Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘identity politics’

Dear Democrats: Stop Treating Black Men Like We’re Stupid Or Lose More Votes


Dear Democrats: Stop Treating Black Men Like We’re Stupid Or Lose More Votes

Democrats spent the weeks before the 2020 election ridiculing black men considering voting for President Trump as sellouts who could derail Joe Biden’s presidential bid. Biden himself said as much with his “you ain’t black” comment.

Some Biden supporters went even further. One professor claimed black men just wanted proximity to the patriarchy and power structures white men have maintained for generations. Once the media announced Biden crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold, the left’s approach changed from proactive intimidation to a retrospective explanation for the fact that exit polls indicated 19 percent of black men voted for Donald Trump.

One Democratic candidate for Congress said one in five black men voted for Trump because “they hate Black women.” The same outlets that declared white Trump voters in 2016 were misinformed, ignorant racists claimed black Trump voters—including the 9 percent of black women who voted for him—were self-loathing victims of “disinformation” campaigns.

Former President Barack Obama joined the chorus in a recent interview with The Atlantic. His entire analysis of the increase in black male support for Trump was that black men were attracted to “the bling, the women, and the money” that characterize both Trump’s public persona and hip hop culture. Hearing such a simplistic and dismissive explanation from someone as politically savvy as Obama was disappointing but terribly predictable. Therein lies the problem.

Today’s Democratic Party relies more on marshaling votes based on identity rather than ideas. That clearly didn’t work for many black men.

Stop Treating Black Voters Like We’re Stupid

Some black men may have been influenced by rappers who publicly endorsed Trump, but it is deeply insulting to assume black men in general are less attuned to their own political interests than any other group is.

One of those interests is public safety. Democrats can’t make the case for why the black father whose one-year-old son was fatally shot in the chest should be in favor of defunding the police. This tragedy is no anomaly. More than 400 children have been killed in street violence all across the country in 2020, and large cities have seen significant increases in shootings and homicides compared to last year.

Democrats have convinced black residents in the cities with the highest rate of violent crime—almost all run by Democrats—that they should be more afraid of the Boogaloo Boys than the Bloods and the Crips. It’s not hard to imagine some black voters being skeptical of such an obvious reality inversion.

Black fathers also care about their children getting a quality education. President Obama hasn’t made the case for why low-income black students shouldn’t have the same types of education options as his children. In 2008, he stated he was enrolling his daughters in private school because DC Public Schools weren’t going to meet their educational needs.

Yet one of the first things he did upon entering the presidency was attempt to defund the program poor DC families use to give their children access to private schools. With an average voucher of $9,531, the grant is less than one half of what DC’s traditional public schools spend per student and one-quarter of the tuition of Sidwell Friends, the school the Obama girls attended.

President Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos increased funding for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program and publicly support charter school expansion. In contrast, Biden has pledged to eliminate the voucher program once in office and his supporters in the National Education Association oppose charter schools that are extremely popular with black parents.

Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza can’t go into a black barbershop in Atlanta and satisfactorily explain why the men there should support her organization that is committed to “disrupting” the nuclear family. Asking that question, as well as why BLM removed the language from their website, would seem like a natural response to an organization that claims to care about the lives of black people.

Garza also can’t explain why a dad who coaches his daughter’s track team should get behind the Equality Act—a bill Biden has pledged to sign—which would allow a biological male who identifies as a girl to compete against his daughter at a high school track event where awards and college scholarships are on the line. When Flo-Jo, the fastest woman in history, posts a world record in the 100-meter dash that wouldn’t even land her among the top 6,000 men’s times, I think any father has a right to question the impact this law would have on fairness in girls’ sports.

Earn Our Votes, Don’t Just Assume Them

The pitch to black voters from Biden’s surrogates was straightforward: “You may not be excited about him, but we need to get Trump out first and get to policy specifics later.” For a certain segment of black voters, that wasn’t enough.

Some black voters have always been conservative but others considered Trump’s record on the pre-COVID economy and other important issues more important than his tweets, brash persona, and frequent accusations of racism. That is why conservatives should treat black voters like people—rational individuals with deeply held values and specific interests—not indistinguishable components of an amorphous melanated blob.

That doesn’t mean Republicans should run from issues involving race. Leftists incorrectly attribute disparities in social and economic outcomes to systemic racism, but there should be substantive conservative responses to allegations of racial arrest quotas in New York City and unconstitutional stops and searches in poor black neighborhoods in Baltimore. Failure to do so will embolden Democratic politicians to continue their attempts to whip voters in the booth the same way they whip votes in Congress.

