Jeff Sessions wasn’t racist for using the term “Anglo-American heritage,” but the outrageous outrage over it is progressive politics at its most disgusting.
I am sure you have heard about this. A few days ago, CNN breathlessly highlighted in a report that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech to the National Sheriff’s Association, said
Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process. The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.
Our neo-Marxist proggies went nuts. Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote: “Do you know anyone who says “Anglo-American heritage” in a sentence? What could possibly be the purpose of saying that other than to pit Americans against each other? . . .” Others followed suit, the most obscene being California’s current Lt. Gov. and likely its next governor, Gavin Newsom. He wrote: “Reminder that our Attorney General is an outright racist who wants us all to acknowledge our ‘Anglo-American’ heritage.”
Referring to our “Anglo-American” heritage in respect to government and the law is not merely common, it is the norm. It is one of the fundamental truths of our nation. And while truth may sometimes be uncomfortable, it can never racist.
As Powerline points out, there are multiple examples of Con Law Professor turned President Obama referring to our “Anglo-American legal system.” And, as Powerline also points out, Lawrence Tribe, a well-known progressive attorney, in an act of supreme hypocrisy, tweeted his agreement with Sen. Schatz. Yet only a few years ago, Tribe, writing in the Washington Post used the same “Anglo-American” description to make the argument that British law of the 1600’s acted to limit the power of our President today. What a disingenuous putz.
What Schatz, Newsom, and Tribe are doing is all part and parcel of the progressive neo-Marxist’s project to fundamentally alter our nation without going through the democratic processes specified in Article V of the Constitution. Here is how it works: One, paint the Constitution as a racist, and thus make it a fundamentally illegitimate document undeserving of protection. Two, disconnect the Constitution from its historical roots — roots which are anything but racist. Three, because those roots are Anglo-Saxon, play the race card to delegitimize anyone (not a neo-Marxist proggie) who would refer to them. [Read more…]