Perhaps it is just my Florida perspective, but the caravan of migrants heading for America’s southern border reminds me of our frequent hurricanes. They start out a long way away, and they grow as they approach the border. We get daily reports of the progress. We are never quite certain what will happen when they reach landfall. Will it just be utter devastation or just a bad hair day. And … they always result in political fallout.
The caravan of migrants currently passing through Mexico is a bit of a human hurricane. It started out with fewer than 2000 people but has quadrupled as it moved northward. We do not know how many will actually arrive at our border since new recruits appear to be offset by those giving up in the face of U.S. warnings or deciding to accept Mexico willingness to offer asylum.
So, who are these people? Why are they coming here? And why such an organized caravan rather than the usual appearance of individuals, families or small groups appearing at our border on a daily basis?
These questions are not easy for most Americans to answer because there are two VERY different answers to each of those questions.
If you follow the east coast left-wing news, you will be led to believe that these are mostly families and women and lots of children. They are escaping the horrors of crime and poverty in their ancestral homes – most from Honduras and Guatemala. The images are heart breaking. On television, they appear to be those “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” for whom Lady Liberty lifts her lamp “beside the golden door.”
And yes, we are the most tolerant and immigrant friendly nation in the world – maybe even in the history of the world. We should welcome new arrivals – especially those who bring value or are escaping dangerous oppression – because we need them to both create and fill the new jobs of a growing economy.
In bragging onto ourselves, however, we should also remember that virtually every new immigrant class was met with opposition, prejudice and hostility. It was the case with the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, Africans, Jews, Arabs and, of course, Latinos. Thankfully, we are better at assimilating than welcoming.
In terms of the caravan, the left is basing its position on a huge straw man argument – that those concerned are motivated by racial prejudice and a white fear of what is now referred to collectively as “brown people” – a euphemism for all non-white. The left claims to be fighting against racism when what they are fighting for is to pack the population with people they believe will be politically sympathetic.
The basic issue, however, is illegal immigration. There has been no objection to people entering the United States through the legal process by which they can be vetted. This includes those applying for one of the various forms of visas and those seeking asylum. That should be a universal desire, but the left sees no reason to not bypass that process by allowing anyone to slip across the border or to apply for asylum and then blowing off the obligatory follow-up court date – known as “catch and release.”
Based on those 10-plus million already residing in America, we know that approximately 10 percent are deportable criminals. We know that at least 50 percent of the employable are without jobs – obviously not including the dependent children. Those proportions generally hold up even as the number of illegal aliens increases. So, it is safe to assume that 10 percent of those in the caravan are likely to be criminals — undesireables. Now we do not know that for sure, and the only way we can separate the criminals from the majority good folks is by vetting.
We also know that the criminal elements cross our border illegally because they cannot pass the vetting process. We can assume that based on logic and the fact that most of the criminal class did enter illegally.
There is also the health issue. One of the primary activities of the matriculation process is to determine the health of individuals entering the country – even Americans returning from overseas. We need only recall the extreme vetting of people returning from Africa during the Eboli crisis or from China during the SARS epidemic. The laws of probability tell us that a significant number of those in the caravan coming from nations where the poor receive lousy healthcare will have serious diseases. We may not know how many or who, but that again is why vetting is so important.
Since there is a clear political underpinning to our immigrations process, it is reasonable to learn what has motivated this particular caravan. How did they get so organized and who is doing the organizing? Who is paying for it? This is not an organic pilgrimage. To understand the motivation, we need to know who is sponsoring this long, logistically complex and expensive caravan – and why.
Though it has been just a war of words at this point, it is important to find out if there are any bad international actors using the caravan as a Trojan Horse. It would be surprising if there were not. We know that Jihadists have tried to use every means to enter the country – and often succeeded. In fact, there already have been caravan people identified as having come from non-Latin nations, such as India and the Middle East. There numbers may be relatively few, but it is important to ascertain their reason for taking this route.
When viewing all those pictures and videos of the women and children, we should keep in mind that almost 80 percent of the travelers are military age males – mostly unmarried. Just look in the background behind those touching images of families and children – or take a closer look at the wider view images of the caravan — and you will see mostly males. This, in and of itself, is not damning, but one wonders why the liberal media goes so far to avoid more objective imagery.
The solution is quite simple. We should vet those entering through the legal process and turn away ALL who will not do that. Instant deportation. Those who do not appear for their court dates to complete the process of asylum should be found and potentially deported. Deport a few and many will start showing up for those court dates.
