That "nurture," the concept that holds that the environment can significantly mold human behavior, seems unacceptable to people on the left of social issues. Patrick Moynihan, for example, was pilloried for his Moynihan Report on the black family in America. In essence, the report pointed to deficiencies in the nurture of black youth due to broken homes. He was pilloried by many on the left for suggesting that there was any difference between blacks and whites.
We have the same situation now with Muslims. To applaud secular Muslims and to point to our problem with fundamentalist Muslims -- because of their greater likelihood for radicalization -- is unacceptable to liberals. For them, Muslims are Muslims. To distinguish between Muslims and to favor secular Muslims is racist and a threat to religious freedom. And, yet, to the average American the difference between a secular Muslim who will shake the hand of a woman, who is not of his family, or who will openly accept the friendship of fellow Americans who are not Muslim is glaringly obvious.
Call the Brits xenophobic for rebelling against the mass immigration of a people of another culture. Call Americans who believe in the importance of a safe and secure border racist. Tell Americans that there is no need for them to take exceptional pride in their country. And then tell them that they should be ashamed that someone like Michael Brown of Ferguson was gunned down by the police officer that Michael Brown was violently attacking. Do that and you should not surprised if the average American citizen begins to rebel agains the elitists who spout such nonsense.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
What Brexis Has In Common With Trump's Wall
In a word, culture. That's what largely defines people. Wether it's Tony Blair, or Obama, or Biden, they all play the same tune. Let's all unite in a common effort to help mankind, they urge. And, who can be against that?
All people do seek good health and happiness. The problem is that people come from different cultures. Consider the fact that women coming from a culture of female genital mutilation, will generally make efforts to have their own female children genitally mutilated, as they once were mutilated. There are people who may wish well for all, but do not find members of the LGBT community as belonging to the "all" (as in "all people"). For people on the "right," this obtuseness as regards differences in the cultures is exasperating.
In Europe, people on the left see Europeans as one homogenous entity. And, yet, one need only compare the economies of Germany, France and Greece to see that they show significant differences. And, it doesn't take sophisticated analysis to see that the differences among these nations reflect differences in how the citizens of these countries view their responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the nation within which they make their living. These differences reflect their culture and the histories from which these cultures have emerged.
So why should one nation -- one culture -- accept the views of another. A nation can have trade agreements, defense agreements and all sorts of other agreements without having to morph into another culture. And, this is what people like Tony Blair and those on the left don't get.
I have nothing against Latinos. Indeed, I view their immigration to America as a very positive thing. However, that doesn't mean I favor an open border; one open to anyone who chooses to cross it without permission. For a nation to consciously maintain such a border is, in my view, irresponsible. Only after America has dealt with its border with Mexico can we resolve the matter of our illegal immigrants.
All people do seek good health and happiness. The problem is that people come from different cultures. Consider the fact that women coming from a culture of female genital mutilation, will generally make efforts to have their own female children genitally mutilated, as they once were mutilated. There are people who may wish well for all, but do not find members of the LGBT community as belonging to the "all" (as in "all people"). For people on the "right," this obtuseness as regards differences in the cultures is exasperating.
In Europe, people on the left see Europeans as one homogenous entity. And, yet, one need only compare the economies of Germany, France and Greece to see that they show significant differences. And, it doesn't take sophisticated analysis to see that the differences among these nations reflect differences in how the citizens of these countries view their responsibility to their fellow citizens and to the nation within which they make their living. These differences reflect their culture and the histories from which these cultures have emerged.
So why should one nation -- one culture -- accept the views of another. A nation can have trade agreements, defense agreements and all sorts of other agreements without having to morph into another culture. And, this is what people like Tony Blair and those on the left don't get.
I have nothing against Latinos. Indeed, I view their immigration to America as a very positive thing. However, that doesn't mean I favor an open border; one open to anyone who chooses to cross it without permission. For a nation to consciously maintain such a border is, in my view, irresponsible. Only after America has dealt with its border with Mexico can we resolve the matter of our illegal immigrants.
Monday, June 20, 2016
The Nexus of Mental Illness and Bad External Prompts (EPs)
The killing of 49 people in Orlando has moved the attention of America in many directions. Bigotry against the LGBT community has gotten attention, as well it should. The self identification of the killer, who may have been gay, and his extremist understanding of the Islamic faith has also gotten notice. And, the killer's use of a machine gun-like weapon has has brought renewed attention to gun laws.
