Is President Trump A Racist?

(wikimedia commons)

No. He's not.

Oh, he is, you say? I'm wrong then? Okay, well show me how you know that he is racist. Give me examples of his behavior that illustrate racism.

Oh, wait - I think I know what you're going to say. He said that immigrants were rapists and drug dealers, right? And the immigrants he was referring to were Mexican, right, so he is racist, right?

According to reporter Ryan Gorman of The Daily Mail.com, about 60% of illegal female immigrants face some kind of sexual violence during their migration from their home countries to the United States. (The Daily Mail.com, 25 April 2014) Of course, Gorman includes the fact that these attacks "have even been at the hands of at least one U.S. Border Patrol agent". Trust me, if he could find more than the one case, he would have listed them.

No, the vast majority of these en-route sexual assaults are perpetrated by coyotes, the "guides" who are paid to get the migrants to the U.S., and by fellow migrants. These would be primarily Mexicans and Central Americans. The Huffington Post, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, puts the estimated number of victimes at 80% of girls and women crossing into the United States. (huffingtonpost.com, 12 Sept. 2014) So yes, many Mexicans bringing illegal immigrants to our borders as well as some of the immigrants themselves are rapists. No racism there!

(wikimedia commons)

And drug smugglers? The venerated New York Times reports that in 2016 "about two million pounds of illegal drugs were seized by Customs and Border Protection". (Drew Jordan and Mark Scheffler, nytimes.com, 25 July 2017) Because it has grown so rapidly and expanded so much in recent years, the illegal drug industry has actually become vital to the Mexican economy. Worth now over $50 billion per year, it is estimated that Mexico's economy would shrink by more than 60% were the drug traffickers to be put out of business. (drug trafficking statistics/drugabuse.net, 2017) So yes, there are a significant number of Mexicans coming to our borders who are smuggling drugs. No racism there either!

It is true that the way in which Donald Trump chose to describe many of the problems coming to the U.S. along with illegal immigrants from Mexico was not particularly well stated or well clarified at the time. But a clumsy delivery of fact does not amount to racism.

Well what about the "Muslim ban", you say? Trump is a racist because he doesn't want Muslims to come to our country, right? Again, Trump's statement that we need to stop Muslims from entering the U.S. until a proper vetting process could be developed and implemented was poorly worded. By saying "Muslims", he clearly meant individuals from primarily Muslim countries. If he meant to ban Muslims, he would not have listed only the countries that were in the initial temporary ban proposal. Certainly he would have included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Wouldn't he?

As it was, the initial plan banned travel by individuals from countries which are either in such turmoil that accessing any reliable records for its citizens is impossible and/or those that have harbored terrorists or sponsored terrorism. That they were all countries with a majority Muslim population is true. But nearly all terrorism in recent years has been at the hands of Muslim extremists! It follows, then, that Trump's responsibility to protect U.S. citizens from future terrorist attacks was the focus of his temporary ban. So I guess that makes sense, correct? No racism there.

But oh, what about when he said that a Mexican-American judge couldn't be impartial because he was Mexican? Surely THAT proves him to be a racist, right? Sorry, wrong again. Donald never said that he was a poor judge simply because he was Mexican-American. What he implied was that because Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel was of Mexican heritage (his parents emigrated from Mexico in the 1920's), and that Trump was embroiled in controversy over his proposal to build a wall to block illegal immigration from Mexico, he could have a conflict of interest in dealing with the case against Trump University.

Whether Judge Curiel was conflicted or not, it was certainly not unreasonable to pose the question, was it? — especially given how front and center the issue of the wall was at that precise moment in the political discourse. Be honest now, if it were you who were to be judged by someone who may reasonably be supposed to have a conflict of interest, wouldn't you at least bring it up? So again, no racism.

Well, Donald Trump is a white supremacist, isn't he? Doesn't he support the views held by David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan? Nope. There are numerous tapes out there, from before his candidacy as well as during the campaign, where Trump denounces, in no uncertain terms, both David Duke and the Klan and, in fact, all white supremacist nonsense. 

But I guess that doesn't count, because he didn't immediately jump out after the Charlottesville riot and use the precise wording that his opponents wanted to hear to denounce the activity of racist groups at that event. 

That he was said to "walk back" his clarifying statement on the incident by reiterating that not everyone there was a bad person, ignores that he was referring to the presence of some of the protesters in Charlottesville that day, who were not white supremacists, but merely wanted to prevent the statue of Robert E. Lee from being removed, for historical purposes. He wasn't implying that the white nationalist element were the decent people. And he was correct that "both sides" had a part in the instigation of violence. Some Antifa members arrived at the protest with cement-filled cans, baseball bats and improvised flame-throwers, some even possessed semiautomatic weapons. (Chris Mondics/ The Inquirer Daily News 16 August 2017)

Once again, Trump is not skilled in the exacting communication of the polished politician. He has, perhaps, a flawed understanding of how vital each word chosen and voiced can be, especially under the hostile microscope of the American press. Donald Trump is a plain spoken, brash and bold New Yorker. He pretty much says what goes through his mind and is not good at filtering his thoughts so that the words that come out are the most likely to be understood as they are meant.

I would agree that this is not a commendable characteristic for a president. In fact, I wish he'd get coaching in this area, as these skills can be learned. Certainly, his rough-hewn speech is not helpful to himself as a newly minted politician. But neither does it reflect any kind of racism on his part.

In addition, not one person who has personally known Donald Trump over the years has ever accused him of any sort of racial slur or of behaving with any kind of racial animosity or bias towards anyone. Even Geraldo Rivera, a far leftie who has known Trump for decades, swears that all this talk of Trump holding racist views is totally and entirely false.

Not to mention that Trump was awarded, along with others such as Muhammed Ali and Rosa Parks, the Ellis Island Award in 1986 at the 100th anniversary of the Statue of Liberty's dedication. Meant to honor leaders who "exemplify a life dedicated to community service", among other criteria, Trump had his photo taken at the ceremony with Ali and Parks. Hardly a plausible scenario for a racist, but this event is apparently forgotten.

Thirteen years later, Trump was highly lauded by none other than self-appointed black leader Jesse Jackson, in praise of a lifetime of helping the African American community with the Rainbow-PUSH coalition. Again, this has been conveniently swept under the proverbial rug.

We know that "racist" is the accusation hurled by the left at anyone who disagrees with their dogma (especially after attempts to prove "Russian collusion" fail). Because it is such a horrific charge, even the act of denying that one is a racist can permanently mar the reputation of that individual, a truth that liberals are acutely aware of and, in fact, count on. 

Not that words don't matter, since we have seen here that they clearly do, but what matters even more than words are actions and behavior, wouldn't you agree? Who then, are the true racists in America today? Why not take a moment to examine the state of our cities' black communities these days, as opposed to prior to the implementation of decades of liberal policy? 

Those cities which have been run almost exclusively by democrats for decades show a sharp decline in nearly every quality of life measure in their African-American populations. These include Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Newark and, of course, Chicago, where 323 people died of gun violence in the first six months of 2017. (christianpost.com, 7 July 2017) A majority of those deaths were black young men.

You would think that liberals would be horrified at what their policies have resulted in, would be jumping up and down to make the changes necessary to turn these deplorable (yes, deplorable) trends around. But, despite their dismal failure at "helping" African-Americans in the cities that they run, liberals continue to call for the same policies to be continued and for more money to be poured into more of the same sorts of programs that have led, over and over again, to disastrous results and worsening conditions for their black communities. Then they hold out their hands for votes, in the belief that their African-American constituents will surely want more of their "help".

So who are the real racists in America today? I'll tell you one thing—

it ain't Donald Trump.

Kat