Candace Owens to Congress: Left Uses Terms Like White Nationalism For Power, To Scare Brown People
"There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election,"
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Conservative activist Candace Owens addressed a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Hate Crimes and White Nationalism on Tuesday and said the left uses such terms for "fear mongering, power and control."
"There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election," Owens said in her opening statement.
"Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control," Owens said. "It is a preview of a Democrat 2020 election strategy the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy."
"The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions ultimately to helping them regain control of our countries narrative which they feel that they lost," she said.
"The biggest scandal in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into the belief that we are perpetual victims all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat party platform. They need Blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. Soon enough it will be the tall hating the short," Owens concluded.
Read Owen's full opening statement:
CANDACE OWENS, TURNING POINT USA: Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Collins thank you for having me here today. I received word on my way in that many of the journalist were confused as to why I was invited and none of them knew that I am myself was a victim of a hate crime when I was in high school. That is something that very few people know about me because the media and the journalists on the left are not interested in telling the truth about me because I don't fit the stereotype of what they like to see in black people. I am a Democrat. I support the President of the United States and I advocate for things that are actually affecting the black community.
I am honored to be here today in front of you all because the person sitting behind me is my 75-year-old grandfather. I have always considered myself to be my grandfather's child and I mean to say that my sense of humor, my passion and my work ethic all comes from the man that is sitting behind me.
My grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm in the segregated South. He grew up in an America where words like racism and white nationalism held real meaning under the Democratic Party's Jim Crow laws. My grandfather's first job was given to him at the age of five years old and his job was to lay tobacco out to dry in an addict in the South. My grandfather has picked cotton and he has also had experiences with the Democrat terrorist organization of that time, the Ku Klux Klan. They would regularly visit his home and they would shoot bullets into it. They had an issue with his father, my great-grandfather.
During my formative years I have the privilege of growing up in my grandfather's home. It is going to shock the committee but not once, not in a single breath of a conversation did my grandfather and tell me that I could not do something because of my skin color. Not once did my grandfather hold a gripe against the white man. I was simply never taught to view myself as a victim because of my heritage. I--I learned about faith in God, family and hard work. Those were the only lessons of my childhood.
There isn't a single adult today that in good conscience would make the argument that America is a more racist, more white nationalist society than it was when my grandfather was growing up and yet we are hearing these terms center around today because what they want to say is that brown people need to be scared which seems to be the narrative that we hear every four years right ahead of a presidential election.
Here are some things we never hear. 75 percent of the black boys in California don't meet state reading standards. In inner cities like Baltimore within five high schools and one middle school not a single student was found to be proficient in math or reading in 2016. The singlehood--these single motherhood rate in the black community which is at 23 percent in the 1960s when my grandfather was coming out is at a staggering 74 percent today. I am guessing there will be no committee hearings about that. There are more black babies born--there are more black babies aborted than born alive in cities like New York and you have Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo lighting of buildings to celebrate late-term abortions. I could go on and on. My point is that white nationalist--white nationalism does not do any of those things that I just brought up. Democrat policies did. Let me be clear the hearing today is not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it is about fear mongering, power and control. It is a preview of a Democrat 20/20 election strategy the same as the Democrat 2016 election strategy. They blame Facebook. They blame Google. They blame Twitter. Really, they blame the birth of social media which has disrupted their monopoly on mines. They called this hearing because they believe that if it wasn't for social media voices like mine would never exist, then my movement Blexit which is inspiring lack of Americans to lead--to leave the Democrat party would have never come about and they certainly believe that Donald Trump would not be in office today.
Looking on the next thing to focus on now that the Russian collusion hoax has fallen apart. What they won't tell you Bell this statistics and the rise of white nationalism is that they have simply change the data set points by widening the definition of hate crimes and upping the number of reporting agencies that are able to report on them. What I mean to say is that they are manipulating statistics.
The goal here is to scare Blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims into helping them censor dissenting opinions ultimately to helping them regain control of our countries narrative which they feel that they lost. They feel that President Donald Trump should not have beat Hillary. If they actually were concerned about white nationalism, they would be holding hearings on Antifa a far left violent white gang to determine one day in Philadelphia in August that I come a black woman was not fit to sit in a restaurant. They chased me out, they yield race traitor to a group of black and Hispanic police officers who formed a line to protect me from their ongoing assaults. They threw water at me. They threw eggs that me and the leftist media remain silent on it.
If they were serious about the rise of hate crimes they may (INAUDIBLE) examining themselves and the hate they have drummed up in this country. Bottom line is that white supremacy, racism, national--white nationalism, words that once held real meaning have now become nothing more than election strategies every four years the black communities offered handouts in fear, handouts and fear. Reparations and white nationalism. This is the Democrat preview. Of course society is not perfectible. We have heard testimony of that today. There are pockets of evil that exist in those things are horrible and they should be condemned. But I believe the legacy of the ancestry of black Americans is being insulted every single day. I will not pretend to be a victim in this country. I know that that makes many country on the left uncomfortable. I want to talk about real issues in black America theater want to talk about real issues in this country, real concerns.
The biggest scandal--this is my last sentence--in American politics is that Democrats have been conning minorities into the belief that we are perpetual victims all but ensuring our failure. Racial division and class warfare are central to the Democrat party platform. They need Blacks to hate whites, the rich to hate the poor. Soon enough it will be the tall hating the short.
Owens accuses Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of having an "anti-black bias" in his opening remarks:
Candace Owens Accuses Jerry Nadler Of Anti Black Bias During Hearing 4/9/19
"My biography, which I submitted, you reduced it to one sentence, calling me just a conservative activist and it wasn't what I said or what I submitted to your office last night. I just think that you opened with anti-black bias and I see it coming from the chairman today," Owens said.
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date April 9, 2019
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
After alienating most white voters, democrats have to keep all their special groups scared straight to the polls!
Are you saying the gop is The White People's Party? Sure you want to go there?
I can't improve on the dictionary. I'll say it again - progressives have alienated most white voters. Call them "clingers" and "deplorables" and yes, they get the message.
How about you? Do you want to go there?
Where the fuck do you get the impression that "most white voters" identify as "deplorable"? Nobody on the left has called white people in general any names, neither "clingers" nor "deplorables". Those who were identified as "deplorable" were "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic", no race was mentioned and as a white male I did not identify with that definition thus don't feel as if I was insulted or ridiculed in any way.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama
No mention of race there either. Or do you think it's only a specific race that "clings" to their bible and guns and feel bitter about immigrants?
Basically we have two statements which are just common sense admonishments of certain ignorant behaviors such as being afraid and prejudiced against other races, classes and religions and retreating to a bigoted protectionist ideology of shoot first, ask questions later instead of working towards a more inclusive, diverse, dynamic America that has shed the ignorance and hate of its past.
So if you feel like you were disrespected or ridiculed by either of those statements from Hillary or Obama, that's you self identifying with something other than race since that was never mentioned.
No? How many times have people on the left called this President racist AND his followers racist???
as a white male I did not identify with that definition thus don't feel as if I was insulted or ridiculed in any way.
Well, of course not, Your'e a good white! A progressive/Sar
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama
There isn't much question who that's being directed at. More resentment from Obama.
So if you feel like you were disrespected or ridiculed by either of those statements from Hillary or Obama, that's you self identifying with something other than race since that was never mentioned.
Me? I'm just pointing out the consequences of pandering to specific groups. You (progressives) may have scared them into voting for you, but youv'e torn the country apart in the process.
Where did you pull that from ?
Is he being called racist because he's white? No. Are his followers being called racist because they're white? No. Those being called racist are the one's spouting racist rhetoric and embracing the definition of deplorable.
"Well, of course not, Your'e a good white! A progressive/Sar"
I'm not a "good white", I'm just your average, every day white male who doesn't believe this nation was only built for me and those who look like me. I appreciate diversity and love learning about other cultures. I try not to prejudge others based on their outward appearance. I do, however, judge others who tell me who and what they are by their actions, politically expressive attire and the words coming out of their mouths.
When the large crowd of Trump supporters cheered after Trump proclaimed “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”. Those who cheered were showing evidence of their unmitigated bigotry towards those of other faiths.
They cheered when Trump said:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
They cheered when Trump blamed losing the Trump University court case on a judge who had been born in Indiana but whose parents happened to be Mexican.
They cheered when he pointed out a lone black supporter, "Look at my African American over here".
They attracted to Trump for years due to his refusal to accept facts about President Obama's place of birth and cheered Trump on as he continued the racist lie about Barack being born in Kenya.
They cheered as he tone-deafly dismissed Black Lives Matter and Colin Powell, "(Powell's) totally wrong. It's 'All Lives Matter,' and that should be the theme of this country, frankly, or one of the themes. So he's obviously catering to somebody. I don't know who he's catering to."
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
It was in direct response to Vic's comment "I'll say it again - progressives have alienated most white voters. Call them "clingers" and "deplorables" and yes, they get the message." You would have to be under the flawed impression that "most white voters" felt they were being called "clingers" and "deplorables" to imagine they got some "message" from progressives. Anyone trying to speak for "most white voters" can go eat a Richard sandwich.
Aren't Trump Voters only white ?
At least that's what is impressed upon to the "Left" by the "Left" anyway. ya know the one …. "Nationalism" is only a "White Thingy ?
Yes
Are his followers being called racist because they're white?
That's even a bigger abomination. Owens point is well taken. They have been doing it for some time now. This isn't recent. They have smeared everyone they disagree with and ya, it's also about getting minorities out there and voting. If you believe all those millions of people are racist, then I can only pity you.
When the large crowd of Trump supporters cheered after Trump proclaimed “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”. Those who cheered were showing evidence of their unmitigated bigotry towards those of other faiths.
He put a travel ban of 7 countries that the previous administration had listed as a problem. They hardly represented the Muslim world. That would NEVER constitute discrimination and based on the WAR of TERROR waged by Islamic extremists on this nation, MORE THAN JUSTIFIED.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Clearly, unskilled laborers, as well as all the schemes that drug lords used along with that stream of migration and ya, some good people. One could interpret that as being anti-Mexican, but let's face it, it was correct. We were getting Mexico's problems. Just the facts....
They cheered when Trump blamed losing the Trump University court case on a judge who had been born in Indiana but whose parents happened to be Mexican.
I don't recall that being announced at a rally, (not that it matters), Link that one please
They cheered when he pointed out a lone black supporter, "Look at my African American over here".
I'd like to see that link as well.
They attracted to Trump for years due to his refusal to accept facts about President Obama's place of birth and cheered Trump on as he continued the racist lie about Barack being born in Kenya.
That's BULL SHIT. Trump wasn't doing rallies back then, he wasn't a candidate then and btw if McCain & Cruz & Goldwater can have their birth status questioned, so can Obama. That's not "racism" simply because Obama was black.
They cheered as he tone-deafly dismissed Black Lives Matter and Colin Powell, "(Powell's) totally wrong. It's 'All Lives Matter,' and that should be the theme of this country, frankly, or one of the themes. So he's obviously catering to somebody. I don't know who he's catering to."
Not sure if they did, but they should have - "Black Lives Matter" was based on a huge fuckin lie - that Michael Brown had his hands up, surrendering to a police officer when he was shot, when in fact he was fighting to get a police officers gun. Obama helped foster that lie and a lot of cops died for that lie, so YA, ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
You got it - Owens is 100% right. Progressives have sown racial division and hate!
"Yes"
Nonsense.
"They have been doing it for some time now."
Nonsense.
"He put a travel ban of 7 countries that the previous administration had listed as a problem."
What he said was "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims" which resonated with the white supremacists, xenophobes and Islamaphobes. Regardless of the fact that after three attempts he only got a watered down version of what he wanted that wasn't specifically a Muslim ban as he had requested, he still let "his people" know he wanted to ban Muslims. He spoke directly to his desperately bigoted base and they heard him loud and clear.
"One could interpret that as being anti-Mexican, but let's face it, it was correct"
No, it wasn't even the least bit correct. The vast majority of those coming to the US are not violent criminals, their most illegal act to that point being crossing the border which is a misdemeanor, not a felony as some bigots wish it were. Only a small fraction of illegal border crossings are of "rapists" or are carrying "drugs". Most are either escaping violence from South America or coming for a seasonal migrant job.
"That's BULL SHIT. Trump wasn't doing rallies back then"
It has been one of his most effective dog whistles for years and you know it. Every white supremacist, KKK member and wannabe Nazi perked their ears right up as Trump continued the lie about Obama. He didn't admit Obama was born in the US till September of 2016, less than three months before the election.
"Not sure if they did, but they should have - "Black Lives Matter" was based on a huge fuckin lie"
Nonsense. BLM was based on the irrefutable proof that our justice system is biased against young black males. Period. And no amount of "Oh, his hands weren't up" or "Well he shouldn't stole cigarillos" or "he shouldn't been selling cigs illegally" that makes killing young black men disproportionally to all other ethnicities "okay" or something that should be applauded.
"Owens is 100% right. Progressives have sown racial division and hate!"
Owens, her message and the bigots she defends are only "right" when it comes to what they call their political affiliation. She and all those who listen to her tired plantation aged rhetoric of "Hey, we ain't got it so bad under the massa, do we?" and "Maybe its our fault everyone is so prejudiced against us" are simply tickling the ears of ignorant bigots.
A strong, intelligent, successful black woman.
Love me some Candace Owens.
If you need proof that Candace Owens is nothing more than a bamboozler on behalf of the right, here it is. This paragraph has literally nothing to do with white nationalism. Yet it is the heart of her argument, which is that people like her and other conservatives are the real victims. Her anecdote about what happened to her at some restaurant has no relation to "white nationalism" which was the subject of the hearing.
There isnt a sentence in her statement that addresses the issue of what white nationalism is , how widespread it is, and what it's message is, - Owens simply talks about something else.
Perhaps you would like to tell us what it is? I am 67 years old, lived in America all of my life and have never met a "white nationalist"
White nationalists are people who believe that America has been and should continue to be a "white" country. They are worried that 'racial' minorities are gaining too many numbers, too much influence and too much power. The vocal white nationalists want laws to limit immigration from non white countries and believe that civil rights laws to protect other races impinge on the white race. White nationalist extremists want voluntary racial segregation or if necessary forced segregation with the United States remaining under white control.
I think there is some conflation of simple racism with white nationalism which is not helpful, but with social media being what it is anyone can express any opinion they like and possibly attract attention to it.
Vic, do you believe there is such a thing as "white grievance"?
Nope.
I think your definition is politically self serving. As I have said, I have never met such a person
Exactly, me neither. I've seen them on TV. I've read about them in the papers and on blogs like this and yet the sky still hasn't fallen.
John, if it really gets as bad as you are trying to intimate here i'll be right beside you fighting it. Until that time i'll continue to rail against a much bigger threat to our union. The heavily left leaning balance of our mass media and its adherents. Their attempt to drown out and quash those that are not of like mind is the biggest threat to our union since say the civil war IMO.
And like it or not the people know it. Otherwise a guy like Trump never would have gotten elected. He was the "lesser evil" candidate.
So the "resist" movement can spew all the hate, half truths and vitriol it wants. Most Americans won't buy it.
The funny part is that people wearing the MAGA hat have more to fear than those who oppose them.
They need to fear being ridiculed, that is true. They voted for someone who paid out 25 million dollars as reparations for the fraud he committed against hundreds of people with a bogus "university". They voted for a man who stiffed hundreds of service vendors for payment owed, to keep more money in his own pocket rather than pay for a job done. They voted for a man who perpetrated a hoax "birth certificate" accusation against his predecessor.
Of course people wearing MAGA hats get ridiculed. It is entirely understandable.
Lol ...... she bitch slapped Nadler and his cronies but good. Thought they were going to trample all over her. OOPS! I bet he peed his pants a little.
You're just afraid of a strong, conservative black woman that's not full of shit.
And you should be ..... you should be.
She's not black enough for you, huh?
She did, Nadler had to shut his trap. If a Republican spoke to a young black woman in the same rude manner he did, why DC would be burning.
Owens had no business even being there. She has no expertise or experience with white nationalism. She's not a journalist, a researcher, a professor or an author about white nationalism. She is a right wing propagandist. Hence the farce that resulted. How much you wanna bet she never gets invited back to that committee?
She was invited, so it was her business.
We got to see a display of how Democrats treat young black conservative woman.
Absolutely zero doubt about that.
John,
Feel free to illuminate all of us on what she said that was propaganda.
I for one would love to know.
????
LOL. I only wish you were not serious.
She gets the same treatment other who swim in the nationalism pool get. Why should she get special treatment? Tomi Lahren would get the same, as would Steven Miller. Conservatives might want to redefine nationalism, but it isn't working, so stop whining.
Maybe ya shoulda done something to keep her in your fold then.
Did you know that Owens was the CEO of the website Degree180 ?
Guess what they did back in 2015 !
Maybe running an ad like this will get her back (at least triple the reward before it's done though):
In 1834 Harriet Jacobs became a runaway. Her master, Dr. Norcom published an advert in the local newspaper: "Ran away from the subscriber, an intelligent, bright, mulatto girl, 21 years age. Five feet four inches high. Dark eyes, and black hair inclined to curl; but it can be made straight. Has a decayed spot on a front tooth. She can read and write, and in all probability will try to get to the Free States. All persons are forbidden, under penalty of the law, to harbor or employ said slave. $150 will be given to whoever takes her in the state, and $300 if taken out of the state and delivered to me, or lodged in jail."
Her entire speech was propaganda. Most of it was an attack on Democrats.
If she has evidence that white nationalism is not an issue then she should have presented that evidence. Instead she ranted about a political party.
Why was Candace Owens invited by the Republican ranking member? What is her expertise on the topic of the hearing?
Seriously, they might as well have pulled someone off the street after simply determining that this random person doesnt believe white nationalism exists.
Sorry, you don't get choose who speaks and who doesn't.
But if liberal celebrities like Stephen Colbert, Nicole Kidman, George Clooney, Seth Rogan, Kevin Costner, or freakin Elmo , testify before Congress, that's all good, right?
Well, 5 out of the 6 are White Liberal Folks after all. That's a good thing.
But Candace and Diamond and Silk are Conservative Black people. Not a Good thing !
Did you even watch the tape? She attacked them? All sitting up there high and mighty
First rep Lieu talked down to her by saying "of all people Republicans could have picked they picked Candace Owens." Oh that Rep Lieu ..... he's quite the charmer isn't he?
Then the tape he played was a very selective selection of only part of her comments, thus being very disingenuous to the entirety of what she said.
Then Nadler accused her of disparaging a committee member which she didn't ......
C'mon on John, you are better than this. Or perhaps i have that wrong.
Do you have anything real or is it all just cotton candy, unicorn fart nonsense like above.
He was right. She did not address white nationalism. She addressed what she objects to about Democrats and blacks. In her 5 minute speech only a couple sentences referred to the topic of the hearing.
I dont know what Nadler accused her of , but I know she disparaged all Democrats in her comments. Again the hearing was not about politics. Go back through the "liberal" celebrities that testified before Congress and find me some example of one of them using most of their time to attack Republicans, if you can.
Candace Owens used the word Democrat or Democratic 15 TIMES in her five minute speech, and all 15 of them were in a negative way.
Please spare me any more of this bs.
You only heard what you wanted to hear. She criticized Democrats for ignoring the greater issues in the black community, like crime, education, etc.
It was her time, and she could speak as she wanted to. As all invitees do.
It was a Congressional hearing where Congressional members are expected to be civil.
Yeah, you didn't even watch it apparently. She addresses it clearly and concisely saying, among other things that, White Nationalism is not near as bad a problem as it was during her grandfathers time but fear mongering about White Nationalism by Dems and the media is.
Dems didn't like it. Too bad. She spoke the truth and she DID CLEARLY address the White Nationalist topic.
Right back at ya there buddy.
Yeah buddy!
Candice, Hitler's Biggest Fan
Admired Adolph's Final Plan
Except invading foreign land
Fuhrer would be Candy's man...
You go jbb:
Spin baby spin
bullshit inferno
spin baby spin
You know I was talking about violence, but ya harassment too. Thanks for making my point about where it is all coming from.
Being the cowards that they are, they are no singular white nationalists. They only are proud of the white nationalism when in groups.
And it doesn't matter that left leaners think Trumplethinskin is a racist. The important point is that racists think the Liar-In-Chief is a racist . He never denounced David Duke's endorsement of him.
Cite .
So, then those who support someone politically implicate them as being whatever they are?
Got it!
If it wasn't what she said you might have a point but she did so you don't....
Let me put it this way. If racists think you're a racist, people universally think you're a racist.
Cite .
How many years did Trump insist Obama was a Kenyan? Talk about presidential harassment ...
Cite .
Get over it, Vic. Your president is a racist and sexist traitor who wants to fuck his own daughter. He's said it several times over the years. Yes, Vic...he wants to "date" his own daughter. Don't try to deny it. Trumplethinskin doesn't.
Trump's very proud that he can bamboozle his low IQ supporters. He said Mexico would build the wall and when he failed at that miserably, he knew he could throw a towel over your head and still get you guys to cluck and give him eggs.
Even if you take racism out of the equation, he's still totally out of touch.
I'd call Trump dumb as a rock, but I don't dare. I would get dozens of angry letters and emails from rocks everywhere upset that I compared them to the Idiot-Liar-In-Chief.
That is a flawed way of thinking. Racists vote in elections. They tend to vote against something, unless there is an actual racist involved (example: Lester Maddux). Thus, Duke may support Trump and Farrakhan may support Obama.
Trump disavowed Duke many times:
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN.
"I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now."
The problem is exactly as Owen described it. Progressives like to smear people as racists.
I'd call Trump dumb as a rock, but I don't dare
Beware: You are allowed to call public figures names on NT, but here if you constantly do it, will eventually be considered trolling. Just like if we called Obama or Hillary scum over & over again. Nobody should have to sit still and listen to it.
I'm glad we were able to understand each other.
What does that mean? What is it you think she's trying to accomplish? And you make it sound like whatever it is, it must be dishonest. What are you talking about?
Candace Owens and Tomi Lahren fighting over which one is the bigger grifter is 2018 conservative bullshit in a nutshell.
She's not allowed to make money? Do you have any idea what Barack Obama or the Clintons get paid to show up someplace and talk for an hour?
Name some policies she has changed her position on and demonstrate how those changes cannot be related to practical concerns, but are instead rooted in financial greed.
Or admit that you're just making up stuff to attack her personally rather than address the content of her speech.
This is from an article by someone who writes for a libertarian website :
As I detailed in a Quillette article last May, Owens has had a rather peculiar journey to the Trumpian right. A one-time journalism major at the University of Rhode Island who briefly worked for Vogue and was an administrative assistant for a finance firm, in 2015-2016 she ran a website , Degree180, that combined lifestyle and personal-empowerment material with leftist politics. In April 2016, she first captured the spotlight by announcing the launch of an anti-cyberbullying initiative, Social Autopsy, intended to track the online footprint of trolls and harassers. Widely regarded as at best an ill-thought-out venture and at worst an outright scam, Social Autopsy briefly managed to unite Breitbart News and social justice activists in opposition. Then, Owens got into a nasty war of words with some leftist anti-harassment advocates, and some of her erstwhile enemies on the right suddenly became allies; among others, she became friendly with Milo Yiannopoulos and some alt-right personalities in his orbit. (At the time, I covered the Owens saga for the now-defunct blog site AllThink.com; my articles on the subject can be found via Internet Archive .)
With her anti-bullying start-up dead in the water, Owens lay low for a while—and then made a comeback as a conservative, pro-Trump YouTuber going by “RedPillBlack.” In a September 2017 interview with right-of-center webcast host Dave Rubin, she asserted that her alleged persecution and smearing by the left, combined with the support she got from the right, became her “redpill moment”: she became sympathetic to Trump’s attacks on “the lying media” and then started questioning other liberal dogma as well.
Is Owens sincere about her new beliefs? Or is she a fraud whose accidental alliance with opportunistic friends on the far right led her to discover a bigger and better scam? Obviously, no one can answer that question without mind-reading—though the examples of her dishonesty are plenty. (Among other things, her self-serving account of what happened to her start-up omits any mention of its libertarian and conservative critics.) After my Quillette article came out, some Owens supporters told me that regardless of her history and possible motives, she should be given a second chance as someone who has a positive message—particularly as a young African-American woman who embraces conservative values.
No thank you.
What exactly is that message and what are those values, other than boilerplate rhetoric about personal responsibility? A Trump personality cult? Locking up journalists who report the news in a way the President dislikes? A conservative version of tribalism and victimhood? (Owens has told her followers that conservatives shouldn’t “become skeptics” when they hear negative things about “one of our own.”) Mocking concerns about the resurgence of white supremacism, as she did in a video shortly after the white nationalist march in Charlottesville in which one of the participants ran down and killed a protester? Conspiracy theories such as speculation that white nationalist Richard Spencer is a Democratic plant?
If you’re getting the sense that Owens is not a serious person, well…
It should be obvious to anyone except Trump cultists that Owens does little more than throw red meat to the base and feed its fantasies of a mass black exodus from the Democratic Party (which she’s taken to calling “ Blexit ”). It should be equally obvious that she is giving conservatism a bad name—and, worst of all, giving credence to the smear that black people who dissent from the leftist party line are paid grifters and puppets of the right.
As I expected, not one example of her changing position on a single policy, much less evidence of such a change being linked to money. It's just a lot of vague innuendo. Don't believe me? Here's some examples:
There's nothing obviously political about "lifestyle and personal empowerment" and there is zero detail offered about what "leftist politics" might mean.
So what? How is that Left or Right? Who supports cyberbullying, after all?
So she had critics on the Left and on the Right. That does not that support the idea she was leftist but became rightist for the money.
Because people can be dicks. That tells us nothing about policy.
That can happen. There's no law that says liberals and conservatives can't agree on something - especially if the issue is free speech.
Yeah, I can imagine Joe Biden or Al Franken might feel similarly considering how they have been demonized by bullshit from the extreme fringes of their party, supported by a salivating news media that lives for sensationalist headlines.
Which new beliefs? This empty wall of text never explains that.
And yet they (and you, John) go right ahead and claim to have the answer anyway.
TL:DR? Long story made short - An empty ad hominem attack meant to discredit the speaker rather than address the content of her speech. Because you can't.
First of all, the content of her speech is irrelevant. The hearing was about white nationalism, not her opinion of the Democratic Party. What she thinks of Democrats or liberals is not relevant to white nationalism.
As far as Owens herself, there is massive opinion that she is not sincere and/or is in it for the fame and money.
I showed you an article that directly addressed her "change". If you are not interested that is not my problem.
The hearing was not about white nationalism or hate crimes, it was about power and control.
Here is the OFFICIAL title of the hearing
Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism
You can't make this shit up folks
I read the article you posted and it did not really support what you posting here. Bottom line here is that you believe her speech was irrelevant solely be because it did not support the progressive liberal Democrat party line that you and other liberals posting here espouse and your intense distaste for anything or anyone conservative or conservative leaning.
Lol ..... slow your roll bro ..... practice what you preach.
Official title means nothing.
Barr was only supposed to be going to a "Budget meeting" with the "House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee" too !
I find it highly relevant. The hearing purports to be about hate crimes, so she testified that she has been the victim of hate crimes. She also pointed out that people on the political Left and in the media either ignore those attacks or dismiss them as unimportant (as you are doing here) because the victim has the wrong politics.
Again, it's highly relevant because the Democratic Party claims to be concerned about hate crimes, but she is demonstrating (and your comments are further evidence) that people on the Left only care about the hate crimes perpetrated on people they agree with. That is corrupt and dishonest and should be pointed out for all to hear.
I am not surprised that members of the committee and supporters like you want to attack and silence her. If I approached hate crimes that way, I would be ashamed to have it exposed, too.
Argumentum ad populum? Who cares about your alleged "massive opinion?" It's a vicious and dishonest smear campaign organized to discredit her because the content of her comments - and the shame they expose - cannot be discredited on their own merit.
And I outlined in detail precisely how that bogus article fails to do what its writer and you claim it does. I'm disappointed but not surprised that you pretend the truth isn't what it is.
I think the tactic is pretty obvious.
The better things get, the more shrill they become
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks to everyone who kept it civil