But, what deserves more attention is the nexus of terrible deeds and mental illness. Gassing populations and then cremating them is more than a terrible deed. It is evil. What ISIS has done to the Yazidi people and to people they have captured is also evil. But these deeds have a nexus. They are not simply a result of mental illness. They have external prompts. In the case of the Holocaust it was extreme antisemitism that grew from generalized antisemitism. In the case of ISIS we have a evil being done on the basis of a deviant form of Islam.
But, how deviant? Is there any connection between the fundamental views of Islam and the deeds of a mass killer who no doubt suffered some sort of mental illness? It's high time we examined both aspects of this horrendous deed. The extremism found in Sharia law which is based on Islamic writings deserves to be examined, if for not other reason than to educate Muslims regarding their own religion.
Machine guns and assault weapons are a different matter. They can unquestionably be the instruments of evil, much as the gas used in gas chambers or the swords used by ISIS to decapitate prisoners. Automobiles driven by a drunks can also be an instrument of evil. That's why we license drivers. Gun owners should also be licensed. But, that's mainly an issue regarding hand gun owners. It is incomprehensible to me that ordinary civilians should be permitted to have machine guns.
But, what deserves more attention is the nexus of terrible deeds and mental illness. Gassing populations and then cremating them is more than a terrible deed. It is evil. What ISIS has done to the Yazidi people and to people they have captured is also evil. But these deeds have a nexus. They are not simply a result of mental illness. They have external prompts. In the case of the Holocaust it was extreme antisemitism that grew from generalized antisemitism. In the case of ISIS we have a evil being done on the basis of a deviant form of Islam.
But, how deviant? Is there any connection between the fundamental views of Islam and the deeds of a mass killer who no doubt suffered some sort of mental illness? It's high time we examined both aspects of this horrendous deed. The extremism found in Sharia law which is based on Islamic writings deserves to be examined, if for not other reason than to educate Muslims regarding their own religion.
Machine guns and assault weapons are a different matter. They can unquestionably be the instruments of evil, much as the gas used in gas chambers or the swords used by ISIS to decapitate prisoners. Automobiles driven by a drunks can also be an instrument of evil. That's why we license drivers. Gun owners should also be licensed. But, that's mainly an issue regarding hand gun owners. It is incomprehensible to me that ordinary civilians should be permitted to have machine guns.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Trump Gets No Credit For Trying to Bring The GOP Into The 21st Century
We can now see how tough it is to make positive change.
On women's rights: While abortion may truly be a marginal issue. . . . the abortion rate is way down because of day-after pills. Also, most abortions that do take place are generally in the first trimester. Finally, only the very poor and disadvantaged can't find their way into an abortion-friendly state. . . this remains a hot button issue and in my opinion the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue because of evangelicals and other members of fundamentalist religions. It's tough for any Republican candidate to fight against the standard Republican position.
Yet give some credit to Trump. He's the only Republican who has had anything good to say about Planned Parenthood. Yes, a reporter did get him to say something to the effect that anyone guilty of a crime should be punished. But that hardly makes him an Inspector Jean Valjean when it comes to women 's rights.
Next, consider the issue of control of guns and the NRA. This has always been a strong second amendment issue for Republicans. Massacre after massacre, the GOP has held its ground defending citizen's rights to possess guns. However, after the Orlando massacre, we see Trump calling for a meeting with the NRA. Mind you, the NRA was an early supporter of Trump. And, yet, we hear that Trump will try to modify the NRA's position. Admittedly, at the time of this writing, we don't know what the outcome of the meeting will be.
Does Trump get any credit for his efforts? No. The Democrats will continue to do their best to demonize him. What else would you expect? The Evangelicals are saying he is not a true conservative. And, the GOP elites join in tearing Trump down because he is not one of the boys. Making change isn't easy. Trump understands this, but does the American electorate?
On women's rights: While abortion may truly be a marginal issue. . . . the abortion rate is way down because of day-after pills. Also, most abortions that do take place are generally in the first trimester. Finally, only the very poor and disadvantaged can't find their way into an abortion-friendly state. . . this remains a hot button issue and in my opinion the GOP is on the wrong side of this issue because of evangelicals and other members of fundamentalist religions. It's tough for any Republican candidate to fight against the standard Republican position.
