Democrats Try Predictable Tactic of Crying Racism to Obstruct Sessions for Attorney General
“Senate Democrats have pledged to fight [Alabama Senator Jeff] Sessions’ nomination to be attorney general, questioning whether he would be able to provide equal protections for Americans,” The Hill reports. “Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Friday called on [President-elect Donald] Trump to rescind Sessions’ nomination, while other Democrats voiced concerns about decades-old accusations of racism against the Alabama lawmaker.”
Thanks to the Democrats under Harry Reid changing Senate rules to allow for a simple majority confirmation (except for the Supreme Court), that’s basically posturing and noisemaking, albeit the dangerous kind that fuels resentment, anger and violence. Unless Senate Republicans who tried to torpedo Trump’s campaign and elect Hillary join in – and no doubt those are the ones looking for minimal personal risk ways to make him fail – the appointment should go through. Leading obstructionist politicians and media allies to scream “racism” all the louder against every move the new president makes.
Let’s stipulate up front that this is not an apologia piece for Sessions. One can’t rise to the upper tiers in politics after decades at the public trough without having conflicts with the oath to the Constitution, or if one can, we have yet to see it happen. What we can say is, compared to others of similar station, the guy is a lot less problematic than most, especially on two points of essential interest: Gun Owners of America gives him an “A” on its Senate Ratings (“Pro-Gun Voter: philosophically sound“). Numbers USA gives him an “A+” on its Immigration-Reduction Report Card.
We could do worse.
That said, the purpose of this exercise is to examine the fairness of the racism charges Democrats are still dogging Sen. Sessions with. After all, if “advocat[ing] discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color” rates as a bylaws restriction against Oath Keepers membership, why would we want such a person heading up DOJ?
Even CNN is forced to admit all they have are “old allegations,” dating back to 1986 (when Sessions was up for a federal judgeship), that he “had made racist remarks and called the NAACP and ACLU ‘un-American.’” Noting NAACP founder W.E.B. DuBois’ associations with socialism and communism, and the early ACLU’s ties to Soviet and American communists, it’s not overly difficult to see how such opinions could be formed. But let’s just look at the unproven racism charges, which Sessions has always vigorously denied.
The one person who made them admitted he never said anything about it at the time. And there’s no other corroboration – hardly an indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s also hardly consistent with experience, to think – over all these decades in public office – no one else would have also heard a racist spouting offensive words. And per PJ Media, Sessions’ other accuser, Gerry Herbert, the guy who made the “un-American” allegation, has a history of “crying ‘wolf’ on race [and] making it up.”
We’ve seen this pattern before. And we see a familiar player behind the ugly accusations of hate.
“Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, one of President-elect Donald Trump’s closest advisers during his campaign and his selection for U.S. attorney general, has longstanding and extensive ties to both anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim extremist groups,” the Southern Poverty Law Center accuses, fueling the meme that we’re dealing with an intolerant hater and a threat to domestic tranquility.
What “extremist groups”?
Basically it looks like groups that support the United States controlling its borders, including who it admits and who it allows to become citizens— entirely consistent with the Preamble to the Constitution, not to mention immigration restrictions as enforced by Mexico and Canada, neither of which are ever accused of racism, xenophobia or extremism by opportunistic “progressives.”
So what other groups does SPLC call “extremist”? They lead off, of course, with Oath Keepers, presumably for the same reason being over target attracts the most flak. After all, a group focused on defending the Constitution puts the lie to the charge of being ”anti-government.” And those who would metastasize that government into something destructive to the Constitution won’t benefit from admitting that “just following orders” is not a legitimate excuse for violating rights.
Plus it takes uninformed “minds” off of real threats. Curious, isn’t it – with the Islamic State currently promoting its Thanksgiving wishlist for “just terror tactics” and praising “the excellence of jihad,” Muslim extremism doesn’t rate a listing on SPLC’s “hate ideologies” page. Equally curious:searching their site for the term “ISIS” results in all kinds of posts about the ”threat from the radical right.”
Why do you think that is? At the risk of never being able to aspire to public office, dare we suggest the term “un-American” applies?
By all means, let the Senate do its job and thoroughly vet Sen. Sessions against the one benchmark that matters — his duty to uphold the oath. But this business of painting him as a racist to gain political advantage is something the ones doing the projecting, that is, the real divide-and-conquer racists, will use on everyone who doesn’t advance their subversive agenda. It also cheapens the hell out of real racism, which naturally includes victims and perpetrators of all races, “progressive” insistence otherwise notwithstanding.
Those who rely on stirring up hate with lies are counting on fear of being branded a racist. Don’t be afraid of that and never let it stop you from doing the right thing.