++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The efforts of those who are dubbed "Trump Haters"have been going on for almost three years and everything they have tried not only seems to have failed but also energizes him.
From a personal standpoint, I believe Trump would be wiser to tweet less because golf, tweeting and watching TV consumes a good bit of his time. I guess since he sleeps less than most that allows for tweeting time. (See 1, 1a and 1b below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sent to me by a dear friend and fellow memo reader. It is an excellent study of the impact our community has on Chatham County:
https://landings.org/sites/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++default/files/resources/ Miscellaneous Forms and Documents/Economic Impact Study Michael Toma - 2016.pdf
Unruly Democrats apparently love their guns. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Democrats have demonized every Trump voter as a ‘deplorable’
Universal Studios has canceled the release of its violent new R-rated massacre movie, “The Hunt,” for now, but the fact it even was made shows we’ve reached a dangerous new point in our political culture.
You have to wonder what twisted minds would dream up this liberal fantasy of jet-setting elites hunting down conservatives like vermin.
“They’re not human beings,” the Hillary Swank character says at one point, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“The Hunt,” originally titled “Red State vs. Blue State,” is a sign of where irrational Trump hatred has taken us.
It’s what the left is doing in real life. They’re dehumanizing their opponents and trying to incite violence against them.
The president’s detractors have tried for almost three years to break him. Russia didn’t work, Stormy didn’t work. Impeachment won’t work.
They’ve smeared his wife, his kids. They call him a fat slob, a psychopath and a Russian agent.They’ve used the most violent rhetoric imaginable, from Madonna thinking about blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin posing with a severed fake Trump head to Robert De Niro wanting to punch Trump in the face.
But nothing works. The more they abuse him, the more he relishes baiting them. He is impervious to their attacks, and his approval ratings haven’t budged.
So they have gone berserk. First, they projected their own murderous thoughts onto Trump, blaming him for the recent El Paso and Dayton massacres.
And in the next breath, they issued death threats against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“Just stab the motherf–ker in the heart,” said one charming protester on the lawn outside his house last weekend.
For Trump haters, the means justify the ends, and everyone knows that removing the president from public life is the only end worth pursuing, no matter how foul the means.
The real coarsening of American life comes not from a president who tweets low barbs at his enemies 24/7, it comes from his opponents, who have broken every rule of truth and fair play in politics and journalism.So unscrupulous are they in their blinkered hunt for Trump’s scalp that they don’t care if the lies they tell endanger people and deepen the divisions in the country, even while they lament the coarsening of the political debate.
Now, having failed in their pursuit of Trump, they’re coming after anyone who supports him. It’s demonization by association.
When Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro published a hit list of 44 Trump donorson Twitter last week, he knew exactly what he was doing.
With the approval of his brother, 2020 Democratic candidate Julián Castro, he knew that the outcome would be a Twitter mob intimidating and abusing those innocent people, bombarding them with hateful phone calls, boycotting their businesses and potentially committing violence against them.
In a country where guns are plentiful and emotions are high, why would you risk that unless you regarded your political opponents as vermin?
This is the new normal for Democrats: If you disagree with their agenda, you are a deplorable, a bigot, a racist, a white supremacist — and any retaliation is acceptable.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s true. Truth is whatever version of reality best suits your purpose.
Almost 63 million Americans voted for Trump, in part because they reject the leftist project to remake their history and their culture.
It is not rational or healthy to imagine you can intimidate them into not voting for him in 2020. But that is all the Democrats have
1a) Sorry, but it’s not racist to screen out migrants who’ll be a burden
Last week’s mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, has sent public discourse about immigration off the rails.
It has allowed radicals to frame as racist normal law enforcement activities and immigration rules. We saw this in New York recently, with anti-ICE protesters stopping traffic on the West Side Highway and holding sit-ins at an Amazon store to protest the company’s compliance with immigration rules.
In the left’s telling — and it’s increasingly hard to distinguish the hard left from the soft — the administration and those who support it are no better than the insane white nationalist who committed the El Paso atrocity.
Similar hysteria has greeted a new Trump administration regulation governing legal immigrants’ access to public welfare. The New York Times depicted the new rule as part of an effort by the president and his hard-line immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, to “shift” the demographic makeup of newcomers to the country.