Yet give some credit to Trump. He's the only Republican who has had anything good to say about Planned Parenthood. Yes, a reporter did get him to say something to the effect that anyone guilty of a crime should be punished. But that hardly makes him an Inspector Jean Valjean when it comes to women 's rights.
Next, consider the issue of control of guns and the NRA. This has always been a strong second amendment issue for Republicans. Massacre after massacre, the GOP has held its ground defending citizen's rights to possess guns. However, after the Orlando massacre, we see Trump calling for a meeting with the NRA. Mind you, the NRA was an early supporter of Trump. And, yet, we hear that Trump will try to modify the NRA's position. Admittedly, at the time of this writing, we don't know what the outcome of the meeting will be.
Does Trump get any credit for his efforts? No. The Democrats will continue to do their best to demonize him. What else would you expect? The Evangelicals are saying he is not a true conservative. And, the GOP elites join in tearing Trump down because he is not one of the boys. Making change isn't easy. Trump understands this, but does the American electorate?
Why I Continue to Support Trump
Today Trump's numbers have fallen. Will this mark the end of Trump? I don't know, but I hope not, and here's why.
The irresponsible press and Islam. The two are connected. First, a bit of history. Sympathy for Hitler's Germany was rampant in the early years of his leadership. Lindberg, an American hero, loved Hitler. Father Coughlin loved Hitler. The American Bund loved Hitler. British royalty loved Hitler. American industrialists loved Hitler. And, then it suddenly changed. Why? Because of Pearl Harbor and the brilliant leadership of FDR. If Germany's ally, Japan, attacked us, what did that say about Germany?
Today, we face a similar situation as regards Islam. Having had Saudi Arabia in our corner for these many years in the fight against communism, we have overlooked the terrible form of Islam preached there; namely, Wahhabism. We can say that Islam is a faith of love, but see how this faith is practiced there, a country where no church may be built. Where the bigotry against all faiths, other than Islam, is clear and palpable. Where the treatment of women and gays runs against everything America believes in. And, it is this government that for decades has been building mosques throughout the world and sending preachers to these mosques to teach the Wahhabi version of Islam.
This gets little, if any, attention in our press, or by our leaders. Maybe it's because one of Saudi Arabia's early lobbyists in its behalf was Sen. William Fulbright, whose name is attached to the prestigious Fulbright scholarship. This was hardly novel. The path was already beaten by that rampant abuser of Africans, Cecil Rhodes, whose name is attached to the Rhodes scholarship.
Today, we have such forms of Islam as al Queda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. The press often cites Reactionary Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism as being equivalent to Salafist forms of Islam. But while we may find such forms of Catholicism and Judaism not to our liking, but it is false to equate them with Salafist Islam.
Then there is the issue of whether Obama is a Muslim. The answer is clearly no. You can't sit for 20 years in a church, even one where the Reverend Jeremiah preached, and be called a Muslim. But, with a Muslim father, Obama was clearly born a Muslim and in his early years in Indonesia he was taught as a Muslim. But, is he a Muslim? No.
To sum up, Trump seems to have a clearer grasp of the Islamic threat to America than anyone else in the press or in our political leadership, whether Republican or Democrat.
The immigration issue is closely tied to the religious issue. Among the thousands and thousands of refugees from Muslim countries, there are obviously any number of fundamentalist Muslims who abhor the American way of life. Such Muslims should not be admitted. They clearly present a threat. And, as we have seen, if they have children in America, those children are no less a threat. Vetting these refugees is absolutely essential. But, that's not easy. It would obviously take a great deal of time and manpower. So when Trump says that we've got to stop the immigration of Muslims until we get a handle on this problem, I, for one, support him.
Then there's the issue of Trump's attitude toward the press. That the press has it's bias, mostly favoring the left, is hardly news. MSNBC, with their Chris Matthews, the racist Rev Al Scharpton, and their other talking heads, clearly promotes the left's point of view. Joe Scarborough was their one talking head who offered a bit of impartiality. But, that's now gone too.
It's not that Scarborough has gone left. Rather it's that he's joined the Republican establishment that's never been in favor of Trump. Their man was Jeb Bush. And, if not Bush, then Marco Rubio. They could probably have lived with Gov. Katich. But, Trump? Never. And, that's another reason, I'm sticking with Trump. Until Trump came around, the GOP was a party of losers. I voted for McCain. I voted for Romney. I know.
Obama's disastrous foreign policy, his wrong headed attitude towards Guantanamo, his crippling Affordable Health Care Act, his cavalier attitude toward controlling America's borders -- all these issues leading us into the wrong direction are supported by the press. That however doesn't make them right.
The irresponsible press and Islam. The two are connected. First, a bit of history. Sympathy for Hitler's Germany was rampant in the early years of his leadership. Lindberg, an American hero, loved Hitler. Father Coughlin loved Hitler. The American Bund loved Hitler. British royalty loved Hitler. American industrialists loved Hitler. And, then it suddenly changed. Why? Because of Pearl Harbor and the brilliant leadership of FDR. If Germany's ally, Japan, attacked us, what did that say about Germany?
Today, we face a similar situation as regards Islam. Having had Saudi Arabia in our corner for these many years in the fight against communism, we have overlooked the terrible form of Islam preached there; namely, Wahhabism. We can say that Islam is a faith of love, but see how this faith is practiced there, a country where no church may be built. Where the bigotry against all faiths, other than Islam, is clear and palpable. Where the treatment of women and gays runs against everything America believes in. And, it is this government that for decades has been building mosques throughout the world and sending preachers to these mosques to teach the Wahhabi version of Islam.
This gets little, if any, attention in our press, or by our leaders. Maybe it's because one of Saudi Arabia's early lobbyists in its behalf was Sen. William Fulbright, whose name is attached to the prestigious Fulbright scholarship. This was hardly novel. The path was already beaten by that rampant abuser of Africans, Cecil Rhodes, whose name is attached to the Rhodes scholarship.
Today, we have such forms of Islam as al Queda, ISIS, and Boko Haram. The press often cites Reactionary Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism as being equivalent to Salafist forms of Islam. But while we may find such forms of Catholicism and Judaism not to our liking, but it is false to equate them with Salafist Islam.
Then there is the issue of whether Obama is a Muslim. The answer is clearly no. You can't sit for 20 years in a church, even one where the Reverend Jeremiah preached, and be called a Muslim. But, with a Muslim father, Obama was clearly born a Muslim and in his early years in Indonesia he was taught as a Muslim. But, is he a Muslim? No.
To sum up, Trump seems to have a clearer grasp of the Islamic threat to America than anyone else in the press or in our political leadership, whether Republican or Democrat.
The immigration issue is closely tied to the religious issue. Among the thousands and thousands of refugees from Muslim countries, there are obviously any number of fundamentalist Muslims who abhor the American way of life. Such Muslims should not be admitted. They clearly present a threat. And, as we have seen, if they have children in America, those children are no less a threat. Vetting these refugees is absolutely essential. But, that's not easy. It would obviously take a great deal of time and manpower. So when Trump says that we've got to stop the immigration of Muslims until we get a handle on this problem, I, for one, support him.
Then there's the issue of Trump's attitude toward the press. That the press has it's bias, mostly favoring the left, is hardly news. MSNBC, with their Chris Matthews, the racist Rev Al Scharpton, and their other talking heads, clearly promotes the left's point of view. Joe Scarborough was their one talking head who offered a bit of impartiality. But, that's now gone too.
It's not that Scarborough has gone left. Rather it's that he's joined the Republican establishment that's never been in favor of Trump. Their man was Jeb Bush. And, if not Bush, then Marco Rubio. They could probably have lived with Gov. Katich. But, Trump? Never. And, that's another reason, I'm sticking with Trump. Until Trump came around, the GOP was a party of losers. I voted for McCain. I voted for Romney. I know.
Obama's disastrous foreign policy, his wrong headed attitude towards Guantanamo, his crippling Affordable Health Care Act, his cavalier attitude toward controlling America's borders -- all these issues leading us into the wrong direction are supported by the press. That however doesn't make them right.
Friday, June 10, 2016
The Character Assassination of Donald Trump
Okay, Trump misspoke. His inarticulate and ill advised airing of his beef regarding the way his Trump University was being handled was a serious political mistake.
It was a trap and Trump walked into it. It enabled his enemies to hang the racist label around his neck. He happens not to be a racist. But that doesn't matter. He's stuck with the label. So what can he now do?
First, he should schedule a press conference to end the matter of his remarks about the judge in charge of the case. He must express his apology for using the judge's name. He must admit that having done so was an error. If he had really wanted to express his distress over the handling of his case, he should have pointed to La Raza, an organization fighting in behalf of illegal Mexicans and other Latinos. For them to do so is, of course, entirely legal. But, if his case is being influenced by anyone with a connection, even a remote one, to La Raza that would be wrong.
And, why was the case against Trump University not dismissed when it was dismissed in the suit against Laureate University over its subordinate company, Walden University, against which were were brought the same suits and allegations. In 2015, a class action was dismissed. There was no explanation. Could it be because the Laureate's "honorary" chancellor was Bill Clinton? For his "chancellorship" Clinton was paid $16 million, a compensation that covered a period stretching from 2010 to 2014. Clinton worked as the group's promoter. In this same period, Hillary served as Secretary of State. During this period the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate University. These findings were reported by Steven Hayward, in "Bill Clinton, Higher Education."
You kind of wonder why this story hasn't been more widely reported in the press. Jonathan Turley reported similar findings. Apparently, if one bothers to look, this information can be discovered without too much trouble.
All I really want. . . all I've ever sought, Trump should explain, is fair treatment by the judicial system.
Will such words end the character assassination of Trump. Of course not. But it should be brought to the attention of the American public.
The next issue which deserves equal, if not greater attention, is that of the good ol' boys of the Republican Party furiously engaged in trying to assassinate Trump. Their Brutus, in chief, is Paul Ryan. Ryan, assuming the pose of Hamlet, mutters, I don't like Trump, but we have to back him.
My, my, how noble. And, yet he's out there calling Trump a racist. And, Kasich, like a hound on the hunt is trying to nip at Turmp's ankles with the same phony race allegation. Of course, Ryan hasn't said directly, TRUMP IS A RACIST. No He's just said that Trump's allegations are RACIST. Only a politician can see the difference between those two statements.
Trump probably can't say this directly, but he's got to somehow let the American people know the kind of dirty game their watching. Good luck Donald.
It was a trap and Trump walked into it. It enabled his enemies to hang the racist label around his neck. He happens not to be a racist. But that doesn't matter. He's stuck with the label. So what can he now do?
First, he should schedule a press conference to end the matter of his remarks about the judge in charge of the case. He must express his apology for using the judge's name. He must admit that having done so was an error. If he had really wanted to express his distress over the handling of his case, he should have pointed to La Raza, an organization fighting in behalf of illegal Mexicans and other Latinos. For them to do so is, of course, entirely legal. But, if his case is being influenced by anyone with a connection, even a remote one, to La Raza that would be wrong.
And, why was the case against Trump University not dismissed when it was dismissed in the suit against Laureate University over its subordinate company, Walden University, against which were were brought the same suits and allegations. In 2015, a class action was dismissed. There was no explanation. Could it be because the Laureate's "honorary" chancellor was Bill Clinton? For his "chancellorship" Clinton was paid $16 million, a compensation that covered a period stretching from 2010 to 2014. Clinton worked as the group's promoter. In this same period, Hillary served as Secretary of State. During this period the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate University. These findings were reported by Steven Hayward, in "Bill Clinton, Higher Education."
You kind of wonder why this story hasn't been more widely reported in the press. Jonathan Turley reported similar findings. Apparently, if one bothers to look, this information can be discovered without too much trouble.
All I really want. . . all I've ever sought, Trump should explain, is fair treatment by the judicial system.
Will such words end the character assassination of Trump. Of course not. But it should be brought to the attention of the American public.
The next issue which deserves equal, if not greater attention, is that of the good ol' boys of the Republican Party furiously engaged in trying to assassinate Trump. Their Brutus, in chief, is Paul Ryan. Ryan, assuming the pose of Hamlet, mutters, I don't like Trump, but we have to back him.
My, my, how noble. And, yet he's out there calling Trump a racist. And, Kasich, like a hound on the hunt is trying to nip at Turmp's ankles with the same phony race allegation. Of course, Ryan hasn't said directly, TRUMP IS A RACIST. No He's just said that Trump's allegations are RACIST. Only a politician can see the difference between those two statements.
Trump probably can't say this directly, but he's got to somehow let the American people know the kind of dirty game their watching. Good luck Donald.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Political Party Vs. The Candidate
Unless there is a fight between a party and a candidate carrying the party's flag, the public is not aware that that we have here two centers of political power. Today we see this with Trump and the Republican Party and also with Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party.
