53percenter's Blog

It’s a given that politicians are two faced. They can be counted on to say one thing while thinking another.

But that truism is usually unprovable – unless James O’Keefe and his trusty hidden camera are at work to expose the lie.

O’Keefe’s Project Vertias has struck again, this time, recording staffers working for Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Philip Bredesen saying that despite the candidate’s public statement that if he had been in the senate, he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he privately admitted he would have opposed him.

Maria Amalla and Will Stewart, staffers in Bredesen’s campaign, both say on hidden camera that if he were in the Senate, Bredesen would not actually have voted to confirm then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They explained that the statement Bredesen issued in support of Kavanaugh was a political ploy to gain the support of moderate voters in Tennessee.

JOURNALIST: “Like he wouldn’t really vote yes [for Kavanaugh,] would he?

AMALLA: “No, it’s a political move… He thinks that like we’re down like half a point right now. It’s like really close and we’re losing by a point or two. So he thinks that if like by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us.”

---

JOURNALIST: “I was so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote [for Kavanaugh.]

STEWART: “He wouldn’t. But he’s saying he would… Which I don’t know if it makes it worse or better. No, it makes it better… “

When asked to clarify that Bredesen is only saying he’d vote for Kavanaugh to “get the Republican vote,” Amalla, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, affirmed, “Yes.” Amalla reiterated, “[Bredesen] thought that like by coming out in support [of Justice Kavanaugh] that it would get more republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts.”

No surprise there. But Bredesen’s lying goes even further.

In multiple conversations, Bredesen staffers admitted that Bredesen does not want to fully communicate his connection to the national leadership of the Democratic party. Stewart and a colleague on the Bredesen campaign, Drew Marshall say:

MARSHALL: “We would scare all the people who would vote for Phil Bredesen, but not [Senate Democratic Leader] Chuck Schumer.”

STEWART: “Yeah, exactly, because there’s a lot of republicans who are going to vote for [Bredesen…]”

STEWART: “Yeah. And that’s how they’re messaging against us… that he’s gonna be a ‘toe the line’ democrat voter… Because there are people who loved him as Governor but won’t vote for a democrat for national office.”

Stewart reiterated the Bredesen Campaign’s commitment to appearing moderate for the election, “we’re trying to make it so it’s not about democrats.” Stewart makes clear Bredesen’s messaging is purely for political optics, saying:

STEWART: “Between you and me once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Of course, this is music to the ears of GOP candidate, Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Being a “good Democrat” means asking “how high” when Chuck Schumer tells him to jump. The video will make it ridiculously easy to link Schumer to Bredesen in a death embrace.

The most recent polls have Blackburn ahead. This video should just about seal the deal for Blackburn.

It’s a given that politicians are two faced. They can be counted on to say one thing while thinking another.

But that truism is usually unprovable – unless James O’Keefe and his trusty hidden camera are at work to expose the lie.

O’Keefe’s Project Vertias has struck again, this time, recording staffers working for Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Philip Bredesen saying that despite the candidate’s public statement that if he had been in the senate, he would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he privately admitted he would have opposed him.

Maria Amalla and Will Stewart, staffers in Bredesen’s campaign, both say on hidden camera that if he were in the Senate, Bredesen would not actually have voted to confirm then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They explained that the statement Bredesen issued in support of Kavanaugh was a political ploy to gain the support of moderate voters in Tennessee.

JOURNALIST: “Like he wouldn’t really vote yes [for Kavanaugh,] would he?

AMALLA: “No, it’s a political move… He thinks that like we’re down like half a point right now. It’s like really close and we’re losing by a point or two. So he thinks that if like by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us.”

---

JOURNALIST: “I was so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote [for Kavanaugh.]

STEWART: “He wouldn’t. But he’s saying he would… Which I don’t know if it makes it worse or better. No, it makes it better… “

When asked to clarify that Bredesen is only saying he’d vote for Kavanaugh to “get the Republican vote,” Amalla, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, affirmed, “Yes.” Amalla reiterated, “[Bredesen] thought that like by coming out in support [of Justice Kavanaugh] that it would get more republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts.”

No surprise there. But Bredesen’s lying goes even further.

In multiple conversations, Bredesen staffers admitted that Bredesen does not want to fully communicate his connection to the national leadership of the Democratic party. Stewart and a colleague on the Bredesen campaign, Drew Marshall say:

MARSHALL: “We would scare all the people who would vote for Phil Bredesen, but not [Senate Democratic Leader] Chuck Schumer.”

STEWART: “Yeah, exactly, because there’s a lot of republicans who are going to vote for [Bredesen…]”

STEWART: “Yeah. And that’s how they’re messaging against us… that he’s gonna be a ‘toe the line’ democrat voter… Because there are people who loved him as Governor but won’t vote for a democrat for national office.”

Stewart reiterated the Bredesen Campaign’s commitment to appearing moderate for the election, “we’re trying to make it so it’s not about democrats.” Stewart makes clear Bredesen’s messaging is purely for political optics, saying:

STEWART: “Between you and me once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.”

Of course, this is music to the ears of GOP candidate, Rep. Marsha Blackburn. Being a “good Democrat” means asking “how high” when Chuck Schumer tells him to jump. The video will make it ridiculously easy to link Schumer to Bredesen in a death embrace.

The most recent polls have Blackburn ahead. This video should just about seal the deal for Blackburn.

Fresh off getting their britches kicked over the Kavanaugh nomination, the American left has come up with yet another scheme to stymie the GOP and strangle the MAGA program in its cradle.

This is the product of John Burton, an Obama acolyte and political activist who, harnessing the crowdsourcing process (the “Wiki effect”), has signed up an army of amateur volunteers to examine the records of dozens of vulnerable GOP candidates with the intention of publicizing these findings in a string of October surprises.

Burton is an ex-banker who worked for the Obama campaign as an opposition researcher.  After Donald Trump was elected, he joined the “Resistance,” according to his own words, out of guilt that he’d allowed Trump to be elected.

He immediately organized a telephone campaign in which, shortly after the inauguration, 78,000 callers contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding an investigation into “Russian collusion.”  Some sources give him credit for the Mueller investigation, which is arguable, to say the least.

Burton then applied himself to organizing “Citizen Strong,” a 501(c)(4) “grassroots” outfit dedicated to ending the Trump menace.  Anticipating the 2018 elections, he has organized 16,000 volunteers who have been searching the net for “damaging material” on GOP candidates.  Citizen Strong is targeting three Senate races, 22 House races, and 133 state legislative races in 13 states.  The effort has been financed by what even his supporters call “dark money.”  (It should also be mentioned that one of the individuals involved is an evident Russian immigrant named “Tanya.”  Another is named “Vlad.”  You’d really think they’d know better.)

The purpose is to unleash all this material prior to November 6, throwing GOP electoral efforts into chaos and delivering the seats in contention to the Dems.

We will pause here for the usual suspects to respond, as they did to the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings, by racing back and forth and screeching, “It’s over… it’s hopeless… nothing can be done… They’ve won… we’re finished, I tell you…”

Moving on, we will now calmly examine the reasons why it’s by no means “all over”:

• Forewarned is forearmed.  The legacy media, specifically Bloomberg Businessweek, have prematurely spilled the beans on Burton and his effort, apparently under the assumption that it’s a done deal.  But in politics, nothing is a done deal.  There is plenty that can be done to curtail this, as long as people know it’s coming – which they now do.
• Twenty eighteen is not the year for leftist dirty tricks.  Consider the left’s recent ambush attempts.  The Mueller investigation continues squishing its way around the streets of Washington like a giant amoeba, occasionally crushing a bystander but leaving its major target – President Trump – untouched while becoming a greater embarrassment with each week that passes.  The Democratic effort to fire a delusory woman at Judge Brett Kavanaugh collapsed into utter catastrophe, with the Dems in far worse shape than they were before they tried it.  Almost simultaneously, the New York Times (a notorious metropolitan gay paper) published an “exposé” of President Trump’s taxes, which revealed a lot of “tax evasion” that turned out to be totally legal loopholes, several of which are utilized by the NYT’s own accountants.

It may well be that the time for this type of maneuver is over.  Every tactic has its season, and the day of massive, well financed mud showers may well be past its use-by date, due to large-scale abuse.  It’s easily possible that people will greet Burton’s effort with “another Blasey Ford-type scam.”

(It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this is the year of #Walkaway, in which lifetime Democrats are cutting ties to the party over exactly this type of thing.)

• There’s no reason to believe that Burton is actually competent at this.  The Mueller investigation claim is pure résumé puffery.  So many people were squalling for an investigation at the time that taking credit for it is like claiming credit for photosynthesis – a bad sign, as any human resources specialist will tell you.  We also know nothing about his previous experience with the Obama campaign.  If he’s out of the same pod as Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Hillary, Samantha Power, or Susan Rice…well, that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
• The “Wiki principle” has its drawbacks.  When designed and run by capable hands, such as the Cambridge Citizen Scientist program, it can work well.  By utilizing trained, experienced scientists to filter the findings, Cambridge has produced a lot of excellent scientific material that would have been unobtainable by other means.  But otherwise…

Well, look at Wikipedia itself.  Decades after its founding, it’s still a byword for error, incompetence, and disinformation.  My favorite example involves the Klan entry, where for years a photo of a farnicoco – a hooded Spanish Holy Week penitent – was labeled as a “typical Klansman.”  But just the other day, while looking for a map of N.Y. Congressional District 14, I stumbled over the Wiki version, which I immediately recognized as bogus – the map placed the bulk of the district in Manhattan, not in the Bronx, where it belongs.

There is no sign that Burton has solved this problem or is even aware that it exists.  Now, it’s statistically certain that a substantial number of his volunteer army of 16,000 are stupid, incompetent, disturbed, or vindictive and may well produce material that is mistaken to the point of being legally actionable.  In this era of the GOP Unbound, this could well mean that Burton and the staff of Citizen Strong will exit stage right pursued by a blizzard of writs, subpoenas, and judgments.  It’s doubtful that his dark money sources will care for this.

A few examples of Citizen Strong’s exposés have already been released (though nothing on the chief target, Dana Rohrabacher, accused of – you guessed it – Russian collusion).  They are less than world-shattering.  We’ve been informed that the wife of Wisconsin state rep. Tyler Vorpagel, who has voted for welfare reform, was collecting unemployment while working on his campaign!!!  It may come as news to J.P. Morgan alumnus Burton – as well as his Russian comrades-in-arms – that unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It’s a form of insurance, paid for by workers while employed.  We can be sure that Wisconsin’s middle- and working-class voters will know the difference.

Similarly, Representatives Mike Bost of Illinois and Dave Schweikert of Arizona will be pilloried for staying at Ritz-Carltons or the Waldorf while traveling – a silly piece of class warfare that might agitate Occupy activists but few others.  Political offices do come with some privileges.  This should be news to nobody.

The rest is of much the same tenor – all of it reaching, exaggerated, and essentially empty.  Citizen Strong may have come up with something earth-shattering, but thus far, there’s no sign of it.  Simply repeating “Blasey Ford” and underlining that this is the same type of operation – which it is – should negate the bulk of it.  Mentioning such names as “McCabe,” “Strzok,” and “Page” would not be out of place.

The inevitable errors and misstatements can also be utilized, particularly if malice or deliberation can be suggested.  The Vorpagel unemployment error mentioned above certainly fits this mold and needs to be hard-pedaled not only by the Vorpagel campaign, but by all other targets as well.  If Citizen Strong can screw up a simple piece of information such as that one, then what’s the rest of its material worth?

We can rest assured that there will be plenty more coming.

