Saturday, December 19, 2020

The American Left Has Now Fully Embraced Racism

 

Article by David Marcus in The American Federalist
 

The American Left Has Now Fully Embraced Racism

A Rubicon has been crossed in American political discourse. Long purveyors of Marxism, the nation’s leftists have now come to fully embrace something else; racism. Just in the last week in the areas of medicine, education, and journalism, well-intentioned institutional racists have insisted — as is increasingly their habit — that skin color is and must be the defining element of our public policies.

There is no issue more important to the future and soul of our nation right now than the leftist bigotry threatening the very concept of what it means to be an American.

On the medical side, Dr. Harald Schmidt, a supposed expert on ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times that essential workers, not the elderly, should be the first to receive COVID-19 vaccines. His reason? “Older populations are whiter,” he told the publication. “Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

To be clear, the term “level the playing field” here means allowing people to die because of the color of their skin.

What’s amazing about this is that just months ago to even question the efficacy of lockdowns meant to stop the spread of COVID-19 was met with accusations that one was killing grandma. Now, it doesn’t matter because grandma is probably white.

Nothing, it seems, is more important than protecting the lives of the oldest among us, except for fighting racism. The great irony of course is that the lockdowns themselves have disproportionately destroyed minority-owned businesses. Yet, for the Marxists on the radical left, this doesn’t matter. They don’t fight racism by giving people tools to lift themselves up, they purport to do it by making people dependent on the state.

Next, in outrageous racism infecting our educational system, this week, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio announced sweeping changes to the way in the city’s top public schools consider applicants in an attempt to diversify, or as some unhinged proponents of his plan put it, “desegregate” these schools. Essentially, admissions will focus less on grades and more on skin color.

The dirty little secret of his proposal is that it is Asian students, not white students, who dominate admissions to these schools and who will bear the brunt of de Blasio’s abject racism.

There is also a further deeply condescending and racist aspect of this approach. It simply accepts that there is nothing we can do to help black and brown students achieve except put our thumb on the scale. De Blasio and his racist allies like School Chancellor Richard Carranza would argue that systems of white supremacy are responsible for the achievement gaps, but if so, how do they explain the success of Asian students, and why are they being punished?

Finally, from the wonderful world of journalism, we have an argument from two authors at Harvard’s Nieman Lab that suggests reporting on crime is racist:

It’s racist, classist, fear-based clickbait masking as journalism. It creates lasting harm for the communities that newsrooms are supposed to serve. And because it so rarely meets the public’s needs, it’s almost never newsworthy, despite what Grizzled Gary in his coffee-stained shirt says from his perch at the copy desk.

Here we see a classic example of progressive white racism tinged with deadly paternalism. What’s the real problem with crime? Is it that murders are skyrocketing across America, with the victims disproportionately black and brown? No, discussing that makes white progressives uncomfortable. Indeed, they would much rather indulge absurd fantasies about “defund the police” initiatives lowering crime than actually try to save lives in minority communities. And now, they don’t even think the media should report on those deaths.

This sort of racism will get people killed. If reporters simply ignore crimes in minority areas for fear of being racist — including the murders of children — the problem will persist. More kids of color will have their lives snuffed out but understand, that is the price we have to pay for white progressives to feel good about themselves.

All three of these examples of dangerous racism occurred in one week. One week. All stem from the pernicious concept of critical race theory, a demonstrably racist set of ideas Democrats want to drill into the heads of all-white government employees except, apparently, Joe Biden, who to my knowledge has never undergone this vital training (strange, given that his own Vice President-elect has openly called him a racist).

There is no more important fight for conservatives today than battling the racism of the American left. And as is often the case with effective battle plans this one is quite simple. We must call for people not to be judged or treated differently solely on the basis of the color of their skin. That shouldn’t be a controversial concept, but it is.