A smart, self-interested Democratic Party would ask itself whether Trump’s increase in non-white support may indicate a larger trend underway. Unfortunately, the party’s intellectual wing and its allies in corporate media are among the most incurious and condescending people in this country.

If self-hatred and selfishness are the best explanations party operatives can come up with, they’ll get even less of the black male vote the next election cycle. Instead, they should take time to explain to black voters why Democrats think government bureaucrats and special interest groups should have more influence on where children go to school than their parents do.

They should also have to explain why celebrities and multi-millionaire donors living in gated communities support paying bail for violent criminals who go back to terrorize working-class neighborhoods. And the ultimate question is why the party that claims to oppose all systemic racism and value black lives vigorously promotes abortion policies that disproportionately reduce the black population—a goal shared by today’s white nationalists as well as Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizards of the past.

All of these questions deserve honest, thoughtful responses, not empty platitudes and predictable euphemisms. The lack of answers to this point shows that black men don’t need to defend their choices. Democrats need to defend their ideas.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Delano Squires is the creator of the blog Truth, No Chaser, and has also written about race, religion, relationships, and culture for Black and Married with Kids, The Root, and The Grio. He holds a B.S. in computer engineering from the University of Pittsburgh and an MPP from The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter at @Mr_Squires.

Democrats Turn On Minority Voters For Discovering Trump Isn’t The Real Racist


Reported by Helen Raleigh NOVEMBER 10, 2020

One of the biggest stories in this election is how President Trump, whom leftists and their media allies have constantly called a “racist,” made great inroads with minorities. The left is clearly shocked. Rather than humbly spending some time on self-reflection, however, they are doubling down on identity politics by blaming minority Trump voters.

Since Election Day, leftists have been attacking minority Trump voters from two angles. First, they claim minorities who voted for Trump are “white” voters who shouldn’t be classified as minorities. This nonsense is nothing new. Prior to the election, Joe Biden famously said black voters who vote for Trump “ain’t black.”

Immediately after the election, this nonsense came up again courtesy of none other than Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the now-debunked 1619 Project. When it became clear that Trump would win Florida thanks to enthusiastic support from Latino voters, Hannah-Jones tweeted: “One day after this election is over I am going to write a piece about how Latino is a contrived ethnic category that artificially lumps white Cubans with Black Puerto Ricans and indigenous Guatemalans and helps explains [sic] why Latinos support Trump at the second highest rate.”

National Public Radio’s Gene Demby quickly endorsed Hannah-Jones’ assertions. In an NPR post-election segment, titled “Who is the White Vote?” Demby said:

It’s important that, you know, we think about the ways that there are many, many white Latinos. And because whiteness so thoroughly informs voting behavior, we should probably be asking better questions about Latino voters, like whether they identify as white or not. That might be more illuminating than simply whether someone refers to themselves as Latino in some ways.

No, Democrats Don’t Own Brown People

Here is the thought process behind these kinds of comments Only white people vote for Republicans. Since skin color trumps ethnicity, of course, light-skinned minorities would vote for a Republican candidate because of their “whiteness.” They shouldn’t be counted as minority voters at all.

This thought process is deeply flawed. Dividing the Latino community by skin color is possibly the most racist thing to do. Latino voters are unique, both as individuals and based on their diverse Latin American countries of origin, but it’s wrong to use colorism to explain Latino voters’ behaviors. Regardless of skin color, many Latino immigrants have suffered or watched their families suffer under socialist policies in their home countries. Many came to America to escape socialism, so naturally, they will not vote for Democrats, whose party enthusiastically embraces it.

Further, claiming skin color drives a voter’s behavior is an insult to minority voters’ intelligence. During Trump’s first term and prior to the pandemic lockdowns, both black and Hispanic unemployment rates were at historic lows. The black and Hispanic household median annual income increase (adjusted for inflation) more than doubled during Trump’s term compared to the Obama years. Minority voters, like any other voters, will naturally support the candidate whose policies have benefited them.

By the same token, minority voters will reject candidates whose policies might bring them harm. Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, explained to a puzzled NPR journalist why Biden lost Latino support in Texas. “For example, a lot of the Border Patrol law enforcement are heavily Latino in the Rio Grande Valley,” Garcia said. “So when you are talking about defunding the police, and you don’t stand up to those types of rhetoric, then it leaves an opening for Republicans to come in and take advantage of that.”