Nor can we overlook the “dark money” factor.  What are Burton and his organization hiding?  Who’s paying the bills?  What’s their agenda?  Citizen Strong is clearly applying the total transparency principle to political activity.  Well, playmates – what’s good for the goose.  Let’s see what you’ve got hidden in your closets – then we’ll see about listening to what you’re peddling. 

There’s one last thing we can be sure that John Burton hasn’t thought of, because Democrats and leftists never do.  The Democrats are the Wile E. Coyotes of the political world.  They are constantly introducing new tactics, new weapons, and new tricks, always acting under the impression that circumstances consistently bend their way and that nothing can go wrong, nor can these new tricks be used against them.  Back in the early ’70s, they lowered the voting age to 18, assured that all those late teens would vote for them.  They went instead for Richard Nixon.  More recently, the half-clever Harry Reid cut the Senate votes needed for confirmation of federal judges to a simple majority, which pushed through a large cohort of Obama appointments – but also laid the basis for the GOP doing the same thing with the Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch.  In between, there’s a never-ending list of surefire Acme gimmicks that left the Dems with sooty faces and smoke rising from their whiskers.

Burton’s scheme is likely another one of those.  Anybody – even conservatives and Republicans – can recruit an army of internet volunteers, and probably get better results.  After all, it’s the Democrats who are hiding the real dirt.  DiFi’s husband Richard Blum’s problem is not unemployment insurance, and the Clintons have not simply been sleeping in the Waldorf on the taxpayer’s dime.

John Burton has opened a door.  Let’s see what comes through.

Fresh off getting their britches kicked over the Kavanaugh nomination, the American left has come up with yet another scheme to stymie the GOP and strangle the MAGA program in its cradle.

This is the product of John Burton, an Obama acolyte and political activist who, harnessing the crowdsourcing process (the “Wiki effect”), has signed up an army of amateur volunteers to examine the records of dozens of vulnerable GOP candidates with the intention of publicizing these findings in a string of October surprises.

Burton is an ex-banker who worked for the Obama campaign as an opposition researcher.  After Donald Trump was elected, he joined the “Resistance,” according to his own words, out of guilt that he’d allowed Trump to be elected.

He immediately organized a telephone campaign in which, shortly after the inauguration, 78,000 callers contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding an investigation into “Russian collusion.”  Some sources give him credit for the Mueller investigation, which is arguable, to say the least.

Burton then applied himself to organizing “Citizen Strong,” a 501(c)(4) “grassroots” outfit dedicated to ending the Trump menace.  Anticipating the 2018 elections, he has organized 16,000 volunteers who have been searching the net for “damaging material” on GOP candidates.  Citizen Strong is targeting three Senate races, 22 House races, and 133 state legislative races in 13 states.  The effort has been financed by what even his supporters call “dark money.”  (It should also be mentioned that one of the individuals involved is an evident Russian immigrant named “Tanya.”  Another is named “Vlad.”  You’d really think they’d know better.)

The purpose is to unleash all this material prior to November 6, throwing GOP electoral efforts into chaos and delivering the seats in contention to the Dems.

We will pause here for the usual suspects to respond, as they did to the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings, by racing back and forth and screeching, “It’s over… it’s hopeless… nothing can be done… They’ve won… we’re finished, I tell you…”

Moving on, we will now calmly examine the reasons why it’s by no means “all over”:

• Forewarned is forearmed.  The legacy media, specifically Bloomberg Businessweek, have prematurely spilled the beans on Burton and his effort, apparently under the assumption that it’s a done deal.  But in politics, nothing is a done deal.  There is plenty that can be done to curtail this, as long as people know it’s coming – which they now do.
• Twenty eighteen is not the year for leftist dirty tricks.  Consider the left’s recent ambush attempts.  The Mueller investigation continues squishing its way around the streets of Washington like a giant amoeba, occasionally crushing a bystander but leaving its major target – President Trump – untouched while becoming a greater embarrassment with each week that passes.  The Democratic effort to fire a delusory woman at Judge Brett Kavanaugh collapsed into utter catastrophe, with the Dems in far worse shape than they were before they tried it.  Almost simultaneously, the New York Times (a notorious metropolitan gay paper) published an “exposé” of President Trump’s taxes, which revealed a lot of “tax evasion” that turned out to be totally legal loopholes, several of which are utilized by the NYT’s own accountants.

