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

Neil Gorsuch: Why He is Unassailable as a Prospective Supreme Court Justice

Judge Neil Gorsuch (wikimedia commons)

Judge Neil Gorsuch is the perfect nominee for the Supreme Court. Why? He understands exactly what his job is... and what it is not. A concept which seems to be lost on many liberals. I can't quite tell if they're too stupid to understand the purpose of the Supreme Court, or if they are pretending they don't so they can push their liberal agenda, using the court system. Could be either.

One of the cases used to attempt to show how horribly harsh and thoughtless Judge Gorsuch is was the case of the truck driver whose rig was stuck in a snow storm on the highway in sub-zero temperatures in the middle of the night. Apparently the man radioed in and was told to stay with the rig, as was company policy, until help arrived. He waited and waited and help didn't arrive. Finally, at the point of hypothermia, the trucker left the rig to get help. He was fired for disobeying company policy and direct instructions. Judge Gorsuch sided with the company. WHAT A MEEEEEAN MAN!

Okay, liberals, now listen up. I'm going to try to explain how a judge operates (or should) using the absurd to illustrate. Ready? Okay, suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there was a law on the books in the state where this event took place that said "Any trucking company has the right to require a trucker to remain with his rig, regardless of weather conditions or how long he is forced to wait for help to arrive." Silly law, but remember, I'm using the absurd to make a point!

So the man goes to court and tells his story. Judge Gorsuch isn't really such a meanie. Let's say he was all choked up, listening to the man's recounting of the events of that frigid night. No, lets's say Judge Gorsuch was spilling tears of sympathy as he listened to the man describe how cold he was, how afraid he was that he would freeze to death, how he called his wife from the cab and said goodbye to her in case he didn't make it.

But how the good judge felt about the story, however unfair he thought the company was to fire him for leaving the truck, he would be compelled to rule in favor of the company, because the law says that it is legal to require him to stay and he violated that requirement. Now it may be a bad law. But it is not the judge's job to change that law, only to apply it as it is currently in force.

(pixabay.com)

So where's the justice?? Well, perhaps the state legislature, after seeing that the ruling the court handed down seemed terribly unfair to the trucker, might decide that the law may be a bad one. Maybe that law needs to be changed or scrapped from the books. It is their job to change or eliminate the law, not the judge's.

Do you get it now??? It's really not that hard. But, of course, if this were not the case - if judges were supposed to rule based on their personal feelings about a case or a litigant - that makes it much easier for liberals, who have hard time getting their ideas accepted at the ballot box (because they are absurd), to manipulate the law to their liking. And that's really what it's all about.

Judge Gorsuch knows, as he has demonstrated in his hearings, that his job is to apply the law as it is written. And that's whether he thinks the outcome is fair or unfair. He knows that he must leave it to the legislature to decide on the fairness of a law and take action to correct any unfairness. He will not make a decision based on his personal beliefs, ideology, or feelings. He will put those aside and consider only what the law says.

That is why he is unassailable. Because that is what a judge is supposed to do. Period.

Kat

Ninth Circus Court and Ridiculous Ruling

(pixabay.com)

What Are They Thinking?

The ninth circus court has done it again! An absurd ruling, based on extreme liberal bias and contrary to their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and follow the law. Never fear, they will, once again, be overruled, assuming the Constitution eventually wins out, since it so clearly and unambiguously provides for the temporary travel ban that President Trump put in place.

Of course, there is always the fear, more and more so over the past eight years, that liberalism run amok could prevail, which would indeed be a tragedy and would only continue the downward spiral of our once glorious country. That is why this particular case carries so much weight. Not only because the original intent of the ban is being thwarted and our safety as a nation threatened, though that is a grave enough consequence, but because our very integrity and continued existence as a country is being threatened as well. 

There is no question that the President has the absolute right to do what he did. The ninth circus court's primary objection seems to be that he can't prove to them that there is a threat sufficient to require the ban. Well he doesn't have to do that! Nowhere does it say that he must justify his actions in this regard to anyone! The President has access to very sensitive and confidential intelligence that can't and should not be shared with any idiotic court! It is not their purpose to satisfy themselves that President Trump made a GOOD decision, only whether or not he has the RIGHT to make the decision, which he clearly does.

Not only that, but let's have a DUH moment here, shall we? Do the members of the court not believe that travel from countries like YEMEN and SOMALIA without any ability to know who is coming or why is NOT a threat to the United States' safety? REALLY???? Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that those countries as well as the other five in the ban certainly DO pose a threat to the United States. All together, now..... DUHHHH!

If this ridiculous ruling should prevail in the end, this would mean that - oh, let's say North Korea - suddenly begins to threaten the U.S. with the nuclear arsenal that it does possess, claiming that they will either launch them towards the West Coast or maybe they'll carry them in to the country in a briefcase and set them off in an American city. But these threats are only perceived by the intelligence community and are not generally known to the public. The President would not be allowed to ban travel from North Korea to the U.S. How insane is that?

And, as for the concern of the court that Trump's intention was to impose a "Muslim ban"... what possible difference does that make?? It would be one thing if he had intended a Muslim ban and then proceeded to impose travel bans on all countries with majority Muslim populations, but that's not the case! What his initial intention might have been is totally irrelevant. It is obviously NOT a Muslim ban, since most of the world's Muslim countries are not on the damn list! Another DUH! Since the court cannot read the man's mind, they must go on what is EVIDENT, and that is that certain countries who have a history of harboring, encouraging and exporting terror AND who are currently unable to provide citizens with reliable proof of identity were chosen for this temporary ban.

As usual, since the libs cannot win at the ballot box, they are attempting to create law and impose their will from the benches of our court system. Sadly, they have plenty of willing accomplices on those courts, due to Harry Reid's decimation of Senate procedural rules, allowing Obama to stuff the courts with liberals over the course of eight years.

(morguefile.com)

In my opinion, this Trump administration represents a tipping point. Either our country will continue to decline and eventually drown in a swamp of liberal debris, or we will turn the country around and begin to reclaim the nation that our founders left for us. With this in mind, I hope they invoke Reid's nuclear option and push Neil Gorsuch through so that there will begin to be some level of sanity restored to the Supreme Court. God willing, there will be more SCOTUS appointments in Trump's future.

We must focus on regaining the integrity, nobility, and spirit of the United States as it was founded and supported by the Constitution of the United States. If the Constitution is the deciding factor, as it should be, then President Trump's ban will eventually go back into effect. In the meantime, I would not want to be one of these foolish judges when, God forbid, someone from Somalia who enters the U.S. this weekend ends up shooting up a mall or blowing up a plane a few months from now. Would you?

Kat

Sanctuary Schmanctuary and "Muslim Bans"

Why Do Liberals Support Sanctuary Cities and Unfettered Immigration?

(pxhere.com)

So now we're listening to the left whine and CRY (Chuck Schumer.... really?) about what they purposely term a "Muslim ban", knowing well that it is a lie, in order to brainwash their ignorant constituents who can't be bothered to even wonder if what they're being fed by their leadership is even half true. I mean DUH! If it were a Muslim ban, we seem to be missing a few countries off that list of seven. Like maybe Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, to mention a few. Obviously the ban (a temporary one)  is on travel to the United States from those countries who A) have been known, in recent years, to train, harbor, support and export terrorism and B) whose civil structures are in current turmoil such that proper vetting of people from these countries is difficult or impossible. As I said.... DUHHH!

This policy is smart, necessary and the obligation of the President of the United States whose primary responsibility is to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Anyone who disputes that doesn't know much about anything. In other words, they're stupid.

So! On to sanctuary cities! I can't wait to see what is going to happen with this one. Hopefully President Trump will cut off federal funds to these idiot mayors' cities and they will quickly be reminded that they are obligated to follow federal law, at least if they want any cooperation in terms of funding from the feds. 

(pixabay.com)

Why do liberals want sanctuary cities to remain in place, to remain hiding and harboring people who have purposely broken our laws and who, in many cases, continue to do so? Oh, that's an easy one! They know that most, more than 51 % (Welfare Use By Immigrant and Native Households by Steven A Camarota, Sep 2015) of immigrant households access government welfare programs. Even though illegal immigrants are technically not eligible for many of these programs, they are once they have their anchor baby in place. So, they know they can count on these voters (legal or illegal ones) to vote for them. Who can compete with Santa Claus, right?

Somehow, because this is in their minds, they find it acceptable to openly and purposefully defy federal laws which are clear and unambiguous. It is, frankly, outrageous. With regard to people who breach our borders to the south or those who wish to fly here from seven troubled countries abroad, NO ONE has a RIGHT to enter our country except for natural-born or naturalized citizens or legal residents (and legal residency can be revoked). It's called having a SOVEREIGN NATION. We have the right, as a country, to decide who comes in to our country, how many come and from where.

So what about whiny liberals who insist that we are "mean-spirited" because we won't allow unfettered access by the entire world to enter our country? First, there are much better ways to treat desperate people with kindness and compassion than granting them legal immigrant status. Most people from these seven temporarily banned countries, for example, would much rather remain in their own home countries, if it were possible, with regard to their safety and their ability to maintain their families. 

I believe that it is a much better idea to create safe zones and temporary refugee areas in or near these home countries, eventually leading to these families being able to resume normal lives in their homelands, than having them feel forced to flee to a strange country and have to adjust to a totally different culture and lifestyle in order to survive. I, for one, would be much more willing to accept federal spending to this end than I am to spend untold billions of tax payer dollars to support people who have purposely broken our laws to come here.

Not only that, but where is all the "compassion" for the millions of people, world-wide, who are waiting and hoping and waiting some more to gain LEGAL entry to the United States? People who have applied the RIGHT WAY and have to watch as millions of others simply sneak across the border or overstay their visas and get in ahead of them. How fair and "compassionate" is that?

(morguefile.com)

The United States has the most generous immigration policy in the world, by far. We accept over one million LEGAL immigrants to our country EVERY YEAR. Is the system perfect? No, it can always be improved upon and that is something that definitely needs to be looked at. But our nation does NOT have to, nor should it, accept the lawlessness of sanctuary cities. Our country does NOT have to risk the safety of its citizens by allowing people from dangerous countries with no verifiable records available to simply come here and settle among us.

So stop whining, lefties! I guarantee you that if immigrant votes went primarily Republican, you wouldn't be so quick to welcome illegals to our shores. We know your game, and it's pathetic. Grow up, get real, and start actually caring more about human beings than your next election.

Kat

Supremely Obligated

What is the true responsibility of the Supreme Court?

(wikimedia commons)

With today's nomination of Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court justice, why not take a look at the Supreme Court, its role and responsibilities, what it is, and what it is not. I do not know much about Gorsuch as of yet, just what I've read in the past few days. But I'll tell you this much: the founders would have loved him. The same cannot be said for all the current justices on the Court!

Personally, I will find it fascinating to watch the fight that the democrats have promised over this nomination. Why? Well, because they don't have a leg to stand on. Not when you consider what the founders actually intended as the role of the Supreme Court. Liberals want nothing to do with applying constitutional law to cases brought before the Court. They want Supreme Court justices to bend that silly Constitution to their will, not even to the will of the people, necessarily, but to theirs.

The democrats keep saying that any justice nominee who is not "in the main stream" will not be considered. In the main stream? What the hell is that supposed to mean? It sure sounds as though it refers to public opinion. Which has NOTHING to do with the obligation and responsibility of the Supreme Court.

Hillary Clinton said, while on the campaign trail this past fall, (paraphrasing here) that a new president should be someone who would nominate a justice who would (quoting here) "represent all the people". WHAT?? The Supreme Court is not supposed to represent anyone! That is the job of the legislature, not the Court. The Court represents the CONSTITUTION, and nothing else.

The obligation of the Supreme Court is to listen to cases brought before it and decide on its merits or lack thereof based on the Constitution of the United States and the laws legitimately enacted within its parameters and passed by the legislature. As Alexander Hamilton so beautifully said of the Supreme Court in Federalist #78: "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." (my emphasis)

Judge Neil Gorsuch (wikimedia.com)

This shows that the founders meant the justices to make judgments on the cases brought before them based on the Constitution and the Law created under it. They were not to be influenced by the purview of either of the other two branches of government, which serve to legislate and to enforce the laws, but ONLY to make a judgment as to the constitutionality of that law.

So what happens when a Supreme Court decision has a result that is not favored by the majority of the people? Well, first of all, the result of a decision should not be a consideration of the justices at all. It's not their job to contrive a decision that will either avoid or create any given outcome, no matter how onerous that outcome may be.

A good example of the spurning of this principle was the ruling on the Affordable Care Act (better termed the UNaffordable Care Act), when Judge John Roberts based his decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Act, in part, on the upheaval that would ensue if it were overturned. SO WHAT? Roberts had no right to take the result of his ruling into consideration. His JOB was to judge the case on its merits based on the Constitution of the United States and its laws. Period. It certainly was not the court's job to fill in for the errors made by the framers of the Act, which is exactly what they did.

The answer to the question above was ingeniously written into the Constitution itself. If the people object to the outcome of a decision based on their Constitution, they have the right to introduce an amendment to that Constitution. THAT is how a changing society and evolving understanding of justice is accommodated. NOT by using the bench of the Court to push decisions in one direction or another to please the people.

(wikimedia)

So, democrats, BRING IT ON! If nominating someone who is "in the main stream" is your test, you are sadly not aware of the true purpose and responsibility of a Supreme Court justice. Theoretically, it should not matter what the personal beliefs and political leanings of a justice even are. Because he or she should not allow those to influence his or her decisions. Instead, every Supreme Court decision should be made with those blinders of Lady Justice firmly in place.... and eyes focused only on the remarkable and lasting document that our founders created for us and the thoughts and words of those founders concerning it.

Theirs are the only opinions that matter.

Kat