Happy Thursday, everybody. So, some breaking news. The Supreme Court has ruled that race-based affirmative action programs are unconstitutional. It's been around for 45 years. And I guess one of the justices finally read the Constitution for the first time yesterday and was like, "Whoa." True, it's been a while since the Supreme Court treated the Constitution as anything but a paper towel for when Biden spills his Ensure. And the reason for the change is also the reason for tonight's monologue. It's been over 150 years since America banned slavery. But here is an interesting fact that folks at Reuters just dug up. I love Reuters. A lot of powerful people in the U.S., including our living presidents, Supreme Court justices, governors and legislators descended from slave owners. That includes Republicans – Mitch McConnell. I'd say he took it on the chin, but we all know that's not possible.
But also Lindsey Graham, James Lankford and Tom Cotton. Cotton, his name sort of gave that away. That's if... If he ever ran for president he should not use the slogan 'pick cotton,' not going to work in the cities. All right. And if those old White men didn't surprise you. How about Dems Tammy Duckworth, Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, and Liz Warren? Right. That's got to be tough for those women of color, right? Liz Warren must be asking how? How? How is this possible? But the fun part – Every living president is a descendant of slaveowners. Well, except one. And can you guess which president is free of that ancestral shame? No, not that one.
His ancestors owned slaves and boy did reparations just get awkward. And no, definitely not this one.
FORMER BLACK PANTHER ANGELA DAVIS SHOCKED TO LEARN SHE IS A DESCENDANT OF THE MAYFLOWER
His ancestors owned slaves too, though to be fair, Joe was just a child at the time. So who's the exception? It's true. DJT is the only one whose ancestors never owned slaves. Although he was rude to some of his apprentices. I'll give him that. And he's the guy the media had dubbed the biggest racist in the history of racist. Right? Does it matter now? Well, it mattered to Reuters or they wouldn't have done all that research.
They wouldn't have thrown rocks at all those family trees, hoping to dislodge some of that sweet and juicy race bait. The media craves it the way hungry bears crave a beehive full of honey. Or the way Brian Stelter craves a beehive full of honey. So why isn't this a bigger deal that Trump's ancestors are clean? It seems newsworthy. I mean, remember, during the 2012 presidential election, there was a big news story about Rick Perry's hunting ranch. It had a rock with a racial slur painted on it, which his family painted over in the 80s. Perry had nothing to do with it. The sin was committed before he was even born. Yet somehow the media treated it as evidence that he was a racist. But then every Republican running for office is accused of racism, even if they're not white. Merely belonging to the party that freed the slaves is evidence that you want to bring back slavery, according to the freakish media.
That's why they can call Larry Elder a white supremacist. Instead of giving credit for who he really is – a powerful spokesman for Relief Factor. Of course, when you point out that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and passed Jim Crow laws that kept the South so segregated, you'd think it was Martha's Vineyard-- they'll tell you that today's Democratic Party is way different now. Cool. Then why can't the rest of America use that same defense? Because clearly, they're different from that era as well. Except it never works out that way, does it?
DEMOCRATS SEEK REPARATIONS, ‘NATIONAL APOLOGY’ FOR SLAVERY: ‘WE ARE MOVING CLOSER’
Why doesn't Trump get any credit here? I mean, the worst thing his family ever bought and sold were buildings. Not one human ever. If slavery is a foundational evil, if we're all expected to repent for sins that were committed generations before we were born, why doesn't that guy get any extra credit? You don't have to like Trump or even think he should be reelected. But you gotta admit, it's pretty weird that all those journalists did all that work to dig up so many facts about powerful Americans, and they only mention Trump's clean hands in passing.
I guess it's just a coincidence that the party of slavery and the people who vote for that party try to paint the one guy who sat in the White House who has no connection to slavery as the worst bigot ever. And when facts don't fit that assumption, it's just best to move on.
So the media claims to want to remind us of our history, except when that history actually reflects well on somebody they decided is the face of evil. As Reuter puts it, "Establishing the grim details of the history of slavery is essential to understanding the nation's past and bridging racial divide."
What is it? Or is it just digging up ancient history to divide Americans even more? By the way, does this now make Trump exempt from reparations? I mean, he truly is the least racist president in history. The irony of that is thicker than my file in H.R.
