racial division
Conservative activist Candace Owens derailed Jerry Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on “Hate Crimes and White Nationalism” by calling it out as a farce to scare minorities into supporting censorship and the Democratic Party.
CANDACE OWENS, TURNING POINT USA: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Collins thank you for having me here today. I received word on my way in that many of the journalist were confused as to why I was invited and none of them knew that I am myself was a victim of a hate crime when I was in high school. That is something that very few people know about me because the media and the journalists on the left are not interested in telling the truth about me because I don’t fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people. I am a Democrat. I support the President of the United States and I advocate for things that are actually affecting the black community.
I am honored to be here today in front of you all because the person sitting behind me is my 75-year-old grandfather. I have always considered myself to be my grandfather’s child and I mean to say that my sense of humor, my passion and my work ethic all comes from the man that is sitting behind me.
My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democratic Party’s Jim Crow laws. My grandfather’s first job was given to him at the age of five years old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an addict in the South. My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan. They would regularly visit his home and they would shoot bullets into it. They had an issue with his father, my great-grandfather.
During my formative years I have the privilege of growing up in my grandfather’s home. It is going to shock the committee but not once, not in a single breath of a conversation did my grandfather and tell me that I could not do something because of my skin color. Not once did my grandfather hold a gripe against the white man. I was simply never taught to view myself as a victim because of my heritage. I–I learned about faith in God, family and hard work. Those were the only lessons of my childhood.
There isn’t a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.
Here are some things we never hear. 75 percent of the black boys in California don’t meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore within five high schools and one middle school not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The singlehood–these single motherhood rate in the black community which is at 23 percent in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming out is at a staggering 74 percent today. I am guessing there will be no committee hearings about that. There are more black babies born–there are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York and you have Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo lighting of buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on. My point is that white nationalist–white nationalism does not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did. Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control. It is a preview of a Democrat 20/20 election strategy the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy. They blame Facebook. They blame Google. They blame Twitter. Really, they blame the birth of social media which has disrupted their monopoly on minds. They called this hearing because they believe that if it wasn’t for social media voices like mine would never exist, that my movement Blexit which is inspiring lack of Americans to lead–to leave the Democrat party would have never come about and they certainly believe that Donald Trump would not be in office today.
Looking on the next thing to focus on now that the Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart. What they won’t tell you about the statistics and the rise of white nationalism is that they have simply change the data set points by widening the definition of hate crimes and upping the number of reporting agencies that are able to report on them. What I mean to say is that they are manipulating statistics.
The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions ultimately to helping them regain control of our countries narrative which they feel that they lost. They feel that President Donald Trump should not have beat Hillary. If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left, violent, white gang who determined one day in Philadelphia in August that I, a black woman, was not fit to sit in a restaurant. They chased me out, they yield race traitor to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs at me and the leftist media remained silent on it.
If they were serious about the rise of hate crimes they may perhaps be examining themselves and the hate they have drummed up in this country. Bottom line is that white supremacy, racism, national–white nationalism, words that once held real meaning have now become nothing more than election strategies. Every four years the black communities offered handouts and fear, handouts and fear. Reparations and white nationalism. This is the Democrat preview. Of course society is not perfectible. We have heard testimony of that today. There are pockets of evil that exist in those things are horrible and they should be condemned. But I believe the legacy of the ancestry of black Americans is being insulted every single day. I will not pretend to be a victim in this country. I know that that makes many country on the left uncomfortable. I want to talk about real issues in black America theater want to talk about real issues in this country, real concerns.
The biggest scandal–this is my last sentence–in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into the belief that we are perpetual victims all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat party platform. They need Blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. Soon enough it will be the tall hating the short.
The whole hearing was a farce but Owens managed to successfully flip the script and stole the show!
Source: InfoWars
The Southern Poverty Law Center – the “vicious left-wing attack dog” used by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon to identify “hate groups” – is unraveling.
A week after co-founder Morris Dees was ousted over sexual misconduct claims – with two dozen employees signing a letter of concern over “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism,” the head of the SPLC, Richard Cohen, as well as the organization’s legal director, Rhonda Brownstein, resigned on Friday.
Cohen had been with the organization 33 years and was one of its most prominent figures.
“At 5:03 p.m. Friday, Cohen sent a message to staff, with the subject line ‘Stepping Down,’ announcing that he, too, would be leaving the organization that he and Dees had turned into a research and fundraising juggernaut”.
“‘Whatever problems exist at the SPLC happened on my watch, so I take responsibility for them,’ Cohen wrote, while asking the staff to avoid jumping to conclusions before the board completes an internal review of the Montgomery, Ala., organization’s work culture.” -LA
Times
Earlier this week, the SPLC board of directors appointed Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Tina Tchen – who, in an unrelated matter, unsuccessfully tried to pull strings and have the Jussie Smollett case transferred from the Chicago PD to the FBI. Tchen is heading up the inquiry into the sexual misconduct claims.
Also out on Friday was Rhonda Brownstein – who had worked with the organization for nearly three decades, according to the Montgomery Advertiser’s Melissa Brown.
The MSM is pushing the narrative of racial division after the tragic shooting in New Zealand. Alex breaks down this divide and conquer tactic being promoted by propaganda.
Inside the SPLC “Scam”
As the Washington Examiner’s Beckett Adams writes, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a “scam,” which has taken ” no care whatsoever for the reputational and personal harm it causes by lumping Christians and anti-extremist activists with actual neo-Nazis.”
“As it turns out, the SPLC is a cynical money-making scheme, according to a former staffer’s blistering tell-all, published this week in the New Yorker. The center’s chief goal is to bilk naive and wealthy donors who believe it’s an earnest effort to combat bigotry.”
“The only thing worse than a snarling partisan activist is a slimy conman who merely pretends to be one.” -Washington Examiner
““Outside of work,” recalls Bob Moser of his days working for the organization, “we spent a lot of time drinking and dishing in Montgomery bars and restaurants about … the hyperbolic fund-raising appeals, and the fact that, though the center claimed to be effective in fighting extremism, ‘hate’ always continued to be on the rise, more dangerous than ever, with each year’s report on hate groups. ‘The S.P.L.C.—making hate pay,’ we’d say.”
“[I]t was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam,” added Moser.
The way Moser tells it, the center’s chief founder, Morris Dees, who was dismissed unceremoniously last week for unspecified reasons, discovered early on that he could rake in boatloads of cash by convincing “gullible Northern liberals” that his group is doing the hard work of fighting “hate.”
But the center’s supposed mission of combating bigotry doesn’t actually matter to its top brass, Moser says. It’s just a business choice and one that has been extremely lucrative throughout the years. Moser’s article reminds readers of the time Dees actually said of the SPLC in an interview with then-Progressive magazine reporter John Egerton, “We just run our business like a business. Whether you’re selling cakes or causes, it’s all the same.” -Washington Examiner
Moser claims that the SPLC’s business model centers entirely around keeping its precious donors in constant fear using gimmicks such as “hate maps” and “hate lists.”
“[T]he center continues to take in far more than it spends. And it still tends to emphasize splashy cases that are sure to draw national attention,” he writes adding the group’s “central strategy” involves “taking on cases guaranteed to make headlines and inflame the far right while demonstrating to potential donors that the center has not only all the right enemies but also the grit and know-how to take them down.”
Moser adds there is an inescapable sense of “guilt” that comes with thinking about “the legions of donors who believed that their money was being used, faithfully and well, to do the Lord’s work in the heart of Dixie. We were part of the con, and we knew it.”
Who knew you could make the big bucks simply by lumping Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ben Carson with actual, honest-to-God neo-Nazis? -Washington Examiner
Right wing commentator and Vice co-founder Gavin McInnes is currently suing the SPLC for labeling his right-wing fraternal organization, the Proud Boys, a hate group.
