Why Are Most Examples Of American Racism From The Past?

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

By Guest Author, Parker Beauregard from TheLastBestHope.xyz

This article was first published by Human Events

A curious habit follows the most vocal critics of America’s evils. When discussing the pervasive and harmful racism they claim is endemic in the fabric of society, it is not an exaggeration to observe that the bulk of this evidence emanates from the well-documented past, with much greater frequency than from the present. No one disputes America’s historical horrors. America had slavery; America had Jim Crow; America practiced redlining; The KKK terrorized southern black communities. The list could be produced ad infinitum.

But what about when it comes to an honest assessment of modern times? Though there is certainly no shortage of rallying cries, there is a remarkable dearth of hard evidence that comports with claims of persistent and systemic racism. When evidence does appear, it has often been distorted, and even withheld, to fit a narrative.

It is not difficult to see why this transpires. In the absence of an honest, empirical recounting of America’s racial progress, one can only draw from previous examples. The 1619 Project, the ahistorical Pulitzer winner, is quickly becoming a central curricular piece across the nation’s schools. In this paradigm, for students to learn that America daily confronts racism, they must be shown that racism was real 400 years ago. The “1619 mindset,” as it were, is one that accepts all extinct sins as evidentiary proof of extant ones—and it saturates the discussion of race in America. 

Perhaps nothing more starkly informs the narrative of systemic racism than present-day police shootings, specifically police shootings of black suspects. There is a sizable population that has lionized the likes of George FloydRayshard BrooksBreonna Taylor, and Jacob Blake this year. These same people also still think Michael Brown had his hands up. Even if a police officer were found to have acted wrongly, which happens, it is another matter entirely to prove that racism itself played a prominent role. 

This 1619 mindset attempts to criminalize America’s present on the basis of America’s past, and do so by selectively casting our history as racist. What it omits, however, is the large and significant part of our history that is anti-racist. The United States is first in many aspects, but one of its greatest contributions to modern life is a long-standing legacy of confronting racism and actively trying to root it out. And it’s worked: in 2020, racism isn’t the norm—being repulsed by racism is. 

Why else would we be fixated on racial slurs on a midwinter Chicago night, a foreboding noose in a NASCAR garage, or a teenage burn victim? For precisely the same reason these episodes enthrall us, they are additional proof of the lack of widespread racism.

THE FALSE NARRATIVE OF SYSTEMIC RACISM IN POLICING

Black Lives Matter and Democrats often cite as proof of contemporary systemic racism the “fact” of widespread brutality and murder of innocent black men at the hands of American police. Apparently, the United States finds itself so marred by pernicious racism that the United Nations Human Rights Council was petitioned to intervene. (For the record, this is the same Human Rights Council that recently added China and Cuba.)

The problem with this particular claim is how it fails to withstand even the slightest bit of scrutiny. There are countless articles that debunk the theory of “police-on-black” animus. Two of the more frequently cited studies on this topic come from Harvard Professor Roland Fryer (2016) and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019). Both reaffirm what reasonable minds have said all along: there is no evidence of police indiscriminately shooting and killing black Americans, let alone white officers doing so at higher rates. Counter to the noxious notion that black Americans are targeted for killing by police, more white Americans are killed every year—without deviation, at a rate of almost two to one—by police than are blacks. As most police are also white, this seems a fairly salient observation.

Faced with this evidence, then, the left is forced to manipulate language so that no matter the legal outcome of a fatal police encounter, the narrative of “police-on-black” animus can live on. If a police officer is charged with felony murder, as was the case for South Carolina officer Michael Slager in the 2015 killing of Walter Scott, and Florida officer Nouman Raja in the killing of Corey Jones the same year, the left nevertheless points to each shooting as further proof that cops are hunting blacks. A pastor for the Scott family declared: “Walter’s death was motivated by racial discrimination. You’ve got to hate somebody to shoot them in the back.” Insofar as he was quoted at length, no mention appears of his satisfaction with the guilty verdict. Similarly, a representative for the Jones family made sure to equivocate on the issue.

If a police officer is not charged with felony murder, recently exemplified in Louisville with Attorney General Daniel Cameron deciding not to pursue a case against the officers involved in Breonna Taylor’s death, then the left not only says cops are hunting black Americans, but goes a step further by declaring that the whole system is failing blacks, too. All of this, despite the overwhelming evidence laid out by a black Attorney General, no less. Despite repeatedly being told that the officers didn’t knock, that she was asleep, that the police shot first, and that she was murdered in cold blood, all of the evidence contradicted everything. 

So, since the left can’t win the battle of narratives based on its paucity of actual sanctioned violence, it must therefore turn to undisputable historical facts. From there, it just needs to make the argument that proof of racism in the past is sufficient enough to indict in the present. (A statute of limitations need not apply.)

USING PERSONAL ANECDOTES TO CONSTRUCT A LARGER NARRATIVE

A few examples from online media make the case that, when in doubt, it is more effective for proponents of the 1619 mindset to lean on old, personalized sins that can provide cover for declared, but non-existent, ones. In an op-ed published on September 15th in USA Today, a black professor from South College of Texas Law, Njeri Rutledge, decided to share with the world how she woke up from not being “woke enough” to the so-called realities of race in America. 

She refers to there simply being a generic presence of racism: “I make the daily decision to either call out and challenge the routine subtle racism I experience… or ignore the racial cuts.” She continues: “Have I ever personally experienced racism? Every. Single. Day.” Explicit examples, however, are never proffered or alluded to; as the reader, we must take her at her word that, in 2020, racism is everywhere.

When she does point to specifics, Professor Rutledge draws from events in her distant past—events that hold little relevance to today. “[W]hen I was only a 10-year-old playing in my front yard, I was referred to as the N-word. This was the first time but not the last. And, like WNBA superstar A’ja Wilson, I too was “uninvited” from a birthday sleepover in the fourth grade.” Being called the N-word as a ten-year-old was despicable then, and it is despicable now. (Still, though she says it was not the last time, one can’t help but wonder why she refused to provide the more current example?) As for the second incident, the author was born in 1971; this event occurred in 1981, over forty years ago. The median age of all Americans is 38.2 years of age. This means more than half of all Americans alive today were yet to be born when this event happened.

The author, who is probably a charming human being, relies too heavily on an all-too-common fallacy. In essence, as a person of color, she feels she is automatically entitled to being right. This is just one of the many shortcomings of Critical Race Theory. Professor Rutledge, by virtue of her skin color, can declare that because she experienced racism as a child, America must be racist as a whole.

It is not hard to see how this now passes for critical thinking. Just like the 1619 Project, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) offers no shortage of race-baiting chum guised as historical instruction. In some ways, it is hard to critique the EJI. According to a biography of the organization, it “provides legal representation for prisoners who may have been wrongly convicted of crimes, poor prisoners without effective representation, and others who may have been denied a fair trial.” Noble aims aside, where its morally lofty mission ends, its political agenda begins.

Founder Bryan Stevenson has a worldview that America never really abolished slavery; it just helped it evolve to include new forms of oppression, ranging from “sharecropping, Jim Crow laws, mass incarceration, convict leasing, and lynching.” The fact that two-thirds of all sharecroppers were white, or that there are 400,000 more whites in prison than blacks, do not seem to impress Mr. Stevenson. 

To be sure, it is important to remember past crimes and atrocities. It is also important to put those events in context. The EJI does not do this; instead, as the left is wont to do, it refers to past evidence of racial animus with the sole aim of stoking racial tensions in the present. Its Twitter feed is replete with reminders of past evils. No doubt there are lessons to be learned, but there is a difference between simply studying history compared to studying history and judging it with contemporary equivalence.

The Equal Justice Initiative’s Twitter feed includes daily reminders of American sins. Consider a sampling from the end of September below:

What does the EJI hope to accomplish with these messages? Consider the tweet dated September 23rd that says: “On this day in 1667, the Virginia Assembly declared baptism did not free enslaved people from bondage and ensured enslavers they could keep Black people enslaved. To overcome racial inequality, we must confront our history”? Does an event from the 17th century, over a hundred years before the actual founding of the United States as a country, now also condemn the nation as it currently exists? To the EJI, yes. 

There is some subtle psychology at work in this messaging as well. In each tweet, the Equal Justice Initiative asserts that “we must confront our history.” The use of we and our connote togetherness, but the rank division that occurs through identity politics is anything but unifying. In her testimony, Professor Rutledge is both oppressed and uplifted for being black, and the whites she encounters in her life are all biased and racist. This is hardly a means of bringing disparate ethnicities and cultures together. Indeed, while the words are saying one thing, it would be more accurate to translate the we into you whites; similar to how having an honest conversation about race really means whites need to be silent and grovel for forgiveness

The implications of racism never being a sin from which America can fully recover thus create new opportunities for endless profit and shame.

