Lily Salter's Blog, page 1010
August 21, 2015
White people were America’s real “anchor babies”: A history lesson for the Republican Party
In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.In recent days, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates have begun using an ugly racial slur to describe the children of Hispanic and Latino origin who are born in the United States to undocumented parents: “Anchor babies.” The phrase is like a zombie for American conservatives: It lingers, never dying, ready to reappear during the presidential election season as political red meat to feed the xenophobic and racially resentful Republican electorate. Of course, such language alienates Hispanic and Latino voters, the fastest growing voting demographic in the United States, but the imagery of invading hordes of Spanish-speaking brown people -- a group that conservatives imagine as a fundamental threat to “American values and culture” -- is foundational to white identity politics in the post-civil right era. Indeed, in the Age of Obama, racism and conservatism are one and the same. And the Republican Party is addicted. Like all addicts, it cannot stop using their cocktail of symbolic racism and nativism — even when such behavior imperils their long-term political health and safety. The slur “anchor baby” is potent because it summons images of people coming to a country where they do not belong, imposing themselves on it by having children who can make some unfair claim on resources, and by doing so to deprive the “original” and “rightful” residents of the land, jobs and wealth that is their birthright. In America, a country founded as a Herrenvolk racial state, where the color line determined one’s freedom, the language of “anchor baby” cannot possibly be separated from the nightmare of white supremacy, of a democracy where human rights and citizenship were based on a person’s melanin count and parentage. Like most racial slurs, “anchor baby” masks and obscures more than it reveals. In reality, the people who would eventually become the first "Americans," those white Europeans who, beginning in the 17th century, migrated to the colonies are the parents of this country’s first and true “anchor babies.”
* * *
The United States, like other countries, has crafted a set of mythologies and national lies that help to socialize its citizens into a shared history, culture, and identity. One of the United States’ most powerful myths is a belief that the nation was founded as a country “of immigrants.” This is untrue. Like Australia, South Africa, and Israel, the United States was a colonial state made up of white settlers. The distinction between a “settler” society and one comprised of “immigrants” is very important. Immigrants move to a new space and then adopt the values of the people already living there. By contrast, settlers move to a new space, claim it as their own, and then impose their values and beliefs on the people who were already living there. The United States, in its treatment of First Nations, as well as other people of color around the world, is a typical example of the settler-based colonial society. To wit: Benjamin Franklin himself evinced and reinforced a belief in the need for white people to spread across the continent, taking land, laying claim to it, and producing white "anchor babies" to secure the racial purity and prosperity of a white nation in the making. In his 1751 short essay, "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.," Franklin wrote the following:The number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.White settler colonialists in America had eager libidos, urges that they used to rapidly grow the white population. In 17th century Andover, Mass., for example, white families had an average of 8.2 children. The average 18th century Southern white family had 9.6 children. This was a birthrate far higher than that of Europeans during the same era. White colonists were determined to breed more "anchor babies" in order to develop and work the land they occupied in the “New World.” Between childbirth and colonization, the white population in the American colonies rose from only 250,000 in 1700 to 1.7 million by the end of 1770, an increase of 680 percent. "Manifest Destiny," one of America’s other founding mythologies, was contrived in order to justify the displacement of the First Nations already inhabiting the continent, and to encourage the establishment of white dominion over other parts of the world. It was, in effect, a declaration of the white "anchor baby" as national (and international) policy. The first appearance in print of the phrase “Manifest Destiny” even summons the idea of God, and a command for white settlers to be fruitful and multiply as they spread out across America, displacing the brown people already there, stealing land, and committing mass murder against them. Activist and scholar Paul Kivel, writing at the site Christian Hegemony explains this logic:
