Democrat politics

Tucker Carlson: The modern Democratic Party is obsessed with race. But Americans care about things that matter

The Democratic Party is a diverse coalition, as they themselves will relentlessly tell you. But diversity doesn’t mean Democrats are united. Increasingly, it means a party defined by identity politics, and that means conflict. In the Democratic Party, skin color matters above all. Some colors are good. Some colors are bad. Your worth as a person depends on what you look like, as people on cable news will tell you. Symone Sanders, former national press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign said, “In my opinion, we don’t need white people leading the Democratic Party right now. The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in leadership and throughout the staff, at the highest levels.” Harry Enten, CNN analyst said, “I will point out, though, another white male … I’m very suspect of that. This year, going into a Democratic primary, with women doing well in the African-American base of the Democratic Party, I’m not sure it’s the time to nominate a white man.” And David Gregory, CNN said, “Joe Biden understands that this modern Democratic Party is going to sit back and say, “Really? We want a 76-year-old white man?” This is propaganda. America is not a racist country. America elected Barack Obama — twice. Overwhelmingly. Americans believe our national identity is not defined by skin color, thank God. Americans believe that people deserve equal opportunity and equal treatment, regardless of what they look like. The old Democratic Party claimed to believe all that, too. No longer. In the new Democratic Party, race means everything. During last week’s Democratic debates, each candidate took a turn denouncing America as immoral and bigoted. Pete Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, Ind. He knows that police in his city are doing their best to keep citizens safe. But saying that won’t get him the Democratic nomination. So on Thursday, Buttigieg attacked his own police department and his own city, as racist. “This is an issue that is facing our community and so many communities around the country,” he said. “And until we move policing out from the shadow of systemic racism, whatever this particular incident teaches us, we will be left with the bigger problem of the fact that there is a wall of mistrust put up, one racist act at a time. Not just from what’s happened in the past, but from what’s happening around the country in the present.” And so it went. When they weren’t promising to give America’s wealth to the rest of the world, Democrats attacked each other as bigots. Sen. Kamala Harris clearly believes she can become president by calling other people racist. She began with Joe Biden: “I’m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden. I do not believe you are a racist, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California, who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.” Oh barf. So, Kamala Harris is saying if you oppose busing — an insane and destructive policy that most black people say they hate — you’re a racist. That’s Kamala Harris’ position. Over on MSNBC, the guiltiest anchor on television cringed with self-loathing. What a good person you are, he said to Harris. You have every right to hate people like me for the way we look. Chris Matthews, MSNBC host said, “This is really important to people of all backgrounds and ethnicities — I don’t like the word race. How did you come out of that and not have hatred toward white people generally?” How destructive. This is the modern Democratic Party: All race, all the time. Americans don’t want this. They’re not racially-obsessed unlike the buffoons running for office and most other cable news shows. They care about jobs, security and fairness. The press insists on pitting black against white, Kamala Harris versus Joe Biden. But real life is far more complicated than that. For example, Biden’s strongest constituency is black voters. Harris’ base, meanwhile, is young, educated white liberals. In fact, many black voters appear skeptical of Harris. One recently tweeted that Harris’ life story doesn’t bear much resemblance to that of most African Americans, since her parents were from India and Jamaica. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted that observation. For that, CNN denounced him as a terrifying racist. But wait. It turns out that no less an authority than “Don L’mon” (Don Lemon) of CNN said virtually the exact same thing just a few months ago. Click here to watch for yourself, and read the rest of this article.

Kudos to Tucker for having the courage to call out these self-righteous, hypocritical losers in the Democrat party, and their accomplices in the dominantly liberal mainstream media, for this pathological obsession with race.  Don’t know about you, but I’m SO over this whole racial nonsense.  Thanks Tucker!

Joe Biden Calls for Gun Controls that Already Exist Following CO School Shooting

Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden called for gun controls that already exist following the shooting at Colorado’s STEM School Highlands Ranch. Biden was campaigning in Los Angeles Wednesday when asked about the shooting. The Guardian News quoted him saying: “The idea we don’t have universal background checks, the idea that we don’t outlaw a number of the weapons I was able to get outlawed in the crime bill, from large magazines to ‘assault weapons,’ this is crazy.” Biden listed three gun controls in response: 1. Universal background checks 2. “Assault weapons” ban 3. “High capacity” magazine ban. The problem with his suggestion is that Colorado already had universal background checks and a ban on “high capacity” magazines. They do not have an “assault weapons” ban but such a ban would have been of no consequence, as handguns were used in the STEM School shooting. Similar pleas for more gun control were issued Wednesday by Chelsea Handler, Alyssa Milano, Gabby Giffords, and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), although none of the pleas were coupled with calls for a specific gun control that does not yet exist.

And, of course, the dominantly liberal mainstream media won’t call out these brain trusts on their moronic comments.  Typical…

Analysis: Fact Check: No, Democrats — The Electoral College Was Not Created Because of Slavery

Democrats are complaining about the Electoral College once again. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who is running for president, told a CNN town hall on Monday night in Mississippi that she wanted to abolish it because it meant that candidates avoided states that were not “battleground states.” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) followed suit on Tuesday, telling CNN the Electoral College was “conceived in sin” to “perpetuat[e] slavery.” Fact Check: FALSE. They are both wrong. The Electoral College is an institution created by Article II of the Constitution for the election of the president. It provides that each state will appoint a certain number of “electors,” equal to the number of representatives it has in Congress (House plus Senate). The electors are to meet in their respective states and cast their votes for president. The votes from all the states are then counted in Congress, and the person who wins a majority is elected president. The primary purpose of the Electoral College was to serve as a brake on populism. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68: “A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment” necessary to select a person with “the requisite qualifications,” who would not use “low intrigue” or “little arts of popularity” to sway the masses of the people to support him. In other words, the Electoral College was designed as an anti-populist measure. Over time, the votes of the electors became more or less automatic — that is, all of a state’s electors generally cast their vote for whichever presidential candidate wins the majority of votes in that state. Few were particularly bothered about that, until George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. Even after that, Democrats did not change the system. Then came the election of Donald Trump, which Democrats still regard as illegitimate. Many cling to conspiracy theories that Trump somehow conspired with Russia to steal the presidency. The real (non-)secret was that Trump campaigned in Midwestern states Democrats had taken for granted. (Hillary Clinton did not even visit Wisconsin in the general election.) Warren, Cohen, and others now want to undo the system that allowed Trump to win. But their diagnosis of the problem is wrong. The reason candidates avoid states like California, Mississippi, and Massachusetts during the general election campaign has less to do with the Electoral College and more to do with the fact that they consistently choose one party over another. (Candidates do campaign vigorous in those states during the primary stage, and visit wealthy liberal states during the general election to hold political fundraisers.) It is true that a national popular vote would mean that voters who are in the minority in any given state would see their votes “count.” But it is untrue that candidates would therefore spend more time in rural states or small states. Quite the opposite: presidential campaigns would shift to focus on the country’s dense population centers, such as the New York tri-state area and Southern California. Elections would probably be less, not more, representative. As President Trump tweeted Tuesday: “With the Popular Vote, you go to … just the large States – the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power.” A national popular vote would also enable cheating. Democrats know the voting rules are loosest in states they control, like California. In the 2018 midterm elections, for example, they used “ballot harvesting,” in which activists delivered thousands of mail-in ballots for other people. The practice is illegal in many states, but Democrats legalized it in California. They want to run up the score there, then use their “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” to award other states’ electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Republicans cannot accept that. Then there is Cohen’s argument about slavery. He claims that the Electoral College was preferred by southern states because it allowed them greater clout than a national popular vote. Northern states could, theoretically, allow all of their adult residents to vote (though few did at the time). Southern states denied slaves the right to vote — but were allowed to count them, due to the infamous three-fifths compromise, in the size of their congressional delegations. That is part of the history of the Electoral College — even after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, when Democrats in the South continued to restrict the right of blacks to vote until the latter half of the twentieth century. But that is not the reason the Electoral College was created, and at this stage it has no effect whatsoever on the way we elect presidents. (Arguably, it is Democrats today that want to disenfranchise black voters, and other citizens, by counting illegal aliens in the Census toward the apportionment of congressional representatives to the states.) If anything, the current system favors the Democrats, because they are virtually guaranteed to win New York, California, and other large “blue” states with large numbers of electoral votes. (And it is quite possible that if the Electoral College functioned as originally designed, the electors would have stopped Trump from taking office.) The Electoral College is clumsy and archaic. But its replacement would likely be worse. The simple reason Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College is to rig the system so that they cannot lose. It is self-interest masquerading as civic virtue.