There is only one way to have a legal and safe immigration process and that is to enforce the laws.
So, there ‘tis.
Democrat supporters created a movement that split their own party in half
There is a new hashtag movement in town, and it’s doing its very best to split the left down the middle. Founder Brandon Straka created the #WalkAway movement which encourages unhappy Democrats to leave their party for good. They even held a march that had over 700 supporters in Washington, D.C. recently that got a thumbs up from a tweet by President Trump, himself! “#WalkAway from the Democrat Party movement marches today in D.C. Congrats to Brandon Straka for starting something very special,” Trump tweeted while attaching @foxandfriends for additional recognition to the group’s efforts.
The movement is for those who are unhappy with their party, however. But does this create a further divide in a party that is already suffering to maintain its political position?
The problem with inner party turmoil
When parties have inner turmoil, it’s best to resolve it quickly and within the ranks. If this can’t happen, then watch out because this is where revolution begins to rear its ugly, but sometimes necessary, head. Currently, Straka states that he created the movement due to the lack of tolerance and the scare tactics that are being used by Democrats to gain votes and to push hidden agendas.
The movement is only 5 months old, but it has already resulted in a strong divide that has African Americans, Latinos, and members of the LGBT community leaving the party to form some sort of independent group that they say represents freedom. I’m confused on this part. Were they not free before? Could they not choose to jump ship and claim the ideology of the right-wing? This conveniently occurred only months before elections and has already proven to show signs of a potentially effected voter turnout for the Democrats.
Say hello to the development of a new party
One can’t help but wonder if this is merely another tactic to get American citizens to support the establishment of a third party. True, leftist politicians and groups are indeed pushing aggressive tactics that are intolerant of anything or anyone who falls outside of their agenda. They have partnered with the media to utilize propaganda and shame to further their initiatives and they have shown no mercy in their means in which to do so.
This doesn’t mean that Republicans are innocent of such tactics, either. Currently, many people who support the Republican Party are feeling their own share of dissatisfaction. If this is so, how long before a third party emerges that will conveniently encompass all of the elements missing from both the Republican and Democratic Party? Is this by design? Probably so, depending on if you believe in conspiracy.
- You may not be aware of the fact that President Trump hosted a large group of young black future leaders at the White House. They did a lot of applauding and cheering for Trump’s remarks. After the President completed his remarks, the enthusiastic crowd surrounded Trump to shake hands, take selfies and get autographs – some on Make American Great Again baseball caps.
In view of the relentless accusations that Trump is a racist, this was quite a newsworthy event – unless you are the #NeverTrump elitist news. If you watch the broadcast networks and either of the two left-wing cable news outlets, you are most surely unaware of the event. They did not cover it even though both CNN and MSNBC had footage.
How do I know that? Weeell … it was at this event that Trump made some public comments about the bomb scare against prominent Democrats and the arrest of the perpetrator. Uncharacteristic of such coverage, the elitist news folks never said what the event was and they never panned the largely black audience – an almost obligatory cut-away. Rather, they edited to a tight shot on Trump to get what they wanted – another opportunity to spin his words against him.
CNN, MSNBC and the non-cable networks will not report anything that does not fit with their preconceived narrative that Trump is a racist. That is nothing more than propagandizing the news. MSNBC, however, did make a teeny-weeny mention of the meeting. It came on Politics Nation – the obscure Sunday morning show hosted by the station’s leading black racist, Al Sharpton.
Reverend Al did what all black racists do. He called out any black person who does not fall in line with the Democratic Party’s political race-baiting identity-politics strategy.
In this case, Sharpton used the same tactic that was the stock-in-trade of his fellow ancestral racist southern Democrats – the white variety. According to Sharpton, all those highly intelligent young black people, who were clapping and cheering for the President, were “being used.” He even de-humanized them by saying that they were just “props.” De-humanizing black people? Hmmmm. Where have we seen that before? Seeing humans as “props” is not far off from seeing them as “property.”
In Sharpton’s view, they were gullible, stupid – just shucking and jiving for the guy in the big White House. Those poor souls were being manipulated because they did not know any better. According to Sharpton, the entire event was “low” and “shameful.”
