MSNBC’s Most Recent Racist Rant (Dave Rubin)

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report shares a clip of MSNBC host Tiffany Cross using her show the Cross Connection to condemn ESPN host Sage Steele, Van Jones, and Carlos Watson for not being “real” black voices and accuse them of internalized racism. Their crime was simply not having the correct official black opinions that Tiffany thinks all black people should have.

They Are Bull Connor 1960’s Style Bigots (Jason Whitlock)

Jason Whitlock and Tucker Carlson discuss two white students who were asked to leave a “multicultural centre” at ASU: “I want to tip my hat to the young men, because this is appalling.”

Biden Campaigning for Newsome (Rose McGowan Bombshell)

California gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder tells voters why he should replace Gavin Newsom as governor.

Here is the FULL Rose McGowan statement and Larry Elder presser.

  • Yesterday, Rose McGowan alleged that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D-CA) wife tried to suppress her claims against Harvey Weinstein, and endorsed Larry Elder.

Monkey Mask Wearing White Woman Attacks Larry Elder

THE FIVE (update)

Democrats, the media ignore attack on the California gubernatorial candidate; ‘The Five’ reacts

“If a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.” — POST MILLENNIAL 

(Continuing)

Owens slammed mainstream media for failing to report on the incident and said if roles were reversed and a conservative woman were to throw eggs and attack a black Democrat candidate there would have been extensive coverage.

“If this was on the other side, if a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.”

“We need to find out exactly who this woman is,” Owens continued, host of the Candace Owens Show on Daily Wire.

“She needs to be arrested and charges need to be brought because this is absolutely criminal and disgusting, and it might be racist. I’m unsure why she was wearing the monkey mask. I have no idea why she was wearing it, but I’d like to see more information about that,” Owens fired back.

Republican candidate Larry Elder has been at the on the receiving end of racist attacks by media in the state of California since announcing his campaign for governor. Elder hopes to replace Governor Gavin Newsom in the upcoming recall election on September 14.

Democrats Bring Us Back To Segregation | Civil War 2.0

If you don’t know about this, there is a bit more at THE DAILY WIRE. But let me say, this is exactly what the Left/Democrats want: division and non-unity. More on this in a sec.

In this next example from JAMES LINDSEY — and I could offer hundreds — is a jaw dropper (click it to expand the graphic):

Yipes!

It is disturbingly common for American colleges,

public and private, to offer segregated dorms,

graduation ceremonies, and events.

(NATIONAL REVIEW)

This is unbelievable. Leftist students (and white supremacists) think segregation is just great. Meanwhile, in the decent and civilized world, the rest of us know it isn’t. Thanks for enlightening us, Ami Horowitz.

I think the end of this FIRST THINGS article captures a good portion of the root of the issue….

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.

Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)

…mans yearning to fill a God shaped vacuum:

This is, indeed, the collapse of liberalism in race relations, but to understand it we have to dig deeper than racial reasons. Yes, the students spotlight the persistence of racism, they envision a society free of discrimination, and they want more people of color in the professional ranks, all of which are consistent with the liberal outlook of Martin Luther King, Jr. But that only begs the question of why the students’ dissatisfaction now takes a separatist path.

The answer lies in plain sight, but it’s hard to absorb because it gainsays everything higher education has been doing to support historically disadvantaged students. In the hundreds of demand lists, open letters, and petitions that groups have issued since the upheaval at the University of Missouri in fall 2014, the students always single out a heritage of their own that should be passed on by teachers like them. (You can find 80 of these lists here.) College officials take this as a plea for more multiculturalism, more diversity, but that’s not what the students are saying. They’ve seen how multiculturalism works in practice: a token here, a smattering there, this culture and that one, none in a sustained way.

They want something stronger and deeper than that, a more meaningful relationship to the past that will strengthen their identities. Colleges now have “diversity” course requirements that are presumed to evince the respect and “inclusivity” that the officials promised students of color during recruitment times, but the students aren’t impressed. They don’t want to share space with other heritages. They want antecedents that are uniquely theirs, events and art that they can claim as special to them, nobody else. They want their own stories, their own roots. No Melting Pot for them and no Rainbow Coalition, either. Re-segregation is an escape from the old white supremacy and the new diversity as well.

That this apparent regression should be led by the very figures diversity policies were supposed to support must be a shock to college leaders. I’m sure they believe they’re doing all they can, that nobody has more sympathy for the historically disadvantaged than they do. They don’t know what they’ve done wrong, what more they could do to advance diversity and display racial awareness.