When will leftist pundits such as Hannah-Jones and Demby ever realize it is the radical policies and ideas they support that have driven away minority voters?

The Left Believes Minorities Have No Agency

Apparently, blaming minority Trump voters’ “whiteness” doesn’t go far enough for some on the left. Charles M. Blow, a New York Times columnist, complained that some minority Trump voters have Stockholm syndrome, a psychological response that occurs when abuse victims bond with their abusers.

In his most recent article, Blow listed statistic after statistic showing that “a larger percentage of every racial minority voted for Trump this year than in 2016,” including Trump doubling black women’s support from 4 percent in 2016 to 8 percent in 2020, and increasing black men’s vote from 13 percent in 2016 to 18 percent in 2020. “It is so unsettling to consider that many of our fellow countrymen and women are either racists or accommodate racists or acquiesce to racists,” Blow said, calling all Trump voters either racists or accomplices of racism.

There’s more. According to Blow, the number that really put him on his heels was “the percentage of L.G.B.T. people voting for Trump doubled from 2016, moving from 14 percent to 28 percent. In Georgia, the number was 33 percent.”

Although none of the statistics Blow presented even remotely support the title of his piece, “Exit Poll Points to the Power of White Patriarchy,” he found a way to blame white patriarchy and demean minority Trump voters in the end. According to Blow, Trump’s widening support across racial and gender groups “points to the power of the white patriarchy and the coattail it has of those who depend on it or aspire to it. … Some people who have historically been oppressed will stand with the oppressors, and will aspire to power by proximity.”

In the eyes of leftists such as Blow, nonwhite voters and non-straight voters who supported Trump are nobody but coattail riders who have neither personal agency nor the ability to make it on our own in the world. I had never read anything more racist, more divisive, and more insulting than this, and I am not the only one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a human rights activist and a fellow at the Hoover Institute, tweeted: “This is the dumbest, most divisive drivel I’ve read in a long time. We should be talking about what unites us now. Not doubling down on ID-Politics. Shame on you!”

Minorites Had Good Reason to Vote for Trump

It is obvious that leftist pundits are dumbfounded by Trump’s widening support among minority voters in 2020. Since the 2016 election, rather than trying to understand half of the country who voted for Trump the first time, these talking heads turned toward nurturing their hatred of Trump and getting him out of office as their full-time jobs.

They thought that after repeating “Orange Man Bad” day after day for four years, the electorate would just follow their lead. They have no clue why someone they despised so much could have attracted even more minority votes this time around. Since they are unable to come up with any reasonable explanation, let me shed some light on the matter.

Minorities like me voted for Trump because we like his policies: lower taxes, fewer government regulations, and strong national security. American people, especially minorities, have seen real economic benefits during Trump’s first term. He stands up to socialism and promises, “America will never be a socialist country,” and his unconventional foreign policy approach has brought a historical breakthrough of peace in the Middle East.

We want a safe environment to raise our families. We don’t want to see our cities burned, our shops looted, and our statues toppled. We want good-paying jobs so we can enjoy the lifestyle we desire through our own hard work. We want all families, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to be able to choose the best school that matches their children’s educational needs. We want to continue to express ourselves without being censored or canceled.

We certainly don’t believe race and sex are the roots of nor the answer to every social ill. We are tired of identity politics, critical race theory, and cancel culture, all of which have sucked the fun out of life and shut down the exchange of ideas. We know our country has room for improvement, but it is not a racist nation. We take pride in being Americans and in all the progresses our nation has made, and we are tired of the left condemning our country’s founding and the American ideal.

As long as leftists continue to weaponize identity politics and dress us down as if we are mindless cattle, their candidates will continue to lose our support.

Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen’s new book, “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired,” is available for pre-order with a release date of October 20, 2020. Follow her on Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.

Ann Coulter OPED: How Do I Tell My Friend She’s Not ‘African-American’?


Commentary by Ann Coulter  Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 12, 2020 6:45 PM

How Do I Tell My Friend She’s Not 'African-American'?

Source: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Pool

My wonderful readers often have questions for me, particularly in what every TV commercial calls “these uncertain times” when we’re all “in this together” and must give hourly thanks to “our heroes.” So, as I have in the past, I wanted to take a moment to reply to questions that have been pouring in from, again: no one.

1) What do you think of Joe Biden’s pick of Kamala Harris as his V.P.?

I think Susan Rice or Keisha Lance Bottoms would have been better, but inasmuch as I predicted Kamala as the Democrats’ next presidential candidate back before she’d even won her Senate seat, I strongly support his decision for making me almost, kind of, in the ballpark right.

2) That’s an amazing prediction — but what on earth made you predict her?

Because the Democratic Party is entirely about identity politics these days, meaning race, ethnicity, immigration status, gender and sexual orientation, but having absolutely nothing to do with economic class, social standing, occupational category or geographic location.

They already had Obama, so what’s better than the first black president? The first black woman president, of course!

3) But she’s half-Indian and half-Jamaican, not a foundational black American. No reparations for her! In fact, her Jamaican father admits their family owned slaves.

Yeah, yeah. The only people who care about foundational black Americans are Tariq Nasheed and me. As described in my book Mugged, Democrats were always annoyed by the idea that civil rights should have anything to do with black people. That’s why “civil rights” quickly came to mean abortion rights, gay rights, the right not to see construction signs that say “Men at Work.” (That’s according to the Kentucky Commission on Civil Rights .) Black Americans should breathe a sigh of relief that Biden didn’t pick a transsexual and expect their gratitude.

4) Wait a minute! Are we going to have to engage in Nazi-era genetic coding to determine who gets slavery reparations?

Not at all. We have very reliable census records back to at least the 1870s, so we can count foundational black Americans to their grandparents. One American grandparent and the rest Nigerian — you get 25 cents on the dollar.

5) Oh, that’s too complicated! Why not just say: Everyone who’s black gets a check?

Fine, then give me one. Prove I have no black blood. You’re going to have to do the genealogical research one way or another.

6) Why don’t we have the concept of foundational WHITE Americans?

EXCELLENT POINT. I can’t help but notice that most of the people denouncing Confederate monuments are neither foundational black Americans nor foundational white Americans. Of course recent immigrants don’t care about Confederate monuments! They weren’t here. That’s our issue. We don’t respect the South’s cause, but we do respect their honor. It’s OUR history. Not yours.

We ought to have the same rule on tearing down the nation’s history as for reparations: You have to have at least one American grandparent to denounce our traditions, statues and monuments. Nikki Haley, for example, can take down monuments to Bush, Facebook or “American Idol” — all of which she was present in the country for.

7) Speaking of tearing things down, why are all the antifa girls fatties?

Because attractive girls know that all the talk about “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” is nonsense. Good-looking girls, even average-looking ones who bathe semi-regularly and don’t resemble elephants, know that they rule the world.

8) And why are antifa boys scrawny beta males?

White men who go around denouncing other white men as “fascists” are wimpy losers who think they’ll attract women with suck-up speeches about racism. But even stupid left-wing girls prefer alpha males. Sissy boys should drop the left-wing politics and try lifting weights and making money. Freud was a fool and reductionist, but sexual strategizing by losers is the source of nearly all left-wing ideology.

9) That’s total crap! And I know what I’m talking about because I had a show on MSNBC for 20 years and —

Look, Chris, everyone thinks you got screwed when you were fired from “Hardball,” but could you please not crash this Q&A?

 10) Do you think Trump will replace Mike Pence with Nikki Haley as his vice president to win the Asian women’s vote?

The crucial industrial Midwest can’t stand her and of course, in February 2016, Haley compared Trump to a Klan member and vowed never to stop fighting him:

“I will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the KKK. That is not a part of our party. That is not who we want as president. We will not allow that in our country.”

So the answer is, yes. Yes, I think he will.

Report: Anonymous Berkeley Professor Debunks BLM Narrative, Scolds Academics


Reported By Michael Austin | Published June 15, 2020 at 6:14pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/anonymous-berkeley-professor-debunks-blm-narrative-scolds-academics-pushing/

A protester holds a Captain America Black Lives Matter shield while four symbolic funeral processions converge in downtown at the intersection of 1st St and Broadway on June 8, 2020, in Los Angeles.

A person purporting to be a University of California, Berkeley professor has had enough of these ideologies, however, and decided to speak out against them in an anonymous letter. The letter was first shared on Twitter by Tracy Beanz, editor in chief of UncoverDC. Wilfred Reilly, an assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University, who is referenced in the letter, confirmed to The Western Journal that the letter had been sent out, but could not confirm the identity of the sender.

“I can’t confirm the sender. I was sent the letter, and will note that it contained direct e-mails for me, [economist Thomas Sowell] (via National Review), and what looked like much of the Berkeley History Department,” Reilly told The Western Journal in an email.

The letter began with the alleged professor apologizing for the need to remain anonymous, citing the prevalent nature of cancel culture in modern-day America.

“I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field,” the anonymous party wrote.

“In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.”

The letter then went on to explain the illogical reasoning behind critical race theory, the academic theory that played a major role in the popularization of ideas such as white privilege and systemic racism.

“The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions. Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly,” the letter read.

“Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department’s apparent desire to shoulder the ‘white man’s burden’ and to promote a narrative of white guilt.”

The purported professor then proceeded to take the Black Lives Matter movement head-on, explaining his rejection of its “problematic view of history.”

“I personally don’t dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.”

“The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.”

Rather than contending with the many counterpoints that the alleged professor made to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the U.C. Berkeley history department openly condemned the letter as “against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.”


UC Berkeley History@UCBHistory

An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member. We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.

1,367 people are talking about this


By dismissing the letter’s arguments out of hand, the department all but proved the writer to be correct in his or her evaluation of U.C. Berkeley and other Black Lives Matter advocates. The least Berkeley’s faculty could have done was put together a thoughtful rebuttal, but even that seemed to be too much to ask of them.

James Lindsay spoke to The Western Journal about the reported professor’s letter and what it meant for the social justice movement at large. Lindsay is a mathematician, political commentator and co-founder of the website New Discourses, an apolitical resource for those opposed to political correctness and the various ideologies of social justice.

When asked if this open condemnation of social justice politics was a trend in the right direction for American colleges, Lindsay seemed unconvinced.

“Colleges are not yet trending in a positive direction. It is probably the opposite, but there is still time to reverse that course if more academics and professors speak up like this. This is the kind of reply scholars should be making and then debating,” he told The Western Journal in an email.

When asked about claims made by the letter, he affirmed the anonymous professor’s assessment of critical race theory.

“I cannot speak to the specific data-driven claims, but the academic theory he cites (Critical Race Theory) is accurately described in terms of how poisonous, anti-intellectual, anti-society, and even intrinsically anti-black it is.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kayleigh McEnany, WH Slap Down AOC’s ‘Racist’ Attack on Press Secretary


Reported By Joe Saunders | Published June 9, 2020 at 8:28am

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thinks White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany doesn’t read the newspapers. Maybe AOC should try reading what McEnany actually says before she launches an attack that basically accuses the press secretary of racism — even subconscious racism.

In a social media dispute that flared up Monday, New York’s best-known democratic socialist tried to paint the Harvard Law graduate McEnany as too ignorant to know the office Ocasio-Cortez holds, apparently thanks to a Politico summary of McEnany’s comments during a White House news briefing.

“@PressSec wouldn’t be the first person to mistake a women of color for having a lower position or title than she does, but Kayleigh – in case you haven’t picked up a newspaper in two years, I’m a Congresswoman,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

“The@PressSec comment is steeped in a long, hurtful, & horrendous history of stripping women of color of titles and diminishing them to ‘the help.’ Perhaps she isn’t aware that what she did is mired in racist history. If that is the case, I look forward to her apology tomorrow.”

First of all, since it’s unlikely McEnany has been living under a rock since the 2018 election season, it’s a good chance she knew full well who the Bronx-Queens Democrat is even before becoming White House press secretary.

Second, Ocasio-Cortez appeared to be triggered by Politico reporter Jake Sherman’s suspiciously snarky Twitter post that implied McEnany had referred to AOC as simply an “adviser” to Joe Biden, the elderly, white male who’s somehow become the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee for 2020.

Also, since McEnany was referring to Ocasio-Cortez’s status as co-chairwoman of a panel advising Biden on “climate change,” there’s an argument to be made that McEnany was complimenting AOC by elevating her beyond the ranks of an ordinary member of Congress to a powerful player in presidential politics.

Finally, as Alyssa Farah, White House director of strategic communications noted, Ocasio-Cortez was just dead wrong.

Had the congresswoman taken more than a minute to look, and resisted the urge to leap immediately at Sherman’s cc’ed Twitter bait, she would have known McEnany had fully described her, as well as AOC’s equally obnoxious “squad” mate Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic congresswoman from Michigan.

The two women came up when McEnany was fielding a question about the Democrats’ insane push to defund American police departments.

At a Friday night debate, according to the U.K. Independent, Ocasio-Cortez called for the “reduction of our NYPD budget and defunding a $6 billion budget, that costs us books in the hands of our children and costs us very badly needed investment in NYCHA and public housing.”

Tlaib has also posted support for defunding police.

And that’s what McEnany was talking about when she brought up the congresswomen — including their titles.

She didn’t take long in responding to the Ocasio-Cortez tweet. And it’s safe to say the response wasn’t the “apology” AOC was looking for.

“Read the transcript, Congresswoman,” McEnany wrote in a Twitter post.


Kayleigh McEnany

@PressSec

Read the transcript, Congresswoman @AOC ⬇️ https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1270061346470707201 

View image on Twitter
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@AOC

.@PressSec wouldn’t be the first person to mistake a women of color for having a lower position or title than she does, but Kayleigh – in case you haven’t picked up a newspaper in two years, I’m a Congresswoman. https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1270057686990819329 

19.5K people are talking about this


“The president is appalled by the ‘defund the police’ movement,” McEnany said, according to the transcript.

“The fact that you have sitting congresswomen wanting to defund the police — notably Rashida Tlaib, notably Biden adviser Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — former Clinton and Eric Holder spokesperson Brian Fallon wanting to defund our police across this country, it is extraordinary.”

In other words, Ocasio-Cortez fired off Monday apparently on the basis of a reporter’s tweet that seemed designed to get a rise out of her, and she jumped right at it. That’s not exactly the behavior voters should expect of their elected officials, but it’s the kind of action Americans have learned to expect from Democrats and “progressives” who have spent the Trump years demonstrating the maturity of middle schoolers.

As is usual with anything coming out of the Trump White House, McEnany’s tweet drew plenty of liberal responses as AOC’s supporters flocked to the congresswoman’s defense like the flying monkeys of “The Wizard of Oz” — but McEnany had plenty of backers, too.


Kayleigh McEnany

@PressSec

Read the transcript, Congresswoman @AOC ⬇️ https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1270061346470707201 

View image on Twitter
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@AOC

.@PressSec wouldn’t be the first person to mistake a women of color for having a lower position or title than she does, but Kayleigh – in case you haven’t picked up a newspaper in two years, I’m a Congresswoman. https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1270057686990819329 

Wanda Campbell@wanda732005

Oh the transcript….details, details👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

See Wanda Campbell’s other Tweets


faux pas@therealfauxpas

@AOC… tryna manufacture some drama. 🤦‍♂️🙄

See faux pas’s other Tweets


Hirvd@Hiraaaad

When AOC tweets, first she types “woman of color” and then she adds words in front and back to make it a complete sentence.

She can’t say anything without bringing up that she’s a woman of color! 🤡

Identity politics is cancer!

See Hirvd’s other Tweets


It’s my circus, and they are my monkeys!@urtoez75

Read your own transcript, you literally called her an adviser in the same sentence, I’ve highlighted it below to help you out.

View image on Twitter

Becky Frady@CRNA_Pred

I’ll go slow, try to keep up…she said sitting congressWOMEN (meaning multiple), then gives examples of those congressWOMEN, the second of which, AOC, is ALSO an advisor to Biden. AOC has TWO JOBS, congresswoman AND Biden advisor, BOTH mentioned. Got it?

See Becky Frady’s other Tweets


The Bradley Files@bradley_files

If nothing else, it has become clear that if you cross this press secretary, you’re going to get put in your place very quickly. Good!

See The Bradley Files’s other Tweets


And that last one is key.

Following the example of former press secretary Sarah Sanders, whose tenure was a textbook example of how the White House should handle an unrelentingly hostile press corps, McEnany has made it clear from the beginning that she wasn’t going to be intimidated by the divas in the briefing room.

Even the most vainly obtuse (say, Jim Acosta?) should be learning by now that attacking McEnany without a decent cause is going to be an exercise in failure.

Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will learn the lesson too — assuming she reads enough about it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Skin Deep

Many parents are outraged at the idea of inserting a student’s adversity when scoring the S.A.T. exam. Many feel this is a backdoor way of using race as a factor over merit.

SAT Exam AdversityPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

Branco’s Faux Children’s Book “APOCALI” ORDER  HERE

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

take our poll – story continues below
  • Who are the happiest people?

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.

Why Do Muslim Politicians Push Identity Politics?


Posted By Shireen Qudosi | Sunday, August 19, 2018

Why do Muslim politicians push identity politics? Watch our video narrative by Clarion’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi.

Qudosi argues that Muslims have a choice — between old school Islam, which many of their parents fled, and the opportunities offered in America. Which will it be?

Tag Cloud

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: