Candace Owens ripped into Rep. Jamie Raskin’s hearing on White Supremacy, saying it was the Democrat model for stoking fear and racist thinking every four years so that they continue to vote for Democrats.
For Owens, the problem with the hearing itself is that significant problems that black Americans endure are ignored by Democrats. She said it’s a tactic being used by the Democrat Party to scare blacks into voting for a political party that has used and pandered to them, while ignoring real problems in black communities.
She also brought up additional sore spots for Democrats, who are supposed to truly represent blacks and have their best interests at heart. The reality, Owens said, is that they purposely choose topics like white supremacy so that they can call conservatives like Owens and Pres. Trump racist.
What kinds of topics do Democrats ignore? Topics like the black literacy rate: only 13 percent of blacks in America can read at a 12th grade level. She said the education achievements of blacks today resembles the early 19th century, when white in the South made it illegal for black Americans to read.:
“Why? Because if slaves could read, they could access information. I don’t believe much has changed.”
She also brought up the single motherhood rate for black mothers, which is now at 74 percent. The abortion rate for black women is also more than twice that for whites, another topic that is ignored by Democrats.
But she was correct in her accusation. No Democrat congressman at the hearing dared ask her a question or even recognize her.
Panelists on the hearing included: Joshua Geltzer, executive director, Georgetown University Law Center, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection; Kathleen Belew, Assistant Professor, University of Chicago History Department; Katrina Mulligan, Managing Director, Center for American Progress, National Security and International Policy; and Owens.
Here is Owens’ opening statement:
“I want to testify as a black American today.
I want to first off say that white supremacy is indeed real.
But despite the media’s obsessive coverage of it, it represents isolated uncoordinated and fringe occurrences in America that is being used in my opinion by Democrats to scare Americans into giving up their votes to a party that can no longer win based on simple ideas, which is why we’re seeing so many of these hearings back-to-back despite other threats that are facing this nation.
I want to reiterate that point. White supremacy is real, just as racism is real, but neither of these ideologies are real in this room. They have become mechanisms for the left to continue to call these hearings and to distract from much bigger issues that are facing this country and which threaten minorities, much bigger issues that they are responsible for.
White nationalism sounds a lot better as a threat than father absence. When are we going to call a hearing on the 74 percent of single motherhood rate in black America today? My guess is probably never, since Democrats are the author of that epidemic, which leaves us – black Americans – 20 times more likely to end up in prison, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, and five times more likely to lead a life in poverty and to commit crime.
White nationalism also sounds a lot better than illiteracy rates. we are probably never call a hearing on that, which is a real epidemic that is affecting black Americans and minority Americans, an epidemic which, by the way, has a lot closer tie to our nation’s history of white supremacy. In the early 19th century, made it illegal for black Americans to read. Why? Because if slaves could read, they could access information. I don’t believe much has changed.
Of the most recent assessment of …. progress, only 17 percent of black students scored proficient in reading at a 12th grade level. 83 percent of blacks in America were not found proficient in reading at a 12th grade level. Are we going to have a hearing on that? Probably not.
White nationalism also sounds a lot better than abortion as a threat, which has resulted in the slaughter of 18 million black Americans since 1973, which points to a bigger crisis, which is that black population growth has stagnated in this country. The crisis, in major cities like New York, we have more black babies (being) aborted than born alive. If we’re talking about preserving lives and we’re talking about white supremacy, we should probably have a conversation about that.
But today, in this room, we’re going to see Democrats try to connect the dots to white supremacy and the Internet. The question is why? So that people who have absolutely nothing to do with propagating white supremacy, are censored, silenced and controlled.
What they are actually after is our permission to censor, silence and control any dissenting voices that go against the mainstream narrative that they with to propagate. To give a glimpse into how absurd and expansive the definition of white supremacy has become, I offer to the committee that I have been libeled and smeared by Democrat media cohorts as someone who supports white supremacy. You need but look at me to determine that that just isn’t true.
Why (am I smeared)? Because I routinely say, “Black people don’t have to be Democrats.” I am now considered someone that is radicalizing people on the Internet. What a radical idea. Black people waking up to the abuses in the Democrat Party, which has been instigated upon black America over the last 60 years.
There have been sincere attempts, just so everyone knows, to censor me on social media, because I am radical. Youtube once censored me for criticizing Black Lives Matter. They reversed the censorship, and they apologized, and they called it a mistake.
Facebook once censored me for calling out liberal supremacy as a threat against black America. What I said specifically is that in any city where liberal policies reign supreme, you will find that black America is hurting. I stand by that assessment. Facebook reversed my censorship, apologized and said it was a mistake.
Of course I am fortunate that I have a big enough platform that when I get branded something extreme, I can reverse it. But the majority of Americans don’t have that platform; the majority of Americans with dissenting opinions are silenced forever.”
After her opening statement, Rep. Raskin and Belew distorted what she said, suggesting that she was saying that the problem of White Supremacy is “hilarious.”
Owens said white nationalism or white supremacy would not make the top 100 issues that affect black Americans today, as a way of exaggerating the need to look at other more pressing issues.
“We don’t see hearings on those bigger issues,” she said.
“Black on black crime. The breakdown of the family I think is the number one thing that is contributing to that. We never hear about what happens when you remove a father from the home, and I would argue that we have a social environment that is hostile to men and does not inspire masculinity . . . what it means to be a man in a household.”
Owens said the welfare system “incentivizes” bad behavior, “when as a single parent, you know that you will get more money if you do not marry the father of your children.”
“We saw the same narrative in 2016, when the police brutality (issue) came to the forefront,” she said. “You would have thought that you could not walk outside without being shot by a white police officer. You actually had a greater chance of being struck by lightening than being shot by a police officer.”
At the heart of the issue is that leftists and Democrats don’t want to talk about or fix these issues, she said. Instead, there is an attack on conservatism and Pres. Trump.
Owens said Rep. Raskin perpetuated a lie that when Pres. Trump said there were good people on both side, he was referring to white supremacists, when in fact he was not, as he stated. The slanderous statement has become a folklore for liberals, when they use it for fodder and a reason to call the president racist.
“It’s important for us to allow ourselves to be used, abused and lied to by a political party (Democrats),” she said.
But the Democrats or liberals would not go down without a fight, and there was verbal sparring when Belew accused Owens of saying the topic of white supremacy is hilarious.
“My co panelist (Owens) suggests that it’s hilarious that we don’t have the ‘numbers.”
“I just have to say that I object strenuously to your use of the word “hilarious.” To me, this feels a lot like your reaction to being named in one of these manifestos. Now, you’re of course not responsible for the words of somebody writing that document. But I do think that laughing at it is a real problem, because these are real families that are impacted by this violence. And I think that our efforts toward talking about this have to start from a place of mutual respect, which is what I’ve heard from this side of the table. Now, the reason we don’t have those numbers, I want those numbers as much as you do, but to say the numbers don’t show something is simply not supported by the data.”
Instead of giving Owens an opportunity to response, he ignores the attack on her and instead asks Mr. Mulligan for her reaction.
Katrina Mulligan of the leftist Center for American Progress then stated: “The only thing that I would add is that it’s in the name. Terrorism, domestic terrorism, it terrorizes us; it terrorizes us in our homes; it terrorizes us in our schools, and to the points made by the other panelists, it is disproportionate to its impact on any individual life. It’s not.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked Mulligan, “You reject the idea that it’s something that doesn’t matter, or it doesn’t really matter?”
Mulligan replied: “Absolutely reject.”
Raskin then gave Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) five minutes to speak. Meadows said:
“Ms. Owens, obviously this is a gang-up on you; we’re giving these witnesses the ability to do a rebuttal on you. And so, I find it unfair, Ms. Belew; candidly, for you to show ‘mutual respect’ and then go after Ms. Owens, it’s not appropriate. So Ms. Owens, you can have four minutes and thirty-four seconds to respond however you like.”
Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH) interjected: Can you yield for a second?
Meadows: I’ll yield.
Jordan: Thank you. I believe, Ms. Owens, when you used the word “hilarious,” it was referencing the fact that no one had asked you a question. It wasn’t to the subject matter of the hearing, is that right?
Owens: That is correct.
Jordan: And to have another witness insinuate something that is not accurate is just not appropriate, Mr. Chairman, for how witnesses are supposed to behave in front of this committee. I also think you didn’t say, “It doesn’t matter” about the subject matter of today’s hearing; you said there were other subjects that matter as well, and maybe we should spend some time on those. Is that accurate?
Owens: That is correct, and they matter much, much, much, much more, and I have said that. I said that in my opening, and I will say it again: you know that white supremacy and white nationalism is nowhere near, ranks nowhere near the top of the issues that are facing black America. And the reason you are bringing them up in this room is because it is an attempt to make the election all about race as the Democrats do.
Raskin: Not in my case, Ms. Owens.
Owens: Please don’t cut me off.”
Raskin: Do not characterize my motives.
Meadows: Mr. Chairman, it’s my time.
Raskin: You’ve got your time. Mr. Meadows, I’ll give you three more seconds.
Owens: Every four years you bring up race, and you knew exactly what I meant when I said “hilarious.”
You just tried to do live what the media does all the time to Republicans, to our president, and to conservatives, which is you try to manipulate what I said to fit your narrative, okay? I was not referring to the subject matter that is “hilarious.”
I said that it’s hilarious that we are sitting in this room today and I’ve got two doctors and a Mrs. and nobody can give us real numbers that we can respond to so that we can assess how big of a threat this is, because you know that it is not as big of a threat as you are trying to make it out to be so you can manipulate.
And the audacity of you to bring up the Christchurch shooting manifesto and make it seem as if I laughed at people who were slaughtered by a homicidal maniac, is in my opinion absolutely despicable. I think that we should be above that. To try to assign responsibility or any meaning to a homicidal maniac writing a manifesto, which, by the way, also cited Spyro the Dragon, the child’s cartoon; he also cited Nelson Mandela as a source of inspiration. I don’t think that Nelson Mandela has inspired mosque shootings; you can correct me if you think I’m wrong.
You would rather assign meaning to a homicidal maniac than to actually address the things that I said that are actually harming black America; number one: father absence; number two: the education system and illiteracy rate. Illegal immigration ranks high; abortion ranks high; white supremacy and white nationalism, if I had to make a list of one hundred things, would not be on it.
This hearing, in my opinion, is a farce, and it is ironic that you’re sitting her and you’re having three Caucasian people testify and tell you what their expertise are. You want to know what my expertise are? Black in America. I’ve been black in America my whole life, all 30 years, and I can tell you that you guys have done the exact same thing every four years we have an election cycle and it needs to stop.
Based in St Louis,
Larry Ingram writes about the news media, movies and culture, as well as topics like race, privilege, Christianity, religious expression and tolerance.
Many news articles are blatantly biased against Christians and conservatives in the news media, movies and culture.
Read his exclusive articles and columns that bring balance to mainstream, leftist and liberal thinking on a variety of topics.