Posts

Here’s a List of White Liberals Caught Pretending to Be Black

Three different white liberals in authority roles within universities and activist movements have apologized this month for pretending to be black—and they aren’t the only ones to get caught lying about their racial identities.

Satchuel Cole, an Indianapolis racial justice activist, apologized on Wednesday for misrepresenting her racial identity.

“Friends, I need to take accountability for my actions and the harm that I have done. My deception and lies have hurt those I care most about. I have taken up space as a Black person while knowing I am white,” Cole wrote on Facebook.

“I have used Blackness when it was not mine to use. I have asked for support and energy as a Black person. I have caused harm to the city, friends and the work that I held so dear.”


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Cole’s apology came after a local black news website wrote that she had been “exposed for posing as a Black Woman.”

Cole is just the latest white liberal woman to apologize for pretending to be black.

University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate student CV Vitolo-Haddad apologized and announced her resignation from her teaching position on Sept. 8, admitting that she is actually of Italian heritage, despite repeatedly claiming to be black.

George Washington University history professor Jessica Krug, who specialized in “Africa and the African Diaspora,” apologized on Sept. 3 for presenting herself as black for years.

“To an escalating degree over my adult life, I have eschewed my lived experience as a white Jewish child in suburban Kansas City under various assumed identities within a Blackness that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness,” Krug wrote in a Medium post.

Former Spokane, Washington, NAACP President Rachel Dolezal admitted in 2015 that she’s white, despite publicly claiming to be black for years. “I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents, but I identify as black,” she said in a November 2015 interview.

Dolezal had taught Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University before she was exposed as white.

Left-wing activist Shaun King faced accusations in 2015 that he misrepresented himself as black, though King has adamantly denied those accusations.

Both parents listed on King’s birth certificate are white, The New York Times noted in August 2015.

CNN anchor Don Lemon reported that King’s parents are white, citing one of King’s family members. “A family member tells CNN that both of King’s parents are white,” Lemon said.

Unlike Cole, Dolezal, Krug, and Vitolo-Haddad, King has denied falsely claiming to be black, insisting that the man listed on his birth certificate isn’t his real father, leaving the question of whether he lied about his race without a definitive answer.

COLUMN BY

Peter Hasson

Peter J. Hasson is a reporter for The Daily Caller. Twitter: @peterjhasson

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

NAACP Head Can Use Foul Language because He’s ‘One of the Best Guys’

Perhaps NAACP now stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Cursing and Profanity. Don Harris is the white head (yes, he really is white, and reminiscent of a pustule, and, unlike Rachel Dolezal, even identifies as white) of the Maricopa County Chapter of the NAACP. He’s also very concerned about injudicious use of language, which is why he was on hand to try to collect the scalps of six Desert Vista High School girls who lined up to spell the word “ni**er” with letters and asterisks printed on their shirts, on their recent picture day. The girls were suspended for a complete school week, but this wasn’t good enough for left-wing activists.

Change.org circulated a petition reading, “[The girls’] punishment was 5-days suspension. This hurtful use of a racial slur is a complete disregard for the dignity of the black community in Arizona and across the nation and the punishment does not fit the total ignorance and cruelty of the crime[*].”

*Some exceptions may apply: please ignore the “dignity of the black community” when rap thugs and their wannabes use the word continually.

And despite the picture having been taken without the school’s knowledge, the petition continued, “We demand the resignation of the school’s principal, Christine Barela, immediately for deeming this 5-day vacation from school an acceptable punishment.”

Yes, the girls and their principal should be drawn and quartered and their body parts scattered in the far reaches of the realm. That’ll show ‘em!

So Harris, the white head, participated in an event last week in the Tempe Union High School District to discuss why the powers-that-be didn’t go medieval on the girls. But after the meeting, The American Mirror writes, “while participants were speaking with the media, he was caught on camera saying Channel 12 reporter Monique Griego had ‘nice t[**]s.’”

Hey, I think Howard Stern has just found his next guest.

But here’s where it really gets amusing. When Phoenix’s New Times called the NAACP office to ask about Harris’ remark, he replied, “The meeting was over. I apologize if anyone was offended. I could have said nothing. …I’m really f*****g sorry.” Maybe that’s how little Don learned to apologize at home. Caught with his hands in the cookie jar? “I’m really @#$%&! sorry, ma!”

Harris wasn’t done, though. Since he’d pledged $5,000 for the “n-word effort” (whatever that means, in practical terms), the New Times, being politically correct itself, asked if an effort should be made to eradicate “sexist” language. Here was his response, as the paper relates it (I’ve cleaned it up):

“I’m going to slash my wrists,” he spews. “Better yet, I’m going to throw myself out of a f*****g window, except I’m on the first floor …I’m one of the best god****d people in the state.”

“They’ve seen me now, they’ve seen what I’ve done. I’ve given up my law practice. I’m down here six, seven days a week. That’s what my commitment is. I support NOW, the women’s organization — god***n! — are you sh*****g me? Are you going to write this up?”

Now, I very much like Harris’ first two propositions. Instead of following such a course, however, something else is more likely; as the New Times amusingly put after mentioning that the vulgarian abruptly hung up the phone, “No doubt he’s back working to eradicate an offensive word” (not, however, in the service of the NAACP; he resigned shortly after the scandal).

To be clear, I don’t come at this from a politically correct perspective. Rather, the operative principle here is common decency, the kind George Washington (who never used profanity) and our grandparents generally exhibited. For instance, the aforementioned Mirror ran the very clever headline, “OMG: NAACP leader uses F-word to apologize for using T-word after N-word meeting.” Well crafted, but I could respond, “Writer uses God’s name in vain to criticize NAACP leader for using F-word to apologize for using T-word after N-word meeting.” And that’s the point: what should our social standards for speech be?

The problem with the politically correct thought police is not that they use social pressure to stifle some speech; again, whether it’s stigmatizing the use of profanity or something else, every group does that.

The problem is that the PC code is almost entirely wrong, quite stupid and allows for great contradiction.

Leftists descend to the very nadir of inanity, sometimes objecting to terms and names such as black hole, niggardly, Easter eggs, Christmas Trees and crippled as they rail against “microaggressions” and stigmatize substantive speech (“safe areas” and speech codes). And they sometimes do it via profanity-laced tirades that would make a drunken sailor blush. They have things backwards. “Niggardly” and other legitimate terms relate qualities and concepts; profanity is simply verbal violence and ugliness.

Of course, some will roll their eyes at my “God’s name” comment and, as one respondent who emailed me years ago mockingly put it, Little Lord Fauntleroy standard. But note that I grew up in the Bronx and have heard it all — I also ultimately saw through it all. Moreover, aren’t such comments reminiscent of when leftist Bill Maher said about a decade or so back that the Boy Scouts should be tolerated because the “squares” need some place to go? We’d do well to remember C.S. Lewis’ observation: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. …We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” I’d add, we mock virtue and are surprised when vice reigns supreme.

That the respondent in question was no liberal illustrates an important point: more and more conservatives today are using profanity publicly, with it appearing even in commentary as they play the caboose to the engine of liberalism. That is to say, it apparently means nothing to them that it is liberals who mainstreamed vulgar language; they’re more than happy to embrace and defend yesterday’s liberals’ cultural norms and scoff at those who object, coarsening society along the way. This gets at the true relationship between the processes known as liberalism and conservatism, as G.K. Chesterton so colorfully explained:

The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins.

The reason this two-step-dance process of national death occurs is simple: reference to taste and not Truth. This is illustrated perfectly by Harris. It’s not surprising he thinks he’s “one of the best” people in his state and polishes up his credentials by saying he supports NOW; this is reminiscent of Bill Clinton and ex-senator Bob Packwood, both of whom supported feminism publicly and abused the feminine sex privately; it also reflects research showing that while leftists rail against greed in principle, they’re defined by it in practice. They seem to believe they can indulge their beloved personal corruption and then expiate it with public displays of faux virtue.

More to the point, however, is that they exemplify that modernist mistake of self-deification. A person who believes in Truth (by definition absolute) uses it as his yardstick for morality. Now, when he looks around at others, he sees that they pale in comparison to this perfect standard.

But so does he.

Thus, he realizes that he and his fellow man truly are brothers in sin, both needing salvation, and can honestly say “But there for the grace of God go I.” But what about when someone is a relativist and doesn’t believe in Truth? What is his yardstick for behavior?

