Right-wing provocateur Candace Owens and progressive pundit Marc Lamont Hill recently had a falling out over Barack Obama’s recent efforts to secure the vote for African Americans.

Founded by event host Piers Morgan, who shared some people’s view that Obama was attempting to shame young black men into voting for Kamala Harris, Owens said neither Democrat actually represents “blackness.”

“It’s fundamentally racist.” Owens said Obama’s efforts on the set of Piers Morgan uncensored. “Black people are right to be upset about this. There’s nothing about Kamala Harris or Barack Obama, if we’re being honest, he’s Black. There is something very cartoonish about them trying to smear a politician before he runs for office.”

One sec surveys, wellIn a recent poll by the NAACP and HIT Strategies found that about 7 in 10 black voters had a positive view of Harris, and 1 in 4 black men under 50 expressed support for Trump.

If that last number holds, Harris has little probability of winning the presidency, experts say.

“She’s so bad, I might just f**k myself and vote for Trump,” rapper Lord Jamar, who appeared on the Oct. 18 panel with Owens and Hill, previously said. He is a logo of the Trump-interested voter that Obama and Harris are attempting to retain.

“You will think you will embarrass someone or force them to vote for this decision (expletive removed).” – he said on October 13 concerning the art of dialogue.

Hill disputes claims that Obama was essentially telling Black people to vote for Trump.

“Obama is not saying you should vote for Kamala Harris just because she is black,” he said. “I’m not saying you should vote for them because you’re black. In other words, it says you should vote for your interests.”

Appearing in Pennsylvania earlier this month, Obama questioned whether misogyny could be playing a job in Black men’s lack of enthusiasm for Harris.

“Part of what I think is, well, you just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of ​​a woman becoming president, but you come up with other alternatives and other reasons,” the Pittsburgh Field Office told campaign volunteers and officials during a news conference.

Jamar, who identified himself as a registered independent MP, expressed resentment towards Obama, who “wagged us with the finger of condemnation.”

“We are waking up as Black people,” he said. “We think for ourselves. I do not understand why we’re trying to offer this woman a promotion. I do not feel like she’s the one. Sorry. “

“She’s not black,” he said, siding with Owens.

Owens is all the time a controversial figure he swam further to the suitable in his recent Holocaust denial comments.

Her comments are marginal, though they look like growing as America’s political divisions deepen.

“There is nothing in Barack Obama’s history that would give him a springboard to talk to his brothers about the Black experience,” Owens said, noting that the previous president was raised by white grandparents, went to a predominantly white college and had white girl.

Harris, she said, grew up with an “Indian experience and was proud of it until she ran for office.” Owens poked fun at what she said was Harris’s accent changing depending on the identity and region of voters she was trying to achieve.

“I think they have blackface,” she said. “I can’t decipher all of Kamala’s accents. I don’t trust someone who slips through so many personalities. This is not okay and I completely reject it.”

Hill rejected Owens’ claims that Harris is inauthentic or someway not black.

“Black people talk differently,” Hill continued, mentioning that Black individuals are code-switching. “Black people call people aunts. When someone says she’s my aunt, they are not lying because they do not have the identical blood.

“Going to Howard is a Black experience,” he said, referring to the vice chairman’s alma mater. “AKA The Oath is a Black Experience.”

On March 29, 1895, The New York Times told the reality.

Sandwiched in between two different articles on the resolved issue of police reform, the nearly 44-year-old newspaper published an article on the political climate in South Carolina. The article raised a “difficult issue” with the state’s upcoming constitutional convention. The unnamed journalist focused particularly on the campaign to rewrite the governing document of South Carolina after the Civil War.

The South Carolina Constitution of 1868 was the literal definition of democracy.

