Atlanta Black Star News: ‘Can’t Hang Out with the KKK’: MAGA World Seethes After Jasmine Crockett Exposes Why Black Voters Reject the Republican Party

“… Listen, most Black people are not Republicans simply because we just is like, ‘Y’all racist. I can’t hang out with the KKK and them.’ That’s really what it is,” Crockett said.


Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is drawing attention online with a fresh set of fiery remarks about why most Black people don’t side with the Republican Party.

The Texas House Democrat was part of a panel discussion at Martha’s Vineyard African American Film Festival, where she delivered her viewpoint on where many Black Americans stand when it comes to the GOP.

“I talk to Black folk all the time as somebody that’s a child of a preacher. Listen, most Black people are not Republicans simply because we just is like, ‘Y’all racist. I can’t hang out with the KKK and them.’ That’s really what it is,” Crockett said.

She continued: “But when we think about who we are as Black people, and we think about where we come from, most Black people have very conservative values, right? But the reality is that like, we just can’t side with like the neo-Nazis and them. We like, ‘We not-, we not dealing with y’all like that, right?’”

Crockett’s remarks were part of a larger discussion about rousing the Democratic Party to take bolder action in Congress to pass more legislation and advance its agenda.

‘Deflect & Divert’: Trump Pulls Melania Into Scandal as She Targets Hunter Biden, But His Savage Comeback Turns the Tables

The Texas representative has earned notoriety nationwide in recent years as one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump and his supporters in Congress.

But on several occasions, her remarks have often landed her in hot water, especially with MAGA voters.

In this case, much of the backlash she’s drawing online is linked to how she affiliated the Grand Old Party with the KKK.

“The democrats were the KKK. She’s such a liar,” one X user wrote.

“Let’s get the facts straight: The Ku Klux Klan was founded and run by Democrats during the Reconstruction era, not Republicans,” another person added. “Crockett’s claim that Black people avoid the Republican Party because of perceived ties to the KKK is not just misleading—it’s a deliberate distortion of history. The realignment during the Civil Rights Movement saw many segregationist Democrats switch to the Republican Party, a fact she conveniently ignores.”

While many critics tried to teach Crockett an incomplete history lesson, some flung insults at the congresswoman and accused her of reverse racism.

“How embarrassing that she speaks in that ghetto Ebonics trash. She is trash,” one critic wrote on X. “She’s racist. She’s a hater,” another wrote.

After the Civil War, Confederate veterans founded the KKK, and for decades — well into the 19th and 20th centuries — most members were tied to the Southern Democrats, a party that, at the time, championed segregation and enforced Jim Crow laws.

Things started shifting in the 1960s, when Democrats began pushing for civil rights legislation. That move drove away many Southern white conservatives, including KKK sympathizers. Sensing an opportunity, Republicans launched what became known as the “Southern Strategy,” aiming to win over these voters by leaning into conservative positions and, often in subtle ways, signaling support for segregation and limiting Black political power.

This political shift can also be seen in figures like David Duke, a former KKK grand wizard who ran for office as a Republican in the ’80s and ’90s, and later endorsed Donald Trump in 2016. Studies of voting patterns have also found that counties with active Klan chapters saw an uptick in Republican support. While the KKK doesn’t officially align itself with any political party, there’s evidence pointing to a change in where its sympathizers lean politically.

Tampa Free Press: California vs. Washington Lawsuit On Federal Power And Protests Heads To Bench Trial

Governor Newsom’s Lawsuit Against President Trump Over National Guard Deployment Heads to Bench Trial

A constitutional battle is set to begin Monday, as a bench trial opens in a federal court case pitting California Governor Gavin Newsom against President Donald Trump. At issue is a question about the balance of power between the states and the federal government: When can a president deploy military forces to a state without the governor’s consent?

The lawsuit stems from a contentious summer in which President Trump ordered the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The demonstrations, which the President characterized as a “breakdown of order,” were deemed by Governor Newsom to be under the control of state forces.

The trial, presided over by Judge Charles R. Breyer, will examine the legality of President Trump’s actions. The administration justified the deployment under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the President to federalize the National Guard in cases of “rebellion” or “invasion.” However, California’s lawsuit argues that no such conditions existed and that the President’s actions constituted an illegal overreach of authority.

This is the first time since the Civil Rights Movement that a president has deployed federal troops without a governor’s request, a point that is central to California’s legal challenge. The state’s case, which previously saw Judge Breyer order the return of the troops to state control, hinges on the argument that President Trump violated both federal code and the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.

The outcome of this trial is expected to have far-reaching implications, setting a precedent for the extent of presidential authority to intervene in state-level unrest. As the nation watches, the court will weigh the Insurrection Act, which the Trump administration cites as justification, against the Posse Comitatus Act and the principle of state sovereignty.

https://www.tampafp.com/california-vs-washington-lawsuit-on-federal-power-and-protests-heads-to-bench-trial

Esquire: Somehow Republicans Are Defending Kristi Noem After the Forceful Removal of Senator Alex Padilla

I thought assaulting someone holding federal office was a crime. Not anymore, apparently.

So, apparently we’re bum-rushing US senators now. From The Guardian:

In video taken of the incident that has since gone viral on social media, Padilla is seen being restrained and removed from the room by Secret Service agents.“I’m Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,” Padilla shouts, as he struggles to move past the men removing him from the premises. “Hands off!” he says at one point.Emerging afterward, Padilla, who is the ranking member of the judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship and border safety, said he and his colleagues had repeatedly asked DHS for more information on its “increasingly extreme immigration enforcement actions” but had not received a response to his inquiries.

This tinhorn governor of a state where nobody lives, this puppy-murdering hack whose political career outside of MAGA World was as dead as Custer, now gets to sic her black-shirted thugs on the senior senator of a state that she and her criminal boss and all their attendant lords have been lying about, and about which she had flown to Los Angeles to lie about some more.

Dumbass in a ballcap says what? She just admitted they’re blowing up the town to get rid of the mayor and governor. If the courts ever get their teeth back, this gaffe will figure prominently in many filings.

Meanwhile, Padilla is hauled into a backroom and driven to the floor and handcuffed.

And not for nothing, but threatening and/or assaulting the holder of any federal office is a felony and could draw you five to ten in the pokey. And these goons are pretty identifiable.

And, of course, the administration’s prevarication mill went into full operation almost instantly. From The New Republic via Yahoo:

In posts on X, the official DHS account and Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin released a statement attempting to justify wrestling Padilla to the ground and handcuffing him. “Senator Padilla chose disrespectful political theatre and interrupted a live press conference without identifying himself or having his Senate security pin on as he lunged toward Secretary Noem,” the statement read.

Tricia learned to lie like this at the AEI’s Leadership Institute.

But in a video of the altercation from Padilla’s office, the senator could be heard clearly identifying himself. “Hands off! I’m Senator Alex Padilla, and I have questions for the secretary,” said the California Democrat as a security guard pushed him out of the room.

It’s clear that the goons looked at him and just saw another angry brown face. And by their reactions, Tricia and her boss are similarly afflicted.

This is also all my bollocks. Noem knows who Padilla is and, if she doesn’t, she should, and he did identify himself. Third-rate hack with a fourth-rate alibi.

And what about Speaker Moses? What did you expect?

That sanctimonious sumbitch wants Padilla censured. And he spent the afternoon hiding. If he’s a Christian, I’m an Ostrogoth.

The day was not without its burlesque, however. In a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Maxwell Frost asked Chairman James (Jughead) Comer to issue a subpoena for Noem regarding the events of the day. Comer, of course, refused, probably because Padilla was not carrying Hunter Biden’s laptop at the time. And then we were off.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a65058840/senator-padilla-kristi-noem-james-comer-marjorie-taylor-greene