HISTORICAL SINS SHOULD NOT CONFER CONTEMPORARY GUILT

Consider Ta-Nehisi Coates’ seminal essay “The Case for Reparations,” appeared in the Atlantic in 2014, and reintroduced the concept of paying off societal debts to black Americans harmed by its racist pasts. Since then, local communities in both Illinois and North Carolina have sanctioned city dollars to atone for past harms. Most recently, the state of California expressed its wishes to repay the black community. 

Coates’ piece is chock full of ancient crimes, mostly with events that took place between the 1920s and 1970s. In fact, it mentions just two episodes from the 21st century that Coates deems as racist: the segregated neighborhoods of Chicago and a Wells Fargo case from 2005 regarding predatory lending. With regard to the issue of segregation, Coates writes:

“North Lawndale is an extreme portrait of the trends that ail black Chicago. Such is the magnitude of these ailments that it can be said that blacks and whites do not inhabit the same city. The average per capita income of Chicago’s white neighborhoods is almost three times that of its black neighborhoods. When the Harvard sociologist Robert J. Sampson examined incarceration rates in Chicago in his 2012 book, Great American City, he found that a black neighborhood with one of the highest incarceration rates (West Garfield Park) had a rate more than 40 times as high as the white neighborhood with the highest rate (Clearing).”

Are some of the root causes of neighborhood segregation, and the differences in quality of life that Coates points out, related to past racist sins? Probably. But the problem with analyzing, say, the crime rate through a lens of only considering historical racism is that it downplays individual agency in the present. Surely Coates believes that blacks are capable of being independent actors; after all, some people rightfully lost their minds when Joe Biden said blacks were a monolith.

This kind of deduction harkens to the logic of another prominent anti-racist intellectual, Ibram X. Kendi, who declared all unequal outcomes as explicit evidence of racism (emphasis mine): “[T]he more that I talked to people about anti-racist ideas and what anti-racist ideas allow us to see, I came to realize that means that racial inequality must be the result of racial discrimination or racist policies.” 

President Barack Obama, in his 2008 Father’s Day speech, shared alarming statistics about fatherless homes. He noted that blacks growing up without present fathers were “five times more likely to grow up in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and twenty times more likely to end up in prison.” It seems hard to confer the remnants of slavery to this, or the fact that just 17% of black students make it to their high school graduation with both parents still in the same home when the figure was around 70-80% in the late 1800s. Any claim to racial segregation as a root cause of black plight must also confront the other factors that lead to the differences in quality of life Coates highlights.

The other reference Coates makes to 21st-century racism against the black community comes from a predatory lending case in 2005. “In 2005, Wells Fargo promoted a series of Wealth Building Strategies seminars … But the “wealth building” seminars were a front for wealth theft. In 2010, the Justice Department filed a discrimination suit against Wells Fargo alleging that the bank had shunted blacks into predatory loans regardless of their creditworthiness.”

That banks lent money to unqualified individuals is indeed a problem; that left-leaning organizations like the EJI repeatedly tell black Americans they are less likely to get loans is likewise a problem. Which is it? If banks don’t lend money, except to qualified borrowers, they are regarded as practicing racist lending habits. If they lend money to underqualified black Americans, they are found guilty of predatory lending practices.

Coates’ account fails to mention what happened in 1995, when then-attorney Barack Obama sued Citibank for lending money to objectively good borrowers, and, upon winning the case, caused over half of all undeserving mortgage-recipients to later lose their house to foreclosures. If Wells Fargo was a predatory lender, what was Citibank? Again, if banks are racist for not issuing loans and also racist for issuing loans, what are they supposed to do?

If someone so desired, an encyclopedic tome could be written, detailing all of America’s past harms, aggressions, and sins. There is no denying history, and in fact, no one does deny our past. The difference in perspective is that one group—the political left—seeks to meld the past with the present in a grotesque effort to assign blame and sew hateful divisions along racial lines, whereas another group— the political right—seeks to understand the past but not get stuck in old stories. There is a danger in having individuals committed to finding every microaggression inflicted by their neighbors, or organizations committed to overturning every potentially racist stone in America’s past.

For the simple fact that he does not espouse leftist politics, Clarence Thomas is never included in any conversation about blackness, and is even why he was left out of the Black History Museum. This is a nation that enables thousands of talented black men a chance to earn more money in a single athletic season than the average white family will earn over the course of a lifetime. Oprah Winfrey checks off two intersectional boxes, black and female, and has created an empire worth billions. 

For as many sins that checker our past, one wonders if even larger encyclopedic volumes could be written identifying all of the good that has come out of America, especially for its minority and historically oppressed populations. That would be a book worth writing.

Parker Beauregard

Twitter is Interfering in the Election by Silencing the Trump Campaign and Censoring Conservatives

Photo by MORAN on Unsplash

By Guest Author, Gen Z Conservative from GenZConservative.com.

Introduction

As I discussed in my article yesterday on the fact that Hunter Biden is corrupt, Big Tech companies like Twitter and Facebook have gone beyond the pale with what they did to silence discussion about the New York Post stories about Joe Biden’s lies and Hunter Biden’s corruption. In fact, by shutting down the Trump Campaign’s account for doing nothing other than tweeting out an article, I think that Twitter is interfering in the election.

Article Summary: For those that don’t have time to read this full article on how Twitter is interfering in the election, I will discuss in it what Twitter did to shut down discussion of the New York Post articles, how that affects free speech on the internet, and why it shows that Twitter is interfering in the election, which is very illegal.

What Twitter Did When the New York Post Articles Came Out Shows that Twitter is Interfering in the Election:

When the New York Post articles on the Biden Crime Family came out, the internet was thrown into chaos. Details about the various plots and plans the Bidens were involved in were disseminated far and wide. Pictures of Hunter Biden smoking crack floated around the internet. The Biden Campaign was seriously hurt.

So, being the tyrants that they are, our Big Tech “Masters of the Universe” decided to intervene. They shut down accounts, made it impossible to share the article without getting your account locked, and did everything else possible to shut down discussion of details that might hurt the Biden Campaign.

But how specifically did they do that? What are the specific ways that Twitter is interfering in the election? Here are three. I’ll give details about what happened first and then give my commentary on why what happened shows that Twitter is interfering in the election:

1. Twitter Banned the Account of the White House Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany

After tweeting out a factually correct and ethically sourced news article, here’s what Kayleigh McEnany saw on her Twitter account:

Outrage followed, with tweets such as these blowing up Twitter:

BREAKING: Twitter has locked the personal account of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for sharing news Democrats don’t like. pic.twitter.com/eR8HhkgqVY

— Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) October 14, 2020

2. Even More Egregiously, Twitter Locked the Trump Campaign Account, which Further Shows that Twitter is Interfering in the Election

Similarly to Kayleigh McEnany, the Trump Campaign had its account locked because it shared something calling Joe Biden a corrupt liar. Here’s proof that happened and a few tweets that provide further details:

Twitter has suspended @TeamTrump for posting a video calling Joe Biden a liar who has been ripping off our country for years, as it relates to the @nypost article.

19 days out from the election. pic.twitter.com/Z9FFzridyr

— Mike Hahn (@mikehahn_) October 15, 2020

🚨The Trump campaign has posted the New York Post article in its entirety to our campaign website.https://t.co/D6FnpACNtH

— Andrew Clark 🎃 (@AndrewHClark) October 15, 2020

How can a private company get to determine what a political campaign can or cannot say? This is ridiculous and shows that Twitter effectively made a donation to the Biden Campaign, which is illegal.

3. Twitter Locked Thousands of Conservative Accounts Simply for Sharing an Article

On October 14th, the day the first article about how despicable and corrupt the Biden family is came out, Twitter did its best to shut down any discussion of that article.

For example, Jack Posobiec, a conservative commentator, was locked out for sharing information on Hunter Biden:

BREAKING: @JackPosobiec is currently locked out of his account because he posted a funny meme about some guy who was trending on Twitter all day 🤷🏻‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/fxbGGQHf4k

— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 14, 2020

Similarly, the account of Dana Loesch was also locked because she shared the New York Post article:

@twitter @jack @support locked my account because I shared a story *I* wrote about Big Tech and the @nypost . Some apology, Jack. pic.twitter.com/iT3XD7Xiyh

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 15, 2020

James Woods’s account was also locked during the Great Twitter Purge, as were the accounts of thousands of others of lesser-known conservative Twitter users. That is a horrible precedent and shows that Twitter is interfering in the election.

The Terrifying Nature of Big Tech’s Influence:

Imagine, if you will, that you saw a news story saying that the Belorussian government prevented dissidents from speaking out. Or you heard on Fox or OANN that China had locked the social media accounts of someone critical of the regime. How would you respond? Perhaps with outrage, furious at the idea of a state entity shutting down freedom of speech and engaging in censorship? I know that’s how I would respond.

Now, step back and look at this situation. How is Twitter’s silencing and censoring of conservatives any different than China’s silencing of dissidents? Sure, Twitter won’t send armed goons after you if you speak out and say something with which its censors disagree, but it will prevent you from making any comments in the future.

Yet worse, Twitter, a private company, is now able to interfere with elections and potentially swing election results. That should be terrifying to everyone who stands against corporatism. You should be terrified of the fact that Twitter is interfering in the election.

Even during the Gilded Age, the peak of corporate power in America (up till now) a single corporation couldn’t swing a national election. If they could have, they would have, but they didn’t. Nowadays, tech companies have more power than ever. Both Google and Twitter are trying to swing the election in favor of Biden and it is looking increasingly likely that they will. Google, for example, likely has the ability to swing up to 12 million votes by tinkering with its search algorithms. When elections are won or lost by a few thousand votes, that is terrifying and shows the effect that the “masters of the universe” have.

And that ability to shape the news isn’t all that should be scary about this revelation that Twitter is interfering in our election. Conservatives should also be worried by the fact that a few companies can shape and censor the news. If they control what we hear and read, how do we know that what we are reading and hearing is true, especially if only the fake news media sites are allowed to post?

How Twitter Broke the Law and Interfered in the Election

Yet worse, it is brazenly obvious that Twitter is interfering in the election. Unlike Google, it’s not even trying to hide its party affiliation. With its banning of conservative accounts, especially the accounts of Kayleigh McEnany and the Trump Campaign, Twitter probably gave an in-kind donation to the Biden Campaign, which is illegal. In the United States, companies can’t donate directly to a campaign. Yes, they can donate to PACs, but they cannot donate to campaigns.

And by helping out the Biden Campaign, by stifling discussion of any news that might have hurt it and by banning accounts of those that were trying to highlight that news, Twitter likely gave an in-kind donation to Biden’s campaign, which is highly illegal.

Now, you’d need to get a good lawyer to make those arguments. I certainly can’t do them justice. But, what I’m saying is, at its root, true. Twitter is interfering in the election and broke the law by doing so. That’s why Ted Cruz is dragging Jack Dorsey up to Capitol Hill next Friday. He has hell to pay for what his company did.

Conclusion

Twitter is interfering in the election. It is trying to shape both what news we hear and what the outcome of the election between Biden and Trump is. That should frighten conservatives.

With its immense power, Twitter has shown that it can silence the White House, silence commentators and pundits on one side, hide news with which it disagrees, and, in effect, destroy the public square.

And that’s what conservatives need to keep in mind when discussing the fact that Twitter is interfering in the election. Twitter is not just a private company. It can’t be treated the same as McDonald’s or HP. It needs to be treated as a utility provider, which it basically is, or as a public square. It has created the public square of the 21st Century and needs to be regulated as such.

Otherwise, we’ll just keep having to deal with this problem. Twitter is interfering in the election this time and will keep doing so for as long as we let it. It will ban and shadowban conservative accounts, prevent Republicans from speaking out, and try to shape electoral outcomes.

We need to find ways to stop that from happening. Perhaps repealing Section 230 would help. Perhaps regulating Twitter as a utility rather than a normal company would help. But, whatever solution is chosen, something has to be done.

I hate regulation, as you’d probably guess from my article on the American Creed. But, in this circumstance, now that we’ve seen that Twitter is interfering in the election, we need to regulate Twitter and prevent it from destroying America. Otherwise, free speech could disagree forever as tech companies could increasingly determine what we can say and when.

If you want freedom from the tech tyrants, vote for Trump and for Republicans so that we can start to reduce the power of the Big Tech companies that are the enemies of freedom.

By Gen Z Conservative

Weekend Conversation – What Do Four More Years of a Trump Presidency Mean?

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

In this installment of Weekend Conversations, PF Whalen of The Blue State Conservative and Parker Beauregard of The Last Best Hope explore the consequences of a second term for President Trump. What could be accomplished not only politically but culturally as well?

Parker: The 2016 election might have prevented a permanent leftist takeover of the United States, but the 2020 election still has as significant a role to play in American politics. I see it as two-fold; first, there are obvious political ramifications that go along with a Trump victory. He will be able to continue pushing legislation that is desirable to conservative causes such as border control and healthcare reform. More on that as our conversation unfolds.

Equally significant, however, is the cultural message that his victory conveys. My greatest fear of a Biden surprise in November is it essentially signals to both terrorists and citizens alike that violence and suppression, when perpetrated by the “right” cause, have legitimacy. After all of the silence from the left with regard to the looting, rioting, and attacking, how else can this be taken? Without question, those brave enough to stand up to BLM and Antifa goons will face additional aggression, whether corporeal or related to the destruction of businesses and homes. At the same time, the brazen censorship on display at Facebook and Twitter this past week will only intensify. They might perhaps even be encouraged by the Democrats in power. What other news stories will be shadow banned and blocked from dissemination? Will there be a crackdown on conservative news sites like Daily Wire, Breitbart, and others?

This entire episode is beyond comprehension. For years, the press has cried foul when President Trump correctly labeled them as fake news. They said his speech was a danger to democracy. Now, without any hint of irony, Big Tech literally bans their users’ abilities to share breaking news stories, and not one iota of concern is heard. In fact, the left supports the suppression of what it deems misinformation. A Biden victory will promote endless campaigns of silencing dissenting voices. A Trump victory will go after Big Tech in ways not just healthy for conservatives, but for democracy.

 PF: I agree that accountability for the Left and their accomplices will be a big part of a Trump 2.0, particularly if Republicans retain control of the Senate. If not, however, I fear that we’ll have gridlock not just on that issue, but across the board. Let’s cross our fingers. Part of that accountability will almost certainly include further investigation into Spygate and the origins of the Russia Investigation, and hopefully we’ll get to the bottom of things once and for all.

You mentioned the signals being sent to terrorists, and I would add the signals to foreign governments. Trump’s handling of China and Iran has worked well, and the progress on those relationships in a second term would be fascinating to watch. I suspect both relationships would remain mostly adversarial, but he might surprise us with steps towards peace.

Domestically, I think Trump will continue with his pro-growth agenda with limited government intervention into the public sector, and that should be terrific for the economy. I would expect the administration to aggressively ensure fair trade agreements are reached, and existing agreements are adhered to. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Dow Jones Industrial average reach 33K during his second term.

 Parker: Economically, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that America will continue to thrive. The stock market is one indicator of that success. Conversely, I expect a market sell off under Biden, and it makes me wonder how anyone with assets doesn’t see this? The only explanation I can offer is TDS. There are also the trade deals that Trump can continue to emphasize. Our partnership with China is a necessity, but no one before Trump had the chutzpah to stand up to the communist regime to work out a fair deal. We could expect continued success along that front.

I also expect our arrangement at the Southern border to improve. Border security is national security. While Trump has quietly built, or rebuilt, hundreds of miles of improved security measures, more is still needed. A wall serves the additional purpose of deterring would-be migrants from crossing a dangerous desert. It is dangerous both in terms of the terrain and climate, but also in terms of the human traffickers that prey on desperate people.

To be clear, a wall is a moral imperative. No nation has existed or currently exists without a strong national identity. It is absurd to even have to say it; a nation without an identity is not a nation. With unfettered and unchecked immigration, the American identity will dissolve not because the racial makeup is different, but because the value system will evolve. The reason so many people want to, and die trying to, come to America is because of what we offer. A political system free of oppression and an economic system available to anyone to strike it rich, as well as the mindset of liberty and individualism, created America. As soon as enough people believe this is what makes us the bad guy, it will all come crashing down. If we are so bad, what is the alternative? How does anyone have improved outcomes when America fails? These questions are never answered.

 PF: Excellent points on border security, and I suspect you’re right; it will continue to be one of Trump’s primary policy objectives, and I think we’ll see major improvements.

On a related note, I think we’ll also see a significant push on the rule of law by addressing rogue organizations such as Antifa. If Trump wins, and if Republicans keep control of the Senate, Trump will rightfully view those results as a validation of his approach and a mandate to continue with it. I get the sense that Bill Barr will likely want to step down as AG at some point, so perhaps his successor will be left to handle the initiative. But I think we’ll likely see a full-court press by Trump in confronting domestic terrorists like the Antifa assholes.

Speaking of cabinet openings, like every president who wins a second term, I’m sure Trump will have quite a bit of turnover. If Barr does step down, I hope Trump appoints someone equally tenacious (Trey Gowdy, perhaps?) to fill his big shoes. And as much as I hate to say it, we should expect to see a new face as Secretary of State. Mike Pompeo has done a great job, and I hope he stays, but he’s been there for a while and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him step down and backfilled with someone like Marco Rubio or Nikki Haley.  I think the most critical cabinet member, however, is Steve Mnuchin in the Treasury Department. He’s done a fantastic job but has been mostly overlooked. If Trump keeps anyone on board in 2021, I hope it’s him.

 Parker: Cabinet positions are often overlooked or under-considered. Trump has some powerhouse names he could offer, which could boost recognition come 2024. It will be exciting to see who he selects as his heirs apparent, as it were. Just to play this idea out, who fills a Biden cabinet? O’Rourke, Warren, Sanders, and Rice? I don’t even want to think about it.