Exactly!!  And well said, Joel.  Joel B. Pollak is the author of that outstanding history lesson, and providing such great insight and perspective.  Joel is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.      🙂

Incoming House Democrats Ready Bill to Criminalize Private Gun Sales

The incoming Democrat House majority is readying legislation to criminalize private gun sales. Ironically, the push comes nearly 227 years to the day after private gun ownership was hedged in by the Founding Fathers via the Second Amendment, which was ratified on December 15, 1791. Politico reports that Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) is spearheading the current gun control push through “universal background” legislation. Such checks criminalize private gun sales, making it illegal for a neighbor to sell a firearm to his neighbor, a friend to his lifelong friend, and even a father to his son. Under the Democrats’ plan, a background system like that in California would require a gun seller to seek government permission for any sale or transfer of a firearm. Such a system was put in place in California in the early 1990s and has failed to prevent some of our nation’s most heinous mass public attacks. Nevertheless, Thompson expects to push his gun control bill within “the first 100 days” of the new Congress. Incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has already assured his colleagues that he will move the bill “very quickly” once it is introduced. The criminalization of private gun sales would not have stopped a single 21st century mass shooting, as nearly every mass shooter bought his firearms at retail via a background check. The exceptions to this norm are the two or three mass shooters who stole their guns.

The good news is that such a bill wouldn’t pass through the (still) GOP-controlled Senate.  And, even if it did, President Trump would likely NOT sign it into law.  THIS is the kind of fascist, extreme-liberal nonsense we can look forward to in the coming two years.  Buckle up kids!  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride..

White liberals ‘patronize’ minorities: study

White liberals present themselves as less competent when addressing minorities, while conservatives use the same vocabulary no matter what the race of their audience, according to a newly released study. Yale and Princeton researchers found that both white Democratic presidential candidates and self-identified liberals played down their competence when speaking to minorities, using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in how white conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, spoke to white versus minority audiences. “White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent,” according to the study’s abstract. Cydney Dupree, Yale School of Management assistant professor of organizational behavior, said she was surprised by the findings of the study, which sought to discover how “well-intentioned whites” interact with minorities. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left—that white conservatives are racist—while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites. The paper, which is slated for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, first examined speeches by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to mostly white and mostly minority audiences dating back 25 years. Ms. Dupree and Princeton’s Susan Fiske analyzed the text for “words related to competence,” such as “assertive” and “competitive,” and “words related to warmth,” such as “supportive” and “compassionate.” “The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences,” said the Yale press release. “The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates.”

Just pause and let that all sink in..  We have a bunch of liberal professors from 2 spectacularly liberal elitist institutions of higher learning do a study, and their saddened to learn through their arduous research something the rest of America has known for years; that white liberals patronize minorities.  Imagine that!     🙂

Tucker Carlson: Accepting election outcomes you don’t like is something only Republicans are required to do

It’s been more than a week since the last votes were cast in the 2018 midterms, that was last Tueday. but still several key races remain unresolved. In the state of Florida, a recount is ongoing, and we’ll have more on that in a moment. It’s a pretty weird story. But perhaps strangest of all is what’s happening in Georgia. The race for Georgia governor was tight for months, you probably followed it, but it finished in the end pretty much exactly where the polls predicted it would finish: The Republican Brian Kemp defeated Democrat Stacy Abrams by about one and a half percentage points. In a big state, that is an awful lot of votes. For reasons she hasn’t really explained though, Stacey Abrams has refused to accept those results. Her allies are now claiming the election was stolen. Here’s what some of them are saying: OHIO SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D): If Stacy Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it. It’s clear. It’s clear. NEW JERSEY SEN. CORY BOOKER (D): Stacey Abrams’s election is being stolen from her, using what I think are insidious measures to disenfranchise certain groups of people HILLARY CLINTON: I know Stacey well, she was one of my really strong surrogates in the campaign. If she’d had a fair election, she already would have won. Election fraud! That’s what they’re saying. — By the way, is there anyone more fraudulent than Cory Booker? Think about that. But back to election fraud. It’s a serious charge. And it’s telling that nobody making that charge has provided any evidence that it actually happened. No detail at all. Most remarkable of all though is that Hillary Clinton is one of the voices in this chorus. We keep track and we remember Hillary’s view just two years ago. Here’s what she thought of losing candidates who claim the election is rigged in October 2016: “That’s horrifying! You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims, whatever it is, it’s rigged against him. … That is not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around for 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections. We’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. … He is denigrating, he’s talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled.” She’s appalled. You got to accept the outcomes you don’t like. But it turns out that accepting outcomes you don’t like is something only Republicans are required to do. Richard Nixon had an entire presidential election stolen from him by JFK in 1960. Liberals applauded when Nixon chose not to contest that election. But Democrats do not apply the same standard to themselves. When Democrats lose, there is always a reason, a reason that has nothing to do with alienating voters or getting fewer votes. It’s Putin rigged the machines. The Macedonians hacked Facebook. Roger Stone sent unapproved tweets, or the perennial favorite, you’re racist, all of you who didn’t vote for us, you’re racist, you’re immoral bigots. And, of course, that’s what we’re hearing once again now. By the way, it’s a lie. America is not a racist country. It’s a kind and decent country. But the left hopes that by calling you enough names they’ll bully you into giving them more power. They always try that and sometimes it works. It might work this time. The question is what’s the cost to the country?

