Tag: civil rights
Joe Biden

The Latest Right-Wing Attempt To Prove Biden 'Senile' Is A Cynical Lie

At a reception for a civil rights group on Monday, President Joe Biden responded to a white supremacist gunman’s racially motivated slaughter of three Black people in Jacksonville, Florida, the previous day. The president described white supremacy as “a poison that’s been allowed to grow faster and fester in our communities,” but said that “America is the most multiracial, most dynamic nation in the history of the world” and “hate will not prevail.”

Over the balance of the speech, Biden discussed the history of the Civil Rights Movement, his record as president on that issue, and “how, from trauma, hope can grow and the promise of America can prevail.”

Republicans and their right-wing media propagandists are totally uninterested in any of this. Instead, party activists weaponized a fragment of Biden’s remarks, right-wing influencers used the snippet to accuse the president of lying or being senile, hyperpartisan websites ran with the story under the same frame, and by Tuesday night, the bogus narrative had hit Fox News. This pattern has played out time and time again as the right seeks to damage Biden’s reelection bid.

At one point in the speech, Biden said he had previously “thought things had changed” and there had been “real progress” in America, but that racist killings like the one in Jacksonville showed that “hate never dies” and Americans can’t “remain silent” about it.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: But pause for just a moment. I thought things had changed. I was able — literally, not figuratively — talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the — the Civil Rights Act before he died. And I thought, “Well, maybe there’s real progress.”

But hate never dies. It just hides. It hides under the rocks. And when someone breathes a little oxygen in it, it comes out — roaring out. And silence — silence is complicity. And we’re not going to remain silent. You’re not, nor am I, nor are the vast majority of Americans. Denialism is worse. And we’ll call out — we’ll call it for what it is.

Republican strategist Greg Price and the Republican National Committee’s research department posted a sub-30-second clip highlighting Biden’s statement, “I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died." Biden and Thurmond had a long and at times controversial relationship. They served in the U.S. Senate together from 1973, following Biden’s first election, until 2003, when Thurmond passed away; Biden gave a eulogy at Thurmond’s funeral.

Thurmond infamously set the record for the longest Senate filibuster to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957; he also filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party after it passed. But Biden’s description of Thurmond as evolving to support civil rights should cue in any fair-minded observer that he wasn’t talking about convincing Thurmond to support one of those bills. Thurmond did vote for subsequent civil rights bills which became law when he and Biden were serving in the Senate together, including the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Voting Rights Act of 1980, which Biden invoked during his eulogy.

But the path to right-wing stardom is paved with reflexive attacks on Democrats, not fair-minded observation or familiarity with civil rights laws. Conservative influencers immediately seized on the Price and RNC tweets to claim that Biden had actually been saying he had convinced Thurmond to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Highlighting that Biden had been 21 when that bill passed and that Thurmond had opposed it, they portrayed the president as either lying or senile.




Once that narrative entered the social media ecosystem, content-hungry hyperpartisan websites ran with it. Several outlets published headlines which falsely claimed that Biden had explicitly referred to the 1964 law, which more squarely fit their preferred story. Here’s a sampling:

Gateway Pundit: “He’s Shot: Joe Biden Claims He ‘Literally’ Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote For Civil Rights Act (VIDEO).”

Dan Bongino’s Bongino.com: “Biden Claims to Have ‘Literally’ Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for 1964 Civil Rights Act - When He Was Just 21.”

John Solomon’s Just the News: “Biden claims he 'literally' persuaded leading Civil Rights Act opponent to support it.”

Breitbart: “Biden Falsely Claims to Have Convinced Strom Thurmond to Vote for the Civil Rights Act.”

Media Research Center: “Biden Claims He 'Literally' Convinced Strom Thurmond To Support Civil Rights...at 21 Years Old?

Fox News: “Biden claims to have 'literally' convinced Strom Thurmond to vote for Civil Rights Act — at 21 years old.”

The Daily Wire: “Biden Claims He Convinced Strom Thurmond To Vote For The Civil Rights Act.”

By Tuesday evening, Fox star Sean Hannity had swallowed the bogus narrative and regurgitated it to his prime-time audience, claiming that Biden had “told the truly unbelievable tale” that “he literally convinced the senator and former Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond to vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

According to Hannity, Biden’s statements proved that the president “is deteriorating cognitively right before our eyes,” and been “reduced to a mumbling, bubbling — bumbling, frankly, buffoon” who “is not capable of fulfilling his duties.” He also called Biden’s statement a “lie” because “in 1964, Joe Biden was 21 years old. He had never met Strom Thurmond. And not only did Thurmond vote against the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he also filibustered the bill.”

Fox contributor Charlie Hurt later told Hannity that while “everybody's known” Biden is ”a liar,” “the problem now is he's become so senile, we don't know whether it's lies he's telling or it's just his senility setting in and he's making up these crazy stories about Strom Thurmond.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

U.S. Court

Far Right Lauds Affirmative Action Decision -- And Aims At Civil Rights Act

As the Supreme Court handed down its decision that the race-conscious admission policies of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, effectively dismantling affirmative action in higher education, right-wing media poured praise on the conservative justices for ending what they claim is a “discriminatory” and “racist” practice.

On June 29, the Supreme Court’s decisions in both SFFA v. Presidentand Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina essentially decided that race can no longer be a factor in college admissions, striking down affirmative action. Both cases involved Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit with financial ties to anti-civil rights strategists, suing Harvard University and the University of North Carolina over their admissions processes that the group claimed violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment, respectively. The elimination of affirmative action has been a right-wing policy goal for years and has been bankrolled through SFFA in order to see its elimination come to fruition.

Right-wing media continuously amplified their hatred of affirmative action leading up to its elimination, platforming guests who view the policy as “un-American.” Some right-wing figures that are celebrating the end of affirmative action have now begun calling for the end of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and “disparate impact” regulations, revealing their ultimate goal to destroy civil rights protections in the United States.

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle affirmative action coincides with a network of “parental choice” activists and right-wing media figures demanding radical changes to the U.S. education system. Anti-critical race theory proponents like Christopher Rufo and Russ Vought have worked hand-in-hand with right-wing media to mount aggressive smear campaigns against critical race theory and diversity policies. These groups have deliberately tried to gut the 14th Amendment, which would create massive obstacles to communities of color in education.

As part of their attacks on education, Fox News hosts have already started calling for the destruction of the public school system, arguing that the U.S. should “defund government education” and replace it with private school vouchers. The network has also spread misinformation about critical race theory, even claiming that proponents want to “brainwash your child so that they feel guilty about being born white.” Right-wing media attacks on the education system serve to minimize the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision to end affirmative action will have on diversity and equity in higher education.

Right-wing media agreed with Supreme Court that affirmative action is “unconstitutional,” labeling it a “racist” and “discriminatory” practice:

  • Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk praised the decision, tweeting, “Finally the Court has corrected another awful 70s mistake, and ruled that racially discriminatory college admissions are unconstitutional.”
  • Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich called affirmative action “unconstitutional and anti-American, for college admissions and everywhere else. This is an earthquake that should upend the left’s racist standards, not just in education but in employment at every level.”
  • On America’s Newsroom, former Trump official Roger Severino claimed that “45% of the students of African American descent admitted to Harvard would not have made it according to Harvard's own statistics had they not done the racial balancing in the name of diversity. Now, Harvard only has 8% of conservatives that are admitted students, 82% of Harvard students come from wealthy backgrounds. It’s not really about diversity. It was about racial balancing.”
  • The Daily Caller published an article, titled “Supreme Court Rules Against Racial Prejudice In College Admissions,” framing affirmative action as being discriminatory.
  • Newsmax’s Justine Brooke Murray tweeted that people “already knew” affirmative action was discriminatory prior to the Supreme Court decision, arguing that prospective students “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by content of their character!”
  • Racist livestreamer Steven Crowder claimed that because of the Supreme Court decision, “Asian students can no longer be discriminated against.”

Some right-wing figures praised former President Donald Trump for his Supreme Court picks who helped bring affirmative action to an end:

  • Former Trump adviser and white nationalist Stephen Miller called the decision a “colossal win for USA. Colossal achievement for 45 in shaping the Court to realize this victory.”
  • Failed congressional candidate and “proud IslamophobeLaura Loomer celebrated the decision as a “great day” that “was only made possible today thanks to President Donald J Trump’s nomination of 3 SCOTUS justices.”
  • Newsmax contributor Karoline Leavitt claimed that “President Donald Trump made today's historic decision to end the racist college admissions process possible because he delivered on his promise to appoint constitutionalist justices.”

Despite polling on affirmative action showing high rates of approval with marginalized groups, right-wing media argued that the Supreme Court’s decision was “popular” with all Americans:

  • Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly tweeted, “Race-based admissions will still continue bc these institutions will find sneaky ways of doing it, but they will no longer have the absurd cover of law. THESE POLICIES HAVE BEEN HURTING MINORITY GROUPS FOR DECADES. And ppl of all races oppose them. This is a great day for America.”
  • Fox News Radio host Guy Benson tweeted, “We are told SCOTUS is ‘losing legitimacy’ by issuing rulings that are ‘out of touch’ or unpopular. That misunderstands the justices’ function, of course, but many of the same people who’ve engaged in such concern trolling will be screaming over today’s decision.” Benson also posted an image of polling data, seemingly ignoring that the results showed that among American adults familiar with affirmative action, nearly every racial category mostly saw it as a “good thing.”

Fringe and right-wing accounts also celebrated the decision as a victory for white people and discussed what’s “next up”:

  • Following the decision, Rufo tweeted: “The Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions. It's time to go further: abolish DEI bureaucracies, prohibit race-based hiring, eliminate the ‘disparate impact’ doctrine, and restore the principle of colorblind equality in all of our institutions.”
  • Gab founder and virulent antisemite Andrew Torba posted, “Affirmative action is dead. Roe is dead. Next up: the Civil Rights Act so we can restore the freedom of association in this country.”
  • White nationalist vlogger Steve Franssen tweeted “LETS GO WHITE RACE” in response to the decision.
  • On Gab, failed Senate candidate and Proud Boys supporter Lauren Witzke posted on Gab, “How many hopes and dreams have been destroyed for White people due to this vile policy? Affirmative Action is truly one of the biggest stains on America. Overqualified people were rejected from jobs and schools due to the color of their skin. It’s been unconstitutional from the start. It’s time to put an END to the cruel and evil practice of Affirmative Action.”
  • Far-right account Write Winger posted on Gab, “With race-based admissions being struck down at colleges, now is the time for White people to claim their space in this oh so diverse and inclusive environment, and I’ll tell you how you personally can help. If your school or employer has or does anything based on race, I want you to politely ask, in writing preferably via email, how you can go about creating the same for White people.”
  • Author Padraig Martin posted on Gab, “While Affirmative Action harmed hundreds of thousands of qualified White applicants over the past five decades, nobody gave a damn. How many aspiring White applicants from low income homes were denied economic advancement because they were White? I appreciate this decision, but just remember - if you are White, the United States government still hates you for being White and actively seeks your displacement and replacement with its myriad of anti-White policies.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Book-Banning 'Moms For Liberty' Remind Me Of 'Harper Valley PTA' (And '1984')

Book-Banning 'Moms For Liberty' Remind Me Of 'Harper Valley PTA' (And '1984')

Here we go again. What we have here is a classic moral panic, a repeating theme in American public life.

Remember the McMartin preschool trial in Los Angeles back in the 1980s? Bizarre allegations of satanic sexual abuse were made against a family-run day care center in Manhattan Beach. Replete with sensational media coverage, the investigation and two criminal trials ended up lasting for seven years and costing almost $15 million — the longest criminal trial in U.S. history. A total of seven day care workers were charged with 321 counts of sexual abuse involving some four dozen children.

Prompted by true believers using anatomically correct dolls, little kids too young for kindergarten told fantastic tales involving flying witches, hot air balloons, dinosaurs and secret tunnels that children accessed by being flushed down the toilet before being abused by famous movie stars.

In the end, not a single episode of child molestation was ever proven, and there were no convictions, although some of those accused spent years in jail. All charges were eventually dropped. In the end, the mother whose accusations prompted the original probe was diagnosed with acute paranoid schizophrenia and died of alcohol poisoning.

Lawrence Wright’s terrific book Remembering Satan tells a similarly horrific tale of “recovered memory syndrome” that convulsed Olympia, Washington, around the same time. Father-daughter incest, orgies, unholy rites and mass infanticide — under the right circumstances, it appears, suggestible individuals can be persuaded to confess to almost anything.

If all that sounds reminiscent of the QAnon cult belief that Hillary Clinton conducts murderous satanic rituals in the basement of a Washington pizza restaurant (that has no basement), then you must be paying attention. Exactly why Americans are so prone to these repeated episodes of collective hallucination is hard to say. But fundamentalist Christianity appears to be the common denominator.

Which brings us to "Moms for Liberty" and their impassioned crusade against, yes, public librarians. Exactly what these women think the word “liberty” means is not clear. They are censors and book-banners of great passion and determination. Rather like the Junior Anti-Sex League in George Orwell’s 1984.

In Arkansas, near Little Rock, the Saline County Republican Women have even erected billboards declaring war on “X-RATED LIBRARY BOOKS.” Judging from the examples cited on the related website, most are R-rated at best. They’re largely earnest tomes such as Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human. It is shelved in the “Young Adult” section of the library.

“The opinion/instruction in this book directly and continuously opposes Christianity and the Word of God,” readers are told. The group accuses the county library staff of pushing “the LGBTQ agenda” and sneers that they should instead serve “the people of Saline County, not the interests of people in California.”

California, which gave the nation Ronald Reagan, is now synonymous with Sodom and Gomorrah among the GOP elect.

How many young women in Saline County become pregnant during high school for lack of understanding of what used to be called “the facts of life,” I can’t tell you. But I can assure you they learn more about sex in pickup trucks than in the public library.

Seriously, how many libertine librarians have you known? A less subversive cohort would be hard to imagine.

Even granting that the institution known as “Drag Queen Story Hour” has got to be the dumbest example of liberal folly since “Defund the Police,” the notion that junior high librarians — of all people — have dedicated their careers to “grooming” children for sexual purposes ... well, it’s just too silly to talk about.

Besides, if you follow the news, it’s in the churches, not the libraries, where all the action is. Scarcely a week passes around here without some preacher being busted for sexual misconduct.

Well, coaches and English teachers, too.

During my own long-ago youth, the naughtiest book I read was Peyton Place, the scandalous 1950s bestseller that lifted the lid off a small New England town. I certainly didn’t borrow it from the library. Paperback copies were everywhere.

The novel portrayed sexuality as fascinating, yes — also intoxicating, ubiquitous and dangerous. Kind of scary, actually. If anything, the women were worse than the men. After the lights went down, hardly anybody in Peyton Place, it seemed, was who they pretended to be.

That’s why Jeannie C. Riley referenced the novel in her classic country song Harper Valley PTA: “This is just a little Peyton Place/And you’re all Harper Valley hypocrites.”

I can’t help but start humming the tune whenever the Moms for Liberty take the platform.

Anyway, I could tell you what I think these pious crusaders do when they get back home after reading aloud naughty passages from library books to audiences of fellow Holy Housewives. (Assuming they do go home, instead of checking in at the No-Tell Motel for a couple of hours.) But never mind. Imagine it yourselves. I’m sure you can.

Gene Lyons is a National Magazine Award winner and co-author of “The Hunting of the President.”

Reprinted with permission from Suntimes.

U.S. Court

What Stanford Could Learn From New York About Defending Free Speech

Officials at Stanford University could learn something from the New York City Police Department about defending free speech while maintaining order. When hecklers prevented an invited speaker from addressing an audience at Stanford's law school, what could have been a peaceful protest turned into an act of verbal violence. It's easier to stop people from crossing these boundaries when you've established boundaries.

In this case, the scheduled speaker was a conservative judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Stuart Kyle Duncan's views on transgender people's use of bathrooms and gay marriage are not relevant here. He was officially sanctioned to present his views, however controversial.

Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez won justified praise from free-speech advocates for sending an apology to the judge and issuing a 10-page rundown of what the disrupters did wrong.

"Some students might feel that some points should not be up for argument and therefore that they should not bear the responsibility of arguing them," she wrote. But that "is incompatible with the training that must be delivered in a law school."

Or, frankly, in a high school.

However, she could have gone a step further. Toward the end she did support forging a "more detailed and explicit policy" for dealing with disruptions, including enforcement "through disciplinary sanctions." Too bad she wasn't more explicit about the possibility of expelling those who forcibly prevent invited speakers from sharing their views.

There has to be punishment with teeth. The prospect of getting kicked out of an elite law school could well have deterred the self-appointed censors. (How students seeking a profession dedicated to using words for argumentation — rather than drowning out the other viewpoints with volume — got into Stanford in the first place is worth asking.)

Compare this with the sophisticated approach of the NYPD when faced with the two volatile days of Donald Trump's recent arrival and arraignment. Around both Trump Tower and the courthouse, the department had deployed a first line of experts in maintaining order and lowering temperatures. They wore bright blue slickers with the words NYPD Community Affairs written on the back.

At the courthouse they kept pro-Trump and anti-Trump demonstrators separated by erecting barriers with a path between. There were mental health issues on both sides, but here's one example of how they worked: When a fuming young Trump supporter tried to force her tantrum on the anti-Trump crowd, the Community Affairs guys surrounded her and coaxed her back to the Trump side.

And importantly, there was another layer of policing for keeping the peace: the NYPD's uniformed army. The officers carrying battle gear were largely kept in the background, but the demonstrators knew they were there. If they got violent, they knew the consequences would be arrest, not discussion of possible "disciplinary sanctions."

How did they know that? They knew because of the recent coverage of how big the NYPD was and how prepared. They knew because Mayor Eric Adams famously kicked off the events with a public address wrapped in steely promise of enforcement.

"New York City is our home, not a playground for your misplaced anger," the former police captain said, the police commissioner by his side. "While you're in town, be on your best behavior." These carefully chosen words, stripped of overt threat, effectively got the point across to the politically charged crowds descending on two cramped corners of Manhattan. Imagine the message a law school dean could deliver if she had a genuine enforcement mechanism at her disposal.

Martinez did a good job given what she had to work with. But at the end of the day, one needs muscle to preserve free speech. The dean probably already knows that.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.