Donald Trump has effectively gotten Critical Race Theory out of government training, and given a second term, will fight to remove this toxic and polarizing ideology from our children’s schools. Thanks for watching.
by Christopher Paslay
(Note: A version of this article was published September 11thon the American Thinker.)
Diversity of thought is just as important as diversity of culture.
National Book Award finalist Rebecca Makkai wants me to stop wearing my Phillies hat. Not because Makkai is from Chicago and the Phillies are battling the Cubs for the wild card, but because my Phillies hat is red, and too closely resembles President Trump’s MAGA hat.
“Is anyone else made really uncomfortable these days by anyone wearing any kind of red baseball cap?” she recently tweeted, imploring “normal people” to refrain from wearing red hats because they are “making people scared.”
As someone who’s worn both a Phillies cap inside Wrigley Field in Chicago and a MAGA hat in Philadelphia, I can tell you Makkai has it backwards: the fear is clearly being felt by those wearing the hats, not the other way around.
Not that Makkai has probably ever worn a MAGA hat, or been threatened by a Trump supporter. Other than in the pretend world of Jussie Smollett, Chicagoans aren’t usually confronted by angry MAGA folk. Makkai’s request that all red hats be removed most likely stems from her own concept of diversity, and how conservatives fail to fit the bill.
The irony here is thick. When it comes to race, religion, gender and sexuality, cultural gatekeepers like Makkai demand uncompromising inclusion. Yet when it comes to political affiliation, these same advocates become incredibly narrow-minded. Diversity of thought doesn’t seem to be nearly as important as diversity of culture, and as a free and democratic society, this is cause for concern.
Makkai is employing a classic form of political affiliation discrimination, a kind of bigotry that silences opposing points of view via a two-part process. First, the party out-of-favor with cultural elites has its positions maligned or misrepresented, a technique that contorts differing beliefs into hate-filled ideals that pass as reality. Second, every person in the out-of-favor party is judged and stereotyped by these same public distortions, enabling the rest of society to discriminate against them without being accused of intolerance or bigotry.
For example, Trump believes in merit-based immigration over a random lottery, and feels that refuges seeking asylum should come through legal ports of entry, therefore he and his supporters are “xenophobes” who hate all immigrants. Likewise, Trump supports Israel’s right to exist, scrutinizes countries with high populations of Islamic extremists, and sanctions countries like Iran who openly support terrorism, therefore he and his supporters are “Islamophobes” who hate all Muslims.
What if you only support Trump on things like taxes, abortion, energy or trade? Doesn’t matter; you’re still a prime candidate for harassment.
In his new book, R.I.P. G.O.P., leading Democratic pollster and political strategist Stanley Greenberg gleefully predicted “the death of the Republican Party as we’ve known it,” prompting New York Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg to pen the article, “Dare We Dream of the End of the G.O.P.?” In her piece she called the Republican Party a “foul agglomeration of bigotry and avarice that has turned American politics into a dystopian farce,” fantasizing not just about their defeat but about their complete and total destruction.
Those who aim to shut down debate don’t want diversity, they want orthodoxy. As George Orwell writes in 1984: “Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
Which is why Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) tweeted the names and employers of dozens of San Antonians who made donations to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, and why “Will & Grace” star Debra Messing demanded the Hollywood Reporter publish the names of actors planning to attend the Republican National Committee fundraiser in Beverly Hills.
And why Reza Aslan, HBO producer and former CNN host, called Trump and his supporters terrorists, insisting that “the MAGA hat is a KKK hood,” and that “this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.”
And why Zack Ford, a writer for Think Progress, stated “you can’t both wear a MAGA hat and claim to love thy neighbor,” stereotyping millions of kind, good-hearted Americans in a single sentence.
Unfortunately, our nation’s anti-discrimination laws protect Americans based on race, religion, gender and sexuality, but not political affiliation. In other words, you can’t throw someone out of a theater or restaurant for being black, female, gay, or Muslim, but it seems you can run them out on a rail for wearing a MAGA hat.
“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said at a rally in Los Angeles last year. “And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
I’m going to continue to wear all my red hats, despite the objections from people like Rebecca Makkai. And our nation’s equality laws should be expanded to protect the right to do so.
by Christopher Paslay
The MAGA-loving trio praises America and encourages Trump supporters to stand proud.
Let’s face it — it’s not easy to support President Trump in 2019 America. Often times Trump and his supporters are bullied into silence by celebrities and the mainstream media, who regularly mischaracterize the President and his agenda in an attempt to shut down any and all debate on the issues. Yet CJ, Val, and Linz — the three Texas moms who formed the Deplorable Choir — will have nothing of the sort.
As reported by the Daily Dot:
On social media, the Deplorable Choir has become a minor-league celebrity with songs that include choruses like “it’s a real tough life if you say you are a liberal” and “we stand with our General Flynn.” But even if you don’t agree with their conservative messaging, it can be tough to get their music out of your head.
Their tunes are chipper but also confrontational. In their song about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, they sang “Mother Zucker, let’s have a word/come meet me out back/with my can of whoop ass,” set to a twanging banjo. Their songs are always political, and they have a knack for grabbing the attention of some of the celebrities in the pro-Trump circles of the internet.
It’s not every day that the right makes fun of the left, as this sort of thing is deemed off limits by our liberal entertainment industry; most comedians and late night hosts save their ammo for conservatives only.
But who is this trio? As reported by the Daily Dot:
In a conversation with The Daily Dot, C.J. LeRose . . . painted the group as just a couple of mothers looking to have some whole-hearted Christian fun. LeRose is a stage name and she declined to give out her real name, citing concerns for her safety from what she calls “the keyboard warriors.” She says that the Choir are “sisters and friends who all live by each other,” but showed some humility, saying “we’re not a music group … we’re not a real band. We just started doing this because we love Trump.”
The group began in March 2018 following the Oscars when LeRose says she was annoyed “after being lectured by celebrities.” She claims that the first song came to her while she was on the way to her child’s baseball game. And that first piece blew up. She recalls that it had 130,000 views overnight. . . . Their name of the band, obviously, is a direct dig at Clinton’s mocking of Trump supporters as “deplorable.”
Dear Sharif El-Mekki,
I recently came across your blog post headlined, “Philly Principals, Stop Supporting Trump,” where you publicly called out my father (Dr. Charles Paslay) and me (Christopher Paslay), for being racists and supporting “anti-Blackness.” Before I respond to your writing, please allow me to correct some misinformation in your original post. You state that my father, Dr. Charles Paslay, is somehow associated with “Philly Teachers For Trump,” a Facebook page and blog that I founded in July of 2018 and currently host. For the record, Dr. Paslay has nothing to do with either, and the “familiar name and picture” you refer to in your post are both me; although I am over 20 years younger than my father, I do look a lot like him, so I’ll forgive you for mistaking me for a 69-year-old man when I’m only 47. Still, you really should go back to your original post and correct the record, assuming you are an honest writer and journalist who cares about getting the facts straight.
Because we have ties to the same neighborhood (my father was born and raised in Southwest Philadelphia, and I grew up in Southwest Philly and Yeadon), and we teach and mentor the same kids (my father taught and coached at Bartram for 36 years, and I’ve been teaching and coaching in the Philadelphia School District for over 22 years), and because ultimately, we are good, caring people who’ve dedicated our lives to helping our students succeed, I won’t take it as an insult that you suggested my father and I are racists, and that we support “anti-Blackness,” whatever that term is supposed to mean; I understand you are an activist in addition to being a principal, and that you are only trying to protect the people you care about.
But truth be told — and I say this respectfully — you don’t know anything about either one of us, so how could you possibly call us racists? You’ve never observed any of the classes we’ve taught, and don’t know our passion for teaching, or how we’ve worked our butts off to raise scores on the PSSA and Keystone exams. You’ve never seen us coach, or witnessed our athletes proudly bring home Penn Relays medals or PIAA State Championships in track, or watched either of us counsel our students in times of crisis, sometimes acting as a surrogate parent when these kids had nowhere else to turn.
And speaking of parents, you’ve probably never spoken to the mothers and fathers of our students and athletes, who’ve consistently thanked us for doing all we can to help their children go to college or learn a trade, or to become responsible young men and women ready to enter the world as critical thinkers. I’d bet you’ve never spoken to administrators, or coaches, or PFT leaders who’ve thanked us for our dedication (Jerry Jordan wrote me a personal endorsement when I published my first book on education reform in 2011, titled, The Village Proposal: Education as a Shared Responsibility). I bet you haven’t read the dozens of Inquirer commentaries I’ve written over the past 15 years, articles fighting for the rights of Philadelphia teachers and students, especially ones from neighborhoods like Southwest Philly.
In summary, you know nothing about my father and me. Yet you publicly call us racists, and claim we support “anti-Blackness.” Incredibly, you state the following:
This situation is not new to us. We have police, teachers, and other public anti-servants who earn a living on the backs of Black kids despite hating them and their roots.
Wow, that’s a pretty serious thing to say about two teachers and coaches who’ve dedicated their lives to helping their students, many of whom are African American. With all due respect, Sharif, you don’t know us well enough to publicly insinuate that my father and I “earn a living on the backs of Black kids despite hating them and their roots.”
But I think we both know why you’ve drawn these very serious and very slanderous conclusions: because I’ve dared to publicly support President Trump, and host a platform for others to do the same. That’s my crime: supporting the President of the United States. This is intolerable to people like you, who demand diversity of race, gender, and sexuality, but not diversity of thought. This is exactly why I started Philly Teachers For Trump: to serve as a refuge for those who support our president. This is America, not a one-party system like North Korea or the old Soviet Union. People should be free to support the candidate of their choice, not be bullied into silence or called names. If you go back to the Philly Teachers For Trump Facebook page and blog and read my posts, you’ll see examples of all the positives Trump has done for America (or at least you’ll see a perspective on things you might not be familiar with). Trump is not a racist or a bigot or a white supremacist, and neither are his supporters. If you take the time to look past the daily misrepresentation and mischaracterization of the man for five minutes, you’ll see he cares about ALL people.
Trump believes in merit-based immigration over a random lottery, and feels that refuges seeking asylum should come through legal ports of entry, therefore he’s labeled a “xenophobe” who hates all Latinos; Trump supports Israel’s right to exist, scrutinizes countries with high populations of Islamic extremists, and sanctions countries like Iran who openly support terrorism, therefore he’s an Islamophobe who hates all Muslims; Trump cut taxes which stimulated the economy, energized the stock market and created jobs for all Americans, yet somehow he’s a greedy one-percenter who cares only about the rich; Trump reformed the criminal justice system via his “First Step Act,” giving many incarcerated minorities a second chance at life, yet he’s a racist white supremacist who doesn’t care about black lives; Trump deregulated the energy sector and is fighting to implement clean fossil fuels — bringing back the coal industry and saving small American towns — yet he’s an evil climate destroyer; Trump believes in restricting late term abortions, so that when a baby is born alive doctors should be required to save its life rather than end it, therefore he doesn’t respect women’s bodies or their right to choose; Trump was the first Republican president to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month (and is currently fighting to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of countries in Africa and the Middle East), yet he’s a homophobe who hates gays; Trump loves America and all it stands for, putting the interests of its people first, yet he’s a “Russian agent” who’s in bed with Putin.
I’m not going to debate Trump’s policies, or try to correct all the misinformation about him, but at least know this: he’s done more for African Americans in two years than Obama did in eight. Just ask Candice Owens, or watch the video The Young Black Conservatives of Trump’s America. Or better yet, ask BET’s founder Robert Johnson about Trump (he supports him). Or Isaac Newton Farris Jr. and Alveda King, Dr. King’s nephew and niece, about Trump (they both support him). Or Rev. Bill Owens, president of the coalition of African-American pastors (they all support Trump). Or Dr. Ben Carson, or Kanye West, or Tim Scott, or Herman Cain. Or Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, Stacey Dash, or Thomas Sowell. Or Clarence Thomas, Col. Allen West, David Webb, or Ward Connerly. Or Roy Innis, Niger Innis, Shelby Steele, or Sheriff David Clarke. Are all these proud Trump-supporting African Americans “anti-Black”? If Trump is such a toxic, bigoted, white supremacist, why do all these successful, exemplary, and God-loving Blacks support the man? Perhaps there’s another side to Trump all his critics refuse to see?
Again, I’m not here to sell you on Trump. However, I do believe that in America, people should be free to support the president without fear of reprisal or threats of having their reputations destroyed. If you don’t agree with Trump or his policies, fine. But this movement to stereotype all Trump supporters as racist and bully us into silence is wrong, and educators of your experience and stature should understand this, Sharif. Over 108,000 people voted for Trump in Philadelphia in 2016, and they can’t all be bigots. Neither can the parents and students in Philadelphia who back the president. Shouldn’t their voices be heard? Trump’s style is brash, and some of the things he says are insensitive, but he’s hardly the monster everyone makes him out to be. Most Trump supporters are good, caring people. And we want the same things you do: freedom, equality, and a decent quality of life for all people of all backgrounds. If you really want to make a difference and grow as a person, try this exercise: shake hands with a Trump supporter and actually get to know him or her. You might be surprised by what happens.
God bless you, Sharif. May you find peace in the world and may your life go well.
by Christopher Paslay
In 2013, Rolling Stone glorified Boston Bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev with a Jim Morrison-like cover shot. Will the magazine do the same with El Paso shooter Patrick Crusius?
All mass murdering terrorists aren’t created equal, especially in the eyes of the radical left. As recent history shows, even a sociopath’s actions are subject to identity politics.
Take, for example, the horrific events of September 11, 2001. You’d think the mass killings of nearly 3,000 Americans orchestrated by Osama bin Laden would be universally condemned by Americans, but this wasn’t the case. Amazingly, there were many apologists who publicly demanded that America rethink its foreign policy, suggesting the United States government not only brought the tragedy on itself, but that America may have even deserved what it got.
Celebrated civil rights activist and former Poet Laureate of New Jersey Amiri Baraka wrote the poem “Somebody Blew Up America,” which not only suggested 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy (Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed / Who told 4000 Israeli workers at the Twin Towers / To stay home that day / Why did Sharon stay away?), but also argued the real terrorists weren’t “some barbaric A-Rab in Afghanistan,” but racist Americans who’ve terrorized people all over the globe. NPR called Baraka’s poem “controversial and achingly beautiful,” and venerated him as an activist and literary figure.
In 2014, professor Emmit Evans at California Polytechnic State University assigned his political science students a text he co-wrote that called bin Laden a “freedom fighter” and the United States a “neocolonial power.” The book, The Other World: Issues and Politics of the Developing World, noted that “the al Qaeda movement of Osama bin Laden is one example of an attempt to free a country (in this case, Saudi Arabia) from a corrupt and repressive regime propped up by a neocolonial power (in this case, the United States).”
To put this in perspective, imagine contemporary poet laureates and university professors analyzing the ideological beliefs of Patrick Crusius, and in turn, writing books and publishing poems both praising and apologizing for his terrorist attack. Imagine a poem called “Somebody Shot Up El Paso,” which suggested the tragedy was a conspiracy by the radical left to forward the false narrative of white supremacy, and to lobby for stricter gun laws. Likewise, what if a professor co-authored a book analyzing Crusius’ “manifesto,” theorizing that the white supremacy movement is one example of an attempt to free a group of people (marginalized rural whites) from a corrupt and repressive anti-white American culture, propped up by social justice propaganda?
This would never happen, of course. Apologizing for white nationalism isn’t as hip as making intellectual arguments in support of Islamic extremism, nor is it cool to look the other way when it comes to neo-Nazis. When it came to labeling Muslim terrorism “Islamic extremism” for the better part of a decade, the left conveniently made excuses; Obama wanted to lower the political temperature and keep peaceful Muslims from being stereotyped and attacked. The same philosophies don’t apply to so-called “white supremacy,” however. Labeling all Trump supporters “white nationalists” is now the name of the game, and keeping the term and its apparent ideology in the public is the ultimate aim. Does anyone seem to care that peaceful white people will be wrongly accused of being a part of a relatively small hate group? Not at all. Does anyone seem to care that continuing to fan the flames of supposed “white nationalism” will raise the political temperature and provoke more violence against both immigrants and Trump supporters? Again, not at all.
It’s not hip to make excuses for people like Patrick Crusius, or to try and understand his background or manifesto. Unlike Boston Bomber Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev, Crusius won’t get his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone. Tsarnaev was a self-radicalized Islamic extremist, which allowed the magazine to call him “a charming kid with a bright future.” Sure, he used two pressure cooker bombs to blow up the Boston Marathon with his brother, killing two cops, three civilians, and injuring an estimated 264 others, 14 of whom required amputations.
But Dzhokhar “Jahar” Tsarnaev was a “charming kid,” if not for him becoming radicalized. Rolling Stone wrote in their 2013 cover story:
People in Cambridge thought of 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – “Jahar” to his friends – as a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor, soulful brown eyes and the kind of shy, laid-back manner that “made him that dude you could always just vibe with,” one friend says. He had been a captain of the Cambridge Rindge and Latin wrestling team for two years and a promising student. He was also “just a normal American kid,” as his friends described him, who liked soccer, hip-hop, girls; obsessed over The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones; and smoked a copious amount of weed.
Such a nice young boy “Jahar” was, with such great potential. He was only a radicalized Muslim after all, not a white nationalist, so it was cool for America to see his human side. As for Patrick Crusius, he’s too politically valuable not to trash and publicly demonize, and the left and the mainstream media will surely milk his sickness for all it’s worth. The disturbed young man is a monster, make no mistake about it. But he’s a white nationalist monster, which won’t get him on the cover of Rolling Stone any time soon.
by Christopher Paslay
Supporting an immigration policy based on merit that accepts people from countries whose citizens have the ability to assimilate to American culture and values isn’t racist; it’s simply good policy.
(Note: A version of this article was published July 28th on the American Thinker.)
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley Law, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Defending diversity — taking the position that things would be better off with more nonwhites and fewer whites — is at the very core of the toxic identity politics plaguing America today. The hard left doesn’t want to nominate another white male for president in 2020, or in the words of Politico, “a candidate that looks like Bernie or Joe.” In fact, according to most liberals, police departments would be better off with more nonwhites and fewer whites, as would fire departments, school districts, small businesses, Hollywood, Major League Baseball, U.S. Congress, and the Philadelphia Orchestra, to name a few places.
Whether this race-based view of progress is ultimately true is debatable. What’s not is the fact that it’s perfectly okay to call for more diversity in America — to publicly state things would be better off with more nonwhites and less whites.
Yet when Penn law professor Amy Wax mentioned the same premise only in reverse — that our country would be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites— liberals had a complete meltdown; the media vilified her as an intolerant racist, and after hundreds of Penn students signed a petition calling for Wax to be relieved of all teaching duties, Penn Law School issued a statement condemning her words.
To be fair to Professor Wax, she doesn’t advocate whites over nonwhites. But this didn’t stop Vox writer Zack Beauchamp, who was covering the National Conservatism conference where Wax was presenting a lecture on immigration, from creating this misunderstanding. According to Beauchamp’s recent article:
One panel on immigration — a major topic throughout the conference — stood out in particular. University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, no stranger to culture-war controversies, used her talk to argue for an immigration policy that would favor immigrants from Western countries over non-Western ones — “in effect,” she said, “taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.” She believes this is not racist because her view is “grounded firmly in cultural concerns — doesn’t rely on race at all.”
Beauchamp’s article went viral, prompting those who attended the convention to jump to Wax’s defense. Yoram Hazony, an Israeli conservative, accused Beauchamp of misrepresenting Wax’s position. Although Hazony didn’t take a stance on Wax’s position, he stated on Twitter:
Zack misunderstood this passage from Wax’s paper, and Wax did not say what he claims she said. Wax advocated an immigration policy that favors immigrants with cultural affinities to the U.S. She emphasized that the position she was defending “doesn’t rely on race at all.”
Beauchamp insisted Hazony’s accusation was false, and that he accurately reported Wax’s comments. Beauchamp wrote:
But more important — and revealing — than his allegation of inaccuracy was his take on Wax’s argument. Stressing that he didn’t have a “position on Wax’s position,” he assailed the cries of racism aimed at Wax since she did not propose racial quotas explicitly and rooted her views in culture rather than biology.
The alarming thing about Beauchamp’s rush to vilify Wax is not just the hypocrisy of the matter (the fact that there exists a double standard in regards to “racism” among whites and nonwhites), but also the fact that Beauchamp is selectively interpreting Wax’s lecture on nationalism; a full transcript of Wax’s lecture was published by the Federalist and can be found here.
Beauchamp is wrong to label Wax a “racist,” and his selective excerpt from her lengthy presentation — purposefully taken out of context at a time when the full transcript wasn’t available to the public — proves that Beauchamp lacks professionalism and basic journalistic integrity. For those who take the time to read Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s full lecture, they’ll find that Wax analyzes the pros and cons of nationalism, but is especially drawn to a brand she calls “cultural distance nationalism.”
“According to this view,” Wax stated, “we are better off if our country is dominated numerically, demographically, politically — at least in fact, if not formally — by people from the First World, from the West, than by people from countries that have failed to advance.” In other words, Wax talks about a kind of immigration that favors people from technologically advanced countries with strong economies over countries that are poor and destitute, not only because immigrants from these countries may have more to offer America in terms of skills, but also because it may be easier for them to assimilate to American culture and values.
Which leads to the part of Wax’s lecture that Beauchamp strategically singled out for scrutiny:
Perhaps the most important reason that the cultural case for limited immigration remains underexplored has to do with that bête noire, race. Let us be candid: Europe and the First World, to which the United States belongs, remain mostly white for now. And the Third World, although mixed, contains a lot of nonwhite people. Embracing cultural distance, cultural distance nationalism, means in effect taking the position that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.
Well, that is the result, anyway. So even if our immigration philosophy is grounded firmly in cultural concerns — doesn’t rely on race at all — and no matter how many times we repeat the mantra that “correlation is not causation,” these racial dimensions are enough to spook conservatives. As a result, today we have an immigration policy driven by fear: the fear of being accused of racism, white supremacy, xenophobia. Which has cowed and paralyzed opinion leaders, policymakers, politicians across the spectrum, and impeded their ability to think clearly.
Is Wax advocating a kind of immigration based on race that calls for whites over nonwhites? Absolutely not. She’s merely presenting a lecture that analyzes immigration based on culture and merit — giving preference to immigrants from countries with stable economies that provide their citizens with useful skills and the ability to assimilate to American values. In fact, she doesn’t believe that “our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites,” but suggests this is an inevitable side effect of cultural distance nationalism — a side effect that will be exploited by people who want to shut down conservatives’ immigration policy debate and accuse them of racism, white supremacy, and xenophobia.
Which is exactly what Zack Beauchamp has done. He’s misrepresented Wax’s words in an effort to brand conservatives as racist and to bully people like professor Wax into silence, and tragically he’s succeeded. But supporting an immigration policy based on merit that accepts people from countries whose citizens have the ability to assimilate to American culture and values isn’t racist; it’s simply good policy.
by Christopher Paslay
Trump’s smashing of the PC rulebook is a breath of fresh air.
Trump is driving progressives insane. He’s taking their whiny, disingenuous cries of “racism,” putting mustard on it, and eating it for dinner. Afterward he wipes his mouth with the tablecloth and burps, and doesn’t even say “excuse me.” As president he probably should say “excuse me,” but he is Trump after all, and that’s why so many Americans love him so much.
Wednesday night, at a re-election rally in Greenville, N.C., Trump once again called out The Squad for their anti-Semitic and anti-American behavior, and for their blatant disrespect of the Office of the President. For a brief moment during Trump’s speech, a portion of the audience broke into a chant of “Send her back!” in reference to Ilhan Omar, who’s taken a soft stance on al Qaeda and has been insensitive to the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Almost immediately, the mainstream media went bonkers. Former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted this:
The crowd at Trump’s rally chanting “send her back” after the President viciously and dishonestly attacked Ilhan Omar is one of the most chilling and horrifying things I’ve ever seen in politics.
“Trump is stoking the most despicable and disturbing currents in our society,” Bernie Sanders said of the rally. “And that very hatred and racism fuels him.”
The Huffington Post billed the re-election rally in Greenville with this banner headline: Hate Show in NC: ‘Let Them Leave.’
Interestingly, Candice Owens, African American conservative and founder of the Blexit movement, had a different perspective on the rally and the “racist” chant. In an interview with Laura Ingraham, she stated:
“They’re upset by it because they’re more or less seeing the exact same thing that happened in 2016. I feel like I have deja vu watching this. We just listened to Chris Hahn condemn an entire audience as all being racists. ‘Everyone who chanted that is racist.’ I mean, there’s no intellectual depth to that analysis. And that is so problematic. He thinks that every black person is going to wake up and magically vote Democrat because of that chant. That’s insulting to black people. To think that we’re so foolish, as you said, that we’d vote against our own self-interest. We’re doing amazing under this economy. It’s very clear what this chant meant. It simply meant if you don’t like this country, if you don’t like America, you are welcome to leave. Obviously the president is not looking to deport Ilhan Omar. So anyone who is taking it that seriously, is completely misreading culture right now. And at the end of the day they’re going to be upset when Trump wins by a larger margin in 2020.”
On Thursday, perhaps to calm growing tension, President Trump took the high road and disavowed the chant. According to Politico:
President Donald Trump claimed Thursday he “was not happy” with the crowd at his campaign rally in North Carolina the previous evening for chanting “send her back,” after he had goaded the audience with a fiery attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
“I was not happy with it. I disagree with it. But again, I didn’t say that. They did. But I disagree with it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, adding that he “started speaking very quickly” in an attempt to silence the rally attendees. “It was quite a chant, and I felt a little bit badly about it.”
Still, the Left is obsessed with control, and feels entitled to oversee every aspect of our culture. Progressives and the left-leaning media not only want to define their own positions, but want to define their opponents’ ideas, too. In order to do this, they rely heavily on political correctness, which, at its core, is the policing of language and thought. Certain words and ideas, stated by certain people, can be labeled “social justice” or “hate speech,” depending on which identity group they belong to. And of course, the Left gets to decide.
Jeffrey T. Brown summed this up perfectly in his recent American Thinker article:
It is a fascinating process, watching yourself being defined by people who actively practice what they pretend to condemn. The awful things that they project upon us don’t spring from our minds, but from theirs. Those terrible thoughts and dark motives are bred in their own warped psyches. The left . . . has rewarded itself with the exclusive right to interpret our every word and thought, and somehow they always conclude the same thing. We are evil, but they are not.
Trump’s smashing of the PC rulebook is a breath of fresh air. For decades, the Left has been painstakingly laying the foundations of political correctness throughout our culture – co-opting language, thought, and ideas to fit their own agenda. Literally overnight, words take on new meanings because liberal intellectuals – bolstered by ivory tower academics and “advocacy” journalists – have decided to conveniently redefine them. As evidenced by Colin Kaepernick’s objection to Nike’s Betsy Ross flag sneaker, a once beloved symbol of pride can suddenly become a reference to hate. And if someone tests these new bounds, they are usually attacked with such ferocity that the person is either forced to publicly grovel and ask for forgiveness, or get destroyed by the PC police.
From the beginning, the Left has been unable to control Trump. He’s taken their PC playbook and ripped it to shreds, page by page. This is why he’s so dangerous to Democrats: not because he’s a racist or sexist or xenophobe, but because he renders such disingenuous and overused labels completely powerless. Trump’s enemies throw these names at him constantly, one after the other, day and night, and nothing seems to slow him down. In fact, he is indeed energized by them.
As Candice Owens so aptly stated, Trump and his supporters aren’t “racist,” and neither was the chant at Wednesday night’s rally. The perspective that we are all haters is just that – it’s a perspective, one take on reality, and a disingenuous one at that. But America is diverse and there are many interpretations of Trump’s spat with The Squad, and more and more Americans are now having the courage to say so publicly. Of course, if progressives and the left-leaning establishment media took the time to actually listen to what Trump supporters had to say they might know this. But progressives don’t want a dialogue, they want a monologue, where they define every term in order to control every argument.
by Christopher Paslay
Trump supporters are good, caring people.
Trump supporters – 63 million strong – are good people. I’ll say it again: Trump people are good people. The phrase may sound strange when you say it aloud, but this is because there are very few places where you can say it out loud. Proclaiming positives about Trump in the public domain is pretty risky, let’s be honest.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” California Rep. Maxine Waters said last year at a protest rally against the president. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
At no other time in recent history have Americans faced such intense backlash for simply supporting the President of the United States. In January, Actress Alyssa Milano compared the MAGA hat to a KKK hood. During that same month, Nick Sandmann and his Covington Catholic schoolmates were wrongly maligned by the national news media for wearing the red hats (several newspapers, including the Washington Post, have since apologized). In May, Big League Politics, a conservative news site which created a platform to keep track of violence against MAGA supporters, had its account suspended by Twitter, with no warning or explanation.
Harassment has gotten so bad that a recent app was created to help Trump supporters find MAGA-friendly restaurants. As reported by the Hill:
A new app launched this month to help conservatives find “safe” restaurants and other businesses where they won’t be harassed for supporting President Trump. The 63red Safe app, described as “Yelp for conservatives,” was created in response to reports of Trump administration officials and Trump supporters being asked to leave restaurants.
The common factor in all of this, of course, is that Trump, his supporters, and their campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” have been hijacked and redefined by a hostile political resistance made up of politicians, celebrities, journalists, and academics. Since Trump won in 2016, no one seems to care about the 63 million people who voted for him, their take on important issues, or their view of the world. Not a wit.
The resistance to Trump and his supporters is an all-out effort to delegitimize his presidency and those who elected him. The anti-Trump people not only get to define who they are, but they also get to define who we are, too. They want total control. This is what’s behind Collin Kaepernick’s push to redefine America’s most revered symbols. It has very little to do with equality and so-called “social justice,” and everything to do with power and control; he wants to set the terms so he can control the argument.
The irony here is that Collin Kaepernick is the real intolerant bigot, who refuses to acknowledge that people’s views are just as diverse as the people themselves, and that co-opting something like the American flag to mean one thing at the exclusion of all else is not only wrong but completely self-absorbed. To quote the French novelist Anaïs Nin, “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” If folks like Kaepernick could put aside their anger and bitterness for just a moment, they might realize we care about the same things as they do: solving problems and making the world a better place.
Dr. Michael W. Austin, a professor of philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University, wrote an interesting piece about Trump supporters in Psychology Today. Although he’s a Democrat, he had this to say:
Many Trump supporters are not racist, they are not sexist, they are not homophobic, they are not nationalists. They have genuine moral concerns that led them to vote for Donald Trump. They are morally decent people who care about their country, their communities, and their families.
What MAGA is really about is love. Love of country; love of God; love of the Constitution; love of freedom. And unlike liberals and social justice warriors, who see everything via the lens of race, religion, gender, and sexuality, MAGA strives to see people as people.
Trump’s Executive Order 13769: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, is not about hating Muslims, but about keeping all Americans safe—including Muslim-Americans; this is why the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ban. Trump’s call for a secure border is not about disrespecting Mexicans, but about enforcing legal ports of entry to help refugees and immigrants arrive in the county safely, as well as to keep out drugs, gangs, and sex traffickers.
Donald Trump loves this country, and is doing everything he can to make it stronger for all people. We should be proud to support him.
by Christopher Paslay
We are all blessed to live in the greatest country in the world.
Philly Teachers for Trump would like to wish all Americans a happy Fourth of July!
To liberals who are frustrated with President Trump, a quote from George Orwell: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
To conservatives frustrated with the perpetual outrage of their liberal brothers, a quote from Woodrow Wilson: “The history of liberty is a history of resistance.”
To independents in the middle, a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes: “One flag, one land, one heart, one hand, one nation evermore!”
To Collin Kaepernick, a quote from Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican revolutionary: “It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”
For those interested in celebrating Independence Day by watching tonight’s “Salute to America” festivities, coverage begins at 6:30 PM ET. It will take place at the Lincoln Memorial with a focus on celebrating our U.S. armed forces, who have made countless sacrifices for our freedom: the parade will include tanks, military units and drill teams, flyovers by the Navy Blue Angels and the new Marine One, and a speech from President Trump. The event concludes with one of the biggest fireworks displays ever in the D.C. area.
Fox News, PBS, and C-SPAN will be covering the event live and uninterrupted; as of now, the major news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) and some cable news channels (including CNN and MSNBC) are boycotting the celebration and refusing to air the “Salute to America” live on their television channels, insisting the festivities are a partisan event led by Trump. These stations will, however, air excerpts on their primetime and late night shows, giving them the opportunity to make selective edits and provide critical commentary.
God bless and have a happy holiday, no matter how you choose to celebrate our nation’s independence!
The gatekeepers of our culture—academia, the entertainment industry, and the establishment media—are hell bent on smearing Trump 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and on silencing and/or humiliating anybody who dares to publicly support him. Amazingly, over 90 percent of the broadcast coverage of President Trump has been negative, and it just keeps getting worse.
Regardless of how you feel about President Trump, the fact that teachers, parents, students, and administrators in the Greater Philadelphia education community cannot openly voice their support for the POTUS without facing hostile blowback is a cause for concern. It’s bad enough Trump supporters are ostracized in public, but the existence of such behavior in a learning environment should not be tolerated.
This blog is dedicated to conservative educators and Trump supporters in Philadelphia and elsewhere, and serves as a refuge from the constant bullying and harassment we face whenever we choose to openly voice our politics and values. As Winston Churchill once said, “A society where men may not speak their minds cannot long endure.”