Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
In a commentary published on the Fox News website, National Center Senior Fellow Horace Cooper and John Yoo noted that “California cities are learning the meaning of hypocrisy” when it comes to climate change politics. Despite suing energy companies for allegedly lying about potential factors such as rising sea levels due to their business, officials “have no idea whether the climate is changing and whether it will have any effect on their citizens” when they are pitching investors.
California cities such as San Francisco and Oakland are suing ExxonMobil and other energy companies for damages on the notion that they are causing climate change that will raise sea levels and diminish local property values.
Horace and Yoo, who is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that there are some major discrepancies in the way government officials talk and the way they walk on the issue:
An example that Horace and Yoo provide is how officials in Santa Cruz told potential investors that “the county may be subject to unpredictable climate conditions.” Its lawsuit, however, proclaimed “a 98% chance that the County experiences a devastating three-foot flood before the year 2050…” “May” and “98% chance” – that’s quite a difference is prediction.
“These contradictions only underscore the highly political origin and motivation of the city lawsuits,” said Horace and Yoo.
To read the commentary in its entirety, click here.
Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper has got Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham’s back as critics try to slam-dunk her with claims that her regular advice to the celebrity elite – to shut up and ply their trade – was racist when it was offered to basketball star LeBron James.
It was nothing of the sort.
The racial jihadists need to stop. Every American – black, white or brown – is allowed to be criticized.
Pushing back on the criticism by pretending you are racially offended is not only lazy, it is dangerous. This tactic not only undermines our nation¹s collective ability to condemn truly racially offensive action, but it also thwarts the very purpose of the First Amendment – which is to bring reason and evidence into the public square so that a competition of ideas benefits everyone.
When ESPN recently aired video taken of James and fellow basketball star Kevin Durant recorded in January, in which James called President Donald Trump a “bum” who “don’t give a #@%! about the people,” Ingraham said on her program:
Must they run their mouths like that? Unfortunately, a lot of kids — and some adults — take these ignorant comments seriously… And it’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid a hundred million dollars a year to bounce a ball. Oh, and LeBron and Kevin: You’re great players, but no one voted for you. Millions elected Trump to be their coach. So keep the political commentary to yourself or, as someone once said, shut up and dribble.
Of course, Ingraham was smeared with allegations of racism.
As an example, in a curious column in the New York Daily News, Carron J. Phillips used the Ingraham comment to wonder: “You would think that asking America not to be racist for 28 days would be a simple task, but this past weekend proved that even in 2018 it’s a big favor to ask that of a country that once counted us as three-fifths of a human being.” But then he went on to cite LeBron becoming the MVP of the NBA All-Star Game, black driver Darrell Wallace, Jr. coming in second in NASCAR’s Daytona 500 (a sport known for few black drivers) and the box office smash debut of “Black Panther” in just this past weekend alone.
That’s not exactly the best way for Phillips to prove America’s institutionalized and permeating racism.
In fact, Ingraham even invited James on her show:
For LeBron James – a member of the one percent – to self-victimize by trying to hide his inability to defend his remarks behind phony charges of racism is pathetic and insulting to people who have been subjected to real instances of discrimination. If he wishes to engage in the public square, he needs to do his research, use logic and defend his claims the way everyone else in the public square is expected to do. If not, “he should shut up and dribble.”
A Pennsylvania jury last week acquitted a man who admitted to killing a local police officer. This does not sit well at all with Project 21 Co-Chairman Council Nedd, a Pennsylvania law enforcement professional. In particular, this ruling could have long-term consequences that put more cops at risk.
Despite affirming that he shot St. Clair Township Police Officer Lloyd Reed, a jury found New Florence resident Ray Shelter, Jr. not guilty of first- and third-degree murder charges. There’s no dispute that Shelter shot Reed while the officer was responding to a 911 call made by Shelter’s girlfriend. Witnesses testified that Reed ordered Shelter to drop his rifle, and fired when he did not comply. Shelter shot at Reed, hitting and killing him with a shot that impacted outside his body armor.
Shelter said he was confused, frightened and did not know Reed was a police officer. Reed’s service was downplayed during the trial. Shelter’s defense attorney also told jurors that “[h]e’s not being charged with shooting a police officer” and “[j]ustification supersedes any degree of murder.” During deliberations, jurors reportedly asked for clarification from the judge about the rules of arrest and justification of the use of deadly force. The jury acquitted Shelter of murder, terroristic threats and simple assault, but did find him guilty of theft and receiving stolen property.
Council, a constable serving throughout Pennsylvania, said this decision is stunning to the law enforcement community. Having been in a similar situation, he knows the regular threats that officers face, and the anguish that a decision like this has on those who put their lives on the line every day. Council said:
I did not personally know Officer Lloyd Reed, but I know a lot of his friends. The acquittal of his killer on murder charges cuts every law enforcement officer in this state to the quick.
I was recently involved in an incident where a gun was pulled on me by a gentleman as I attempted to arrest his son. Fortunately, no shots were fired, and I got the man to drop his gun. These are real, daily threats to the very existence of the men and women with which I serve.
I am not going to say the jury got it wrong. As I see it, the prosecution did Officer Reed a disservice and put on a case that led the jury to its decision. But the fact remains the defendant admitted on the stand that he shot Officer Reed while he was responding to a domestic disturbance involving the accused.
What message does it send that you can pull guns on and shoot police officers without consequences?
There are forces suspected of being hard at work to influence American politics on behalf of the Russian government. Not to influence our elections, but to shape policy on fossil fuels and related environmental issues.
It’s the greens who may be working for the reds!
To remedy this possible threat, Congress is moving forward on legislation to amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and shed light on those who may be doing Putin’s – or any other government’s – bidding.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act calls on individuals and organizations to provide full disclosure when they are working to advance the public policy interests of a foreign government. This appears to be exactly what these green groups are doing, and the law should be applied to them.
The “Disclosing Foreign Influence Act” (H.R. 4710) , which recently passed out of the House Judiciary Committee, “addresses the ambiguity in the existing law and increases transparency and oversight in [U.S. Department of Justice] enforcement efforts” by “clarifying disclosure obligations of foreign agents, improving investigative tools for federal officials and providing new reporting requirements on the implementation of the law.” A companion bill [https://mikejohnson.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-johnson-sen-grassley-introduce-bill-shine-light-foreign-influences] was introduced in the Senate by Senator Charles Grassley.
There’s good reason to introduce such legislation at this time.
According to the Daily Signal report, a “money trail” appears to reveal ties between the Russian government and American environmental groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and pipeline construction. Former CIA official Ken Stiles said two groups based in Virginia may be “agents of influence” for the Putin regime.
FARA requires those acting “in a political or quasi-political capacity” for foreign powers disclose their relationships and report their activities to the Justice Department. Representative Johnson’s bill would tighten the loopholes that currently allow groups to “operate in the shadows” without abiding by FARA guidelines.
While not exclusively targeting Russia, these examples make a strong case for the bill and expose potential collusion – wittingly or not. Professor Paul Kengor of Grove City College told the Daily Signal:
A very important consideration is whether these domestic forces among U.S. environmental groups actually know that they are being targeted and exploited by the Russians. Moreover, if they are willfully working with Vladimir Putin’s Russia – deliberate collusion – then that would be egregious and a very serious matter demanding our government’s fully investigating the situation.
Representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently also asked the Trump Administration to investigate potential Russian involvement in a “propaganda war against fossil fuels.”
“Comedy is dead, except for calling Donald Trump a Nazi,” said Rodney Lee Conover, a conservative comedian.
The jokes have turned very dark lately, as the New York-Hollywood comedy cabal has largely become a weapon of the left in its war on the Trump Administration. With the exception of Jimmy Fallon, for example, late-night chat shows are less funny and more foul-mouthed political rants.
In a new commentary in the Daily Caller, “Here is the State of Comedy in the Trump Era,” Project 21 member Jerome Danner calls new world of comedy “a kind of mafia thing.” Comparing the ways of the comedy world to the La Cosa Nostra, he noted that “[i]f any individual is not on board with their way or their view, then there is no need to apply for membership.”
Think about it: How many times have you heard of a comedian – on Comedy Central, say, or a major television show – making jokes in favor of a pro-life stance on abortion or spoke of how proud he was to be a support of Trump?
Consider that Owen Benjamin poked fun at an NPR host for raising his biological son as a female and found himself fired from scheduled shows and dropped from representation. Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld won’t play colleges anymore due to audiences they say don’t find their humor funny anymore. Recent GRAMMY Award-winning comic Dave Chappelle was criticized for jokes that upset LGBT activists, but he seems to be forgiven since he’s also outspoken against Trump.
But an apparent disdain for flyover country and the president they elected is experiencing a backlash. Late-night ratings are suffering. George Lopez was booed during an anti-Trump rant. Michael Moore’s Broadway show was a flop.
Why? Jerome noted the comedy world has become an “echo chamber” that has lost its funny. Citing a Joy Reid-led panel discussion on MSNBC called “Comedians Leading the Way to Truth in the Trump Era,” in which Reid suggested “the best comics may be doing a better job than the press of exposing this administration’s flaws and hypocrisies.” Jerome wrote:
Echo chambers are fine for people who do not mind continuing to say or hear half-truths, falsehoods and stated feelings that are void of facts. And, by the way, you may consider yourself “woke” for speaking “your truth,” but “your truth” is not the truth… “Your truth” is subjective… In comedy, what is true can be manipulated for the sake of what is more entertaining.
Jerome suggested some of these hosts could spice up their programming and maybe even make their case if they brought on a diversity of guests. For example, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire – whose child was treated for the same heart condition by the same doctor in the same hospital as Jimmy Kimmel’s much-publicized child – would love to debate Kimmel:
It would be interesting to see if Kimmel actually accepted a chance to interact with some of the right’s most thoughtful pundits. Kimmel may be right that it takes a level of intelligence to be a liberal or talk show host, but it takes an even higher level of intellect to debate one’s ideas with confidence against another highly intelligent individual. If Kimmel did dialogue with Shapiro, [Steven] Crowder, or [Larry] Elder, his destruction would be immediate but it would be entertaining.
While MSNBC’s Reid may smile when she says that these comedians are “having a moment” in their Trump criticism, she might consider that everything they are complaining about right now might be of their own doing. Back in 2011, Seth Meyers and then-President Barack Obama lampooned Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner (“Viciously Mocked” was the term used by Vox). This may have been the moment Trump really got serious about running.
Their nasty humor may have had far-reaching consequences. Who would have guessed Seth Meyer’s nasty barbs in 2011 would result in the American embassy in Israel finally being moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017?
How do you like them apples?
To read Jerome’s complete commentary, click here.
In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump said “[o]ne of my greatest priorities is to reduce the price of prescription drugs.” The CREATES Act, already under consideration in Congress, could help achieve that goal.
In a recent Daily Caller commentary, National Center President David A. Ridenour wrote that the CREATES Act – which stands for Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples – will “create mechanisms to force brand name drug producers to comply with existing regulations they’ve routinely flouted.”
Doing so, he added, “would increase competition, lower drug costs, spur innovation and – most importantly – allow more people to stay on their medication.”
Pointing out that “Big Pharma” is blocking the progress of more and cheaper generic alternatives to brand name prescription drugs whose patents have expired, claiming that doing so could become a public safety threat, David noted:
Big Pharma would have you believe the CREATES Act would rush generics to market without adequate testing. For that to be true, current generic regulation would also have to be inadequate, too. There’s little evidence to support that…=
There’s at least one safety risk that shouldn’t be in dispute: When people stop taking their medications as prescribed, they place their health – and sometimes their lives – at risk.
You can blame Big Pharma for that.
In the commentary, David described how brand name pharmaceutical companies try to “manipulate FDA regulations” to maintain control of the market after the patents on their drugs expire.
While government-created shortcuts such as the Abbreviated New Drug Application are designed to speed the delivery of drugs with the same ingredients to market, brand name drugmakers often delay a requirement to share samples of their medications with the generics industry. They also refuse to share Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) that detail the special aspects and procedures originators have discovered about cetain higher-risk drugs.
By not adhering to rules already on the books, brand name drug companies are adding billions to the cost of health care and keeping affordable drugs out of the hands of people who need them.
Stopping brand name drug companies from making excuses for not complying with the rules already on the books, the CREATES Act can help the President make good on his assurance to the American people in January that “[p]rices will come down” on prescription drugs.
To read David’s complete commentary, click here.
In the early hours of February 6, police officers in New Orleans found Black Lives Matter activist Muhiyidin Elamin Moye, aka Muhiyidin d’Baha, bleeding from a bullet wound to his leg. Moye, who rose to prominence in Charleston, South Carolina for his protests against police and public display of the Confederate flag, was later pronounced dead at a local hospital.
No arrests have been made, and no suspects have been identified. A relative said he was on a personal visit.
Project 21 member Nadra Enzi, a New Orleans resident and public safety advocate there, thinks Moye’s death may force younger activists involved in the Black Lives Matter movement to reassess the targets of their rage:
The recent murder of Black Lives Matter activist Muhiyidin Elamin Moye in the real-life Gotham City of New Orleans may underscore what I call the “Paradox of Urban Millennial Unrest.”
As a local public safety advocate in the Crescent City, I have a ringside seat to a chaotic climate of violence that holds too many people hostage from a normal life. If Moye’s murderer is discovered to be another young black man, I hope the senseless death will rightfully challenge urban Millennials’ silence about their generation’s extreme violence toward each other and white citizens with whom they differ.
As a Generation Xer, I commend urban Millennials for their fearless – albeit rude and often ill-conceived – outcry against perceived injustice. And I hope their outcry will be equally fearless should it be discovered that a young black man killed Muhiyidin Elamin Moye rather than a white vigilante or police officer.
People cannot continue ignoring the urban apocalypse destroying the communities they loudly claim to champion.
It’s also worth noting that I see the progressive powers-that-be in City Hall too focused on Mardi Gras to make political hay out of a homicide that’s trending internationally. So much for their concern about this black life mattering.
As the Eagles and Patriots battled it out last Sunday during professional football’s big championship game, a death close to home didn’t get as much attention as one might expect. That’s surprising for a season that was marked by protests about compassion and politics. Members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network think it was on purpose.
Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson was killed early Sunday morning by a drunk driver. Horrible under any circumstances, Jackson’s untimely death stands out because the man charged with Jackson’s death (and the death of Uber driver Jeffrey Monroe) was previously convicted of drunk driving and entered the United States illegally at least three times.
Testing performed at the scene on Guatemalan national Manuel Orrego-Savala reported that his blood-alcohol level was at 0.239 percent (the legal limit is 0.08). He was deported twice – in 2007 and 2009. He was convicted of drunk driving in California. In other words, he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel or even in the United States.
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence called Jackson’s death senseless. The political left, however, is largely silent outside of offering hopes and prayers. NewsOne, a left-wing black news site, condemned Trump’s tweet for Jackson – saying it was only to promote his “racist” immigration reform agenda. It was also noted that Colts players knelt during the National Anthem in the regular NFL season.
Community activists affiliated with Project 21 are critical of the conspicuously muted or outright silenced left about this tragedy. Furthermore, they point out situations like this show the changing minority political hierarchy among liberal activists.
Project 21 member Ted Hayes, a community activist and advocate for the homeless in Los Angeles, said:
Just hours before the kickoff of last Sunday’s big game, the National Football League needlessly lost one of its star players – Indiana Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. The 26-year-old Jackson and the 54-year-old Uber driver he was with, Jeffrey Monroe, were senselessly killed by a drunk driver on a freeway outside Indianapolis.
While their deaths alone are a tragedy, what is particularly hurtful to us all – and especially hurtful to their families, friends and associates – is that the drunk driver is a twice-deported, foreign national from Guatemala. He is here without official, constitutional Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 government authority. In other words, he’s an illegal alien. This is the official federal government term, not an ethnic pejorative.
While the NFL season is over, perhaps concerned players can conspicuously “take a knee” in honor of their fallen comrade. The politically minded and socially conscious players should also call upon the President of the United States – who said that “[n]o group has been more economically harmed by decades of illegal immigration than low-income African-American workers” – and Congress to be more aggressive in overseeing the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.
Afterwards, they could rise to stand in support of the flag of the nation that gives them the freedom to play sport as a job and be well-paid to do it.
Emery McClendon, a tea party organizer in the Indianapolis area, noted:
The person who killed Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and his driver turned out to be an illegal alien with a previous record of both drunk driving and deportations. Where is the outcry in the media about this tragic event? This lack of outrage from mainstream media commentators sadly extends to the usual suspects of the Congressional Black Caucus, self-appointed black leadership and Black Lives Matter activists.
Why? A black man being killed by an illegal alien doesn’t seem to fit the liberal narrative.
One would think that, after our President spoke so passionately about this tragedy, that these people would at least want to talk about the death of such a talented black man with so much potential. We should be using every avenue possible to bring attention to the problems caused by those who disregard our immigration laws. Why has this not lead to a renewed charge to build a wall or call for an end to the loopholes in this broken system that might have saved Edwin Jackson and Jeffrey Monroe?
Project 21 member Nadra Enzi, a safety advocate in New Orleans, added:
The recent death of Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson during a DUI accident – caused by a twice-deported Guatemalan who crossed our border illegally – yet again sums up black America’s waning role as this nation’s so-called majority minority.
I’d like to think professional progressive protesters and their hysterical high command would fill the streets and tweets with volcanic outrage over a young black man – strong and successful – needlessly cut down. But it happened by the hand of someone in this country illegally. That makes my consideration a vain hope.
Brown outweighed black in the new paradigm. Too many in the chaotic carcass of even my own community aren’t loyal to maintaining their own electoral or employment numbers in the wake of a calculated liberal and cheap-labor conservative effort that is effectively displacing and replacing us as the dominant minority in America.
Jackson’s passing is the latest case involving black death and brown deportation, where a murderer will likely enjoy far more support as a foreigner here illegally than this brother will as a citizen. That double-standard is a stark, nonpartisan fact that should unite black Americans.
We should act in defense of our presence during the Census, in voting, in elected office and the marketplace. We’ve only been fully enfranchised Americans for a scant 50 years or so. From the looks of things these days, that clearly seems too long for some.
With a pocketful of achievements and a hand offered in friendship, President Trump’s State of the Union address is being applauded by members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network. Sour-faced liberals who rarely clapped during the speech – even at news they should have loved – fared much worse in the activists’ assessments.
Immediately after the speech, Project 21 issued a press release praising Trump’s performance. Since then, more reviews have arrived.
Deroy Murdock, a Fox News Channel contributor, said:
In a commanding performance, President Donald J. Trump was strong, focused and in control. Those who just weeks ago claimed that he was too mentally ill to perform his duties must feel particularly foolish.
While he led with specific ideas and a sincere appeal for Democrats to work with him on a variety of issues, his opponents were paralyzed in their seats. Shockingly, they refused to applaud, stand or cheer the news that black unemployment is at its lowest point since the federal government kept records on this phenomenon.
This tells our citizens all that they need to know about how much liberal Democrats really care about black Americans.
Derryck Green, Ph.D., who commented in the release, added:
President Trump’s first year in office was extremely chaotic and at times both juvenile and dysfunctional. However, the policies he’s implemented have helped create more than two million jobs, the stock market has added $7 trillion dollars to its total, national unemployment claims were at their lowest in 44 years and black unemployment is at an all-time reported low.
Consumer confidence is up. There’s an undeniable optimism toward a strengthening economy. Because of his recently passed tax cuts, more than 200 businesses are giving its employees raises and bonuses. When the tax cuts are fully implemented, American workers will get to keep even more of both.
Under Obama, we were told that the economic stagnation and pessimism were a new kind of normal. So far with Trump, he’s not only proved that outlook false – he’s determined to revive attaining the ideal of the American Dream. These are very good things.
Yet when the President extended a hand in peace to liberals and called for an end to the vitriol and animosity, many liberals in that chamber sat stone-faced. In my opinion, it is indicative of the collaboration America can expect from them going forward. It demonstrated that, even after more than a year, liberals still have no agenda except an uncontrollable hatred for Donald Trump.
