Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Trump Is Sick Of LeBron And Just Humiliated Him Overnight With Nasty Revenge – It’s On!

Trump hit him Head-on! BOOM!

Published

on

Racism strictly defined is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. Put another way it is the belief that all members of each race possess certain characteristics or abilities specific to that race, as a means to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another. It is also a favorite insult or epithet to label someone with in an effort to shut them up or diminish the veracity of what they are saying. For those that ascribe to identity politics, there is no acceptable defense for the “crime” of being born of European ancestry or “white.”

Instead, that lack of melanin is used as a weapon to marginalize, to silence, to ouster and attack.  People seem to forget that one cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics. Take the recent words of Julius Malema for instance. Malema is a prominent politician in South Africa and a leader at the forefront of the country’s current movement to confiscate land from white property owners and then redistribute it to the country’s black population, told white people in his country that he is not going wage genocide against them. Yet.

In an interview with TRT World News published this week, Malema said, “We have not called for the k*****g of white people. At least for now. I can’t guarantee the future.”

Zimbabwe lives as a prime example of the economic consequences of identity politics, genocide, and land expropriation, as it plunged the country in economic devastation spanning nearly two decades. Formerly considered the breadbasket of southern Africa, now more than a quarter of the population is in danger of starving to dea*h. So even by the most basic of measurements, Zimbabwe’s policies have been a complete and utter failure, copying them is tantamount to suic*de. Yet these all seem to be irrelevant details for those like Malema.

America seems no less eager to enter into the same racially tinged morass, yet people seem to forget that one cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics. Those that choose to cross some fictional boundary into the Twilight Zone of independent thought and stand up to the “Victim Cartel” threaten the solidarity of the narrative that America and perhaps even all of Western Civilization is comprised of identity victims and identity oppressors, and must, therefore, be silenced by any means possible.

Those such as YouTube blogger Candace Owen, among others are ostracized and publically shamed and ridiculed for daring to contradict the peddling of victimhood. Owen consistently makes the point over and over again in her writing that all the “help” and solicitude black Americans have gotten from their overseers on the Democratic Party plantation have merely made life worse for the black community as a whole, especially with regard to policies based on the idea that black people need lots of assistance to overcome systemic structural racism and the legacies of slavery.

Any success enjoyed by a white person is dismissed as “white privilege” and any means to defend oneself against such a dismissal is met with accusations of racism. Attacks that are brutal and oppressive, bullying you into attempting to appease or not speaking up at all for fear of losing your career, reputation, and respect. It can scare many into silence and self-censorship when racism is found in even the most innocuous of comments and can lead to devasting consequences.

Yet people forget their history. In 1913, just a few years before the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were a tiny group of radicals. Four years later they had taken over the entire country. In 1928, the Nazi party was an obscure joke, winning a mere 2.6% of the votes in the national election that year. Not even five years later, Adolf Hitler was German chancellor and had been awarded supreme power by the Enabling Act of 1933. Again I will repeat one cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics.

President Donald Trump was in the public eye and the media for years prior to the 2016 presidential election. Yet, he was never accused of racism until he announced his intentions to run for president against Hillary Clinton. Now it is a label that is oft repeated with little supporting evidence.

CNN’s Don Lemon recently interviewed LeBron James, the former Cleveland Cavaliers star who recently signed a massive contract with the Los Angeles Lakers. Both men have publically show particular animus towards Trump with lengthy on-air diatribes, and insulting tweets aimed directly at President Trump.

The interview was focused mostly on James’ recent $8 million donation to build a new public school called “I Promise.” The school is for at-risk third- and fourth-graders in James’ hometown of Akron, Ohio. Through the course of the interview topics naturally turned to Trump, a man both men love to hate.

James complained in the interview that Trump has used athletics and athletes to divide the country. “I can’t sit back and say nothing,” James said.  Lemon also asked James what he would say to Trump if he was sitting across from him. “I would never sit across from him,” James said. “No. I would sit across from Barack though.”
Because apparently an actual conversation to understand another point of view is no longer done. In his typical style, Trump struck back, tweeting – “Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made Lebron look smart, which isn’t easy to do…”

“This race thing is taking over,” James said, claiming that “sports helped him to understand white people and be around them.” James then brought up Charlottesville, claiming Trump’s comments in the wake of the events there emboldened racists to speak publicly.

“I think the president in charge now has given people … they don’t care now, they throw it in your face now,” he said.

Lemon then asked James if he would consider a run for president in 2020 if there was no one else nominated who could beat Donald Trump. James replied – “Well, in that case, I may. Let’s see first.”

James said that the d***h of Trayvon Martin hit a “switch” in his life where he committed to using his voice for a political platform.

“No matter how successful you could become, no matter who you are, when you are an African-American kid, you’re always going to be going against obstacles,” James said.

And there it is, peddling this ideology of perpetual victimhood – that no matter how successful a black man or woman is, they will always struggle and face obstacles ostensibly due to “racism” as a result of the color of their skin. I will say for the third and final time – one cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Immigrants Living On Taxpayer Dime Got Rude Awakening Thanks To Trump’s ‘New Rule’

Immigrants just got a harsh wake-up call from President Trump!

Published

on

A new rule is being cooked up by the Trump administration that will send a rude awakening to immigrants living on the taxpayer dime. Trump’s new rule brings up the “public charge” in what the New York Times stated was a law that was about 100-years-old but was reworked in 1999. President Donald Trump’s new rule, which is in the works, not in action, could affect up to 1 million people in New York alone.

It has to do with immigrants using resources for welfare benefits and being listed in the realm of being a “burden” on the funds.

The New York Times stated: “But a new rule in the works from the Trump administration would make it difficult, if not impossible, for immigrants who use those benefits to obtain green cards.

New York City officials estimated that at least a million people here could be hurt by this plan, warning that the children of immigrants seeking green cards would be most vulnerable.

That’s because if applicants use any welfare benefits, even for children who are United States citizens, that could indicate they would be a burden on government resources. “What feels deeply concerning,” said Bitta Mostofi, New York City’s commissioner of immigrant affairs, “is the impact on the welfare of children, period.”

The spin they put on it makes it seem like this will leave families without food and that President Trump is going after immigrant children. What it should really be looked at is a rule that helps people become more motivated to get jobs and provide food for their families on their own, not live on the government dole while other people work 60 hours a week just to have funds for the welfare of others taken out of their check via taxes.

There are two ways to look at their new possible rules. The liberals will say it’s an attack on children and immigrants. The people with more common sense will say it’s about time that people started working for themselves. That brings up the classic debate that many of the working class are tired of hearing about – taxes and welfare. People who work for a living don’t like seeing their money given to people who refuse to work for a living.

Being on welfare because you have to is one thing. Some people are unable to work and need help. That’s different and most Americans are happy to help in that scenario. When people are on tough times, then sometimes they need a little bit of help, and that’s acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of. However, there are people who milk the system and refuse to work and that needs to be stopped at all costs. Being on welfare because you purposely choose not to work is a bad thing and any president that we have should be inclined to get people off the couch and back to being productive.

Just for reference, the public charge fact sheet states:

“Introduction

“Public charge has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility and deportation. An individual who is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a legal permanent resident. However, receiving public benefits does not automatically make an individual a public charge. This fact sheet provides information about public charge determinations to help noncitizens make informed choices about whether to apply for certain public benefits.

“Background

“Under Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual seeking admission to the United States or seeking to adjust status to permanent resident (obtaining a green card) is inadmissible if the individual “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” If an individual is inadmissible, admission to the United States or adjustment of status will not be granted.

“Immigration and welfare laws have generated some concern about whether a noncitizen may face adverse immigration consequences for having received federal, state, or local public benefits. Some noncitizens and their families are eligible for public benefits – including disaster relief, treatment of communicable diseases, immunizations, and children’s nutrition and health care programs – without being found to be a public charge.

“Definition of Public Charge

“In determining inadmissibility, USCIS defines “public charge” as an individual who is likely to become “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). In determining whether an alien meets this definition for public charge inadmissibility, a number of factors are considered, including age, health, family status, assets, resources, financial status, education, and skills. No single factor, other than the lack of an affidavit of support, if required, will determine whether an individual is a public charge.

“Benefits Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“USCIS guidance specifies that cash assistance for income maintenance includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and state or local cash assistance programs for income maintenance, often called “general assistance” programs. Acceptance of these forms of public cash assistance could make a noncitizen inadmissible as a public charge if all other criteria are met. However, the mere receipt of these benefits does not automatically make an individual inadmissible, ineligible to adjust status to lawful permanent resident, or deportable on public charge grounds. See “Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” 64 FR 28689 (May 26, 1999). Each determination is made on a case-by-case basis in the context of the totality of the circumstances.

“In addition, public assistance, including Medicaid, that is used to support aliens who reside in an institution for long-term care – such as a nursing home or mental health institution – may also be considered as an adverse factor in the totality of the circumstances for purposes of public charge determinations. Short-term institutionalization for rehabilitation is not subject to public charge consideration.

“Benefits Not Subject to Public Charge Consideration

“Under the agency guidance, non-cash benefits and special-purpose cash benefits that are not intended for income maintenance are not subject to public charge consideration. Such benefits include:

  • Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases, use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, prenatal care and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
  • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
  • Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
  • Housing benefits
  • Child care services
  • Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
  • Emergency disaster relief
  • Foster care and adoption assistance
  • Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary or higher education
  • Job training programs
  • In-kind, community-based programs, services or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
  • Non-cash benefits under TANF such as subsidized child care or transit subsidies
  • Cash payments that have been earned, such as Title II Social Security benefits, government pensions, and veterans’ benefits, and other forms of earned benefits
  • Unemployment compensation

“Some of the above programs may provide cash benefits, such as energy assistance, transportation or child care benefits provided under TANF or the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and one-time emergency payments under TANF. Since the purpose of such benefits is not for income maintenance, but rather to avoid the need for ongoing cash assistance for income maintenance, they are not subject to public charge consideration.

“Note: In general, lawful permanent residents who currently possess a “green card” cannot be denied U.S. citizenship for lawfully receiving any public benefits for which they are eligible.”

Continue Reading

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend