Boy I’m tired of falling for this kind of click-bait on the conservative news websites.
“Hillary Clinton Says Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Back Slavery” shouted the headline on a story at PJ Media by Tyler O’Neill. Uh, no, that’s not really what she said. This is; Clinton told the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) at its national convention:
“Let me say a word about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” “This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights — including those to make our own health decisions. It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress,” the former Democratic presidential nominee declared. I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s.”
Says O’Neill, maybe with a straight face: “Clinton was clearly suggesting that Trump and Kavanaugh want to return to the days when slavery was legal in the South.”
Clinton’s statement is certainly outrageous hyperbole and fear-mongering, pretty much in line with all the dishonest blather that has been emitted by Democrats to sell the absurd characterization of President Trump’s basic, down the line, hardly extreme well-qualified conservative jurist nominee as a reincarnation of Judge Hathorne of the Salem witch trials. But the 1850s crack is exactly the kind of obvious intentional rhetorical excess that conservatives justly criticize the Left and its news media for treating as if it was meant literally when President Trump takes such liberties. Exactly.
I’m sure if I had the time and my sock drawer weren’t in such need of color-coding, I could find multiple jokes from the Sixties about Barry Goldwater along the lines of “I used to think Senator Goldwater wanted to take us back to the 1950s, but now I’m beginning to think that he wants to take us back to the 1850s!” [Laughter] Maybe Hillary remembers those jokes; after all, she was once a “Goldwater Girl.” This is an old, old joke. Comedian Jack Benny used various versions of it in his radio shows.
Surely O’Neill doesn’t really believe Hillary was seriously suggesting that Kavanaugh was pro slavery. Does he? Really? Could his anti-Hillary bias make him that stupid? Are there conservatives so stupid that they would believe it too? Do they really believe that Hillary is that stupid?
Nah. It can’t be.
As tempting as it is to use the Left’s own unethical and disingenuous tactics against it, pretending that Hillary was making a serious accusation that Brett Kavanaugh wants to restore slavery is embarrassingly dishonest, the fakest of fake news.
62 thoughts on “From The Conservative Media: More Fake Stupid News”
If the headline is way too inflammatory don’t click is my motto. Works as a good rule of thumb.
What if however the headline read. HRC suggests Kavanaugh will take us back to a time when slavery was legal. Factual, but too long.
Nonetheless, that is exactly the image she wanted to construct. And I would bet she knew that but also knew she had a convenient way out if criticized. You often lament cultural ignorance so her words are going to be interpreted literally by her flock as a return to a period when minorities are treated as chattel. You cannot fear monger if your audience does not take everything you say literally.
I believe it is a stretch to associate her choice of rhetoric as a throwback to the Goldwater era that most of her audience would understand. She could have picked the 1890’s which was long before women’s sufferage occurred and would have avoided the imagery of slaves an masters. She did not want to.
I should add, do I think she believes Kavanugh would restore slavery – No. Do I believe that she knows many will believe that will happen – Yes.
Many do not believe that will happen, and anyone who does is too stupid to win a game of Scrabble against a Pet Rock. I don’t believe even Hillary has many such drooling supporters.
They may be too stupid to recognize that Kavanaugh and his exceedingly advanced legal mind is past the American debate on slavery by what…150 years now??? But they still get to vote.
How nefarious is anyone to attach the policy of enslaving humans to a SCOTUS nominee in 2018? Would anyone have even slandered a nominee in 1920 with the idea that they would revert to enslavement in their rulings?
Good God how deep some have sunk in their rebellion against good governance.
The Left has ensured that I will never even remotely consider even in passing the slight possibility that candidates who even barely touch on their worldview will ever receive my vote in my lifetime. They are actively working on me to take active measures to convince my children that even touching on possibly thinking that their ideas are useful to the advancement of mankind would be anathema to a healthy existence.
It’s like they want a fight.
I was contacted via text by someone looking to get me to vote for Beto, the Democrat running against Ted Cruz here in Texas. I asked if Beto was a Democrat. (I knew, but wanted to open a dialog)
When they confirmed he was, I respectfully asserted that I could not, in good conscience, vote for anyone associated with the Democrats, given their behavior the past 18 months.
They were respectful (much to my surprise) and it was a civil (if unsolicited) conversation.
