Posted on

Finally, the Democrats openly acknowledge their socialism

Masks are slipping away on the progressive left, as the 2020 election comes into focus. Not only do we know that a “coup” was planned by foes of President Trump, we now can openly and unreservedly speak of another unpleasant but inescapable truth that was revealed during the past year. Prior to the surprise victory of Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) last June 26 in her primary race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, it was largely frowned upon to describe the Democratic Party as “socialist.” Over the summer, the rag tag far left Occupy ICE movement gained support among elected local Democrat politicians in many cities around the country. By the fall, Democrat candidates for governor  in Florida and Georgia, and for the U.S. Senate in Texas, were echoing the abolish ICE/Open Borders theme of the Occupy radicals.


When the Democrats captured the House in the November Midterm elections, what was left of a moderate mask was finally torn off as Democrat leaders and newbie members of Congress alike jumped on the socialist bandwagon. In the three and a half months since the election, with full-blown socialist AOC having emerged as the most prominent and arguably the most influential Democrat politician in the country, the definition of Democrats as “socialists” can no longer be denied.



This is happening at the same time that socialism’s disastrous failure in Venezuela is utterly undeniable. Millions of starving Venezuelans have fled to neighboring countries like Colombia, and the Maduro dictatorship survives solely on the basis of support from senior military officials who have been bribed and fear retribution when the “socialist paradise” they have fashioned collapses.



Mass demonstration against socialist Maduro regime in Caracas, January 23, 2019


(Photo credit: Voice of America)


Yet virtually every Democrat to date who has declared his or her intention to run for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination has outright endorsed or made positive comments about AOC’s mind-boggling authoritarian socialist proposals for a Green New Deal and abolishing I.C.E., in addition to echoing party leaders’ calls for government-run socialized medicine, open borders, free college education, and so on. Any claims by the diminishing number of moderate Democrats, or by a chameleon presidential wannabe like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who is trying to thread the needle between her party’s far left base and more moderate Americans, that the party is not in fact “socialist” now seem increasingly ridiculous.


Peter Barry Chowka writes about politics, media, popular culture, and health care for American Thinker and other publications.  Follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.


Masks are slipping away on the progressive left, as the 2020 election comes into focus. Not only do we know that a “coup” was planned by foes of President Trump, we now can openly and unreservedly speak of another unpleasant but inescapable truth that was revealed during the past year. Prior to the surprise victory of Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) last June 26 in her primary race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, it was largely frowned upon to describe the Democratic Party as “socialist.” Over the summer, the rag tag far left Occupy ICE movement gained support among elected local Democrat politicians in many cities around the country. By the fall, Democrat candidates for governor  in Florida and Georgia, and for the U.S. Senate in Texas, were echoing the abolish ICE/Open Borders theme of the Occupy radicals.


When the Democrats captured the House in the November Midterm elections, what was left of a moderate mask was finally torn off as Democrat leaders and newbie members of Congress alike jumped on the socialist bandwagon. In the three and a half months since the election, with full-blown socialist AOC having emerged as the most prominent and arguably the most influential Democrat politician in the country, the definition of Democrats as “socialists” can no longer be denied.


This is happening at the same time that socialism’s disastrous failure in Venezuela is utterly undeniable. Millions of starving Venezuelans have fled to neighboring countries like Colombia, and the Maduro dictatorship survives solely on the basis of support from senior military officials who have been bribed and fear retribution when the “socialist paradise” they have fashioned collapses.



Mass demonstration against socialist Maduro regime in Caracas, January 23, 2019


(Photo credit: Voice of America)


Yet virtually every Democrat to date who has declared his or her intention to run for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination has outright endorsed or made positive comments about AOC’s mind-boggling authoritarian socialist proposals for a Green New Deal and abolishing I.C.E., in addition to echoing party leaders’ calls for government-run socialized medicine, open borders, free college education, and so on. Any claims by the diminishing number of moderate Democrats, or by a chameleon presidential wannabe like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who is trying to thread the needle between her party’s far left base and more moderate Americans, that the party is not in fact “socialist” now seem increasingly ridiculous.


Peter Barry Chowka writes about politics, media, popular culture, and health care for American Thinker and other publications.  Follow him on Twitter at @pchowka.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

R.I.P. Pat Caddell, one of the last honest Democrats

Pat Caddell, the pollster who was credited for the strategy that vaulted Jimmy Carter from an obscure Southern governor to the Oval Office, died too young yesterday in Charleston, South Carolina, at the age of 68. The nation’s political discourse is much poorer as a result. A self-taught pollster, Caddell used his brilliant mind and changed the nation’s history, as his New York Times obituary acknowledged:


Campaign staffs are not known for sharing credit, but in June 1976, when Mr. Carter had secured the Democratic nomination, his campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, confidently told a reporter: “You know why Jimmy Carter is going to be president? Because of Pat Caddell — it’s all because of Pat Caddell.”



He followed Carter to the White House, but in the years after, observed the decline and fall of his beloved political party into progressive extremism, racialist identity politics, and the other dishonesties that have come to characterize its pursuit of power and refused to stay silent. Born into a family of Southern Democrats, he refused to hand over control of his party to failed ideas and dishonest politicians, he became a prominent dissident, a de facto conservative who still identified as a Democrat.



Photo credit: Gage Skidmore


I had the good fortune to meet Pat many years ago at what was then called the “Dark Ages Weekend” (Today, it is the Restoration Weekend), and was shocked at his openness to me and friendliness.  We attended an event where we shot automatic weapons and his utter joy was infectious, as he told stories of growing up with firearms a part of his life. He lamented the decline of the Democrats into hostility toward the SecondSAmendment. As we talked afterward, he offered me his home phone number, and remained over the years completely forthcoming about his views, his family, and his anger at the hijacking of his party. The last time I saw him, about 3 years ago in Charleston, SC, where he had moved to be close to his grandchildren, he remained indignant at the charlatans in what he still called “his” party, but was happy to be back to his roots and focused on what matters, his family.


I am not claiming that we were close or even properly termed as friends. I only saw him and spoke to him a few times, but he remembered me, and was honest, open, and not in the least full of himself. The point is that when I first met him, he was open to someone who, at the time, had zero ability to give him media exposure or offer any access to power, and treated me as a peer, even though I wasn’t. He was, in the Yiddish term, a “mensch” — a person who is genuinely human and does the right thing as he sees it.


There never are enough people like Pat Caddell, even in periods of historic calm and comity. In times of political strife and rampant dishonesty, his loss is a blow to our politics.


May he rest in peace. He is missed.


Pat Caddell, the pollster who was credited for the strategy that vaulted Jimmy Carter from an obscure Southern governor to the Oval Office, died too young yesterday in Charleston, South Carolina, at the age of 68. The nation’s political discourse is much poorer as a result. A self-taught pollster, Caddell used his brilliant mind and changed the nation’s history, as his New York Times obituary acknowledged:


Campaign staffs are not known for sharing credit, but in June 1976, when Mr. Carter had secured the Democratic nomination, his campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, confidently told a reporter: “You know why Jimmy Carter is going to be president? Because of Pat Caddell — it’s all because of Pat Caddell.”


He followed Carter to the White House, but in the years after, observed the decline and fall of his beloved political party into progressive extremism, racialist identity politics, and the other dishonesties that have come to characterize its pursuit of power and refused to stay silent. Born into a family of Southern Democrats, he refused to hand over control of his party to failed ideas and dishonest politicians, he became a prominent dissident, a de facto conservative who still identified as a Democrat.



Photo credit: Gage Skidmore


I had the good fortune to meet Pat many years ago at what was then called the “Dark Ages Weekend” (Today, it is the Restoration Weekend), and was shocked at his openness to me and friendliness.  We attended an event where we shot automatic weapons and his utter joy was infectious, as he told stories of growing up with firearms a part of his life. He lamented the decline of the Democrats into hostility toward the SecondSAmendment. As we talked afterward, he offered me his home phone number, and remained over the years completely forthcoming about his views, his family, and his anger at the hijacking of his party. The last time I saw him, about 3 years ago in Charleston, SC, where he had moved to be close to his grandchildren, he remained indignant at the charlatans in what he still called “his” party, but was happy to be back to his roots and focused on what matters, his family.


I am not claiming that we were close or even properly termed as friends. I only saw him and spoke to him a few times, but he remembered me, and was honest, open, and not in the least full of himself. The point is that when I first met him, he was open to someone who, at the time, had zero ability to give him media exposure or offer any access to power, and treated me as a peer, even though I wasn’t. He was, in the Yiddish term, a “mensch” — a person who is genuinely human and does the right thing as he sees it.


There never are enough people like Pat Caddell, even in periods of historic calm and comity. In times of political strife and rampant dishonesty, his loss is a blow to our politics.


May he rest in peace. He is missed.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Another skeleton crawls out of Ilhan Omar’s closet

In a story unearthed by U.S. Liberty Wire, citing a deep-weeds Minnesota state political news site, here’s some new information on the decisionmaking of Minnesota leftist Democrat and House Foreign Affairs committee member, Rep. Ilhan Omar, dating from her days in the Minnesota statehouse:


On Thursday, members of the Minnesota House voted to pass H.F. 1397, a bill which would give life insurance companies the right to deny payouts to beneficiaries whose loved one died while committing an act of terrorism.



In a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass the bill 127-2. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minneapolis) and John Lesch (D-St.Paul) were the only two lawmakers who voted against the measure.


The issue at the time (2017), was the problem of terrorists taking out life insurance policies shortly before going on suicide rampages, and relying on those insurance companies to make big payouts to their family members, much the same way the Palestinian Authority and its terrorist allies make payments to families of “martyrs.” 


To the Minnesota statehouse, Republicans and Democrats alike, it was a no-brainer. The only other guy who voted against the measures cited excessive legalisms for not voting ‘yes.’ Somehow, Omar’s ‘no’ vote, which got her nothing politically from her own party at least, doesn’t seem to be in the same category, given her previous history of seeking to shield ISIS terrorists from punishment, and as John Hinderaker at Power Line notes, her persistent echoing of Iranian propaganda talking points. (He has a point in disagreeing with my argument that it was Russian talking points she was echoing – the two propagandas are actually the same - but we both know which country this ignoramus is more likely to actually know something about).


Liberty News Wire reporter Frank Johnson characterizes it as a skeleton crawling out and makes this observation about the problem: “The more digging that is done into Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s past, the more skeletons people are discovering.”


Arguing to shield ISIS terrorists – those famous “Minnesota Men” and now condoning forced payouts from insurance companies to terrorist relatives who nutured these terrorists into suicide attacks really does stand out as something special – to the terrorist-American community.


Which really does raise questions yet again about what this person represents and why she is there on the House Foreign Relations Committee, potentially passing on information to the kind of people she’s there to defend, and why she should have any sayso at all in U.S. foreign policy.


Someone with this record should be a pariah.


 


In a story unearthed by U.S. Liberty Wire, citing a deep-weeds Minnesota state political news site, here’s some new information on the decisionmaking of Minnesota leftist Democrat and House Foreign Affairs committee member, Rep. Ilhan Omar, dating from her days in the Minnesota statehouse:


On Thursday, members of the Minnesota House voted to pass H.F. 1397, a bill which would give life insurance companies the right to deny payouts to beneficiaries whose loved one died while committing an act of terrorism.


In a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass the bill 127-2. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minneapolis) and John Lesch (D-St.Paul) were the only two lawmakers who voted against the measure.


The issue at the time (2017), was the problem of terrorists taking out life insurance policies shortly before going on suicide rampages, and relying on those insurance companies to make big payouts to their family members, much the same way the Palestinian Authority and its terrorist allies make payments to families of “martyrs.” 


To the Minnesota statehouse, Republicans and Democrats alike, it was a no-brainer. The only other guy who voted against the measures cited excessive legalisms for not voting ‘yes.’ Somehow, Omar’s ‘no’ vote, which got her nothing politically from her own party at least, doesn’t seem to be in the same category, given her previous history of seeking to shield ISIS terrorists from punishment, and as John Hinderaker at Power Line notes, her persistent echoing of Iranian propaganda talking points. (He has a point in disagreeing with my argument that it was Russian talking points she was echoing – the two propagandas are actually the same - but we both know which country this ignoramus is more likely to actually know something about).


Liberty News Wire reporter Frank Johnson characterizes it as a skeleton crawling out and makes this observation about the problem: “The more digging that is done into Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s past, the more skeletons people are discovering.”


Arguing to shield ISIS terrorists – those famous “Minnesota Men” and now condoning forced payouts from insurance companies to terrorist relatives who nutured these terrorists into suicide attacks really does stand out as something special – to the terrorist-American community.


Which really does raise questions yet again about what this person represents and why she is there on the House Foreign Relations Committee, potentially passing on information to the kind of people she’s there to defend, and why she should have any sayso at all in U.S. foreign policy.


Someone with this record should be a pariah.


 




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

CA WW II Vet Pays $1,500 Chick-Fil-A Bill For Service Members, Military Families For 92nd Birthday

Via Fox News: One generous World War II veteran and “regular customer” at Chick-fil-A recently paid a good deed forward in honor of his 92nd birthday, footing a $1,500 bill for active-duty service members and military families at a California location of the chicken-centric chain. Ahead of his milestone birthday on Feb. 19, Edmund Rusinek […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Posted on

Supreme Court to decide if citizenship question can be on 2020 census form

What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States. The concept of citizenship has been under attack in recent years as open borders advocates and others maintain that citizenship is basically meaningless and that there should be no difference between those who were born here and those who choose to come here — legally or illegally.


For the first time since 1950, the US census wants to include a question on citizenship on a census form. Naturally, the idea has been challenged by sanctuary states and civil rights groups. A ruling by a lower court blocked the administration from including the question, leading to a request from the White House for an expedited hearing by the Supreme Court.



The Court has granted that request and has scheduled oral arguments for late April with a ruling expected in June.


The arguments by opponents of the question strain credulity and logic.


Reuters:


Opponents have accused the administration of trying to engineer an undercount of the true population and diminish the electoral representation of Democratic-leaning communities in Congress, benefiting Trump’s fellow Republicans. Non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of people living in the United States.


Time is of the essence in the case, as the official census forms are due to be printed in the coming months.


The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. The official population count is used in the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds. There has not been a census question about citizenship status since 1950.


Ross announced in March 2018 that the administration would include a citizenship question, saying the Justice Department had requested the data to help enforce the Voting Rights Act that protects eligible voters from discrimination. Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.


Why would a citizenship question automatically lead to an “undercount” of the census? The argument by opponents is that those here illegally will refuse to answer out of fear that they will be discovered and deported. 


So the census bureau should base their decision on whether to gather this vital data on the notion that people are unnecessarily worried that their lawbreaking will be discovered? It’s an idiotic, paranoid assumption given the fact that the census bureau cannot share individual census forms with any other federal agency. But it’s an assumption fostered by illegal immigrant advocates who never miss a chance to frighten illegals into doing their bidding.


Including the question of citizenship on the census form will not lead to the arrest and deportation of anyone. In essence, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide if the government is responsible for the stupidity of illegal aliens in believing they are in danger if they answer a simple question about their status as non-citizens. And the idea that this is all a political conspiracy by the Trump administration to deny Democrats additional seats in Congress is absurd. 


The issue will hang in the balance as Chief Justice Roberts will probably once again be the swing vote. I am not confident that he will recognize this effort by illegal alien advocates for what it is – an effort to cheapen the very idea that citizenship has value for those who hold it.


What does it mean to be a citizen of the United States. The concept of citizenship has been under attack in recent years as open borders advocates and others maintain that citizenship is basically meaningless and that there should be no difference between those who were born here and those who choose to come here — legally or illegally.


For the first time since 1950, the US census wants to include a question on citizenship on a census form. Naturally, the idea has been challenged by sanctuary states and civil rights groups. A ruling by a lower court blocked the administration from including the question, leading to a request from the White House for an expedited hearing by the Supreme Court.


The Court has granted that request and has scheduled oral arguments for late April with a ruling expected in June.


The arguments by opponents of the question strain credulity and logic.


Reuters:


Opponents have accused the administration of trying to engineer an undercount of the true population and diminish the electoral representation of Democratic-leaning communities in Congress, benefiting Trump’s fellow Republicans. Non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of people living in the United States.


Time is of the essence in the case, as the official census forms are due to be printed in the coming months.


The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. The official population count is used in the allocation of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds. There has not been a census question about citizenship status since 1950.


Ross announced in March 2018 that the administration would include a citizenship question, saying the Justice Department had requested the data to help enforce the Voting Rights Act that protects eligible voters from discrimination. Only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections.


Why would a citizenship question automatically lead to an “undercount” of the census? The argument by opponents is that those here illegally will refuse to answer out of fear that they will be discovered and deported. 


So the census bureau should base their decision on whether to gather this vital data on the notion that people are unnecessarily worried that their lawbreaking will be discovered? It’s an idiotic, paranoid assumption given the fact that the census bureau cannot share individual census forms with any other federal agency. But it’s an assumption fostered by illegal immigrant advocates who never miss a chance to frighten illegals into doing their bidding.


Including the question of citizenship on the census form will not lead to the arrest and deportation of anyone. In essence, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide if the government is responsible for the stupidity of illegal aliens in believing they are in danger if they answer a simple question about their status as non-citizens. And the idea that this is all a political conspiracy by the Trump administration to deny Democrats additional seats in Congress is absurd. 


The issue will hang in the balance as Chief Justice Roberts will probably once again be the swing vote. I am not confident that he will recognize this effort by illegal alien advocates for what it is – an effort to cheapen the very idea that citizenship has value for those who hold it.




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

James Woods Digs Up Damning Smollett Tweet Hours After Reports Surface Claiming Attack Was Staged

On Friday night, two persons of interest in the Jussie Smollett case were released without charges, according to WLS-TV.

The men are Nigerian brothers, one of whom appeared on “Empire.” Both men were apparently cooperative with police. They’d been taken into custody at O’Hare Airport after returning from Nigeria; police had earlier conducted a raid on their home.

On Saturday, police said they were “eager” to speak with Smollett again and had been in touch with his attorneys as reports began to surface authorities believed the attack was staged.

“We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the ‘Empire’ case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation,” Chicago Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said.

“We’ve reached out to the ‘Empire’ cast member’s attorney to request a follow-up interview.”

TRENDING: Fmr. Obama Lead Adviser Says What We’re All Thinking About AOC: ‘Economically Ignorant’

In other words, that whole “This is MAGA country” story  — Smollett’s claim that he was attacked by two apparent supporters of President Donald Trump — isn’t exactly holding up so well at the moment.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. As conservative actor James Woods reminded us on Twitter as events were breaking on Saturday night, Smollett’s animus against President Donald Trump was very well known.

Woods retweeted one of Smollett’s perorations on the president and, well, let’s just say it’s not going to help his case.

Warning: There’s plenty of bad language ahead, including racial slurs. Reader discretion is advised.

Smollett’s tweet was in response to a Jan. 11 tweet by the president which made his case for the wall.

I’m not quite sure how Smollett’s response qualifies as a rebuttal, but whatever works for him, I suppose.

RELATED: Bombshell: Multiple Sources Say Latest Evidence Indicates Smollett Staged the Attack

In fact, Smollett put forward his criticisms of the president as the reason he was attacked during an interview with “Good Morning America.”

“I come really, really hard against 45,” he said, referring to President Trump.

“I come really, really hard against his administration and I don’t hold my tongue.”

He also again implied that his attackers were inspired by the president.

“I can only go off of their words,” Smollett said. “Who says, ‘(bleep) ‘Empire,’ this MAGA country,’ (bleep) ties a noose around your neck and pours bleach on to you? And this is just a friendly fight?”

Well, we don’t know that, but the way things are trending, and given Smollett’s inconsistent stories, it probably wasn’t Trump fans.

