Democrat politics

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.

Jerry Nadler: Democrats Will ‘Impeach Kavanaugh,’ Investigate Trump

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee who is favored to be the next House Judiciary Committee chairman, revealed in a phone conversation that Democrats plan to “impeach Kavanaugh” and investigate President Donald Trump for alleged Russian collusion. The Federalist reported that Nadler was riding an Amtrak Acela train to Washington, DC, Wednesday to meet with his congressional staff and House Judiciary Committee staff when he revealed in a phone call with a friend the details of House Democrats’ plans for the next two years. “We’ve got to figure out what we’re doing,” he explained on the call before he began discussing House Democrats’ plans to investigate and later impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for alleged perjury. The first option, he explained, was to investigate the FBI for how they handled the uncorroborated claims from several women claiming Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them. “They didn’t even do a half-ass job,” he said. “They didn’t interview 30 witnesses who said ‘Interview me! I’ve got a lot to say!’” He then brought up Democrats’ Plan B, which was to go after Kavanaugh himself, because “there’s a real indication that Kavanaugh committed perjury.” Nadler claimed Kavanaugh perjured himself when someone asked him “at a committee hearing under oath” about an article in the Atlantic revealing the allegations of a third accuser, and he denied hearing about it. The New York Democrat was actually referring to a different claim, which has been debunked, that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he denied knowing about an allegation involving Deborah Ramirez until the New Yorker published a story on it. “The worst-case scenario — or best case depending on your point of view — you prove he committed perjury, about a terrible subject and the Judicial Conference recommends you impeach him. So the president appoints someone just as bad,” Nadler told the caller. Nadler added that Democrats do not plan to carry out their investigation quietly. “You can’t do it quietly because word will get out that the FBI or the committee is reaching out to witnesses,” he said. The top House Democrat then moved on to the subject of investigating Trump, which he said would be branded as holding Trump “accountable” for his actions when in reality Democrats plan to go “all in” depending on the outcome of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. After Nadler arrived in D.C., he tweeted Wednesday afternoon that “Americans must have answers” as to why Trump removed Attorney General Jeff Sessions from his position. Nadler, who has compared Russian meddling to Pearl Harbor, called for Sessions’ resignation once before in March 2017. The New York Democrat’s conversation comes after other Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have already issued calls to protect Mueller’s investigation into Trump.

We all knew this was coming when Tuesday night’s election results came in.  Once the Dems take control in of the House inlate January, this is the kind of nonsense we’ll have to endure….for two years.

Opinion/Analysis: Democrats aren’t the party of women — they’re the party of exploiting them for political gain

