The question should be an easy one to answer, but apparently it's not. In fact, it appears that it's so controversial that you can't even find this interview on you tube from an original source. All you will find is Fox News' Ingram Angle clip with some snips of it, or a small clip of the CNN interview from the Independent UK.
So, What I'm going to do is give you what I can give you which is the video that I can find on Rumble (Conservative alternate to YouTube) from another news source. I would love for CNN to put out the full interview video for us to be able to watch it, but I am not sure that that will ever happen.
You can watch the Ingram Angle segment on You Tube HERE.
By defending the Congressional Black Caucus for their decision not to include Representative Byron Donalds, Brianna Keilar essentially told him that he didn't qualify for admission to the caucus because he wasn't black enough.
Oh no, she didn't use those words, but it's the "Congregational BLACK Caucus" not the "Congressional Black LIBERAL Caucus." If they want to be a liberals only club, then the name needs to change, because the name implies that the only thing needed to join the caucus is to be black. Which he is. So saying that they have reason to keep him out is essentially saying that he isn't black because of his political beliefs.
Well, I know many black conservatives, and this is the kind of attack that they face regularly. It's unimaginably cruel, and racist, and yet it'll be excused and hidden. Heck, good luck finding it anywhere but on conservative social media.
Dr. Ben Carson, LTC(r) Allen West, Dr. Tim Westley, Will Hurd, Wesley Hunt, Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice, Candace Owens and many other prominent black conservatives have all faced similar criticism, but most of the time it's been behind closed doors, or in veiled terms. That's what got everyone so upset, the fact that Representative Donalds won't let go of joining the CBC. He's calling them out for their racist behavior and they aren't happy with it.
A black man should be able to join a black caucus. The only stated reason why he can't is if he's not black. Otherwise, it's name is not truthful, nor is it reflective of the group.
Saying all black people are liberal or Democrat is like saying they can all run fast or are all less intelligent than white people. It is demographically racist and flat out wrong.
But my question is this, if there are black conservatives out there, and the black caucus proports to represent ALL black people, then shouldn't they also include those black voices who are conservative in order to truly be a representative body of the concerns of black America?
Well, of course it should, but you see to do so is to admit that there are black conservatives, and that being conservative does not mean that you are not black or that you are a self hating <insert racist insult commonly used by them here>.
Such an admission threatens the power structure of the CBC, and as such, they will do whatever they can to keep their unanimous voice free from conservative views. Even if it means disenfranchising a large, and growing, number of black conservatives.
Yet you're told that only Republicans want to disenfranchise black voters and voices. Not true. Not by a long shot.
Black Conservatives are a well represented, and well respected, segment of the conservative movement and the Republican party (they aren't synonymous). Yet the media, the CBC, and the Democrats don't want you to know it, or worse, believe it, because that would mean that their domination of black culture in America is over.
That they can't have.
But yet I wonder, Mr. President, with the exclusion of BIPOC individuals who are conservative, and the stated desire to force all black elected officials to be and vote liberal, who exactly is it that wants to, "put y'all back in chains?" Mental and ideological chains are just as real, Mr. President.
Freedom is important, as Representative Donalds points out in his interview with Laura Ingraham. The freedom to think for yourself, to believe what you believe, and to be able to state it clearly and fully as a representation of ones self.
Why would the party of "tolerance" not want that? Because it isn't really tolerant at all.