Exactly..  Well said, Tucker.  Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET).

Opinion/Analysis: Why Hillary Clinton will never be president

An op-ed published this week in the Wall Street Journal has ignited rumors of a potential 2020 presidential run for Hillary Clinton. The piece discusses the different iterations of Hillary Clinton the public has seen over the past 30-plus years. But none of those versions became president and no matter how many times Clinton tries to reinvent herself she cannot change who she is at the core: inauthentic, unlikable and out of touch. According to the op-ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein – headlined “Hillary Will Run Again” – Hillary Clinton 1.0 was a “universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand” in 1994 when she was first lady. Hillary Clinton version 2.0 was a moderate when she successfully ran for the Senate and again when she lost in the Democratic presidential primaries to then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. In 2016, Clinton 3.0 was a progressive who moved further to the left because of her challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. And Hillary Clinton version 4.0 will run for president in 2020 by returning to her roots as a progressive, Penn and Stein predict. But the fact there have been so many different versions of Clinton is precisely the problem. Clinton is inauthentic. Former Obama adviser and Democratic strategist David Axelrod nailed this point about Clinton and the 2016 election when he said: “Authenticity is a big factor and a leading indicator for candidates, and they have to be comfortable in their own skin. There is no one wishing that Donald Trump would speak his mind. Hillary Clinton has always been allergic to revealing herself, and when she does talk, it comes out through a political filter.” Clinton’s authenticity has also taken a major hit over the years because she changes policy positions depending on where the political winds are blowing. This gives the perception that she is not rooted in any core beliefs. One issue that probably hurt Clinton most in the rust belt was trade. As secretary of state in 2012, she backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, even calling it the “gold standard.” However, she changed her position in 2016 while under scrutiny from Bernie Sanders on the left and candidate Trump on the right. Clinton also has a likability problem. In an interview with the Washington Post, Democratic pollster Peter Hart put it this way: “I bring it down to one thing and one thing only, and that is likability.” The likability issue was also brought up during a 2008 Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, when the moderator said voters were impressed by Clinton’s resume but were “hesitating on the likability issue.” Obama famously quipped that she was “likable enough” during the exchange. Clinton is also out of touch. Her surprise pit stop to an Ohio Chipotle in 2015 while on the campaign trail demonstrated this. Despite it being a great opportunity for pictures with customers, she wore dark sunglasses in the restaurant. She couldn’t be bothered to speak with anyone. Clinton’s infamous “basketful of Deplorables” comment also underscores this point. In response to her comment calling his supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic,” Trump responded that Clinton showed “her true contempt for everyday Americans.” Other gaffes also speak to Clinton’s disconnect with voters. In response to a question from ABC’s Diane Sawyer in 2014 about her $200,000 speaking fees, Clinton said that she and President Bill Clinton “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” President Clinton received a $15 million advance for his memoir after leaving the White House and then-Sen. and former first lady Hillary Clinton received $8 million in a deal for her memoir. In what will likely be a crowded 2020 Democrat primary field, Hillary Clinton would not stand out. Her time has come and gone. She is a relic of the past. No amount of pollsters, speechwriters, or consultants can change who she is – and that is why she will never be president.

Agreed…and well said, Lisa.  Lisa Boothe is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Hillary has no core beliefs.  And a great percentage of Americans absolutely despise her.  Her likability” factor is in the toilet.  When she said she was “dead broke,” a LOT of us said.. “can I please be that ‘dead brok?'”   Unreal…   Hillary is a self-righteous, arrogant, sanctimonious, entitlement-minded, liberal elitist.  She changes her “views” based on what’s currently popular.  And, she’s a brazen hypocrite.  Remember when she said we all need to believe “all women” who make sexual allegations against men?  Yet, when such very credible accusations were leveled at her husband, she fought them tooth and nail.  In other words, to her..  Believe all sexual accusations made by women, unless they’re against my husband.  So much for the #MeToo movement, lol.  Hillary made her 2016 campaign all about herself.  Donald Trump made it about “the forgotten men and women”..and to “Make America Great Again.”  That was the difference.  Heck, the man only takes $1 a year for his salary (because he has to), and donates the rest of his presidential salary to charity and federal government agencies like Health and Human Services (it rotates each quarter).  In a million years, Hillary would NEVER do that.  Remember when she got caught stealing the china out of the White House when the Clintons left it in 2001?  They had to go back and recover the china and other items and return them to the “People’s House.”  Lisa is right..  Hillary’s time has come and gone, and America has had enough of her.  But, hey..  If the Dems are dumb enough to renominate that nauseating bitch, then they deserve to lose….again.