We would also be remiss to not have one final Supreme Court conversation. Stephen Breyer is currently the most senior justice in terms of age, with 82 years of life experience informing his decisions on the bench. Another four years of Trump would bring him into his late 80s, and while there are currently no whispers of a needed retirement, a lot can change in four more years. It is quite possible that Trump could have a 4th appointment that sets up an unimaginable 7-2 conservative slant. Many pundits discussed the judicial implications of voting Republican in 2016 (which have been marvelous) but I have not heard the same fervor for the courts in this reelection battle. This alone should be enough for Never Trumpers, RINOs, and traditional liberals to reconsider their hesitation. Short of packing the court to 15 justices (which would obliterate the United States as we know it), conservatives should have a majority for the next several decades.

We have spent a lot of time discussing the court system, but it bears worth repeating. While talking about a 7-2 conservative slant, what that really means is there are seven justices who generally just interpret the Constitution and other laws as written. Why is this such a hard concept? Should there not be a 9-0 split when it comes to deciding legal matters? The law is the law. The fact that there are any divisions says more about the insertion of political agendas guiding the justices than legal interpretation. I would trust the court in the hands of nine Amy Coney Barretts in a heartbeat; individuals that recognize their limitations as arbiters of existing law and see the role of judge as a referee and the role of a legislator as one of lawmaker is a welcome respite from the activism displayed by the late RGB and others who adjudicate based on feelings and not on facts.

 PF: Good points on Breyer and SCOTUS, and I would add Clarence Thomas to the mix as well. He’s currently 72 years old, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see him step down under a Republican president. If that happens, it solidifies that 7-2 conservative slant you referenced for that much longer.

I think one of the more interesting aspects of a Trump reelection will be the reaction of the mainstream media and the impact to our culture. 

Trump has succeeded in significantly damaging the MSM’s credibility, and another four years might result in its total destruction. Polls on America’s confidence in the press are at an all-time low, and it will just get worse if he’s reelected. One thing I’ve been hoping for is for one of the major networks to shift a bit to the right. If NBC, CBS or ABC were to stop the nonsense and simply become moderate news outlets, I think they would separate themselves and their ratings would skyrocket. I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it, but it’s interesting to consider the possibility.

As for the culture, what will be the impact? Will we become even more divided, or will fences start to mend somewhat? If Trump wins, and Republicans retain control of the Senate, I think we’ll see at least a portion of the Democratic Party shift to the center and abandon the radical leftwing of their party. That could have a dramatic impact on the culture. Continuing to depict AOC, the Squad, and the rest of the radical left as mainstream would be impossible, and perhaps the culture would come to its senses to some extent. We can only hope.

Biden is Hidin’, Toobin is Lubin’, and General Observations of the Week

Jeffrey Toobin will 'probably' return to CNN after masturbation scandal  dies down, insiders say | Fox News
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffery Toobin… fortunately we can’t see his hands in this photo.

Topic #1: Prior to Thursday’s debate performance, Joe Biden was virtually invisible throughout the week, with his campaign staff calling daily “lids” on the media even as the scandal involving his son Hunter’s nefarious involvement in international business dealings continued to evolve.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • The Hunter Biden scandal is no joke, and that is the primary reason why Sleepy Joe is trying to just run out the clock. The media has done everything possible to squash the story, but they seem to be losing their grip on it.
  • After Biden’s performance during Thursday’s debate, running out the clock is absolutely Biden’s best strategy. The guy is an awful candidate, and every time he talks that fact becomes increasingly more evident.
  • Former business associate and naval officer Tony Bobulinski became a household name on Thursday when he gave a press conference fingering Hunter’s corrupt dealings and financial practices with their company, and explaining that Joe Biden had indeed benefitted financially from Hunter’s arrangements. Bobulinski went so far as to bring along as props the alleged cell phones containing the proof of his accusations, explaining that he would be turning them over to the FBI the following day.
  • Is Bobulinski credible? I think so, and he is certainly at least as credible as Christine Blasey Ford. Will this be Biden’s downfall? I doubt it… at least until the election. The mainstream media is clearly in the tank for him, and they will resist covering the story at all costs.
  • It would be interesting however, to see how things play out if Biden wins in 10 days. Let’s suppose Biden wins, and between Election Day and his inauguration the story unfolds further and becomes even more damaging to Biden. Might the Democrats and media sacrifice Sleepy Joe by throwing him under the bus? Think about it. It would open up the door for Kamala Harris to take power, and she’s the one they want there to begin with. You heard it here first folks. While it’s extremely difficult to prove criminality with such cases (see Bill and Hillary Clinton as reference), his actions might not have to be overtly criminal for such a scenario to take hold.

Topic #2: Attorney and legal analyst Jeffery Toobin was suspended by The New Yorker and is on leave from CNN after news broke on Monday that he had exposed himself while masturbating during a Zoom meeting with colleagues last Thursday.  Apparently the purpose of the call was to role play the upcoming second and final debate between President Trump and Joe Biden.  

Thoughts and Observations:

  • It’s always been clear that Toobin, along with others at CNN and MSNBC, have a genuine affection for politics, but I don’t think anyone thought that the affection went to this extent.
  • The obvious question is this – exactly what was Toobin fantasizing about while he was pleasuring himself? Was he picturing the moderator, Kristen Welker? Was he envisioning Trump? Biden? We’ll probably never know the answer, but if I had to bet, my money would be on CNN pre-debate host Wolf Blitzer. Those two have always seemed overly chummy in my opinion.
  • Toobin explained in a statement, “I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera.” So, wait a second; the mistake wasn’t that you were greasing Weaser during a Zoom call with colleagues, the mistake was that you thought they couldn’t see you? Holy crap, Jeffery, no, no, no. Jerking off while interacting with your colleagues is wrong regardless of whether or not they can see you… you sick, perverted bastard.
    • Coming from a leftist CNN analyst, I guess we should have expected such rationale. These were the same people, don’t forget, who were furious about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal in 2016. They weren’t furious about the content of the emails, oh no. They weren’t angry with Hillary, and in fact they never denied that the emails were authentic. They were irate over the fact that the emails were released and her deeds became public knowledge. Pay no attention to reality, and just ignore the real stories. These people are nuts.
  • The most entertaining aspect of this story has to be the tweet from CNN co-worker Brian Stelter, who stated, “’Jeffrey Toobin has been sidelined at a pivotal moment in the run-up to the presidential election. The reason: He exposed himself during a Zoom call with New Yorker colleagues in what he says was an accident.” Truly, you can’t make this stuff up. Hey Brian, let me help you out. Knocking over a glass of water during a Zoom meeting; that’s an accident. Forgetting to click the “mute” button while you have a side conversation during a Zoom meeting; that’s an accident. Choking one’s chicken during a Zoom meeting? There are a lot words we could use in that situation, but “accident” ain’t one of them.
  • I wonder if Stelter’s reasoning will start a trend among adolescents around the country. “Yes, Mom and Dad, I know what it looked like when you walked into my bedroom this afternoon after I forgot to lock my door, but it’s not what you think… it was an accident.”
  • For the rest of us, a suggestion – moving forward, if you are on a Zoom call, right at the beginning insist that everyone keep their hands showing for the duration… especially if there are CNN commentators on that call.

Topic #3: President Trump and Joe Biden engaged in the second and final presidential debate of this election cycle on Thursday night.  

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Moderator Kristen Welker did a pretty good job. She interrupted Trump too much, and some of the questions and the rationale behind them were way off base, but she was good. I’d give her a grade of a B-minus. Hey Chris Wallace, reach out to Kristen for some pointers if you ever get another chance at moderating.
  • Trump was excellent. I give him a grade of A-, with my only issues being his multiple inaccuracies. While many in the media have called them lies, I think most of them are just typical Trumpian mistakes. When he jumbled up all of the Biden family’s sleazy dealings and wrongly claimed that Hunter had been dishonorably discharged from the military, I think it’s probably more of Trump’s ADHD kicking in than anything more sinister. It’s unacceptable however, and he needs to get that stuff right.
  • Trump was much more calm and polished this time around. He allowed Biden to finish his thoughts thereby letting him say stupid crap, and Joe didn’t disappoint.
  • Trump performed well in hammering Biden on the problems with his family, and was outstanding when he called him out as a “typical politician” when Biden tried to spin away from Hunter. Biden did his look-into-the-camera and speak directly to the American people routine after Trump confronted him about his son, and Trump clobbered him by pointing out that was not the time to be talking about American families “sitting around the table.” Well done, Mr. President.
  • Trump was also terrific at calling out Biden’s long record of getting nothing done. “For 47 years Joe,” Trump called out repeatedly, and Biden was in power “not that long ago.” Biden did not handle it well.
  • Trump once again called out Biden for the 1994 Crime Bill, and once again pointed to the imbalanced impact that the law had on black folks. I understand why Trump does it, and it might work by getting some African-American votes away from Biden, but I don’t like it. Republicans should be the party of law-&-order, and criticizing someone over tough anti-crime laws seems to be a bad strategy overall.
  • Biden was awful, I give him a grade of D. He tried to stick to his talking points, particularly on COVID-19, for instance, but he came across as doom and gloom; big time. He also lied repeatedly, far more often than Trump’s inaccuracies. His claim that no one lost their private health insurance with Obamacare was particularly egregious.
  • He stammered much more frequently this time around and frequently seemed confused, and his response for Trump’s attack on “not getting it done” during his eight years when he was VP was his second-worst moment of the night. He replied, “We had a Republican Congress,” and stopped talking. Silence lingered for what seemed like minutes, and he looked really bad. Forget about the fact that it wasn’t true (for the first two years of the Obama’s administration, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), Biden’s hesitancy or inability to explain himself was terrible.
  • His single worst moment of the night, however, was when he essentially admitted to planning on destroying America’s oil industry. Trump was all over him, and could be heard saying, “Hear that Texas, and Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma?”