In this way, they only reveal the limits of the liberal-diversity outlook. For we should see the motives behind the protests and the calls for re-segregation in universal terms—not racial terms. These students want grounds and foundations, reassuring origins and forebears. They need a solid world and a momentous history and an enchanted reality. This is nothing new, but the need has become acute in the twenty-first century, in good part because liberalism has managed to expel conservatism so thoroughly from the lives of American adolescents. Put yourself in the psyche of the 19-year-old just arrived at college and ask, “What do I have to solidify my fledgling life?”

Chances are that you don’t have religion. You don’t have much patriotism, either, the kind of love that lets you say with pride, “I’m an American!” and gain strength from that loyalty. Moreover, you don’t have an assuring sense of neighborhood, not with the Internet having made so many of your social interactions virtual. Needless to say, the pop culture you enjoy doesn’t align you with any venerable traditions, and the consumerism flooding your iPhone turns you into just that, a consumer.

You have a rootless, floating existence, the only Big Picture being Achievement, Success, Health, Safety. No Gods, no glorious past, no community, no voices of the dead, no thirst for greatness, only a soulless pursuit of degrees and jobs—that’s all college offers.

But “the soul has needs that must be satisfied,” Tocqueville said, and diversity isn’t enough. Students of color in a separatist mindset are but the most overt example of the plight of Generation Z, young Americans entering the world without the support systems they need, urged to be free and independent and self-creating, but in truth, yearning for home and faith and belonging and an inheritance.

A segregated dormitory will give these youths a common experience, a tradition that surrounds them and heartens them. Or at least that’s what they assume. I don’t believe it will work out that way. The ensuing culture of the color-dorm will be just as historically shallow and artistically vulgar as most other youth communities, but it’s the thought that counts. Students of color are telling college leaders, “We don’t want your commiseration—we don’t want your liberalism—we want to be alone.” If this desire is not answered soon, and with something very different than diversity initiatives, the hostility is going to get worse.

Bad Faith

 How post-60’s liberalism created the Bad Faith we see in America today.

LEGAL INSURRECTION

“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho concurring opinion: “Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.”

[….]

In a concurring opinion (starting at page 22 of the pdf.) Judge Ho wrote in part (emphasis added):

I concur in the judgment and in all but Section III.A of Judge Haynes’s opinion. With respect to the intentional discrimination claim, we all agree that this case turns on geography, not race. With respect to the disparate impact claim, we all agree that remand is appropriate. I write separately to explain why I share Judge Jones’s concerns about unelected agency officials usurping Congress’s authority when it comes to disparate impact theory.

Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination—not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001) (“[§ 2000d] prohibits only intentional discrimination,” not “activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups”).

There’s a big difference between prohibiting racial discrimination and endorsing disparate impact theory. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 78 (1994) (disparate impact is “a significant leap away from” intentional racial discrimination). It’s the difference between securing equality of opportunity regardless of race and guaranteeing equality of outcome based on race. It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory. Compare Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have A Dream: Address to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (Aug. 28, 1963) (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”), with Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Anti-Racist 18 (2019) (“A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.”); see also ‘When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.’ Discussing Race, Gender and Mobility, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2018), available at NYTs

Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite: It forces us to look at race—to check for racial imbalance and then decide what steps must be taken to advance some people at the expense of others based on their race. But racial balancing is, of course, “patently unconstitutional.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 723 (2007). Accordingly, “serious constitutional questions . . . might arise” if “[disparate impact] liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.557, 594–96 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).

***

So these are not frivolous concerns of discrimination that we’re talking about here. In fact, for disparate impact advocates, requiring discrimination may not be a problem—it may be the whole point. To quote one leading critical race theorist, “[t]he only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” and “[t]he only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi, supra, at 19.

***

It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That’s why we have laws on the books, like Title VI, that simply forbid the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race”—no matter what our intentions. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part)….

***

So public officials may sincerely believe that race-conscious policies are beneficial rather than corrosive. But the American people have never been the blindly trusting sort. Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.

“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. When that day comes, those of us attacked for speaking out for equality without regard to skin color will be vindicated, and those demanding race-based outcomes will be shamed.

That time may be years away, however, and in the meantime, tremendous damage to the fabric of the country will have been done.

Totalitarian Ideology Taking Hold of Portland (via Educatoors)

Dennis Prager reads from an exceptionally long, but well-worth your full attention, article by Christopher F. Rufo entitled The Child Soldiers of Portland via THE CITY JOURNAL.

Some other recent uploads via Armstrong and Getty confirm this craziness:

#Wokism, Seth Rogan Style (Armstrong & Getty)

In an excellent Armstrong and Getty Show, audio of Seth Rogan as well as a refutation of critical race theory by Allen Guelzo on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum:

  • Allen Guelzo joined The Story with Martha MacCallum on Fox News to discuss the dangers of using critical race theory in school curriculums. Dr. Allen Guelzo is a visiting scholar in The Heritage Foundation’s Simon Center for American Studies and a Princeton University professor and acclaimed scholar of American history. (YOUTUBE)

Police Are Racist Against Whites (Using Leftist Logic)

(Using the Left’s thinking)

  • How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year? 9.
  • How many unarmed whites were killed by cops last year? 19.

(Washington Post)

Ergo, cops are racist against white considering black [mainly young me] commit about 50% of all homicides. In Los Angeles, blacks commit 44 percent of all violent crime but make up 9 percent of the population.  In St. Louis, blacks are less than a third of the population but commit 90 percent of all homicides. In New York City, blacks commit about three quarters of all shootings although they’re 23 percent of the population.

Even if you allow the higher numbers — In 2020, the police fatally shot 18 allegedly unarmed blacks [24 whites] (unarmed being defined extremely loosely to include suspects grabbing an officer’s gun or fleeing in a car with a loaded pistol on the seat) — that represents 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide in 2020, and an infinitesimal percentage of the 40 million blacks in the U.S. If the police ended all fatal shootings tomorrow, it would have a negligible effect on the black death-by-homicide rate, which is 13 times higher than the white death-by-homicide rate for decedents between the ages of ten and 43.

Want More Evidence That Police Are Racist Towards Whites?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, police killings of blacks declined almost 80% from the late ’60s through the 2010s, while police killings of whites have flatlined. A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Last year, according to The Washington Post, the police killed nine unarmed blacks. They killed 19 unarmed whites. In recent years, about 50 cops have been shot and killed annually in the line of duty. So, more cops are killed each year than are unarmed black suspects.

And yet they mow down white people!

Need More Evidence?

The youngest black professor ever to receive tenure at Harvard and recipient of an economics prize for “most promising American economist under 40” has just upended the conventional wisdom on police shootings.

There is no racial bias when officers fire on suspects, according to a new study by Prof. Roland Fryer – black suspects are actually less likely to be shot than other suspects.

The study looked at more than a thousand shootings in 10 major police departments, The New York Times reports. Fryer and student researchers spent 3,000 hours putting together data from police reports in Houston, Austin, Dallas and Los Angeles, as well as Orlando, Jacksonville and four other Florida counties.

Fifteen years of shootings (2000-2015) revealed these results:

In officer-involved shootings in these cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias.

When Fryer looked at Houston individually – because its police gave them reports for arrests “when lethal force might have been justified” – he found that

in tense situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot a suspect if the suspect was black. This estimate was not very precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But, in a variety of models that controlled for different factors and used different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.

(COLLEGE FIX)

And yet, they shoot whites more than blacks.

Using the Left’s logic, case closed.

Obviously I do not think police are “racist” in any systematic way. But that isn’t the point in this post.

Joe Biden’s Big Lie (Combo: A & G | Chris Christie | Hugh Hewitt)

I was up early this morning and had had some idea of this upload… so here it is in the time allotted before work. (See previous slam by LARRY ELDER as well as ARMSTRONG and GETTY)

From THE FEDERALIST:

….Amid a barrage of “reporting” and commentary on the law—including outlandish and false statements from President Biden, who said it amounted to “Jim Crow in the 21st century” and called the law “sick” and “un-American”—it has been nearly impossible to find any straight news articles that describe, in simple and dispassionate terms, what the Georgia law actually does.

It would not be hard to write such a story if any news organizations cared to do so. As it happens, the Heritage Foundation has posted one of the few articles that simply describes what the law does in an effort to correct the false corporate media narrative that this is a “voter suppression” law.

Contrary to what has been reported by The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and many other corporate outlets, the Georgia law doesn’t contain any onerous voter ID requirements. It simply replaces a shoddy signature match system with a voter ID system, and provides that any Georgia resident can get a state ID for free if he doesn’t already have one (97 percent of registered voters in Georgia already do).

Also contrary to widespread reports, the law doesn’t eliminate drop-boxes for mail-in ballots. Such drop-boxes didn’t exist in Georgia prior to last year; they were an ad-hoc pandemic measure. The bill simply codified them into law, providing a certain number of drop-boxes for every county.

The law also doesn’t ban drinking water while waiting in line at the polls, it simply prohibits political groups from distributing food and water at polling places to prevent efforts to influence voters.

And on and on. In reality, Georgia’s voting law is a ho-hum tweaking of state voting laws. But in the phantasmagoria of corporate media, it’s the new Jim Crow. Major corporations have committed to this fantasy, publicly denouncing the law, intentionally mischaracterizing what it does, and in the case of Major League Baseball, which pulled its All-Star Game out of the state, taking concrete actions.

Other corporations have settled for issuing intentionally misleading statements. Delta and Coca-Cola, two of the largest employers in Georgia, came out against the law last week. Coca-Cola’s chief executive James Quincey said the new law “makes it harder for people to vote, not easier.” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said more or less the same thing.

Both of them are wrong — and not as a matter of interpretation or rhetoric. They are factually, objectively wrong. The bill does not make it harder for anyone to vote. Period. Any assertions that it does make voting harder would be treated as lies or errors of fact in a reality-based media world.

But we don’t have a reality-based news media, so corporations feel no need to be reality-based. On Monday, United Airlines declared, “Legislation that infringes on the right to vote of fellow Americans is wrong.” Yet there is no such legislation, in Georgia or anywhere else. It is not real. Yet United—and Delta, and Coca-Cola, and many others—are asking us to believe that it is.….

Filibuster Hypocrisy: Biden Supported It, Harris Led It, Dems Used It

DAVID HARRIS JR. expands on the facts mentioned above in the video:

According to the Democrats, anyone who uses the filibuster is a racist, If that is true then Democrats in the Senate. Last year alone the Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times. The KKK did not block anything. That must mean that the Democrats are much worse than KKK. I’m just kidding.

The reason that Democrats used the filibuster over 300 times is their ideology, not their racism.

Now, the Democrats want to kill the filibuster so that they will have a dictatorship in order to control the masses. The Democrats claim that slave owners were the people responsible for the filibuster.

But, that s a lie.

The filibuster was put in place in 1806, 55 years before the civil war. Slavery was the law of the land them. There was no need to put the filibuster in place due to slavery.

The filibuster is the only thing standing in the way for the Democrats to have total control of the government. That should scare you and it is a dangerous thing for them. What happens when the Republicans take control with no filibuster?  They could make crossing our border a felony and anyone who aids them could be tried for aiding and abetting the illegal aliens. They could cut all funding for Planned Parenthood and other budget items.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020: Report

President Joe Biden has been increasingly critical of the Senate filibuster, calling it a Jim Crow relic and saying it has been widely abused despite Democrats using it over 300 times in 2020, compared to once by Republicans.

    • “After @POTUS @JoeBiden denounced the rampant abuse of the filibuster last year, we did some digging,” Fox News anchor John Roberts tweeted Friday. “Republicans used it once. Democrats used it 327 times.”

Remember when Kamala Harris said she would get rid of the filibuster to pass AOC’s socialist, job-killing Green New Deal. (See more at DAILY CALLER)

BREITBART:

Harris said, “Here’s the thing. first of all, let me tell you, I think about this issue about this, my nieces are one-and-a-half and three-years old. When I look at those babies, and I think about what the world will be like in 20 years if we don’t act. I’m really afraid. And as it relates to those Republicans in Congress where I’ve now been for two and a half years, every one of those members needs to look at the babies, the grand babies in their life and then look in the mirror and ask themselves why have they failed to act?”

She continued, “On the issue of this climate crisis, I strongly believe this is a fight against powerful interests. and leaders need to lead. So lead, follow, or get out of the way. Get out of the way starting with Donald Trump. So yeah we need to work across the aisle. I’m going to tell you, I’ve been there two years and some months. I see no evidence of it. I kid you guys not. In the United States Congress, I was part of a committee hearing during which the underlying premise of the hearing was to debate whether science should be the basis of public policy. This on a matter that is about an existential threat to who we are as human beings.”

She added, “So again back to the United States Congress, here’s my point. if they fail to act as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.”