Written by the one and only majority Black constitutional delegation throughout the history of the Western world, revolutionary representatives have imagined a state by which “everyone is treated equally and has the fitting to equal participation in management, decision-making, etc” At a time when most northern states allowed only white men to vote, delegate WJ Whipper he proposed a crazy idea: universal suffrage for black men and ladies. He invented the American education system as we comprehend it (or as Michael Boulware Moore he calls it “America’s first free, mandatory statewide public school system“). And since the state was then 57% African American, the 1868 Constitution guaranteed democracy – or “ a government by which the final word power is exercised by the people, directly or not directly, through representation“

Featured Stories

But the New York Times wasn’t pro-black, so it didn’t praise the SC structure. And since it was not a Democratic or Republican newspaper, it didn’t condemn the bipartisan effort to repeal this testimony to democracy. Instead, the article portrayed the bipartisan effort to wrest control of the state’s political apparatus from the black majority in South Carolina as a political conundrum. “(T)here are about 120,000 black voters in the state and only 80,000 white voters,” wrote the anonymous journalist. “Suppose they figure out some way to restrict black voting rights without restricting white voting rights, which is exactly what they’re getting at… That’s a difficult problem.”

Although the Times simply presented a set of indisputable facts, the editors apparently could only consider one option to adequately describe the proposed “white man’s convention.” The headline was neither hyperbolic nor attempted to appeal to each side (frankly, in 1895 the Times had only a few Twitter followers). Instead of melodramatic clickbait, essentially the most powerful media within the country used a five-word headline that objectively summarized the whole pro-white, anti-democratic movement:

“The ‘white supremacy’ problem.”

“Who said anything about Hitler?

On Tuesday, October 23, 2024, the NY Times didn’t call Trump a white supremacist.

Following on from yesterday’s front page information, highlight this at the highest of the page Kamala Harris goes to churchThe Times published a groundbreaking A-1 story about how a 32-year-old unelected lawyer named Kamala Harris I went to parties over a quarter of a century ago. To be fair, the story about Harris going to parties greater than a quarter of a century ago is buried beneath a three-day headline about “Trump’s entire life is stuffed with scandals“

I suppose there might be something about Hitler at some point in the long run.

In NY Times article from October 22former Trump administration chief of staff John F. Kelly warns that “Trump will rule like a dictator.” According to Kelly’s bombshell interview with Michael S. Schmidt – which has not yet appeared on the front page of the Times (or the Washington Post, Politico or Axios) – fascism is a “far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist ideology and a political movement characterised by a dictatorial leader.” According to Kelly, Trump meets these requirements.

“The former president is certainly part of the far-right environment,” Kelly said. “He is certainly authoritarian, he admires people who are dictators – that’s what he said. So he certainly fits the general definition of a fascist.” And if you happen to think this sounds a little Hitler-ish, the article is only one,308 words long, Schmidt and the Los Angeles Times mention the genocidal, dictatorial, white supremacist GOAT: “He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things too,'” he added Kelly.

Adolf Hitler was a white supremacist.

Few would dispute the claim that the leader of the German Nazi Party believed that the white race was “inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.” For the past decade, nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times and all other mainstream media have shunned using the term to explain Hitler’s position as a candidate for president.

They are willing to elucidate that Trump “spreads his politics of grievance to non-white voters“, which of course means that “allegations racism.” Like its Nazi predecessor, “has long used degrading language against immigrants“To”stir up a racist fire” It is baffling why institutions liable for presenting an unbiased set of facts can in some way absolve themselves of presenting objective, irrefutable truth.

Or perhaps Hitler was just a populist and World War I used to be a fight against “economic anxiety.” To call Donald Trump a white supremacist, you have to not only ignore Gen. Kelly, but in addition overlook the things he he wrotethings that he he saidthings he didhis social programhis economic policies, his political team and a real dictionary. But apparently the American media is willing to do exactly that.

If Donald Trump is not a white supremacist, then white supremacy doesn’t exist.

Journalism is not only a profession, and the press is not only a business enterprise. There is a reason why freedom of the press is the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is why the New York Times is considered an establishment. That’s why the Washington Post’s motto says:Democracy dies in darkness” In America, the press is a social, political and economic necessity that gives residents with unadulterated truth.

And if not, then they’re nothing greater than social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to take care of power over people of other races.”

More than a century ago, the NY Times promised “to report the news impartially, without fear or favor, without regard to party, sect or interest.” But in relation to Donald Trump, just one sentence objectively reflects the media coverage of the pro-white and anti-democratic Republican presidential candidate:

The NY Times wrote this in 1895.

Michael Harriot is an economist, cultural critic and master level Spades player. His New York Times bestseller is available wherever books are sold.

By running against a candidate known for shading the reality, if not equating it with combat, Vice President Kamala Harris is positioning herself as someone who will be trusted.

But second round of accusations the indisputable fact that she plagiarized another person’s words without citing the source could undermine that credibility, providing a minimum of an unwelcome distraction in the ultimate two weeks of the campaign.

Slow warning signal in Washington reported on Tuesday that in written congressional testimony in 2007 supporting laws making a student loan repayment program for state and native prosecutors, Harris copied almost verbatim the writings of a Republican supporting the bill.

“Both statements cite the same surveys, use the same language and make the same points in the same order, with an added paragraph here or there,” The Free Beacon stated. “They even contain the identical typos, reminiscent of missing punctuation or incorrect plurals. One error – “who” must have been “who” – was corrected by Harris, then San Francisco’s district attorney.

Of the roughly 1,500 words Harris utilized in support John R. Justice Act, nearly 1,200 of them were literally rescinded from an announcement made two months earlier by Illinois Attorney Paul Logli, the Free Beacon reports. Both argued that the bill, which did not pass Congress, would help district attorneys’ offices recruit and retain top lawyers.

This comes just every week after conservative activist Christopher Rufo accused Harris for copying greater than a dozen passages from his 2009 book “Smart on Crime” from uncited sources. The book, co-authored with Joan O’C Hamilton, was the premise for her successful 2010 campaign for California Attorney General.

On Tuesday, The Washington Free Beacon also revealed that as California’s attorney general, Harris did greater than just borrow standard legal language without attribution. In one example, the report said it included a fictionalized story a couple of human trafficking victim for illustrative purposes by a nonprofit organization and presented it as an actual case.

The original story was published by the web site Polaris project, the nonprofit organization that operates the National Human Trafficking Hotline, which clearly states that these vignettes are for informational purposes only and that key details have been modified to guard your identity. However, in November 2012, Harris released a report wherein she used one in every of these vignettes almost verbatim, but with a big change: as an alternative of Washington, D.C., where the motion took place, Harris moved the rescue operation to San Francisco.

While initially downplaying Rufo’s allegations, plagiarism expert Jonathan Bailey he said The New York Times said the allegations were “more serious” than they initially appeared.

Plagiarism scandals have disrupted political campaigns previously, especially political campaigns Joe Biden’s first presidential term. A video of a speech by the then-Delaware senator, considered a powerful contender for the 1988 Democratic nomination, was shown next to a recording made years earlier by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Biden apparently copied Kinnock’s words without citing the source and withdrew from the race every week after the video was released.

So far, the allegations against Harris have gained little publicity – Republican Party candidate Donald Trump barely mentioned it. Voters appear to have deeper concerns.

“I’d Rather Have a Department of Education, Certified Teachers, FDIC Insurance for Our Bank Deposits, Reproductive Health Care Without Fear of My Future DIL’s Arrest or Death, Access to Birth Control for My Son Because EVERYTHING DISAPPEARS, and Much More – If Trump Takes Office.” commented one Harris supporter.

Another noted that while unlucky, Harris’ accusation of copying pales as compared to her opponent, who, in keeping with The Washington Post, provided several 30,573 lies or misleading statements during his first term.

“Is this the best they can find?” added by user.

Philadelphia prosecutor Max Kennerly argued that the testimony didn’t constitute “‘plagiarism’ in any sense.”

“The National Association of District Attorneys has taken a position on an issue, and two board members have rightly stated the same position in congressional testimony two months apart,” he added. Kennerly said.

Harris has not yet commented on the 2007 congressional testimony. Her campaign actually addressed allegations of plagiarism in her book, saying it was much ado about nothing.

“Agents on the right are growing increasingly desperate as they see the bipartisan coalition of support Vice President Harris is building to win this election as Trump retreats into a conservative echo chamber, unwilling to face questions about his lies,” campaign spokesman James Singer told media . branches last week. “This is a book that has been in print for 15 years, and the vice president clearly cited sources and statistics in the footnotes and at the end.”

The man behind the statements she allegedly falsified in connection together with her congressional testimony said Harris’ staffers likely bear plenty of responsibility.

“I don’t think it’s an act of plagiarism as much as relying on people who helped write the statement by cutting and pasting,” Logli said. “They probably cut corners because they were overstretched.”