Under the new rule, those who are in the country legally will have a more difficult time obtaining green cards or gaining citizenship if they received food stamps, housing assistance, Medicare or other public benefits.
But the outrage about this rule, which is set to go into effect in 60 days, is overblown. Even in the era of mass immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries, those who came here had to promise not to become a “public charge” upon the United States.
That meant immigrants pledged to work and/or could look to sponsors who would guarantee their support.
The idea of restricting immigration to those who could work is an old one. The federal Immigration Act of 1882 was the first US law to specifically insist that immigrants who couldn’t take care of themselves would be excluded.
That “public-charge” principle has been part of every subsequent federal statute on the subject. The landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act liberalized the system, but it nevertheless allowed for the deportation of immigrants who became public charges within five years.
Moreover, far from being a Trump innovation, the likelihood of needing government assistance is already grounds to deny an immigrant a green card or citizenship.
What is different is that this rule broadens the definition of a public charge. Instead of being defined as receiving welfare payments, it will now also include the myriad benefits available under the ever-expanding welfare state that exists in the 21st century.
Critics complain that this will discourage legal immigrants from seeking assistance that they might need. But the Trump administration wants to shift our immigration system to one based on merit, like the ones that reign in Canada and many European countries.
As with every other debate, however, liberals are turning this into a question of race and identity. Trump, they argue, wants to make it harder for immigrants from non-white countries.
But the story of immigration to the United States has always been about people of every race, color and creed who come here to work and take advantage of American freedoms and opportunity — not a desire to take advantage of the welfare state.
This isn’t about race, Trump’s irresponsible comments about wanting people from Norway and not s- -thole countries notwithstanding.
Even if you don’t share administration hard-liners’ desire to cut back legal immigration, emphasizing merit is a common-sense concern that is supported by most Americans. Our culture is rooted in self-sufficiency and individual initiative. Our immigration system should reflect our national creed.
The devil is in the details in a regulation that is a staggering 837 pages long and that lists factors that will either negatively or positively affect the decisions of officials about granting green cards and eligibility for citizenship. It should be enforced in such a way that will not penalize those who came here to work and fell on hard times for reasons not of their own making.
It isn’t surprising that those who advocate open borders and wish to abolish ICE would also oppose public-charge laws. But it ill behooves those who claim to champion the rights of immigrants to take a stand that essentially demands that Americans to go along with prioritizing the needs of newcomers.
To maintain America’s pro-immigration consensus, immigration must be seen as about opportunity — not welfarism.
Jonathan Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review. Twitter: @JonathanS_Tobin
1b) The Strange Case of ‘White Supremacy’ By Victor Davis Hanson
Posted by Ruth King
Any majority population must be careful not to revert to pre-civilized tribalism and oppressing minority groups. The United States, like every other country that enjoys diverse populations has struggled from its beginning to ensure equality, sometimes unsuccessfully, and only at the cost of thousands of lives.
While the United States was founded originally mostly by those of European ancestry and was plagued by the endemic racism of the age, especially in regard to African slaves and Native Americans, nonetheless its unique Constitution, embedded within a larger framework of the Western Enlightenment, institutionalized self-reflection and the chance for amendment. America’s founding documents were unique in their singular calls for innate and universal human freedom and equality under the law that would eventually and logically demand reification of such ideals.
In other words, in America there was a real chance to overcome not American sins per se, but the ancient sins of mankind in general.
The result is that more than 243 years after its independence, the current longest-lived democracy arguably is also the world’s most racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse nation and unmatched in its efforts to promote equality.
More exceptionally, the United States did not resort to a coercive political ideology such as Stalinist Communism to unite the diverse, or embrace an all-encompassing religious orthodoxy in the manner of the dramatic spread of Islam between the 8th and 16th centuries among widely disparate peoples.
Global Comparisons
No American can emigrate to China or Japan and expect to find full equality, given the emphases in those places on race and appearance. Mexico’s constitution has in the past formalized questions of racial essence as a requisite for immigration, given immigrants would be judged “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress”and without upsetting “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”In most countries, there still remain at least informal gradations and castes predicated on superficial appearances.