The SPLC has gone from a noble institution genuinely dedicated to eradicating hate to a hate group in and of itself that pretends this country is frothing with bigots desperate to foment World War III,” McInnes said in a press release.
McInnes has raised nearly $200,000 out of a goal of $250,000 to continue his lawsuit. From his website Defendgavin.com:
“I’m suing the SPLC. And it’s not just because they destroyed my career and shattered my reputation. It’s because they could do the same to you. Though this group is often cited as a credible source by the media, nobody who actually knows stuff takes them seriously.”
“No, being called an extremist by the SPLC does NOT mean you’re an extremist. No, being called a Hate Group by the SPLC does NOT make you a Hate Group. And no, being called a racist or an anti-Semite or an Islamophobe or a transphobe or a homophobe by the SPLC does NOT make you any of those things.” -Gavin McInnes
We wonder if there will even be an SPLC left to sue by the time it reaches a courtroom.
Jack Posobiec joins Alex via Skype to explain a new tactic being considered to combat Big Tech on a state by state basis.
Source: InfoWars
In the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as “proof” that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia’s National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline.
“Exhibit A” is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996, when the new legislation was adopted in Australia.
There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe and Canada and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates.
A Trend in Falling Rates
As noted by legal scholar Michael Tonry,
There is now general agreement, at least for developed English-speaking countries and western Europe, that homicide patterns have moved in parallel since the 1950s. The precise timing of the declines has varied, but the common pattern is apparent. Homicide rates increased substantially from various dates in the 1960s, peaked in the early 1990s or slightly later, and have since fallen substantially.
This was certainly the case in the United States. US homicides hit a 51-year low in 2014, falling to a level not seen since 1963. This followed the general trend: peaking in the early 1990s, and then going into steep decline. And yet, we can’t point to any new national gun-control measure which we can then claim caused the decline. In fact, the data suggests gun ownership increased significantly during this period.
Australia followed the same pattern, although national homicide data collection was spotty before the early 1990s:
Source: Standardized homicide rates per 100,000 population, four English-speaking countries, various years to 2012. See “Why Crime Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World” by Michael Tonry.
Part of the reason that the collection of homicide data in Australia is so recent a phenomenon is because it’s has tended to be so rare. Politically, it simply wasn’t a national priority. Australia is a small country, with only a few more million people than Florida, spread out over an entire continent. In the relatively high homicide days of the early 1990s, Australia’s homicides totaled around 300. This means in a bad crime year, in which homicides increase by only 20 or 30 victims, could swing overall rates noticeably.
This brings us to our other problem with using post-1996 homicide data as definitive proof of anything. The numbers are too small to allow us to extrapolate much. As data analyst Leah Libresco wrote in 2017 in The Washington Post:
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths…
This doesn’t stop many reporters in mainstream outlets from claiming that any decline in homicides can with certainty be attributed to whatever the most recent gun-control restrictions were.
But it rarely works in the opposite direction. For example, during the 1990s, many American states liberalized gun laws considerably, allowing more conceal-carry provisions and lessening controls in general. Needless to say, The New York Times doesn’t point to this and say “American homicide rates decreased in response to loosening of state gun laws.”
Of course, I’m not saying that these changes in gun laws by themselves indisputably “prove” that more conceal carry laws reduce homicides. But, if I subscribed to the same standards of rigor as most mainstream journalists, I’d likely have no scruples about doing this, in spite of what other factors ought to be considered.
Faced with a lack of evidence that 1996’s law caused Australia to follow the same trend in homicides as both the US and Canada, advocates for laws like Australia’s then fall back on the strategy of pointing out that Australia’s homicide rates are lower than the US’s. The problem with this strategy, of course, is that Australia’s homicide rates were not comparable to those in the US either before or after 1996. The causes of the difference in rates between the two countries obviously pre-dates modern gun regulation measures in both countries. (We might also point out that several US states — some of which have very lax gun laws — have very low homicide rates comparable to Australia’s.)
