Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
To assess the impact rapper and A-list black celebrity Kanye West is having on black American political evolution after his high-profile visit to the Trump White House, the One America News Network asked Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper to comment on this “significant celebrity” openly expressing conservative opinions.
Rather than considering him a trailblazer, Horace said Kanye is simply the harbinger of a change liberals have dreaded for some time. Their open hostility to him is due exactly for that reason.
“The truth is,” Horace explained, “that Kanye West is just following where black America is starting to move.”
What is unique to the situation is that a cultural icon broke ranks with the celebrity status quo. The entertainment elite is incredibly hostile to President Trump, and Kanye is signaling to black Americans in particular that it is alright for them to support the President if they choose and to not feel bad about it.
Horace pointed out that kitchen-table factors including more jobs and an improved economy are reasons for many blacks to question the widespread criticism they hear about the Trump Administration. He added:
Kanye West talked about things that I think most importantly signal it’s okay for black Americans to say publicly that they disagree with the progressive worldview. That is the biggest takeaway I had from this. But the second one is how much hypocrisy there was [from liberals].
This outspoken attitude, Horace said, is rubbing off on people and scaring the liberal establishment that has had a lock on black support for so long and taken it for granted:
They can’t stand the idea that black America – just like white America, men and women – can think for themselves, can speak and can reject whatever it is that the mainstream media elites are pushing from a hard-left perspective.
Shortly after Senator John McCain’s death, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed renaming the Russell Senate Office Building after him.
Project 21 member Christopher Arps thinks a name change is appropriate, but wonders if modern political temperament can justify awarding people with such honors. In a commentary for Inside Sources that was reprinted in newspapers including the Orangeburg Times and Democrat, he chided those who can’t seem to find individuals great enough to “stand the test of time.”
Russell – one of three buildings on the U.S. Capitol campus set aside for senators’ offices, committees and a dining room famous for its bean soup – is named after Senator Richard Brevard Russell, Jr., a long-serving member who rose to the rank of president pro tempore. But, as Christopher pointed out in his commentary, not all of Russell’s legislative achievements are considered admirable these days:
Despite being a New Deal progressive and ally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, he later became the unofficial chairman of the Senate’s bipartisan and informal “conservative coalition”… While anti-union, this coalition was also known for its opposition to civil rights legislation.
Russell’s ability to block civil rights legislation was later overcome by another member of that same coalition, then-Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. This truly conservative lawmaker’s name now graces the building next to the one named after Russell.
Christopher noted that “[t]he building should have never been named after a segregationist in the first place” – especially as recently as 1972. That being said, Christopher also suggested Schumer is using the current proposal to put McCain’s name on it for potential political reasons:
[A]re Schumer’s motivations fully transparent? It could be argued that there’s more politics in the mix than praise. While Schumer gets to slyly brush an embarrassing legacy of a member of his own party under the rug, he gets to further advance the stature of a very vocal critic of President Donald Trump. In one of his last acts of maverick moves, McCain’s pivotal “thumbs-down” gesture on the Senate floor during the Obamacare debate saved it from being repealed and relegated to the dustbin of bad legislative ideas.
McCain, Christopher pointed out, had his share of race-oriented criticism leveled against him by the same liberals who now sing his praises. For example, when he ran for president against Barack Obama in 2008, McCain was considered a racist for things he called his former Vietnamese captors and for voting against a federal holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. There was even a 180-page book published in 2008 subtitled “John McCain’s Racism and Why It Matters.” He was also called Islamophobic in 2013 for likening former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a “monkey.”
Considering these allegations, Christopher asked: “[W]hen might people clamor for a McCain Senate Office Building to be renamed?”
Bloomberg Opinion recently suggested that “Congress should adopt a retroactive rule requiring that the naming of federal buildings come with a 50-year sunset clause.”
Shouldn’t greatness stand the test of time? If you can’t find greatness, perhaps don’t name the building after anyone at all.
This might be why Schumer didn’t previously suggest the Russell Building be named for the late senator Edward M. Kennedy.
To read Christopher’s entire commentary, click here.
Rachel Dolezol, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren have all recently made the issue of ethnicity a hot political topic. Project 21 member Nadra Enzi is focused less on a person’s physicality than on whether or not they are a person of the Western part of the world and supportive of concepts such as American exceptionalism. Earning the designation of being a person of the West, he observes, does not require being any particular race or origin.
Nadra, an anti-crime community activist in New Orleans, notes that many people who were born in the West and of Western lineage do not respect what the West has created. In fact, he often sees them working against it. They may be Western, but not necessarily of the West. As a black man who has seen his people take the blame for anti-Western trends and protests, he wants people know to know there is a difference:
I am a person of the West. I don’t need any DNA tests to prove it.
I have had a ringside seat to observe human nature. I have watched some of the West’s beneficiaries work to castrate its vitality. As I’ve observed this despicable exercise, a recurrent thought of mine bears sharing: simply being of European ancestry doesn’t automatically make you a person of the West.
I knows this will likely cause eyebrows to wrinkle and not-so-kind oaths to be muttered. Some may undoubtedly ask how I – a black man, of all people – can question whether Westerners of European ancestry are truly persons of the West.
You can go the pigment route. Heaven knows it’s been done before, and it stands to continue in that vein. But this perspective misses civilization-saving insight.
Like St. Augustine, Booker T. Washington or – more recently – Thomas Sowell, I don’t seek to reject the bounty of modern consciousness for a headlong leap into a largely romanticized past. It’s worth noting that few Westerners of European ancestry have chosen to mass-delete modern consciousness either. They play at it, but do so while still using iPhones and an economic system that offers a standard of living that the feudal lords of yesteryear never enjoyed.
Principles and practices, in my opinion, decide who is a person of the West far more accurately than pigment and parentage. Lest we forget, the left’s attempts to steadily weaken Western civilization are not a creation of Afrocentrism nor a North American continental quest for the noble savage.
It is the West’s greatest beneficiaries, its modern European progeny, who sired such near-apocalyptic dissent and its deconstructors.
Should the West and its consciousness fall, it will be at the hand of offspring from its European-descended base – regardless of colorful proxies rioting on stage who continue a temper tantrum to topple the apex of recorded human achievement.
The fact that it won’t be hands my color orchestrating this tragedy is no comfort to a person of the West. As I keep saying: by principle, not pigment, you shall know them.
Project 21’s innovative suggestion to tie colleges’ and universities’ eligibility for federal aid to their ability to ensure the students they admit have what it takes to graduate was recently highlighted in a Washington Times commentary.
Council Nedd II, a Project 21 co-chairman and former teacher, authored the commentary. It draws attention to this key recommendation from the black leadership network’s “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America.” He wrote:
I spent a few years teaching in a Washington, D.C. charter school. Our goal was college prep, and our success rate was quite good. But there were plenty of great kids who stumbled because they were welcomed at schools that seemed to see them more as a diversity statistic than a cherished investment. Such callous attitudes have no place in our colleges and universities, which should be focused on students’ success and aiding their path to graduation…
A student body boasting a vast array of races, classes and experiences is fine as long as there is also equal opportunity to earn a diploma. That’s obviously not the case today. Institutions of higher education must improve graduation rates, and tying performance to federal funding is an effective motivation.
Today Harvard goes on trial for allegedly discriminating against students of Asian descent to ensure a more diverse student body. Council notes how the Project 21 plan differs from the goals of the NAACP, which is involved in the case in support of Harvard’s admissions policy:
Acknowledging the failure of many K-12 public schools in preparing black students for college, Project 21 notes that colleges and universities compound the problem with preferential admissions policies setting black students up to fail. To meet diversity mandates, schools make offers to applicants with lower SAT and ACT scores, fewer AP course credits and lower high school GPAs. This can fill incoming classes with black students unprepared for the academic environments to which they’ve been matched…
While the NAACP argues in the Harvard case that “[e]liminating race-conscious admissions would disproportionately harm applicants of color,” Project 21 recommends a race-neutral policy pushing schools to make admissions choices that aim for student success.
Project 21 suggests incentivizing schools to provide black students the support they need by requiring schools to meet minimum graduation rate standards in order to qualify for federal financial aid programs. An initial 60% graduation rate is advised for the general student population, and no less than a 15% lower rate for minority students that would equalize over time. If a school cannot meet these goals, they’ve flunked the eligibility test for federal aid.