Let’s be clear, this isn’t an academic or ephemeral disagreement between the left and the right. It is an existential fight against abject racism. It is a fight we must not only engage in but embrace. The very future of our nation depends on it.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/19/the-american-left-has-now-fully-embraced-racism/ 



Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Christmas Shoppers Beware: Chinese Slave Labor Is on the Rise

 

By Dan Hart In The Daily Signal
 

Christmas Shoppers Beware: Chinese Slave Labor Is on the Rise

As Americans peruse store aisles and websites in search of Christmas gifts this year, many may not be aware of a sinister and growing problem with the products they are buying: If it was made in China, there’s a good chance that it was produced through slave labor.

Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, joined “Washington Watch” Wednesday to discuss how China is using slave labor as part of a system that is monetizing some of the most egregious human rights violations in the modern world.

“Seven-eighths of [Chinese-made products are] made in this Xinjiang province in northwestern China and overwhelmingly with forced labor—slave labor—by entities run and managed by the Communist Party of China,” Cuccinelli said, adding:

And they, frankly, make a profit off of it. This is 1 to 3 million people. This is not small potatoes. So that’s what they’re doing to oppress the minority up there, to try to force them to adopt Han Chinese culture and abandon their own faith and abandon their own culture by force.

The good news is that the U.S. government does have policies in place to stop the import of goods made by slave labor, but effectively enforcing the law is difficult.

“We have laws on the books in the United States that allow us to block these imports when we can identify them,” Cuccinelli said. “And part of the challenge is if you’re the Chinese government, you’re not going to point to us which one was made by the slave labor and which one was made in ordinary open competition where the labor had the choice of whether to work there or not. So it’s a great challenge when we can’t exactly go send investigators into their country.”

Congress is also doing its part in helping to stop China’s use of slave labor by passing the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the House. But the bill is being held up in the Senate because of corporate lobbyists with business stakes in China who don’t want to see their profits curtailed.

While government policies and Congress play an important role, it is consumers like you and me who have much more influence to bring about good than we think we have. What we choose to buy or not to buy sends a strong message to companies that the morality of their business practices are being scrutinized by an informed public.

As Cuccinelli noted, arguably the most effective way to combat the production of goods produced through slave labor is to employ the age-old rule of free economies: supply and demand. “If people simply refuse to buy these products, that is the best policeman of all is the consumer,” he said.

To become a more morally-minded consumer, use the resources available from 2nd Vote and other organizations in order to be fully informed about which brands are connected with leftist policies and Chinese slave labor.

Originally published by the Family Research Council 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/18/christmas-shoppers-beware-chinese-slave-labor-is-on-the-rise/ 


Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

What Is Your Favorite Cookie?

 From an article at Yummly. I’m going with Kentucky on this one. Runners up are Louisiana, Florida, Minnesota, and New Jersey, the state that came closest to knocking Kentucky out of my favorite position.

I am verklempt at Tennessee not having a Jack Daniel’s cookie. I’ll console myself with Gentleman Jack and a slice of Jack Daniel’s cake.

And really, Nebraska and Alaska, sad. You guys need some help.

 

 

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/12/19/what-is-your-favorite-cookie/ 

 

 https://www.yummly.com/dish/821836/the-united-states-of-holiday-cookies?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Q4_WAU_Push_12182020&tblci=GiBsyLjgYMD0Y664w9Chq11MBazaEOv41vJR8WpmVzBHZiDZ3ks#tblciGiBsyLjgYMD0Y664w9Chq11MBazaEOv41vJR8WpmVzBHZiDZ3ks&recirc=taboolaexternal


 

at

Dinesh D’Souza Makes The Argument Against Forming a New Party



I respect Dinesh D’Souza.  However, on this issue I also disagree intensely.

