Do we know for an ironclad fact that these people are Democratic activists and supporters pulling a ham-fisted, glaringly obvious dirty trick attempt to smear Glenn Youngkin? Not yet. But I’d bet a hefty sum of money that’s what’s happening here. They’re dressed identically. They’re carrying tiki torches — a la Charlottesville — in the rain. The torches look like they were just purchased at the dollar store. And one of the “white nationalists” crashing a Youngkin event to “support him” is, um, a black guy. Not subtle, gang:
Right on cue, a top McAuliffe aide blasted out the tweet, treating the stunt as if it were genuine, and as if there isn’t a 99 percent likelihood that this crew isn’t comprised of McAuliffe supporters (see updates below):
Question: If it’s your own supporters who are responsible for this, for whom is it “disqualifying,” Jen? Team Blue is desperate, and they’re resorting to some of the ugliest and most cartoonish race-baiting I can recall. Here’s another installment:
Here we have Eric ‘Fang Fang‘ Swalwell — who was already full of hot air — breezily tweeting that Glenn Youngkin really wants to scream the N-word, but instead he’s talking about Critical Race Theory. My retort on Twitter was, “you’re tweeting this gross bullsh*t on behalf of the guy who’s campaigning with not one, but two, white guys who wore black face. You know that, right?”
Also, extra hack points for referring to the disgraced Lincoln Project as “honorable.” It would seem as though the ‘progressives’ are spooked that they might actually lose this race in a Biden +10 state, and there must have been a collective freakout over the Fox News poll that dropped last night. Journos are consoling themselves with a new Washington Post survey out this morning:
Youngkin has gained a tiny amount of ground in this series to pull to within a point, but Mac is still clinging to the lead. What’s interesting is that there has been a 42-point swing to Youngkin on the issue of education, and the Republican now leads with independents by 18 points in this poll. How, then was there so little movement in the top line result? Ed Morrissey breaks it down and finds that the new WaPo sample is more Democrat-heavy than the last one:
How did that shift not change the toplines? In part, it seems to be because this current survey includes more Democrats and quite a bit fewer independents. According to today’s report, the sample has a D/R/I breakdown of 34/27/33. The previous survey in early September that also had McAuliffe up three points had a D/R/I of 30/24/39.
The new poll surveyed more Democrats, has a D+7 sample, and interviewed far fewer independents, who have moved heavily toward Youngkin. That’s how you get a top line tie with those crosstabs. Another way to look at this is that the new sample is four points more Democratic, yet the top line moved two points toward Youngkin. The trajectory of this race is pretty clear. Meanwhile, the Youngkin folks are seeing data from the early voting trends that they believe is encouraging:
Using commercial and government sources, the Democratic data firm TargetSmart estimated that 55% of the early vote has been cast by Democrats, 30% by Republicans and 15% by independents. The Youngkin campaign concedes that McAuliffe is doing better on early voting, but they add he’s not doing well enough. She said the Youngkin campaign projected it would have to win 35% of the early vote to remain competitive with McAuliffe heading into Election Day, which she said the campaign has already exceeded, according to its own model of the electorate.
I’ve heard they believe they’re exceeding their targets in the early vote by a fairly reasonable margin, not just squeaking past. But for their theory of the electorate to pan out, they’ll need a big election day turnout from the GOP base and motivated right-leaning independents. We’ll know if they’re right on Tuesday. I’ll leave you with this:
UPDATE – Hmmmm, some sleuthing is underway:
UPDATE II –
UPDATE III – And there we have it. It was a characteristically disgusting operation from the disgraced Lincoln Project, apparently using Democratic operatives. The key here is that the McAuliffe campaign treated the stunt as “real” and called it “disqualifying” for Glenn Youngkin when it was blatantly a stunt by their own side. I will not be shocked at all if direct coordination is established:
This theory also seems viable:
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.