Popularized in 1845 by influential journalist John L. O’Sullivan, the term “Manifest Destiny” became a national rallying cry for proponents of further westward colonization. It captured and consolidated longstanding concepts from the Crusades and the Papal-sanctioned colonization process such as holy war, divine sanction, chosen people, promised land, terra nullis, and the proselytizing and conversion of heathens. As originally used in the US, Manifest Destiny was the idea that God had given the United States a mission to expand their territory throughout North America. Three basic ideas underlie the concept of manifest destiny. First is a belief in the righteousness and superiority of the Christian moral values and institutions of the United States. The second is a belief in the responsibility of the U.S. to spread these for the benefit of the world and to fulfill God’s wishes. The third is the faith that God has blessed the country to succeed and every success confirms that blessing.Because Manifest Destiny and westward expansion were national policy, white American elites combined the eliminationist policies of mass murder against the First Nations with a coordinated effort to ensure that white birthrates far outstripped those of the people they were displacing. Those programs were coupled with attempts to “breed” Native Americans out of existence through sterilization, intermarriage and cultural “reeducation,” The decimation of First Nations peoples and communities in America was the sum effect. Manifest Destiny is solidified as part of America’s “national character.” But, today’s Republicans have amplified Manifest Destiny through their commitment to American militarism and never-ending war abroad, yearning for an American Christian Theocracy, and racism as electoral strategy; as well as with their embrace of the politics of white racial resentment, the Southern Strategy, Birtherism and old fashioned “Know-Nothing” nativism. The Republican Party’s embrace of the “anchor baby” meme is more evidence that it has abandoned any pretense to normal and responsible politics. Their use of such language is also a type of performance art, because the ridiculous serves as a substitute for serious thinking and governance. Indeed, the policies proposed by the Republicans to combat so-called “anchor babies” are so absurd and freakish that several of the party’s own presidential candidates could actually be disqualified from the presidency if these policies were ever actually adopted. Movement conservatives’ eager deployment of the “anchor baby” meme -- and their solution of revoking birthright citizenship through a rewrite of the Constitution-- is in keeping with the Republican Party’s assault on the won-in-blood freedom of black and brown Americans. The “anchor baby” talking point is yet more proof that the GOP is a radical and destructive political force, one that actively embraces white supremacy.
The plot to destroy Shaun King: How Breitbart turned a ludicrous conspiracy theory into national news
Shaun King, a columnist for Daily Kos, an active and widely-followed Twitter user and a prominent member of the Black Lives Matter movement, was forced yesterday to share some of his most painful family secrets with the world. This is thanks to a monumentally squalid series of articles by conservative site Breitbart that questioned whether or not King was actually a black man—an assertion that was thoroughly discredited by King. Normally, I'd advise you to avoid reading any further, but the King saga is a perfect symbol of some of the worst tendencies currently found in both the dankest corners of the conservative media and the shamelessly trigger-happy world of the mainstream media.
Breitbart's "scoop" about King came from Vicki Pate, a blogger who runs a truly startling website called "Re-NewsIt!" The site is the kind of typo-ridden bile factory that would normally be dismissed without a second glance. Its sole aim appears to be to "expose the truth" about the nefarious charlatans at the heart of the Black Lives Matter Movement, as well as to smear any black victims of crime.
Pate has had multiple Twitter accounts suspended. When she still had access to Twitter, she used the platform to do things like harass the mother of Kendrick Johnson, a black teenager whose dead body was found rolled up in a gym mat at his high school. For good measure, Pate also posted leaked autopsy photos of Johnson on her website and accused his father of "trying to win the race-hoax lottery."
Pate has also been obsessively trying to take Shaun King down for some time, and suddenly it seemed that she'd struck gold in the form of a birth certificate that listed both of King's parents as white.
Most outlets would probably stay away from such a clearly fetid swamp, but Breitbart happily dove in, highlighting her efforts on its much larger platform and driving the King story to the top of the news agenda. That's perhaps to be expected when Milo Yiannopoulos, the reporter who wrote the King story, is a man whose past gems include "16 Movements Less Ridiculous Than Black Lives Matter" and "Donald Trump Would Be the Real First Black President." Racial provocation, not rigor, is the goal here.
Let's be very clear about why Breitbart decided this was a worthy story to pursue. It's the same reason that Fox News was so reluctant to call Charleston shooter Dylann Roof a racist. Some people in America find the idea that there is such a thing as white supremacy--or that white people are in any way to blame for the racism in our society--so terrifying that they would rather concoct a huge racial conspiracy theory wherein ghoulish black activists run roughshod over a cowed white populace. To Breitbart, the Shaun Kings of the world are the ones with all the power, exploiting a weak and politically correct society for their own personal gain.
It is all self-evidently insane, of course, but white people have been deluding themselves about the racial state of play in America for centuries, so why stop now?
Some will jump to compare King's story to that of Rachel Dolezal, and ask what the difference is. Here's the difference: Dolezal only became a story because her own parents told reporters their daughter was faking her identity, because it became clear that Dolezal had completely altered her appearance over the years, because she'd sued Howard University for anti-white discrimination, and so on and so on and so on. It didn't come from a patently wacko racist blogger hell-bent on trying to destroy a civil rights movement, and there's been absolutely no evidence presented that Shaun King has ever changed the story he's told about his racial background, unlike Dolezal. The only conceivable reason to target him is because he's an easily identifiable figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, and Breitbart would like him to be rendered somehow illegitimate.
That explains why Breitbart was so eager to "expose" King. What defies all comprehension is why reputable news outlets ran with this sorry excuse of a story. CNN's Don Lemon--who always seems to be at the center of the network's most journalistically dubious decisions--breathlessly told his viewers that family members had sworn exclusively to him that King was white. (Never mind King's own statement that his family was a complex, tangled ball--making it entirely possible that some family members didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to his racial background.) The Daily News ran multiple stories with headlines like "Rachel Dolezal 2.0? Shaun King, activist for the Black Lives Matter movement, outed as a white man."
It's bad enough that sites like Breitbart are peddling this nonsense. But for CNN to use its still-considerable authority to drive such a clearly malicious smear campaign forward is something else entirely. CNN should have taken one look at both the Breitbart story and its source and known to stay away. That it chose not to do so is basic journalistic malpractice.
To the surprise of virtually nobody, Breitbart's crack reporting fell apart almost instantly—but not before King was compelled to disclose that his father is not the man listed on his birth certificate, but is in fact a black man who he has never met. Thus, faced with the near-total refutation of its wildest claims, Breitbart... declared victory.
Anybody looking for a scintilla of contrition for the way the site sliced open some of the deepest wounds in a man's life for no reason would be disappointed.
Truth be told, it would be too much to hope that Breitbart or its ilk would learn any lesson from this shabby affair. My real hope is that the rest of the media thinks twice before it validates such appalling behavior again. I'm not holding my breath.
This supercut of news anchors earnestly discussing “Deez Nuts” is exactly what was missing from your life
"Deez Nuts," the 15-year-old Iowa farm boy polling at 9% in North Carolina, has received lots of press this week. You might even say: Wow! Bet there's some major supercut potential there. In fact, there is -- and WTF Magazine is on it. The magazine uploaded a video to its official Facebook page today, stitching together the best moments in News Anchors Earnestly Approaching Deez Nuts. Welcome to 5th grade, make yourself comfortable. Watch the clip courtesy of WTF Magazine below:
DEEZ NUTSHave you guys heard of #Deeznuts ? He's running for president! Posted by WTF Magazine on Thursday, August 20, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s latest bizarre stunt: Screening Planned Parenthood videos on his lawn
Republican presidential long shot Bobby Jindal has waged a full scale war against Planned Parenthood and in his latest attack the Louisiana governor decided to air the controversial undercover videos in front of his home. The Advocate reported that the governor aired a loop of the undercover videos targeting the women's health organization on the lawn of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge Thursday as a counter protest to a group of about 50 supporters of Planned Parenthood who had gathered to protest Jindal's decision to cut Medicaid funding to the organization. https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/statu... Jindal claimed he held the screening to give protestors who objected to his decision to defund Planned Parenthood an opportunity to "witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting":
Planned Parenthood supporters are welcome to protest. We will have a screen set up outside the mansion to display the Planned Parenthood videos. We hope the protesters will take a minute to watch them so they’ll have an opportunity to see first-hand our concerns with Planned Parenthood’s practices.Jindal has launched an investigation into the operations of Planned Parenthood based on allegations made in the video that the organization "haggled" over the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood has vehemently denied the charges, noting that fetal tissue is only ever donated, not sold for profit and that the procedure is legal. Still, Jindal cut off Louisiana's nearly $300,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, garnering a warning from the Department of Health and Human Services that the state may have moved in violation of federal law. Louisiana State Director of Planned Parenthood Melissa Flourneoy called Jindal's latest move a political "stunt":
Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health. This stunt is proof he doesn’t have any real answers for the people of Louisiana. He is ready to cut health care for thousands of low-income women and men without batting an eye. Because for Jindal, it's all politics all the time.Jindal's play to endear himself even more to his rabidly anti-choice base is soundly out-of-step with sentiments of the larger American electorate. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Republican presidential long shot Bobby Jindal has waged a full scale war against Planned Parenthood and in his latest attack the Louisiana governor decided to air the controversial undercover videos in front of his home. The Advocate reported that the governor aired a loop of the undercover videos targeting the women's health organization on the lawn of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge Thursday as a counter protest to a group of about 50 supporters of Planned Parenthood who had gathered to protest Jindal's decision to cut Medicaid funding to the organization. https://twitter.com/BobbyJindal/statu... Jindal claimed he held the screening to give protestors who objected to his decision to defund Planned Parenthood an opportunity to "witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting":
Planned Parenthood supporters are welcome to protest. We will have a screen set up outside the mansion to display the Planned Parenthood videos. We hope the protesters will take a minute to watch them so they’ll have an opportunity to see first-hand our concerns with Planned Parenthood’s practices.Jindal has launched an investigation into the operations of Planned Parenthood based on allegations made in the video that the organization "haggled" over the sale of fetal body parts. Planned Parenthood has vehemently denied the charges, noting that fetal tissue is only ever donated, not sold for profit and that the procedure is legal. Still, Jindal cut off Louisiana's nearly $300,000 contract with Planned Parenthood, garnering a warning from the Department of Health and Human Services that the state may have moved in violation of federal law. Louisiana State Director of Planned Parenthood Melissa Flourneoy called Jindal's latest move a political "stunt":
Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health. This stunt is proof he doesn’t have any real answers for the people of Louisiana. He is ready to cut health care for thousands of low-income women and men without batting an eye. Because for Jindal, it's all politics all the time.Jindal's play to endear himself even more to his rabidly anti-choice base is soundly out-of-step with sentiments of the larger American electorate. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
“I always wanted to be black”: Trevor Noah tackles race, immigration and Africa with pure comic genius in this video mashup
Trevor Noah, the comedian tapped to replace Jon Stewart as the host of "The Daily Show" beginning September 28, first appeared on the news satire program as a contributor in December 2014. But his time in the spotlight dates back to years before then — he made his television debut at the age of 18 on a South African soap opera, went on to host numerous television and awards shows and later dropped acting to pursue a career in stand-up, touring around the world. Noah is known for intrepidly tackling issues of racism and often uses his experiences growing up as a mixed race child during apartheid in South Africa as the basis for his comedy. With a little over a month left before Noah takes the stage we decided to take a look at who the next "Daily Show" host is through some of his best stand-up comedy and talk show moments. Watch our compilation below: [jwplayer file="http://media.salon.com/2015/08/Best-o..." image="http://media.salon.com/2015/03/trevor...]
Dear Jonathan Franzen: No, women don’t “need” to go looking for a villain — and you are not a victim
There is so, so much weirdness going on in that recent Guardian interview with acclaimed novelist, Oprah shunner and social media disdainer Jonathan Franzen that the thing is best digested in small pieces. There's the part about how he toyed with the idea of adopting an Iraqi war orphan, because "One of the things that had put me in mind of adoption was a sense of alienation from the younger generation." There's his assessment of the famous 2001 incident in which he blew off Oprah's book club as not in keeping with ''the high-art literary tradition'' he considered himself part of — "I think the fact that I was a white guy made that harder." And then there's Franzen on feminism. Hoo boy. Let's just try to deal with that one, because it so not just about him. Franzen has a longstanding reputation as not being fully enlightened on the subject of women, in particular the different ways in which female authors are marketed, reviewed and received differently than their male counterparts. Three years ago, he wrote a New Yorker feature on Edith Wharton that he now describes to the Guardian as "deliriously praising celebration" — and in which he repeatedly made mention of her "one potentially redeeming disadvantage: she wasn’t pretty." And earlier this year, he snarled that "There’s something about Jennifer Weiner" — the bestselling novelist who regularly uses her social media platform to question the literary world's gender and genre expectations — "that rubs me the wrong way, something I don’t trust." He went on to say that "She’s an unfortunate person to have as a spokesperson," and then proudly declared he'd never read her. That Franzen receives a lot of attention, acclaim and splashy reviews is not something he has a lot of control over, nor is it a thing to be faulted for. That Franzen's new novel, "Purity," features "a fanatical feminist who, among other things, forces her husband to urinate sitting down on the toilet to atone for his maleness," is the right of a fiction writer to create a fictional character. But that he seems to adamantly not get that his smug dismissal of female authors and what he once called the "schmaltzy, one-dimensional" novels of Oprah's book club reveals a certain boastful narrowness about things that involve and interest women is a bit off putting? That's on him. In his Guardian interview, Franzen says that "I’m not a sexist. I am not somebody who goes around saying men are superior, or that male writers are superior. In fact, I really go out of my way to champion women’s work that I think is not getting enough attention. None of that is ever enough. Because a villain is needed. It’s like there’s no way to make myself not male. And one of the running jokes in the Tom and Anabel section [of 'Purity.'] is that he’s really trying to not be male…. There’s a sense that there is really nothing I can do except die – or, I suppose, retire and never write again." Awwww, poor victimized famous bestselling author Jonathan Franzen! Why are feminists so meaaaaaan? Funnily enough, his words were similar to those of considerably less famous Feminspire co-creator Ben Schoen, who this week went on a Twitter meltdown — and then explained in a statement that it was okay because "I have done more for the cause of advancing women’s rights than any of the people who are criticizing me." Here's some advice. A good way to prove that you are not a sexist is not to whine, LOOK HOW MUCH I DO FOR YOU WOMEN AND YOU DON'T EVEN APPRECIATE IT. It's understanding that being part of the problem of the incessant sexism that we women deal with every goddamn day of our lives — in our jobs, in our quest to maintain our right to reproductive autonomy, in our desire to just walk down the street in peace — isn't just "going around" saying out loud that men are superior. So, you know, sorry if we don't seem sufficiently grateful, dudes. And I'm going go out a limb and say that a whole lot of us who call ourselves feminists really don't "need" a villain. We already have plenty! You think we wake up in the morning looking around for stuff to be pissed off about? Ted Cruz is running for president. We have enough to keep ourselves occupied a while here. But here's the even bigger truth: We don't want to make anybody "not male." Many, many of us — gay, straight, everywhere in between — like men. We want to like men. We work with them and live with them and raise children -- including male children! -- with them and count them as our friends and allies. That's how we know when they're speaking and acting in ways that are legitimately appropriate, and not condescending and crappy. So when we say that you're not doing that, try believing us. Try not curling up in a ball and playing the boo hoo hoo I can't please you people card. Sure you can. You just have to show us you even want to.
Dr. Dre apologizes “to the women I’ve hurt. I deeply regret what I did”
N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."N.W.A. founder and music mogul Dr. Dre responded to renewed criticisms of his past treatment of women in the wake of the success of the N.W.A. biopic "Straight Outta Compton" in a statement to the New York Times published today. Dr. Dre didn't name the women who have come forward to speak about abuse at his hands — journalist Dee Barnes, a singer and Dre's former girlfriend Michel'le and rapper Tairrie B — instead issuing a blanket apology to "the women I've hurt."
“Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”He added, "I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.” Dre's statement comes on the heels of a powerful essay by Barnes, published Tuesday in Gawker, in which the former host of "Pump It Up!" addressed how she felt about being written out of "Straight Outta Compton." Barnes detailed her close relationship with the rising hip hop stars she covered for her TV show and the night that Dre “straddled me and beat me mercilessly on the floor of the women’s restroom at the Po Na Na Souk nightclub in 1991" after her show aired a controversial interview with his former N.W.A. mate Ice Cube. Michel'le gave an interview earlier this week as well in which she addressed her own absence from the biopic, saying "I was just a quiet girlfriend who got beat on and told to sit down and shut up." N.W.A. labelmate Tairrie B, who is writing a memoir, says Dre "punched me in the eye" over a diss track she recorded in 1990. "And when I didn’t go down, he punched me in the mouth,” she told LA Weekly. Dre now works as a consultant for Apple, which bought his Beats Music service and Beats Electronics, which makes Beats by Dre headphones, last year for $3 billion. The company also issued a statement to the Times: "Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed."
Ellen Page confronts Ted Cruz about anti-LGBTQ bigotry — and Cruz’s response is predictably absurd
Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below. Texas Senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz was interrupted from his very important grilling duties at the Iowa State Fair by someone he clearly didn't recognize as Oscar-nominated actress Ellen Page, who asked him questions about what constitutes "persecution" in America today. Page began by asking how he felt about "LGBTQ people being fired for being gay or trans," and Cruz responded that "what we're really seeing now is Bible-believing Christians being persecuted." "Yes," Page replied, "for discriminating against gay and lesbian people." "No," Cruz said, "for living according to their faith." He proceeded to rattle off the woeful tale of Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were fined for refusing to allow a same-sex couple to host their wedding in couple's church/bistro/flower shop/wedding venue. Page offered that people made very similar arguments "during the segregation era," but Cruz shut her down, saying "I'm happy to answer your question, but we're not going to have a back and forth debate." As a large man in overalls leered over his shoulder, seemingly concerned about the hamburgers the senator wasn't flipping while talking about politics, Cruz compared the plight of "Bible-believing Christians" to "a Jewish rabbi forced to perform a Christian wedding," or "a Muslim imam forced to perform a Jewish one." "We are a country," he continued, "that respects pluralism and diversity, and there is a liberal intolerance that says that anyone who dares follow a biblical teaching of marriage must be persecuted, must be fined, must be driven out of business." Page pointed out that it was once illegal to be gay or lesbian in many states, a fact with which Cruz seemed unfamiliar. "Where was it illegal to be gay?" he asked, before realizing an opportunity to pivot had arisen, and that it was time to trot out tired GOP talking points about Iran and ISIS's treatment of gays and lesbians -- the suggestion being that LGBTQ people have it so much better here, so they should be grateful and shut up. Which is, of course, exactly what Page refused to do, pointing out that it's American Christians like Scott Lively who are responsible for the "Kill the Gays" legislation in Uganda. Cruz responded by talking about Jamaica, then circling back to Iran and ISIS and asking her why she's not hectoring Obama about that. "I'd love to talk to Obama about that," Page said. "Then we agree," Cruz replied, before turning away. Watch the entire exchange via ABC News below.
Scott Walker makes a complete clown of himself: Now he says he has no position on birthright citizenship
On Monday, after Republican frontrunner Donald Trump released an anti-immigration plan that called for the repeal of 14th Amendment protections for children born to undocumented immigrants, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker clearly stated that he agreed with the inflammatory suggestion but today the Wisconsin governor appears to be regretting that decision. On Fox, Walker eagerly told the "Fox and Friends" hosts that his own immigration plan was "similar" to Trump's and then told NBC's Kasie Hunt that he agreed with Trump's extreme proposal to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States:
KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.But by Friday, the wannabe Republican presidential nominee had already changed his mind on this constitutional issue. "I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," Walker said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood today:
Today, Walker said his stance had been misunderstood during a long campaign day involving numerous interviews marked by interruptions. Walker once stood on the left side of the Republican debate, favoring a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. He has since explained that he changed his mind in response to additional information. Walker, who titled his recent book "Unintimidated," insisted he had not been intimidated by the blustery Trump or his views.How exactly to undo 117 years of precedent may have proven too big a challenge for Walker to take on but he's once again backed off a previously held position on immigration. Walker already has a controversial history with the base of his party who still fault the Wisconsin governor for his past support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place," Walker said during a 2013 editorial board meeting with a local Wisconsin paper.On Monday, after Republican frontrunner Donald Trump released an anti-immigration plan that called for the repeal of 14th Amendment protections for children born to undocumented immigrants, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker clearly stated that he agreed with the inflammatory suggestion but today the Wisconsin governor appears to be regretting that decision. On Fox, Walker eagerly told the "Fox and Friends" hosts that his own immigration plan was "similar" to Trump's and then told NBC's Kasie Hunt that he agreed with Trump's extreme proposal to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States:
KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.But by Friday, the wannabe Republican presidential nominee had already changed his mind on this constitutional issue. "I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," Walker said in an interview with CNBC's John Harwood today:
Today, Walker said his stance had been misunderstood during a long campaign day involving numerous interviews marked by interruptions. Walker once stood on the left side of the Republican debate, favoring a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. He has since explained that he changed his mind in response to additional information. Walker, who titled his recent book "Unintimidated," insisted he had not been intimidated by the blustery Trump or his views.How exactly to undo 117 years of precedent may have proven too big a challenge for Walker to take on but he's once again backed off a previously held position on immigration. Walker already has a controversial history with the base of his party who still fault the Wisconsin governor for his past support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place," Walker said during a 2013 editorial board meeting with a local Wisconsin paper.