Do you think there was a rush to judgment in the Jussie Smollett case?

Although I don’t know the political leanings of the two brothers who were questioned by Chicago police, WBBM-TV reported sources saying the men were paid $3,500 to orchestrate the attack on Smollett, which was rehearsed, and were to be paid $500 upon their return.

According to the same outlet, the two men also claim Smollett paid for the rope that was used in the attack.

How much stock to take in the story these gentlemen are telling is anyone’s guess. However, the narrative that this was some sort of Trump-based attack on an “Empire” cast member because he was black and gay and anti-Trump seems to be eroding by the hour.

What’s becoming more likely — although far from a foregone conclusion — is that Smollett, for whatever his own reasons may have been, orchestrated the attack and used it to further his animus against President Trump.

A battalion of liberal politicians and celebrities, also predisposed to hate the president, bought into the story from the get-go and amplified the message that Trump’s America™ was to blame. And then came the inconsistencies, and the raid, and the arrests, and now here we are.

Whatever the case may be, Smollett’s tweet didn’t age well.

But we can thank James Woods for bringing it to everyone’s attention again.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Posted on

Terrified Todd: What If Trump’s National Emergency Is Found Constitutional?!

The liberal media were irate at President Trump for declaring a national emergency in order to address the crisis on the U.S./Mexico border, but they were looking forward to other liberal organizations challenging the move in court. During NBC’s Sunday Today, political director Chuck Todd was confident the national emergency would be struck down but feared what would happen if the courts somehow upheld it.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Posted on

Stephen Miller: George W. Bush’s Immigration Record ‘Astonishing Betrayal’ of American People

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” White House senior adviser Stephen Miller described former President George W. Bush’s record on immigration as an “astonishing betrayal.”

Miller said, “As you know, when George Bush came into office, illegal immigration total doubled from 6 million to 12 million by the time he left office.”

He added, “That represented an astonishing betrayal of the American people. I’m not gonna sit here today and tell you that George Bush defended this country on the southern border because he did not.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

NEVER FORGET: Stupid, Easily Manipulated Hollywood Elites Put Together Sappy Video in Support of Jussie Smollett Hoax

NEVER FORGET…
Stupid and easily manipulated Hollywood elites threw together a sappy video denouncing the hatred behind the Jussie Smollett attack.

Will they retract their statements today?

Via Mike Cernovich:

The post NEVER FORGET: Stupid, Easily Manipulated Hollywood Elites Put Together Sappy Video in Support of Jussie Smollett Hoax appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

After the outrage, Dem 2020 candidates silent about Smollett hoax

The social and cultural fallout from the revelation that Jussie Smollett staged a “hate crime” attack with the help of two friends is just now being assessed, as advocates and activists who blamed Trump, white supremacy, and homophobia for Smollett’s “ordeal” find themselves in the unenviable position of having to support the actor who continues to lie about the incident or somehow make amends for their stupidity and bigotry.


But politicians who went out on a limb in supporting Smollett and castigating Trump supporters have a different problem. They must deal with the reality that they were wrong – dead wrong. And as we all know, politicians simply can’t be seen as being “wrong” about anything.” This is especially true when it comes to the issue of race and, to a lesser extent, sexual preference. There is only one “right way” to see these issues and that is blame whites for hating minorities and straight males for hating gays. Perish the thought that a black, gay actor would try to hoax them.



But it happened, and candidates who came out strongly supporting Jussie Smollett without any evidence and numerous questions about the incident have to say something.


As of now, they are silent.


In particular, three Democratic presidential candidates made especially strong statements on the fake attack.








Washington Examiner:


Democratic presidential candidates jockeying for position in 2020 had a lot to say when actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked in Chicago by two white men who shouted racist and homophobic slurs as they beat him.


But they were silent on Saturday, when law enforcement sources said that Chicago Police believed “Empire” star Smollett, 36, who is gay, paid two black men to set up the assault. Police arrested the men, who are brothers from Nigeria, on Wednesday but released them Friday after discovering “new evidence.”


A Chicago police spokesman said: “We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation.” He added that police wanted to speak to Smollett again.