The Bernie Sanders situation is easier to analyze. Hillary is the Democratic Party leader and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is her lieutenant. And, within that party, you have some rebels; namely, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are further left than their party. The rebels have put up a good fight, but it is clear that Hillary and her party will prevail.
In the case of Trump, you have a man who comes with the label of the Republican party, but remains a stranger to the party. He was never the party's choice. They never wanted him. And, yet, among voters calling themselves Republicans, he was their man. Now, he is the presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency of a party that has accepted him only grudgingly.
A party matters because party leaders have their interests, make their deals in Congress and wherever. When a renegade candidate for the presidency comes along, carrying their party's flag, all that they have worked out so carefully comes into jeopardy. Trump could resolve all Republican Party concerns if he simply said, "Okay, guys. I'm with you 100%. Whatever you guys have worked out is okay with me." But that's not Trump. He's let it be known that he's his own man. This has proven most unsettling for the party.
All of this is coming out under the glare of the Trump University case and the judge hearing it, Judge Gonzalo Curiel. The case of Trump University, of and by itself, is no big deal. The Clintons have their own educational establishment debacle. However, Trump's attitude toward the judge, a person of Mexican ethnicity, has provided both the Democrats and the Republican Party with a weapon against Trump.
The Democrat's position on this matter is obvious. Judge Curiel is a good man. He's stood up to the drug cartel. Also, he's not Mexican and never was. Trump's objection to him hearing the Trump University case is racist.
The counter argument is equally obvious. Trump's position regarding the building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico has not found favor with people of Mexican ethnicity. And, while Judge Curiel is clearly not Mexican and was born and raised in America, he is of Mexican ethnicity and a man supportive of La Raza, a pro-illegal immigration advocacy group. Right, or wrong, Trump does have a valid argument.
Does the Republican Party give its support to its Republican candidate for the presidency. No. While I believe Trump has a good argument against Judge Curiel sitting on his case, we find Republican Party elders sitting on their thumbs, clucking over his lack of finesse.
Will Trump surmount the assault now led against him by Morning Joe and various Democrats? Will having the Republican Party sitting on its hands in this matter prove Trump's undoing? I hope not.
The Bernie Sanders situation is easier to analyze. Hillary is the Democratic Party leader and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is her lieutenant. And, within that party, you have some rebels; namely, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are further left than their party. The rebels have put up a good fight, but it is clear that Hillary and her party will prevail.
In the case of Trump, you have a man who comes with the label of the Republican party, but remains a stranger to the party. He was never the party's choice. They never wanted him. And, yet, among voters calling themselves Republicans, he was their man. Now, he is the presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency of a party that has accepted him only grudgingly.
A party matters because party leaders have their interests, make their deals in Congress and wherever. When a renegade candidate for the presidency comes along, carrying their party's flag, all that they have worked out so carefully comes into jeopardy. Trump could resolve all Republican Party concerns if he simply said, "Okay, guys. I'm with you 100%. Whatever you guys have worked out is okay with me." But that's not Trump. He's let it be known that he's his own man. This has proven most unsettling for the party.
All of this is coming out under the glare of the Trump University case and the judge hearing it, Judge Gonzalo Curiel. The case of Trump University, of and by itself, is no big deal. The Clintons have their own educational establishment debacle. However, Trump's attitude toward the judge, a person of Mexican ethnicity, has provided both the Democrats and the Republican Party with a weapon against Trump.
The Democrat's position on this matter is obvious. Judge Curiel is a good man. He's stood up to the drug cartel. Also, he's not Mexican and never was. Trump's objection to him hearing the Trump University case is racist.
The counter argument is equally obvious. Trump's position regarding the building of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico has not found favor with people of Mexican ethnicity. And, while Judge Curiel is clearly not Mexican and was born and raised in America, he is of Mexican ethnicity and a man supportive of La Raza, a pro-illegal immigration advocacy group. Right, or wrong, Trump does have a valid argument.
Does the Republican Party give its support to its Republican candidate for the presidency. No. While I believe Trump has a good argument against Judge Curiel sitting on his case, we find Republican Party elders sitting on their thumbs, clucking over his lack of finesse.
Will Trump surmount the assault now led against him by Morning Joe and various Democrats? Will having the Republican Party sitting on its hands in this matter prove Trump's undoing? I hope not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)