It Appears the Accusation of 'R#cist' Is Dying a Death It Should've Died Long Ago

It Appears the Accusation of 'R#cist' Is Dying a Death It Should've Died Long Ago

Brandon MorseFollow @TheBrandonMorse

RoschetzkyIstockPhoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I always thought the accusation of "racism" was overblown, and I'm pretty sure the majority of people would agree. The word's been used to convince people that the Ku Klux Klan was hiding behind every corner, and that all it took was one person slighting a black person once to start a series of violent and horrific events that would have them put back in chains. 

Joe Biden's words, not mine. 

For me, the accusation was annoying. Any conversation that pertained to race was immediately dismissed, and fingers were plugged into ears if the subject wasn't approached with either extreme caution or reverence. Skin color was a holy subject one must never discuss without the proper measure of obeisance. 

I don't know when the accusation truly started to lose steam, but I can be sure that it became pretty obvious it didn't have the effect it once did after Elon Musk bought Twitter and freed it from gatekeepers. Suddenly, the people screaming racist things at everyone weren't so loud. The media's "everyone who isn't in agreement with us is racist" schtick started to lose steam, now that they were being mocked at every turn for their hyperbolic race-baiting. 

From there, it's all been downhill for the accusation. People had clearly had enough of the word being used to destroy and manipulate. Black Lives Matter had definitely beaten the term to death. Nowadays, it seems that accusation is a fast way to lose credibility, not empower you, and make your opponents into automatic bad guys like it once did. 

Recommended

Uh-Oh: 'Moronic and Daft' Sunny Hostin Just Got a Savage Legal Threat From Nolan Wells' FriendsTeri Christoph'Fiction and Lies': Trump Kicks Out Three Legacy Media Outlets From WH, Then Doubles DownWard Clark

But now I'm seeing the term reach a real breaking point. 

As I commented on Monday, a massive online war broke out about race, and this time, it wasn't just between the left and the right; it was between Republicans and conservatives. As I reported, a video from the University of Texas showed the end of its game against Ohio. When the camera spun around, it showed a crowd almost entirely composed of Indian males. 

Now, clearly, this was just one section, and the majority of the University of Texas is not composed of Indian migrants, but the number of them was vast and deep enough that it caused many who were already concerned about the H-1B visa problem to lose it. The comments started pouring in, especially from Texans, and these Texans were greeted with accusations of racism, not just from the left, but from fellow conservatives and even Republican elected officials. 

As a Texan who lives in one of the areas being affected by the massive influx of Indians and Middle Easterners, I couldn't help but find myself siding with the people speaking out against this immigration issue, only to find the accusations of racism being lobbed against them for it, making me angry personally. I wrote this post to hopefully explain that this concern wasn't racism; it was more about an unwanted, unlooked-for cultural shift. 

And, you guessed it. I was called racist. There was no racism involved, but I was still greeted with the accusation. 

To be honest, I expected it, but it did prove something: that the word has no meaning anymore. When the accusation hit me, I honestly didn't care. I didn't feel the need to defend myself or point out why my position has nothing to do with racism. I was perfectly content with having the accusation lobbed at me because, in my mind, the person doing the accusing seemed automatically stupid to me. 

Stupid because they didn't give any critical thought to the concepts I laid out. They just saw I was saying something about why this kind of immigration is bad, and immediately associated it with a hatred for a skin color. 

And if the accusation is coming from inside the Republican House, then how much less seriously are we going to take it? If even our elected officials who said they're listening to us have proven they aren't listening to us, and even accusing us of something the left usually does when it's trying to pull a fast one, then how is that going to make us care about the accusation at all?

I think racism exists. Spend 24 hours on X, and you'll see it does, and in various forms. But I think we've reached a point where our greater society just doesn't care, because the accusation has been used on innocent people so much that it means absolutely nothing.

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2026/09/18/it-appears-the-accusation-of-racist-is-dying-a-death-it-shouldve-died-long-ago-n2206962?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

What Do You Do With H#te?

What Do You Do With H#te?

by Kevin McCullough

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

"You should get killed on the spot."

That was waiting in my Facebook inbox, tucked between a listener asking about the show and somebody’s grandmother sharing a Bible verse.

The writer called me a liar. A propagandist. Several other things unfit for a family newspaper. He said he hoped somebody would “take care” of me and my team. Then he promised the death penalty was on its way.

I read it once.

Then I read it again.

Recommended

The Fantasy House of Mark CarneyVictor Davis HansonArkansas Dem: I'd Trade Five Americans for One Illegal AlienMatt Vespa

The first time, I read it as a broadcaster who has spent years receiving insults from strangers. Fourteen-plus million impressions a month will introduce you to plenty of people who don’t like you.

The second time, I read it as a husband, a father, and a man responsible for people who work alongside me.

That felt different.

Suddenly this wasn’t simply another guy pounding angrily on his keyboard. He had mentioned my team. My mind moved immediately to the people I love. I wondered whether this was merely ugliness or something more serious.

Then the anger came.

I wish I could tell you my first reaction was spiritual. It wasn’t.

Part of me wanted to post his name and picture and let my audience handle the rest. I could have turned thousands of people loose on him before lunch. I even could have convinced myself that I was doing something righteous — that humiliating him publicly was simply another form of accountability.

But it wouldn’t have been.

It would have been revenge with better branding.

So what is a Christian actually supposed to do when somebody says he wants you dead?

First, Christians are not commanded to be stupid.

I saved the message. I reported it. I blocked the account. If authorities need to become involved, they will. Scripture does not ask me to gamble with the safety of my family or staff to prove I trust God. Forgiveness does not eliminate boundaries. Mercy does not erase consequences. And loving an enemy does not require giving him continued access to your life.

But after the report is filed and the account is blocked, there is still something left to confront.

Me.

What am I going to permit this man to produce inside my own heart?

Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

I have read those words countless times. They sound beautiful in a sermon. They are considerably less comfortable when the enemy has just described your death.

Jesus never pretended enemies weren’t real. He didn’t call evil a misunderstanding. He didn’t tell His followers to ignore danger or abandon justice. He told us to do something much harder: to see the person committing the evil as someone who still bears the image of God.

So I began to pray for the man who wrote the message.

Not eloquently.

Not warmly.

And not because I suddenly felt affection for him.

I prayed because obedience sometimes has to begin before the feelings arrive. I prayed because if I waited until I wanted to do it, I might never do it. I prayed because I know what hatred does to a human heart, and I did not want his hatred taking up residence in mine.

Paul wrote, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

That is not a decorative verse. It is a battlefield command.

Being overcome by evil doesn’t only mean becoming its victim. It can also mean allowing someone else’s evil to reproduce itself in you. He sends hatred; you return hatred. He dehumanizes you; you dehumanize him. He wants a mob; you gather a larger one.

Soon everyone is speaking the same language, and nobody looks much like Jesus.

This man believes I deserve to die.

Here is the part of the Gospel that levels both of us: apart from Christ, I do.

Not because his accusations are true. They aren’t. But the Gospel does not sort humanity into respectable people who deserve mercy and monsters who don’t. He is a sinner. So am I. We both stand guilty before a holy God, incapable of talking our way out of the verdict.

“The wages of sin is death.”

That sentence has no exemption for radio hosts, conservatives, churchgoers, or people who believe they are on the correct side of an argument.

But the verse does not end there.

“The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Jesus did not curse the men driving nails through His hands. He prayed, “Father, forgive them.”

That was not weakness. He could have called legions of angels. Instead, He willingly bore the judgment of the very people mocking Him. That is power under perfect control. It is also the standard I cannot meet without His help.

So I will keep telling the truth. On the air. In this column. Everywhere God gives me a microphone.

A death threat does not get a vote on my convictions.

But neither does it give me permission to abandon them.

I will not ask God to destroy this man. I will ask God to rescue him.

I hope the rage that produced those words is interrupted by grace. I hope he discovers that political fury cannot heal whatever is broken beneath it. I hope he meets the same Jesus who stopped Saul on the road to Damascus.

Saul was “breathing threats and murder” against Christ’s followers. The early believers had every human reason to want him gone.

God wanted him redeemed.

Saul became Paul — not because his evil didn’t matter, but because the grace of God was greater than it.

That is what makes the Christian response different. We seek justice without craving vengeance. We establish boundaries without surrendering compassion. We tell the truth about evil while remembering that no human being is beyond the reach of Christ.

So, to the man who wants me dead: I do not hate you. I will not threaten you back. I do hope you are held accountable for whatever danger you pose.

But even more, I hope you are changed.

You wished death on me.

I offer you the One who died for both of us — and rose again so that neither death nor hatred gets the final word.

Oh, HONEY: Lefty Phone Banker Roasted for Whining That Voters Keep Asking Her About Hasan Piker

Oh, HONEY: Lefty Phone Banker Roasted for Whining That Voters Keep Asking Her About Hasan Piker

Sam J.  

Meme

A Michigan Democrat working the phones for Abdul El-Sayed wanted sympathy and instead handed Republicans a gift on X.

Heck, she handed Twitchy a gift as well.

Mid-shift, she announced that multiple voters had already asked about the 9/11 Hasan Piker ads — then treated that as proof the country is broken and that Republicans are the problem. 

She went so far as to say she hates Republicans.

Because of course she does.

Recommended

'Now We Know Why'! Scott Jennings Flashes Back to What Happened on CNN When He Brought Up ActBlue

Doug P.

Trump's Second Term Will Never Survive the Latest Cringe-Worthy Celebrity 'Resistance' Video

Doug P.

The replies wrote themselves. If your candidate is getting hit with a streamer’s worst clips on YouTube, cable, and streaming, the last thing you do is complain that real people keep bringing it up. That is the ad working. She later insisted the voters “don’t care,” after documenting that they cared enough to raise it on a campaign call. 

That is not a data point. That is a volunteer explaining why the attack line is landing and daring the internet not to notice.

Seems like a good point. Heh.

And THAT'S the real issue ... heh.

https://twitchy.com/samj/2026/09/18/phone-banker-says-people-keep-asking-about-the-piker-ad-she-hates-republicans-n2432463?utm_source=twdailyamvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Clancy Holdout Juror's 'Least Surprising' Claim About Other Jurors Is Perhaps the Most Infuriating

Clancy Holdout Juror's 'Least Surprising' Claim About Other Jurors Is Perhaps the Most Infuriating

Sister ToldjahFollow @sistertoldjah

10:01 PM on September 18, 2026

AP Photo/Josh Reynolds

Though I've been called upon for jury duty many times and have been questioned by attorneys during the voir dire process for some cases, I've only ever actually been picked to serve on one.

It was a civil case, and 10 minutes after arguments began, the judge had us escorted out for a recess because the attorneys for both sides wanted to talk. When we came back, we sat for a few minutes longer before we were informed that the attorneys had reached an agreement and that our services were no longer needed.

Though I'm like most people in that I'd rather not serve on a jury, I found myself disappointed, because I've always respected and admired the process. The law/judicial process has fascinated me going back to a young age, watching the lawyers joust with each other and play to the jury, while the judge assumes the role of an exasperated referee, all while a person's fate is being decided.

But looking back on the experience, I can safely say that - whether it had been a high-profile civil trial or a criminal trial - had we had to sit through days or weeks of testimony and, in the end, were not able to unanimously agree on a verdict, I would not ever have trashed my fellow jurors who disagreed with me in the event I decided to go public with my thoughts about the trial.

As a human being and an American, I am absolutely disgusted with what's played out in the aftermath of the mistrial that was declared in the Lindsay Clancy case, where some of the self-righteous female jurors have stepped forth to give us their opinions not on just the lawyers' "styles" but also on the lone holdout juror.

Recommended

Team Trump Releases the List CNN Wishes Didn't Exist: A Staggering Tally of Failure and DeceptionBob HogeThe Blue Wave May Be Here, but the Senate Still Looks Immune to ItAdam Turner

He was vilified by some of these jurors and essentially doxxed by NBC News Boston for the apparent crime of coming to a different conclusion than the other 11 jurors as to whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible for admittedly killing her three young children. Because he had voted the "wrong way," he was bound to be named and shamed in the court of public opinion, which is rather fitting considering all of this has taken place in Massachusetts, home of the infamous Salem witch trials.

But as a woman, I am infuriated by how these women have presented themselves as the true "experts" on female hormonal fluctuations, postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, etc., when what they were supposed to do was to go by what the experts presented by the attorneys had to say. Further, I'm enraged that the holdout juror has had his name dragged through the mud with the insinuation made clear: Because he is a man, he is either unwilling or unable to understand the arguments Clancy's showboating attorney, Kevin Reddington, made in her defense.

What evidence do they have of this? None. It's just their biased opinion, and one the mainstream media have treated as factual because, of course, they have.

In rushing to the press the way they did and then making the feministic comments some of them did about how “We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women," I'm outraged that some of these jurors appear to have abused their role as a juror to do a bit of female social justice warrioring, to "start conversations" on behalf of future generations of women.

As my colleague Kyle Becker has repeatedly pointed out, that is not what trials are supposed to be about. They are supposed to be about listening to the witnesses, the evidence, the experts, the attorneys, the law, and then deliberating in good faith as to where you stand.

It's hardly a surprise that the holdout juror is not only now speaking out himself, but that he's hired his own attorney. One doesn't even have to view juror Michael P. Desronvil as a "hero" or a "maverick" to understand why he felt the need to go on record and counter the various narratives that were being spouted about what allegedly happened during deliberations.

One of the persistent claims some of the female jurors have made is that Desronvil did have reasonable doubt, a statement made ahead of the mistrial being declared that had Reddington spinning like a top in the courtroom.

Except Desronvil disputes that. And not only does he dispute that, but he also alleged that some of the other jurors kept cutting him off as he tried to explain himself and his position:

As X user Western Lensman observed, that was the "least surprising" thing we've learned about these jurors, all things considered:

I wonder how many of these women are AWFLs? When one takes into account that they are based in Massachusetts, it's not going out on a limb to speculate that at least some of them are.

Women are giving other women a bad name, from the Mangione fangirling to the Clancy fanaticism. This is not just embarrassing, but it's also setting us all back, and not just us but the country, too. It's not that we haven't seen this scenario play out before during a murder trial; it just seems to be happening with increasing frequency, and with no end in sight.

Beyond that, there is something deeply offensive about how these women have behaved, all in the name of sticking by the so-called "sisterhood":

Profoundly un-American indeed.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2026/09/18/clancy-holdout-jurors-least-surprising-claim-about-other-jurors-is-perhaps-the-most-infuriating-n2207110?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-MAfxbb5aFm&utm_term=&_nlid=MAfxbb5aFm&_nhids=ncM71FPrSEqbls