Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Identity Politics category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Identity Politics’ Category

When I wrote this post, I hadn’t heard of Hannah Scherlacher. When I finish writing this post, Sen. Franken will wish he’d never heard of Hannah. In my post, I wrote about Sen. Franken’s reliance on ratings from the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka the SPLC, during Amy Coney-Barrett’s confirmation hearing. To hear Sen. Franken tell it, SPLC is a neutral arbiter of who is qualified to be a federal judge. The truth is that SPLC is a bunch of bottom-feeding low-lifes who have stockpiled tons of cash in accounts in the Caribbean.

Sen. Franken, what part of that sounds legitimate? But I digress.

Hannah’s op-ed questions SPLC’s integrity from a personal standpoint. In her op-ed, Hannah wrote “It’s an understatement to say that I was dumbfounded as to how I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) LGBTQ hate-list — I have never said or done anything to indicate hate for the LGBTQ community. When I called to inquire, SPLC informed me that I am guilty because I did a radio interview with Family Research Council Radio (FRC). I am a program coordinator for The Leadership Institute’s Campus Reform. org. The segment was about socialism, but because FRC holds traditional family values, I was labeled an LGBT-hater just for being a guest on the show. No LGBT topics even came-up.”

Sen. Franken, have you no shame?

What US senator would rely on sloppily-gathered information from a bunch of bottom-feeders like the SPLC? Ms. Scherlacher’s sin was to do an interview with the Family Research Council, an organization whose mission statement states that their “mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview” and whose vision “is a culture in which all human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.”

The FRC’s vision and mission earned it a spot on SPLC’s hate map. That’s significant because that map has helped cause physical pain:

Reckless and irresponsible hate-labeling not only stifles free speech and expression, it empowers and emboldens vicious groups and individuals to violently attack people. Consider the 2012 Family Research Council shooting, when a man walked into the organization’s office in Washington, D.C., with 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He planned to kill as many staff members as possible and smear the sandwiches in their faces. He said he chose his target based on SPLC’s Hate Map.

This is more than ironic:

Nowhere is the danger more real than on our college campuses where Antifa, By Any Means Necessary, and other domestic terror groups (which are not found on any SPLC hate list) now feel emboldened to attack conservative students and shut down events under the guise of, ironically, fighting fascism, hate and white supremacism.

Some of the organizations found on the SPLC’s Hate Map are legitimate hate groups. It’s indisputable that the KKK, Holocaust deniers and the Skinheads deserve to be on that map. Being a traditional values Christian shouldn’t land a person on SPLC’s hate map, though.

I’ll close this post with Hannah’s closing argument:

Groups like the SPLC threaten our constitutional rights and the very fabric that makes this nation great. We need to start pushing back. If this trend of bullying and ostracizing anyone with a different opinion continues, we can only expect a chilling, mob-rule effect and the suppression of speech and ideas in this country.

I am calling on SPLC to remove me from this list and stop engaging in the game of identity fear politics. I urge all Americans who have been bullied, silenced, and pushed into a corner by radical groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to push back too.

Amen, Hannah.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In 2012, Mitt Romney was criticized for his comments about the 47% of Americans that don’t pay any taxes. What Mitt said was “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax.”

Immediately, Mitt was accused of not being in touch with America. As a result, President Obama won re-election. This election, Democrats lost because they had their own 47% moment, which Josh Kraushaar explains in this article. In the article, he wrote that “In her campaign tell-all, Clinton sounds like a full-fledged member of the progressive #resistance, content to blame all of her campaign’s woes on sexism, media bias, James Comey, and Russian interference. But she never fully grapples with the biggest problem that crippled her campaign, and which continues to dog her party: the Democrats’ growing cultural disconnect from the rest of the country. Clinton’s decision to call Trump backers deplorable was one of her campaign’s low points. But the problem runs much deeper within her party. Progressives now instinctively label pro-Trump conservatives as ‘white supremacists,’ a slur that paints nearly half the country with a racist brush.”

The Democrats’ problem persists. They still sound as out-of-touch as Hillary did. They still hate blue collar America as much as she did. Another of Hillary’s campaign low spots happened in coal country when she insisted that her administration would put lots of coal companies out of business:

Democrats think that they’re riding a wave of popularity on the NFL/National Anthem fiasco. This paragraph shows how out of touch they are and how far they’ve drifted:

For a sign of how far to the left Democrats have drifted on culture, just look at the last major anthem protest to sweep up a sports league. In 1996, Nuggets star Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem, calling the American flag a symbol of tyranny. He was promptly suspended for a game and fined by the NBA. There was no uproar in favor of his right to protest, even in a league where most players were African-American. Condemnation of Abdul-Rauf’s action ran across the political spectrum. Then-commissioner David Stern later mandated players stand in a dignified manner when the anthem was played—a wholly uncontroversial decision.

Democrats in East Coast newsrooms treat Christians like aliens from another planet. They wouldn’t know how to talk with Christians if their life depended on it.

Until they fix their culture wars problem, they should get used to looking in from the outside.

Technorati: , , , ,

Stan Greenberg’s article is nothing more than another attempt to blame Hillary’s defeat on everything except Hillary. I can’t dispute the fact that Mr. Greenberg said that “Hillary Clinton’s tragic 2016 campaign faced withering criticism in the press, social media, and now, in Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’s inside account, Shattered. From my vantage point as lead pollster for the Democratic nominees in 1992 and 2000, part of the closing clutch of pollsters in 2004, and invited noodge in 2016, I have little quarrel with the harshest of these criticisms. Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy.”

Then he launches into his explanation that it wasn’t really Hillary’s fault and that Democrats everywhere have fallen into the same trap. Greenberg insists that “the campaign relied far too heavily on something that campaign technicians call ‘data analytics.’ This refers to the use of models built from a database of the country’s 200 million voters, including turnout history and demographic and consumer information, updated daily by an automated poll asking for vote preference to project the election result.”

This article is masterful spin. Woven into the article is why Hillary really lost:

Malpractice and arrogance contributed mightily to the election of Donald Trump and its profound threat to our democracy. So did the handling of the email server, paid Wall Street speeches, and the “deplorables” comment. And her unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence left her exposed to attacks first by Bernie Sanders and then by Donald Trump and unable to offer credible promise of change.

This isn’t malpractice or arrogance. It’s Hillary’s elitism showing. As for Hillary’s “unwillingness to challenge the excesses of big money and corporate influence”, it isn’t surprising. Hillary is a creation of Wall Street. For Hillary to challenge the excesses of big money, she’d need to entirely change who she is. That simply wasn’t going to happen.

Then there’s this:

For me, the most glaring examples include the Clinton campaign’s over-dependence on technical analytics; its failure to run campaigns to win the battleground states; the decision to focus on the rainbow base and identity politics at the expense of the working class; and the failure to address the candidate’s growing “trust problem” or to learn from events and reposition.

What type of idiot doesn’t “run campaigns to win the battleground states”? What type of idiot stands by Robbie Mook, who argued “that the Sanders vote grew “organically”—turnout was unexpectedly high and new registrants broke against Clinton”?

I don’t care why she lost. I’m just happy that she did lose. I’m happy that that’s what happened.

Michael Starr-Hopkins is an attorney. He’s also a world-class Democratic spinmeister and a frequent contributor to the Hill magazine. In this op-ed, Starr-Hopkins verifies as fact that he’s a world-class Democratic spinmeister, saying “What happened to any semblance of political consistency? Republicans shouldn’t have to add falsities into their arguments, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t have to play to insecurities and fears to drive their party’s agenda, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to trick and misinform voters to win a political battle, but they choose to. Republicans are making a choice.”

Hopkins’ op-ed opens by talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s pardon. Hopkins’ opening paragraph says “Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans continue to perpetuate the racially-tinged myths that have gridlocked our government. Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans choose to pontificate about the illegality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while simultaneously defending the unconstitutional racial profiling by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the unconstitutional Muslim ban by President Trump.”

First, let’s introduce some facts into this dispute. The Supreme Court has halted all other courts from issuing an injunction on President Trump’s travel ban because they’ll hear arguments on whether it’s constitutional when their term opens in a couple of weeks. Until then, it isn’t proper to say that President Trump’s travel ban is unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has rightfully deferred to the President on issues of national security. It isn’t a stretch to think that’s what they’ll do this time. Next, racial profiling isn’t unconstitutional. Depending on the state, it might be illegal but it isn’t unconstitutional. (Shouldn’t an attorney know the difference between statutes and constitutional principles?)

Check out this paragraph:

Rewriting our political and racial history using identity politics isn’t just immoral and dangerous, it’s a desperate choice. Identity politics are destroying our ability to have honest conversations. Identity politics are destroying our ability to govern. Identity politics are a tool for distracting away from actual policy debates.

That’s pretty stunning. Democrats, not Republicans, have used identity politics for at least the last dozen years. When Mark Udall ran for re-election to the US Senate against Cory Gardner, Udall talked about getting out the women vote so often that the Denver Post nicknamed him Mark Uterus. Then there’s Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeleine Albright, who famously told female voters that “There’s a special place in hell for women don’t help each other”:

But I digress. During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Starr-Hopkins was asked why Nancy Pelosi said that people that had broken the law (DACA-protected illegal immigrants) had done a great thing for this nation. Starr-Hopkins said that that wasn’t what Ms. Pelosi said. Starr-Hopkins insisted that Ms. Pelosi said that these illegal immigrants had done a great thing for their families. The tape verifies that Starr-Hopkins didn’t get it right:

Approximately 3:25 into the video, Ms. Pelosi said “Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here, who are working…” Ms. Pelosi wasn’t praising the parents for their heroism towards their families. She spoke specifically about how illegal immigrants had helped the United States.

My exhortation is to question everything that Starr-Hopkins says. I’d start with a disposition of distrust because he’s given me tons of reason for not trusting him. That’s just the truth.