Well, I say shame, shame, shame, shame, shame on Sharpton. (Incidentally, five “shames” is the most I ever award). How dare he slander these young black people — who he does not even know — just because they may have their own thoughts and their own opinions – just because they will not stay shackled to Democrat orthodoxy.
We have seen the Al Sharptons in history – those blacks on the plantations who worked to keep their fellow man in bondage and those blacks who actually owned slaves. Two black men as different as Booker T. Washington and Malcolm X warned the black community against the Al Sharptons. In this case, the house-loyal Reverend Al is trying to prevent any black person from escaping mental, emotional, social AND monetary enslavement to the Democratic Party.
Sharpton is perfectly willing to allow masses of impoverished blacks to live in segregated cities run by his Democrat colleagues – cities with substandard housing, depression-high unemployment, unsafe streets, crumbling infrastructure and, most egregious of all, unequal education. If a lot of that sounds like the conditions during those long-ago days of southern slavery, it is no coincidence.
It is just possible that a lot of black folks are noticing that under this Republican administration wages in the black community have reached an all-time high and unemployment at an all-time low – with still a long way to go. They see the opportunity for real quality education through school choice. They see the Trump administration sending in real resources to fight the deadly high crime rates. They see a President who is pushing for real prison reform as opposed to Democrats like President Clinton, who pushed legislation that resulted in so many blacks winding up in prison for minor offenses. And where was Reverend Al then?
Maybe those young people visiting the White House are among the growing number of blacks who are wondering what the first black President – albeit a Chicago Machine politician – has done for them. Maybe that is why recent polls show that black support for Trump has moved up from five percent to 11 percent. That is not exactly a seismic shift, but it could be the beginning of one – something that scares the bejesus out of people like Sharpton.
Sharpton has gained his power, profit and prominence by … I will just have to say it … selling out the black community to the Democratic Party’s false narrative of racial beneficence. His job is not to free blacks from the oppression of poverty and prejudice, but to crack the whip to keep them in line politically.
Sharpton once had a weekday prime time program. MSNBC had enough sense to exile him and his race-baiting screeds to the lowly rated Sunday morning hour, but one wonders why they keep him around at all. But, I guess we know the reason. He is obviously serving their purpose.
So, there ‘tis.
If you believed what the hardcore left is saying these days, you would come to the conclusion that the election and presidency of Donald Trump is a threat to the Republic – to the entire foundation of our democracy. America is about to descend into totalitarianism.
Oh, we can certainly understand their disappointment in the 2016 election. However, they are taking up the battle in the form of the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement – which has been the most extreme reaction to a legitimate election since those southern Democrats started breaking up the Union right after the election of Abraham Lincoln. It would seem that Democrats take sore losing to new heights.
In fact, when it comes to disrespecting our small-d democratic institutions, it is the misnamed Democrats who are making a game-on assault on the Constitution. That is exactly what the Resistance Movement has been about – refusing to accept the authority of a President just because he is not one of them.
They tried to overturn the election by having the electors dishonor their duty and pick a different President – one more to their liking. To hell with the fact that Trump won the presidency fair and square in accordance with our Constitution and laws.
Failing that, they then sought to have the United States Congress block Trump’s inauguration without any such constitutional authority. In other words, they were promoting a congressional coup. They called for the impeachment of Trump on day one of his administration – ignoring the lack of any constitutional foundation for an impeachment. They just wanted him out.
They even tried to use the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove Trump from office even though it would not apply in any way, shape or form. Again, their effort was an attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Throughout the first two years of his presidency, the left has claimed that Trump operates as an autocrat who ignores the constitutional limits of his power. He is literally bringing down the Republic and ending American Democracy.
Recently, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough – with a wink and a nod – read a government profile of Adolph Hitler with traits that might be attributed to Trump by implication – and maybe even to Scarborough himself. It was a cheap shot … rather stupid … but showed just how unhinged the press has gotten.
These bogus claims against Trump might have once been the currency of the radical far left socialists who desperately sought the attention of the angry, the bitter and the out-of-the-loop malcontents. But, to a disturbing degree, that philosophy and strategy has now gain more than a foothold in what was once the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Trump has issued Executive Orders that have been challenged in the courts and, for the most part, he has prevailed. On the other hand, Obama lost a few “abuse of power” battles in the courts.
Trump refuses to seize power by issuing an unconstitutional Dreamer order as did Obama. In that case, Trump respected and yielded to the constitutional powers of the Congress. He has done that with immigration. For all his egotistical bluster, Trump has been very restrained in his use of presidential power. The left’s complaint stems from their desire to restrain Trump from using his legitimate constitutional powers.