The President…stated that we are building a safe, strong and proud America as he touted his record on jobs, highlighting Afro-Americans and Hispanics…
It is imperative that Congress and the public support our President and his policies so that we can all share in the furtherance of the American Dream. It is now up to our elected officials to follow up, and for every American to get onboard the “Trump Train” so that we can indeed “Make America Great Again.” After all, Americans are dreamers, too!
White nationalist Richard Spencer is universally reviled – and even lost a gym membership – over his racial statements such as “[t]his country does belong to white people, culturally, politically, socially, everything.” Howard County, Maryland Sheriff James Fitzgerald resigned in disgrace after an investigation found he said his black deputies “are not that smart, but they get the job done.”
These people are considered societal pariahs. And rightly so.
Fordham University Professor Kimani Pau-Emile thinks that “[b]lackness in the United States has an independent disabling effect,” and that blacks should use this disability as a means of seeking favorable treatment. She is getting her theory published in the prestigious Georgetown Law Journal.
Project 21 member Derryck Green, Ph.D., wants to know where this search for blame will end. He asks: “How long will blacks continue to allow ourselves to be treated with such condescension and disregard?”
Paul-Emile is the director of Fordham Law’s Center on Race, Law and Justice. Concerned that civil rights laws and the courts are not cutting it for black Americans, she is suggesting that blacks declare themselves disabled because of their skin color. She contends this “brings to the fore a surprising new approach to addressing discrimination and systemic inequality that has been hiding in plain sight: disability law.”
Claiming race is a “caste system,” her proposal is based in the belief that “[t]o be black means facing increased likelihood, relative to Whites, of living in poverty, attending failing schools, experiencing discrimination in housing, being denied a job interview, being stopped by the police, being killed during a routine police encounter, receiving inferior medical care, living in substandard conditions and in dangerous and/or polluted environments, being un- or underemployed, receiving longer prison sentences, and having a lower life expectancy.” She has not responded to a request from The College Fix about whether other racial minorities are similarly disabled.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, however, it’s likely that blacks complainants would have to acquiesce to the law’s definition of disability as a “physical or mental impairment.” Yet Paul-Emile says she doesn’t consider blackness as an impairment “by itself.” There’s the rub.
How, Derryck wonders, can Paul-Emile’s legal theory not be considered racist on par with Spencer and Fitzgerald? Our society correctly calls out others who profess allegedly inherent differences among races that are used to justify the superiority of others. Why is this downplaying of race to allegedly help it become more equal not similarly denounced? And are those who succeed despite their blackness oddities and outliers?
Unfortunately, many whites – mostly leftists, but not all – have already taken Kimani Paul-Emile’s advice and are treating blacks as disabled.
This idea, that blacks are disabled or possess an incapability that’s intrinsic to blackness – however it’s defined – is fundamental to their ideology. It explains all black suffering and frustration as the result of a myriad of external variables and is ideologically evidenced by socio-economic inequity of outcome. This is the “systemic injustice.”
Sadly, and cooperatively, many blacks encourage this idea that we are permanently incapable or disabled. They think we are too incompetent to acquire the requisite abilities to control and determine our own fates. In many respects, this is the logical, predictable, racist and further dehumanizing outcome of how blacks have largely been viewed and treated in the post-civil rights era. Just think about racial preferences and similar programs to “help” blacks.
Moreover, this position of embracing black racial disability also sees racial victimization as irreversible.
Curiously, this suggestion of blackness as a legitimate “disability” comes from a black person who somehow overcame her own racial disability to earn degrees from Brown, Georgetown and NYU. She is gainfully employed by a university and published. How was she ever able to accomplish these things without the racial disability law she’s proposing? If she can manage to overcome her inherent disability, aren’t other blacks capable of doing the same? If not, why not? Certainly her talents aren’t unique.
Had a white person suggested blacks suffer from inherent racial disability, that person would rightly be called a racist. That’s because suggesting that “blackness” should be considered a “disability” – and that blacks are by definition, disabled – is, in fact, racist. It shouldn’t matter who says it.