Much of the attention on House Resolution 660, adopted by House Democrats on Halloween to advance the impeach of President Donald Trump, has failed to note the significant differences with resolutions authorizing previous presidential impeachments.
Two writers on the Lawfare blog, for example, claimed that HR 660 incorporates “a structure similar to what was in place for the Clinton and Nixon impeachment proceedings.” Simply placing the resolutions side by side shows this is false.
First, the previous resolutions authorized those impeachment inquiries at the outset; this one simply says “carry on” to committees that began investigating weeks ago.
Second, the previous resolutions authorized only the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether impeachment grounds exist. On Sept. 24, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unilaterally told six different committees to investigate without any rules or procedures.
Third, HR 660 sets procedures for public hearings in only two of the six investigating committee. The others are named in the resolution but told simply to “continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry.” This apparently means that the other four committee can continue operating in secret, using procedures they make up as they go along.
Fourth, the resolution creates a structure for subpoena authority in the Intelligence and Judiciary committees very different from what was in place for the Clinton and Nixon impeachments.
On Oct. 8, 1998, the House adopted HR 581, granting subpoena authority to “the chairman and ranking member acting jointly.” If “either declines to act,” the other may act alone after bringing the matter to the committee to decide “whether such authority shall be so exercised.” HR 803, adopted on Feb. 6, 1974, included the same provision for the Nixon impeachment.
The structure for subpoena authority in HR 660, however, is the opposite. It is not directed at both the majority and minority; in fact it does not use the word “jointly” at all. Instead, the ranking minority member must have “the concurrence of the chair” to exercise subpoena authority, but not vice versa. If “the chair declines to concur,” the ranking minority member must bring the matter to the committee for decision.
In other words, the chairman can act unilaterally, while the minority always needs the majority’s permission.
Fifth, HR 581 explicitly said that, after committee approval, the ranking minority member can exercise subpoena authority “acting alone.” HR 660 deletes any mention of the ranking minority member actually exercising subpoena power, saying only that he or she may refer the matter to the committee.
As if this significant departure from past impeachment procedures were not enough, there are even more radical developments brewing in individual committees. While HR 660 presents the Intelligence Committee as taking the lead, the Judiciary Committee has made its own move. Chairman Jerry Nadler, New York Democrat, has released the committee’s own impeachment hearing procedures “pursuant to House Resolution 660.”
These procedures appear to allow Trump’s counsel to attend and participate in any Judiciary Committee hearings. But there’s an enormous caveat.
Section F states that Nadler can impose “appropriate remedies” if the president “unlawfully” refuses to make witnesses available or to produce requested documents for any of the six investigating committees. These remedies include “denying specific requests by the President or his counsel under these procedures to call or question witnesses.”
Remember that four of the six House investigating committees can continue operating in secret, under whatever rules or procedures they choose. That investigative scheme, in fact, can be entirely different for each of those committees.
Nadler claims the ability to determine when the president has acted “unlawfully” in relation to committees over which he has no authority. And, when he does (based on whatever standards or criteria he alone chooses), Nadler says he can bar the president—the impeachment defendant—from participating at all in the Judiciary Committee’s hearings.
Thankfully, the Constitution’s impeachment provisions have not been used often in American history. But we do know how to conduct a presidential impeachment that is genuinely fair, legitimate, and that minimizes partisanship.
House Democrats have chosen to reject the example, counsel and guidance of that experience and opted instead for a glaringly partisan, unbalanced and novel process.
Chesa Boudin, the urine-and-feces-plagued city’s incoming district attorney, pledged during the campaign not to prosecute public urination and other quality-of-life crimes if elected. Boudin declared victory Saturday night after results showed him winning a plurality of votes in the DA race.
“We will not prosecute cases involving quality-of-life crimes. Crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc., should not and will not be prosecuted,” Boudin vowed in response to an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire during the campaign.
“Many of these crimes are still being prosecuted, we have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness,” he lamented.
Boudin’s campaign didn’t return The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for confirmation that he would follow through on his pledge not to prosecute public urination.
Boudin’s parents were members of the Weather Underground. a domestic terrorist group. Boudin “was raised in Chicago by Weather Underground leaders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn” after his parents were sent to prison on murder charges while he was a toddler, NBC News reported.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., cheered Boudin’s victory in the election.
“Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty,” the Vermont senator wrote Saturday on Twitter, congratulating Boudin on his “historic victory!”
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, email email@example.com.
With the 2020 presidential election less than a year away, America’s voter registration rolls are woefully out of shape. Yet well-funded liberal organizations are working to stop states from cleaning up their rolls.
Their latest victim is Indiana. A federal district court has temporarily halted the state’s effort to compare its voter rolls with those of other states to eliminate duplicate registrations.
A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals went to extraordinary lengths to come up with excuses for why a voter might need to be registered in more than one state.
For example, “someone might move to Kansas from Indiana to take a new job, and upon arrival in Kansas immediately register to vote in Kansas,” the ruling says.
“But if her personal circumstances change before Election Day–she flunks a probationary period on the job, a family member becomes sick, a better opportunity arises in Indiana–the person might decide to return to her former residence in Indiana.”
But don’t worry, said Judge Diane Wood, the Clinton appointee who wrote the opinion. Those voters who are registered in more than one state “will vote in only one place, even if they have open registrations in two.”
The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database lists many cases of duplicate voting. Some are rather pedestrian, such as John Marotta, who was convicted in 2011 of casting ballots in both Arizona and Colorado. Others, like that of Wendy Rosen, are a bit more colorful.
A Democratic congressional candidate in Maryland, Rosen was forced out of the 2012 race (and later pleaded guilty to voter fraud) after it was discovered that she had illegally voted in both Maryland and Florida in multiple elections.
Or how about the very ambitious Pasco Parker, who was convicted in 2015 of illegally voting in Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina in the 2012 federal election. He obviously wanted to make sure he cast as many votes as possible for his favored presidential candidate
The Government Accountability Institute studied voter rolls in 21 states following the 2016 election. It found almost 8,500 individuals who appeared to have voted illegally in multiple states in that election.
“Extending GAI’s conservative matching method to include all 50 states,” the report noted, “would indicate an expected minimum of 45,000 high-confidence duplicate voting matches.”
If you recently moved and forgot to notify the state where you used to live to cancel your voter registration, you are not alone. A 2012 report by the Pew Research Center found that “[a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.”
Justice Samuel Alito last year referenced the same study in the Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Ohio’s voter list maintenance procedures: “It has been estimated that 24 million voter registrations in the United States—about one in eight—are either invalid or significantly inaccurate.”
Such registration errors, even when unintentional, are not harmless. They translate to more work for already hard-pressed elections officials and taxpayer money wasted on unnecessary election-related mailings. Duplicate registrations can translate into longer waits at polling locations as elections officials rifle through bloated lists of registrants.
Duplicate registrations also create a fertile ground for double voting – which is impossible to detect when a court limits what a state can do with evidence of duplicate registrations.
To address this serious problem, Indiana participates in the Interstate Crosscheck Program, whose member states compare voter rolls to find people registered in multiple states. In 2017 and 2018, Indiana passed legislation allowing the cancellation of registrations when the state confirmed through a series of factors that the same person was registered in more than one state.
Before the legislation was even implemented, Common Cause, the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters—organizations that have consistently opposed any efforts to improve election integrity—sued to shut down the program.
The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility of conducting elections subject to certain limited powers of the federal government. In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act to establish guidelines for voter registration and list maintenance.
Unfortunately, leftist organizations have used this law to curtail efforts to improve the accuracy of voter lists. In Indiana, they succeeded in getting the court to misinterpret the plain language of the act. The court held that registering to vote in another state–despite the fact that you are declaring in writing that you are now a resident of that state and thus eligible to vote there–does not equate to a written confirmation that the registrant has moved.
As we enter 2020, we can expect to see more attacks on election integrity from the usual suspects. As the attacks pile higher and courts issue misguided opinions, confidence in our elections erodes further. It is time to support states that seek to improve the security of their election process.
When she was 21 years old, Claire Culwell found out a huge secret about her past: her biological mom had tried to have an abortion when she was pregnant with Claire and her twin. While Claire’s twin didn’t survive, Claire did—and that revelation changed her life. “I knew that I couldn’t stand for what abortion does. And so, I chose to take a stance and to speak out,” she says. Listen to her interview on the podcast, or read the lightly edited transcript of our conversation, pasted below.
Katrina Trinko: OK. So, we’re at the Values Voter Summit with Claire Culwell. Claire, thanks for joining us.
