Monday, March 18, 2024

The Non-Conspiracy



The only thing GOP Representative Nancy Mace, of a swing district in South Carolina, got right here was her timing.


When it's time for Bill Maher to go to the "New Rules" segment of "Real Time," Bill Maher goes to New Rules. No exception.

And Representative Mace was able to slip in her lie at the right time, just under the wire.  Mace may not recall the exact date or the adjective "fine," but surely she learned of the President's sentiment after Joe Biden on January 30 said

that he thought it was "fine" for former President Donald Trump to remain on the ballot for this year's election.

In response to a reporter who asked whether Trump should "be allowed on the ballot," Biden said, “As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine.”

Biden made the remark shortly before he boarded Marine One for Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, from which he departed for a trip to Florida.,,,

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next week in the Colorado ballot case, which could affect whether Trump can stay on the primary ballot in that state and others.

Colorado's Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states that "an officer of the United States" who has "engaged in insurrection" cannot hold office and is therefore ineligible as a candidate.

The Supreme Court, six Republicans and three Democrats, promptly decided unanimously against the plaintiffs, thus restoring Trump to the ballot in Colorado.

Thus marked the demise of the lawsuit which aimed to bar Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though filed by CREW, the suit was organized by a research assistant with the 2008 presidential campaign of Rudolph Giuliani. It was joined by the first woman to serve as majority leader of both chambers of the Colorado legislature, as well as

a former Republican member of Congress from Rhode Island who now lives in Colorado; a teacher; a former deputy chief of staff to a Republican governor; a former executive director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Larimer County; and a conservative columnist for the Denver Post.

Yet, Representative Mace was able to claim "(Joe Biden) wants to kick his opponents off the ballot."  With GOP politicians such as her implying a Democratic plot to erase Trump from the ballot, many conservative voters seem to believe the myth.

The problem is magnified when, as has been the case, there is little or no pushback from Democrats, liberals or progressives. Throughout the entire discussion portion of the show, Representative Ro Khanna (clearly booked as the progressive foil to Mace, proved distressingly complaisant, apparently loathe to displease his colleague. And Bill Maher himself allowed the congresswoman to interject this crucial lie before he switched gears to "New Rules."  On this night, Nancy Mace was disturbingly, dishonestly effective.



Saturday, March 16, 2024

Thorough Examination



In light of the rumor that RFK Jr. will select Aaron Rodgers to be his running mate, it is timely to tell Ari Fleischer and his fellow travelers: R-E-L-A-X.


Of course, Fleischer is flacking for Donald Trump and acolytes, who will deny to their lasting, lying breath that Putin's Russia did not work to elect Trump to the presidency. And Fleischer should not go hysterical over the speech of Majority Leader Schumer, a longtime ally of the State of Israel, whose assessment of the war against Hamas was realistic, respectful, and reasoned (alliteration day!).  

In his lengthy speech (transcript here), Schumer described in detail what he labeled the "four major obstacles standing in the way of two states."  They are, in his words, Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways; radical right-wing Israelis in government and society; Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways.

Schumer's speech instantly became famous for his support for "holding a new election once the war starts to wind down," which should be promoted more promptly. However, he recognizes- and is willing to admit- that

The Palestinian people must reject Hamas and the extremism in their midst. They know better than anybody how Hamas has used them as pawns, how Hamas has tortured and punished Palestinians who seek peace.

 Quite frankly, I haven’t heard enough Palestinian leaders express anguish about Hamas and other extreme elements of Palestinian society. I implore them to speak up now, even when it may be hardest. Because that is the only true way to honor the lives of all those lost — by transcending the enmity and bloodshed, and working together in good faith for a better future.

 Once Hamas is deprived of power, the Palestinians will be much freer to choose a government they want and deserve. With the prospect of a real two-state solution on the table, and for the first time, genuine statehood for the Palestinian people, I believe they will be far more likely to support more mainstream leaders committed to peace.

 I think the same is true of the Israeli people. Call me an optimist, but I believe that if the Israeli public is presented with a path to a two-state solution that offers a chance at lasting peace and coexistence, then most mainstream Israelis will moderate their views and support it.

 Part of that moderation must include rejecting right-wing zealots like Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, and the extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank. These people do not represent a majority of the Israeli public, yet under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s watch, they have had far too much influence.

 All sides must reject “From the river to the sea” thinking — and I believe they will if the prospects for peace and a two-state solution are real.

Schumer describes the concerns of both Israelis and American Jews and their justified concern about Israel's plight. Regrettably, he does not explicitly call out religious extremism, which has played a major role in the Israeli response to the October 7 murders and an even greater role in the Hamas attack itself. However, as this war has dragged on, it its clear that in any discussion of the Middle East, the phrases "Islamic terrorism," "Islamic extremism," and "Orthodox Jewish extremism" may not be uttered.  

Nonetheless, Schumer does understand that beyond Hamas and Israel, there is a third player in the Middle East which is critical to a peaceful and just resolution. He notes

Beyond the Israeli and Palestinian people and their leaders, there are others who bear a serious responsibility to work towards a two-state solution. Without them, it cannot succeed.

Middle Eastern powers like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and other mainstream Arab states can have immense power and influence with the Palestinians. Working with the United States, they must responsibly deploy their clout, their money and their diplomacy to support a new demilitarized Palestinian state that rejects terror and violence. I believe they have the leverage to do this with the support of the majority of the Palestinian people, who want what any other people want: peace, security and prosperity

Not all Jews are the same, as is blatantly obvious for the lack of support for the Netanyahu government among Israelis. Nor are all Arabs, or Muslims, or the individuals labeled "Palestinian," a reality which serves as a premise for Chuck Schumer's analysis. He has not presented a blueprint but has presented a more balanced view of the crisis than Ari Fleischer and others are giving him credit for. 



               



Thursday, March 14, 2024

Media Denial


Can we be honest?

If the question is posed to Mehdi Hasan, Vox, The Hollywood Reporter, or X readers who have "added context," the accurate answer is a resounding "no." Vox explains

Accepting the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film for his harrowing Holocaust film The Zone of Interest, director Jonathan Glazer took a stance against the state of Israel’s ongoing military bombardment of Gaza as part of the Israel-Hamas war. Glazer, who is Jewish, made a simple and straightforward through line from his film, which is about the literal banality of evil, to the present day.

“All our choices we made to reflect and confront us in the present,” Glazer said. “Not to say ‘look what they did then’ — rather, ‘look what we do now.’ Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present.”

“Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”

 First, the journalist who until recently had a show on MSNBC:

Next, Vox

Glazer’s speech was initially badly misquoted by some sources including Variety, which led to confusion about whether he had “refuted” his Jewishness full stop. This predictably met with conservative backlash, as when Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Sen. John McCain, and Abe Foxman, former head of the Anti-Defamation League, each incorrectly cited Glazer as “refuting his Jewishness.” Several Jewish organizations argued that Glazer himself was actually “hijacking” the Holocaust.

What Glazer actually said is much clearer: He and his collaborators reject that Jewishness and the Holocaust are being used to justify the ongoing military offensive in Gaza.

Chris Hayes, snot fully familiar with the English language, remarke"it was a little awkwardly phrased but he's clearly saying he refutes his Jewishness being hijacked. Not refuting his Jewishness." "Awkwardly phrased" but "clearly saying." Gotcha.

 Finally, The Hollywood Reporter:

The reaction to Glazer’s speech was swift, although much of the early negative sentiment occurred because some news sites hadn’t fully quoted the British filmmaker, or because his quotes were taken out of context with the rest of his speech. Some people, incorrectly, took Glazer’s speech to mean that he was refuting his Jewishness, rather than that he was refuting his “Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,” as he said in his speech.

This (reading and understanding the English language) shouldn't be difficult. It wasn't for Meghan McCain. Glazer's defenders cry "context," so to be fair- and brutally honest with them- the entire statement is as following:

Thank you so much. I’m gonna read. Thank you to the Academy for this honor and to our partners A24, Film4, Access, and Polish Film Institute; to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum for their trust and guidance; to my producers, actors, collaborators. All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather, “Look what we do now.” Our film shows where dehumanization leads, at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October the — [Applause.] Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist? [Applause.] Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk, the girl who glows in the film, as she did in life, chose to. I dedicate this to her memory and her resistance. Thank you.

Glazer's words are literally "right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation...." He did not say "as men who refute their Jewishness because of the Holocaust being hijacked." He did not say "as men who refute their Jewishness insofar as the Holocaust has been hijacked." He did not say even "as men who refute their Jewishness while the Holocaust is being hijacked," which would have been ambiguous.

He said "we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation." It means- literally and figuratively, that they are refuting two things: their Jewishness; and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation.

The meaning is clear. Glazer is making two points: we are refuting Jewishness and the Holocaust is being hijacked. He wasn't impulsive, speaking extemporaneously, off-the-cuff. He read from prepared remarks he had an opportunity to write and edit so that his points (plural) would be evident and not twisted.

Glazer may have been thinking "the only reason we're refuting our Jewishness is because of Israel's actions." But he did not say that. And although we cannot be certain of what is in the deep recesses of Nathan Glazer's mind, we have the words of an educated, presumably literate individual to assess for their validity.

Each of us is left to consider, if he or she wishes, the motivation of someone who makes his beliefs clear and the aim of individuals who refuse to acknowledge what is directly in front of them. Possibly, they are eager for Jews themselves to slam Israel because they believe it is more powerful refutation of the nation's actions in Gaza, and perhaps elsewhere. It is a little bit of a "Nixon goes to China moment"- if a Jew himself hates what Israel is doing, what more evidence do we need? And they don't want to be seen applauding someone explicitly rejecting his "Jewishness."

Nathan Glazer is free to renounce his Judaism and to slam Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip. He has conspicuously done both without claiming one as the cause of the other.. Yet, opponents of Israeli policy ask "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? They urge readership to believe what they want Glazer to have meant or what they suspect he meant, rather than what he said.  Labeled as commentary, it is legitimate. This is deeply dishonest, advocacy journalism in a cloak of objectivity.


   

             



Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Elevated Sense of Self-Regard


As The Hill reports, U.S. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina has

accused ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of trying to “bully” her during an interview Sunday morning when he pressed her on why she endorsed former President Trump.

“George Stephanopoulos tried to bully me and shame me as a rape survivor over my support for Donald Trump, which is insane to me, because he wasn’t found guilty of rape anywhere,” she said on Fox News’s “The Faulkner Focus.”

But the other thing is that, George Stephanopoulos, he doesn’t — he has never felt the shame of rape. He does not know what this journey is like. It’s a journey of healing over a lifetime,” she added.

Mace and Stephanopoulos got caught in a heated debate during ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday when he asked her how she could endorse Trump after he was found liable for sexual battery in a defamation lawsuit with E. Jean Carroll last year. He had played a clip of her delivering testimony about being a victim of rape shortly before she announced her bid for Congress in 2019.

Throughout the exchange on Sunday, Mace criticized Stephanopoulos for “shaming” her by asking why she supported Trump.

“And it’s a shame that you will never feel, George, and I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim. I’m not going to do that,” Mace said.

Stephanopoulos maintained that his question was not meant to “shame” her and at one point called her “courageous” for coming forward. He still continued to press her on how she could endorse Trump after saying he should never hold office again after the Capitol attack on Jan. 6,  2021, and given that he had been found liable for sexual battery.

Mace said in her interview Monday that she was “shocked and dismayed by the line of questioning.” She also said that she was not aware he was going to bring up her testimony during the interview.



Oh, good Lord.  Since revealing in a debate over an abortion bill in the South Carolina legislature in 2019 that she had been raped twenty five years earlier at age 16, Mace has tried to make the violent the heart of her political identity.

Though she successfully argued for including an exception for rape and incest in the bill curbing women's reproductive freedom, Mace has since opposed a right to abortion. She also has endorsed the nomination of Donald Trump for the GOP presidential nomination, even though Trump denounced her run for the House of Representatives in 2022 while Nikki Haley promoted it.

So much for loyalty.  Stephanopoulos asked Mace "Judges in two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming a victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?"

The judges concluded that Trump was not responsible for rape, which under New York State law requires penile penetration. However, they found that the New York businessman had committed sexual assault in what is commonly considered rape. So, there is that.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump is the guy who is on tape admitting that he sexually assaults women and Stephanopoulos would have been committing journalistic malpractice had he not asked Mace about her unqualified support for a guy who has bragged about doing what he wants, when he wants, with whatever woman he wants.

Instead of defending Trump as the Republican more likely to defeat the devilish Joe Biden nor as a candidate who promotes conservative values or causes, Mace turned on Stephanopoulos, who questioned her relentlessly while remarking "you've talked courageously about that" (being raped).

Nonetheless, the congresswoman persisted in dishonestly condemning Stephanopoulos, completely without cause, trying to gin up resentment against him.. Last November, as Republicans were flopping around trying to elect a Speaker of the House, Representative Dusty Johnson, a Republican from South Dakota, outed Nancy Mace as a self-absorbed narcissist. 

 

"This is a time," Johnson asserted, when we need people who are interested in problem-solving, not self-aggrandizement. At about the same time, The New Republic (not behind a paywall) noted that The Daily Beast (possibly behind a paywall)

examined the South Carolina representative’s staff handbook and interviewed several of her former staffers. The main message was clear: All eyes should be on Mace at all times.

“Are we in a P.R. firm, or working for a member of Congress?” a former senior aide said they repeatedly asked themselves while working for Mace.

The handbook, which Mace reportedly wrote herself, includes clear instructions for making sure the congresswoman gets the most attention possible.

Staffers are also expected to book Mace at least 15 television appearances per week: a minimum of nine spots on national channels (between one and three times a day) and six or more times on local outlets. And to get on television, she’ll pull stunts—like strip the House speaker of his gavel.

Former staffers criticized Mace’s decision to vote to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Mace later used her vote to cast herself as a maverick, fundraising aggressively off the move.

But according to a former senior aide, she didn’t actually care all that much. “She saw the votes on the board and said, ‘Fuck it, I’m just gonna vote for it just so I can go on TV and talk about it.’”

Mace also has other staff metrics with the hope of getting her on television. Staff are required to send out at least one press release per day, an unusually high rate....

The Daily Beast reviewed other internal documents from Mace’s office, including her office budget. She has dedicated more than a third of her office’s annual $500,000 budget for “marketing,” a word almost unseen on Capitol Hill.

“It is not normal for a member to prioritize media and comms over actual legislation like that,” a second former Mace staffer told The Daily Beast. “In my experience with and in other offices, comms serves to promote what the member is doing legislatively. In Mace’s office, legislation served to get her more media opportunities.”

So this is United States Representative Nancy Mace. George Stephanopoulos was not not blaming the rape on her, not questioning her decision to go public about the incident, nor in any way to shame her. If he had been, it wouldn't have been successful, anyway, for Nancy Mace is shameless.  Nancy Mace is no whore, but she is an attention whore.



Monday, March 11, 2024

Over-Correction, a Symptom


After the first inning, the score is: Trump 1, Biden 0.

Asked about his State of the Union message by MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart on Saturday

the president also said that he regrets using the word “illegal” to describe the undocumented immigrant who is charged with killing a 22-year-old nursing student in Georgia.

“During your response to [Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s] heckling of you, you used the word ‘illegal’ when talking about the man who allegedly killed Laken Riley,” Capehart said.

“An undocumented person. And I shouldn’t have used ‘illegal.’ It’s ‘undocumented,’” Biden said.

“So you regret using that word?” Capehart pressed him.

“Yes,” Biden replied.

The statement marks an apparent reversal from what Biden said Friday. While at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, the president was asked, “Do you regret using the word ‘illegal’ to describe immigrants last night, sir?”

“Well, I probably — I don’t re — technically not supposed to be here,” he responded.

During his State of the Union speech Thursday night, Biden used the term “an illegal” to describe Jose Antonio Ibarra, a Venezuelan who was previously arrested by federal authorities after having crossed the border into the U.S. Ibarra has been charged with killing 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley. The president did not mention Riley’s case in his MSNBC interview.



Memorandum to Capehart: the President did not use the word "illegal" to describe immigrants. He used it as a noun, which it is not, as a substitute for "illegal immigrants." There are illegal immigrants as there are legal immigrants; illegal immigration and legal immigration. "Illegals" is pejorative; "illegal immigrant" is descriptive, accurate, and objective.

Memorandum to Biden: However the left likes to use it, "undocumented person" is not synonymous with illegal immigrant. Born in the USA, I was "undocumented" when I was 16, before earning a driver's license. Or not- because no one would have used the term "undocumented" before "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented person" was invented to avoid saying "illegal immigrant."

Initially, Biden uses the pejorative "illegals," then condones illegal immigration by invoking "undocumented person" as if the individual is late going to the DMV. Joe Biden cannot ignore addressing publicly the immigration issue but faces the problem of how to do so. It's an issue he's very uncomfortable with.

Additionally, he's playing on Donald Trump's turf. And so after Biden acknowledged the error, his immediate predecessor was joined at a rally in Rome, Georgia by the parents of Laken Riley, the University of Georgia student who while jogging was murdered, allegedly by an illegal immigrant. And

Trump, in a lengthy speech that lasted nearly two hours, hammered Biden on the border and for mispronouncing Riley’s name during his State of the Union address this past week.

“What Joe Biden has done on our border is a crime against humanity and the people of this nation for which he will never be forgiven,” Trump charged, alleging that Riley “would be alive today if Joe Biden had not willfully and maliciously eviscerated the borders of the United States and set loose thousands and thousands of dangerous criminals into our country.”

Trump, who had made immigration a centerpiece of his campaign, has repeatedly vowed to mount the largest deportation in the nation’s history if he wins.

He contrasted his rhetoric with Biden’s — “I say he was an illegal alien. He was an illegal immigrant. He was an illegal migrant” — and accused Biden, who has long been seen as an empathetic leader, of having “no remorse. He’s got no regret, he’s got no empathy, no compassion, and worst of all, he has no intention of stopping the deadly invasion that stole precious Laken’s beautiful American life,” Trump said.

He added “Joe Biden went on television and apologized for calling Laken’s murderer an illegal,” he said to loud jeers and boos. “Biden should be apologizing for apologizing to this killer.

In contrast to his upcoming opponent, the incumbent President clearly is out of his element, because of age or otherwise, when talking about immigration. When Representative Greene suckered Biden with "say her name," Biden held up a pin reading "Say Her Name, Laken Riley"- then proceeded to refer to her as "Lincoln Riley," who is 3,000 miles away on the West Coast.



Condemning the President, Trump in Rome added "Joe Biden went on television and apologized for calling Laken's murderer an illegal. Biden should be apologizing for apologizing to this killer."

Ouch. That's what's known as game, set, match. Actually, not "match" yet- that would be the election. However, when one is trying to prove that he is aware of the huge border problem and is not cognitively impaired, getting the name wrong of a violent crime victim and later apologizing for what he has called the accused perpetrator does not inspire confidence. 

It's not too educate the President of the USA on immigration. However, it's going to take someone in his circle who understands the issue much better than does the boss.

 


Saturday, March 09, 2024

Valuable Point


A particularly good, traditional line invoked to ridicule and repudiate a fascistic comment goes something similar to "I liked it better in the original German." Think Donald Trump remarking of immigrants "they are poisoning the blood of our country." Altered slightly- but significantly- the tenor of the quote can be used to describe various things, even approvingly.

Fervently praising President Biden's State of the Union address, at 20:13 of the video (with bad audio) below, Max Brooks, author and son of Mel Brooks, is seen remarking on Real Time with Bill Maher

There was- there was something buried in his speech that I think needs to get a lot more play- when he talked about billionaires paying their fair share. You know, remember when Obama said you didn't build that and got shouted down. He should have doubled down because there is a bond between the state and the marketplace and Biden's (word indistinguishable to me) because it's not that we don't want Bezos to make billions of dollars.

We do. But he can only make his billions because his trucks drive on roads that I pay for, that his workforce is educated in public schools that I pay for, that his drivers got driving licenses at DMV's that I pay for. And the cops that protected vans that I pay for and the entire global supply chains protected by the United States military that I, the taxpayer, pay for. So I am paying my fair share and all I want is for billionaires to pay theirs.



It's an excellent point and Obama did get dumped upon when in July, 2012 he commented

... look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

The remark was uncharacteristic of Obama both because it was not particularly well-crafted while being unabashedly progressive. It's a critically important point- but I preferred it in the original Warren, of September 2011:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea: God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.



Barack Obama got re-elected. Elizabeth Warren won the Democratic nomination, as expected, for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and won the general election and re-election in the heavily Democratic state, then got pummeled in her bid for a presidential nomination. Much more narrowly, Hillary Clinton invoked a related idea in 2016 with "it takes a village." We all know how that turned out.

Max Brooks believes Biden's similar statement "needs to get a lot more play," and it very much does... on merit. The voting public- let alone corporate interests, which hate such sentiment publicly expressed- seems to be in no mood for such an argument. 

Americans are in mood at this dark and disturbing time. Communitarianism is out, conflict is in.  Still, some things have to be said, no matter the anger it invokes in the moneyed interests or disinterest in the media- and whether in the original Warren or emulated by a President or two.

 

Thursday, March 07, 2024

Self-Respect



Donald Trump was right, and good for Charles Barkley for taking advantage of it. In the famous and infamous Hollywood Access tape, then-presidential candidate Trump boasted

You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait, And when you're a star they let you do it ... You can do anything.

Trump was talking about sexual harassment and assault. Ironically, with that understanding, the NBA Hall of Fame forward, as reported by Mediaite


went off at the beginning of Wednesday’s edition of King Charles on CNN, where he expounded upon remarks he made over the weekend.

Barkley’s co-host Gayle King noted that he made waves on Saturday when he declared, “If I see a Black person walking around with a Trump mugshot, I’m gonna punch him in the face.”

On Wednesday, Barkley cited comments by Trump in a speech to Black conservatives in which the ex-president claimed Black voters like him more since he was indicted four times.

“And then I got indicted a second time and then a third time and a fourth time!” Trump told the crowd. “And a lot of people said that that’s why the Black people like me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against. And they actually viewed me as– I’m being discriminated against. It’s been pretty amazing.”

Barkley blasted Trump and Black people who would wear merch featuring the former president’s mugshot that was taken when he was indicted in Georgia after he tried to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.

Number one, obviously, I’m not gonna go around punching random strangers in the face – first and foremost. Secondly, people can vote for who they want to. People can vote for who they want to.

The point I was trying to make, no, the point I was making, I wasn’t trying to make it – when Donald Trump compares his plight with that of the Black person, that is what I had a problem with.

Now, I do wanna say this. I want to make it perfectly clear… If you’re a Black person and you wearing a Donald Trump mugshot, you are a freaking idiot. And I’m only saying “Freakin’ idiot ’cause they won’t let me say what I really wanna say. But you can figure it out. It starts with an F.

Later, he reiterated his “freakin’ idiot” stance:

BARKLEY: I’ll stick by what I said. If you’re wearing a Trump mugshot around, you are a freakin’ idiot.

KING: But you aren’t gonna go just randomly attacking people in the street. That’s the only point I wanted to make.

BARKLEY: Unless they had Trump sneakers on too


Whether the person is an idiot or lacks self-awareness is open for debate. If blacks want to wear a shirt with a Trump mugshot, it's not going to offend white people. Heck, ever since Richard Nixon's 1968 mantra about a need for "law and order" to eradicate "crime in the streets," many- if not most- whites have associated crime with blacks. Laurel and Hardy, soup and salad, burger and fries, blacks and violent crime- it plays a role in every chapter in every playbook of conservative Republicans.

Charles Barkley can say what others can't because he was a hoops superstar and now is a star on probably the most famous and most popular studio show in all of professional team sports. He can say "I'm gonna punch him in the face" and there are even a few Trump admirers who will give "Sir Charles" a pass because he pledged violence- metaphorically, not literally, but still.

So try a little self-respect, folks, and not celebrate a crooked politician who thinks victims of racial discrimination and criminals are bedfellows. And don't even think about buying those gaudy, ugly murders.



                





The Non-Conspiracy

The only thing GOP Representative Nancy Mace, of a swing district in South Carolina, got right here was her timing. Nancy mace flips the sc...