The foundation of D’Souza’s reason for why he does not support a new political party, a MAGA or Patriot or (__fill in blank__) party, appears flawed.  By saying a new party would only split the GOP, D’Souza is actually making the argument that creates Battered Conservative Syndrome; the DeceptiCon argument that protects the GOP wing. WATCH:



When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion.  McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.”  The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP.  The GOP was *not* going to adjust.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition, represented by Bart Stupak.  The Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them into radical left-wing agenda items.

A new party, ie. ‘THE’ new party, would not be a carve out within the Republican club.  A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump.  That’s the (fill__blank) party.

A new party would be a SECOND party to the UniParty occupants currently pushing more big government in Washington DC.  The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus spending bills, limitless debt ceiling, massive wasted stimulus, political bailouts, QE1/QE2, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) shows that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.

The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power.  Those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome.

There is nothing conservative about expanding government, spending into oblivion, allowing open borders and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom.   What exactly is being “conserved”? CTH has been making this argument for years.

This example from 2015 rings just as true today:

2015 – A few days ago I took the time to read Jonah Goldberg’s expressed concerns about the support for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.

Toward that end I have also noted additional GOP media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

goldberg headshotWhile we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable realities. I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?

A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus (then RNC Chair), or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget. We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?

All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

• Who worked against Donald Trump? The GOP

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us?

SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?  Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?


at

Trump as a One-Term President Would Become DC's Nightmare

 n

Article by J.B. Shurk in The American Thinker
 

Trump as a One-Term President Would Become DC's Nightmare

Even as the president's legal team continues to dispute election results in battleground states with large numbers of questionable mail-in ballots and election anomalies, Establishment Washington is pushing Donald Trump out the door. What it failed to accomplish through four years of Deep State sabotage and bipartisan efforts at thwarting the MAGA agenda, the D.C. Club may have finally succeeded through good old-fashioned vote fraud. The District of Corruption is salivating over the possibility of freeing itself from a foe who has singlehandedly damaged the Swamp forever.

No victory could be more pyrrhic.

Forcing Donald Trump from the presidency while half of all likely voters believe the election was stolen from him (including a stunning one-third of Democrats) would backfire on Washington spectacularly. Trump is too ferocious a competitor and too powerful a cultural force to ever disappear into a retirement not of his choosing. At least 75 million Americans voted for the president because, among other reasons, he is seen as an "outsider." Now Washington insists on making him a martyr, as well.

What will happen if President Trump leaves office in January? He will instantly become the most consequential and powerful ex-president Americans have seen. Making Donald Trump a one-term president will become Establishment Washington's biggest nightmare.

(1) Biden's Number One Critic

There's no way that Donald Trump follows in the footsteps of George Washington by quietly retreating from public life and leaving his successor to lead unscrutinized. Obama has been the most vocal ex-president to date, both questioning Donald Trump's judgment as president, as well as fanning the flames of the debunked Russia hoax. An ex-president Trump will make Obama look like a piker by comparison. 

Biden's commitment to re-enter the Paris Agreement and backtrack from America's hydrocarbon energy independence achieved under President Trump has the potential to take an American economy struggling to recover from a year of pandemic lockdowns and kill it overnight. Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor.

Biden has signaled his intent to breathe life into Obama's Iran Deal after the Trump administration has spent four years weakening Iran's influence in the Middle East. After helping to foster peace in the region by securing historic trade deals between Israel and many of her longtime adversaries, President Trump has a vested interest in making sure his efforts are not undone. Should Biden lift up a vulnerable Iran and harm Israel in the process, Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor.

President Trump has made cutting illegal immigration into the United States a priority. He's made renegotiating trade deals that have benefitted communist China at the expense of American workers a priority. He's made bringing troops home by ending "endless wars" a priority. He's made protecting Americans' First and Second Amendment rights important priorities.

Biden has promised to expand immigration and refugee resettlement, to end trade confrontations with China, and to leave foreign policy to the "experts." And in direct conflict with any oath of office, Biden has promised to confiscate Americans' guns while supporting the same Big Tech companies that have undertaken campaigns of outright censorship against conservatives' speech.

