Antonin Scalia

Shortly before he died, the great jurist was explaining why he voted against the criminalization of flag-burning (in the Supreme Court’s controversial 1989 ruling in Texas v. Johnson). With characteristic pith, he was illustrating something that ought to be patent: We often express passionately our most visceral feelings; but we do not act on these outbursts in actually lived life.

When we get down to brass tacks, principles, laws, and norms are honored.

We have those guardrails precisely because we’re human, prone to error and excess, prone to let our id out for a night at the rally hall. We cannot help what we think in a gut sense, and liberty means being free to voice those thoughts, even when good judgment would counsel against it. But when we get back to reality, common sense and law take over.

We might say “Kill the umpire,” but we don’t actually want the umpire killed. We shouldn’t need to explain that because everyone understands it. The exercise of our right to scream “Kill the umpire” does not create a clear and present danger to umpires. 

For 60 years I’ve heard crowds say nutty things at carnival-type venues; on the other hand, I’ve also prosecuted people for inciting terrorist attacks against the United States. There is a palpable difference between provocative expression and incitement to violence, one that is not hard for sensible people to discern, even if great legal minds have struggled to articulate it precisely.

You want to condemn rambunctious chants? Knock yourself out. But let’s not exaggerate their significance. No one is going to make Ilhan Omar stop spouting her bile as long as she refrains from urging violence. 

We can probably also survive a little “send her back!” without the Republic’s crumbling.

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.




From Instapundit

The above two links only go back to 2001 through 2017, but FDR was retroactively insinuating that Calvin Coolidge was a Nazi in 1944, and Walter Cronkite was doing the same to Barry Goldwater 20 years later.

A lie repeated for a three-quarters of a century by the side of the aisle that controls the culture just might gain a bit of traction eventually…

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Chickens Come Home to Roost on Dems' Accusations of Racism

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) answers questions during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on July 17, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca., and House Democrats really have some nerve calling President Trump’s tweets “racist” when she, Democrats, and their media friends have made race baiting an art form.

Democrats have been using race and calling or implying that Republicans and conservatives are racists so long that they have pretty much made the word “racist” an almost meaningless cliché giving real racists cover.

Race baiting and racist comments are no stranger to Pelosi and her Democrat water carriers. As I have written in this space, President Barack Obama and his first Attorney General, Eric Holder, elevated identity politics and race baiting to new levels with no complaints from fellow Democrats or the media.

Former Vice President Joe Biden in 2012 told a diverse group including many blacks that Mitt Romney and Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.”

William McGurn, writing in The Wall Street Journal, referenced Biden appearing with Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC saying there was only one reason Republicans support voter-identification laws: “They don’t want black folks voting.”

Pelosi is a master at playing the race card!

On the citizenship question on the census she said that it was an effort to “Make America White Again."

She used the same expression to characterize the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat to which President Trump responded: "that's a very racist statement."

Democrats were silent!

Democrat race-baiting against Republicans had been consistent for at least two decades — until presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Ca., made a not-so-subtle accusation of racism against fellow Democrat Biden on his association with southern segregationists and opposition to busing.

That was not the only racist “chicken coming home to roost” in the Democrats’ “chicken coop” of racial hypocrisy.

Another one laying racist eggs in the Democrat nest was Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. She accused Pelosi of “explicit singling out of newly elected women of color” for criticism of their tactics.

Guess who came to Pelosi’s defense? President Trump, who said that she “was not a racist.”

So how did Pelosi return the favor?

She sponsored a resolution condemning Trump’s tweet criticizing four non-white congresswomen as racist.

The entire uproar and cries of racism over the Trump tweet represent an America where progressives, Democrats, and the media — all birds of a feather flocking together — consider any criticism of policies or people they support to be racist:

  • If you criticize the political position of a black, Hispanic, or Asian person you are a racist.
  • If you oppose open borders, you are a racist.
  • If you support the men and women of the Border Patrol, many of whom are minorities, you are a racist.
  • If you oppose reparations for blacks for slavery, you are a racist.
  • If you believe a citizenship question should be on the census form, you are a racist.
Regardless of his tweets, the president is doing something that most conservatives and Republicans are either afraid or unwilling to do — fight back and give progressives a taste of their own medicine!

In many cases, when accused of being racist, most Republicans fold like wet spaghetti and run like a dog with its tail between its legs looking for the nearest reporter to show they are really not bigots.

Regardless of his terminology, the president is telling progressives and his media enemies that he will not turn the other cheek.

It’s too bad those so anxious to call Trump a racist over tweets don’t get just as upset and remain silent when an antifa terrorist group allegedly tries to attack an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Tacoma, Washington; or, when ICE protesters pull down an American flag, raise a Mexican flag and vandalize a Blue Lives Matter banner at an ICE detention facility in Aurora, Colorado.

Some will argue that the reason they are silent is that they sympathize with the perpetrators — not the men and women of ICE and law enforcement.

Clarence V. McKee is president of McKee Communications, Inc., a government, political, and media relations consulting firm in Florida. He held several positions in the Reagan administration as well as in the Reagan presidential campaigns. He is a former co-owner of WTVT-TV in Tampa and former president of the Florida Association of Broadcasters. Read more of his reports.