It’s usually himself. Not believing there is an objective standard for morality — and thus not really believing in morality, properly defined — the only yardstick he has left is emotion. This is why, as this study shows, most Americans make what should be moral decisions based on feelings.

This often leads to great arrogance and contempt for others. Having a behavior standard reflecting your emotions is just another way of saying it merely reflects you. This makes it easy to view yourself as perfect, for it’s relatively hard to be out of conformity with yourself. A yardstick never fails at being three feet long.

Yet since no one is a carbon copy of you, others will always fail to measure up to your “truth” the way you do. So you look in your ethereal mirror and see this font of virtue, and you look down on the Lilliputians below and see vice. And you have thus put yourself in the place of God and have reduced others to disobedient children in need of your guidance and discipline.

This explains the infamous superciliousness of those we call leftists, but remember that many “conservatives” are just a bit behind the twisted curve. It’s sadly amusing to ponder a film such as Idiocracy (whose creation itself reflects descent into idiocracy), which portrays a degraded, vulgar, dystopian future, and think that all and sundry are making it prophetic. And if we haven’t yet destroyed ourselves and are still doing the two-step dance of civilizational death in 30 years, it’s easy to imagine conservatives shouting @#$%&! and @#$%&! and @#$%&! at those who point out that they’re politically and linguistically just like yesterday’s Hillary Clintons.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Don Harris. Source: KPHO/KTVK.

The Eye, Ear, and Mind Principle

A few weeks ago I wrote a column titled, “Republican Presidential Candidates Lack Diversity.”  I called out Republican presidential campaigns for not having any Blacks on staff or as consultants.  I received several phone calls from various campaigns with them expressing their “disappointment” in my piece; they didn’t deny the facts of my piece, just the fact that I criticized Republicans.

These campaigns and the party, as usual, are missing the point.  While diversity within a presidential campaign is extremely important; the optics are even more important for 2016.  In the immortal words of my good friend John Travolta from the movie Swordfish, “What the eyes see, and the ears hear; the mind believes.”  I have dubbed this the eyes, ear, and mind principle (E.E.M.).

Can you name me one Black who has been publicly validated by the leaders of the Republican Party?  I am speaking in terms of a Black who is known and respected both in the Black community, as well as the White community; a Black who is well regarded in both communities simultaneous.

Have you seen one Black get out of the car or off the plane with any of our candidates for president?  Have you ever seen one Black with House Speaker John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?

Since Blacks are not seen in the party, nor heard in the party; it is understandable why in the mind of Blacks we believe there is no place in the Republican Party for us; the E.E.M. principle in effect.

Issues of race will be one of the top three issues going into next year’s elections and the Republican Party is totally unprepared to deal with anything with a racial component.  Look no further than the anemic response our presidential candidates have given to issues like Ferguson, Baltimore, or South Carolina.  How do you expect these campaigns to adequately respond to these issues when they have all White staffs, consultants, and pollsters?

The National Urban League’s annual convention last week provided a great teachable moment for Republicans; but I doubt very seriously that they will learn from it.

I have been telling Republicans for years that they should never attend or speak to any of the major Black organizations unless they are given certain concessions.  I am speaking about groups like the National Urban League, the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), etc.

These Black groups are all very liberal in their orientation and rarely if ever have Black Republicans on any panels during their conventions.  So why would any Republican go there and give a speech, only to have the group’s members constantly criticize the Republican messages; if there are no Black Republicans on various panels to push back on this criticism then the speech is a total waste of time?

JEB Bush spoke at the Urban League’s conference last week only have Hillary Clinton thoroughly eviscerate Bush and Republicans and we had no one to refute Hillary’s bogus speech.  Bush’s speech said absolutely nothing of relevance to the audience or the Black community; and I can guarantee you that the speech was written by a white staffer with no input from any Blacks that understand communications and the Black community.  So Bush got what he deserved.

Republicans go to these groups simply out of fear.  They are terrified of being called a racist, so they go to these groups with hat in hand because they have no Blacks around them who are willing to take a hard line with these liberal Black groups.  If these groups refuse to have Black Republicans participate in their conferences, why would party leaders agree to speak?

The Black community is not hearing anything of any relevance to them from these presidential candidates specifically or the party in general.

If Blacks don’t see anything, or hear anything of relevance to us; then the mind will tell us Republicans don’t give a damn about our vote.

The Republican Party has a brand problem within the Black community and until they decide to deal with the eyes, ears, and mind they will never make any gains in our community.

Rand Paul deserves some credit for attempting to engage with the Black community, but his execution was horrible at best; incompetent at worst.

Isn’t it amazing that Republicans have done absolutely nothing to build relationships with the Black business community?

Not only are they an invaluable source for policy input; but they are also a great source for potential political contributions.

Even with the upcoming presidential debate on Thursday with FOX News, you have all white journalists asking the questions.  Why would FOX not at least have Kelly Wright (my fellow Oral Roberts alum) or Juan Williams as one of the questioners since they both work for FOX?

To my knowledge, I don’t think either party has ever had a journalist from a Black newspaper ever participate in a presidential debate.

Why?  There are over 200 Black newspapers in the U.S.  I hope the Republican Party will mandate a least one journalist from a Black newspaper be chosen to participate during one of the many upcoming Republican debates.

I will continue to write about these issues of diversity until the party finally begins to look like America.  But too often Republicans try to do the right thing; but they do it the wrong way.

National Black Groups Should Stop Being Hypocrites

Republicans are often criticized, many times unfairly so, for using the “race card” when it comes to the Black community.  Liberals postulate that if Republicans treated the Black voter like any other voter; or treated Black groups like White groups; then the Black community would vote in their own self-interest.

Well, let me shock all my liberal friends by saying I agree 100%.  Let’s now apply this to the real world.

With the onset of summer, this marks the beginning of all the major Black national organizations annual conferences throughout the country.  Groups like the NAACP, the National Urban League (NUL), the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), and the National Newspapers Publishers Association (NNPA), just to name a few.

All these groups “claim” to be nonpartisan, but the reality is that they and their membership are mostly hardcore Democrats.  But what these groups have been masterful at is taking advantage of the Republican’s irrational “fear” of being called racist by the left.  A Republican being labelled a racist is akin to kryptonite to Superman, a cross to Dracula, or water to the bad witch, Evileen.

To my utter amazement, many Black Republican operatives and staffers have bought into this idiotic nonsense.  Most Black staffers throughout the party have the attitude that “we need these groups, so we can’t negotiate with them.  We should be glad that they at least invited a Republican to speak.”

Newsflash, you rarely ever win when you negotiate from a position of weakness.

Last week I received a press release from the National Urban League indicating they had invited all declared presidential candidates to address their upcoming convention this summer.

No Republican should agree to speak at any Black convention unless certain conditions are met.  The biggest, most non-negotiable condition that must be met is that these groups must have Black Republicans on various panels throughout the week of their conventions.

Reince Priebus, as head of our party, should encourage all of our presidential candidates and other party leaders to abide by this recommendation.  As chairman of the party, Priebus cannot force anyone to abide by this; but his recommendation would carry significant clout.

For each convention that our party leaders are asked to participate in, Priebus should put together a list of recommended panelists based on the mission of the particular group in question.

For example, I know for a fact certain that Priebus knows plenty of Blacks who could represent the party before the NAACP and Urban League; people who have a thorough  knowledge and understanding of the role and history of the Republican Party in Civil Rights.

Again, Priebus cannot force a group to accept his recommendation; but as in all negotiations, you must always be ready and willing to walk away if you don’t get what you want.

What is the logic behind having one of our presidential candidates or the chairman of our party address these groups only to have the rest of the week being devoted to panelists who are going to do the bidding of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with no one from our side to present a countervailing view?

If these groups refuse to accept the party’s terms, then there must be an unequivocal rejection of their invitation to speak to at their conference.

For example, the Urban League’s convention is in Ft. Lauderdale, FL this summer.  If they don’t agree to the party’s terms, then there should be no Republican leaders to address their convention. Then the RNC or some other Black Republican group should convene a one day conference to provide a “friendly” platform for Republicans to speak directly to the Black community.  The event should be in the same city as the group who refused to accept the party’s terms, in this case Ft. Lauderdale.

I would take this fight directly to the media and force these groups to answer the question as to why they have no Black Republicans on their various panels; but yet claim to be nonpartisan.