Incredibly, some journalists are excusing these responses as “acceptable” – despite the titanic smear against their political opponents that was based on zero evidence.


Twitchy:


A lot of tweets from politicians and celebrities wishing to get in on the story haven’t aged well, and Caleb Hull passed around a few screenshots from Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, who called the alleged attack “a modern-day lynching.”


Broadcast journalist Shawn Reynolds, though, has volunteered to play defense for the Democrats, arguing that everything they said was a completely acceptable response at the time.


Given the information at the time, these are completely acceptable responses. If these were posted in the last 5 minutes, it would be entirely different. https://t.co/DChdlRQfo7


— Shawn Reynolds (@ShawnReynolds_) February 17, 2019


Not surprisingly, Reynolds has since deleted that tweet. But the responses are telling:










A presidential candidate cannot use that defense. It would be tantamount to admitting that you react without thinking – which, to be sure, they did. 


It’s not likely that any of these candidates, or any other politician, will be hurt by their initial reaction to the Smollett incident. They will either maintain silence or use the standard “both sides are wrong” argument. It’s sickening to contemplate, but the outrageous pandering to minorities represented by this incident – where reason and logic take a back seat to raw emotionalism – demonstrates an unfitness for high office.


 


 


 


 


The social and cultural fallout from the revelation that Jussie Smollett staged a “hate crime” attack with the help of two friends is just now being assessed, as advocates and activists who blamed Trump, white supremacy, and homophobia for Smollett’s “ordeal” find themselves in the unenviable position of having to support the actor who continues to lie about the incident or somehow make amends for their stupidity and bigotry.


But politicians who went out on a limb in supporting Smollett and castigating Trump supporters have a different problem. They must deal with the reality that they were wrong – dead wrong. And as we all know, politicians simply can’t be seen as being “wrong” about anything.” This is especially true when it comes to the issue of race and, to a lesser extent, sexual preference. There is only one “right way” to see these issues and that is blame whites for hating minorities and straight males for hating gays. Perish the thought that a black, gay actor would try to hoax them.


But it happened, and candidates who came out strongly supporting Jussie Smollett without any evidence and numerous questions about the incident have to say something.


As of now, they are silent.


In particular, three Democratic presidential candidates made especially strong statements on the fake attack.








Washington Examiner:


Democratic presidential candidates jockeying for position in 2020 had a lot to say when actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked in Chicago by two white men who shouted racist and homophobic slurs as they beat him.


But they were silent on Saturday, when law enforcement sources said that Chicago Police believed “Empire” star Smollett, 36, who is gay, paid two black men to set up the assault. Police arrested the men, who are brothers from Nigeria, on Wednesday but released them Friday after discovering “new evidence.”


A Chicago police spokesman said: “We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation.” He added that police wanted to speak to Smollett again.


Incredibly, some journalists are excusing these responses as “acceptable” – despite the titanic smear against their political opponents that was based on zero evidence.


Twitchy:


A lot of tweets from politicians and celebrities wishing to get in on the story haven’t aged well, and Caleb Hull passed around a few screenshots from Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker, who called the alleged attack “a modern-day lynching.”


Broadcast journalist Shawn Reynolds, though, has volunteered to play defense for the Democrats, arguing that everything they said was a completely acceptable response at the time.


Given the information at the time, these are completely acceptable responses. If these were posted in the last 5 minutes, it would be entirely different. https://t.co/DChdlRQfo7


— Shawn Reynolds (@ShawnReynolds_) February 17, 2019


Not surprisingly, Reynolds has since deleted that tweet. But the responses are telling:










A presidential candidate cannot use that defense. It would be tantamount to admitting that you react without thinking – which, to be sure, they did. 


It’s not likely that any of these candidates, or any other politician, will be hurt by their initial reaction to the Smollett incident. They will either maintain silence or use the standard “both sides are wrong” argument. It’s sickening to contemplate, but the outrageous pandering to minorities represented by this incident – where reason and logic take a back seat to raw emotionalism – demonstrates an unfitness for high office.


 


 


 


 




via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/