Don Lemon doubles down on racist comments

November 02, 2018

Rob Kim/Getty Images for Blue Jacket

WRITER

Don Lemon took a little heat this week for saying this. Watch:

CNN's Don Lemon Tells Chris Cuomo: "Biggest Terror Threat In This Country Is White Men"youtu.be

Probably one of the most racist things I've ever heard on cable news. It was one of the most contradictory statements I think you could ever dream up. We need to stop demonizing people… but, oh yeah, those white people!

RELATED: TERRIFYING: White men are the stuff of Don Lemon's nightmares

So the backlash, as it should have, began to pile up. And where was CNN executive Jeff Zucker? I mean, he was quick to demonize Donald Trump for calling him "Fake News" after the world's worst pipe bomber sent his network a fake bomb. He was Johnny on the spot. But when one of his employees labels an entire race as terrorists? Silence.

Well, on Halloween, we finally got a response from Don Lemon. But instead of an apology, we got a double down. Watch:

"Let's put emotion aside, and look at the cold, hard facts. The evidence is overwhelming."@DonLemon presents the facts on domestic terrorism.#DonsTake https://t.co/PpH9t4Trvp pic.twitter.com/v3qDglsLaL
— CNN Tonight (@CNNTonight) November 1, 2018

So in other words, "Sorry, but not sorry."

And I'm sorry Don, but your "overwhelming cold hard facts" are flawed. And these flawed "facts" have already been used recently by Cory Booker to basically say and do the same thing: to demonize and lay blame on one specific race of people, which is typically called - oh I don't know - oh yeah… RACISM!

Both Cory Booker and Don Lemon are primarily quoting from a Government Accountability Office report on Countering Violent Extremism. And since Lemon alluded to these "cold hard facts" but didn't really give any context, I guess I'll do it for him.

During his "sorry not sorry" mea culpa refusal, Lemon quoted the GAO report finding that from September 12, 2001 until the end of 2016, there have been 85 extremist attacks. 73% of those documented attacks were committed by right wingers. So case closed then? Are Cory Booker and Don Lemon right?

Well, if you actually look at the listed attacks you'll see a few… peculiarities. It's very obvious from Lemon's rant that he was talking about domestic terrorism, but the GAO report lists cases that don't have anything AT ALL to do with domestic terrorism. The GAO counted every single case where a fatality occurred and the attacker had an affiliation with a right wing or white supremacist affiliation. Those attacks include prison murders and gang violence where race, religion or sexual orientation weren't even the motive. One case included in the report listed a member of a white supremacist street gang that killed his own father.

You heard that correctly. The report that Cory Booker and Don Lemon are using to show that white people are the most dangerous terror threat, includes prison and gang crime where - many times - race or bigotry wasn't even the motive. You think that might be skewing the information just a bit? And if your whole case is built around this report to try and label an entire race of people as dangerous terrorists, isn't that a little - well actually - INSANELY DISHONEST?

Don does however point out that there were more fatalities from Islamic extremists versus right wing extremists. Right wingers killed 106 people, as documented in the GAO, and jihadists killed 119. And I also found that even more interesting considering that the GAO didn't include attacks unless there was a fatality. There were multiple attacks from Islamic extremists that either didn't show up because they didn't kill anyone, or they were foiled by the FBI before they could attack.

False narratives and propaganda are only successful when the questioning stops and we fail to do our own homework.

But the GAO doesn't show that information. Now if you're going to call all white people terrorists, you might wanna have more information to back it up than a flawed study that includes prison and gang violence. So, I went to the Department of Homeland Security. From 2001 to 2013 there were 53 Islamic terror attacks that were foiled by law enforcement. From 2014 to 2016, just with ISIS alone, there were 101 foiled attacks. So during the span of the GAO study that Don Lemon is quoting from, there were 154 foiled Islamic terror attacks! That's more attacks than the GAO even reported. Combining right wing attacks AND Islamic terror attacks, and even including prison and gang violence, they only reported 85 incidents. Jihadists tried to attack us 154 times!

Now, unlike Booker and Lemon, I'm not stating these facts to try and demonize. I'm not labeling all Muslims as terrorists. That would be irresponsible. But even MORE irresponsible is going on national cable TV, on a supposed "NEWS" network, and using tailored facts to have people ignore one threat while, at the same time, demonize an entire race of people. False narratives and propaganda are only successful when the questioning stops and we fail to do our own homework. It's never been more dangerous than right now for us to fail at doing both.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Don Lemon doubles down on racist commentsyoutu.be

Without civic action, America faces collapse

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.