If you have been taught that the system is rigged by whites for whites by likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, et al it is very likely that you may hold the belief that a return to some form of involuntary servitude is in the offing. That meme circulates in prison settings now. Some actually believe that are prisons are simply a means to get cheap labor for prison industries.
1950–1850. It’s a common rhetorical device. It just means, “he’s really conservative.” No, I don’t believe anyone with an IQ above freezing thinks that any judge, anywhere, except maybe Roy Moore, wants to return to slavery. It would make as much sense to say, “Hillary says Kavanaugh wants Fillmore to be President.”
That’s 70 years ago.
No one associates 1850 with “conservatism” specifically. Hell, the libertarian party, to my great embarrassment has published articles about the prescience of the loco-focos and the know-nothings not realizing that exactly 0 people in modern America associate ANYTHING other than slavery to that ‘era’.
HRC’s comment, in line with any random attack on any appointment by a notionally conservative appointment, has to be in line with “if it’s Republican it’s X”
for X insert “racist, sexist, whateverist, deplorable”.
Your analysis of HRC’s comment, *on it’s face*, is fair. But we know HRC. So we know better.
We know Hillary, corrupt as she is, is still smarter than to say what the headline accuses her of saying.
Except she also made plantation jokes in the past. I don’t think she believed what she said, but she is certainly using slavery to race-monger.
HRC is above reproach.
Why? She carries hot sauce in her purse…
The Left actively accuses the Right of using so-called ‘dog whistles’. The accusation alone ensures us about 95% of the way the Left uses ‘dog whistles’ all the time.
I think your analysis of her comment *on it’s face* is fair. I just think she’s smarter and ‘corrupter’ enough to say one thing that has a large enough connotative window of interpretation that her followers all *know what she means*.
At this point? I think Hillary is just flailing, a victim of her own bitterness and fury. She’s no longer capable of nuance or strategy, if she ever was.
It’s not their IQ, it’s their education.
I just got back from vacation which included a visit to Valley Forge. I picked up a t-shirt there. I wore it this morning to breakfast at Bob Evans. the young man at the cash register reacts, “Valley Forge? What’s that?”
When you are educated to believe that American history is nothing but the progression of WASP heterosexual males, what you infer from a political candidate’s statement can and does often involve extreme positions, especially in an environment like ours where, as Krauthammer wrote, “… Liberals think conservatives are evil. ”
When the President and his administration is constantly being compared to Nazi Germany, it’s not such a stretch to believe that many blacks will think the Republicans want to re-enslave them, just as many women believe the Republicans want to eliminate anything and everything related to their health care.
Hillary’s smart enough not to say that, but she’s also smart enough to know that a great many people will infer that it’s what she means And, if it gets blacks to keep voting for the Democratic Party, the end justifies the means.
It’s very hard to feel sorry for Hillary. I don’t think she seriously believes that Kavanaugh wants to restore slavery. However the comment about 1850 leaves an innuendo. Speaking about fake news: How about her remarks about a movie inciting a terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi?
I feel sorry for Hillary. She thinks she’s still relevant.
I can’t stand “Jim Krasincski” or josh or Krazinsky or whatever his name is, but Michael Bay’s movie “13 Hours” is really enjoyable. Politics aside and comfortable acceptance of Bayhem, it’s an inversion of America’s love affair with Alamo movies, where the beleaguered end up surviving…like in in Blackhawk Down.
Despite a modicum of liberal outrage, Bey…Bay? Beigh? didn’t politicize the movie (but he sure loves lamp posts in his movies) like some said he did.
But let’s be honest, the Obama narrative, for the first (and impactful) days or weeks, was that a indie movie maker (not beieux…bay?) was the cause of the Ben Ghazi fiasco.
And FIASCO is was. Luckily for O is was rapidly suppressed by the propaganda arm of his party, the MSM.
I was way off.
Clinton doesn’t have to be (Jack) “seriously suggesting that Kavanaugh was pro slavery,” if she’s (O’Neil) “clearly suggesting that Trump and Kavanaugh want to return to the days when slavery was legal in the South.” I think she’s suggesting it to see what she can get away with, to find the sweet spot where she’s reckless but effective in front of “the base.”
“…rhetorical excess that conservatives justly criticize the Left and its news media for treating as if it was meant literally when President Trump takes such liberties”
Bias in this case would lead one to parse the words of a Clinton as if it’s originating from the left-right spectrum, but that would be wrong. Their motivations are a lot more cynical and primitive than the average politician’s.
When I hear the Left scream and cry and rant about SCOTUS being shifted towards the right for “decades” or for “generations”, all I can do is giggle.
If “generation” is 30 years, then we’re looking at a turnover of *all* but maybe Gorsuch. Maybe.
Which means, in a generation, we have no idea what SCOTUS looks like.
Also, looking at SCOTUS by “left or right” is stupid.
Look at SCOTUS by “Constitutional or Activist” and believe it or not, I think our SCOTUS tends to be fairly reliable.
FOR A GENERATION.
Sotomayor and Ginsberg’s replacements with Constitutionalists would be a boon. Breyer and Roberts are or are not a marginal Constitutionalist. Kagan, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito are Constitutionalists even if they are politically disparate.
It seems Kavanaugh will be a between “marginal” and “yes” Constitutionalist.
Those who are freaking out about Kavanaugh do not believe in the Constitution…
Let that be a pause to evaluate yourselves…not the SCOTUS.
And Roberts is closer to “Constitutionalist” than not.
I believe Kavanaugh doesn’t want to return to the days of slavery, unless as the result of being convicted through due process. As 3 yr old asylum seekers without legal representation are being.
You said “unless”.
Your analysis is useless.
Your assertion that the United States is enslaving the children of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ is completely dishonest.
Your term “Asylum seekers” needs clarification. I agree that the administration is making it harder for “asylum seekers” to claim asylum. Yet regardless of the impediments in place, ‘asylum seekers’ are not asylum seekers once they intentionally sneak across the border.
Your characteristics of “enslavement” need more elucidation. I think your qualifications are completely empty of thought except for innuendo and heavily skewed denotative use of language.
Try again or this comment is essentially a drive by comment with no value.
There are very, very few legitimate asylum-seekers coming from Latin America or Mexico.
Asylum status requires that an individual be at risk of death from political or religious persecution from his or her home government.
Sue is confused by the fact that illegal immigrants looking for economic opportunities in the U.S. often falsely CLAIM asylum, but the vast majority of these are false claims, often abetted by domestic Leftist “aid” organizations, who don’t mind abusing asylum laws, facilitating child rape, or making it harder to process genuine asylum-seekers…because it makes them feel good about themselves.
The migrants coming from Central and South America, with children, are mostly opportunists who think that kids are a magic key to being fast-tracked to the good life in America. Either they drag their little gold-mines along on the extremely long and dangerous journey, or they put them on trains with child-raping coyotes and sex-slavers and wave goodbye.
That needs to end YESTERDAY.
I suspect that Sue doesn’t know much about what actually goes on at the border, but if she actually cares about children I hope she educates herself quickly. I’d rather not have to see ICE forced to take care of a million more child victims in the time it takes liberal-talking-point-regurgitators to figure out that Trump is not the enemy of the children here.
Where have you been the past 4 years?
Even the MSM has published stories about this phenomenon. Try googling a bit and quit posting progressive lies, I mean, talking points.
I live in a border state where we deal with this, and this happening is not in question.
” Your assertion that the United States is enslaving the children of so-called ‘asylum seekers’ is completely dishonest ”
Where did I assert that? I said that minors under 5 are being convicted without legal representation after what is regarded as due process. So, had the penalty been slavery, that would have been perfectly constitutional by the kind of strict textual reading Kavanaugh espouses. No doubt he would tut tut about that, while regretting the wording he is bound to follow without reasonable or humane interpretation.
As far as I know, the penalty isn’t slavery. Forced adoption, yes.
I’m not going to explain to you what the words “unless” and “as” do in your original assertion. You already know what they do because you know your comment would raise the stink you wanted it to raise.
Your comment asserts precisely what I described.
If you want to pretend you didn’t mean to say that, I’ll give you a chance to reword your original comment now and we can proceed from there. Otherwise, I’m not going to continue down this diversionary rat hole any further.
If you are truly seeking asylum, you go to the US Embassy in your country and request that status. If you sneak over our border, you are an invader and should be treated as such, though Americans are too generous (so far) to treat you as an invader ought to be treated.
You can’t claim asylum outside the US. You can claim refugee status, but that’s another issue.
You can only claim asylum if on US soil. Under US immigration law, you have one year to do so after entering, be it at a checkpoint or not.
I find it astounding that I know more about US law than Trump supporters. I’m sure Jack, being a lawyer in the US, will correct me if I’m wrong.
Hint: US Embassies are US soil.
” The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States. ”
Now if only all my errors were as abstruse and technical as yours in this case…
There are many such misconceptions about US immigration law. I can’t count the number of times people have blamed DACA immigrants for not going through the process of getting citizenship – because they’re not aware that there *is* no such process for them, they are specifically excluded.
You’re not the only one who thinks asylum seekers can claim asylum just by polling up to the nearest US consulate or embassy.
Sue, how many 3 year olds are strolling up to entry points, seeking asylum, and then being unjustly tried without representation? Surely you aren’t being serious? I’m going to need a source if you are serious, because I really need to read about that situation.
They’re not strolling, they are accompanied by their parents. Who they are then separated from, and treated as unaccompanied minors, by Trump’s policy, since rescindered after thousands of kids have been treated this way.
One of many sources
We can only give such evidence for the ones able to obtain pro bono representation. For the ones who can’t, it’s Nacht und Nebel.
For those not represented, we have to rely on second hand reports, as the proceedings are kept confidential for obvious reasons. No cameras, no reporters, not witnesses. But you can’t keep court recorders and clerks from speaking off the record in general terms.
Many immigration judges are hideously embarassed by this, when they have to ask ,3 yr olds whether they understand the charges against them. As they have to as part of due process.
A few.. not so much. But I only have 3rd hand data from that, lawyers speaking on the record of accounts from lawyers who wish to remain anonymous to avoid retaliation against them and their clients. Cut outs.
Source : Tulsa Adoption Attorney Becki Murphy
So far, my office has not been called up to serve the children held by immigration. So allow me to share what another attorney shared with me. (She asked to remain anonymous)
I needed a couple of days to decompress and process all that I dealt last week serving women and children in immigration jail with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project.
Heading to Dilley, I had heard stories of other attorneys having suffered from PTSD after spending the week there. Rather arrogantly I said to myself, not me, I represent this vulnerable population regularly, I’ve become numb to it. And it’s true, in my career, I have heard many stories of unimaginable trauma. Of women being gang raped, trafficked, terrorized, beaten and tortured. It will take a lot to shake my core.
Last week, I stood beside many warrior colleagues who don’t normally practice immigration law, who broke down before my eyes. Professionals who fought hard to keep it together as they sat through asylum interviews and couldn’t control the tears rolling down their faces as they witnessed women retelling stories of being forced into marriages, sold by their own parents, sexually exploited, shunned by society, beaten. Brutality amassed on top of more brutality. They are fighters and survivors. And we are the warriors who were sent to guide them through a treacherous process. And yet, I had been able to hold it together.
These women and children get one shot to tell their story to an asylum officer, a stranger who holds their fate in their hands. A stranger who almost robotically follows a script rather than letting conversations about such sensitive matters develop organically. If they can’t convince them, if they can’t open up, if they don’t understand the question properly, if they aren’t given the opportunity to divulge their whole life story during this one interview, then they have to face a monster of an Immigration Judge, who indiscriminately rubber stamps every negative finding of the asylum officers, and who holds one of the highest denial rate for refugees. There is no doubt in my mind that the Trump administration has intentionally assigned him to this court, it is, after all, their mission to deport all of these women and children. He is just the perfect monster to do it. And to their misfortune, there is no appellate review to his decision.
I have been practicing for 18 years. Never have I been treated with such disrespect. On day 1, as I advocated for my clients, whose right to due process he was violating, he told me to “shut up and listen”. I witnessed him question a woman about why she was afraid that her MS-13 kingpin ex-husband would murder her for fleeing his threats and persecution. As she cried inconsolably, he had the officer bring in her 9 yr old son and then proceeded to interrogate him as to why he was afraid to return to his home country. Having seen and heard too much for his tender years, he beautifully laid out his fear that his father would murder his mother if they were sent back. As the child sat crying inconsolably, the Immigration Judge dismissively told them “good luck in your home country” as he affirmed a negative credible fear finding. Next, he questioned a woman who not only 30 days ago had been shot in the head by the drug cartel and whose husband had been killed in her presence. Their 12 and 9 yr old children came home from their grandmothers house to find their father dead and mother struggling to breathe as she lay in a pool of her own blood. I begged and pleaded for him to give her an opportunity to present her full claim before an immigration judge at a full blown hearing and was again met with, “Counsel, I already told you to just shut up and listen” and wished her and her children good luck in Mexico.
The weight of the pressure from these cases has never felt so overwhelming and hopeless. It is clear what this administration seeks to do. And these women, and many of these children, will be murdered upon return. There is no doubt about that. But nobody cares. This country was their last hope for life. And we have turned them away.
From that point on, I was determined to help these women pass these interviews to avoid this monster at all costs. I worked tirelessly, 14 hour days even waking at 5am to get a head start on some days.
At the conclusion of our long and gut wrenching week, we headed to San Antonio to integrate ourselves into society and with other fellow Americans. As we walked to dinner all I could see were the children on their streets with their family enjoying their freedoms and then it hit me, like an uncontrollable wave, the pain for all of the children I had just spent a week of my life with. Children who have been beaten by abusive fathers, beaten by gangs forcibly trying to recruit them, children who have witnessed their mothers being raped and who they themselves have been choked by their mothers rapists. And now, after all of that trauma, they sit in the confines of a jail with their mothers. Walking down the street of San Antonio, amongst civilians just living their lives, I lost my shit.
If you have read this far, thank you for allowing me to share my experience.
Note that it was a recent directive by the DOJ that stated that threats of domestic or gang violence would not be considered in deciding asylum claims, as they always had been in the past. Judges were given no latitude in this, so to call a judge a monster for just obeying a monstrous new directive is no more fair than calling a guard at Auschwitz a monster for just following perfectly legal orders.
A matter of novel interpretation of complex law regarding groups under threat. The interpretation is currently under legal challenge of course, and may well be ruled invalid in a few years, after it sends its way through the judicial system. Or not.
Sorry, not judges, “asylum officers”. They never get to see a judge without his OK, and they’re supposed to send through all cases where there may be a threat, for judicial review.
“Note that it was a recent directive by the DOJ that stated that threats of domestic or gang violence would not be considered in deciding asylum claims, as they always had been in the past.”
Not “always.” And this policy makes more sense, it’s just not gratuitously “compassionate” as an excuse to let anyone get into the country at will. Will Australia allow LA ghetto citizens to cite that as a reason to reside?
Not for the purposes of immigration, no. There are also cut outs regarding various US protectorates and dependencies. For example, American Samoa. Someone born there is American, born on US soil, but not a US citizen as it is an unincorporated territory.
But getting back to the subject, from the US Embassy site in Poland;
” The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States. ”
In 2014, a woman from Guatemala used this strategy successfully before the Board of Immigration Appeals, in a case called Matter of A-R-C-G- et al. (26 I&N Dec. 388 (B.I.A. 2014)). Having suffered regular and serious beatings, and attempted to get help from the police (who told her they wouldn’t interfere with a marital relationship) the applicant repeatedly tried to leave and stay with her father. Her husband, however, sought her out and threatened to kill her if she did not return to him. On this basis, the B.I.A. found that the woman had defined a recognizable social group and was potentially eligible for asylum. (For technical reasons, however, the B.I.A. didn’t actually grant asylum, but sent the case back to the Immigration Judge.)
As regards always… Well, since the BIA decision not granting asylum on these grounds in 1999 was vacated, let’s just say since 1999.
1) I do not trust, nor should you, anonymous accounts.
2) The United States has no obligation to just admit foreign citizens on this basis. This is pure emotion over reality.
3) The United States has an obligation NOT to do so.
4) Emotional blackmail isn’t ethics, policy, or debate.
5) The lawyer, if it is a lawyer, doesn’t “know” a damn thing about the people he is talking about.
Misleading headline, you bet.
Was she leading her absolutely drooling constituencies by her speech to false conclusions, including the slavery reference? Absolutely true.
That’s exactly what she was referencing, just not explicitly as the headline.
I agree. It’s also redolent of Joe Biden assuring a black audience in North Carolina or someplace like that during the 2012 campaign, using a phone Southern accent, that “Romney wants to put y’all back in chains.” It’s more than what the left calls a dog whistle when they accuse people not of color of saying something loaded.
If I were a lefty fact checking outfit, I’d score this post “UNTRUE!”
Dang yer eyes, OB, you beat me to it.
Kavanaugh doesn’t have to go back the slavery just going back to Lochner would do the trick. After he is confirmed I would like to see the the conservitive members of the court nicknamed “The Five Horsemen.” However, knowledge of history and the bible are such that it would be meaningless.
Do you have any indications that he (or anyone else on the court) plans on overturning an 80-year-old precedent? Or that adding him to the court will bring about Armageddon? Or is this just more of the same ad hominem fear mongering that Hillary was engaging in?
Not to mention the case would have to be brought through the federal system. Cases do not just magically appear at the Supreme Court where the evil cabal conspires to overturn precedent.
But maybe there’s some validity to the opposing view on this issue:
From wikipedia: “However, the decision also has attracted defenders by libertarians: the Cato Institute and the scholars Richard Epstein and Randy Barnett, who argue that Lochner was correct in its protection of economic liberty. Randy Barnett has argued that Lochner’s presumption in favor of liberty of contract was basically right; the decision was wrong only in that it perpetuated the misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that was established in the Slaughter-House Cases. According to Barnett, liberty of contract is properly found in the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. David Bernstein, in Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform, argues that the decision in Lochner was well grounded in Supreme Court precedent and that the decision’s emphasis on limits to the states’ police powers informed the Court’s early civil liberties and civil rights cases.”
Just because a notion is not progressive doesn’t render it apocalyptic. At least in my book. I wonder what the current tally is of states that do and don’t have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. Americans can be ornery and protective of their rights, even if exercising those rights puts them in danger.
That cases don’t magically appear at the Supreme Court is well understood; that there are those with deep pockets to start the process at the district level should also be understood.
There still needs to be a case with facts that raise a controversy not governed by current law. Deep pockets don’t put resources into bad cases.The hysterics talk as if a case will be in the Court challenging Roe will be on the docket in a week. A year? Two? Ten? Never?
I guess it depends on what you call bad cases. Wasn’t Buck vs. Bell a manufactured test case? As I read the history Buck’s lawyer was chosen and payed for by the people supporting Bell! As to Roe, my wife thinks that the Republicans would be foolish to get it over turned because that would loose them a great wedge issue and galvanize the progresives like nothing else. I agree with her.
But you see, the GOP does not work that way…yet. Democrats have for decades, as the current ‘judge shopping’ to stop Trump shows. (Explain how a judge in Hawaii has jurisdiction over immigration?)
If conservatives think abortion is legalized murder, that shouldn’t even enter the calculations. Democrats successfully used the civil rights as a wedge issue in the South for decades, but I wouldn’t keep slavery to prevent it.
Hillary threw out some hyperboles and played into fear-mongering. I certainly don’t believe she believes Kavanaugh wants to bring back slavery and I certainly don’t believe O’Neill believes Hillary believes this. I think O’Neill went in the wrong direction for this story. I think the more interesting story would be that Hillary used this type of rhetoric at the American Federation of Teachers National Convention. I would be very interested in how the teachers at the convention felt about the hyperboles and fear-mongering used in her speech? Did the teachers cheer her on? Did the teachers grow quiet and glance at each other as if to say “don’t we have better things to do than listen to this type of rhetoric? I don’t know how the teachers reacted and I think a their reactions to what was said TO THEM (as teachers) would have been much more interesting than what O’Neill wrote.
I think your post is spot on. I do believe that these stories if dealt with differently would force many to examine their own biases and beliefs. This is especially true when the audience are rank and file public school teachers.
If the headline had changed just one word and said instead, “Hillary Clinton Infers Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Will Bring Back Slavery,” even O’Neill’s hysterical (delusional?) statement might have been forgivable.
More clearly to me than to O’Neill, perhaps, Hlary was simply floating a trial balloon-bomb (not entirely unlike what we have seen recently floating from Gaza into Israel), inflated with the same kind of toxic gas Joe Biden has used, via his own faux-jivey way, to guile and manipulate groups of the same victim-race (“He’s gon’ put y’all BACK in chains”). Hlary’s is a Cntonian attempt to reprise the TedKennedyesque borking rhetoric.