When it comes to the Black community, we must stop being afraid to say no to everything these liberal groups want.  And if we are going to give them something they want, then it must be on our terms.

These Black groups claim they are fighting for equality and diversity, then should we not expect them to practice what they preach?  Why is this equality of opportunity and diversity of thought within the Black community not on display at any of these national conventions?

In life, some things are urgent and some things are important.  It’s urgent that Republicans speak directly to the Black community; but it is important that it be on the party’s terms.

Black Democrat attacks Justice Thomas for having a white wife

ClarenceThomasVirginiaThomas-300x180

Justice Clarence and Virginia Thomas. Photo courtesy of AllenBWest.com.

As we mentioned previously, black Conservatives receive no quarter, and here is the latest installment.

Black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, and his wife Virginia Thomas were recently attacked by Alabama Democrat State Representative Alvin Holmes for having a white wife.

According to the Washington Times, ” While on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives, state Rep. Alvin Holmes, a black Democrat, explained why he so dislikes Clarence Thomas: because “he’s married to a white woman.”

Rep. Holmes didn’t help his situation when he spoke to a reporter for the Anniston Star. Holmes said he was misinterpreted, but added that Justice Thomas was an “Uncle Tom.” “I said some people might say I didn’t like him because he was married to a white woman,” Mr. Holmes told the Anniston Star, before including the “Uncle Tom” addendum.

Does anyone hear any criticism from the mainstream media? Did President Obama come out and denounce the use of such horrible words from Holmes, or Rev. William Barber — after all, wasn’t it our first (half) black president who said we didn’t need such vitriol in our political discourse?

Last week Justice Thomas told a crowd at Palm Beach Atlantic University in Florida that the “worst things that have been done to me, the worst things that have been said about me, [were] by northern liberal elites, not by the people of Savannah, Georgia.”

But obviously it’s not just white northern liberal elites. Justice Thomas, along with many other black conservatives, must endure the unrelenting ugliness from black liberals. As we’ve mentioned before, North Carolina NAACP President Rev. William Barber II referred to Senator Tim Scott as a “ventriloquist dummy.” And the silence from organizations like the NAACP and the faux black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others is deafening.

I believe this to be a calculated white progressive socialist tactic — use liberal blacks to denigrate and attack conservative blacks who don’t tow the line of servitude to white liberals. After all, hundreds of years ago, blacks were captured and sold into slavery by other blacks from conflicting tribes in Africa.

Right here on our Facebook and website pages, you can read vicious comments from blacks who forgo a discussion of the issues to simply dispense their personal vitriol.

The hypocrisy is to me unconscionable. If white conservatives — actually white anything — challenge President Barack Hussein Obama’s policies they are admonished as “racists.” We are already beginning to hear “sexist” and “misogynist” hurled at those questioning the qualifications of Hillary Clinton.

But where are these liberal voices when black conservatives are hunted down and disparaged? Where is the “liberal tolerance?” The bottom line is this, liberal progressives — black, white, Hispanic or whatever – simply do not want opposition. They do not want political discourse. They do not want any challenge to their agenda. They demand abject obedience, subservience, subjugation and silence, and will destroy anyone standing in their way. They are American totalitarians and will use any means necessary to achieve their ends. Liberal progressives are the most hateful individuals in America — there is no other explanation for their actions.

Just last week while running through my neighborhood in PGA National, a white liberal woman riding in the passenger seat of a car, recognized me and flipped me off. I suppose that reflected the sophistication of her communications skills Her action didn’t depress me, but it certainly emboldens me.

I have no doubt the attacks will keep coming, with ever-increasing viciousness, as they attempt to disparage my honor and service to this country. Black conservatives know this will always be the case, but we will neither relent nor surrender.

Please don’t tell me how progressives are so compassionate and welcoming. What a crock. And to the leadership of the NAACP: you hypocrites are hardly seeking the advancement of Colored People. You’ve become like the tribes in Africa who captured and sold their brothers and sisters into slavery. You serve only your own self-interest and the white liberal Democrats — who have a history of enslaving blacks, whether physically as it once was, or economically as it is now. You should be ashamed to bear those chains. Black conservatives stand freely and independently. Join us.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.