Tossing Things Against the Wall

You won't be surprised that U.S. Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, once on Donald Trump's short list for vice president, has jumped to a venomous conclusion.

2/3 of America is Christian.
1/4 of America is Catholic.

Kamala has made it clear that she DOES NOT want YOUR vote.

She skips key Catholic events.
They mock Communion.

And she even told voters who believe "Jesus is Lord" & "Christ is King" that they were at the "WRONG RALLY." pic.twitter.com/zz54zJec4c

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) October 20, 2024

The eight-second video which mocked Communion featured Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was tasteless, part of an equally tasteless social media trend. Although Whitmer was wearing a camoflauge Harris-Walz cap, the video did not include either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, and Whitmer herself has sort-of almost apologized for the incident. Thee is no "they" who mocked the Christian sacrament but Whitmer currently is running for nothing, so a "she" became a "they" to Donalds.

And Harris does not avoid "key Catholic events."  Outside of the Washington, D.C. beltway, southern California, or Manhattan, no one cares about the Al Smith dinner. Tens of millions- conservatively speaking- of Americans don't know who Al Smith was and even fewer care. Admittedly, it does give the power elite a chance to shell out $5,000 (minimum) for a ticket, dress up and hobnob with the power elite but the event long ago lost most of its luster and significance.

By contrast, Trump did appear so that he could deliver a "bitter, profanity-laden rant against his political opponents," including "I don't give a shit if this is comedy or not." Worse yet: "Catholics, you gotta vote for me. Just remember. You better remember that I'm here and she's not." A dinner event, he believes is less important to Catholics than the economy, national security, gun safety, reproductive rights, or whether to give unlimited power to a guy who believes immigrants are sub-human. And you better remember-  or else.

More significant is the claim about the rally.  The congressman remarks "And she even told voters who believe 'Jesus is Lord' & 'Christ is King' that they were at the 'WRONG RALLY'."

You are to believe that Kamala Harris told voters they were at the wrong rally because they believe Jesus is Lord and Christ is King. 

However, that does not appear to be what happened. According to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Laura Schulte

Vice President Kamala Harris was interrupted by hecklers at a rally for supporters at the La Crosse Recreational Eagle Center Thursday.

It was the Democratic presidential nominee's second campaign event in the battleground state of Wisconsin on the day. About 20 minutes into Harris' speech, a number of attendees were escorted out, while shouting "Jesus is Lord" at those around them.

Unfazed, Harris stopped her remarks and countered. "Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally," she said. "No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street."

The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the protesters were shown toward the door.

It wasn't "unfazed," rather a great line delivered at just the right time, almost as if the candidate had the line ready for when she would be heckled. (Skip the "almost.") The Independent reported

“Remember Donald Trump hand selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe vs. Wade,” Harris said as murmurs began coming from a section in the crowd.

“And they did as they intended,” the vice president concluded, before being met with a chant of “Lies! Lies! Lies!” from one rallygoer and at least one more shouting out. The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the protesters were shown toward the door.

Neither news article is complete, though it seems that any Christian chant occurred after the heckling had garnered Harris' attention and the protestors were asked to leave.

This latest incident smacks of the exploitation of the  Springfield, Ohio Haitians-eating-dog and cats (unfounded) rumor, which eventually prompted Trump's running mate to admit that he likes to "create stories."  We don't know for sure what happened at that rally but prominent Republicans really don't care what the truth is about that, or almost anything else. And that is probably even more important than the anti-Semitic or as anti-Catholic attributes of her opponent.

Share |

Journalist Confused, Or Worse, About Race

When he appeared at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago on Wednesday, former President Donald J. Trump infamously remarked "I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So I don't know- is she Indian? Or is she black?"