Donald Trump will loudly blame his successor for the resulting harm — in all its forms — to Americans. He and his supporters will amplify every misstep made by Joe Biden. "Monday morning quarterbacking" will become a seven-day priority for the former president.

(2) King of a Media Empire

Should Twitter and Facebook decide to censor citizen Trump, he might just build his own media empire and create the largest megaphone for his opinions in the country. Businessman Trump has always enjoyed building things from the ground up. Now that Fox News has chosen to chase conservatives away, a market demand for Trump's politics is waiting to be filled. Newsmax and One America News Network are expanding their audience shares, but a Trump News Network would dominate future conservative television. Social media and corporate news are now actively censoring conservative voices, and conservative voters would flock to whatever platforms Donald Trump constructs. It's only a matter of time before the president seizes upon those opportunities. 

If Establishment Washington believes "Trumpism" will soon recede once its eponymous leader heads south to Florida, the Swamp is sorely mistaken. After leaving office, Donald Trump's voice is only going to get bigger. Much, much bigger.

(3) De Facto Head of the Republican Party

If Establishment Republicans believe they can reclaim their party once President Trump leaves office, they are naive. Donald Trump just won more votes than any sitting president in history, shattering what Bush, McCain, and Romney were able to garner at the polls. Even before the 2020 election's outcome has been decisively concluded, recent polling shows that 54% of Republican voters are ready to back President Trump in 2024. Even more striking is this: nearly 70% of Republicans view the president as standing up for their beliefs, as opposed to only 20% who see congressional Republicans as doing the same. If Donald Trump decides he's running again in 2024, it will be his nomination to lose. If Trump family members or Trump administration veterans decide to run for office on their own, they will become instant frontrunners.

Donald Trump has shined a bright light on Establishment Washington's failures to secure America's borders and to protect America's blue-collar manufacturing workforce. That bright light is not going to fade, and any Republican who thinks the party can return to propping up free trade's twin mantras of endless immigration and overseas slave labor by proxy is denying reality. If "globalism" wasn't a dirty word before, President Trump has made it one now. And for the foreseeable future, any Republican seeking higher office will have to respect the new party Donald Trump has created or suffer the consequences at the polls. Certain NeverTrump Republicans may hate him, but they'll not survive without him.

(4) Potential Destroyer of Both Parties

For the first time since Lincoln's Republican Party supplanted the Whigs in political power, Donald Trump has built a strong enough coalition of voters cutting across traditional party lines that he could choose to take his voters and erect a new party from the ground up. No Republican has done better with minority voters in the last sixty years than Donald Trump, and no Republican since Reagan has succeeded so strongly with blue-collar workers. If the president decides to "walk away," he will take tens of millions of American voters disillusioned with both parties, too.

Traditional Democrats who resent their party's embrace of socialism and working class Republicans who resent their party's priority of Wall Street over Main Street would make natural allies in a new party. Kanye West, Ice Cube, and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson have all made it clear that they are not happy with the Democratic Party's direction, and Donald Trump is in a position to create a political home for those looking for something new. A new party that places a priority on protecting legal immigrants and American workers over foreign labor forces and that treats engagements in new wars as choices of last resort will attract a strong cross-section of American voters. As a master of branding, Donald Trump could choose to diminish permanently the parties as they now exist and build something else entirely from scratch.

Whatever else happens between now and January 20, Donald Trump is not going away. Washington insiders may finally succeed in removing him from office, but they will make him a formidable and powerful ex-president in the process. They may well regret what they've accomplished. It's certain that they have no idea what they've created.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/trump_as_a_oneterm_president_would_become_dcs_biggest_nightmare.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at

Seattle Tells Its White Teachers to 'Bankrupt' Their Privilege and Acknowledge Their 'Thieved Inheritance'

 

Article by Alex Parker in RedState
 

Seattle Tells Its White Teachers to 'Bankrupt' Their Privilege and Acknowledge Their 'Thieved Inheritance'

Washington’s trying to improve its education system.

To that end, the state’s largest public school district is reportedly instructing white teachers to “bankrupt [their] privilege” by keeping a classroom focus on social justice.

This, according to CityJournal writer and Discovery Institute Christopher F. Rufo.

On Friday, Christopher posted to Twitter a series of allegedly leaked documents from Seattle Public Schools.

Front and center: critical race theory training for its molders of young skulls.

The slides ask teachers how they’ll promote racial justice at work, but first, they’re informed everyone’s “on the ancestral lands and traditional territories of the Puget Sound Coast Salish People.”

Beyond that, the district issues a Stolen Labor Acknowledgement:

We want to recognize that the United States was built off the stolen labor of kidnapped African and enslaved Black people’s work, which created the profits that created our nation.

Furthermore:

We also recognize the Brown labor currently happening in California and across this country. They are working under terrible air quality conditions, with wildfires burning over 1.2 million acres of land, in addition to the pandemic; to pick strawberries for your smoothies.

 As noted by The Daily Caller, the Creative Team identifies itself — by name, race, and pronouns.

 

One member hails from the Department of Racial Equity Advancement.

Here’s the Caller on what they created:

Another slide features author Zaretta Hammond, who has written a book entitled “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain,” which guides teachers on interrupting “implicit bias” in the classroom so they can build trust with “diverse” students. The slide pulls a quote from the book that calls on teachers to “commit to the journey” by checking implicit biases. Another slide shows a quote from Hammond’s book describing how “your lizard-brain” will “freak out” when it’s time to talk about sensitive subjects like racism and sexism, a neurological mechanism that tries to keep people in their comfort zones.

Under Bankrupt Your Privilege, the instructional tells white people what’s what:

Let’s take this moment as an opportunity to translate our feelings into actions that protect and cultivate Black futures. … For others, it’s time to bankrupt your privilege in acknowledgement of your thieved inheritance.

One slide points out, “Whiteness, the centrality of whiteness and the possession of white skin are assigned considerable power and privilege in our society.”

The training appears to separate everyone into two groups.

White people “ultimately…[have] the greatest responsibility to a relationship,” and “reflection and self-interrogation are critical.”

On the other hand:

If you experience marginalization, part of your responsibility is to take care of yourself, practice self-empathy and centering the importance of your feelings.

Teachers also get the low-down on government.

Part of the training involves a lesson on “spirit murder,” which is done to “the souls of Black children every day through systemic, institutionalized, anti-Black, state-sanctioned violence.”

 

So what’s the long and short of it all for whites?

If you’re pale, the city’s got questions:

How are you anti-racist outside the classroom?

In what ways are you practicing anti-racist pedagogy?

How do you talk about the current social justice movements taking place?

What are you willing to risk for racial justice as an educator?

What are you willing to risk for racial justice as an educator?

What is getting in your way?

What are you afraid of?


As for the school district, TDC’s request for comment went unreturned. But if the documents are authentic, the home of Nirvana certainly isn’t alone in its attempt at utopia.

In September, I penned “Minnesota School Superintendent Welcomes Back Teachers, Tells Them to ‘Examine’ Their ‘Whiteness.’

See also: “(Maryland) School District Seeks ‘Anti-Racist’ Audit, Staff Get Educated on the Racial ‘Construct’ of Whiteness.”

Is all of it accomplishing justice?

Are we bankrupting privilege, or something else we need?

It seems to me America’s in the midst of the Great Pitting — of one race against another, or of all races against one.

And so far as I can figure, the end result isn’t betterment.

But we’ll find out.

We’re definitely going to find out.

 

https://redstate.com/alexparker/2020/12/19/seattle-public-schools-washington-christopher-rufo-critical-race-theory-n297133



Don't Forget to Recommend
 and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


at