In all, Project 21’s Blueprint offers four specific proposals to give black college students a better deal by promoting their success rather than setting them up to fail:
To read Council’s “How Stalking Diversity Statistics Sidelines Education” in its entirety, click here.
Kanye West was praised and defended by the left after he declared, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that President George W. Bush didn’t care about black people. Now, with West’s political evolution and his embrace of President Donald Trump, he is now being derided as a “token negro” of the Trump Administration and his recent visit to the White House called a “minstrel show.”
And the left is complicit in this ugly marginalization of the rapper and cultural icon. West’s crime? He is a minority who strayed from the liberal plantation. The anger is obviously more intense due to West being a popular entertainer and influencer.
Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network point out that the left’s rage towards West shows their fear that his own awakening may cause others to open their eyes to consider new ideas and policies. As this awakening appears to be taking hold – the President recently had a 36% approval rate among black Americans in a recent poll – it constitutes an existential threat to the liberal establishment.
Deroy Murdock, a member of Project 21 in addition to being a Fox News contributor and contributing editor for National Review Online, said:
One of the civil rights movement’s most gripping images showed black male protestors who each held a placard that read, “I AM A MAN.” These individual declarations of independence and expressions of personal sovereignty propelled the struggle for dignity that cost Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. his life.
The leftists in the media and political establishment who now hammer Kanye West essentially want him to carry a sign that says, “I AM NOT A MAN.” They do not want West to think for himself, challenge liberal orthodoxy or be his own person. Instead, they demand that he conform, support big government and slam President Donald J. Trump around the clock.
What most terrifies liberals is that West will take millions of black Americans with him, thus dooming the left’s lust for ever-tighter political control.
In an appearance on the Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper noted the different standard that is imposed on West in relation to so many other members of the entertainment elite to insist on sharing their opinions:
Celebrity after celebrity have always come out and supported the left. And we were supposed to rejoice. We were honored to have them show up and make their presentation.
No one asked: “Hey, wait a second. You don’t have your data right. You aren’t actually keeping up with what’s going on. These points you’re making aren’t accurate.” No one says any of these things. We sit back and we clap.
When someone like Kanye West says what he says, what he really is doing is saying to black people: “Look around. Think for yourself. You can. It’s OK.” And that’s what’s the most dangerous of all.
President Donald Trump’s approval rating among blacks was last reported at 36%. But Alec Baldwin seems to think it’s all due to him.
Project 21 members beg to differ with Baldwin. They see the bump in the President’s numbers coming from his performance and his personal appeal to black Americans. Blasting Baldwin’s claim that they are “afraid” of Trump, black conservatives say there “ain’t no chatter on this matter in the hood.”
Making the rounds to promote his new talk show, Baldwin told the Hollywood Reporterthat blacks “love” him nowadays – speculating that this love emanates from their fear of President Trump. He said: “I don’t know how to say this and I don’t want to get it wrong either… but ever since I played Trump, black people love me… I think it’s because they’re most afraid of Trump. I’m not going to paint every African-American person with the same brush, but a significant number of them are sitting there going, ‘This is going to be bad for black folks.'”
To the contrary, black unemployment has fallen to record lows during the Trump Administration. Black billionaire Robert Johnson praised tax cuts for bringing blacks back into the workforce, and the White House’s proposal to lower CAFE standards should be making new cars more affordable.
But the media – including the entertainers such as Baldwin – have perpetrated a constant barrage of negative coverage of the President. Understandably, this can lead to widespread negative feelings about the Trump Administration. That said, the President’s unprecedented 36% approval rating among blacks betrays his critics’ beliefs.
Project 21 member Adrian Norman called out Baldwin and others in the entertainment community for heaping scorn on the President and others, who simply want to promote conservative policies to help black America. He said:
If Alec Baldwin cared half as much about solving black problems as he does about hyping his new show, we might actually be able to improve our communities.
False prophets like Baldwin and his buddies on “Saturday Night Live” are partially to blame for the problems they pretend to care about. Rather than tear down our leaders, they should seek solutions with them.
Project 21 member Marie Fischer-Wyrick, a former county school board candidate, added:
I can never understand why people feel theneed to categorize and judge everyone by race. For Alec Baldwin to say that we, as blacks, are afraid of President Trump’s policies — policies that have increased economic growth, and thus increased economic growth in the black community — is ludicrous.
Maybe black people are now comfortable coming up to Alec Baldwin because he’s been on a show more diverse than what he’s been on in the past. Maybe it’s because black people finally see him as funny, and not just the jerk who spoketo his daughter in such a disgusting and condescending way.
Project 21 member Emery McClendon, a Tea Party activist, pointed out:
Get real, Alec Baldwin. Blacks don’t live in TV Land — we live in Trump’s America, and we like it just fine! Has he not seen the President’s high approval ratings among blacks?
Alec Baldwin might have eaten one too many BBQ ribs if he thinks blacks love him just because he mocks President Trump on “Saturday Night Live.” Blacks like the real Donald Trump because he’s not acting to win them over. He’s providing them with the means to find prosperity. They like him because he genuinely likes them and cares about their future.
I think Alec may only be saying this to make a fast buck for himself – because there ain’t no chatter on this matter in the hood!
And speaking of “the hood,” Project 21 member Eddie Huff, a former Tulsa talk radio host, retorted:
So Alec Baldwin thinks he is black America’s best friend? As he says, “black people love me” because he does anti-Trump comedy.
First of all, Alec, you think all black people think alike? I bet you even think that some of your best friends are black!
Seriously. Take a walk in the hood and see how much they love you.
Horace, a former professor of constitutional law and senior counsel to congressional leaders, said the way Senator Diane Feinstein and other left-leaning members of the U.S. Senate acted during this latest set Supreme Court hearings and subsequent vote was “completely disingenuous.” Their attempted manipulation of the process, he explained, seemed to indicate they don’t feel bound by the constitutional limits the justices they confirm are charged with protecting.
After the Justice Kavanaugh’s first day on the Court, and with threats of his impeachment by angry liberal lawmakers already being levelled against him, Horace appeared on “Wilkow” to detail just how the methods of judicial selection and confirmation have been politicized by the left:
It is unbelievably remarkable for them to stand and say they are upset that Brett Kavanaugh was only confirmed with a simple majority when they’re the ones who set up the rules… changing the number of to confirm judges.
It is remarkable how, when Neil Gorsuch was nominated, and Neil Gorsuch was replacing Antonin Scalia – which would have had almost no change ideologically to the Court – they insisted that it was the end of the world as we know it and that they would fight tooth-and-nail, forcing the moderate senators – including John McCain – to agree to change the system…
Now, I just recently heard that apparently there were more states with larger populations that voted against Kavanaugh than states with smaller populations that voted for Kavanaugh. And that, therefore, our constitutional system is inherently unfair.
These are people that, every day, show they’re not committed to the rule of law, and they’re not committed to our constitutional design I think is one of the most amazing documents to have ever been created in our 250 years.
Besides the vindictive and angry protests against the process, Horace addressed the suggestions that Kavanaugh face immediate impeachment because of alleged perjury committed during his confirmation testimony. Horace dispelled the threat, pointing out the claims made against the new justice, when looked at rationally, should not rise to the level his critics claim they do:
If the federal government is wishing to prosecute you for a falsehood, that falsehood can’t be a misunderstanding, a disagreement or a difference in interpretation. It actually has to be two things: relevant and material.
If you get asked “did you have coffee this morning?” and you’d forgotten that you had coffee this morning and you say “no,” it then need to be relevant. Why is this question being asked?… Most of the time, when you’re talking about a perjury issue, you’re going to be talking about specific data points. A date. A particular activity. A particular responsibility. A particular legal act. Did you plea on a certain day? Were you in the country on a certain day? These kind of things.
But they have to be material. You can’t bring a person up and say “hey – I’m gonna ask you a bunch of questions,” and if any one of the questions I ask you turns out that I can show that somehow it’s inaccurate, you still can’t get a perjury charge…
During the Kavanaugh confirmation, the case made against him moved from his beliefs to character allegations from 36 years ago (before they went to demeanor, claims of a irreparably damaged nominee to a post-vote suggestion that the Senate is inherently unfair in its design). But the pivotal moment came during the weeklong pause to have an FBI investigation into the decades-old claims against him.
Wilkow brought up how some senators tried to downplay concerns about politics dominating the process by saying confirmation was like a job interview – while many of these opponents simultaneously appeared to want to make the process akin to a criminal prosecution. Horace noted this double-standard was a losing strategy:
Well, you can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, they absolutely treated – and they insisted – that the best way for this whole issue to work out is that we open up a criminal investigation.
By the way, the FBI doesn’t just do random investigations. They typically do criminal investigations. They, however, under statute, when it comes to background checks, they have the authority to vet particular individuals and information that they provide. But that’s on the one side – even though the left continually argued that they were insisting that the FBI engage in its investigative powers. I even heard several senators say that they should be able to issue subpoenas as a way to get it. That goes well beyond a background check, and it sounds a lot like a criminal investigation.
But, on the other side of the table is if, in fact, they believed this was a job interview. There are a legion of cases in which employers have been found civilly liable for the actions that they undertook in the course of a job interview. You’re not allowed to slander. You’re not allowed to publicize private information…
They can’t have it both ways. In fact, in this case, they can’t have it either way.
Commenting on how the left are trying to twist the narrative in their favor, Horace added:
It’s so disingenuous.
There’s a special appropriation fund specifically to give the… Senate Judiciary Committee investigators funding so that professional, trained investigators are able to go out and do the kinds of background checks and investigations that are necessary in order to make a recommendation to committees.
The truth of the matter is, when Democrats ran the committee, they understood and used these investigators. Even when Clarence Thomas was being considered – during his confirmation battle – Chairman Joe Biden oversaw a team of investigators who worked hand-in-glove with information that they received from the FBI to follow-up and make sure it was properly synthesized and everyone had the information that they needed.
For Diane Feinstein to claim she’s unfamiliar with this, unaware of this, is just completely disingenuous. It called into question the real serious concern about whether she had knowledge of her staff or anyone else leaking this letter. If you’re going to tell me that you don’t know something that I know you know, it makes me doubt you about something that I might know about that you say you know about.
When Wilkow asked about the practicality and possibility of an impeachment of the new justice, Horace was blunt, pointing out the folly of the threats:
No – absolutely, they cannot. And, in fact, they don’t actually want to be bound by the terms of the Constitution.
Here’s what they wish to say. A material, relevant criteria to be a Supreme Court justice is that you were never, ever intoxicated at any point in your life. Now, if they wish to make that claim, they’re free to tell the public, but they can’t find anything like that in the Constitution.
My point earlier – discussing perjury – there just is no materiality or relevance to whether or not he had two beers or five beers or even seven beers at any one given time. For them to go forward is to show that they do not accept the normal process of the American constitutional system.
What we do is we bring forward a name. The Senate gets to advise and consent. If that justice, during the time of their service, is determined to have not acted with good behavior, that person can be removed.
In a new Insides Sources commentary, picked up by the Charleston Post and Courier and other media, Project 21 member Jerome Danner and National Center Vice President David W. Almasi noted that “America is one of only seven countries without an official language.” But being a holdout from the rest of the world, in this case, is not a good thing. Instead, they recommended that “[i]t should have one, and English is the natural choice.”
Why? As Jerome and David point out, an official language is “key to the American ideal of a melting pot of true diversity” because it “unites” those living here.
Historically, learning English was a priority for immigrants. That’s how it came to be the dominant language. But a cultural backlash from those who do not seem to understand the benefit of a shared language is feeding a movement that is driving people apart. They wrote:
Assimilation was once seen as a virtue for immigrants, and thus English became pervasive. Subsequent efforts to cater to people in another “preferred language” — including those who were born here — resulted in the deprioritization of learning English, putting those who don’t understand it at inherent risk of ghettoization…
In California, for example, ballots are printed in Spanish as well as Hmong, Punjabi, Armenian and other languages. But to secure a preferred ballot, one must live in that area.
That’s the definition of a ghetto. Beyond voting, it can also apply to those whose breadth of language drives them to shelter themselves from society at large in these secluded enclaves.
Jerome and David also debunked the divisive allegations that an official language would destroy our cultural heritage:
People are not being asked to forget their traditions and customs, especially in their homes and during different celebrations. Instead, they should appreciate the need for commonality when they are running a business or making transactions.
Importantly, a common language is something that will improve the quality of life for all Americans and create true diversity among a united common people:
It makes sure there is, and should remain, a common communicative bond between American citizens and their government — as well as with key facets of society, such as the marketplace and medical services.
English lacks political, tribal or religious aspects that plague some other official languages. There is no reason to create a Tower of Babel in the name of diversity.
This commentary was applauded by those advocating for official English usage throughout our nation. Stephen Gushov, the executive director of ProEnglish, tweeted that he “greatly appreciate[d]” the commentary and shared it on the group’s website.
To read all of Jerome and David’s commentary, “An Official Language is Not Hate Speech,” click here.
If people could stop the reflexive political name-calling, particularly in the black community, there could be a lot more progress in finding solutions to societal problems. That’s the message Project 21 member Christopher Arps brought to the Bobby Gunther Walsh morning show on WAEB.
Christopher was asked to be on the show to discuss his latest Daily Caller commentary that addressed NFL players kneeling in protest during the national anthem at games, and wondered just what protest icon Colin Kaepernick actually sacrificed to have sparked so much dissent on the field. Christopher contended the protests further divide Americans in a venue that should be apolitical:
I wrote a piece about Colin Kaepernick, and what did he really sacrifice. And you see that he’s got a shoe contract. He’s been made the face of this branding effort by Nike. He’s turned down contracts from NFL teams to play football…
And so America is very divided between conservative and liberals, Democrats and Republicans. But we always looked to sports as a way to bring us together… And I just feel that is kind of sacred, and I don’t like the fact that someone is invading that sacredness to express a political point.
I’m not against anyone’s First Amendment rights. Players and Colin Kaepernick can do their interruptions during the other days of the week when they’re not playing football.
He pointed out that the NFL protests have been unique in the fact that they entail employees using their private employers’ time, money and workplace to make their case.
But the conversation led to a broader examination of how to bring opposing sides together for the improvement of black lives. Christopher, who described himself as very conservative, noted how faith and family has given him the strength to persist in this endeavor despite the vicious attacks he’s encountered due to his politics:
Being a person of faith – that’s what’s most important to me.
So someone who doesn’t know me – calling me an “Uncle Tom” or a “sellout” or whatever over the Internet – doesn’t affect me because I have friends and relatives and a support group who know who I am and know the person that I am and know that my ultimate thing that I want to do is have the black race prosper and go forward. And I just think we’ve have 50 years of liberalism… and it has a record, and that record has been a disaster for African-Americans.
Yet Christopher remains adamant in reaching out to those who scorn him. He believes coming together is the way for black Americans to make it to the “promised land” of prosperity and opportunity. In his Dr. King moment, he told Walsh:
I think what we have to do is – first of all – come have a dialogue between conservative African-Americans and liberal African-Americans and come to a realization that we are no enemies. That we may have a different view of how to get black Americans to the promised land, but we are not enemies.
And that we should be able to have an open dialogue and debate about different methods and tactics; we have to get to that point. And I think that, if we can have a dialogue without each other calling each other “on the plantation,” “sellout” or “Uncle Tom,” that we would realize that we have more in common than we don’t have in common. And then we can find some common ground… I’m not going to attack their character.
That would be my Martin Luther King “I Have a Dream” for black America.
To listen to the entire Christopher Arps interview on WAEB, click here.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, are scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow about her allegations against him over sexual assault that may have occurred over 30 years ago. A committee vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination could then come as early as Friday.
From the halls of the Capitol to nearby restaurants to entertainment media, there is intense pressure to believe those who say they’ve been abused. In this case, there is great ire toward those who point out problems with Ford’s claims or allege they may even be outright lies told to keep Kavanaugh off the Court.
What doesn’t square with Project 21 member Eddie Huff is how those who support Ford and other alleged survivors are essentially asking for unequal treatment and being championed by those who otherwise demand gender equality:
I think people are missing the big picture here in the Kavanaugh debate. For all of those women who are asking men to “man up” and believe women, I say: “I thought you were equal to men.”
Why does a woman deserve to be believed or protected above a man if she is equal? Can she not defend herself?
Is she weaker than a man? If so, then you agree with me, and women are weaker and need a man or men to protect them.
You need to make up your minds. You cannot have it both ways. Are women equal to men in all things except when it’s to their advantage to be seen as poor, helpless and defenseless against the “mean old man” – then they are not equal?
Come on, people. Wake up.