It may well be that the time for this type of maneuver is over.  Every tactic has its season, and the day of massive, well financed mud showers may well be past its use-by date, due to large-scale abuse.  It’s easily possible that people will greet Burton’s effort with “another Blasey Ford-type scam.”

(It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this is the year of #Walkaway, in which lifetime Democrats are cutting ties to the party over exactly this type of thing.)

• There’s no reason to believe that Burton is actually competent at this.  The Mueller investigation claim is pure résumé puffery.  So many people were squalling for an investigation at the time that taking credit for it is like claiming credit for photosynthesis – a bad sign, as any human resources specialist will tell you.  We also know nothing about his previous experience with the Obama campaign.  If he’s out of the same pod as Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Hillary, Samantha Power, or Susan Rice…well, that speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
• The “Wiki principle” has its drawbacks.  When designed and run by capable hands, such as the Cambridge Citizen Scientist program, it can work well.  By utilizing trained, experienced scientists to filter the findings, Cambridge has produced a lot of excellent scientific material that would have been unobtainable by other means.  But otherwise…

Well, look at Wikipedia itself.  Decades after its founding, it’s still a byword for error, incompetence, and disinformation.  My favorite example involves the Klan entry, where for years a photo of a farnicoco – a hooded Spanish Holy Week penitent – was labeled as a “typical Klansman.”  But just the other day, while looking for a map of N.Y. Congressional District 14, I stumbled over the Wiki version, which I immediately recognized as bogus – the map placed the bulk of the district in Manhattan, not in the Bronx, where it belongs.

There is no sign that Burton has solved this problem or is even aware that it exists.  Now, it’s statistically certain that a substantial number of his volunteer army of 16,000 are stupid, incompetent, disturbed, or vindictive and may well produce material that is mistaken to the point of being legally actionable.  In this era of the GOP Unbound, this could well mean that Burton and the staff of Citizen Strong will exit stage right pursued by a blizzard of writs, subpoenas, and judgments.  It’s doubtful that his dark money sources will care for this.

A few examples of Citizen Strong’s exposés have already been released (though nothing on the chief target, Dana Rohrabacher, accused of – you guessed it – Russian collusion).  They are less than world-shattering.  We’ve been informed that the wife of Wisconsin state rep. Tyler Vorpagel, who has voted for welfare reform, was collecting unemployment while working on his campaign!!!  It may come as news to J.P. Morgan alumnus Burton – as well as his Russian comrades-in-arms – that unemployment compensation is not welfare.  It’s a form of insurance, paid for by workers while employed.  We can be sure that Wisconsin’s middle- and working-class voters will know the difference.

Similarly, Representatives Mike Bost of Illinois and Dave Schweikert of Arizona will be pilloried for staying at Ritz-Carltons or the Waldorf while traveling – a silly piece of class warfare that might agitate Occupy activists but few others.  Political offices do come with some privileges.  This should be news to nobody.

The rest is of much the same tenor – all of it reaching, exaggerated, and essentially empty.  Citizen Strong may have come up with something earth-shattering, but thus far, there’s no sign of it.  Simply repeating “Blasey Ford” and underlining that this is the same type of operation – which it is – should negate the bulk of it.  Mentioning such names as “McCabe,” “Strzok,” and “Page” would not be out of place.

The inevitable errors and misstatements can also be utilized, particularly if malice or deliberation can be suggested.  The Vorpagel unemployment error mentioned above certainly fits this mold and needs to be hard-pedaled not only by the Vorpagel campaign, but by all other targets as well.  If Citizen Strong can screw up a simple piece of information such as that one, then what’s the rest of its material worth?

We can rest assured that there will be plenty more coming.