Because of the unique success of post-Civil War America in avoiding a Bosnia, Rwanda, or Syria, and given the nation’s lofty pretensions from its very founding, Americans often demand perfection as a requisite for being good—without much cognizance of what still passes for normal in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Not being a race- or class-obsessed Saudi Arabia, India, or Mexico may be a low bar, but some economically developed countries, such as South Korea and Japan, remain mired in racialist orthodoxies.
Immigration Matters
There are concrete ways even in these troubled times to calibrate real American successes in mostly transcending race and religion. The United States is said to be a nation of 70 percent “white” people, at least to the extent in this age of intermarriage that such ossified rubrics mean much anymore. Yet America is the destination of most of the world’s immigrants.
Most estimates suggest new American immigrants range from 80 percent to 90 percent nonwhite, the vast majority from Mexico and Latin America, and Asia, and in particular Mexico, Central America, India, Southeast Asia, and China. Given the dominance of the American media worldwide, the influence of American movies and television, and the ubiquity of American pop culture, most immigrants have a fairly good idea of what life inside America is like.
Why, then, if we as a people are plagued from the outset by an incurable “white supremacy” and “white privilege,” would hundreds of thousands of nonwhite immigrants each year wish to enter such a dreadful place?
The answer to why America appears attractive to newcomers is obvious: what global elites say and what non-elites do are two quite different things.
Certainly, one can damn in the abstract (whether for careerist purposes or from psychological angst) what one desires in the concrete. For all her expressed disappointment in America, U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) may well have violated U.S. tax and perhaps immigration law in an allegedly felonious effort to facilitate her brother’s entry into America—a fact that resonates far more than her often tired whines about her dissatisfaction with her adopted country.
In sum, millions over the last few decades would have avoided or been barred from entering the United States, as they have avoided immigrating into an exclusionary but prosperous China or Japan—had they believed America was a racist country dominated by overweening white privilege. Throughout history white supremacist societies—or any other supposedly racially defined nation—have not adopted de facto or de jure immigration policies that welcome immigrants who are 80-90 percent of a different race or ethnic background.
Identity Politics
In terms of politics, there is little evidence that white people vote primarily for white people. Barack Obama, for example, exceeded the white voter support of almost any prior Democratic candidate in the three decades leading up to his 2008 victory. His margin of support from white voters (43 percent) exceeded that of a white John Kerry (41 percent) four years prior. And he topped the totals of the white vote won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 (39 percent). In turn, currently, Joe Biden polls higher among black Democratic voters than does either Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) or Corey Booker (D-N.J.), suggesting that aside from elite racial pyrotechnics, most Americans want to transcend race.
The odd fact about the spate of well-publicized “cultural appropriations,” both linguistic and cosmetic, is that it is often a phenomenon from white to nonwhite, an effort of an Elizabeth Warren or Ward Churchill to adopt a fraudulent minority identity. “Beto” O’Rourke was neither bequeathed an Irish nickname by his father nor found it useful to adopt a German one—largely because he knew in contemporary America inferences of a nonwhite identity were advantageous for a political career, in both Texas and on the national scene. A cynic, of course, would cite the career advantages that constructed diversity offers. But real racists in a culture of endemic white supremacy would not even consider abandoning their own tribe for that of another.
What are we to make of racially themed congressional caucuses, safe spaces, segregated dorms and theme houses, separate graduate ceremonies, and national lobbying groups such as the former National Council of La Raza (“the Race”)? Are they now routine tools of white supremacy? Are they just appropriations of prior white racist protocols, in a sort of well-deserved karma? Are these desperate attempts to keep suspicious white people away from the spaces deemed necessary for minority well-being?
We need some transcendent explanation, but the current reality is that such racially based distinctions to an outsider would seem to have more in common with those of the white population pre-1950 than of white Americans in 2019.
Current Racialist Leaders
All racist movements have leaders. America’s white majority has experienced such fringe racist demagogues who hoped to forge a common racial identity among enclaves of white Americans. More recently, the repellent David Duke’s Ku Klux Klan and macabre George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party come to mind. Yet both men were 20th-century fizzles who never succeeded in making shared whiteness the common weld among diverse Protestants, Catholics, Republicans, Democrats, coastal elites and mid-westerners, working poor and the rich, immigrants and native-born.
