Some of ya’ll might remember that a while back, America First Legal aired a television ad complaining of anti-White bigotry by the Biden administration.
It turns out that there is no such thing as anti-White bigotry, because a “fact-checker” says so…
… just kidding. But here’s what I found in a Quora space dedicated to opposing the space It’s Okay to be White (IOTBW). It’s called “Anti IOTBW:”
Indeed, the people at IOTBW do need to read it, preferably along with my observations, lest anybody be fooled.
First I’ll point out that the article does not claim to prove that there is no anti-White bigotry in the US. In fact, it doesn’t even assert that all the claims in the ad are false, just that SOME of them are false:
Radio and TV ads from a group headed by a former senior adviser to Donald Trump accuse President Joe Biden and the left of “racism against white people” and “anti-white bigotry.” But in context, some of the claims about the alleged “anti-white” policies and statements don’t hold up.
The article does point out that some of the lawsuits against the Biden administration were successful, but let’s focus on the ones that this “fact-checker” claims are false:
The TV version of the ad cites an article about that issue as the ad’s narrator claims, “Joe Biden put white people last in line for COVID relief funds.” But even in the original language of the policy, that’s not accurate, since women, veterans and economically disadvantaged people could be white people.
One wonders if these “fact-checkers” are genuinely stupid, or if they’re simply trying to mislead stupid people.
I know it’s hackneyed, but let’s reverse the races: Blacks go to the back of the line, except female, veteran and poor blacks. Meanwhile, ALL Whites go to the front of the line. Would this not be considered racial discrimination? Of course it would, because when one group gets preference by virtue of its race, while other groups need additional characteristics, it’s discriminatory.
… the radio ad says, “Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to nonwhite citizens first.” In October, we fact-checked a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and other conservative commentators and news outlets that the vice president said hurricane relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be based on race.
“Harris said … that, you know, if you have a different skin color, you’re going to get relief,” Scott said in an Oct. 2 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
The following day, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted at Harris: “Hurricanes do not discriminate. And neither should the federal government giving aid to people suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Ian. Is your husband’s life worth less bc he’s white?”
But we found that Harris’ words were being lifted out of context.
The article goes on to quote the White House press secretary, Jean-Pierre:
Jean-Pierre, Oct. 3: So that is not what the vice president said. The vice president was clearly talking about long-term investment, not FEMA aid, for hurricane response efforts. The vice president and the president have been clear that the federal government has been and will continue to be there for all Americans recovering from these devastating storms. … We are committed to quickly getting resources to all communities impacted, period, full stop. But we also know that some people, particularly in lower-income communities, have a hard time accessing that help. That’s why this administration has also made it a priority to remove barriers and ensure that everyone, regardless of their ZIP Code, can access federal resources. And that’s what she was talking about.
What des she mean by “long-term investment?” Was she talking about stocks and bonds? Infrastructure? The article doesn’t specify, but a similar Reuters “fact-check” article does:
The short clip cuts the full context of the comment, where Harris was asked about Hurricane Ian relief efforts as well as how the United States should respond to climate change impacts more broadly…
Harris continued, referencing climate-related natural disasters generally (6:04s): “The crisis is real, and the clock is ticking…the way that I think of it, is both in terms of the human toll, and I know we are all thinking about the families Florida, in Puerto Rico with Fiona, and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response in aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities, and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient, not to mention adapt, to these extreme weather conditions which are part of the future…”
Addressing Chopra Jonas’ point about disparities, Harris noted, “… it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and, and impacted by, by issues that are not of their own making … we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity. Understanding that we, we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place sometimes, we have to take into account those disparities and, and do that work…”
In other words, the truth is even WORSE than what the ad implies. Harris is saying that “equity” (IE. preference to non-Whites and women) should be a priority not only in Florida, but all over the world, not only now, but ALL THE TIME. That’s like a criminal defending himself in court by stating:
This one particular crime is not a big deal. I engage in crime all the time. In fact, it’s a lifestyle for me. It’s part of my culture.
Nobody is claiming to have evidence of specific anti-White discrimination in this case. The ad is only saying that Harris expressed an opinion that non-Whites should get preferential treatment – and this is true, but on a LARGER SCALE than one might think.
Next, the “fact-checkers” tackle Trump’s claim that Whites were to be last in line for Covid vaccines:
As for the ads’ claim that “liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color,” back in January, we fact-checked a similar claim by Trump. “The left is now rationing life-saving therapeutics based on race, discriminating against and denigrating, just denigrating, white people to determine who lives and who dies. If you’re white, you don’t get the vaccine or if you’re white, you don’t get therapeutics,” he claimed.
As we wrote then, no one was being denied access to vaccines. The White House made clear it had enough vaccine doses available to get every American fully vaccinated, including a booster shot.
The issue was about therapeutics, some of which were in limited supply, but there is no evidence that white people were being denied COVID-19 therapeutics, either. Still, Trump accused New York state of discriminating against white people, saying its prioritization policy for COVID-19 treatment during times of limited resources was “anti-American.”
Even if the issue was strictly about therapeutics, it would still constitute anti-White discrimination. However, there was a CDC decision to also give priority to non-Whites for the vaccines – and this decision was reversed after public outcry:
It’s clear that this “fact-checker” is not trying to get to the truth, but squirming, splitting hairs and obfuscating in order to advance his own ideology. The prioritization of non-Whites, for Covid treatment, is documented. An impartial fact-check would have pointed this out.
Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, whenever we see leftists using the phrase “there is no evidence that…” our reaction should be: Were there any studies that LOOKED for evidence? If the powers-that-be aren’t looking for something, then they probably won’t find it, and more often than not, they will not fund or support studies that might poke holes in their narratives.
Therefore, we should consider it likely that White people were denied Covid vaccines/treatment due to their race – until there are valid studies that LOOKED for such people, and failed to find them.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that most people will not read the entire “fact-check” article; they’ll read the headline, see that it’s fairly long, and then cite it as “evidence” that “The Trumpanzees have been lying again!” Those who DO read the entire article will see that a large chuck of it is simply describing the activities (many of them successful) of America First Legal. The article does not dispute most of the accusations, only the ones I have listed above.
Please let me know, in comments, if you find any errors. It’s a complicated subject. I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m not perfect… however, we can make this post perfect by pointing out errors, so that I can correct them.