Topic #4: On Friday President Trump announced that another treaty between Israel and a nearby nation had been reached, this time it was Sudan.

 Thoughts and Observations:

  • Last month it was the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and now Sudan. Again, if this was President Obama or some other Democrat president, the media would all be acting like Jeffery Toobin on a Zoom call, and Democrats would be petitioning the National Park Service to figure out a way to get their likeness on Mt. Rushmore.
  • Trump mentioned specifically that he expects another treaty to be forthcoming with Israel and Saudi Arabia. If Trump doesn’t win the Nobel Peace Prize it will be laughable.
  • Trump’s approach to Middle East peace by focusing on alienating and pressuring Iran has once again proven to be brilliant. If he does indeed win a second term, and if this trend continues, he may be very well surpass Ronald Reagan on the list of great foreign-policy presidents. His accomplishments are that impressive.

Topic #5: Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe announced that our intelligence agencies had determined that not only was Russia trying to influence the election, but so was Iran.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Ratcliffe specifically pointed to Iran’s intentions as being to help the Biden campaign with their efforts. What was the reaction from our mainstream media? Mostly shoulder-shrugging and “Oh well”s.
  • Apparently one of the Iranian’s strategies was to send email messages to potential voters posing as “The Proud Boys,” in an effort to look like voter intimidation and thereby discredit President Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took that as his opportunity to claim that the Iranian’s were really just trying to sow American distrust of election results, not necessarily trying to help Biden. Because Schmucky Chucky knows better than DNI Ratcliffe. You’re a joke Chuck; a total joke.
  • For the record, I don’t buy the idea that any foreign power has much impact on our elections. Not in 2016, and I suspect not this year either. So long as a foreign power – or anyone else for that matter – hasn’t affected the integrity of ballot counts, then I’m not particularly concerned. We’ve been “interfering” with foreign elections for years, and no one seemed to care. Just ask Benjamin Netanyahu about Barack Obama’s behavior.

PF Whalen

What the Toobin Scandal Really Exposes

Image by Paul Brennan from Pixabay

This article was first published by American Thinker.

The scandal involving Jeffrey Toobin’s masturbatory antics during a Zoom meeting last week has resulted in several unplanned byproducts, the most obvious of which is the comedic material the incident has generated.  If there were any late-night talk show hosts worth watching, we could all be enjoying several weeks’ worth of side-splitting jokes.  Unfortunately, for many of us, we have to rely on social media and the countless Toobin memes for that humor. 

It has also been entertaining to watch sides being drawn on the matter, with some in the industry coming to Toobin’s defense, but a few others such as legal commentator Adrienne Lazarus going on the attack.  “He’s a privileged, white man who decided to pleasure himself at work to the detriment of his colleagues,” Lazarus asserted, “Black men are fired for much less and without your sympathy.”  Admit it; it’s hard not to smile.  The most significant consequence of the scandal, however, has to be the level to which the mainstream media’s anti-factual mindset has once again been exposed. 

As the story came to light on Monday, Toobin attempted to explain himself by reasoning, “I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera.”  Anyone with common sense and common decency was left scratching their heads by the statement.  The issue, Mr. Toobin, is not only that your colleagues had the misfortune of, without warning, inadvertently catching a glimpse of your private parts, but the fact that you were even handling them during a business meeting in the first place.  In fact, that’s the single most disturbing aspect of the entire incident, and one that has no doubt caused many of us to be stricken with a new phobia: the fear of getting on Zoom meetings. 

But the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream media didn’t even bat an eyelash at Toobin’s explanation, and he indeed has not yet been fired by either CNN or the New Yorker, has once again given us an example of their way of thinking.  Pay no attention to reality, you obedient sheep, just listen to us and we’ll tell you how to think. 

For clarity, and contrary to Ms. Lazarus’ suggestion, it seems obvious that Toobin’s race has had no role with his employers’ disinterest in discipline or the media’s lack of accountability.  Toobin is getting a pass not because he is white, but because he is a leftist who hates Donald Trump and conservatives, and who works for CNN.  If a person of color had behaved similarly, they would likely be treated the same as Toobin, provided they were on the Left.  Imagine if an identical incident happened with a conservative legal pundit from Fox News.  Would the media be satisfied with an explanation of, “my mistake was not that I was playing with myself during a business meeting, I just screwed up by allowing my laptop’s camera to show it.”?  We all know the answer.

The broader tale, however, is how this mindset continues to infect the entire Left and their media.  When email messages from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, and other Democrats at the DNC became public knowledge in 2016, the focus of Democrats and the mainstream media was not on the content of those emails, some of which were highly damaging to the Clinton Campaign.  No one from the DNC disputed their authenticity, but all the media wanted to talk about was how they were acquired.  Those mean old Russians did this, and how dare they let the American public know the truth about how we operate.

For the next three years, the media fed us a steady diet of the Russia Hoax.  On a daily basis, we would hear that “the walls are closing in” on Trump.  There were new “bombshells” seemingly every day about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with Russians at Trump Tower.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) promised forthcoming evidence showing sinister activities by President Trump and his campaign.  That whole time, there was nothing to the entire story.  There never any “there, there.”  As the Mueller report showed, it was a farce all along, and the Left and their media were banking the entire time that America would just ignore reality and listen to their own, twisted narrative.  And for many Americans, that’s exactly what they did.

We continue to see evidence of this ongoing strategy with the current scandal involving Joe and Hunter Biden.  There is far more evidence showing the Hunter Biden emails with Ukrainian officials to be genuine than any single aspect of the entire Russia Hoax, and the Biden campaign has indeed not denied their validity.  Does that matter to our prestigious mainstream media?  Of course not.  While a few intellectually curious journalists have asked Joe Biden for comments on the scandal, none have sufficiently followed up and forced the issue.  Instead, the media has tried to dismiss the scandal as Russian disinformation, even as the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has stated unequivocally that the assertion is nonsense.

The media’s indifference to the Jeffery Toobin scandal is just one more example of their aversion to the truth.  Engaging in self-abuse while one interacts with their colleagues during a Zoom meeting is repulsive, regardless of whether or not one’s laptop camera is functioning, and regardless of how boring that meeting might be.  By accepting Toobin’s explanation, and by failing to call out the utter absurdity of it, the media has once again shown their indifference for truth and their aversion to basic morals.

PF Whalen

Household Incomes Reflect Values, Not Racism

Photo by Benjamin Disinger on Unsplash

By Guest Author, Parker Beauregard from TheLastBestHope.xyz

In 2018, the median income for white households was $65,777. This is substantially higher than the worldwide median household income, which in 2013 was listed as hovering around just $10,000. Ask a conservative and they’ll point to this as evidence of how great and privileged it is to be an American. Ask anyone else and they’ll point to white privilege and systemic advantages.  

No doubt, a median income of $65,000 affords a lot of opportunities. Even after accounting for taxes that siphon 25% away from the principal, an average mortgage payment of $1,100 in 2020 and average monthly car payment of $350, there is still about $31,000 left for other expenses. It doesn’t offer a lavish lifestyle, but with proper budgeting and fiscal responsibility it’s not terrible either.

Still, there is nothing glamorous about $5,000 per month, and if there is privilege to talk about living on $65,000 annually, that’s where the argument of inherent white benefits falls apart.

The extreme ends of a median household income chart tell a different, more complex story, than the simple yarn being spun by a despicable class of media and elite. If white skin were so important, why do those identifying as English-Americans come in at the 85th position on a list totaling just 98 ethnicities? Their median household income is a scant $47,663. Moreover, their Scottish brethren to the north fare little better, garnering just $51,925 and placing 78th.

Where this data dive gets really interesting is that a group identifying as American-Americans, and who place just ahead of the Scottish-Americans at 77th on the list of median household incomes, earn just $51,601. They have both white and American privilege, and still can’t do better than Peruvian-Americans, who earn $52,000 annually as a household.

Scotch/Irish-Americans, British-Americans, and French Americans also earn less than the overall white population. Is everyone on this list doing the white thing wrong, as Don Lemon suggested

On the top of the list, and nuking the average median household income of everyone, are Indian-Americans. This subsection of the population boasts a median household income of $123,453. Second place isn’t even close, with $102,328 going to Taiwanese-American households. Filipino-Americans are third with $92,328.

Sure, there are Australian-Americans and South African-Americans near the top, but doesn’t that even help disprove the notion of systemic racism here? American-Americans created this whole racist and inherently biased mess, and they barely earn half of what those foreign whites do.

The claim of Islamophobia doesn’t even stand up to the test; Iranian-Americans households take home $75,905 and Lebanese-Americans are right behind at $75,337. American society hates these people so much they pay them more than their own white population.

The real litmus test falls upon the black population. Given that the median white household income is $65,777, and remembering that many Anglo-Americans do much worse (English, British, Scottish, Irish) when there isn’t even a language or cultural barrier for immigrants from these nations, it would be expected that the black population suffers tremendously. It would almost be scripture to believe that black immigrants do the absolute worst, given that this is a racist society and one that hates outsiders.

What do the numbers show?

Ghanaian-Americans out-earn their white American peers with $66,571. Although not ahead of whites, not too far behind them either are Nigerian-Americans with $60,732 of median household income. Haitian-Americans, who come from a country that is repeatedly identified as one of the poorest countries in the entire Western Hemisphere and where 80% of its population lives in poverty, manages to earn a respectable $47,990. That’s one spot higher than the white English-Americans. That’s also 24 times higher than the median household income in their native land.

Astonishingly, despite other black populations thriving compared to their white neighbors, African-Americans earn just $33,500. Out of 98 ranked population groups, the only hyphenated nationalities below them are Iraqis, Dominicans, and Somalis. It is this figure that gets touted as proof that America was built on racism, is racist, and always be racist unless we fundamentally transform it.

Of course, the question should not be “Why do African-Americans earn so little” because we already know the answer. Fatherless homes, black urban culture that prioritizes vulgar music (which celebrates the abuse of drugs, alcohol, and women), sports, abysmal education statistics like reading skills and high school graduation, and the acceptance of a victimhood narrative all play a role in the population. 

The real the question should be “Why do black immigrants do so well?” because once we again focus on positive traits such as hard work, no excuses, and prioritizing educational outcomes (African students comprise 40% of black Ivy League students), then the nation can begin tackling real issues.

Are white privilege and white systemic racism real? If they are, no honest person has yet been able to explain the wide disparities between white and non-white incomes, particularly when the non-white incomes are significantly higher than whites and black immigrant incomes soar above American blacks.

This article was originally published as a blog post under the title “Median Income By Ethnicity Disproves White Privilege” on 09/17/2020 by The American Thinker.

Turned Off and Tuned Out – Hollywood and Pro Sports Viewership Plummet

Photo by John Tuesday on Unsplash

This article was first published by American Thinker.

Americans are fed up with millionaire actors and athletes preaching to us about how bad our country is, and evidence for that disgust is everywhere we look.  We see bumper stickers slamming Hollywood, Facebook posts ripping the NFL and NBA, and most significantly we’re seeing epic declines in viewership across the board.  Unfortunately, that backlash appears to be largely falling on deaf ears.

In 2016, the NFL made a conscious decision to condone the politically-charged antics of a handful of their employees/players, and their ratings took a hit.  Earlier this year however, they decided to double down by actively participating in, and indeed ratcheting up, those efforts.  We’ve seen similar approaches by MLB and the NBA, to the point that we can barely watch any of our team sports without being bombarded by politically-tinged virtue signaling.  And while Hollywood has been dominated by leftists for decades, they have taken that domination to new levels recently.  There are few things more American than going to the movies or watching a ballgame, but unfortunately we can now add both to the growing list of traditions that the Left is succeeding in trying to destroy.

The entertainment corporation Cineworld recently announced that they would be shutting down all of their Regal Cinema movie theaters indefinitely.  The move barely received a shrug from the Left, as they dismissed the news as just another casualty of COVID-19.  But while the pandemic has clearly played a large role in the company’s current woes, attendance at movie theaters has been declining for several years now.  Hollywood’s revenue last year was down almost 10% from 2018. And while we can certainly point to other causal factors such as on-line streaming, there is a clear and growing revulsion for Hollywood, and we need not look any further than the Oscars for evidence.

In early-February, still weeks before the pandemic took hold; the Oscars telecast earned the lowest ratings in their history, only a few weeks after similarly poor ratings for the Golden Globes.  Now eight months later, there is nothing significant to remember about the Oscars, and the only memorable moments from the Golden Globes are the snippets from Ricky Gervais’ monologue that we saw the following day.  We particularly remember the way in which Gervais thoroughly trashed those in the audience for their arrogance and tone-deafness.  “If you do win an award tonight,“ Gervais said, “don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech.  You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything.”  So, did Hollywood heed Gervais’ advice?  Of course not.

In early-September, the Motion Picture Academy announced new standards for their “Best Picture” award, which are some of the most outrageous examples of “ wokeness” we have seen.  The new standards include the requirement that a film has “at least one of the lead actors or significant supporting actors from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.”  Because, that is absolutely what movie-goers want, don’t you know.  We don’t care about the quality of a movie anymore; we just want that movie to be sufficiently woke.  If Hollywood thought the ratings for the Oscars were low this year, just wait until 2021. Reruns of Friends will be kicking the snot out of them.

American professional team sports are seeing a similar drop in interest.  The NBA finals had been a ratings bonanza since at least the mid-1980s when Larry Bird and Magic Johnson made every kid in the country want to pick up a basketball.  Ratings have been declining in recent years, but this year’s ratings have absolutely plummeted, and like the Oscars, have been the worst in their history.  So how is the NBA responding?  They’re starting fights with U.S. Senators.

During a recent Twitter feud between Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and self-absorbed/self-righteous television personality and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban, the mindset was clear for all to see.  Cruz rightfully pointed out that the poor ratings were “not surprising,” closing with “#GoWokeGoBroke.”  Cuban profanely shot back, calling Cruz, “full of sh*t,” then adding, “since when is a desire to end racism an insult to anyone or political?” In other words, Senator, don’t you dare call out my league for calling our country systemically racist, we at the NBA are woke, damn you!  We did see a glimmer of hope recently when NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that they will discontinue putting social justice messaging on the courts and players’ jerseys; not much, perhaps, but maybe it’s a start.

The NFL began their season by playing “The Black National Anthem” before each game and adorning each end zone with social justice messaging.  As a result, their ratings have continued plunging as they have for the past several seasons, with one game in week four down a remarkable 70% from last year.  But  Mike Florio from NBC Sports rejects any suggestion that the league’s politics has anything to do with it, exclaiming “to those who will respond to this item by chanting ‘go woke, go broke’ or whatever other catchphrase is currently being used…  that’s a tired and inaccurate take.”  Right Mike, and maybe if you close your eyes and click your heels, these bad ratings will have just been a bad dream.

To be fair, we must consider that there are other factors that could be having an effect, and not just COVID.  We do have a major election coming up which is distracting, and there aren’t fans at the games which takes away some of the appeal.  Fair enough.  But if those are driving factors that outweigh Americans’ resistance to woke culture, then why aren’t they affecting other sports?   Ratings for golf, for instance, are up, with this year’s PGA Championship enjoying the best ratings in five years, and there were no spectators there either.  What about the Tour de France, which saw an 11% increase in viewership?  Even professional wrestling, which arguably isn’t even a real sport, has seen solid ratings.  

Is any of this good news?  Of course not, it’s sad.  The Boston Red Sox are one of America’s iconic sports teams playing our national pastime, and they saw a jaw-dropping 54% freefall in their ratings this year.  Not long ago, Sundays in October were the one day during the week when we could all put aside our differences and enjoy an NFL game in the family room, and then catch a movie at the theater with the kids after dinner.  But with their relentless condescension, virtue signaling, and total disregard for their fans, Hollywood and professional team sports are hammering the nails in their own coffins.

We’re not asking you to be conservative, just keep politics out of it.  If we want politics, we’ll tune to Fox News or MSNBC.  But if we go to a movie, or if we turn on a playoff game, we want to focus on sports, not politics, and certainly not your leftist worldview.  The longer fans are disengaged, the easier it becomes to stay away.  And if the team sports elites and Hollywood don’t wise up soon, they’ll never get their fans back, and even more of the cultural ties that bind us will have been shredded.

PF Whalen

Weekend Conversation – Trump’s Foreign Policy

In this installment of Weekend Conversations, PF Whalen of The Blue State Conservative and Parker Beauregard of The Last Best Hope examine the approach to Foreign Policy by President Trump and his administration. One of the big questions prior to the 2016 election was this – if elected, how will Donald J. Trump handle foreign affairs? Will he be an isolationist? Will he be hawkish? Will he alienate our allies? After almost four years, we now have a much clearer picture.

PF: I think Trump’s biggest mistake with his initial cabinet was bringing in Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State; an even bigger blunder that appointing Jeff Sessions as AG. He followed that up, however, with the best appointment of his administration with Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson, and Robert O’Brien as National security adviser seems to be an excellent fit as well. It’s critical that a president has people with whom he aligns in those positions, and it’s clear he has.

As a result, I think Trump’s results in foreign policy accomplishments are the highlight of his administration. The new financial accountability for our allies in NATO and the hardline stances he’s taken with China are obvious successes. But the recent treaties between Israel and UAE and Bahrain may be the greatest diplomatic accomplishment by a U.S president since Reagan helped dismantle the USSR. Those aren’t just treaties, they’re practically alliances, and we are closer to true peace in the Middle East than we’ve been in centuries.

Parker: I know we ran into a problem with a laundry list of hypocrisies, and it might appear as if we have found another topic too long to commit just 1,500 words. One area that doesn’t get nearly enough credit is our abstinence from conflicts abroad. When was the last time an American president didn’t implicate U.S. forces in some deadly, costly, and unnecessary venture? Barack Obama, Mr. Nobel Peace Prize, found us tangled in more operations across Northern Africa and the Middle East than would fit on a page of the Washington Post. Of course, good luck getting them to print that. This isn’t to say that a commitment of troops is always a bad thing (see: World War II), but it has been hard to see how we benefited as a nation from sending kids to Libya or Syria.

Contrast that with Republican Donald Trump. And, we always knew politics dictated who won a Nobel Prize, but after establishing heretofore impossible relations among Jewish and Muslim Arab neighbors (twice!) how does Trump walk away empty handed? Remind me what Obama won for again? Being a black Democrat? Didn’t Jimmy Carter win an award for that after decades of tireless advocacy for peaceful solutions? So, help me understand: Two do-nothing Democrats accomplish zilch in the Middle East (other than inciting Palestinian hatred) and win one of the world’s most “prestigious” awards, while Donald Trump facilitates groundbreaking peace and is guffawed at by the elites. Yikes.

PF:  Part of the reason they’re so dismissive of his accomplishments is that it makes all of the experts and pundits look like fools. They called Trump an idiot, along with Jared Kushner, and dismissed them as amateurs; then they pulled off these Israeli treaties. For the Left and their media to give Trump the credit he deserves would be to admit they’re knuckleheads… which they should. In addition to UAE and Bahrain, there are going to be others coming right behind them. We shouldn’t be surprised to see a country like Morocco, or Sudan, or even Saudi Arabia signing similar deals with Israel. 

If nothing else, hopefully Trump’s success shows his opponents the proper way to deal with such situations. Peace through strength works. Trump didn’t accept the prevailing wisdom that all peace talks must revolve around Palestine. Trump moved our embassy to Jerusalem, as he promised. He dismissed the premise that Israel had to give up Gaza, or the Golan Heights, or the West Bank to accomplish peace. And then in January he took out Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The key to peace in the Middle East was to establish the true root cause of the problems, and it has always been Iran, not Israel.

If Trump wins next month – and I pray he does – it will be fascinating to see how he handles North Korea. I think he has clearly set things up for solid progress with the way he’s leveraging things with China, it ought to be fun to watch.

Parker: Remember when Trump was going to start World War Three over his handling of North Korea? The peninsula has been amazingly quiet the past few years. No one even cared when Kim Jong-Un was reportedly dying, dead, got a new haircut, or whatever CNN tried to report. Under Trump, North Korea is a nonentity. I have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason they are back in the news is so that in the worrisome event a Biden-Harris ticket assumes the office, the media can play up excuses about North Korean rearming that happened under DJT. I don’t even think Kamala Harris would retaliate against nuclear aggression. In fact, she might say that the only solution to white supremacy is good old-fashioned fission. So that’s scary to think about.

We would also be remiss to mention Trump and foreign policy in the same sentence without at least circling back around Russia. An honest and curious media would be going bananas over the Clinton and Biden implications with regard to their Slavic collusion; alas, there is little that is honest or curious in the mainstream media. How does a play-by-play that cost the American public two years when Trump was accused of doing something get absolutely no headlines when the only thing that changed was the name Clinton? And, how does an impeachment process unfold for Trump even when Joe Biden bragged about strongarming Ukrainian officials? I honestly don’t understand at all. Seriously, am I missing something? Help me out, PF.

It is still laughable to think Democrats accused Trump of cozying up to Russia when you sift through buried historical records to find that Obama quite literally colluding with Prime Minister Medvedev in 2012 (“I’ll have more flexibility after the election”) and permitted international treaties to be violated when Putin walked into Crimea. Georgia and Ukraine didn’t stand a chance when the greatest superpower in the world bent over for Russia. 

PF: No, you’re not missing anything; the double standard is breathtaking. The only two options we have for truly exposing this stuff is Congress and the Justice Department. The House is corrupt with Nancy as Speaker, and they’re just an arm of the Democrat Party rather than a Legislative Branch counterbalance. As for the Senate, they’ve had a few hearings, but seem otherwise disinterested; which leaves us with the Justice Department. I’m still optimistic that the Durham investigation will expose at least some of the nonsense regarding Spygate, but the rest of the corruption with Clinton/Biden/Russia/Ukraine may go unchecked. Disgraceful.

One of the talking points we keep hearing from Biden/Harris regarding foreign policy is “We need to be loyal to our friends.” Ironically, it seems clear that strengthening ties with our allies has been Trump’s biggest success internationally. Again, his handling of NATO has been terrific, and a long time coming. Europe has needed to ante up for a while now, and while they may not like Trump personally, that alliance is stronger because of him. Our ties with Israel have never been stronger and more mutually beneficial and replacing NAFTA with USMCA was perhaps his biggest accomplishment. Trump’s foreign policy with our allies has been fantastic.

Parker:  It is hard to see how someone could have done better. It’s a remarkable administration, and history will judge it by that. I certainly hope the voters recognize this in November. How Trump interacts with international organizations highlights his wins. Whether it’s demanding Europe step up its NATO contributions, rightfully calling out the UN (which just added Cuba and China to its Human Rights Council) as a worthless entity, or renegotiating bogus trade deals on the continent and with China, he keeps winning. Perhaps nothing more starkly emphasizes his commitment to America compared to that of Democrats is the way he handled Iran and the $150 billion lunch-money stealing scheme that the Ayatollah ran against the feckless Obama. 

What is amazing is that no amount of apology tours in 2009 made a difference, and yet Obama still wanted appeasement. Neville Chamberlain is blushing in his grave. Even the publication The Hill, not a friend to conservative values or truth all that often, commendably published a piece that included this line: “The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged.” 

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Social Media Censorship, Justice ACB, and General Observations of the Week

Image by Thomas Ulrich from Pixabay

Topic #1: Both Twitter and Facebook engaged in outrageous censorship of users sharing a New York Post story. The story examined emails to/from Hunter Biden regarding Joe Biden’s meeting with Ukrainian officials and the potential relationship to Hunter’s windfalls from the energy company Burisma.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • This week we saw confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court Justice; we were provided with proof that Joe Biden is corrupt; and we continued to plow headfirst towards Election Day which is only 17 days away.  But not only is this the top story of the week, it’s one of the top stories of the year.
  • All indications are that the story on Hunter Biden is true. While the Biden campaign has said the former VP did nothing wrong, they have also said that it is possible that such a meeting took place, and they have not claimed that the emails are fakes.
  • There is no reasonable justification for the actions of Twitter and Face Book.
    • Twitter claimed a newfound policy prohibiting “content obtained without authorization” and “hacked” material from being published, which is laughable.
      • No one, including the Biden campaign, has claimed that the information was hacked, considering Hunter Biden simply left his laptop with the IT company in question and apparently forgot about it (behavior which is common among drug addicts such as Hunter Biden).
      • Two weeks ago the biggest story on Twitter was President Trump’s tax returns, and there was no “authorization” of that information, and in fact virtually no news accounts are ever authorized by the subjects of those stories.  That’s not how news works.
    • Facebook’s rationale was that the story was potentially false, even though there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.
      • For three years, Face Book was filled with propaganda regarding the Russia Hoax, and it was all false. For three years! And now they’re concerned about truth?
      • Shouldn’t their “fact checkers” have proven it false, or at least have had some shred of evidence suggesting that was the case, before they censored it? Now FB is proactively censoring information because it might be false?
  • The Senate has already announced plans to call in the leaders of both companies, and perhaps others. I’m opposed to government intervention or regulation of such companies, generally speaking, but this is unacceptable. Maybe it is time to break up Big Tech.
  • If there was any doubt previously that these companies are leftist by nature and little more than mouthpieces of the Democrat Party, doubt no more. Conservatives need to start considering alternative outlets for their social media activities. It’s sad that we’re getting to the point of having to use conservative and liberal versions of virtually every product-type and in every industry, but this type of activity cannot be tolerated.