Nor can we overlook the “dark money” factor.  What are Burton and his organization hiding?  Who’s paying the bills?  What’s their agenda?  Citizen Strong is clearly applying the total transparency principle to political activity.  Well, playmates – what’s good for the goose.  Let’s see what you’ve got hidden in your closets – then we’ll see about listening to what you’re peddling. 

There’s one last thing we can be sure that John Burton hasn’t thought of, because Democrats and leftists never do.  The Democrats are the Wile E. Coyotes of the political world.  They are constantly introducing new tactics, new weapons, and new tricks, always acting under the impression that circumstances consistently bend their way and that nothing can go wrong, nor can these new tricks be used against them.  Back in the early ’70s, they lowered the voting age to 18, assured that all those late teens would vote for them.  They went instead for Richard Nixon.  More recently, the half-clever Harry Reid cut the Senate votes needed for confirmation of federal judges to a simple majority, which pushed through a large cohort of Obama appointments – but also laid the basis for the GOP doing the same thing with the Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch.  In between, there’s a never-ending list of surefire Acme gimmicks that left the Dems with sooty faces and smoke rising from their whiskers.

Burton’s scheme is likely another one of those.  Anybody – even conservatives and Republicans – can recruit an army of internet volunteers, and probably get better results.  After all, it’s the Democrats who are hiding the real dirt.  DiFi’s husband Richard Blum’s problem is not unemployment insurance, and the Clintons have not simply been sleeping in the Waldorf on the taxpayer’s dime.

John Burton has opened a door.  Let’s see what comes through.

Democrats need 90% black turnout and 90% black support in order to win elections on a national scale. Anything that erodes either number is a mortal threat. And they must be sensing softness, if not outright desertion in the face of three factors:

1.     Blacks have done far better under Trump than Obama in terms of rising employment opportunities and rising wages. The growth in manufacturing employment in particular has pushed up wages in the segments of the labor market with heavy black participation. Very few people of any color prefer life on food stamps and unemployment insurance to gainful employment at rising wages.

2.     The enthusiastic support of Kanye West, slated to visit the White House along with football icon ”Big Jim” Brown (as President Trump affectionately calls him), powerfully diminishes the ability of Democrats to call on ethnic solidarity to spike turnout and support.

3.     The Democrats’ embrace of  political correctness is very unattractive to black voters. Steven Hayward of Powerline cites a startling  study revealing the depth of repugnance felt by blacks and Hispanics toward PC:

Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. . .

Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. 

So acute is this fear of desertion that members of a CNN panel resorted to the other N-Word (Negro) to insult Kanye West. Victor Morton reports in the Washington Times:

 

In the segment presided over by a chuckling Don Lemon, CNN commentators Bakari Sellers and Tara Setmayer repeatedly attacked Mr. West, who will meet President Trump at the White House on Thursday, in terms immediately called out as racist — albeit not on CNN.

“Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read,” Mr. Sellers said.

Added Ms. Setmayer: “He’s all of a sudden now the model spokesperson. He’s the token Negro of the Trump administration?”

She also called Mr. West “an attention whore, like the president.”

Watch for yourself:

 

How can any honest person not call this CNN segment racist?



– “Kanye is what happens when negroes don’t read”

– Kanye is “token negro of the Trump administration”

– “Black folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft”

– “Kanye’s an attention whore, like the president” pic.twitter.com/rT6bQZwKmc

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) October 10, 2018

 

I can’t claim to be an expert on black public opinion, but I have never seen racial insults inspire an ethnic group to support the insulter.

 

Democrats need 90% black turnout and 90% black support in order to win elections on a national scale. Anything that erodes either number is a mortal threat. And they must be sensing softness, if not outright desertion in the face of three factors:

1.     Blacks have done far better under Trump than Obama in terms of rising employment opportunities and rising wages. The growth in manufacturing employment in particular has pushed up wages in the segments of the labor market with heavy black participation. Very few people of any color prefer life on food stamps and unemployment insurance to gainful employment at rising wages.

2.     The enthusiastic support of Kanye West, slated to visit the White House along with football icon ”Big Jim” Brown (as President Trump affectionately calls him), powerfully diminishes the ability of Democrats to call on ethnic solidarity to spike turnout and support.

3.     The Democrats’ embrace of  political correctness is very unattractive to black voters. Steven Hayward of Powerline cites a startling  study revealing the depth of repugnance felt by blacks and Hispanics toward PC:

Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. . .

Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. 

So acute is this fear of desertion that members of a CNN panel resorted to the other N-Word (Negro) to insult Kanye West. Victor Morton reports in the Washington Times:

 

In the segment presided over by a chuckling Don Lemon, CNN commentators Bakari Sellers and Tara Setmayer repeatedly attacked Mr. West, who will meet President Trump at the White House on Thursday, in terms immediately called out as racist — albeit not on CNN.

“Kanye West is what happens when Negroes don’t read,” Mr. Sellers said.

Added Ms. Setmayer: “He’s all of a sudden now the model spokesperson. He’s the token Negro of the Trump administration?”

She also called Mr. West “an attention whore, like the president.”

Watch for yourself:

 

How can any honest person not call this CNN segment racist?



– “Kanye is what happens when negroes don’t read”

– Kanye is “token negro of the Trump administration”

– “Black folks are about to trade Kanye West in the racial draft”

– “Kanye’s an attention whore, like the president” pic.twitter.com/rT6bQZwKmc

— Benny (@bennyjohnson) October 10, 2018

 

I can’t claim to be an expert on black public opinion, but I have never seen racial insults inspire an ethnic group to support the insulter.

 

RESTON, VA — The Media Research Center (MRC) today released a new poll, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, specifically looking at conservatives’ attitudes towards the social media platform, Twitter.

According to the poll, almost half of the conservatives (49 percent) surveyed do not trust Twitter to treat all of its users equally, regardless of their political beliefs. That’s nearly three times as many (16.7 percent) who trust Twitter.

Nine percent of conservatives said that they stopped using Twitter because of its conservative censorship, while another 11 percent said that they were considering leaving for the same reason. Out of those conservatives polled who actually use Twitter, this counts as almost half of conservative Twitter users.

When it came to trusting Twitter, more than a third of conservatives polled (34 percent) answered that their trust in the social media company had gone down since last year. Despite Twitter’s efforts to clean up its platform and promote “healthy conversation,” only 6 percent of conservatives were on board with CEO Jack Dorsey’s efforts, saying that their trust in Twitter had gone up since last year.

MRC Vice President Dan Gainor stressed that Twitter and all the social media firms need to realize conservatives no longer trust them. “Conservatives moved online because of the bias they encountered in old media. The last thing they wanted was more bias, but that’s what they got,” he explained. “Now, it’s up to companies like Twitter to fix the problems they created.”

Highlights from the research:

(Asked of self-described conservatives)

Do you TRUST Twitter to treat all of its users equally, regardless of their political beliefs?

    Yes: 16.7%

    No:   49.0%

    Not Sure: 34.3%

Is your TRUST in Twitter greater than, less than, or the same as it was one year ago?

        Greater than it was a year ago: 6.3%

        Less than it was a year ago: 34.2%

        The same as it was a year ago: 59.5%

Which of the following BEST describes your position regarding Twitter?

   I stopped using Twitter because of their censorship of conservatives: 9.7%

   I am considering leaving Twitter because of their censorship of conservatives: 10.9%

   I either stopped using Twitter or am considering leaving the platform for another reason: 9.5%

   I am currently a Twitter user, and I am NOT considering leaving the platform: 17.8%

   I have never used Twitter: 52.0%

Methodology:

This survey of 1,000 likely general election voters nationwide was conducted on September 18-24, 2018.

All interviews were conducted online; survey invitations were distributed randomly within predetermined geographic units. These units were structured to correlate with actual voter turnout in a nationwide general election.

This poll of 1,000 likely general election voters has an accuracy of +/- 3.1% at a 95% confidence interval. The accuracy of the responses from the 351 self-described conservatives is +/- 5.2% at a 95% confidence interval.