The despicable treatment now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh received at his Senate confirmation hearing proves conclusively that the Democratic Party is not the party of women – it is the party of exploiting women for political gain. In their eagerness to pander to women by saying absolutely anything that might win their votes, Democrats were even willing to throw out the centuries-old concept that is the foundation of our legal system: the presumption that we are all innocent until proven guilty. Democrats insisted that women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct should automatically be believed with absolutely zero evidence to back up their claims. Kavanaugh “bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., who as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee really ought to know better. OK, so will Coons pledge right now to immediately resign from the Senate if a woman he may never have even met comes forward and says – without any corroborating evidence or witnesses – that he sexually assaulted her decades ago? “There is no presumption of innocence…” insisted Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. That’s a truly scary statement that sounds like it could have been made at the Salem witch trials in the 1690s, when absurd accusations of witchcraft – primarily made by teenage girls – resulted in the conviction and hanging of 14 women and five men, plus the deaths of five people in jail. The statement of “no presumption of innocence” could also apply to the anti-communist crusade waged by Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wis., in the 1950s, when he accused hundreds of federal employees of being communists without evidence. And, of course, dictatorial regimes have a long history of imprisoning and killing their enemies in nations where there is no presumption of innocence. Who in their right mind would want this for America? If we toss out the presumption of innocence in our country – the way Democrats tossed it out for Kavanaugh – any one of us, regardless of our gender, could be arrested tomorrow and locked up indefinitely or even executed without evidence. One liberal celebrity, actor and comedian Patton Oswalt, took the statements about taking away Kavanaugh’s presumption of innocence to their logical conclusion, tweeting: “My verdict is GUILTY. Across the board. Don’t even need to hear the cases!” But while Democrats said Kavanaugh was flat-out guilty until proven innocent, they have reacted very differently to more credible accusations of sexual misconduct when a Democrat was the one being accused. A current example of this is Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who is also deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee. His former girlfriend has accused him of repeated verbal and physical abuse, including a time when he allegedly once pulled her from a bed by her ankle during an altercation in 2016. As evidence, the former girlfriend published a photo of a medical document that shows she had been in an abusive relationship with Ellison, and her son has also said he has seen the abuse on video. Ellison has denied any wrongdoing. What did the Democratic Party of Minnesota do in response to calls for accountability for Ellison? It hired an internal lawyer to investigate the allegations, and then predictably concluded that there was “no substantial evidence” of abuse. There’s only one catch – the lawyer doing the investigating is a partner of a law firm that has donated more than $500,000 to Democrats since 1998, including nearly $50,000 to Ellison himself. And now Ellison is running as the Democratic candidate for state attorney general in Minnesota. If he were a Republican, Democrats would be demanding he abandon his candidacy and resign from Congress – but because he’s a fellow Democrat he gets a free pass. Of course, dismissing credible allegations of reprehensible behavior is nothing new for the Democratic Party, which for nearly 30 years has done its level best to portray former President Bill Clinton as the sympathetic victim of some puritanical crusade. But Monica Lewinsky was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to accusations of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Clinton. Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and other women made claims against Clinton that go beyond the Lewinsky affair. Juanita Broaddrick claims that in 1978 Clinton met her at a hotel in Little Rock and violently raped her and bloodied her lip. Clinton finally had to admit: “Indeed I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact it was wrong.” But he denied allegations by other women. Despite all of this, Democrats still gush over the Clinton dynasty. The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Democrats routinely attack their female enemies, secure in the knowledge that they will face few, if any, repercussions from their mainstream media allies. Liberals have attacked conservative women online with explicit and inexcusable abuse. Even Kavanaugh’s 10-year old daughter was targeted by a left-wing editorial cartoon. As Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pointed out, all Democrats want is power – by any means necessary. At this point, it’s clear that the Democrats don’t really care about women. They only care about what women can do for them.

Agreed 100%, Candace.  For those who don’t know who Candace is..  She’s a black female conservative who is the communications director for Turning Point USA.  Outstanding!!    🙂

99.7 Percent of Donations from Hollywood Execs Go to Democrats

While Hollywood constantly preaches diversity, some of the entertainment industry’s most powerful and influential executives have given almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and left-wing PACs. According to The Hollywood Reporter, nearly 100 percent of the millions donated from the top executives in Hollywood went to Democrats or PACs working to elect Democrats. THR reports: “Of the more than $4 million in federal donations made by the top Hollywood executives and entertainers, 99.7 percent went to Democrats and Democratic-leaning political action committees or organizations, according to a Hollywood Reporter data review of Federal Election Commission records.” Only three members of this year’s THR 100 list donated to Republicans or Republican committees: Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels donated $5,000 to moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins; WarnerMedia CEO John Stankey gave $2,000 to both Tennessee Republican Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn and the National Republican Congressional Committee; and Viacom CEO Bob Bakish gave $1,500 to Republican Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson and $1,000 to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The report also notes that Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, donated over half a million dollars to the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC that works to get Democrats to win back the Senate. Bill Maher also donated $1 million to the Senate Majority PAC in August. Maher called for a recession in June if it would help get rid of President Trump. “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people but it’s either root for a recession, or you lose your democracy,” he said. It’s also A-list directors like Steven Spielberg and J.J. Abrams and the major Hollywood talent agencies that are lopsidedly donating to Democrats, THR reports. Talent agency management gave consistently and generously to Democrats. After Whitesell ($147,400 in total donations) and Emanuel ($120,400 in donations), CAA Managing Partner Bryan Lourd paced the field ($106,300 in donations), followed by ICM Partners Managing Director Chris Silbermann ($54,700) and CAA Managing Partner Kevin Huvane ($47,300). Directors have been among Hollywood’s most prolific donors, including Steve Spielberg ($549,000) and J.J. Abrams ($347,500). And indeed, many celebrities are getting involved in the midterms like never before. A report from the Washington Post last month indicated that Hollywood has so far given $2.4 million to largely Democratic candidates for the 2018 midterms, more than $1 million than they donated in 2016.

Rep. Steve Scalise: When Eric Holder, other Dems call for violence, that’s a direct threat to our democracy

This summer, California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters called on her supporters to harass cabinet officials. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that you “cannot be civil” with members of the Republican Party. And Wednesday, videotape was released of former Attorney General Eric Holder telling a Democratic audience at a campaign rally in Georgia on Sunday that they should “kick” Republicans when they perceive them as “going low.” Despite the continued reports of politically motivated threats or violence, Democratic Party leaders have worked to keep this anger burning and incite even more harassment and violence. Beginning with my own near-death experience at the hands of a deranged shooter who sought to assassinate a baseball field of Republicans, there is a growing list of violent or threatening actions taken against conservatives by Democrats. Ashley Kavanaugh, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s wife and his daughters received multiple credible threats. Dana Loesch, NRA spokeswoman, received death threats against her children on Twitter. Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., received such a threatening phone call that the man has now been indicted. Jamie Gardner, wife of Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., wife, received a text of a beheading after the vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh. Several Republican Senators had their personal information, including home addresses, posted to Wikipedia for threatening purposes by a Democrat House staffer. Congressman Clay Higgins (R-La.) received threatening phone calls that led to a man’s arrest. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kent., and his wife Kelly Paul have both received credible threats that have led to arrests. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and his wife, as well as White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, were chased out of restaurants. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted by protesters and harassed out of a DC restaurant. Rudy Peters, a Republican California Congressional candidate, was nearly stabbed while campaigning. My office has continued to receive threats against my life that have led to arrests. A female pro-life activist was violently assaulted by a man that has now been found guilty of eight counts of assault for this and similar incidents. And this list goes on. The threats and the violence have not let up and instead of seeing my Democrat colleagues calling for an end, there have been calls for their supporters to keep going, to do even more to threaten Republicans. As a survivor of a politically motivated attack, it is tragic to think this is an acceptable state of political discourse in our country. I refuse to stand for this and I will continue to call for an end to it. A healthy, strong democracy is not possible if anyone lives in fear of expressing their views. If this is going to stop, it must start with Democratic leaders, who need to condemn, rather than promote these dangerous calls to action. In America, we win battles at the ballot box, not through mob rule or intimidation. While it’s clear many Democrats refuse to accept the election of President Trump, if they want change, they need to convince people with their ideas and actually win elections, rather than call for violent resistance, harassment, and mob rule. As I see, working in Congress every day, it’s possible to agree without being disagreeable and address political differences in a civil manner. That’s an example leaders need to continue to set. Instead, when Democratic leaders like Eric Holder call for violence, that is a direct threat to our democracy. I hope he and others think long and hard about the world they are creating and the impact they are leaving on this country. As the oldest democracy, our country has long been heralded as the freest country in the world. It doesn’t feel so free if anyone lives in fear for holding or expressing a differing opinion. Let’s end this violence and return to civility before someone else gets hurt.

Agreed!  And well said, Steve.  Congressman Steve Scalise represents Louisiana’s first Congressional district and serves as the Republican majority whip. On June 14, 2017, he was shot by a deranged Bernie Sanders supporter while practicing with fellow Republicans for a Congressional baseball game. He nearly died, and underwent multiple surgeries before returning to the House on Sept. 28, 2017, to bipartisan applause.  Shame on Eric Holder, Hillary, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the many Democratic leaders who continue to promote mob violence.  And kudos to Congressman Scalise for calling them out.