Topic #2: The actual story that generated the censorship from social media: the New York Post story exposing emails to/from Hunter Biden regarding Joe Biden’s meeting with Ukrainian officials and the potential relationship to Hunter’s windfalls from the energy company Burisma.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Contrary to various claims that this story provided evidence of a “smoking gun” showing Joe Biden is guilty of a crime – that is not the case. It shows that Hunter Biden used his father’s name to get rich. It shows corruption. But it does not show anything that would hold up against Sleepy Joe in criminal court… yet.
  • Once again, the media’s lack of curiosity regarding the story is stunning. If this was a story about a Republican representative or senator who was running for office, it would be the top story on every channel and in every newspaper. But this is about a presidential candidate running for the most powerful office in the world who happens to be a Democrat, and the mainstream media is largely ignoring it. Remarkable.
  • The actions of Facebook and Twitter may have actually helped propel the story forward, ironically. There seems to be more attention being paid to it since the stories about the two social media giants came to light.
  • This should be the number one topic for the Trump Campaign moving forward. It should be Trump’s main line of attack in the next debate, if there is one, and it should be the top subject of television and radio ads from the campaign. Just because it’s not provable that Good Ol’ Joe didn’t commit a crime doesn’t mean he’s not obviously corrupt, and Trump needs to hammer that fact.

Topic #3: Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were conducted this week to consider the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become the next Justice on the Supreme Court.  

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Amy Coney Barrett is going to be confirmed, I have no doubt. She handled herself incredibly well during the hearings. She’s a role model for young women, she’s a perfect candidate for the seat, and she’s absolutely brilliant. Bravo ACB.
  • Similar to Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, ACB fielded questions from senators without the use of any notes. Impressive.
  • There were multiple instances of Democrat senators behaving stupidly, but there were two in particular that stand out:
    • Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) asked ACB if she had every sexually assaulted anyone. For those of you in Hawaii, be advised, you elected someone who asked a devout Catholic mother of seven, if she was a rapist. How proud you must be.
    • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) inquired about ACB’s opinion on “super precedent,” to which ACB totally took Klobuchar to school. Klobuchar is normally one of the more polished Democrats, but her stuttering and stammering in response to ACB’s reply exposed her as being totally intellectually inferior to Barrett. Not good, Senator.      
  • When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being confirmed in 1993, she established what has become known as “The Ginsburg Rule,” which prohibits prospective justices from commenting or speculating on how they might rule in a hypothetical, future case. It was a rule that has been highly touted and supported by Democrats ever since, but during these hearings they were clearly frustrated and are now opponents to the rule, apparently… that is, until the next Democrat is nominated to SCOTUS.

Topic #4: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer, and she had a meltdown when pressed on the issue of a pandemic-related stimulus package.

 Thoughts and Observations:

  • Pelosi accused Blitzer of being an “apologist” of the Republican Party. Wow. If ever there was such a person in the mainstream media, it wasn’t Wolf Blitzer, and he/she certainly was not on CNN.
  • Pelosi’s reaction actually shows an unintended consequence of the mainstream media’s leftism. With such seldom scrutiny by the press, and with such overwhelmingly glowing coverage from virtually all directions, when a Democrat such as Pelosi is indeed posed with a slightly difficult question, they are ill prepared to handle it.
  • Watch closely for other media outlets asking her following questions, but don’t hold your breath while you wait. You heard it here first: it will be a long time before any journalist presses Pelosi on this issue, or any other. She pushed back, and the mainstream media now has their marching orders.

Topic #5: During the ACB confirmation hearings, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) scolded Barrett for using the term “sexual preference” when referring to homosexuality, and moments later Merriam-Webster Dictionary changed their definition to include the word “offensive” in its description.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • This is the next, logical step for wokeness and political correctness; accomplices such as Merriam-Webster kowtowing and offering cover to even the most absurd ideas. Control the language, and you control the culture.
  • This should be unnerving for all of us. There is a meme going around social media stating, “Orwell’s 1984 was not a How-To Manual,” but that is exactly what seems to be happening. Scary, scary stuff.
  • Apparently, Hirono’s point was that homosexuality is not a choice, it’s part of one’s genetic make-up. But a question that begs to be asked is this: what’s wrong with homosexuality if it is a preference, Senator? Aren’t you the ones that advocate such things? Does that make it a problem? For crying out loud, leftists, make up your minds, will you? You’re giving the rest of us a headache.

PF Whalen

How Should We Proceed – As Conservatives or Anti-Leftists?

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

We are now less than three weeks from Election Day, and the amount of political advertisements that we see on our televisions and hear on our radios is increasing exponentially each day.  Anyone exposed to them will notice that the vast majority of these ads are of the negative variety.  “Don’t vote for her, she eats dead babies.  Vote for me instead, I’m a vegan,” followed by the obligatory, “I’m John Doe, and I approve this message.”  As annoying and disturbing as some of these ads may be, there is a reason why they’re run: because they work.

We witness a similar approach constantly within political debates and dialogue; not only those we see in the media, but even in our personal discussions with friends and family.  To illustrate, consider the last time you observed, or perhaps participated in, a discussion regarding the candidacy of President Donald Trump.  If that discussion was not focused on attacks and subsequent defenses of Trump’s character, then it was an unusual conversation indeed. 

Trump’s opponents, and particularly those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, appear not so much to refuse to engage on Trump’s policy wins and losses, but are instead incapable of doing so.  Such conversations inevitably generate such passionate hatred for the president that even attempting to shift the discussion towards the merits of his foreign policy, for instance, results in bulging blood vessels and raised voices.  Therefore, a question: for those of us on the Right, should we direct the energy of our discussions and debates towards the benefits of conservatism, or should we instead use the “negative approach” and focus on the ills of leftism?

A strong argument can be made that we should concentrate our efforts on the advantages of conservatism, particularly when we consider the widespread ignorance of the Left regarding the tenets of conservative ideology.  Conservatism is truly an ideology with a “big tent” approach; we don’t all think alike, and there are there are differing opinions amongst us on a wide variety of issues. Most conservatives aren’t anti-immigration, however, we are anti-illegal immigration.  Additionally, conservatives frequently believe in free domestic markets, a strong military, limited government regulations, lower taxes and lower spending.  All of which are compelling positions that are easily defended by someone who is well-informed.  If such arguments are made to a reasonable, open-minded person — even if that person is indeed on the Left — they can occasionally result in swaying his/her opinion.  Conservatism, generally speaking, is logical, cogent, and time-proven.  Conservatism works. 

We can therefore conclude that we should take the high road and extol the virtues of conservative governance rather than point to the obvious absurdities of leftist alternatives, correct?  Not so fast.  Twenty years ago, perhaps we were better off pointing to the fiscal ideas of George W. Bush as opposed to directing our attention to Al Gore’s affiliation with the sleaze and dishonesty of the Clinton Administration, but these are different times.  As repulsed as we may have been with turn-of-the-century Democrats, in comparison to today’s nutty leftists they were just a bunch of fun-loving, tolerant moderates.  Unfortunately, in America today we cannot afford to simply try to enlighten folks with the values of conservatism, we must instead ensure that we do everything possible to expose the Left for what they have become: a bunch of bat-crap crazy, America-hating whackos.  

With President Trump’s recent nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, we’re hearing renewed calls from the Left to “pack the courts,” thereby changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court for the first time in over 150 years.   Additionally, we’re seeing suggestions of expanding the number of states by adding Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to the union.  We shouldn’t be deceived into thinking these are idle threats; they are not.  If we learned nothing else from the hearings to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, we learned that the Left are hell bent on power, and they will stop at nothing to attain it.  Never mind that packing the courts and adding states would totally upset all political norms and could result in civil war, quite literally.  That prospect won’t even give the Left reason to pause.

In addition to these Constitution-jeopardizing ideas, we have countless other outlandish leftist initiatives.  The Green New Deal was proposed just last year, and implementation of it would drastically change our very way of life and bankrupt the country within a few years, with its $90 trillion of new spending.  The Left has proposed opening our borders and abolishing ICE, which would submit us to skyrocketing crime and budget deficits.  They continue to float the idea of slavery reparations, which are so unjust and ridiculous that it’s hard to believe California is actually taking steps to make reparations a reality.  Democratic states such as New York have already legalized abortion-on-demand up to the time of birth, and Bernie Sanders’ views on Socialism were considered “fringe” only four years ago, but have now become mainstream Democratic Party philosophy.

Ultimately, most rational discussions will likely have elements of both approaches: some focus on the positive effects of one’s positions, and some attention on the negative impacts of the opponent’s.  Conservatives tend to be optimistic about our country and its future, and we normally stress the importance of personal accountability rather than attributing blame to a collective group.  But in America in 2020, we must set those ideals aside, if only temporarily.  The Left in 2020 must be exposed, and they must be held accountable, and it’s not hyperbole to suggest that if we fail to do so dire consequences await.  If policies that are being proposed are in fact enacted, if court-packing and the addition of states to the union are indeed achieved, the harm that will be done to our great country may very well be irreparable.  There will be a time and place in the future where we can get back to focusing on being conservatives, but in the meantime we should take the approach of anti-leftists.  If you haven’t done so already, it’s time to take the gloves off.

PF Whalen