It can be fairly said that the Trump presidency is unprecedented in many ways. We can see the churning cauldron of public discourse and dialogue. We can feel the heat generated by the disappointment, frustration and anger of the Democrats and the folks on the left –especially the elitist news media.
BUT … what we do not have is a constitutional crisis. The foundation of America is solid. Our form of democracy is as healthy as ever. It is all working just as our Founders had hoped. Trump may be controversial, but he is presenting no threat to the Republic.
So, there “tis.
Democrats are talking a lot about the gains they expect from Millennial voters – the 18 to 35 age group. Much of the energy necessary to produce the blue wave depends on those younger Americans. Democrat optimism is predicated on a hope-based theory that, itself, is based on two assumptions – that young voters will come out in greater numbers than ever before and that they will be voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.
This theory poses a problem for pollsters in creating their all-important demographic samples. What happens if they build in the assumption of greater Millennial participation and it does not come to pass? The answer is easy. The polls will show more theoretical Democrat voters than show up on Election Day.
To set up the sample, pollsters first had to ask the Millennials if they intended to vote. In a recent poll, 56 percent of them responded that they do intend to vote. Personally, I think that number is wrong. If the pollsters use that number in building their sample, and I am right, they could overestimate the Democrat vote by a few percentage points.
With the Democrats holding a lead of fewer than five points in the so-called generic ballot, that error alone could switch the predicted outcome to the Republicans.
So, why do I believe that the 52 percent is an unreal expectation with regard to Millennials? The most obvious answer is that a very low percentage of young eligible voters – and even registered voters – actually make it to the polling place. That 52 percent would be an extraordinarily high turnout for a midterm election.
For many, it is a hassle. They are away at college where distractions abound. In a sense, they are visitors to the area and not involved in the local political issues. If they are registered to vote, it may be back home.
So, what would drive Millennials to the polls? Democrats are playing the healthcare card, but most Millennials are healthy and do not anticipate needing significant healthcare services in the near future – and many are still covered by their parents’ insurance. They are not agonizing over Medicare and Medicaid. If they think about Social Security at all, it is far in the future, and many already believe it will not be there for them anyway.
Perhaps their most important concern is getting or keeping a good paying job – and with the economy booming, that issue plays well for Trump and the Republicans.
There is also a unique subculture within the Millennials: The Bernie Sanders constituency. They may be the most politically engaged of all Millennials and, at the same time, the most frustrated – the most turned off by both parties. Outside of a couple of congressional districts with Bernie-style candidates – and those are already safe districts for Democrats – the radical left Millennials do not feel they have skin in the game. If they do not have a Bernie candidate in their voting district, many are likely to skip out on Election Day or vote third party.
By giving excessive attention and encouragement to Millennials to get out and vote, the left-wing media is potentially creating a false impression regarding the potential size of the Millennial vote – an unwarranted optimism for Democrats. It would not be the first time.
But even if you accept the polling results that suggest a 52 percent turnout by Millennials, there is a second number in that same poll that has not been given a lot of attention. According to the poll, less than half of those likely Millennial voters — 42 percent of them to be exact — do not like President Trump. That means that more than half either like Trump or are indifferent – and indifferent voters are not highly motivated.
The major pitfall for the Democrats is that their blue wave is totally dependent on specific voting blocs – including Millennials – behaving in a way that they have not done in the past. Hardcore left-wing Princeton University Professor Eddie Glaude — a regular CNN/MSNBC contributor, of course – conceded in a recent appearance that he and his compatriots are relying on groups turning out in numbers that have not been seen in the past.
It is not the first time that the political class relied on the rising up of an unseen voting mass. Republicans, in the days of Democrat dominance, spoke optimistically of the “silent majority” which, once in the sanctity of the polling booths, would cast their votes for the GOP. It did not happen then, and it is not likely to happen now.
If the Democrats succeed in taking over the House of Representative, I do not think it will be due to unprecedented support from Millennials.
So, there ‘tis.
I am an extremist when it comes to free speech. The only limits we should respect are the restrictions against defamation by slander – making oral false and damaging statements about another person — or libel – making false written statements or creating false images damaging about another person. That’s it. Everything else is protected – or at least should be – by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Obnoxious, offensive and disturbing as it may be, hateful speech must be protected by the First Amendment or no speech is safe from censorship and oppression. Once we step on to the slippery slope of arbitrarily determining the boundary of free speech based on controversy or political viewpoint, we will have nullified the First Amendment.
Truly free speech means that we have a right to say things that are not popular or even offensive. That is why I am offering up a new hashtag in defense of our inalienable First Amendment right to say whatever we damn please. #CROW means that when we want to “crow” about anything – whether it is Crude, Rude, Offensive or even Wrong – it is our right to do so.
It is proper that our legal system protects us from the destructive power of slander and libel, and it is reasonable to restrict speech that incites riots or violence – and even prevents us from yelling fire in a crowded theater where no fire exists, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote. But when our language is being censored by private interests or by political pressure, we are undermining that First Amendment.
When Facebook, Twitter or any of those other social media platforms arbitrarily censors #CROW speech – that’s Crude, Rude, Offensive or Wrong, in case you forgot — we have already gone too far. Those platforms should be free of ALL restrictions on content.
Conversely, we should not hold the social media platform legally libel for content that appears. If one Facebook friend slanders another, there are laws to deal with that. Facebook does not have to get involved. If folks post fraudulent information, we already have laws to address that – as that recently indicted Russian lady learned.
The problem of regulating speech stems from the word “arbitrary.” Under the current left-wing culture of the social media giants, we see the capricious or maybe the intentional banning and censoring of a lot of language that is only politically offensive to their philosophic viewpoint – or even some that is generally offensive to those of use with more refined tastes.
Under their evolving corporate policies, you can get knocked off for using the n-word, but not if you call old white men “toxic” human beings – which one might see as violating the political correctness protection of old white men on the basis of ageism, racism and sexism. It’s a threefer.
The attack on old white men is so acceptable that the New York Times hired and defended Sarah Jeong, who unleashed the most vicious verbal attack on white men on Twitter, especially we older variety. Why is it that Nation of Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan’s rants against Jews survive the social media censors while Alex Jones gets booted? That is the problem with “arbitrary.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not want to take away Jeong’s right to say all those ugly things about me and my kind. Same for Farrakhan. It is their right. And if the New York Times has no interest in protecting its fleeting credibility by defending Jeong, that is their right, too. It is up to an unfettered free society to judge them by their words, not by the government restrictions, not by social media censorship and not by some unofficial political correctness police force. We the people can ignore them. We can speak out against them. We can defend the people they attack. We can boycott the New York Times or withdraw from the Nation of Islam. Or … we can even respond with our own version of #CROW.
It is ironic that the oppression of #CROW speech should come at a time in our cultural development when hitherto offensive words that were limited to whispers and locker rooms are now to be heard across the news and entertainment spectrum – and overheard at almost any gathering outside the cloistered confines of the Sisters of Mercy. And God knows, how even they talk in private.
One of our most basic freedoms – and the foundation of all the others – is our right to #CROW.
So, there it ‘tis.
This November the 6th, 2018, Americans will head to the polls in perhaps what will be the midterm election of our lifetimes. On this fateful day, Americans will lead to the ballot boxes to elect 435 House members and 33 Senators. States will also hold critical races for governor as well as state legislature positions. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
Prominent figures like Steve Bannon, co-founder of Breitbart news and former Chief Strategist in the Trump administration, has described the upcoming election as a ‘Referendum on the Trump’s first two years in office.’ Trump has also embraced this notion.
Just as we saw in the 2016 elections, expect to see a rise in radical leftwing violence against conservatives as November draws nearer. Earlier this week, on Columbus Day, we saw a mob of violent anarcho-communists illegally block and harass elderly motorists who were minding their own business and going about their daily lives. The deluded group, which calls themselves ANTIFA (short for Anti-fascists), is not anti-fascist in any sense of the word – but are a group of individuals who project their authoritarian worldview onto those whom they perceive to be political adversaries. Since Trump’s Election in 2016, we’ve seen a rise in unprovoked street violence coming from this anarcho-communist group.
The 2018 Midterm elections, without a doubt, will have a crucial impact on the political landscape of the United States for years to come.
President Trump has told the people, in the case that Republicans were to lose big to the Democrats in November, “They will overturn everything that we’ve done, and they’ll do it quickly and violently.”
There are 35 seats up for grabs in the upper chamber of Congress this fall. To take control of the Senate, Democrats will need to grab two additional seats. Analysts have suggested that the chances of the Dems achieving this is quite the long shot. Just nine GOP seats will be contested in the Senate this time around.
In the lower chamber of the Congress, the House, 435 seats are up for election. At present, Republicans hold 238 seats while the Democrats have 192. For the Democrats to flip the House, they’ll need to win at least 23 Republican-held seats. If we look at historical precedents and past midterm election trends, unless Republicans turn out to vote in significantly large numbers, they are likely to lose some seats in November.
What’s at Stake?
If Democrats succeed in taking the House, we can expect to see more politically motivated witch hunts against Trumpian Republicans, and in all likelihood, nonsensical impeachment proceedings against Trump himself. Additionally, if the house and senate split, Republicans can expect to have their legislative agenda brought to a grinding halt.
Currently, according to ‘the Polls’ – and we all know how reliable those are – the Democrats are poised to overtake the House majority. However, let us not forget easily what the polls, political experts and mainstream media sources all said both during the runup to the 2016 Brexit vote and the U.S. election in the same year—all were dreadfully wrong. We shouldn’t put much faith in any of these sources. At the same time, conservatives shouldn’t expect to stay home on the 6th and at the same time expect to come out on top.
American conservatives must show up in full force to the ballot boxes this November, just as they did two years ago. If conservatives fail to show up to the polls in significant numbers, as they did in 2016, they should, at the very least, expect to lose the House.
Eerily reminiscent to the 2016 election, headlines coming from mainstream newsprint sources and talking points from fake stream media sources like MSNBC and CNN suggest that the Democrats could enjoy a ‘blue wave’ that will elevate Democrats to majority status in both the Senate and House. Republicans can’t let that happen. So, I will reiterate, Republicans must show up to vote in impressive numbers to prevent it from occurring.
Two Year Later: Another Fork in the Road
In November 2016, American’s found themselves at a fork in the road. To the right, there was Donald Trump, a seemingly new kind of anti-establishment, counter globalist Republican who promised to take disillusioned, cynical working and middle classes in an entirely different direction than the one that they had been headed for the past 16 years under Bush and Obama. To the left stood Hilary Clinton with her elitist, globalist, corporatist, pro-war, pro-mass 3rd world migration agenda. It was obvious that grassroots leftist activists would have preferred the more populist Bernie Sanders to Clinton, but the elite genuinely running the Democratic Party wouldn’t have it. Electing Clinton to the White House would’ve meant another eight years of Bush-Obama Era policies.
And even though it wasn’t portrayed as such by the media, the decision wasn’t difficult for Americans—they wanted change, actual change. Trump has given that to us, to a degree, but it hasn’t been nearly enough. The counter-globalization, pro-working class, conservative agenda must be taken to new heights. On November 6th, 2018 Americans have another series of crucial decisions to make. The choices are relatively simple: globalism or populist nationalism, the working classes or the banking and merchant (corporatist) classes, mass illegal immigration or strong borders and the enforcement of law and order, the family or the state, traditionalism or neoliberalism and cultural Marxism.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued her long-sought DNA report along with a campaign-style video romanticizing her claimed Indian heritage. Before we get to addressing the new information that she has provided, we should look back on the life of First Lady Edith Wilson, wife of President Woodrow of the same last name.
Mrs. Wilson? What on earth could that Victorian-born lady have to do with Elizabeth Warren and Indian ancestry? Well, allow me to explain.
First Lady Edith made quite a stir in the upper circles of society when she “revealed” her Indian ancestry. Ironically, this was a time when Indians were not held in high regard. In fact, they were still considered a subspecies by the snobby elite – of which Edith and white supremacist Woodrow were members-in-good-standing.
Edith, however, was not just given the nickname “Pocahontas” but actually claimed descendancy from the famed Indian princess. The grand ladies in the parlors and the gentlemen in the smokers were not put off by Edith’s claimed bloodline because she was … get ready for this … royalty.
She was a much sought-after dinner guest among American society and the Brits – who still had real royalty at the time. In advance of a trip to England, one headline read, “To be greeted as was Pocahontas in 1616, England prepares for President’s wife.” Based on her claimed ancestry, Edith was given the task of providing Indian names for American battleships.
Yes, I know she was the wife of a president and would automatically be popular among the upper crust, but her claimed descendancy from Pocahontas preceded her marriage to Woodrow and was a substantial social enhancer. Edith didn’t even need a DNA test to have her word accepted. The woman was believed … period. Conversely, Warren’s ethnic #MeToo moment has been far less successful.