Therefore, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the host asked Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, "why is former President Trump questioning the vice president's racial identity?" Once on the presidential nominee's very long vice presidential list, he replied

Well, first, George, in Chicago he was responding to a question from, I believe, Rachel Scott. Like, this is really a phony controversy. I don't really care. Most people don't. But if we're going to be accurate, when Kamala Harris went into the United States Senate, it was AP that said she was the first Indian American United States senator. It was actually played up a lot when she came into the Senate. Now she's running nationally. Obviously, the campaign has shifted. They're talking much more about - about her father's heritage and her black identity.

 It doesn't really matter. The president mentioned it. What he also talks about far more frequently is the fact that Kamala Harris is the person who created this massive inflation...

Stephanopoulos responded

And you - and you just repeated the slur again. If it doesn't matter, why do you all keep questioning her identity? She's always identified as a black woman. She is biracial. She has a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. She's always identified as both. Why are you questioning that?

"....she's always identified as a black woman. She is biracial." It's very likely that neither host nor guest noticed that Stephanopoulos had stated that Ms. Harris is "biracial" while she herself has "always identified as a black woman." When he says Ms. Harris is biracial and (simultaneously) "consistently identified as a black woman,"  Stephanopoulos is precisely the one who is questioning the candidate's identity.  

Nonetheless, Donalds responded

Well, George, first of all, this is something that's actually a conversation throughout social media right now. There were a lot of people who were trying to figure this out. But again, that's a side issue, not the main issue. The main issue that's (INAUDIBLE0- Kamala Harris is the vice president of the United States.

Donalds obviously wanted to move on to other matters. Nevertheless, Stephanopoulos persisted, remarkin "Sir, one second. So you just did it- you just did it again." 

No, he didn't. The congressman merely noted that it is a subject on social media, then began to move on to "Kamala Harris is the vice president of the United States..."  Stephanopoulos would have none of it, maintaining "Sir, one second. So, you just did it- you just did it again.... Why-why do you- why do you insist on questioning her racial identity?

Stephanopoulos chose to be confrontational- which is good television- but when someone asks "why are you questioning that," a reference to social media is, well, the obvious answer. When the congressman conceded that Trump had spoken about the subject for two minutes- only two minutes, in Donalds' estimation- Stephanopoulos charged "so questioning somebody's racial identity for a couple of minutes is OK?" Donalds responded

George, I'm going to tell you again, he brought it up. AP is the one that wrote the headline when she first came into the United States Senate. Didn't talk about her being black. Talked about her being the first Indian American senator. AP brought that up.

 I mean, George, we could have this conversation for the entire segment, but none of this matters to the American people. What matters to the American people is, are we going to have the same policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

This is easily refuted or verified and, as someone should tell George Stephanopoulos, it has been the latter:

AP is the one that wrote the headline when she first came into the United States Senate. Didn't talk about her being black. Talked about her being the first Indian-American senator. AP brought it up. That is what, in a different context, would be acknowledged as an inconvenient truth.

Remarkably, Stephanopoulos persisted, claiming "I don't understand why you keep on repeating it, why the president keeps on repeating it, why those introducing the president yesterday keep on repeating it."

And so Donalds points out "George, actually, I'm not the one who keeps repeating it. George, you're the one that's bringing it up now." You'd think that the host would have a little self-awareness, but he stated "you've done- sir, you've done it- you've done it three times, every single answer you gave me."

Well, of course Donalds did so- because Stephanopoulos asked him about it, repeatedly. Reporters should be pleased when a politician answers one of their questions, but not in this case. Thus, Donalds noted "but, George, now you're saying that 'AP' is the one that slurred Kamala Harris? Because those are the facts."

It was silly to think that facts matter to a news host who, obviously, is all in on Kamala Harris' candidacy to the extent that he berates a guest for actually answering his question  So Stephanopoulos then claims "'AP' did not say that Kamala Harris is not Black. She is biracial. She is Indian. She is Black."

What part of "Kamala Harris becomes first Indian American US Senator" does Stephanopoulos not understand? The headline did not say "Kamala Harris becomes first Black US Senator." It did not say "Kamala Harris becomes first biracial Senator." It said "Kamala Harris becomes first Indian American US Senator." \

In most relevant ways, Kamala Harris is black. However, that was not the issue in this discussion or for the AP headline. It is that she is Indian-American. It is the fault of neither Byron Donalds or Donald Trump that the Associated Press represented Harris as Indian-American when she has typically represented herself, legitimately, as black.

But, alas, the media must have its firsts.  She would not have been the first black US Senator but was the first Indian-American US Senator, even though she identifies as "black" and Stephanopoulos (correctly) insists "she is black." Yet, George Stephanopoulos denied that the AP referred to Ms. Harris- who is black- as Indian. However, she would not have been the first black US Senator but was the first Indian-American US Senator. When color is the paramount factor in assessing an individual's qualifications (as was the case prior to the civil rights movement), truth suffers.

There are far too few broadcast journalists willing to do as Stephanopoulos did,  to ask repeated follow-up questions of interviewees. Stephanopoulos crossed the line, though not in being fixated on one topic. He accused Byron Donalds of continually bringing up a subject the latter wanted to avoid. He alleged that the AP did not say that Kamala Harris is not black, when in fact the news outlet wrote )and emphasized) that she is Indian-American. He said that Harris is black and that she is bi-racial, notwithstanding the obvious contradiction.

The news business is not 23 and Me or Ancestry.com. If it were, it probably would discover that Kamala Harris has some ancestry dating to the West Indies, some to Africa and Asia, and possibly elsewhere. It works similarly for Americans understandably proud (or not) of their European descent while their racial heritage may be far more complicated.

The complete racial background of Kamala Harris is unknown to the public and is largely irrelevant, whatever it is. She appears black and has been considered black.  As she was growing up, Kamala's Jamaican heritage was emphasized by her (Indian-American) mother and she has generally identified as black.  The AP's headline was a business decision, and a grossly misleading one. Whatever motivated George Stephanopoulos to conduct this bizarre (might I say "weird"?) interview, it constitued demonstrable journalistic malpractice.

 

Share |

Unstated But Real

On Real Time with Bill Maher, comedian Larry Wilmore was criticizing the Republican Party for its long-standing opposition to women by avidly opposing abortion rights, when host Bill Maher (at 35:14 of the video, unfortunately now removed) contended "Yeah, but it's not because they hate women. It's because they think it's murder."

At least Larry Wilmore was there to inject some sense into the cacophony of testosterone flowing on the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher.

Keep that in mind when viewing the Overtime segment. Maher stated "brawn is not valued as much as" it once was. A United States Representative from Florida who recognizes an opportunity when he's handed one, Byron Donalds, remarked

I'm with you. Young boys, really, the last two decades in America. We got a real problem, masculinity is important. It's important not just (for) cultural reasons. It's important for your development from a boy to a man, to realize what is important, to realize that you have a responsibility to go out there and gather, and work hard, and earn and you know, you gotta have that grit and toughness to be a leader, to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision you choose to make in your own personal life but those, those traits are important for masculinity and for men. To take them away rally hurts not just men, it hurts women as well.

Applause followed, suggesting Trump may have made a mistake in bypassing Donalds for J.D. Vance (probably not, though). The "to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision to make in your own personal life" is first cousin to "must be a husband and a father" but at least a little more subtle than the then-Ohio senatorial candidate who in 2022

for a solid week in July kept using the term "childless" in an effort to insult his foes on the left.

"We're effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they've made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too," Vance told Tucker Carlson at the time.

I didn't see the interview and therefore cannot vouch for the response, though odds are prohibitive that there was no objection from Carlson, who spoke at the past week's convention.

If there had been a thoughtful woman on Maher's panel, perhaps she would have asked why women are not to "work hard, and earn." Better yet, arguably, would be to have asked Donalds what on God's earth a "responsibility to go out and gather" means. In Donald Trump's world, would that have been a reference to sultry women or to loyal subjects?

Representative Donalds, he of the masculinity, grit and toughness references, had not been prompted by a social science exchange about the difference between the sexes but in a discussion about the attempt on the life of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, though, Wilmore was there at the Overtime desk explaining to Donalds "Although, I don't think it's fair to put the shooter in that particular category because that thing has turned up many times in the past..." It's not as if Thomas Matthew Crooks had been a feminist wimp when he purchased a semi-automatic rifle, climbed onto a roof, and decided to incur his own violent death by shooting at a presidential candidate. 

This (phony) projection of uber-masculinity has become a thing in the G.O.P.; witness the Hulk Hogan "speech," more a performance, in Milwaukee. We don't yet know whether Crooks was plagued by mental illness but Republican messaging may be gradually and subtly shifting from blaming craziness to blaming feminized society for high-profile shootings.

And yet Maher, in the main portion of Real Time and on an earlier date, had endorsed the idea that opposition to reproductive rights stemmed from a heartfelt belief that the procedure is killing/ murder.  If it is, then surely pro-life states would punish not only the doctor performing an abortion but also the individual who has sought, requested, and paid for this horrific crime.

Surprise, not surprise. The forced-birth advocacy organization Charlotte Lozier Institute summarized the status of abortion law in each state and the District of Columbia and concluded "some states have no criminal abortion statues at all and among those that do, only tow (Nevada and Oklahoma) appear to have statutes allowing the prosecution of mothers."

Of course, most laws not only can be interpreted in more than one manner but also are written ostensibly to allow lawmakers on both sides of an issue to claim some vindication. And the Charlotte Lozier Institute is eager to persuade all parties that there is nothing for women to fear in current state law or proposed state law. 

There is. Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in March of 2016 whether he "believe(s) in punishment for abortion, yes, or no, as a principle," Donald Trump responded "the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." When Matthews responded "for the woman.?" the presidential candidate replied "yes, there has to be some form."

The interview was taped hours before it was broadcast, and Trump's statement recanting the Kinsley Gaffe was released even before the interview was broadcast. Honesty is not the best policy, at least not when running for President.  

Trump's cleanup on aisle 4 included the preposterous notion that when the procedure takes place, "the woman is a victim in this case." This mirrors what other conservatives have claimed over the years in the rare instances in which they've been asked the fundamental, and critical, question which Matthews posed. In the rationale of the forced-birth advocates, the woman acts with no agency; she is not a thinking, rational being but helpless and hopeless without a man's direction.

The official position of the unquestioned, heavyweight champion of the Republican Party is that a woman is an unshaped piece of clay, while two of his important subjects, Byron Donalds and J.D. Vance, are on that page, with barely concealed contempt for men who are childless and women who prefer to be childless.  They, as well as the vast majority of pro-life advocates, will tell you that their opposition to abortion is rooted in abortion (allegedly) being murder. Nonetheless, there is something darker at play, one whose implications may be broad, deep, and destructive. 

Share |

The Other Donald Trump in Florida

If you believe that Donald Trump is the worst, most grandiose liar in American politics today (or ever), you're correct. But someone is gaining on him.

me, this morning, writes piece about how conservatism is fucking weird

byron donalds, at exactly the time i hit "publish": https://t.co/6mUjcniaN5

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) June 13, 2023

If Representative Donalds of Florida believes- as he does not- that "you just can't walk through Mar-a-Lago on your own accord," he needs to take American Government 101.

Much of the time, Donald Trump is not at Mar-a-Lago. And even if he were there whenever the club is open, Donalds' statement would be false. Secret Service agents are not security guards.  They are not there to protect a resort, a private residence, or any building. They protect an individual, in this case an ex-President. Moreover, not any Tom, Dick, or Harry- or Susan, Jane, or Sarah- waltzes in to Mar-a-Lago.  One must be sponsored by a member, subject himself or herself to an interview, be investigated and if approved, pay an initiation fee (plus annual dues), which as of 2017 was $200,000.  Members are likely treated with great respect and afforded some freedom of movement.

Even in the unlikely event that Donalds didn't understand that once inside the building, individuals are not closely monitored, he should have remembered a well-publicized incident last August, in which The Guardian reported

According to an article from the Organized Crime & Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a Ukrainian woman posing as a member of the Rothschild banking dynasty is under bureau investigation after infiltrating the private members club under a false pretense.

Inna Yashchyshyn, 33, allegedly lied to members that she was a Rothschild heiress and mingled with Trump, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and others at Mar-a-Lago functions.

OCCRP, in conjunction with the Pittsburgh Gazette, reported that Yashchyshyn had demonstrated “the ease with which someone with a fake identity and shadowy background” could bypass security at Trump’s club.

Nonetheless, you ain't seen nothing yet. No GOP liar who hopes to ascend to leadership in the Republican Party and beyond can be satisfied with one isolated lie. Preceding the above tweet, he hit the jackpot:

WOW, watch this "objective" analysis by CNN's Jake Tapper and proven leaker, now disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

What they FAILED to mention about Hillary Clinton:
👉🏿HRC PERMANENTLY DELETED 30K+ emails
👉🏿HRC had staff DESTORY phones
👉🏿HRC LIED to Federal… pic.twitter.com/hqkkf34vRo

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) June 12, 2023

Hillary Clinton did not herself delete the emails in question. The request went from the ex-Senator to her attorneys in 2014 but were not deleted for several months, by Paul Combetta of Platte River Network, who had initially forgotten to excise them. Not all were deleted permanently; more than 17,000 were retrieved by the FBI.  

The claim that Mrs. Clinton had staff destroy- or rather, "destory"- phones almost is accurate. On "two instances" the individual who "helped set up the private email account" Clinton used as Secretary of State, set up her new devices and synchronized them to the server, "destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer." So Clinton did ask that two phones, one or no phone, be destroyed with a hammer or broken in half. Here, Donalds is in near proximity to the truth, yet they were phones to be replaced, presumably with a newer model.

Donalds claims Clinton "lied to federal investigators." He was not specific, so it is difficult to determine whether at any time Clinton did so. However, FBI director James Comey told the House Oversight Committee in July, 2016 "we have no basis to conclude she lied to the F.B.I."

Nor is it accurate that the ex-Senator "sent classified emails to Anthony Weiner," then the husband of HRC aide Huma Abedin.  In May of 2017, the FBI sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee reading

Although we do not know the exact numbers, based on its investigation, the FBI believes it is reasonable to conclude that most of the emails found on Mr. Weiner’s laptop computer related to the Clinton investigation occurred as a result of a backup of personal electronic devices, with a small number a result of manual forwarding by Ms. Abedin to Mr. Weiner.

Some of the emails were backed up on Weiner's computer. Others were forwarded to Weiner by wife Huma Abedin. Clinton sent no emails to Anthony Weiner.  Representative Donalds' point- and actual wording- was that Hillary the Devil sent emails to the disgraced ex-congressman. She did no such thing.

Although Representative Donalds argued Clinton "had server W/CLAS DOCs in her BATHROOM" (emphasis his), she did not. The server was in the lady's basement, not in her bathroom. That's a critical distinction because FBI photographs have shown many boxes of apparently pilfered documents in one of the bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago. Moreover, "BATHROOM" appeals to the prurient interests of Donalds and fellow Republicans.

According to Politico, having the server and computers in the basement "helped segregate the family's personal and political work from the" Clinton Foundation. Nefarious! By all indications, Hillary Clinton was a technologically illiterate Luddite.  Fourteen or so years ago, that was not uncommon among us of an- ahem- mature age.

To be fair to him, Byron Donalds can be said to have been nearly accurate upon charging Clinton with having had someone smash a phone or two, obviously of little consequence when the phone was to have been replaced. Donalds received a few votes from the GOP's reckless wing during the vote in January for Speaker of the House, eventually won by Kevin McCarthy. In retrospect, he was an obvious candidate. Bellicose and dishonest, this guy has a real future in the Republican Party.  

Share |