Attempts to explain this away have been numerous, and in many ways, justifying gun control policy has come down to endless attempts at using regression analysis to find correlations between gun policy and homicide rates. These can often be interesting, but their value often rests on finding the right theoretical framework with which to identify the most important factors.
Those who work in public policy, and who lack a good foundation in broader issues around criminality tend to just go directly to legal prohibitions as the key factor in homicide rates. But this isn’t exactly the approach taken by those who engage in more serious study of long-term trends in homicides.
Famed crime researcher Eric Monkonnen, for example, in his essay “Homicide: Explaining America’s Exceptionalism,” identified four factors which he though most likely explained the higher rates in the United States: the mobility of the population, decentralized law enforcement, racial division caused by slavery, and a generally higher tolerance for homicide. Monkonnen concludes: “To assume that an absence of guns in the United States would bring about parity with Europe is wrong. For the past two centuries, even without guns, American rates would likely have still been higher.”
Monkonnen’s conclusions on this matter don’t necessarily make him laissez-faire on gun control. But they do illustrate his recognition of the fact that factors driving difference in homicide rates between two very different societies go far beyond pointing to one or two pieces of legislation. And if gun control laws are to be posited as the cause of declines in homicide, there need to be a clear “before and after difference” in the jurisdiction in which they are adopted. Comparisons with other countries miss the point.
Suicide Rates Higher Now In Australia
Perhaps recognizing that homicide rates haven’t actually changed all that much in the wake of 1996, some defenders of Australia’s gun legislation have tried to gild the lily by claiming that an additional benefit of legislation has been a decline in suicide rates. This is a common strategy among gun control advocates who often like to claim gun control is often a suicide prevention measure.
[RELATED: “Guns Don’t Cause Suicide“]
For example, it’s not difficult to find media headlines proclaiming “suicide figures plummeted” in Australia after the adoption of the 1996 law. But Australia runs into a similar problem here as with gun control: suicide rates fell substantially during the same period in Canada, the US, and much of Europe.
Moreover, in recent years, suicide rates in Australia and the US have climbed upward again. There’s little doubt that suicide rates fell from 1995 to 2006, dropping from 12 per 100,000 to under 9 per 100,000. But after that, suicide rates climbed to a ten-year high in 2015, rising again to 12 per 100,000, or a rate comparable to what existed before the 1996 gun measure. In other words, suicides are back to where they were. But as recently as 2017, we’re still hearing about how gun control also makes suicides decline.
Overall, this is just the level of discourse we should expect from the media and policymakers on this matter. Even the flimsiest correlation to the passage of a gun control law is assumed to have been the primary factor behind a decline in homicides. Meanwhile, any easing of gun laws that coincides with declining homicides (as happened in the US) is to be ignored. In both cases, the situation is more complicated than reporters suggest.
But don’t expect this to be a restraining factor on the drive for new gun laws in New Zealand. In Australia, the 1996 gun-control measure was passed only 12 days after the massacre used to justify the new legislation. New Zealand politicians look like they’re trying to take an even more cavalier attitude toward deliberation and debate. Meanwhile, in Norway, where Anders Brevik murdered 77 people in 2011 — 67 of them with semi-automatic firearms — the national legislature didn’t pass significant changes to gun control regulations until 2018.
Comedian Tommy Sotomayor joins Owen Shroyer on The War Room to expose SJWs’ inability to reason logically, unless it fits their political narrative.
Source: InfoWars
In an act of petty retaliation, Oliver had his staff at HBO dig up every old Leno joke they could find poking fun at Monica Lewinsky, edited them all together while cutting out much of the laughter, then cried about how his jokes were supposedly not funny and deeply offensive.
JOHN OLIVER: If you’re hazy on the Monica Lewinsky story, at 22, she and president Clinton began a relationship that, very long story short, ended up with graphic details being made public through the report by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. And it is impossible to overstate just how globally famous Monica and private details of her life became. The media obsessed over every angle of her story, from tabloid stories like these to cartoons where microphones pointed at her face were replaced with penises to endless late-night comedy jokes. Look, my hands are not clean here either. I wasn’t in the U.S. At the time, but ten years after the fact, I was in a “Daily Show” piece marking the anniversary of the scandal, above a graphic reading “Ten sucking years.” Which is gross. It’s gross. And many comedians have since publicly expressed regret about things they’ve said, although one who hasn’t, and who was among the most relentless, was Jay Leno.
JAY LENO: Let’s see what’s going on with Monica, or as president Clinton calls her, “My little humidor.” One million samples of DNA. They said it was the largest collection of DNA in the world, not counting Monica Lewinsky’s closet. And the humidity, man, I’ll tell you, people’s clothes are stickier than Monica Lewinsky’s. Man, it was just, oh. And you can’t get away without at least one of these. Lewinsky, back on her feet. All right, ladies and gentlemen! And the grammy for best organ recital went to Monica Lewinsky, ladies and gentlemen.
OLIVER: Those jokes have not dated well in any sense of the word. And they’re pretty rough, especially coming from a guy who, just this week, complained about late-night TV, saying he’d like to see a bit of civility come back. You know. Like that time he did a bit with a fake book about Lewinsky titled “The slut in the hat.” And if that’s what he means by civility, may I offer my new book, “Oh, the places you can go f**k yourself, Jay Leno.” Look how civil I’m being! Look how civil this is.
Imagine being so shook by Leno’s comments you felt the need to compile a Media Matters-style compilation of his old jokes to whine about.
If that wasn’t cringe enough, Oliver went on to interview Monica Lewinsky for ten minutes straight and treated her as an expert on public shaming, social media and online bullying:
If this show is any indicator, the current state of late night is worse than anything Jay Leno could ever imagine.
Source: InfoWars
Common medications prescribed to treat heartburn, acid reflux and ulcers are linked to increased risks for kidney failure and chronic kidney disease, found a recent University at Buffalo study.
Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), a group of drugs that reduce the production of stomach acid, increases the risk of chronic kidney disease by 20 percent and raises the risk of kidney failure by four times. Risks were highest among people at least 65 years old.
The research, published in February in Pharmacotherapy, is one of the first large, long-term studies to examine the effects of PPIs on kidney function. Researchers examined the health data of more than 190,000 patients over a 15-year period.
“This study adds to a growing list of concerning side effects and adverse outcomes associated with PPIs,” says David Jacobs, PharmD, PhD, lead investigator and assistant professor of pharmacy practice in the UB School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.
“Given the increasing global use of PPIs, the relationship between PPIs and renal disease could pose a substantial disease and financial burden to the health care system and public health.”
A new article exposes how unhealthy antibiotics can be for humans. Alex Jones discusses the negative affects when we give them to children as well as farmers feeding them into our food supply.
PPIs are one of the most commonly prescribed medications in the U.S., with an estimated 113 million prescriptions filled in 2008, costing patients nearly $14 billion, says Jacobs.
Due to acid reflux and related conditions only requiring short-term treatment with PPIs, he adds, up to 70 percent of patients overuse these medications without benefit and are subjected to unnecessary adverse effects.
The prevalence of PPI use in the U.S. could have a devastating effect on public health. Because these drugs are still considered safe, education and deprescribing initiatives are needed to raise awareness among health care providers, says Jacobs. Deprescribing may involve reducing dosage or stopping usage.
Data for the investigation was gathered from medical insurance and prescription claims from a Western New York insurer. Researchers examined medical history from 1993-2008 of adult patients with no history of kidney disease.
Kidney health was compared between patients who underwent PPI therapy and those who were unexposed. Examined PPIs included esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole (commonly known by brand names as Vimovo, Prevacid, Prilosec, Protonix and Aciphex, respectively).
The MSM is pushing the narrative of racial division after the tragic shooting in New Zealand. Alex breaks down this divide and conquer tactic being promoted by propaganda.
Source: InfoWars
X
Story Stream
recent articles
WASHINGTON — I don’t quite know what a handbasket is, but the Democratic Party is heading in one to electoral hell with its talk of socialism and reparations. Given a Republican incumbent who has never exceeded 50 percent in Gallup’s approval ratings poll and who won the presidency thanks to a dysfunctional electoral college, the party is nevertheless determined to give Donald Trump a fair shot at re-election by sabotaging itself. In fact, it’s veering so far to the left it could lose an election in 1950s Bulgaria.
Democratic socialist ideas appear to be making significant headway in the party. The Democratic part is fine, the socialism part is not. It suggests a massive government intrusion in the economy that has not worked elsewhere — post-war Great Britain or that contemporary mess called Venezuela — and that, in a cultural sense, is un-American. Time and time again, the American people have shown they want nothing to do with socialism. While socialist movements have at times been politically strong in Europe, such has not been the case in America. This, in fact, is one of the original meanings of the phrase “American exceptionalism.”
If Americans are not about to embrace socialism, they certainly are not about to support reparations. This proposal, which seems to have come out of nowhere, has the support of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Julian Castro and Marianne Williamson. This supposed redress for slavery — nothing can redress slavery — polls abysmally. Sixty-eight percent of Americans oppose making payments to descendants of slaves, and 72 percent oppose paying reparations to African-Americans in general. Among whites, 81 percent oppose payments to descendants of slaves.
At the moment, these proposals are reassuringly vague: Who would benefit? Just the descendants of slaves? All African-Americans? What about the very rich? As you can see, this can get a bit complicated.
It can also can get dangerously divisive. The poll numbers cited above obscure a vast racial division. African-Americans and Hispanics feel differently. Only 35 and 47 percent, respectively, oppose reparations. Such a stark racial or ethnic difference does not bode well for a political party which is trying to woo the votes of whites who supported Trump the last time out. It may prove hard to convince a low-paid Walmart worker that he or she owes something to the descendants of long-ago slaves. I pity the politicians who venture into that argument.
The problem for the Democrats at the moment is that much attention is being focused on political novelties such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who espouse both socialism and reparations. She is ferociously telegenic, infectiously likable and clearly inexhaustible. She is also political poison, the product of a freak election in a New York City district where the past has taken root — socialism and a lot of rot about the evils of capitalism. She cheered Amazon’s decision to forsake New York for friendlier climes, taking at least 25,000 jobs with it. (Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) For a mere first termer, this is quite an accomplishment. It usually takes much more seniority to do this much damage.
The Democrats need worthy candidates — some who can occupy the media’s idle hours in Iowa and remind America that the party is not in the least Trotskyite. Joe Biden would fit the bill. So would John Kerry and, of course, so would Mike Bloomberg. Kamala Harris, who has the necessary happy countenance of the successful politician, would suffice if, as I suspect, she turns out to be more moderate than she now appears.
Already Trump and other Republicans are going to town over socialism, which is about as real a threat to America as Mexican sociopaths clambering over the border, bearing drugs and, of course, infectious diseases. Moderate Democrats are having to answer for the provocative statements and tweets of their more radical colleagues, including of course, the now-retracted anti-Semitic tweets of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. The GOP, ever-helpful, will ensure that they are not forgotten.
Trump is a rotten president who needs to be replaced. That is the solemn task of the Democratic Party. The president is a divisive, unpopular figure who can be defeated. But imprecations of socialism and endorsements of reparations are anathema to the electorate, socially and racially fragmenting a nation that urgently needs unity. They are both worn ideas — nostalgia trips for the radicals of old and freighted with failure. They ought to come boxed and nicely wrapped for what they really are — not a gift to the economically anxious or the racially aggrieved, but to Donald J. Trump.
(c) 2019, Washington Post Writers Group
-
Pages
MAGA One Radio