The Lives of Black Babies Matter, Too

Over the last few weeks, in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, and its catalyst as the breaking point after many such incidents, humans are actually having some of the many difficult conversations I have said for over a decade that America needs to have.

I have often spoken of the woman who told me I needed to “get over” talking about slavery and its effects, because “some good things came out of slavery, like the food and the hymns.”

I have also talked about how the abortion movement is steeped in racism and eugenics. Now, it appears, in having these needful discussions, people are beginning to at least give credence to this notion.

Planned Parenhood, in past, has mentioned their racist past, but not until now, have they truly had to reckon with it. Do I believe they will give up the abortion business? Not by a longshot. It is far too lucrative for them. However, in making their discussions more open as they confront their origins, it caused me to, once again, put forth an effort to explain why my passion, as a Black woman, around this topic has me politically aligned with those who would protect life, and puts me at odds with many other African-Americans.

Here is what I posted today on Facebook:
“This is something I have said for over a decade. I’ve quoted her words extensively and my work to make her legacy known has branded me as racist because I am unashamedly pro-life. If Black lives do matter — and they do — they must matter in the womb.

Many of you know I am an avid Nestlé boycotter. In addition to many egregious and entitled actions, part of the charge laid at their feet is how they have told poor women in third world countries how they should “want to be like Western women.”

The same seduction is true in our communities of color with respect to life. The argument Sanger made to induce Black women into killing their children was how “merciful” it is.Finally, folks are becoming “woke,” on this issue. I urge you to consider this woman’s ties to the eugenics movement, her singling out of poor and, in particular, Black women, and the fact that she spoke to the Women’s Auxiliary of the KKK, all as supporting facts as to why I have said that abortion in the Black community is a racist construct.

It is hurtful to know that our people are experiencing attrition. Basic Fertility Replacement Theory states the Black community needs 2.1 births to remain viable as a people long-term. We are at 1.8.

Her colleague was Ernst Rudin. In fact, the parent company of the firm that produces our “morning after” pill, is a subsidiary of the company that produced the gas for the chambers in Germany. What stronger proof do people need for at least legitimately discussing these concerns, as we have these honest, painful, and necessary discussions about race?

Give a little grace to those of us who have continued to advocate for the destruction of this woman’s legacy. You may not agree with my politics, but I will continue to get this message out and support those who are truly dedicated to life, and those who will affirm the worth of Black lives, including those in the womb.”

Open Rebuttal to Harvard’s Elizabeth Bartholet (or When Homeschoolers Met Permit Patty)

This rant has been years in the making so bear with me. I need to set the stage for you, and then get to the main thrust of what finally tipped the scale for me.

I co-founded AACONS 12 years ago because I grew tired of people — mainly non-Blacks — congratulating me on the election of “my” president, Barack Obama. The underlying unspoken insinuation was, because we shared similar pigmentation, we must have a shared ideology.

Not too long after that, when discussing the debate about the terms “Black” v. “African-American,” a woman — again, not Black — on a page for conservatives of color, mind you — said, in essence, that “you all” need to “get over” slavery because “some good things came out of it, like the food and the hymns.”

Let me just park that for a moment and let that sink in.

Four hundred years of forced servitude, torture, rape, back-breaking, bone-wearying work, separating us from lands, children, mates, and you want me to focus on leftover food no one else wanted and the heartbreaking cries set to the music of our enslavement as “good things?” For whom?

I am not one for reparations, not by a long shot. As many people as we currently have in America with lineage back to slavery, even if I were a reparations kinda gal, it would be tantamount to a .30 credit from a bank or cable company that had to settle up with customers. It’s a gazillion dollars to the company, but little-to-nothing for the end-user wronged. Frankly, it would be an insulting pittance.

Further, I hear, “why talk about color at all . . . aren’t we all Americans?” Well, yes, we are. But, that doesn’t mean we have experienced life in the same way. That doesn’t mean I cannot be proud of my heritage (and, by the way, I am bi-racial). That doesn’t mean I haven’t experienced things that color my perception, or talk with others in my community that have similar experiences to mine that warrant discussion. Nor, does it mean, based on pigment alone, I think as others do, as in my illustration regarding President Obama above.

I’ve been called everything — from the left and the right – and, I’ve had it, so I am just going to let it all out here.

To the right: As I said in my podcast about the Black v. African-American debate, there is so much “White guilt,” that it makes a great number of people incapable of having rational conversation about the topic. For people who are not Black, people with no experience as to what African-Americans do, or do not, go through on a daily basis, the sheer optics of telling me, on my own page, how I should feel, seem to escape these folks.

“Be free thinkers,” they say. However, when I am, yet, don’t say what they think I should say, I am told I should not say it, feel it, think it, or, worst of all, I should “get over it.” This is wrong.

If I feel comfortable enough with you to let you into my private thoughts, to better educate you so that we can work together to effect change, then listen. Just listen. I’m certainly not asking for your opinion (unless I use phrases ending in question marks like “What do you think?”), nor am I asking you to “fix” anything.

I do not like the term “ally,” because – and, this may just be me — it still implies I need you to come alongside me — an educated, competent Black woman — to fix things for me so I can be heard.

Most of those who would use the phrase “ally” would fall on the political left, and now we come to what set me off today.

A White woman – and, believe me, I don’t normally use racial descriptors as I have on these pages, but to make this point, I must — at Harvard is accusing homeschoolers of fostering “White supremacy,” thus, society should ban the practice.

Again, I will just let that sit and percolate a bit. Do you honestly think, as a Black family, we are “White supremacists?”

In the whole 20+ years that we have homeschooled, we have encountered a handful of Black homeschoolers. This is in the very diverse, and very politically liberal area in which I live. A handful.

Did it occur to anyone that we might homeschool for reasons such as:

• People get our history wrong. Routinely. As above, if I can’t even have a conversation about slavery because folks feel guilty or need to “prove” they are not racist, what do you think their version of “Black History” looks like?

• God has been taken out of our schools. As a Christian family, God is central. That right there sets a lot of people off with “patriarchy” comments and “uneducated flat-earther” pejoratives. These are people who quote the Bible out of context, and, similar to those described above, appear to be tone-deaf to discussions about those not from the culture lecturing those from the culture, with ideas and thoughts that are not even accurately informed by the source material, the Bible.

• Not all socialization is good. I have heard that in this period of “social distancing” there were no school shootings during the month of March. Even before some of the school closures, this was the case. Why are there school task forces on bullying and cyberbullying? Because kids can be very cruel and no one knows this better than I, because, for three long and horrible years of my life, I was the kid bloodied, beaten, and bullied.

Of course, there are the oft-quoted “socialization” concerns (“socially awkward” is a term I’ve heard used against the homeschooling community many a time) cited by those against homeschooling. When my kids were smaller, we couldn’t go out to restaurants or in public without people stopping to tell us how amazing our kids were in politely ordering their own food, exhibiting good table manners, and interacting with the adults like servers, cashiers, other patrons that we came into contact with.

• I’ve never noticed anyone else raise this point online, but have you ever noticed in literature that if a protagonist is White, it’s never mentioned? Sometimes hair color or eye-color is discussed — think “titian-haired” Nancy Drew — however, the loud, sassy sidekick friend (never the protagonist themselves) is identified by skin color or even by race. “Her best friend, a gum-smacking African-American girl, with caramel-colored skin . . .” Or the “staff,” as in “the rotund, grandmotherly, Hispanic cook . . .” Black folks see this and we feel it. Why would we entrust the education of our children to a culture that truly does not see it?

Progressives will ban iconic “Little House on the Prairie” for a discussion about “Indians” (as they were called on the prairie), and continue to “whitewash” history by erasing monuments and other historical items. Where can the — yes, painful, but needed — conversations about race occur if everything is Kumbaya? Have we really solved the problem? Not if we are having the discussion I am having today.

I’m not a fan of having the Confederate flag flying in front of a building, but I do believe all of our history needs to be preserved — as it occurred – good, bad, and ugly, in a museum or similar setting. That includes leaving monuments intact.

• One size does not fit all. I have a kinesthetic learner with special challenges, a voracious reader, and one kid who is a hybrid of both styles. Thirty-plus kids in one room with one teacher espousing one style would not work for all of my children.

• Homeschooling works with their body clocks. I have one up at the crack of dawn and two who prefer the “crack of noon.” Traditional schools will not cater to their peak performance time.

• Three words: child-centered learning! My oldest got his Bachelor’s degree at the ripe old age of 20. He fell in love with robots at the age of six and pursued robotics from first grade all the way through high school. He taught Lego Robotics and stop-motion animation for 4-H. He was dual-enrolled (college classes while homeschooling), and got an A at 16 in Intro to C, a college-level course . . . all because these subjects interested him and motivated him to learn on his own.

My daughter has loved animals her whole life. She wanted to pursue veterinary medicine, but for a while thought perhaps she wanted to go into computer programming. She spent a summer at IBM and loved it. It finally gave her the confidence to speak in public, and though she ultimately chose veterinary medicine, she still holds that summer in her heart with fond memories and still chats with good friends she made. And, she was the only Black girl . . . not that it matters, but this is what we are discussing: a world-class education not often seen by those of us in the Black community. Who would begrudge us that?

My daughter now? She just entered her third quarter in college, after having made the Dean’s List in both of the first two.

My youngest, as mentioned, has special challenges. We adopted him — along with his sister — later in life, not as babies.

In a traditional setting, he would have been slapped in a Special Ed classroom, with someone who does not know him as I do. This child is thoughtful and can write well-developed essays that could make you weep if you knew what he had come through. He’s delivered sermons at church services and is the kid everyone loves. Oh, and he interns two full days a week at a wildlife rehabilitation facility . . . and, is well-loved there, too.

All three of my kids will spend time with babies just as easily as they do with the elderly, and do so with genuine enjoyment.

Yep. Sounds like a bunch of “White supremacists” to me. Not.

Since Professor Bartholet has let us all in on her opinions – for that’s what they are — about homeschoolers, let me lob a few “home truths” back at her:

The research shows that by every conceivable measure, homeschoolers outperform their traditionally-schooled peers. Black homeschooling has been the fastest segment of the homeschooling movement in recent years.

Dr. Brian Ray of NHERI says:

“Black homeschooled children scored, on average, 42 percentile points higher in reading, 26 percentile points higher in language, and 23 percentile points higher in math, than did their Black public-school counterparts.”

Those on the left talk about equality, yet our schools are the most segregated in cities controlled – for decades — by “progressives” yet our kids still cannot read or pass basic exit exams. I was supposed to stand by and let this happen? If you think that, you don’t know me.

The kind of “progressive” education espoused in the article have raised children who no longer engage in critical thinking. Everything is “offensive,” “racist,” or a “microaggression.”

The Harvard article posits that homeschooling parents have “24/7 authoritarian control” over their children, thus, setting the stage for rampant White supremacy. Perhaps Professor Bartholet can then explain why, in a traditional school setting, teachers “have authoritarian control” over children far more hours of the day than the parents who send them to these schools do, and that’s okay? That “teaching to the test” inextricably linked to funding isn’t a conflict of interest? Surely there’s no motivation there, right?

In fact, while researching our local Regional Occupation Program, I was told homeschoolers no longer qualified for fee-waivers because the district did not get the “per pupil” funding for my children. I countered that perhaps I should stop paying the taxes that funded them since I got no benefit from their programs.

I digress, however.

The argument put forth by Professor Bartholet is not a new one. It is eerily reminiscent of an argument made several years ago by President Barack Obama, ironically, during a time that his daughters attended the toney and expensive private school, Sidwell Friends:

“Kids start going to private schools, kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks, an anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.” [1]

Yet, Dr. Ron Paul says:

“A free society acknowledges that authority over education begins with the family. I am not saying that a free society grants that authority. I do not believe that such authority is delegated by society. But a free society acknowledges that families have that authority. To the extent that any society substitutes a source of authority over education to other than the family, it departs from liberty.” [2]

In a traditional educational model, math is racist, milk is racist, and “African-American Vernacular English” is a thing. Do these “educational snobs” not see the inherent “soft bigotry of low expectations?” You are saying lower the standards because, for the decades you have controlled inner-city public schools, you have failed our children.

When my daughter was 14, she was furious to hear that a New England fire department lowered the testing standards for advancement to get more people of color in higher positions. She said, “I don’t need anyone to dumb down a test for me. I can pass any test you throw at me.”

The Black-White achievement gap is not closing. When there is a choice between supporting children of color and teacher’s unions, educational elites choose the unions. Need proof? Look no further than the DC Economic Opportunity Scholarship Program. Established by a GOP-led Congress, minority children not only out-performed their traditionally-school counterparts, they out-performed the non-minority kids, too (let me translate into “liberal-ese” for you: these would be the “poor kids” Joe Biden said “are just as bright” as “White kids.” And, let me mention, he also said Barack Obama was the first Black person he’d met who was “clean” and “articulate.” Sorry, CornPop.)

According to The Heritage Foundation:

• The children with scholarships for the DC voucher program graduated at a rate of 21 percentage points higher than their counterparts without scholarships.

• The return on investment was $2.62 per dollar spent.

• Researchers stated, “In scientific terms, we are more than 99% confident that access to school choice through the Opportunity Scholarship Program was the reason students in the program graduated at these much higher rates.”

• 75 percent of Milwaukee Public School students graduated high school, compared to 94 percent of Milwaukee voucher students.

• Voucher students were more likely to graduate, had higher levels of college enrollment, were less likely to drop out of school, and overall, had greater levels of academic achievement than their public-school counterparts.

• Charter school students also had greater levels of academic attainment than students in traditional schools.

• Researchers stated, “Attending a charter high school is associated with statistically significant and substantial increases in the probability of graduating and of enrolling in college.”

Cato says:

• 11 of 12 random assignment studies found “statistically significant positive outcomes for students who won a spot in school voucher programs,“ including higher reading and math scores

• Competition seemed to improve public schools. In 22 of 23 empirical studies, public schools students improved performance after school choice began

Need more proof? What about the lawsuit in Los Angeles that alleged teacher’s unions’ tenure policies hurt minority children most?

In traditional school environments, parents have absolutely no rights and no say . . . but teachers and counselors do (hmmm, “authoritarian control”). Teachers and counselors who cannot possibly know – or love — my children as I do. Parents cannot “opt-out” of anything, nor are they needed to provide consent for invasive or life-altering decisions.

As hard-fought a victory as it was to get our schools desegregated, the very folks who spout the sort of rhetoric seen in this Harvard article have our Black children so confused, they actually want to segregate themselves again . . . on campus . . . away from the very people perpetuating these fallacies!

Now with COVID-19 and social distancing, all parents are teaching children at home (not necessarily “homeschooling,” but that’s a dissection for another day, perhaps). These are the parents posting memes all day about “day drinking” and going nuts. It’s so bad that these parents are being told they will “set their children back a generation” (while taking swipes at homeschoolers . . le sigh).

There are so many reasons we homeschool that have nothing to do with politics, and yet, many reasons that do, but not the politics people like Elizabeth Bartholet think.

I have raised my children to be free-thinkers. Sure, every parent has a worldview they pass along to their kids. My kids hold a mix of views. But, the very idea that they are free-thinkers is what I believe Professor Bartholet fears. She, and those like her, cannot control my thoughts, so she wants our children to be under the control of those who think as she does. For more on this, see The Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

So, before another “well-meaning” person from outside of our community tells me — yet again — what I should think, feel, or do, maybe talk to some actual Black homeschoolers outside of your echo chamber.

Oh . . . and maybe talk to your own admissions department, Professor Bartholet. Harvard seems to recruit homeschoolers like crazy.

[1] Speech by President Barack Obama, Georgetown University, May 12, 2015

[2] Paul, Ron. The School Revolution: A New Answer for Our Broken Education System. New York: Grand Central, 2013. 5-6. Print.

Larry O’Connor Show: Black Voices For Trump

Larry O’Connor interviewed Marie Stroughter, Advisory Board Member, Black Voices For Trump:

Motive Behind the Left’s Impeachment Attempts

I am not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, generally speaking. However, I find her reaction to the release of the transcript to the call President Trump made to Ukrainian President Zelensky to be spot-on:

“I think when you step outside of the bubble here in Washington and you get to where most folks are … I think most people reading through that transcript are not going to find that extremely compelling cause to throw out a president that won an election in 2016.

“And instead what I think most people will see is, ‘Hey, this is another move by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump,’ further deepening the already hyperpartisan divides that we have in this country.”

Ms. Gabbard, of course, is an extremely liberal congresswoman who referred to the president in the same interview as “corrupt” and “unfit to serve our country as president” She is also attempting to persuade Democratic voters to allow her to replace President Trump. It is unlikely she is politically motivated to defend Donald Trump.

Nor is Charlie Cook, publisher of [i] The Cook Political Report [/i], who tweeted “I don’t Tweet very much but reading transcript has moved me to comment. I was totally underwhelmed by the transcript. After the build-up, it was not much more inappropriate said than we hear from him in a typical week. This will not move malleable voters.”

I don’t Tweet very much but reading transcript has moved me to comment. I was totally underwhelmed by the transcript. After the build-up, it was not much more inappropriate said than we hear from him in a typical week. This will not move malleable voters.

— Charlie Cook (@CharlieCookDC) September 25, 2019

Yet, Democrats would have one believe that President Trump has committed an impeachable offense by asking President Zelensky for “a favor” by looking into possible corruption involving Hillary Clinton’s server and Joe Biden’s demand that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who was investigating Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

As Congresswoman Gabbard pointed out, it strains belief to think that most Americans would find anything President Trump has done in this regard as impeachable. Nor, I would add, does it seem credible to believe that every Democrat see anything here or in past impeachment attempts that rise to the level of “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors”, despite what they say to the contrary.

The reason for my speculation is that these attempts to impeach the president have so far been nothing but a steady stream of BS.

There was, for example, an attempt to impeach President Trump for firing James Comey in May of 2017. However, only months earlier both Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer expressed a lack of confidence in Mr. Comey’s ability to continue to lead the FBI.

There was the attempt to impeach President Trump for obstructing the Mueller Report. This effort continued even after Robert Mueller testified before Congress that his investigation was not “curtailed, stopped, or hindered.” In other words, there was no obstruction.

There is this current attempt to impeach President Trump for pushing President Zelensky into investigating Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden although President Zelensky himself says he was not pushed into anything.

There was even an argument that the president, whose net worth is reportedly about $3B, should be impeached for violating the Emolument Clause and profiting from his office by having Vice-President Pence stayed at a Trump golf resort.

I do not take seriously the notion that so many Democrats — many of whom possess enviable academic and legal credentials, so they can’t all be considered dunces — actually ever believed they had a legitimate case for impeachment against President Trump any more so than they ever thought that Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist.

The reasons given most often for why Democrats continue to put forth charges that they themselves do not believe are that they want to appease their increasingly Stalinistic base who want socialism now at all costs, or that they want to disrupt Trump’s reelection efforts.

Both are true. As Representative Al Green, a Democrat, said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get reelected.”

But perhaps there is another motivating factor behind these efforts to impeach the president. It is likely, in my opinion, that these efforts are part of a larger pattern we are witnessing — to an increasingly alarming degree — an effort to intimidate political opposition.

Recently Debra Katz, who represented Dr. Christine Blasey Ford during the Kavanaugh debacle, stated:

“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

We have also seen attempts to blacklist those in the entertainment industry for attending a Trump fundraiser, a conservative student was punched on a Berkley campus for “encouraging violence,’ and Facebook joining forces with Twitter and Pinterest in their campaign against pro-life group Live Action.

Not far from where I live, an 81-year old man was beaten in a supermarket for wearing a MAGA cap. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd declared that those who are “climate change deniers” will not be allowed to express their views on his show “Meet The Press.” And, various college groups are still voting to ban conservative speakers, conservative groups, and Chick-fil-A restaurants from campus.

One final example: Joaquin Castro, brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro, recently tweeted the names and business addresses of Trump donors, for no other apparent reason other than to have these donors harassed or otherwise punished for not supporting the Progressive agenda.

I could list enough examples of the left’s assault (often physical assault) on conservatives to fill several more pages, but, hopefully, I’ve provided enough that the reader gets the gist.

There is a pattern to repress conservatism that goes beyond winning debates and winning elections. This pattern includes expelling conservatives from academia, entertainment, and certain social circles. At the very least it is a pattern to make Republican supporters feel wary about expressing their ideology, for this expression could easily lead to negative consequences for them.

This pattern reaches all the way to the top with the harassment of President Trump in the form of impeachment attempts, but it affects our lives as well.

— DK

Photo credit: Mike Fritcher on Visual Hunt / CC BY-NC

MSDNCNN and the New Racism

In June of 2019 in Portland, a hostile white mob — calling itself Antifa — threateningly surrounded a man who is a person of color.

Unlike another incident allegedly involving a hostile white mob, in which a person of color claimed to be assaulted by the smile of a skinny 15-year old kid near the Lincoln Memorial, the gentleman in Portland (Andy Ngo) was assaulted with kicks, punches, and vegan vanilla milkshakes. So beaten was he that he required hospitalization for his injuries, which included brain bleed.

Yet while the Lincoln Memorial incident dominated social media for days with accusations of racism and white supremacy, the Portland incident barely elicited a whisper of outrage.

It may be a struggle for some to see why the Lincoln Memorial incident was deemed racist while the Portland incident was not. After all, both contained a similar key element: a white mob against a lone person of color.

Yet clearly the reactions to the incidents differed wildly. While a group of Catholic high school teens were so demonized that their school received hundreds of threats, the media sanitized Antifa. Newsweek columnist Tae Phoenix even wrote of Antifa, “I’ve met golden retrievers who scared me more.”

While Ngo’s plight is sickening, it is not unique. Many incidents against people of color occur yet oddly are not generally considered to be racist or racially motivated.

In Washington, D.C., for example, a Hispanic senator was chased out of a restaurant by a hostile white mob. An Asian author who occasionally posts some of the hate mail she receives included one that suggested she commit “hari-kari.” The one black member of the Supreme Court is regularly singled out by liberals for being “the absolute worst” and even for being “fat” and “lazy.”

Again, one has to wonder how can these things happen without being called “racist” at a time when MSDNCNN — the name I’ve given to this alliance between the Democratic Party and MSNBC, CNN, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and numerous other media outlets — froths at the mouth for weeks in moral outrage over the “racism” of President Trump calling Representative Elijah Cummings “a bully” or Don Lemon “dumb.”

The conclusion is inescapable.

Columnist Ramesh Ponnuru wrote, “Nearly everyone agrees that racism is evil. But liberals and conservatives have different thresholds for what constitutes it.”

This is not completely accurate. It is not that liberals and conservatives have a different threshold for racism but rather that they define it very differently.

To a conservative, racism is prejudice against or the hatred of another race, or the belief that one’s own race is superior to other races. To a liberal, racism is simply the expression of opposition to a progressive person of color by a white conservative.

Therefore, consistent with this definition, neither the attack against Andy Ngo, nor any of the other examples I listed above, involving Ted Cruz, Ying Ma, and Clarence Thomas, are racist because in each case none of the subjects are progressives.

Imagine a group of white conservatives — a group of Tea Partiers perhaps — chasing Kamala Harris out of a restaurant, or suggesting that Senator Hirono commit hari-kari. Imagine white conservatives assaulting a liberal Asian reporter the way Antifa assaulted Andy Ngo. Had that happened, the reaction would have been extremely different. It would have been loud, constant, and would have been discussed from dusk to dawn on cable television for months. We would have been called upon to reexamine our own soul as a nation. The reaction would have made the Mueller investigation seem like something mentioned in passing.

It is also interesting to note that when an African American conservative is attacked by a white liberal in a way that would outrage if the African American was progressive, the conservative will find no defense forthcoming from their fellow progressive African Americans. Black liberals, in my experience with them, put their party before their people, not just in terms of policy but in practice as well. And, they do it in a very shameful way.

When white congressman Steve Cohen suggested that African American pro-life activist Star Parker’s testimony before Congress ‘showed her ignorance,’ The Root, which claims to be “Black News, Opinions, Politics and Culture,” did not defend this black woman. Instead, they wrote:

“People were shocked to hear him go after a black woman publicly like this, but here is the thing:

She is kinda ignorant, though.”

Allen West, a former congressman and possible candidate for Texas Republican Party Chair, and an African American, recently provided an example of how black liberals slavishly grin in support of white liberals who attack black conservatives on his blog, The Old School Patriot:

“I have shared with y’all my 2012 congressional reelection campaign experience with an ad run by my opponent that depicted me with a gold tooth punching white women. What was the response from the left . . . crickets. The NAACP Director of the Washington Bureau and SVP for Advocacy and Policy, Hillary O. Shelton, laughed on TV and said the ad had me dressed in a nice suit . . . butthole. Who are the “sellouts” again?”

Again, imagine the reaction if a white congressman spoke as rudely to a liberal black woman testifying before the House as Rep. Cohen did to Star Parker, or if a white Republican running against an African American Democrat ran an ad similar to the one that denigrated Allen West.

The left’s re-defining the word “racism” to suit their needs has had a significant impact on our politics.

According to a Quinnipiac poll, 51 percent of voters believe that President Trump is a racist. Quinnipiac also found that only 6 percent of black voters support him.

Trump’s support among African Americans deserves to be much higher for a variety of reasons, including his presiding over record low unemployment in the black community.

However, in an era in which MSDNCNN relentlessly hammers that such things like calling West Baltimore rat-infested, an accurate assessment that echoes the view previously expressed by many Democrats, including Baltimore’s own mayor, is somehow racist, then not only has the word been cheapened and redefined, but now is more clearly than ever a propaganda tool of the progressive left.

–DK

Photo credit: stevebott on VisualHunt / CC BY 2.0