Claire Culwell: Thanks for having me.
Trinko: OK, so, first off, you are an abortion survivor. Tell me about that.
Culwell: I met my birth mother in 2009; so, 10 years ago, and I had a gift for her, and I ended up thanking her for choosing life for me and giving me my family. And that was the moment she broke down into tears and shared with me about being pregnant at 13 years old.
She was in eighth grade, and she said she found herself pregnant, approached her mother. Her mother took her to an abortion clinic, and she had a dismemberment, a D&E abortion at 20 weeks, around 20 weeks.
And that they told her that her life would go back to normal. All the similar things that they tell women that have abortions today, but she said that her life never went back to normal.
In fact, a few weeks later she went back, because she said things didn’t seem right, and that’s when they told her that she had actually been pregnant with twins, and that they had successfully aborted one baby, but that I had survived.
And so, I was born at 30 weeks. I had a dislocated hip and club feet from being a twin. I was in a body cast for a little while to correct those things.
But when she shared this with me, obviously, I never imagined I would find something like that out. I thought the worst thing that will happen will be, she won’t want to meet me. But instead I found out that I had survived something that was meant to take my life.
And so, I knew that my life was a miracle, there was a reason that I was here, and I could either forgive my birth mother and share this story to show the humanity of the baby and offer hope and a message of forgiveness to women that have had abortions, or I could be angry and upset. And so, I chose to forgive my birth mother and share my story.
Trinko: So you had no idea before you met her that you had survived an abortion?
Culwell: No, I was 21 when I found out.
Trinko: Wow! So, how did…
Culwell: I was adopted. So, I was placed for adoption, and since my birth mother was 13, and because they were [closed] adoptions back then, the majority of adoptions were, we didn’t know anything about my birth mother until we met her.
Trinko: How did you feel when you first found that out?
Culwell: When I first learned that I had survived my birth mother’s abortion, I remember not feeling sadness for myself, but looking into my birth mother’s eyes and seeing this deep pain that I somewhat identified with.
I mean, I had had hard things happen in my life, but I had never, I knew just from looking into her eyes that I had never experienced that level of pain, that deep pain that she had experienced, and so I knew that I couldn’t keep it to myself.
Trinko: And was it strange to realize that you had originally had a twin?
Culwell: I think that it kind of fit some of the pieces of the puzzle together for my life for me. I remember growing up and wanting a brother; specifically, a brother. I had a sister through adoption, but I felt like something was missing. And so, I do think that that was my natural instinct, because I lived five months in the womb with my twin, and so I knew him or her.
And so yeah, it is crazy. It’s surreal to think that I am literally missing probably my other half, you know? But it gives me reason to fight and to speak out in truth, because I imagine what our lives would have been like if my twin had been here, and it would’ve been very different for us.
Trinko: So, before you found this out, and you mentioned you were just 21, did you consider yourself pro-life? Did you have a view on abortion before this?
Culwell: I am adopted, and so, I think I would have told you back then that adoption was always a better option than abortion, but did I ever use that terminology like I’m pro-life? No, it wasn’t something that I ever thought about.
I wasn’t aware of anyone that had been affected by abortion in my life up until I was 21, and so, when I found out that I had been affected by abortion in a very unique way, in my mind, that’s what I thought back then. It opened up this whole new world for me.
Like, “OK, how do I feel about this? What does this mean? What does abortion do to a child or to a little girl like my birth mother or to a woman?” And I knew that I couldn’t stand for what abortion does. And so, I chose to take a stance and to speak out.
Trinko: Now, you’ve been speaking out for several years now. Has anyone who identifies as pro-choice, have they approached you? What has the response been from people who aren’t pro-life?
Culwell: It comes up in conversation … daily for me. All I have to do is sit down on an airplane, and it’s small talk. What do you do? What do you do? And it comes up. And so, I’ve had a lot of different responses.
A lot of people don’t want to hear it, and they will say, “Well, that’s interesting, but I don’t believe that happens.” And, “That’s imaginary. You must have made that up.” And it is …
Trinko: That’s so insulting to be like, “You must be crazy.”
Culwell: It can be hard to hear, but you know, I look at those instances as an opportunity to plant a seed. I got them to hear my story, and they’re going to go home and think about it.
I mean, how could you not go home and think about someone that survived an abortion? Something so eye-opening. But I think the majority of people, they hear my story and they see, “OK, I can actually see a physical person. I can see your face. I can hear your name. And so, this baby that is aborted grows up to be someone just like you.”
And so, they can really grasp onto that and identify with that. And it helps to put a face with what the issue of abortion is really dealing with, and I found that a lot of people do change their minds after seeing an abortion survivor.
Trinko: So, what do you think pro-lifers should be doing right now?
Culwell: I firmly believe that we need to speak love and truth and have our actions speak louder than words. You’ve heard that before. But I think that there are so many different movements that people can grasp onto and just different ways of approaching the life issue, but if you’re in prayer and if you’re speaking truth and love, and you’re reaching out to these women in love and telling them that we can help them, you can’t go wrong.
I think that every single woman or man or family that is entering into an abortion clinic and considering abortion is looking for a sign and looking for a way out.
And if you can imagine somebody holding out graphic signs and yelling, that’s not as welcoming, right? It may not be wrong, necessarily, but someone that is lovingly saying, “I’m here for you. I can help you.”
That is what women are looking for and what will help them choose life and feel empowered, because that’s what women need to feel. And that’s what we need to be voicing to them, is that they’re strong enough not just to have a career, but to have a family and continue on with their life and continue on with their career, because women are strong enough and capable of doing all those things.
Trinko: So, we’ve seen a surge in abortion extremism in the past year. Several states either passed or looked at passing laws that would have allowed abortion up to birth.
How do you as an abortion survivor feel about that, and how do you feel when so many liberal politicians seem willing to say that? “Yes. Anytime up until the very moment of birth it is OK to end this child’s life.”
Culwell: I remember what it felt like when New York lit up the Empire State Building pink in celebration of a woman’s right to choose late-term abortion. To me, all these people were celebrating this, and they thought it was this incredible thing. And then I’m standing there, and there’s other women just like me who have survived abortions or have had abortions themselves, and we’re standing there thinking, “Do they not see me? Do they not hear what I’ve been through? Do they not feel how abortion has hurt me?”
And so, when politicians and when states are celebrating these late-term abortion rights, it almost takes my breath away, because I think, “OK, they’re celebrating the right of women, and yet they’re not acknowledging mine.”
They don’t care about my right as a woman, as an unborn woman, about my right to choose. Because I definitely would not have chosen to be aborted. I definitely would not have chosen for my twin to be aborted, and for my life, my entire life, I will walk this earth as an abortion survivor when I didn’t have to. Because if my rights had been taken into consideration, I would have chosen to live.
Trinko: And you’re a mom yourself, right?
Culwell: I am.
Trinko: And what was the experience of pregnancy like for you? I mean, did it feel, I would imagine that, coming as an adopted child, it must have been a very emotional experience.
Culwell: I had an incredible childhood as an adoptee, and so, I actually have three children. I have two that I have chosen to be a mother to. I married a single dad, and so, I’ve had the privilege of raising them. And then I have one biological daughter. And so, I’ve only had one pregnancy, and that was extremely eye-opening for me, because I realized that if my life had been taken through abortion as it was meant to, as my twin was, that my little girl wouldn’t be here.
And so, I think that was the experience, the really eye-opening experience, for me was being pregnant and realizing the true domino effect that abortion has because my daughter’s life is now a miracle, too, because I lived to tell about my birth mother’s abortion.
Trinko: It’s beautiful. And I have cousins who are adopted, and we’re so grateful to their birth moms that they chose life for them, and yes, I love the way you say it, “I chose to have my daughters.”
Culwell: Adoption is such an incredible thing, and people often ask me, “Claire, why have you been able to respond in such a positive way? How have you been able to forgive your birth mother?” It truly is because of the family that I was adopted into and the way that I was raised. I knew without a doubt that my birth mother was already forgiven, and so I knew that I should forgive her, too.
Trinko: Well, thank you so much for sharing your story with us.
If you’re black, you aren’t supposed to be a conservative.
At least that’s what many African Americans say they’ve been told when they express support for President Donald Trump or reject left-wing talking points.
But at the recent Young Black Leadership Summit in the East Room of the White House, President Donald Trump gave more than 400 attendees a space to connect with like-minded peers and exchange battle stories about their experiences.
“Each of you has come to Washington for the Black Leadership Summit because you have what it takes to achieve real change on your campuses and in your communities,” Trump said in opening remarks at the Oct. 4 summit
“And to every young person: You represent America’s future. You are the best and the brightest, the bravest and boldest.”
Organized by Turning Point USA, the second annual Young Black Leadership Summit aimed to build a groundswell of support for conservative ideas within black communities across America.
Hosting attendees from 16 to 37 years old, Turning Point USA sponsored several young leaders, paying for their transportation, lodging, and meals so that they would be able to attend.
The Daily Signal spoke with five young people who attended the summit about what it means to be black and a conservative and going against the current in a world obsessed with conformity.
‘We All Have One Mission’
For Charrise Lane, 20, the summit offered a chance to meet other conservatives and hear from speakers celebrating the role African Americans have played throughout U.S. history.
“The ideology of conservatism brings everyone together,” Lane, of Orlando, Florida, says. “We all have one mission: to have people start embracing being pro-America, and being pro-God, and being pro-family.”
In a world dominated by social media vitriol, meeting so many fellow conservatives at the White House is a breath of fresh air for student activists such as Lane.
She describes herself as part of a growing movement of black conservatives who are declaring their independence from liberal policies that historically depended on support from minority communities across the country.
With the Trump administration’s action on prison reform, abortion, urban revitalization, and the economy, Lane argues, the president is demonstrating his commitment to black Americans, despite attempts from opponents to label him a racist.
“A racist president would not invite young black leaders to the White House,” she says. “He didn’t even win with the black vote, but he’s still doing stuff for the black community.”
Events such as the Young Black Leadership Summit work to arm Lane and other young conservatives with tools to take back to their communities and use to implement conservative ideas.
And, encouraged by the unity and energy at the summit, that’s exactly what Lane says she plans to do.
“I want to be an attorney for a few years then go back home,” Lane says about what she hopes to do after she graduates college. “I want to run as a representative or something like that, because I want to give back to my community. I feel like coming from that type of community you need to go back and you need to do what’s right on behalf of your people.”
The Good, the Bad, and the Internet
A major tool for spreading conservative ideas to younger generations and minorities, of course, is social media.
“Traditionally, conservatives have not launched a big enough effort to be able to win over the black community,” says Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who hopes to help change this by using the internet and modern messaging.
But for conservative social media influencers such as Shekinah Geist, 21, of Greeley, Colorado, advocating conservative ideas online can be a double-edged sword.
Geist says she initially was dismayed by the amount of backlash she received on social media because of her political beliefs. But her online activism also connected her to a community of like-minded individuals–not to mention the White House invitation she received because of her online presence.
“I love being a social media influencer,” Geist says. “I truly believe that social media is a great outlet for this next generation in getting them involved.”
Now, Geist partners with Turning Point USA as an ambassador, promoting the organization’s work while using the platform as a way to expand her online presence. Turning Point ambassadors include writers, speakers, and artists who spread the message of conservatism using modern media.
On online platforms such as Twitter and Instagram, Geist argues for Trump administration policies she says have been instrumental in helping minority communities in America. Among them: urban revitalization and opportunity zones that provide tax incentives for businesses in low-income neighborhoods.
“I think it’s really amazing that he’s putting together a team that knows what it’s like to live in these inner cities that have come directly out of poverty,” Geist says of Trump, adding that the administration is working to “target these areas that are being left behind.”
But for Geist, it isn’t all about race. She uses social media to share her values and core beliefs with others, hoping to form a digital community founded on traditional principles.
“I was never raised to see racism as a major threat in my life,” Geist says. “I was always raised to never be a victim of my circumstances.”
“This country gives you opportunities if you’re willing to work hard,” she adds.
The Real Racism
It’s no secret that African Americans get plenty of backlash for supporting conservative policies, and many of the speakers at the Young Black Leadership Summit talked about how to deal with attacks from the left.
One attendee who wasn’t afraid to hit back against attempts to generalize all African Americans as monolithic liberals was public speaker and social media influencer Kingface–a stage name he adopted for his advocacy work and public outreach.
“Liberals are literally being racist to our face blatantly,” Kingface says. “I’m supposed to think the way you think I’m supposed to think because of the color of my skin? Are you serious?”
“Racism has been exposed through Trump being president,” he adds. “He’s exposed the real racism.”
A New York City resident, Kingface, 37, is clear that his race comes second to his patriotism and stresses the importance of free thinking in politics. He cites gun regulations and the prevalence of abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods as reasons to push back against left-wing policies.
He says he has received his fair share of hatred for his political beliefs, but argues that it’s all part of the process to win over hearts and minds and expose the truth.
“When you go through things you’re not being punished, you’re being prepared,” Kingface says. “I’m not a political genius. The only thing I know is the truth and that’s Donald Trump.”
“And that’s the bottom line.”
‘It Felt Like a God Moment’
When asked what was the best part of the Young Black Leadership Summit, many attendees cite the moment a young Ethiopian woman offered an impromptu prayer for Trump and the conservative movement in America.
“I’m a very shy person, such an introvert,” Mahalet Krause Skibinski, 21, says. “I never imagined myself being on the stage at all.”
Born in Ethiopia and adopted when she was 11, Krause Skibinski now lives in Valparaiso, Indiana. She tells how she felt jittery on her way to the White House for the summit. Toward the end of the event, she surprised even herself by asking fellow conservatives to pray.
When Trump heard her from the audience, he helped her onstage.
Krause Skibinski then led the room in a prayer in which she thanked God for the blessings of America and called for faith to be brought back into the public square.
“It was such an awkward thing. I felt so unprofessional because that’s such a professional stage and you don’t go up there to do a silly prayer, but it really was something from the heart,” she says. “It felt like a God moment.”
Mahalet was born in Ethiopia. Abandoned by her parents, she lived as an impoverished orphan.
Mahalet was adopted by a loving, Christian American family at 11.
Krause Skibinski talks about her struggles as a child in Ethiopia, an experience she says helps her appreciate American values.
“Coming from such a horrible background, being an orphan and having a broken family–also a hard-working family–I just really respect this place,” she says. “I am privileged just being in America.”
Krause Skibinski goes on to warn that many Americans have become blind to the presence of evil in the world, highlighting the importance of integrating faith back into politics.
“For me, it’s all about God and bringing God into the conversation within this country,” she says. “I believe that we are going to have a revival.”
Thinking More Deeply
Jamarcus Dove-Simmons, 17, a high school student from Spartanburg, South Carolina, explains how difficult it can be to have an open mind as a young adult when your friends and family disagree with your beliefs.
According to the prevailing narrative, if you’re black, you must be Democrat.
“I grew up in a heavily Democratic household,” Dove-Simmons says. “At the end of seventh grade, that narrative started to fall apart in my life.”
After checking off “Democrat” for a class assignment about which political party students align with, a teacher challenged Dove-Simmons to explain his decision.
“I said, ‘I don’t know. I’m black, so I’m a Democrat,’” he recalls.
He went home that night and researched American history and the two-party system, and was surprised to find that he had strong conservative inclinations.
As the 2016 election approached, Dove-Simmons found himself increasingly drawn to Trump’s connection with everyday people.
“It made me feel a sense of hope and belonging,” Dove-Simmons says about meeting other young conservatives at a White House event during Black History Month. “After I left the White House, I got in the car and I said, ‘Mom, I’m not the only one.’”
Dove-Simmons says many false narratives are fed to black communities in America, including misinformation about law enforcement.
“I don’t jump the gun and say the cop was racially profiling them; I like to dig deeper into the story,” he says about recent cases of police shootings of black men.
But no matter the issue, Dove-Simmons says, he plans to “preach the truth about conservatism” long after Trump leaves office.
For all this talk about conservatism within the black community, one thing remains clear: It’s impossible to generalize. Individuals bring their own perspectives to bear on these values, defining them along unique personal lines.
There’s a reason why the #Blexit movement–the “black exit” from the Democratic Party of African Americans who reject leftist groupthink–has been gaining traction.
No group of people should be treated as an electoral statistic, summit attendees agree, and by embracing conservative values, many find individual freedom coupled with a strong sense of unity.
“The message of freedom and liberty is one that all communities should be hearing,” Turning Point USA’s Kirk says, arguing that black neighborhoods across America have been “sorely disaffected by these lefist policies of big government, failing public schools, dangerous streets, the war on cops, and fatherlessness.”
And if you ask these outspoken young leaders, they’ll tell you that the election of Donald Trump was just the first step toward improving the lives of those back home.
“I keep coming across people from all across this country that believe in the same thing that I do,” Krause Skibinski says.
“God has a rescue plan for us from all this mess.”