Conservative Political News
What does it look like when a commie Twitter exec runs away? What are the Democrat’s chances in the midterms?
Is Elon Musk creating a turn in our culture?
It sure seems the left is losing a lot of ground as they fall one by one to the center-right to libertarian-right of America, and there doesn’t seem to be much they can do about it. Nothing is working, but this is their own fault.
We’re going to talk about this and more on today’s RedState LIVE!
Be sure to like the stream and subscribe!
When news of the white supremacist terrorist attack in Buffalo, New York hit the airwaves and interwebs, most of the nation was struck by the atrocity. There was an outpouring of sympathy for the victims and their families and well-placed outrage at the individual alleged to have carried out the assault. Most viewed it as a tragedy.
Unfortunately, others viewed the attack as an opportunity.
Once it was revealed that the alleged shooter was an avowed white supremacist, progressive politicians and their comrades in the activist media couldn’t wait to exploit the dead victims to advance their agenda. They fell all over themselves to use the shooting to smear conservatives as vicious racists who somehow encouraged the attack.
Progressives blamed people like Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), claiming their rhetoric inspired the accused killer. They did this knowing that the gunman, in a manifesto published before the attack, explicitly expressed contempt for Fox News and conservatism. While they ignored this part of the document, they paid close attention to the shooter’s embrace of the Great Replacement Theory (GRT), which progressives are using to portray as racist those who support stricter immigration policies.
In an op-ed for The Washington Post, author Greg Sargent accused Stefanik of supporting the theory. He referred to her statement that Democrats’ efforts to provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants were designed to be a “permanent election insurrection.” This is a reference to the idea that leftists support open borders policies because immigrants from Central and South America are more likely to vote for Democrats. By allowing legal and illegal immigrants to enter the country, Democrats can eventually give them citizenship, which means they would have the right to vote in American elections. This is what progressives are trying to label as the Great Replacement Theory.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, who, like many of her compatriots, never saw a dead black body she didn’t wish to exploit, also accused conservatives of embracing the Great Replacement Theory. She tweeted:
Critical race theory literally explains why Great Replacement Theory exists, but now just days after a white supremacist massacre the same people who created an entire book-banning hysteria around CRT are justifying and promoting GRT. Absolutely shameless.
Absolutely shameful.
Critical race theory literally explains why Great Replacement Theory exists, but now just days after a white supremacist massacre the same people who created an entire book-banning hysteria around CRT are justifying and promoting GRT. Absolutely shameless.
Absolutely shameful.— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) May 16, 2022
The Lincoln Project, in an eternal effort to gain a semblance of relevancy, also pretended Stefanik espouses GRT. It tweeted:
Elise Stefanik has to double down on the Great Replacement Theory lies to prove herself to the racists now. They’re the ones who matter to her political future.
Elise Stefanik has to double down on the Great Replacement Theory lies to prove herself to the racists now. They’re the ones who matter to her political future. https://t.co/SXVo9r1bAP
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) May 16, 2022
But there is a serious problem with these and other arguments the left is making about its political opposition: They are blatantly lying about what the Great Replacement Theory actually is. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) explained the origin of the theory, noting that it “has its roots in early 20th century French nationalism.”
A writer named Renaud Camus, who popularized the term, believed that “native white Europeans are being replaced in their countries by non-white immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, and the end result will be the extinction of the white race” according to the ADL. The author focused mostly on the trend of Muslim immigration to European nations, but did not cast it as a Jewish conspiracy. This came later.
From the ADL:
The “great replacement” philosophy was quickly adopted and promoted by the white supremacist movement, as it fit into their conspiracy theory about the impending destruction of the white race, also know as “white genocide.” It is also a strong echo of the white supremacist rallying cry, “the 14 words:” “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
The organization continued: “Since many white supremacists, particularly those in the United States, blame Jews for non-white immigration to the U.S. the replacement theory is now associated with antisemitism.”
The alleged gunman’s manifesto clearly reveals that he is anti-semitic and believes GRT is a conspiracy coordinated by Jews.
Conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro also pointed this out on Twitter:
If you want to be accurate about the Great Replacement Theory, it is a conspiracy theory about Jewish elites shipping in minorities to change the racial stock of a country. That is precisely what the Buffalo shooter says. And it is echoed by neither political party.
If you want to be accurate about the Great Replacement Theory, it is a conspiracy theory about Jewish elites shipping in minorities to change the racial stock of a country. That is precisely what the Buffalo shooter says. And it is echoed by neither political party.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) May 16, 2022
Shapiro also noted the dishonesty coming from the left about GRT:
The conflation of the Great Replacement Theory with skepticism about illegal immigration or concerns about the cultural assimilation of immigrants is a sham designed to lump in white supremacism with mainstream political concerns. And it’s a perfectly obvious sham.
The conflation of the Great Replacement Theory with skepticism about illegal immigration or concerns about the cultural assimilation of immigrants is a sham designed to lump in white supremacism with mainstream political concerns. And it’s a perfectly obvious sham.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) May 16, 2022
There are obvious differences between what conservatives believe about immigration and GRT. Folks on the right believe Democrats wish to import more immigrants because it can give them an electoral advantage. As stated previously, it is believed by people on both sides that migrants from certain parts of the world would be more likely to vote Democrat – the data bears this out. Moreover, when they take up residency in states friendlier to legal and illegal immigrants, they increase the population, potentially giving that state more electoral votes in presidential elections.
The vast majority of mainstream conservatives aren’t casting this as a plot by the Jews to replace the white race. They simply believe this is a way for the left to gain advantages in elections – nothing more, nothing less. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this argument is irrelevant. One can believe this isn’t true while still acknowledging that it is not the same as GRT, no matter how badly people on the left wish it were.
To sum it all up, high-profile leftists are lying about GRT. They are trying to widen the definition of the term to include anyone who does not support open borders. Unfortunately, we can expect to see them use GRT as their new boogeyman for as long as they believe they can make it work. The right cannot afford to remain on the defense on this one – otherwise, progressives might fool gullible or uninformed people into believing the lie. This will be another area in which conservatives must fight smart.
While it’s been clear for a few weeks that Republicans have come out on top regarding redistricting for the coming mid-terms, there was one final piece of the puzzle left. That piece has now fallen into place.
A court-ordered map in New York has been adopted, and it’s lights out for Democrats heading into November. While the original Democrat map, which was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court, had a likely outcome of 22 D-seats to 4-R seats, the new map puts as many as 12 seats in play for the GOP.
Quick, messy analysis: this draft map seems devastating for House Dems. Five districts lean Republican. And NY-2, 3, 18, 19 and 22 are all tossups. 4 and 17 could be won by a Republican in a wave year.
That’s like *12 of 26* districts in play for the GOP.https://t.co/aW2C5fwyYY pic.twitter.com/LIcCZrGNaI— Jeff Coltin (@JCColtin) May 16, 2022
Republicans were looking at a modest 1-3 seat gain via redistricting after Ron DeSantis worked his magic in Florida (there’s a single district there under dispute, but nothing that can change the game). Now, you could be talking about a 5-8 seat gain just by virtue of the lines that have been drawn across the nation. Democrats who were celebrating a month ago at some earlier court victories have had their hopes of stemming the tide crushed.
One of the things the New York map fixed was an illegal gerrymander in New York City that diluted the voting power of Orthodox Jews, a demographic that leans heavily Republican. That’s left Rep. Jerry Nadler, who would retire if he had any sense given his age and health concerns, in the same district as another Democrat. Elsewhere, Republicans are set up to make headway in what should be a wave year for them.
In the end, the dynamics of the coming election don’t change much, but if 2020 taught us anything, it’s that every seat counts in future elections. Democrats went from a large majority to only holding the house by five seats in a single cycle. So while Republicans are going to gain a lot of seats this year, having more room for error in 2024 and 2026 could be the difference between keeping control and losing it.
Anyway, let the rage ensue. Democrats are already throwing a fit on social media over the New York map, and there’s a lot of crying left to do.
Shame on us, my fellow law-abiding Americans. Apparently, we missed the caveat allowing U.S. attorneys general, as America’s chief law enforcement officers, to refuse to enforce laws with which they disagree; including violations of federal law that pose direct threats to Supreme Court justices and their families.
Oh, yeah — we also missed the part in the presidential oath of office that allows a president to encourage those who violate federal law to continue to do so. Planet Looney Tunes? Nope. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the most inept president in modern history, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
Any questions? Me, too.
Our story began to unfold on Monday night, as reported by my RedState colleague Nick Arama, as radical leftists marched to the home of Justice Samuel Alito in Virginia. While it was unclear if Alito or his family were home, there was a visible police presence outside the generally-conservative justice’s home.
The protest appeared to be a direct violation of federal law —18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or Parading:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Black and white, right? Of course, it is.
So why did White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki last Friday defend the “right” of angry pro-abortion activists to protest outside conservative justices’ homes, as reported by my colleague, Sister Toldjah, during a back-and-forth with Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy?
DOOCY: “So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside [a justice’s] private residence?
PSAKI: “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”
DOOCY: “These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that kind of thing this president wants?”
PSAKI: “The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights.”
Yeah well, Circle-Back. Again, U.S. Code has a very clear position on where people may protest and where they may not, whether you and your boss do or do not. And, P.S.: Why protesters protest makes zero difference, here; the law is the law.
DOOCY: “So he doesn’t care if they’re protesting outside the Supreme Court or outside [a justice’s] private residence?”
PSAKI: “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.”
Really?
How about Title 18, Section 1507 of the United States Code? https://t.co/ys1NorIFsj pic.twitter.com/4ZRioVwHtj
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) May 6, 2022
So on it goes, with neither Psaki nor Biden willing to condemn the illegal protests. Toss in Biden’s lackey attorney general, Merrick Garland for the trifecta. Speaking of Garland — the weaselly guy who conservatives can continue to count their lucky stars never became a SCOTUS justice — where the hell has he been? Other than crickets?
As noted by Andrew McCarthy in an op-ed for National Review on Tuesday titled DOJ’s Silence on the Left’s Lawless Intimidation of Supreme Court Justices, the former federal prosecutor slammed the DOJ’s refusal to take enforcement action against radical leftists who continue the protests, blatantly attempting to intimidate and influence the Court over the draft decision striking down Roe v. Wade.
The First Amendment has always permitted reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The degree of permissible restrictiveness is heightened as the government’s interest becomes stronger.
The Constitution insulates the judiciary from politics, so it is obvious that the government has a high interest in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, on which the rule of law depends, by safeguarding judges, jurors, and litigation participants from intimidation and corrupt influence (e.g., pressure to decide a case based on fear rather than on the faithful application of the law).
And what about the shoe-on-the-other-foot hypocrisy test, according to McCarthy?
It is notable that, in connection with the Capitol riot, the Justice Department has prosecuted scores of protesters on charges of parading on restricted federal territory. For analogous reasons, parading is one of the activities proscribed by Section 1507.
In connection with January 6, the Biden Justice Department and the FBI wanted everyone to know it was scorching the earth to hold accountable everyone who could be identified as having violated the law, even if they themselves did not engage in forcible conduct against police or property.
Under Attorney General Merrick Garland’s guidance, prosecutors turned a deaf ear to people who claimed “I was just peacefully protesting,” [even] if the protesting was done under circumstances forbidden by law.
Amen, Andy. A bunch of them.
And what about Biden and his hypocritical crickets — including multiple idiotic comments from his ridiculous press secretary? As Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen, also a weekly columnist for The Washington Post, noted and asked on Tuesday, Protesting at justices’ homes is illegal. What is Biden doing about it?
Great question.
As Thiessen pointed out, the ongoing protests are not just obnoxious behavior; they are in violation of federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1507, as outlined at the top). “So what’s Biden doing about it?”, Thiessen asked, rhetorically. Then he spelled it out.
This is a federal statute, so it’s Attorney General Merrick Garland’s responsibility to enforce it. […] Garland declared at the time, “Threats against public servants are not only illegal; they run counter to our nation’s core values.”
Have we missed something else? Are our Supreme Court Justices not public servants? If they are — of course, they are — do blatant attempts to intimidate them not run counter to our core values, let alone violate federal law? (Yes, yes, and hell yes.)
Thiessen then went bottom-line on Garland — as well as our intrepid president, who never met a buck he didn’t eagerly pass as soon as he could.
Garland’s failure to act is an appalling dereliction of duty. So is Biden’s failure to condemn the protests. During his victory speech after the election, Biden declared that it was time “stop treating our opponents as our enemy.” In his inaugural address, he promised to “end this uncivil war” and put “my whole soul” into “bringing America together.”
Not only has he failed to fulfill that promise, he has modeled the bad behavior these protesters are now emulating. When Republicans blocked his partisan election law, Biden accused them of standing with racists and traitors, and called them “enemies” of America, thundering, “I will defend the right to vote, our democracy against all enemies — foreign and, yes, domestic.”
“That sent a signal that our fellow Americans who disagree with us are in fact “enemies” and can be treated as such,” Thiessen correctly noted.
When someone is your enemy, then there is nothing to stop you from showing up at their house to threaten and intimidate them.
As the outrage over the inaction from Biden and Garland’s Justice Department continued to grow on Wednesday, a DOJ spokesman late in the day released a statement declaring Garland has “directed the U.S. Marshal’s Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police.”
Nebulous, much?
In statement released this afternoon, DOJ spokesman indicated that Attorney General Merrick Garland has “directed the U.S. Marshal’s Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police.”
— Amy Howe (@AHoweBlogger) May 11, 2022
So the radical left band plays on. As the pro-abortion activists continue to violate federal law, Psaki and Biden continue to publicly support their “peaceful,” illegal-as-hell actions. Pressure builds on Garland’s DOJ, forcing a spokesman to issue a milquetoast statement that says virtually nothing in detail.
Maybe it’s just me, but this ain’t no way to run a country.
That is unless you’re the most inept president in modern history, surrounded by a band of equally-inept sides, all of whom view their jobs as flying wingmen for the radical left. Who knew?
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott revealed himself to be a walking, talking example of the potential of how a child born into abject poverty can rise to become one of the more notable politicians of his time. Not that he’s the first, nor will he be the last.
During a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Scott was questioning Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who was in the midst of testifying on Tuesday about how abortion is beneficial to the economy.
“Just for clarity’s sake, did you say that ending the life of a child is good for the labor force participation rate?” Scott asked.
Yellen gave the typical drivel about how women could better serve the economy by being able to abort pregnancies at will, making it easier to navigate the job market and live their best life. She noted that financial security was a big part of satisfaction and that children throw a wrench into the gears.
“And one aspect of a satisfying life is being able to feel that you have the financial resources to raise a child, that the children you bring into the world are wanted, and that you have the ability to take care of them,” she said.
Among those getting abortions are teenagers and women in poverty, specifically those in black communities.
“It deprives them of the ability to continue their education to later participate in the workforce,” said Yellen. “So, there is spillover into labor force participation, and it means the children will grow up in poverty and do worse themselves.”
At that point, Scott had to cut her off.
“I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States senator,” said Scott.
YELLEN: “In many cases, abortions are of teenage women – particularly low-income and often black — who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children.”
SEN. SCOTT: “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here…” pic.twitter.com/O0kZkabZGW
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 11, 2022
Checkmate. Game over.
Yellen, like many who make this argument, doesn’t seem to factor in stories like Scott’s and the myriad of stories just like his from the day of this country’s founding. Being born into poverty is no guarantee of poverty throughout someone’s life. Moreover, the left has bought into its own nonsense about the black community being helpless victims hook, line, and sinker that it probably didn’t even register to Yellen that she was speaking to a living example of why the targeted abortion of poor black babies isn’t just evil, it limits potential.
Democrats have specifically targeted poor black communities for their abortion racket and have ended the lives of black children at a breakneck pace. If Scott’s presence is any indicator, one shudders to think what other great men and women could have been born who would have accomplished something incredible that changed the world as we know it.
