Crime Media Race Truth

Media Refuses To Cover Black Man’s Murder Of White Boy

Rod Thomson

The media continues to be the primary driver of racial divisions in America. The most recent example makes the blood boil, but perfectly demonstrates how coverage, and lack of coverage, drives a false narrative that results in American cities burning for a lie.

Five-year-old Cannon Hinnant was playing outside his father’s North Carolina house on a sunny Sunday afternoon, riding his bike with his two sisters, eight and seven years old. He apparently rode onto the lawn of the neighbor’s house, where Darius Sessoms lived. According to police reports and witnesses, Sessoms came out of his house with a handgun, went up to little Cannon, put the gun to his head and murdered him while his sisters were watching.

Sessoms jumped in his car and drove away, but was captured by indispensable law enforcement and arrested within 24 hours.

This is just a gut-wrenching story at multiple levels. And yet the mainstream media outside of Fox News has refused to cover it. Doing searches for NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, Reuters News Service and so on, you will not find a story on it. Only local media in North Carolina and some conservative outlets have covered it.

How does ignoring this story drive racial divisions? Compare the coverage of George Floyd’s death by Minneapolis police. That story could have been about a bad cop acting outrageously. Because that’s actually what happened. But because it was a white cop on a black man with video evidence, it became a giant national story and the media could not get enough. 

The story of Cannon is more compelling in that he was not a convicted felon high on drugs and resisting arrest, not an excuse for the cop’s behavior but a bit of context. Cannon was a five-year-old boy executed for riding his bike. While white? That is what the media and Democrats would jump to if the races were reversed.

Some will argue that the Floyd killing represented the bigger issue of murderous police brutality against blacks. But that actually is not supported by the data.

A study by Roland Fryer Jr., a black professor of economics at Harvard University, found that there was not a disproportionate impact in terms of police shootings. Actually, the opposite.

After the 2014 Fergus, Mo., shooting of a black man by a white police officer, which touched off riots and destruction on a smaller scale after heavy media coverage of “hands up, don’t shoot” that never happened, Fryer and his assistants spent 3,000 hours assembling detailed police reports from several major cities. Their findings were that law enforcement officials “were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white.” Also, Fryer found that black and white civilians in these types of situations were equally likely to have a weapon on them.

After controlling for numerous other factors — so in basically similar situations — Fryer found that blacks were 27.4 percent less likely than whites to be fatally shot by police. Police have recognized, at least subconsciously, the higher negative impacts of shooting a black man than a white man for years now.

The media was fully aware of Fryer’s findings — which were subsequently reproduced — but after the Floyd killing, they went right back into the same mode. Meaning that they and their fellow-travelers in Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Socialist Party USA and other anti-American subversive organizations, ignored the data and focused on an anecdote that is duty-bound to whip up racial animosity.

But did you know that there actually is a major issue with violent black crime against white people?

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization, the latest year available, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent. That means blacks committed nine times more violence against whites than whites did against blacks. That’s a fairly compelling piece of data.

And while the media loves to make the fact-free claim that there is increasing Trump-inspired white supremacist violence against blacks, the opposite turns out to be true. In 2012-13, blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between blacks and whites, while whites committed 15 percent. From 2015 to 2018, the total number of white victims and the incidence of white victimization have grown as well.

Interestingly, blacks are also much higher perpetrators of hate crimes by 50 percent, according to the Justice Department data from 2017. Whites are underrepresented at only 24 percent. This is particularly true for anti-gay and anti-Semitic hate crimes.

So absolutely none of the stories we see constantly from fatal police brutality to whites hunting blacks are true. In both of these cases, the opposite is true.

The actual story, and one that is uncomfortable and that the media will not report, is that black Americans are committing violent crime against white Americans at astronomically higher rates than the other way around. And police killings are so small as to be irrelevant.

If seeking a powerful anecdote to reflect a factual truth, the death of little Cannon is the proper one.

But better yet, the media and Democrats could just treat both the Floyd killing and the Cannon killings as individual bad people doing bad things where both were arrested and charged, and race does not play a role.

But the media does just the opposite. And American cities burn while large swathes of Americans think the lie is the truth.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Like Rod on Facebook.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Journalism Media Race Race relations Truth

Rejecting Every Premise Of The New York Times 1619 Project

Rod Thomson

There are a lot of lies, factual errors, misrepresentations, selective history and general nonsense in the New York Times’ 1619 project that are worthy of rejection.

According to the Times: “The goal of The 1619 Project, a major initiative from The New York Times that this issue of the magazine inaugurates, is to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year. Doing so requires us to place the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are as a country.”

It is worth rejecting that slavery should be placed “at the very center” of our history. Was it a large and terrible part? Yes. It caused misery culminating in a bloody Civil War and its legacy endured through Jim Crow. But at the very center? Not the religious freedom that brought the first Pilgrims in Massachusetts? Not the idea of an upside down government that dethroned the king and put the people on the top and the government subservient (“for the people and by the people”?) That was a first in history, while slavery was a universal part of world history on every continent and among every race — both enslaving and being enslaved.

On the cover the 1619 Project, overlaying on a full-page black and white picture of a very dark ocean, are these words:

“In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists. America was not yet America, but this was the moment it began. No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.”

Picking 1619 is the worst of “journalistic” cherry-picking. There was no America until 1776. Before that, Florida and other South and Southwestern areas were variously Spanish colonies, or French colonies, and finally most were British colonies — all before the American Revolution created the new nation. Slavery ran most of its life in North America when we were all British subjects, or Spanish and French subjects.

This is crucial, because all of these nations — and all of the rest of the world — were practicing slavery at this time and had from time immemorial. Slavery was part of the Asian world, a large part of the Muslim world, practiced throughout Central and South America even before the first Conquistadors arrived, and importantly for our discussion, rampant through Africa by other Africans.

Most of the slaves transported to America were not captured by white slavers as depicted in the movie Roots. That happened, but the majority were simply bought from Africans who had enslaved nearby tribes they had conquered. It was a facet of Africa like it was the rest of the world, and to call it a uniquely American evil is factually wrong and dishonest. It was — and still is — a worldwide evil.

Slavery in the United States of America ran 87 years from 1776-1863. Or in President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago…” Just a fact, something journalists used to care about.

A common lie told today by leftists, and it is repeated in the Time’s 1619 Project by several of the writers, is that the “white men” who created the Constitution, did not see black people as fully human and not worthy of rights. This is also factually wrong. The northern colonies were packed with abolitionists — white people — who argued that this was the moment to end the atrocity of slavery, at the outset of the new nation. But there were other white people in the southern colonies, slave holders, who would not agree to form a single country to fight for freedom from British rule if emancipation were included.

It’s possible that the majority of the framers preferred to free blacks and give them rights in the newly formed country. But freedom could not be won unless all the colonies were bound together against the greatest empire on earth at the time. So the painful compromise was made to win freedom from Britain. And then, within a few generations, a bloody Civil War was fought almost entirely by white people to free the slaves. (About 90 percent of Union troops were white.)

The Times ignores this and misrepresents world history, our history and the founders and framers, by saying all of the framers saw blacks as subhuman. The publication is intent on doing this because as modern leftists they have an almost instinctive antipathy toward America and the very idea of American greatness. But more relevant to the moment, they are doing this literally to help beat Donald Trump and Republicans in 2020.

It does not require any special analytical abilities to deduce this. Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet essentially says so.

A recording of a full Times staff meeting was leaked to Slate last week, which then published a transcript of it. Baquet held this staff meeting two weeks ago to explain a coming change in coverage after the collapse of the Trump-Russia narrative.

“Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”

Support us on Patreon

Pulitzers are award by like-minded leftists. Only one type of story wins those. But despite two years and virtually unlimited legal and financial resources, Mueller failed to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. Which essentially means those years of reporting got it wrong. But Pulitzers.

Baquet went on, and this really pulls the veil back:

“The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened. Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

But Pulitzers — unless of course they were just political accolades by fellow travelers and not about actual journalism.

Baquet: “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well…Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

That is, a different angle of attack on President Trump, since Trump-Russia it turns out was never really a story. The real story the Times will not tell is how we got a two-year special counsel investigation of an event that did not happen. Baquet, not knowing this would become public of course, just puts it out there openly.

“I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks? How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”

Divided by Trump. Amazing. Baquet said the Times must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”

And there it is. The 1619 Project.

“It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

“Reframing” history is just a deceptive way of saying “rewrite” history. And there is no conceivable way this does not inflame racial tensions and make us more divided. And understand, most news outlets across the country take their cue on story importance and framing from the New York Times.

The first lines of the massive project let it all hang out.

“Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true…”

No. Another premise to reject that just flat wrong. Blacks did indeed fight to earn their claim to them, as did whites. But the ideals were true and right — changing support for values does not in any way alter the moral standing of the values themselves. That would be self-evident to a non propagandist. Those ideas simply were imperfectly implemented, as mentioned above. 

Our nation’s story actually is one of consistently moving closer to those ideals, striving through emancipation in the 19th century to the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century. Blacks have been fully equal to whites under the law in this country for 50 years.

But the Times will never tell that story. 

Baquet told his staff that over the next two years, the Times will “teach” its readers to see race everywhere, to view every issue through race. Stories will strive to “reframe” each issue through the lense of race. The next two years just coincidentally happen to cover the entire presidential election cycle. 

And that brings us to the final premise to reject: That the New York Times is a news organization. It is not. And it has not been for a long while. But it took its own mask off now. It is virtually self-described now as an anti-American, leftist, Democratic propaganda outlet — with some news stories sprinkled in.

No independent-minded person should think otherwise.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Identity Politics Race Race relations Racism Truth

Democrats’ Exploitive Use Of “Racism” Is Repressing Black Americans’

Rod Thomson

The Democratic Party has come to rely so heavily on the ubiquitous use of the word-weapon “racism” that not only has it lost all meaning for many Americans, but it’s abuse for decades has undoubtedly kept black Americans at the bottom of the culture and increasingly reliant on the government largesse.

It’s hard not to conclude that this is exactly what the Democratic Party desires. Not all rank-and-file Democrats, not by a long shot. But the politicians, pundits, operatives and media members using it daily against every Republican opponent has branded that party with a fabrication. As the El Paso shooter’s incoherent manifesto shows him to be a white nationalist and an enviro-terrorist, Democrats (and their media) have rushed to pour gasoline on that fire, because they have weaponized race relations, using American blacks as their political pawns.

The political effect is wondrous for Democrat politicians, who scare blacks biennially into voting for them at 90 percent or higher rates. This is universally unrivaled in any other racial, ethnic or gender group. The results for blacks, however, of this one-party devotion are seen quite clearly in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Flint, Oakland, Memphis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Little Rock, Cleveland and the rest.

In a word: Disastrous. 

It is ironic that the very reason that using the word-weapon “racism” is so effective is that Americans en masse recoil at the very idea of it. We are aware of our history, have desperately tried to move past it, and despise being called a racist even when we know it to be untrue. We are so not a racist country that being called a racist stings like few other insults. In a truly racist country, this would not be the case.

How do I know? Because it was never used during the ugly age of the Jim Crow South. When racism was blatant and obvious, when many whites accepted themselves as superior to blacks, the word “racism” was not used because it carried no clout. It would be akin to calling me white as an insult, or that I sleep at night as an insult. Right, that’s just the norm.

Joseph Epstein, who grew up in Arkansas during Jim Crow, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The word racism wasn’t much in vogue in that place, or anywhere else, at that time. The majority of people who could rightly be called racist would not know what you were talking about if you accused them of racism.”

Now it has power though because we are not a racist nation. Due to the efforts of people like Martin Luther King Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, James Farmer, Roy Wilkins Sr. and many others, legal and systemic racism with any support base outside of dreary 4-Chan chat rooms has long been eradicated. But what would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and, now the entire Democratic establishment, do without it?

Broad swaths of talking points by Democratic presidential contenders, Democratic Congressional leaders, the Squad, and their endless braying allies in the media would simply vanish. They would have nothing to say. And they would have no way of locking up the black vote.

Epstein wrote: “The power of the word racism—always cocked, aimed and ready to fire—makes it impossible to say anything, outside the most obeisant praise, about black culture, black politicians, black entertainers or black anything. The entire subject is out of bounds to anyone who isn’t black, and many black intellectuals and writers are themselves in peril if they step outside the racial party line. This can’t be healthy, for blacks or for the country at large.”

Of course not. But it does get votes.

It’s ironic, again, but a sign of the ill-health of this strategy is that it now not just applies to every Republican and conservative, but to everyone to the “right” of whoever is saying it. That is how Sen. Kamala Harris can attack former Vice President Joe Biden as a racist (when Biden himself used it in more conventional fashion against Mitt Romney with “put ya’ll back in chains”) and the Squad can use it against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who also uses it relentlessly against Republicans. Talk about hoisted on your own petard!

For all the damage this continues to do, it could at least be given the veneer of a defense if indeed Democrat policies had been improving the lives of black Americans. But by virtually every measurement — education, crime, family structure, religion — their actual policies and cultural philosophies have made the majority of blacks worse off.

Again, just look at cities that have been governed by Democrats for decades. Look at Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore district, which for decades also has had a Democrat mayor and a Democrat city council. He uses the race card quite freely, but after nearly three decades in Washington calling his Republican opponents racists, how have blacks in his district faired? They live in rat-ravaged, high-crime, downward spiraling communities with families and church institutions in tatters. 

Democratic policies have kept blacks seeing themselves as victims unable to rise in America, and the pervasive lie that America is racist against them doubles down on that victimhood. There is nothing that blacks can do because “America is racist!,” they are told over and over and over.

So vote Democrat.

The revolution for blacks will come when they stop seeing themselves as victims — which means they will need to listen to different voices than they have been listening to — and recognize they are fully equal with white people both under the law and in abilities. They will need to realize that they have real opportunities, they have real freedoms, and they have real responsibilities in conjunction with those freedoms.

Black Americans can become a fully thriving element of America, but not by doing what they have been doing the past 30 years. If there were any actually responsible Democratic leaders who cared about the welfare of American blacks, this is what they would be saying and doing.

I don’t hear any.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Class Warfare Politics Race Race relations Truth

The Real Existential Threat: Race And Class Warfare. Ask History.

Rod Thomson

“There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race.”

That’s from Paul Johnson, maybe the preeminent historian of the 20th Century and as non-political as you can get, from his history book, “Modern Times: The World From The Twenties To The Nineties.”

After another two-night marathon of Democratic debates, it has come back to me as I am reading Johnson’s excellent, if dense, history tome.

A large part of the country has just accepted that we hammer each other on race and income. It’s just politics. No, it’s not. It’s both personal and eventually fatal. It is exactly — and I mean exactly — what Lenin did in creating and sustaining the Soviet Union during and after the Russian Revolution. In fact, that is who Johnson is describing in the above sentence, the killing machine of Lenin in 1919 who set the stage for one of the world’s greatest killing machines, Stalin.

That is not where we are, of course. But we can see what is coming up ahead around the bend by knowing what has happened when we’ve gone around this bend before. Violent eruptions don’t materialize for no reason. There are always preceding causes, usually growing over time.

Here’s the key takeaway: Irresponsible American politicians aided by an irresponsible media continue to create hyper-divisions in our country. Far from all the inane platitudes of “unity in diversity,” they actively seek to divide us from one another, then pit those divisions against one another for personal or philosophic gain.

I know some will be sputtering, but, but, but Trump!!! This just really needs to be understood. Trump is a reactionary figure, meaning he is reacting to what preceded him. I never predicted Trump, but I’ve been predicting something like Trump and certainly the clash at Charlottesville for decades. After Charlottesville, I reminded my wife that I had said this was coming, and there will be more if we don’t back off the race warfare. It’s as assured as gravity.

You cannot tell an entire race of people (whites now) that they are the root of our problems (CNN anchor Don Lemon literally did a few months ago stating, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize that the biggest terror threat in this country is white men” — I know, the irony) and not expect at some point there will be a reaction and it won’t be pretty. The reaction may be wrong, but it is predictable.

President Obama certainly played a role in fanning racial flames when he could have calmed them. Instead, he jumped to racial conclusions in Cambridge, Ferguson, New York, Baltimore and Trayvon Martin in Florida (claiming white racism in every one.) But let’s be honest, this long preceded him, too. He just made it worse.

Affirmative action and minority quotas in the 1970s really started this inevitable resentment ball rolling. It’s become much, much worse though as every single election cycle, Republicans and their supporters are labeled as racists and hating poor people. White Republicans want to put black people back in chains (Biden in 2012) and push grandma off a cliff (multiple Democrat ads.) Pretty astonishing but just commonplace — like the black plague was commonplace.

The class warfare of many Democrats, most notably New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (“I’ll tax the hell out of the wealthy”) but essentially all of them on stage the past two nights talking about “fair share” for the wealthy paying more, a misnomer if there ever was one. This whipped up division creates animosity to gather votes and power, using the American people as discardable pawns. 

Karl Marx understood this formula. Lenin and Trotsky understood it. Stalin understood it. Mao understood it. Castro understood it. For that matter, and I hate to use the name, but Hitler understood it. They all played to the most base and ugly parts of human nature — the other guy is causing my problems!

This is a dangerous and deadly road, already well-traveled in history.

So let’s be clear. No one man is an existential threat to the nation, as the hyperbolic Democrat/media establishment is fond of saying today of Trump. That’s just nonsense. Our framers, who are also out of favor with the left, set up too great a foundational system of checks and balances for that.

But fanning race and class warfare is an existential threat, because it has the ability to destroy the foundations. We were headed in the right direction for a brief moment in the 1950s and 1960s (Martin Luther King’s dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character) but for a much longer time we have been going backwards, and it’s really speeding up. Class warfare is running in tandem.

This can end in no good place for our country if the foot is not removed from the accelerator of race and class divisions. History makes very, very clear that we are heading for a cliff. The thing is, we’re all in the vehicle together.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Politics Race Race relations Racism Truth

Democrats’ Long, Sordid History Of Falsely Charging Racism Explains Today’s Big Shrug

Rod Thomson

If you want to understand why Republicans and Trump supporters shrug off every accusation of racism against the president and the GOP, all you have to do is realize the long, sordid, vacuous history of Democrats calling the right racist over every major policy disagreement of the past 40 years.

From Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, the Tea Party, the NRA and Republicans everywhere, Democrats have played the race card to tattered, unrecognizable bits. They have all but destroyed the ability to even have a constructive conversation about race.

But in the process, they and their media allies have inoculated most all Republicans from the charge of racism. We all just brush it aside.

But for some even on the right, we forget the smothering extent to which Democrats have constantly used this trope for personal, short-term political gain. And most on the left will never, ever be exposed to the following list — which self-explains why Republicans give no heed to the accusation anymore. (So, dear reader, share it with your Democratic friends, with anyone!)

We really don’t need to go back to the history of Democrats being the party of slavery through Jim Crow, and opposing the Civil Rights Act in higher percentages than Republicans, although those are all true. Let’s just launch into the list starting in the 1980s to see just how bad the Democrats have been — even while pursuing policies that have demonstrably harmed black, brown and poor people.

President Ronald Reagan — Racist

Reagan was tarred as a racist on two primary counts. One was his reference to the Chicago “welfare queen” he used in his speeches to make the case for welfare reform. But as both the Washington Post and the New York Times documented, Linda Taylor was indeed that, with a Cadillac limousine and a plethora of luxuries that she obtained through welfare fraud — which was rampant in the 80s.

Reagan’s launch of the “war on drugs” was also considered racist because black people distributed drugs and partook of drugs at a higher rate than white people. They were also harmed by drugs at a higher percentage, but that would not fit the narrative. Therefore it was really a war on black people. President Bill Clinton expanded that war and Sen. Joe Biden was a leader in the Senate of expanding the criminal penalties. While Reagan was called racist for his launching of the war, Clinton and Biden (at the time, anyway) were not racist for expanding it. See how it works?

This lie continues to this day.

Richard Cohen, a partisan Democrat masquerading as a newspaper columnist, wrote recently at the Washington Post: “Republicans must acknowledge: The party has been taken over by a racist. The Trump of the weekend’s tweet binge was the culmination of a racist electoral strategy going back to Richard Nixon’s “Southern strategy” and Ronald Reagan’s aw-shucks indifference to civil rights.”

It’s not true, but it works in the category of a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

President George H.W. Bush — Racist

H.W. Bush was called racist for running the “infamous” Willie Horton ad in his 1988 campaign for president.

“Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) Wednesday branded President Bush ‘a racist’ who has ‘polarized the races in this country,’” the Los Angeles Times reported in 1992. Some things never change.

The New Yorker magazine wrote a typical summation of the elder Bush:

“In the 1988 Presidential race, when he defeated Michael Dukakis, his campaign, under the direction of Lee Atwater, pioneered many of the slash-and-burn tactics that disfigure modern elections. (The racist Willie Horton ad was but one of many misleading attacks that the Bush campaign launched.)”

Crime was at its highest rate in American history in 1988 and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was running a campaign of competent manager against Bush. But Dukakis had instituted a prison furlough program allowing dangerous criminals to get weekends out of prison. It was a disastrous program and his fellow Democrat in the primary, Al Gore, was the first to attack him on it.

But when the Bush campaign did so, using the picture of Willie Horton (not the great Detroit Tigers’ left fielder) who raped and murdered a woman while out on furlough, it was immediately labeled racist — and is to this day, according to Democrats and media, who are one and the same.

It’s worth remembering that Democrats now patronizingly hold up H.W. Bush as the very paragon of the decent Republican — because it is convenient to rewrite their history in order to make their attacks on Trump more believable.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich — Racist

Gingrich’s promise to voters, and efforts to keep those promises after Republicans won the House in 1994, turned out to be racist. The specific proposals that were racist were cutting taxes, pursuing welfare reform and pushing back the racial preference system Democrats had put in place. He and the GOP were branded the party of racists.

The New York Times attacked Gingrich for his “race-based, anger-charged politics” while comparing him to the infamous southern segregationist George Wallace — another trope that would become common fare for Democrats. New York Democratic congressman Charles Rangel attacked Republican tax cuts as pure race hatred. “It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘ni**er’ anymore,” Rangel growled

Here’s a little roundup from City Journal on the overall reaction (note: the “worse than Hitler” bit): 

“…attacks reached a fever pitch after Republicans won the House of Representatives in 1994. “What [conservative Republicans] want to do,” President Clinton said, “is make war on the kids of this country.” On NBC’s Today Show, to take another example, left-leaning host Bryant Gumbel asked liberal children’s advocate Marian Wright Edelman a classic leading question: “In light of the new welfare-reform bill, do you think the children need more prayers than ever before?” Former Democratic New York governor Mario Cuomo evoked the image of “Republican storm-troopers.” Another New York Democrat, Congressman Major Owens, went further: “These are the people,” he thundered, “who are practicing genocide with a smile: they’re worse than Hitler.” 

Worse than Hitler. That was in the 1990s.

Now of course, the principles of limited government, tax cuts, minimal welfare tied to responsible actions and deregulation are standard conservative fare, and not rationally tied in any way to Nazism, Hitler or the Holocaust. But see how the exact same cards are played over and over.

President George W. Bush — Racist

W. Bush was a racist because of the allegedly slow response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in New Orleans, a majority black city. Of course, it couldn’t possibly be that the gears of the gigantic federal bureaucracy grind slowly and incompetently and that New Orleans’ well-known corruption and mismanagement left the city in terrible shape. No, it was Bush secretly slowing everything down specifically so more black people would die.

Bush wanted Congress to provide more money for border security as more than four million illegal immigrants came to the U.S. between 2000-2005 — the highest five-year period in our history. He committed 6,000 National Guard troops to the border to strengthen security.

But Bush also pushed for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform which included elements awfully close to full amnesty and was opposed by the vast majority of Republicans for legalizing millions of people who came here illegally. The conversative position is that the rule of law matters. Getting in line matters. Knowing who is in our country matters. But GOP opposition, which eventually killed the bill, was labeled racist by Democrats.

Here’s the left-leaning Brookings Institute’s take on opposition to immigration reform by Republicans. This was to the 2013 “reform,” but it mirrors 2007:

“It’s because House Republicans aren’t motivated by true conservatism. Rather, they represent constituencies haunted by anxiety associated with the perception that they’re “losing their country” to immigrants from south of the border. The Republican Party is 89 percent white, and 97 percent of Republican House districts in the 113th Congress have white majorities.”

Many Republicans were well into yawning at the charges of racism by this point. But so much more came before Trump entered the stage.

Sen. John McCain — Racist

It’s interesting how beloved McCain is today by Democrats and the media. Well he wasn’t while running for President in 2008. He was…a racist! (Among the other now-common range of name-calling.)

The New York Times accused McCain of “racially tinged attacks.”

The Hill reminded us at the time of McCain’s death that, “In August 2008, the New York Times editorial page described an official McCain ad as ‘racially tinged’ because it included a photo of Obama juxtaposed with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. The message the campaign was sending: Obama, with little experience and media adulation, was much more sizzle than steak, a paparazzi-obsessed celebrity.”

Then, liberal journalist Ezra Klein accused McCain of “running crypto-racist ads.” NPR journalist Bill Press called McCain’s ads “deliberately and deceptively racist.” Don Lemon, now a CNN anchor, charged that the McCain campaign was “creating a political environment that is inciting hate and hate speech.” 

Rep. John Lewis said McCain was “sowing the seeds of hatred and division” and said McCain’s rhetoric harkened back to segregationist George Wallace. Another Wallace comparison.  Of McCain!

For good measure, Teen Vogue magazine called McCain “patently Islamaphobic” because of the threats he saw in Syrian of Islamic extremism — which ended up being right about.

So it’s worth remembering that the now beloved McCain, because before his death he hated Trump and opposed GOP conservatives, was called a racist by Democrats and their media when he was running for president as a Republican. 

Gov. Mitt Romney — Racist

And then we have Romney, one of the nicest and most decent men ever to run for president, if a bit of a squish on actual conservative values and pretty unpopular now among Republicans.

The by-now very familiar refrain of the Democrats and their media was trotted out on schedule to label Romney a racist for wanting to repeal the financial regulation commonly referred to as Dodd-Frank — which has hamstrung community banks and startups and made the too big to fail even bigger.

It was none other than Vice President Joe Biden who told a heavily black audience in 2012 that Romney’s efforts were designed to “put y’all back in chains.” (Of course, this is why it’s such delicious justice that Biden gets attacked by Sen. Kamala Harris for being a racist.)

Romney pushed back after the comment by Biden, saying “this is what an angry and desperate presidency looks like.” Well naturally, that was racist!  

U.S. News and World Report wrote at the time of Romney using the word “anger” twice, twice!

“You notice he said anger twice; he’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man,” said Toure, an African-American co-host on MSNBC’s The Cycle, on Thursday. “This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us,” he continued. “I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization.’ You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Zerlina Maxwell, a Democratic strategist, said at the time that the Romney campaign was using race against Obama. “When you are ‘other-izing’ the first black president and saying he’s not one of us, you’re talking to a very specific segment of your base. But the danger is independents don’t like that. So he’s walking a fine line.”

Note the “other-izing” and racism had become a Democrat talking point against Romney when it was Biden who launched the race-baiting, and also that the natural state of Republicans is racist, but appealing to that could turn off independents. Now, predictably as we have seen, when Romney became a critic of Trump, all was forgotten by the media and Democrats and he was one of the good guys. Like McCain and even Bush.

All The Rest Of Us — Racists

Of course, it’s not just Republican presidents and presidential candidates. Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson said the NRA was racist for opposing Obama’s gun control proposals. Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel, again, claimed the Tea Party was racist (it was literally founded on the huge bailouts and stimulus spending, wanting fiscal restraint and lower taxes. But that was racist.) Jesse Jackson stated that the Tea Party “should be called the “Fort Sumter Tea Party that sought to maintain states’ rights and slavery.”

When Republicans want borders that are secure, and people only coming legally, they are always portrayed by Democrats and the media as racist. Democrat Phil Ramos (D-NY), says that the word “illegal” is itself racist, a line that has since been picked up by others.

But when Sen. Obama, in 2005, said he opposed “undetected, undocumented, unchecked” immigration, there was nary a peep from the media and Democrats. Here’s Obama’s quote from that press conference:

“We all agree on the need to better secure the border and to punish employers who choose to hire illegal immigrants. We are a generous and welcoming people, here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States, undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

That sounds like not just the Republican position, but President Trump’s position. And in fact, it was said at a bi-partisan press conference made up of both Democrats and Republicans. But now that position is racist (well, if a Republican holds it.)

So when Donald Trump comes along, and the same old people — Democrats and the media — cry out that he is racist, Republicans basically yawn. It’s like they never read the story of the boy who cried wolf, or if they did their take away was something about white privilege or environmental destruction by meat-eaters.

We’re all just immune to the charge of racism.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham just puts it plainly in a recent tweet: “Something I have learned: If you are a Republican nominee for President — or President — you will be accused of being a racist.”

Yes, and this list makes that plain to see. But now it also extends to anyone who supports a Republican or Trump.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Gender Race Race relations Truth

Dear Esther: Chicago Does Not Need A Black Woman Mayor

Rod Thomson

What Chicago needs is an honest, non-corrupt, economically literate, competent mayor that can lift the once-great city out of the tragic farce it has become. That might be a black woman. It might not.

Esther Cepeda, in one of the most insipidly stupid takes on politics I’ve read in quite awhile — and that’s saying something — believes that the gender and skin color of the next Chicago mayor is all that is needed to miraculously turn the city around, heal racial wounds, lower crime rates, improve economics and, perhaps, bring unicorns prancing on rainbows!

It’s so bad one has to ask, even in these times, how in the world do some people get nationally syndicated columns through the Washington Post Group? Let’s start at the beginning of the nonsense. Probably best not to be eating while I quote from Cepeda.

“Finally, a spot of good news for a beleaguered city that has long been known as a hotbed of racism and government-sanctioned segregation: the promise of Chicago’s first black, female mayor.

In a dogpile of a mayoral race, 14 candidates fought it out to connect to voters who had long ago given into a nasty case of learned helplessness. The two top winners — both black women — beat out a rich scion of a Chicago political dynasty, a Latina state official, the city’s former top cop and a bevy of other local luminaries.

The two finalists are former assistant U.S. attorney Lori Lightfoot and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. And no matter which one of them wins the April 2 runoff Chicago’s inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim.”

Set aside the overt racialism and bigotry over assuming based on skin color and gender alone that the next mayor will be better, what is she even factually talking about? “Inauguration of a female African-American mayor will make a kind of history that none of the other top cities in America can claim?” Um…Baltimore is on it’s third straight black woman mayor. And look how great Baltimore is doing! OK, actually it’s racked by racial strife, incompetence, a skyrocketing murder rate and a so-so economy despite being right next door to D.C.

Let’s see, who else? Oh yeah, Washington, D.C. elected a black female mayor; San Francisco elected a black female mayor; Atlanta elected a black female mayor; New Orleans elected a black female mayor; Charlotte, N.C. elected a black female mayor. Oh heck, here’s a full list here.

Support truth

So what in the world is she talking about? And does she have an editor? When she says “top cities” is she saying New York and L.A.? That’s cherry-picking at its worst. Pretty sure most rational people could consider San Fran and D.C. among America’s top cities. But it is the sort of dishonesty we come to expect from the media. Even opinion writers should be held to a standard of some sort. But I dream.

More Cepeda” “And it’s a relief, indicating that there are still strides people of color can hope for…”

Because again, not the quality of the candidate, the issues, the plans, dare I say even, the content of their character, is what is important. Black. Female. Better. That’s the entire measuring stick. Nothing racist or bigoted here at all, folks.

More Cepeda:

So, yeah, the city could use good news in the form of a historic change of leadership from Rahm Emanuel, a big-interests-focused political operator. Either one of these two women could, in theory, address the neglect of the African-American community, which has caused what some experts consider to be a mass migration of black people out of the city and into the suburbs, neighboring Indiana or the Southern states where the original Great Migration began.”

I believe “address the neglect” translates to: A black female mayor will give blacks more stuff. If it meant reforming the school system, attacking the total decimation of the black family, changing the attitude towards education and jobs among young, black men specifically, and maybe even creative opportunity zones for investment,  then that could really be something. But given Cepeda’s level of thought and insight, pretty sure she just means more stuff.

And finally, which of these two candidate finalists will win? Let’s look at one last note in Cepeda’s description to get a clue:

“At least it won’t be a boring race. As evidenced by her campaign thus far, Lightfoot — a self-proclaimed out and proud black lesbian — has seemingly never even heard of the “be nice” political playbook that’s expected of women politicians — perhaps a winning formula for other, future female high-office candidates?”

Straw man alert! Who exactly is expecting women to be “be nice” in politics? Not exactly what we’ve been seeing. And of course in another context, Cepeda would be bemoaning the state of our mean politics. What is really at work here is just the tired retread thinking of liberalism’s past quarter century.

Now, based on intersectional hierarchy, the black female lesbian candidate beats the black female candidate 3-2 in intersectional scoring. (Content of ideas need not apply.) But Chicago is well-known as a corrupt Democratic city and the non-lesbian black female candidate is part of that power structure. So it is entrenched power versus intersectional power.

Despite Cepeda’s fact-free, knee-jerk, stuck-in-a-rut thinking, it’s all but impossible to see how the city improves either way. Not, of course, because they are black women, but because they are shades of Chicago Democratic progressivism, which has proven itself a deep failure already. Changing faces won’t change the outcome.

Unfortunately, Cepeda and her fellow travellers will think the election itself means the city wins. That wasn’t the case with Barack Obama’s election as president. And it won’t be the case with Chicago’s choice.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Leftists Race Race relations Truth

Trayvon Martin Hate Hoax Created Modern Identity Politics

Rod Thomson

The final take-away from what follows is that America is a pretty frickin’ amazing country when it comes to racism and bigotry.

It’s so good, in fact, that a small but booming industry has sprung up creating hoaxes to perpetuate the illusion of a bigoted country when the fact that there are so many hoaxes is one of the strong proofs of how little there is in reality.

The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax — he paid Nigerians to pretend to attack him, pour bleach on him and put a noose around his neck — is just the latest. It follows in a long line of hate crime hoaxes being perpetrated by the left, Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, creating an industry that was super fueled by the Trayvon Martin race hoax.

But Trayvon was only the start. Fuel was added in Ferguson, Baltimore and elsewhere. And all of the straight up hoaxes or race-baiting misrepresentations and grew into wildfires with the belching bellows of a credulous, fellow-traveling media.

This running annual survey by Gallup Poll on race relations shows the damage done by a series of hate crime hoaxes starting in 2013.

What happened in 2013? It’s what happened in 2012 that led to 2013. George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, after Martin attacked him and knocked him to the ground. It was self defense. That was the initial State’s Attorney decision after interviews with witnesses and examining all of the physical evidence. No charges.

But 2012, you may recall, was an election year. Barack Obama was in the midst of his re-election campaign and had already shown himself more than willing to stoke racial tensions — both purposely and incidentally — for his own purposes. The national media, and we all understand they are aligned with Democratic politicians and were major allies of Obama, ginned up the story of outrage that a white man had killed a young black teen in cold blood and was walking away scot free. Pictures of Trayvon in the media were from when he was 13 and pretty young and innocent looking.

The problem was that Trayvon was 18 and a filled out man. His social media accounts showed a full-size young man brooding in a hoodie or giving us all the finger — pictures the media refused to run, sticking with the five-year-old photo of a skinny kid. The other problem: Zimmerman was not white. He was Hispanic.

The photo the media ran most often:

Photos of the young man who actually attacked Zimmerman:

No matter. The narrative was set. This is not to say it was OK to shoot him because of the photos. His actions apparently dictated that.

It is to say that the media was particularly egregious on this hoax, actively participating in it. Beyond just absurd credulity and using the wrong photo, CNN and NBC News were both caught manipulating Zimmerman’s 911 tape to twist him into a racist by badly taking things out of context and warping some of the words. ABC News actually airbrushed a photo of Zimmerman’s bloodied scalp to remove the wounds he received from Martin.

The narrative whipping up the public, prosecutors ended up charging Zimmerman with murder — a wild overreach that was doomed from the beginning. It went to trial and Zimmerman was duly acquitted after a full-fledged circus because while the race-inflaming industry had changed the narrative and the charges, the evidence itself had not changed.

But the damage was done. Florida was branded again as racist. America was racist. Black men were being gunned down on the streets. And the racial tensions that had been finally healing were cut back open again because it benefitted Obama and the Democratic, race-hustling machine let by Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Gallup’s poll showed a plunge in American attitudes on race relations the following year when it was taken. All based on a hate crime hoax.

It got worse. In 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a black community, part of the St. Louis metro area, a black teen named Michael Brown was shot by a white cop and killed, his body laying in the street until paramedics arrived. The race-baiting industry, led by the media megaphone portion, went into high gear, including reporting that Brown had put his hands up and said don’t shoot. “Hands up don’t shoot” became the mantra of activists and many in the media. Riots ensued. The police officer went into hiding and Black Lives Matter was birthed.

But this too was a hate crime hoax. It turns out, when the investigation was done and all the evidence in, even Obama’s race-driven Justice Department found no cause against the police officer because “hands up don’t shoot” never happened. What actually took place was that Brown, always called a teen despite being a nearly 300-pound 19-year-old man, had just robbed a Korean grocery store and threatened the owner. It’s on tape.

Support the fight for truth

When the officer responding to the call saw him walking down the street, he told him to stop. Brown ultimately ended up attacking the officer, punched him in the face and tried to take his gun. The officer shot Brown multiple times and killed him. There’s no disputing this as even Obama’s team had to admit this is what happened.

But the burning, looting and rioting that resulted from the irresponsible (at best) media hoax reporting had done more damage to American race relations. In 2014 and 2015, Gallup’s poll fell further. It leveled out at a much worse place by 2016 and has actually stayed steady at that point through 2018. So six years ago, the number of blacks who thought race relations between blacks and white was bad nearly doubled, from 29 percent in 2012 to 53 percent by 2015. It actually dropped a little by 2018 to 47 percent, but still very high. Whites track that trajectory.   

Hoax hate crimes are nothing really new. They’ve been used to further the left’s agenda for decades. In 1987, Al Sharpton created the Tawana Brawley hoax, which claimed that four white men raped a black girl. It never happened, it finally came out. But riots and at least one actual death stemmed from the hoax.

Sharpton has been well-rewarded for lying and creating hysteria over the hoax. He got national recognition and displaced Jesse Jackson as the ultimate race hustler. He made millions of dollars, was given a television show, a talk radio show and even ran for president in 2004. Oh, and he was invited to Obama’s White House 82 times — to advise on matters of race. Frankly, it appears Obama took his advice.

The Daily Caller has compiled a list of 21 of the most egregious hate crime hoaxes just during the Trump administration. (Other sites have the total, including small ones, at nearly 400.) There are many more, but these are a few that stand out. They range from racist hate crime hoaxes to anti-gay hate crime hoaxes to anti-Muslim hate crime hoaxes. Basically, the full panoply of the left.

Note, that these all disappeared from the news immediately upon being determined by authorities to be hoaxes. But the media continues to jump on the next one. Remember way back to the Covington school boys hate crime hoax, before the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax?

Of course, unless you file a false police report, and the police decide to actually charge you with that — there is no downside to hoaxing and a lot of upside potential. The cost-benefit analysis for the hoaxer is very positive.

There will be more, and the media will leap to believe them. And American race relations and divisions will either remain bad or get deeper.

Wait, here’s one new hot off the presses. Two days ago, The Detroit Free Press reported that a transgender, gay-rights activist who had fought for a local anti-discrimination ordinance in Jackson, Michigan, and had his house burned down in 2017, blamed haters, was just charged with arson for setting the fire himself. It’s like clockwork.

Notice that the hate crime hoaxes are not just regarding blacks, although they are an important part of intersectional politics of the left. It is also gays, Muslims and so on. This has helped fuel intersectional politics, continuing the broad hoax that America is a racist, bigoted place.

The really ironic part is that progressive Democrats have to continually keep making up these hoaxes, because there is so little racism and bigotry left in the United States. Yet the perceptions are wildly different. We know why, and we know who benefits.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Leftists Progressives Race Truth

Sammy Davis, Jr. — Like Kanye — Was Viciously Attacked For Hugging A GOP President

By Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.

If you ever wondered what would happen when you put Kanye West and Donald Trump in the Oval Office together, last week undoubtedly gave you an indication. Their meeting was one of the most colorful displays of contrasting styles, differing perspectives, and looseness of association in recent memory — ending with a flamboyant hug behind the Resolute Desk, sealed with Kanye’s proclamation of, “I love this guy!”

Predictably, Kanye’s hug was the talk of the nation, and it wasn’t all positive.

CNN’s Don Lemon saw it as a moment when Kanye West was exploited and used by a white president. And the African American rapper, T.I., lashed out at West, exclaiming via social media, “This is the most repulsive, disgraceful, embarrassing act of desperation & auctioning off of one’s soul to gain power I’ve ever seen. . . I feel compelled to slap the f***k outta you bro for the people!”

This abusive relationship between independent black men and the Democratic Party left has a long history.

Things were not good between Richard Nixon and the African-American community back in 1971. First, he was a Republican, and the Democrats had just passed the Civil Rights Act that had been originally pushed by Republicans. The view of the Republican Party as the Grand Ol’ Civil Rights Party was abandoned as African-Americans flocked to Lyndon B. Johnson and his War on Poverty.

What’s worse, Nixon was an awkward, white man. He had no spunk and had this awful tendency to accumulate sweat above his upper lip. His performance in front of the camera was so bad that a decade earlier, during his debate with John F. Kennedy, those who heard the event on radio called him the clear winner while those who saw it on television almost universally sided with Kennedy.  

Also, African-Americans were not impressed with Nixon’s first term as President. For starters, he had nominated two Southern judges to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was confirmed by the Senate. Second, unlike Lyndon B. Johnson with his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Weaver, Nixon did not appoint any African-Americans to his cabinet.

More Original Content On Patreon

And then there was the issue of the growing welfare state and Nixon’s intent of cutting programs initiated by Johnson. In fact, in 1971, the animus towards Nixon was so intense that the Congressional Black Caucus boycotted his State of the Union address.

Nixon recognized he needed an ally from the black community. He had been seen a few times with James Brown, but Brown was not a politically active individual.

Sammy Davis Junior, on the other hand, was a “Cool Cat.” He was an African-American Jew and flaunted it. He had one fake eye and was proud of it. And he was the sole black member of the famously infamous Rat Pack!

Besides, Sammy Davis, Jr. was The Candy Man! Who could ever dislike the man that could take the sunrise and sprinkle it with dew; and cover it with chocolate and a miracle or two?

Astutely, Nixon asked Davis to be on his National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity. Davis, of course, was thrilled at the prospect. From his standpoint, he was being tasked to serve on a Committee by the President of the United States! What greater honor could there be for any American, particularly an African-American Jew! Davis gladly met with the President at the White House to accept his position, a photo op for both men.  

Then Nixon asked Davis to appear in Vietnam before the troops, which he did, and then came to the White House to report to the President. Another photo op.

Next thing he knew Sammy Davis, Jr. was appearing at Republican fundraisers, and singing!

Get More Truth On Our Facebook Page

So, in the 1972, it was natural for Davis to be asked to participate in the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach. Davis enthusiastically accepted and that’s how he found himself on stage before the Republican Youth Rally at the Playboy Hotel in Miami as the President of the United States arrived in the middle of his performance!  

Seeing Nixon walk on stage, Davis was naturally overwhelmed. He stopped, warmly introduced Nixon, and then, in the joy of the moment, gave the President a welcoming, warm, sideways hug!

Immediately, the cameras blazed, inscribing in black and white one of the 20th century’s most impactful, interracial photographic moments. The picture, angled from the men’s front-right, captured a stooped over Sammy Davis, Jr. with his left arm around the President and his right hand gripping Nixon’s right forearm. The smiles on the two men’s faces were genuine and beaming even though their poses — Davis’s ever cool and Nixon’s ever stiff — bespoke their differences.

Although the moment was genuine, the reaction from the left was vicious. The hatred towards Sammy Davis, Jr. was palpable as African-Americans from all over the nation condemned him for so praising the President. He was accused of being used and manipulated by white people.

In short, the left, despicably, turned Sammy Davis, Jr. into a traitor to his race. Sounds pretty familiar.

Recognizing the vitriol, Davis’s PR team went on offense. Sy Marsh, Davis’s PR director, immediately reached out to one of the stalwarts of the Civil Rights movement and one of the most respected African-American leaders in the country at the time: Jesse Jackson.  Remember, Jackson was at the balcony of the Lorraine Motel when Martin Luther King was brutally shot. The cameras would capture him as one of the men standing next to a dying King desperately pointing in the direction of the gunshots.

Of course Jackson could salvage Davis’s image! Or at least Marsh thought. 

At the time, Jackson was involved in an organization he developed, People United to Save Humanity (PUSH), and if Davis could bring $15,000.00 to the upcoming PUSH fundraiser in Chicago, Jackson would be happy to have Davis join him on stage.

Try Our Youtube Channel

Marsh quickly scrounged up the money from the people who recurrently bailed Sammy Davis, Jr. from financial peril stemming from his drinking and drug use; the casino owners. The payment arranged, Davis showed up as planned, and here is how Wil Haygood, author of a 2003 Washington Post article named the “The Hug” describes it:

And there [Davis] stood, preparing to join Jackson on that Chicago stage and navigate the swinging bridge of black-white relations that defined the ’60s. “Sammy walks out,” recalls Marsh, “and they booed him. Sammy is in a state of shock.” Davis swung his head from side to side of the building, looking for the anger, the source of the boos. “It struck me as with physical force, knocking the wind out of me,” Davis would recall. “It grew louder.” Jackson seemed momentarily startled. He quickly flung his muscular arm around Davis. Jackson’s ferocious embrace was so full of on-the-spot love it seemed to weaken Davis. He seemed to be shrinking inside his denim jacket. The boos and catcalls rained on.

“Brothers,” Jackson said, waving his arm for quiet, “if it wasn’t for people like Sammy Davis, you wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t have PUSH today. Now, I expected some foolish people were going to react like this because the man hugged the president of the United States. So what? Look at what this gigantic little man has committed himself to over all these years.”

As the boos erupted anew, Jackson realized he had underestimated the anger. Davis’s body began twisting. He wanted to bolt. Jackson could feel his angst, and only held Davis tighter. Then he asked Davis to sing something, and suggested “I’ve Gotta Be Me.” Given the circumstances, it was a request both funny and meaningful — and perhaps Freudian. Davis had no time to ponder the meaning; he simply began singing. Words caught in his throat; there was snickering. Marsh felt terrible. “Sammy sang a song, came off, said, ‘. . . They don’t want me. I don’t want them.’ He got blind drunk that night, and cried.

What happened to Sammy Davis, Jr. is emblematic of the bullying tactics so characteristically employed by the left against anyone who dares to disagree with its position or who strolls outside of the confines of its stable. Sammy Davis, Jr. dared to venture outside of his predefined confines, and he paid for it dearly. Forever after, he was called a whitey, and he was never acknowledged as the incredible credit he was to his race and to his country despite his many personality flaws.

Now, 46 years later, Kanye West stands at the threshold of the same precipice. Hopefully, his treatment will be a lot gentler, but as we’re witnessing from the conduct of the new left bullies like Don Lemon and T.I., probably not.

(The author acknowledges Wil Haygood, “The Hug” The Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2003, from which much of the factual content is obtained.)

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He is the author of The Federalist Pages and cohost of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod. Dr. Gonzalez is presently serving in the Florida House of Representatives. He can be reached through to arrange a lecture or book signing.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Democrats Race Race relations Republicans Truth

Midterm Wildcard: The Black Vote May Be In Play

Rod Thomson

In all of the hyper focus on Russia, Mueller, Manafort, Cohen, Stormy, Omarosa and the general gusher of hysterical nonsense from the Democrat-Media Complex, there is a quiet little revolution brewing: The first real cracks in the Democratic Party stranglehold on the black vote are coming into view.

We see signs of this with Kanye West, Kim Kardashian and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, with the rocketing rise of Candace Owens and the black involvement in the #WalkAway movement. We also see it, importantly, in the black church, such as a recent White House faith meeting on prison reform hosted by Trump, where Pastor Darrell Scott called him the “most pro-black president I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

But it is coalescing now in some very tangible ways around actual statistics and actions on the ground that are getting hard for Democrats to ignore, and crack the door open for Republicans and Democrats.

Polls are showing positive movement among minorities in President Trump’s approval ratings, even while he is daily being labeled a racist. While Trump won only 8 percent of the black vote in November 2016, the national NAACP’s own polls now show Trump’s approval rating among blacks at 21 percent — nearly three times higher than his election numbers. That doesn’t necessarily mean he would get 21 percent of the black vote, but it does show substantial movement.

Further, Rasmussen polls now have Trump’s approval ratings among blacks at 36 percent. Rasmussen pulls from a broader and less politicized base of respondents and typically is above the poll averages. But what is important is again the movement. One year ago at this time, Trump’s approvals in this same poll were 19 percent.

And we are even seeing breaks in the NAACP itself at the grassroots level. The Manatee County NAACP in Florida is interviewing all local candidates and has supported one Republican over a Democrat and is planning to support more going forward in the general election.

Rodney Jones, President of the Manatee NAACP, said he is a lifelong Democrat, but that he’s fed up with Democrats taking his vote for granted.

“We don’t see Democrats until election time and that’s the truth,” Jones said on an ABC panel Tuesday night. “I live in the neighborhood. I’ve lived there my entire time and we don’t see Democrats until election time because they come for one purpose and one purpose only, to get votes. After the elections, we don’t see any of them.”

Join Our Fight Pro-American Values

This is not a new sentiment. Frustration with being taken for granted has been growing for some time among black voters. Popular black ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith said in 2015 that all blacks should vote Republican for one election to send a signal. “I definitely believe that the black vote has been taken for granted.”

Smith said Democrats had successfully painted Republicans as opposed to the interests of black Americans and “we’ve bought it hook line and sinker…vast majorities of black Americans look at the Republican Party as the enemy.” It’s time to make politicians earn the vote of black Americans, he said.

That is what Jones is doing in Florida. He is not running to Republicans, but he is leading his organization to look at issues and choose candidates accordingly. And his group is totally onboard with that. This is a concept that has interesting ramifications because Jones considers himself somewhat conservative on a lot of issues — family, faith, personal responsibility — and he thinks American blacks overall are more so than the hitherto party-line voting suggests.

“We’re not letting Republican or Democrat come into our community and set an agenda for us,” Jones said. “I’m kind of anti-Democratic and Republican…The Democratic Party comes out of the deep south, actually out of the Klan and white supremacy.”

To be clear, Jones is not advocating becoming Republican and he is not at all a fan of Trump, considering him a low-character racist.

But this is part of the point. If American blacks begin thinking independently in a political sense — exactly what Kanye is advocating — they may never be majority Republicans, but they will stop being monolithically Democratic. Issue by issue favors Republicans on many topics.

Like Us On Facebook

Pew Research has noted that blacks and Hispanics who identify as Democrats are far less likely to consider themselves liberal than white Democrats. This reflects what Jones and his NAACP chapter are saying.

Making this more problematic for Democrats and opportunistic for Republicans is that the Democratic Party is definitely moving further left, even sprinting left. It’s not clear at all that 90 percent of blacks will be onboard with the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez socialism or the intersectional , 72 genders politics of the party elites. In the same way that Democrats are slowing losing the vast center of the country — geographically and politically — they are risking doing the same with the black vote.

American blacks shifting more to issues than to party loyalty would throw Democratic national politics, and probably local politics, into a tailspin. This would not happen overnight. The Democratic death grip has been generational. But a few points per election would be a tectonic shift. It may already under way, as the black vote for the Democratic presidential nominee peaked in 2008, declined in 2012 and plummeted in 2016.

The door is ajar for Republicans, and maybe President Trump.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Identity Politics Race Racism Truth

Race-Based Diversity Is Creating More Trump Voters

Rod Thomson

The case of new New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong’s openly anti-white bigotry is perhaps the most telling example of how far the American left has sprinted from the legacy of Martin Luther King and towards a form of retro racist tribalism that is perhaps as far from the American middle as it is from the American right.

This will either spell the doom of the Democratic Party — or of the American Experiment. Because such concepts cannot survive in an America that resembles anything like the amazing nation that emerged in the second half of the 20th Century.

That America was not just a military and economic colossus, but also a colossus of individual liberties and great, striding steps toward total equality under the law. It drew tens of millions of immigrants from around the world because it was indeed a beacon of hope and opportunity and freedom from oppression.

That entire concept is rapidly becoming antithetical to the diversity-enthralled American left and by extension the Democratic Party. Equal rights? No. Melting pot? No. Law and order? No. Economic opportunity? No. Liberty? No. Individual pursuit of happiness? Well, if the government says it’s OK.

Jeong herself is inconsequential as an individual in all of this. But it’s both the bigoted stew of the increasingly disconnected American power-center elites that she swims in, stirred in with the media/Democratic/leftist defense of her vitriol, that is quite consequential.

As gay moderate Andrew Sullivan astutely observes in the liberal New York Magazine, responding to the defense of Jeong by The Verge:

“…any assertion of racism in Jeong’s tweets as “dishonest and outrageous,” [is] a function of bad faith and an attack on journalism itself. Scroll through left-Twitter and you find utter incredulity that demonizing white people could in any way be offensive. That’s the extent to which loathing of and contempt for “white people” is now background noise on the left. What many don’t seem to understand is that their view of racism isn’t shared by the public at large, and that the defense of it by institutions like the New York Times will only serve to deepen the kind of resentment that gave us Trump.”

Exactly right. And Democrats, the left and the media are so wed to diversity and so blinkered by their hatred of Trump that they cannot see how they are rushing headlong to the aid of the GOP in 2018 and Trump in 2020. By pushing themselves further and further from the vast American center that swings elections, they are providing hope to Republicans who should historically be in a hopeless situation in November.

Help Us Fight Against Poisonous Anti-American Values

The Democrats are kindly serving up so many opportunities for Trump and Republicans, just on the racism front — to say nothing of the 73-gender front or socialism front.

The revelation that Obama policy blocked qualified airport control tower candidates who were white, in order to allow room for black candidates — even when positions were open and safety was threatened — got no play at the time in the Obama-cuddly media. And not much since. After all, diversity is king.

Obama’s decision, one of hundreds during his administration, was driven by the social justice platform of identity politics under the label of diversity. The idea is racial redress of past wrongs, but of course it is against people who have done nothing but have the “wrong” color skin — which the vast majority of Americans oppose. When this air control hiring was recently reported in the Wall Street Journal, it became clear that still no one on the left cared as no one on the left sees anything wrong.

In fact, it is part of the groundwork that has been laid for people like Jeong to be despicable bigots and still land a prestige job at the New York Times and be roundly defended by Democrats and the media.

Melinda Gates, who earned her great fortune by saying “I do” to Bill Gates at the altar, decided to start a venture capital fund with the sole purpose of funding minorities and women. No white guys need apply. Further, she declared the reasoning is to promote diversity, and correct racism and sexism in tech companies because white men — “white guy in a hoodie,” in her words — cannot provide products adequately for minorities. Presumably she did not mean her white guy husband, not that guy.

She was applauded by leftist and tech publications. Which is the point.

As Joy Pullman wrote in the Federalist of Gates’ thinking, which is reflected in the broader left:

“…punishing people for the “sins” of their “class” is, quite frankly, of a piece with the ideology that ultimately led to the slaughters of the Bolshevik and French revolutions…”

There is a veritable bottomless pit of these stories. As Trump was trying to reign in the slow-motion disaster of our open borders policies and government’s unwillingness to define who can come into our country, the Washington Post publishes a story under the headline: “Trump immigration plan could keep whites in U.S. majority for up to five more years.”

Like Us On Facebook

This “analysis” had one clear objective: Paint immigration in racial terms and color Trump’s immigration policy changes as a way to keep white people in the majority longer. Most Americans, pretty sure including Trump, would never have even considered that element of immigration limitations. They are thinking economic opportunity for low-income Americans, plus national and personal safety for everyone. But the left automatically goes race. It’s the lens through which they see all American life.

Where does all this leave us politically? In the one place that many in the political middle would rather not gravitate to but must: Donald Trump. The President has shown a steadfast willingness to fight back against identity politics, speech censoring political correctness and race-baiting. He’s done it poorly at times and marvelously at times.

If Americans are presented with the choice between traditional Americanism, constitutional rights, individual liberties and a strong economy or anti-white bigotry, anti-Americanism, collectivist hive culture and a feeble economy, it seems like the choice becomes pretty clear. A call to diversity does not win that day when Jeong’s hardcore bigotry is defended by the left and even celebrated by some.

The truth is that Trump and the GOP are the only things standing in the way of a headlong lurch into the violence and slaughterhouse of the Jacobins. Is it really hard to see Maxine Waters as the precursor to Robespierre? If that becomes the choice, the GOP wins. And if that happens in November, it’s truly impossible to predict how the left will react.

But the country might be saved for a little longer.

Rod Thomson is an author, former journalist and current TV talking head, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America on the Salem Radio Network.

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.