And what about Warren’s claim?
It would appear that in an attempt to establish her oft-stated claim of Native American ancestry, she proved the opposite. Her private test reported the “probability” of Indian ancestry – probability. It could be that she is 1/1024th Native American – maybe.
Prior to this recent DNA test, Warren relied on her “high cheekbones” to legitimatize her claim. I guess you could argue that Warren’s entire effort to sell the Indian blood story was rather … cheeky. I shall pause until you finish groaning.
Back to the point. Under any objective or official standard of judging ancestry, Warren’s results would mean that she is NOT Native American. Not Indian. Not Cherokee – the tribe she adopted. Warren’s position in our nation’s capital does not even qualify her to be on the same field as the Washington Red Skins.
That is also the opinion of her adopted Cherokee Nation. They issued a statement that said Warren’s claim, “makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.” It went on to accuse Warren of actually “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
You can put Warren’s claim alongside that of her Democrat colleague Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who falsely claimed to have fought in Vietnam. Both used dishonest resume enhancers to further their careers. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Oh! And what about that “me” in the headline? Yes, that “me” is me. You see, my DNA showed that I am one percent Nigerian. According to the Warren theory, I should have been claiming minority status when I was applying for college admission, scholarships, government contracts, and even private sector jobs. Maybe I could have headed up one of the chapters of the NAACP like Rachel Dolezal, who pretended to be Black to get the job in Spokane, Washington. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the Warren rule of genetic ancestry at the time.
FOOTNOTE: Many on the politically wrong on the left claim that “Indian” is a pejorative – a slur. That claim is usually issued by a bunch of palefaces residing on the east and west coasts – well-tanned palefaces in the case of the west coast. This writer follows the lead of the Indians themselves. I was once made an “honorary Indian” by the folks at the Indian Center in Chicago. I recall seeing Senator Warren, herself, giving a speech in front of a sign that read, National Congress of American Indians. I tend to use both “Indian” and “Native American” interchangeably, just as I use “Black” and “African American” interchangeably. So, there it ‘tis’
President Trump has been calling for the return of the police procedure commonly known as “stop and frisk.” Basically, it means that if a police officer has reason to believe that a person is carrying a gun, possesses illegal drugs or has pocketed stolen loot, he can detain the person and search him or her.
The practice was green-lighted by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to combat a rising crime wave in the Big Apple. It is credited with reducing crime and getting a lot of guns off the street.
By the time Trump uttered “stop and ….,” his critics were already piling on. Those know-it-alls of cable news assembled panels to pronounce the President a fool. Doesn’t he know that stop and frisk is unconstitutional? Doesn’t he know that it was a federal judge in his own hometown of New York who declared it so? What a dummy.
Facts be known, if there are any dummies in this debate, they are all those folks on the telly who said stop and frisk is unconstitutional. First of all, such a declaration by a District Federal Court is not the final word on the subject. It can go up to the Federal Appellate Court and then on to the Supreme Court.
But, that is not even what happened. Stop and frisk was never declared to be unconstitutional and it is, in fact, perfectly constitutional today for those who would wish to take up Trump’s call to have it enforced. Stop and frisk is in practice in police departments around the country at this very moment.
This is not the first time Trump created controversy with his call for stop and frisk. During a campaign debate, he was shot down by both Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt for not knowing that it had been declared unconstitutional in New York City. They were correct that the manner in which it was carried out had been declared unconstitutional, but not the practice itself.
What was declared unconstitutional by New York federal Judge Shira Scheindlin was the WAY it was being implemented. It was being used primarily against minority citizens and that, said Scheindlin, was unconstitutional racial profiling – essentially violating Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
It was not Scheindlin’s intention to ban stop and frisk when fairly implemented. So, as to avoid any confusion – though she obviously did not — Scheindlin specifically wrote in her opinion that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk,” but ONLY how it was implemented in New York … period.
One can debate the effectiveness of stop and frisk or the fairness of it. You can agree with Trump that it would help curtail crime or believe the critics that it is inherently an abusive practice. But what is not debatable is that stop and frisk is 100 percent constitutional if carried out in an unbiased manner – as it is by many police departments today.
One has to look at history to find a time when a Black American made more news by being a guest at the White House than did rapper Kanye West. Yes, the election of Barack Obama was historic, but not as a guest in the White House, but as the first person with significant and notable Black heritage to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
West is more in the tradition of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.
Douglass was a friend and informal advisor to President Abraham Lincoln. Many believe that he was the very first Black American to enter the White House as a guest of a President. In one instance, Douglass was an invitee to an inaugural party in the mansion. However, he was detained by guards who were unfamiliar with his friendship with the President. Upon seeing Douglass at the door, Lincoln directed the guards to allow his good friend to enter.
Some 35 years later, President Teddy Roosevelt made history by inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner no less. Black leaders had visited the White House for business meetings, but none were ever invited to dine with the President in the private quarters. According to the southern Democrats at that time, it was a breach of social custom. After all, segregation was still legal in much of America, including the nation’s capital.
Just as in the case of Kanye West, the invitations were offered by controversial and strong-willed Republican Presidents. All three events resulted in the leaders of the Democratic Party and their friends in the press in going bonkers. One difference was that West was not a former slave, as were both Douglass and Washington – unless you consider him a former slave to Democratic Party orthodoxy and authority. You might say all three had escaped racial oppression.
With the Civil War still raging, the friendship between Lincoln and Douglass was particularly grating on those Democrats who seceded from the Union over such interracial relationships. Southern editors wrote scathing editorials and published the most offensive political cartoons.
(Warning, the next paragraphs are a bit disturbing, but history should never be sanitized or eradicated.)
When word got out of Washington’s dinner with Roosevelt, the Democrats attacked both Roosevelt and Washington. South Carolina’s racist Democrat Senator Pitchfork Ben Tillman said, “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that n****r will necessitate our killing a thousand n*****s in the South before they learn their place again.”
Democrat Governor William Oats, of Alabama, declared that “No respectable white man in Alabama of any political party would ask him to dinner nor go to dinner with him.”
Mississippi Governor James K. Vardaman said, “President Roosevelt takes this n****r bastard into his home, introduces him to his family, and entertains him on terms of absolute social equality.” Vardaman added, “I am as much opposed to Booker T. Washington as a voter as I am to the cocoanut-headed, chocolate-colored typical little coon who blacks my shoes every morning. Neither is fit to perform the supreme function of citizenship.”
There are scores of similar sentiments by a lot of those southern Democrats, but you get the point.
While such coarseness of the language is not acceptable today, those current Democrats among us – and most notably in the press – heaped the most disgraceful attack on West – and by implication upon President Trump for arranging the meeting.
It seemed like every host, pundit, panelist and contributor on CNN and MSNBC was committed to the most scurrilous attacks on West. They were not rebutting the issues he raised. Rather, it was a vicious ad hominem attack on West as a Black man.
Black Georgetown Sociology professor and racist raconteur, Michael Dyson, said West was a ventriloquist dummy with his “black mouth moving” but the words of Trump coming out. He declared West the victim of a mental health breakdown due to the death of his mother. He renamed West as “Kanye Mess” – even as he incredibly professed to be an admirer and friend of West.
The mental illness theme was shamelessly advanced by Public Urban Radio’s April Ryan and NPR’s Yamiche Alcindor – both Black journalists, Hardball’s Chris Mathews, of the tingling leg fame, compared West to a “drunken uncle at a wedding.”
These Democrats even brought up that old canard about a Black man not knowing his place. They jumped on his use of a profanity – and his attire – as disrespectful to the Oval Office. Yep! West just did not know his place.
While Dyson may have offered up the most over-the-top unhinged rant, CNN’s Don Lemon may have taken the prize for the most low-level attack. The entire event was so beyond Lemon’s grasp that he had to turn off the television before the end of the meeting.
In one of the most sickening attacks, Lemon said that West’s deceased mother – who West adored – would be “turning over in her grave” over his comments in the White House. Personally, I think she would have been very proud to see her boy sitting in the Oval Office across from the President of the United States. Just my thought.
Lemon insulted West’s intelligence and character by saying he was being used. West was gullible, stupid. It was an attack similar to Dyson’s ventriloquist dummy analogy. As if that was not disgusting enough, Lemon then wade in on the mental health issue by pleading with West to get help.
One hundred and fifty-two years after Lincoln invited a “Negro” to the White House, the Democrats still seem to have a problem with it. They fear Kanye West because he threatens their preconceived social order based on racial – no racist – definitions.