Today, alt-rightist Richard Spencer sees himself as a successor to white supremacists of the past. But he has no real national following, opposes Donald Trump, and finds his support mostly only on obscure websites and fringe survivalist groups that appeal to the unwell. True white supremacists are always outnumbered by their opponents at rallies, and have no creed that attracts any but the unhinged.
In contrast, the well-known anti-Semites and unapologetic racists of our media age are provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and Rev. Jerimiah Wright. They in varying degrees have been sought out by progressive politicians—for support, endorsements and photo-ops.
In the present-day America of 2019 anti-Semitism usually emanates from people like “the squad” or the unapologetic racial bigotry of an Al Sharpton, prominent rappers, or Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Who has had more influence on a president—Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Richard Spencer?
Barack Obama correctly assumed that all of his incendiary rhetoric—the clingers speech, the “typical white person” riff on his grandmother, the defense of his former pastor and confidant, the anti-Semitic Wright (“Them Jews ain’t going to let him [Obama] talk to me”), the cheap braggadocio of getting “in their faces” and taking “a gun to a knife fight,” or Eric Holder’s “my people” would be seen either as mere rhetorical excesses, or now and then understandable emotional cries of the heart rather than sincere windows into a problematic soul.
Of course, there remain overt expressions of old-time racism by whites who exercise real political power. Here one thinks especially of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s observation of Obama as a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Or Vice President Joe Biden’s assessment of his soon-to-be running mate as the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” (On Thursday, gaffe-a-day Biden remarked, “Poor kids are just as bright as white kids.”) Or Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noting matter-of-factly how she “had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.” Or presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who observed of her rival and future boss, “I found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”). Or Hillary’s husband, Bill, the “first black president,” who quipped, “A few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee.”
Yet often our hypercritical progressive establishment, both minority and majority, argues that the above are either slips of the tongue, forgivable lapses, or politicized sound bites taken out of context.
The point again is that politics seem to adjudicate racial offenses. Political considerations now overshadow racial ones and determine who or what is racist depending on political affiliations, not necessarily actual words or action. Had any Republican said anything of the above (remember the “macaca”slur of U.S. Senator George Allen?), his career would likely be over.
Similarly, black conservatives such as Clarence Thomas have been the subject of vicious racial attacks by white liberals. But such invective is written off as politics trumping racial hatred, on the liberal premise that progressives who taunt or deride Thomas do so on political rather than racial grounds.
A Thing of the Past
In short, racial politics is a mess. The standards by which racial chauvinism either is deemed dangerous or regrettable and a mere aberration, are largely political.
Thousands of African-American male youths are murdered each year by other African-American young men in progressive cities, run by progressive governments, and usually amid strict gun-control laws—without charges that progressive politicians who impotently oversee such mass death zones are racist or condone racism. That few progressives in 2020 are currently running on platforms with concrete ideas about how to stop the urban slaughter—the great American tragedy of our age—should tell us that racially-driven outrage is largely politicized. A supposedly Alt-Right, massive white supremacy movement is not credibly blamed for the carnage of Baltimore, even by the most opportunistic leftists.
The one reason there are so many fake Jussie Smolletts or Covington psychodramas or Duke Lacrosse constructs or notions like microaggressions—or careers such as those of the clownish Al Sharpton (the anti-Semite, past purveyor of hatred, and tax-dodging racist)—is that ubiquitous white supremacy has largely become a thing of the past.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)The two horrific shootings last week are being blamed on (of course) President Trump by the Lame Stream Media.
The double dozen dimwit Democrats running for his job also blame him.
2)The two horrific shootings last week are being blamed on (of course) President Trump by the Lame Stream Media.
The double dozen dimwit Democrats running for his job also blame him.
OK…let’s find a solution to this problem:
The Dayton, Ohio shooter was a registered Democrat.
The El Paso shooter says he is a progressive leftist.
In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881, a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States – who later died from the wound.
In 1963, a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown ,CT and an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
The list is getting longer so in the interests of saving space, let’s just say clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.
Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment