The inevitable backlash of the Alpha Boys and White ISIS

Because the subject has come up several times with a variety of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, two weeks ago I wrote a long discussion on the need for and difficulties involved with implementing reparations for several of America’s past and current mistakes, and sins against its people.

So in summary, we’ve had 250 years of chattel racial slavery, followed by 100 years of racial terrorism and lynchings, sharecropping, black codes, Jim Crow, segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the denial of voting rights. This was followed by another 50 years of a racially biased police and criminal justice system; red-lining; housing, lending, and job discrimination; voter suppression; white-flight; re-segregation; and a rapidly increasing wage and wealth gap.

And frankly, as bad as this is, the injustice and crimes that America rendered upon our Native American population is actually far, far worse than any of this and certainly should be addressed as well.

Reparations aren’t just about slavery itself (which again, didn’t technically end in 1868). It’s about all of this, all of these various issues of continued racial injustice and violence which have spanned more than 400 years.

Many people pointed out that this would likely spark a major backlash and that pushing this issue would likely guarantee a second term for Donald Trump. In reponse, I wrote a piece on the history of affirmative action, which documented how insufficient it has been as a form of reparations. Still, affirmative action has generated its own fairly rabid backlash and resistance during the past 50 years. 

This week I will examine how even the smallest attempt to balance the scales, or even the most minor pubic statement by either a lawmaker or a movie star, can spark a virulent backlash—or white-lash if your prefer—of anger, umbrage, and outrage, which is completely out of all reasonable whack.

If they’re going to distort your position and come after you for being too #woke; being openly in support of #Black Lives Matter and #MeToo; admitting to being a #Social Justice Warrior (SJW); or supporting reparations, you might as well get ready for the white-lash and buckle up.

It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Continue Reading

Democratic lawmakers indicate they’ll move quickly to demand Mueller report—and Barr testimony

It was evident from the outset that House and Senate Democratic watchdogs weren't going to accept Trump Attorney General Bill Barr's terse, ambiguous summary of the Mueller report's claims as the end of investigative efforts into Trump campaign actions during 2016.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler almost immediately announced that he would be calling Barr before his committee to explain, in light of "the very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department following the Special Counsel report", why he went beyond Mueller's report to make the decision that Trump would not be criminally charged—a decision that appeared to watchers of Mueller's work to rest on a tortuously narrow interpretation of the known evidence.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were more pointed still in a joint statement responding to Barr's letter.

Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers. The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay. Given Mr. Barr’s public record of bias against the Special Counsel’s inquiry, he is not a neutral observer and is not in a position to make objective determinations about the report.

And most obviously, for the president to say he is completely exonerated directly contradicts the words of Mr. Mueller and is not to be taken with any degree of credibility.

“Congress requires the full report and the underlying documents so that the Committees can proceed with their independent work, including oversight and legislating to address any issues the Mueller report may raise. The American people have a right to know.

Barr's summary is an indication that the Justice Department itself will not be indicting Trump based on their interpretation of the presented evidence—an expected outcome, based on Barr's own public hostility towards that outcome prior to his appointment. But the same summary mentions only in glancing reference that evidence was found suggesting Trump acted to obstruct justice; Barr did not dispute that the evidence existed, but came to a conclusion that it was not sufficient to lodge criminal charges against the sitting president.

That's not the same as saying the evidence in the report is not sufficient to warrant congressional deliberation, and possibly an impeachment investigation, against Trump. Barr is only making the determination that he himself won't be touching it.

And that's not going to fly with Democrats. They're going to insist that lawmakers from both parties see that evidence, and make those determinations, themselves.

Continue Reading

End of content

No more pages to load