Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Candace Owens: ‘White Nationalism’ Didn’t Do This Damage to Blacks, ‘Democrat Policies Did’

Candace Owens, 29, the spokesperson for the conservative group Turning Point USA, testified before Congress on Tuesday about hate crimes and white nationalism, where she stressed that “white nationalism” did not cause the major problems affecting blacks today but liberal progressivism and “Democrat policies did.”

The House Judiciary Committee held the hearing on Tuesday, the subject “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” The committee is headed by Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)

Below is Candace Owens’ opening statement to the committee:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Collins thank you for having me here today. I received word on my way in that many of the journalists were confused as to why I was invited and none of them knew that I myself was a victim of a hate crime when I was in high school.

That is something that very few people know about me because the media and the journalists on the left are not interested in telling the truth about me because I don't fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people.

I am a Democrat. I support the president of the United States and I advocate for things that are actually affecting the black community.

I am honored to be here today in front of you all because the person sitting behind me is my 75-year-old grandfather. I have always considered myself to be my grandfather's child and I mean to say that my sense of humor, my passion, and my work ethic all comes from the man that is sitting behind me.

My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democratic Party's Jim Crow laws.

My grandfather's first job was given to him at the age of five years old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an attic in the South. My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan. They would regularly visit his home and they would shoot bullets into it. They had an issue with his father, my great-grandfather.

During my formative years I had the privilege of growing up in my grandfather's home. It is going to shock the committee but not once, not in a single breath of a conversation did my grandfather tell me that I could not do something because of my skin color.

Not once did my grandfather hold a gripe against the white man. I was simply never taught to view myself as a victim because of my heritage. I learned about faith in God, family and hard work. Those were the only lessons of my childhood.

There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.

Here are some things we never hear. Seventy-five percent of the black boys in California don't meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore within five high schools and one middle school not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The singlehood--the single motherhood rate in the black community, which is at 23 percent in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming out, is at a staggering 74 percent today. I am guessing there will be no committee hearings about that.

There are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York and you have Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo lighting up buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on.

My point is that white nationalist--white nationalism did not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did.

Let me be clear: the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control. It is a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy -- the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy.

They blame Facebook. They blame Google. They blame Twitter. Really, they blame the birth of social media, which has disrupted their monopoly on old media. They called this hearing because they believe that if it wasn't for social media, voices like mine would never exist, then my movement Blexit which is inspiring black Americans to leave the Democrat Party, would have never come about and they certainly believe that Donald Trump would not be in office today.

The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions, ultimately to help them regain control of our country’s narrative, which they feel that they lost.

They feel that President Donald Trump should not have beat Hillary. If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa, a far left, violent white gang who determined one day in Philadelphia in August that I, a black woman, was not fit to sit in a restaurant.

They chased me out, they yelled race traitor to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs at me. And the leftist media remain silent on it.

If they were serious about the rise of hate crimes they may perhaps examinine themselves and the hate they have drummed up in this country. Bottom line is that white supremacy, racism, national--white nationalism, words that once held real meaning have now become nothing more than election strategies.

Every four years the black communities are offered handouts and fear, handouts and fear, reparations and white nationalism. This is the Democrat preview.

Of course, society is not perfectible. We have heard testimony of that today. There are pockets of evil that exist and those things are horrible and they should be condemned. But I believe the legacy of the ancestry of black Americans is being insulted every single day.

I will not pretend to be a victim in this country. I know that that makes many people on the left uncomfortable. I want to talk about real issues in black America. I want to talk about real issues in this country, real concerns.

The biggest scandal--this is my last sentence--in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into the belief that we are perpetual victims, all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat Party platform. They need blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. Soon enough it will be the tall hating the short.

In other remarks to the committee, Owens said, "My biography, which I submitted, you reduced it to one sentence, calling me just a 'conservative activist' -- and it wasn't what I said or what I submitted to your office last night. I just think that you opened with anti-black bias and I see it coming from the chairman today.”


Democrat racism at work

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) asked seven of the nation’s leading bankers on Wednesday to confirm their race.

“As I look at the panel, and I'm grateful for your attendance, the--the eye would perceive that the seven of you have something in common. You appear to be white men. I may be mistaken,” Green said at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.

“If one among you happens to be something other than a white male, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? Kindly let the record reflect that there are no hands in the air and that the panel is made up of white men,” Green continued.

“This is not a pejorative,” Green said. “You've all sermonized to a certain extent about diversity. If you believe that your likely successor will be a woman or a person of color, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?” [No hands raised.]

Then Green told the bank executives, “For fear that you may not hear me, just raise your hand now so that I'll know you're there. Raise your hand, please. All of you. Sir, apparently you don't hear me over on the end. Would you kindly extend a hand into the air if you can hear me?”

Green prodded all of them to raise their hands, which the bankers did -- reluctantly.

Green continued:

I know it's difficult to go on the record sometimes, but the record has to be made. All white men, and none of you, not one, appears to believe that your successor will be a female or a person of color.

Is it your bank likely to have a female or person of color within the next decade? Kindly extend a hand into the air -- two, three, four, five. All right, five. Without giving the commentary that I would dearly like to give, I'll move on.

You know, I'm sitting next to a reverend, and I've heard him say that he'd rather see a sermon then hear a sermon. Let us have an opportunity to see a sermon when you return.

Next question has to do with something near and dear to my heart. My ancestors were slaves. In 2005, is it true that J.P. Morgan released information directly indicating that it directly benefited from slavery? Would the representative from J.P. Morgan respond?

James Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JP Morgan, Chase & Co., said, “I do believe that in 2005 we made a report about potential transactions that involve slavery between J.P. Morgan or its heritage companies back in the 1800s.”

Green asked Dimon if his bank “accepted loans against slaves as collateral.”

“I believe that to be true, yes,” Dimon responded.

Green asked if any of the other banks have produced a study on whether they benefited from slavery. “If so, raise your hand, please. Let the record reflect that none have raised a hand, not one has raised a hand.”

Green then asked, “Do you believe that your bank benefited from slavery in some way in terms of its business practices? If so, raise your hand. (No hands raised.)

“If you do not believe that it benefited, raise your hand. Let the record reflect that all but Mr. Dimon raised a hand. Thank you.

When his time was up, Green told the seven bankers: “I do want you to know that we believe you can do better.”

Later, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) said she found the lack of diversity in banking boardrooms and corporate suites “unacceptable.”

She told the bankers to either hire someone, or give a current employee the title of “Director of the Office of Minority Inclusion in Banks.”

“Will you authorize this person to then have a meeting with me so I can do a follow-up, that we can be more than aspiration?” Beatty asked the bankers, most of whom agreed.


Devout Catholic Farmers Barred From Farmer's Market In Michigan

Barred because they wouldn't host same-sex wedding

In 2016, a devoutly Catholic couple in East Lansing, Michigan, who are both military veterans and own their own organic farm, were kicked out of the local farmer’s market after they refused to host a same-sex wedding on their farm. In 2017, a court issued a preliminary order to permit Steve and Bridget Tennes, owners of Country Mill Farms, to return to the farmer’s market; on Friday, Steve Tennes will join the Alliance Defending Freedom in federal court to request a permanent order forcing the city of East Lansing to allow them to participate in the farmer’s market.

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch, former solicitor general of Michigan, asserted, “Courts have rightfully and repeatedly rejected this type of religious hostility, as recently as the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That is why we are asking the district court to issue an order that permanently prevents East Lansing from unconstitutionally targeting Steve on the basis of his beliefs. The city’s response to Steve’s beliefs reeks of anti-religious discrimination.”

The sequence of events went like this: prior to 2016, the Tennes family, which employs a diversified group of people including some who are LGBT, had attended the farmer’s market for seven years. But in 2016, the couple was asked on Facebook if they would host a same-sex wedding. Tennes said on Facebook that he believed in biblical marriage between one man and one woman, precipitating the city's action. Yet the Tennes farm is 22 miles from East Lansing, outside the city’s boundaries and beyond its jurisdiction.

ADF noted that during a public debate, a city council member said Tennes’ Catholic beliefs were “ridiculous, horrible, [and] hateful things.” ADF added that the mayor of East Lansing criticized Tennes for translating his “Catholic view on marriage” into a business practice.

ADF pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Obergefell and again in Masterpiece that the government must respect the belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

ADF also noted that only weeks prior to the city’s efforts to ban the Tennes family farm from the farmer’s market, the city publicly praised Country Mill Farms, posting, “We love The Country Mill!” on its farmer’s market Facebook page.


Texas Non-Discrimination Bills Would Effectively 'Ban the Bible,' Faith Leaders Warn

On Wednesday, Texas Values Action warned Texans about eight different non-discrimination bills that would codify sexual orientation and gender identity in state law, effectively outlawing traditional Christian views on sexuality. Texas Values Action argued that these bills would effectively ban the Bible because they stigmatize Christian views based on clear Bible teaching.

"These 'Ban the Bible' bills at the Texas Legislature shock the conscience and must be stopped. Creating more government control and threatening Christians with jail time or fines does not create a tolerant society," Nicole Hudgens, senior policy analyst for Texas Values, said in a statement.

"Any inclusion of men in women’s private spaces is a gross violation of their privacy and safety. It is the job of every legislator to protect Texas women and we strongly oppose these 'Ban the Bible' bills," Ann Hettinger, Texas state director for Concerned Women for America's Legislative Action Committee, added.

The bills "allow the government to criminalize people of faith and effectively ban the Bible," Texas Values Action argued. "These bills highlight a growing national trend to punish people of faith by forcing them to celebrate LGBT viewpoints or values and reject their own sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage, human sexuality, and life."

LGBT activists claim that laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) are essential to protect an embattled minority, but these laws penalize dissent on sexual issues. Texas Values warned that such laws "create new government power and protections which ban the free expression of Biblical beliefs, especially its teaching on marriage and sexuality." Those who refuse to follow and celebrate LGBT identities "will face fines, possible jail time, or other criminal charges."

Texas Values pointed out eight different pieces of legislation that were filed between November 12, 2018, and January 23, 2019.

A trio of very similar bills — H.B. 244, H.B. 254, and S.B. 151 — would issue broad SOGI protections. The bills would amend the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the Labor Code, and the Property Code, to add three new protected classes involving "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression." Any violations of these laws would be a Class A misdemeanor and result in a $100 penalty per day.

These bill would also force people to "support" someone undergoing a gender transition, force businesses and owners who believe marriage is between one man and one woman to participate in and celebrate same-sex weddings (as in the case of Jack Phillips), force government contractors to endorse LGBT stances that may violate their consciences, force religious shelters, colleges, and universities to allow biological men in women's shelters or dorms, and force people to give biological men access to women's showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms, and vice versa.

Each of these provisions is made to sound inclusive — "welcoming transgender people," not "discriminating against gay people" — but they amount to enforcing an LGBT ideology that overrides the religious beliefs of citizens. Furthermore, there are many lesbians and radical feminists who oppose transgender identity and warn against the dangers of transgender activism.

Yet there are more bills where those three came from. H.B. 188 would amend the Property Code to add protected classes based on "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression," which would force homeless shelters, colleges, universities, and property owners to stop segregating shelters, dorms, showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms on the basis of sex.

H.B. 517 would allow the government to punish counselors, marriage and family therapists, or psychologists who work from a Christian perspective. If these mental health providers discourage homosexual behavior or transgender identity — even if at the request of the client — they would face disciplinary action. This bill would also force a therapist to disclose private counseling details in the name of opposing "conversion therapy."

H.B. 850 would make "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "gender expression" protected classes under the Labor Code, forcing Christian businesses to pay for same-sex benefits and forcing Christian business owners to allow biological men in women's private facilities.

S.B. 154 would force doctors to pledge their support for issuing new birth certificates and official documents based on gender identity, even if it violates the doctor's conscience and religious beliefs. The bill would also open up other legal issues regarding fraud, escaping criminal prosecution, disruption of records, proof of identity, and obtaining of licenses, passports, and Social Security numbers.

S.J.R. 9 would repeal the Texas Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman under the Texas Constitution, an amendment for which over 75 percent of Texans voted.

Last year, California very nearly outlawed anti-LGBT books on the basis that advertising stories of freedom from unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion constituted fraud. That law could have even banned the Bible, because the Bible promises the ability to overcome sin in Jesus Christ and defines same-sex sexual activity as sinful.

LGBT activists market these bills as "accepting," "progressive," and open-minded, but in reality they enshrine LGBT identity in law, rendering opposition to such identities illegal, even when it's based on Bible teaching and should be protected by the First Amendment's protection for religious freedom. In a way, these bills really do "Ban the Bible," and Texans should oppose them.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: