Those who support Trump's bigotry apparently less enamored with his "Christian credentials" and "language"

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was confronted with a not-so-bizarre dilemma: How to respond to a clearly fearful, paranoid female supporter in his own town hall forum who actually believed that Barack Obama was a “Muslim” and possibly a supporter of “terrorists.” For most reasonable people, this woman was more an object of “pity” or frustration with racist ignorance rather than derision, but then again polls seemed to suggest at the time that as many as a third of Americans—perhaps as many as half of all white voters, tended to believe this. And then there was the “birther” brigade, headed by Donald Trump and Russian immigrant Orly Taitz, who insisted that Obama was not an American by birth. Still others insisted that Obama was not “American” at all, either in spirit or in fact.

Sen, McCain is a decent fellow at heart despite his occasional bad temper, and he tried to calm the woman by attempting to reassure her that Obama was not a Muslim or a terrorist but an American just like her. My own feeling watching this was that this woman couldn’t be for real, maybe even a “plant.” However, I have to admit from personal experience that there is no accounting for bigotry, ignorance and stupidity born of stereotyping and paranoia, even from allegedly “educated” and “Christian” people who like to pass “moral” judgments on others.

Which brings me to the latest bizarre episode starring the just-this-side-of-senility Donald Trump. After Sen. McCain broke ranks with his Republican colleagues and categorically derided Trump’s comments about Mexican immigrants being “rapists” and thus “riling up the crazies” amongst the Republican base, Trump retaliated by attacking Sen. McCain, a naval aviator during the Vietnam War who was shot down over North Vietnam and was a POW for five years. Trump claimed that Sen. McCain  he was not an “authentic” war hero; only those who were not captured were “heroes.” 

Like his gross misinterpretation of an article on sexual assaults on female immigrants written by two American feminists with a political agenda, Trump seemed ignorant of the fact that you can’t exactly not be captured after parachuting deep inside enemy territory—unless, of course, he thinks it is more “heroic” to simply commit suicide by plane crash or get shot dead without point. In Japan, there have been business executives who committed suicide after they ran their companies into the ground; Trump just goes to the next bankruptcy court. Some “hero.”

However, it seems that these comments did not hurt Trump in the polls. In fact, Trump’s claims that Mexicans were all “rapists” seemed to excite the racist element in the country, which apparently is much larger than the media seems to think; I happen to believe that some in the media (especially black commentators) didn’t mind having Hispanics marginalized and dehumanized still further. Thus when he arrived at a Christian conservative conference last week in Iowa, he was on solid ground. But according to the New York Times, Republican candidates who now saw an opening not available in Trump ignorant attack on immigrants found that they were not necessarily on solid ground themselves when attacking Trump on his Sen. McCain remarks:

Yet for all the outrage among party elites, some attendees at the Christian conservative conference where Mr. Trump made his comments were not nearly as offended, a reminder of the chasm between the Republican power structure and its grass roots.

Not only that, but there was proof that “Christian conservatives”—or the extreme right in general—were not offended by racist stereotypes or attacks on the military service (or in Trump’s case, the lack thereof):

“Well, I was turned off at the very start because I didn’t like his language,” Becky Kruse, of Lovilia, Iowa, said of Mr. Trump, not mentioning his comments about Mr. McCain. Ms. Kruse said she likes Mr. Trump’s hard line on immigration and came to the event considering him. “I was not too impressed,” she said, noting Mr. Trump’s comment about not seeking God’s forgiveness. “He sounds like he isn’t really a born-again Christian.” 

While Ms. Kruse didn’t care much for Trump’s “language” or his lack “Christian” credentials, she had been attracted by his ignorant remarks concerning immigrants, and apparently didn’t agree with Sen. McCain’s suggestion that she might be one of those “crazies.” The hypocrisy of these people is simply beyond belief. Trump’s views on immigrants and McCain were despicable both in “language” and in fact, but these people found the superficial more disturbing than his factual ignorance. In my mind, these people do as much to discredit Christianity as Muslim jihadists do to Islam. The only “humans” they know are white, “100 percent” Americans. The reality is that everyone has good and bad in them; it is just that “good.”in some people, the “bad” is “good.”

An "alternative" candidate to Clinton exposes the weaknesses in her support

According to a story in the New York Times, Camp Hillary Clinton is “shaken” by polls that appear to indicate that at least in the state of Iowa, Sen. Bernie Sanders is no longer the fringe character in the 2016 Democratic presidential race that no one takes seriously. Being a self-described “democratic-socialist” has proved less “frightening” to as many people as assumed by the “smart” people in the media—the same people who gave the “tea party” movement generally positive reviews, failing to expose it as just another far-right extremist group with a “cute” name. The media (and indignant Clinton fanatics) seems flummoxed by the existence of a large segment of the Democratic vote for which Sanders’ message resonates as something other than empty space.

On the other hand, Sanders has the credibility that Clinton lacks, have never compromised himself or his beliefs; he is what-you-see-is-what-you-get, and the voters of Vermont have apparently found his political views a refreshing change from the usual political hypocrisy.  It seems that many people in Iowa have been exposed to the progressive message that media has long ignored, and are responding to it. The Quinnipiac poll  has revealed that in the space of two months, Clinton’s lead over Sanders has gone from 45 points to 19—and that while the media has given Clinton and her Republican challengers its complete and undivided attention. 

I told you that Sanders was someone Clinton needed to be concerned about. He doesn’t need to “attack” her for people to understand that they are like night and day when it comes to understanding what needs to be done to right the U.S. ship, particularly in regard to growing economic inequality in this country. Clinton just wants to be president for reasons of ego. She and her supporters feel that she is “entitled” to be president. But that was also the case in 2008. Democratic voters may tell pollsters that they support Clinton, but that is because they feel they don’t have another viable option at that time; Clinton does come off to many voters at times self-obsessed and a fraud. In 2008, one such “option” did eventually emerge in the person of Barak Obama, and liberals who might otherwise have felt “guilty” about abandoning the Clinton’s gender politics train felt less so when boarding the Obama silver bullet train. 

As I mentioned here a month ago, when CNN failed to goad Sanders into saying negative things about Clinton to use for a “sexism” charge against him for even having the audacity to enter the race, Sanders represents as true an alternative to Clinton as Obama did.  People know why Clinton wants to be president, and that she wouldn’t even be sniffing at the possibility if it wasn’t for that 800-pound gorilla in her room. But Sanders is the genuine article, and he represents real change; he just needs a cooperative Congress.

The Times’ story tells us that Clinton’s heart was “broken” when she lost Iowa in 2008, but she “often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals.” Oh yeah? More like the woman scorned. Are they talking about her racist meltdown in Pennsylvania, or the RFK assassination comments? Behind-scenes-stories from the book Game Change indicated that Clinton was as far from “in control” of the situation, her high-level backers sensed this. As her increasingly dwindling chance of winning the nomination became more and more apparent, she and her erstwhile political support tanked. 

Nevertheless, the Times still insists that the primaries are Clinton’s to lose, and Sanders is nowhere near as “positioned” to win the nomination or the presidency as Clinton. Of course, that is what they said about Obama eight years ago. The media can ignore Sanders—at the risk once again of its own credibility.

At FSU--or any school--“respect” means you can be a racist if you are white and female

I ask myself “Why did CNN only show a millisecond clip of the incident in which ex-football player Ray Rice struck his then fiancé when she was lunging to strike him? Why did they not wait five seconds to show her striking him—for the second time?” The answer, of course, is that CNN wanted maximum outrage for ratings. They couldn’t take a chance on showing the entire video and what it suggested, because some people might actually ask themselves “Wait a minute. Didn’t she instigate the violence? Isn’t she just as guilty?”

A similar narrative is in play with the incident involving ex-Florida State University quarterback De'Andre Johnson. CNN has been showing a very truncated clip of Johnson striking a white female FSU student in the face at a bar. Johnson claims that he did so only after she tried to strike him with her fist, knee him in the groin, and shouted racist epithets at him. Watching CNN’s clip, you obviously don’t “get” all of that.  ESPN claims that the female was just “waiting at the bar” to order when Johnson simply barged in and shoved her aside.

The local Tallahassee newspaper actually show the entire surveillance video a few minutes before and a few minutes after the incident. This is what I saw: After some rather humdrum goings-on between the bartenders and customers, a black male and a pudgy-looking blonde female walk up to the bar at almost the exact same time. They bump into each other. The white female appears to take extreme exception to it, raising her arm as if to strike the black male. He grabs her arm. She then raises her knee as if to strike him in the groin. Words appear to be exchanged; we don’t see the black male’s face, but the female clearly appears to be belligerent. The black male then strikes the white female in the face and immediately leaves. The white female hangs out for a minute or so, commiserating with a friend or sympathetic observer before leaving. The bartenders apparently did not even notice what happened. The white female appeared to be in shock about what just happened, as if she expected no consequences for her own actions.

Why would ESPN or CNN lie about what actually happened? Why is it a “rant” to question why there is a double standard and female suffered no consequences for instigating the incident, as did one of Johnson’s former college teammates? Here, let me just stand here and let you punch and shout racist insults at me, but if I respond, I’m the one who loses everything? 

FSU President John Thrasher, in approving of the dismissal of Johnson by FSU’ football coach, said "While it is always important to adhere to due process, having now seen the physical altercation captured on video, there is no question in my mind that Coach Fisher made the correct decisions. I expect all students at Florida State University, including student-athletes, to adhere to the highest level of conduct. I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior exhibited in this case. Florida State University was forged from an outstanding college for women and has a long tradition of being a caring community that demands students be treated with dignity and respect."

The hypocrite. Obviously, if a female is involved, “due process” apparently doesn’t exist for males. Apparently Thrasher doesn’t really expect all FSU students to adhere to the “highest level of conduct.” Is FSU an “outstanding college for women” because they can do anything they want to disrespect others, especially minority students, out of "fairness" and "sensitivity" to their victim myths? Was this white female student treating this black male with “dignity and respect”? Does Thrasher actually think that racist cultural and social attitudes are a thing of the past—and not part of the dynamic that brings about frequent accusations by white females against black males at the school, especially a Southern school?

Why are we allowing gender politics to cloud racial reality? The recent case of three black University of Oregon basketball players expelled from the school is a case in point. A white female student accused the players of sexual assault, yet an investigation by both law enforcement and prosecutors found no evidence to support her accusation. However, raving white female gender advocates forced the school administration to ignore the rights of the players. The truth was that the accuser thought it “cool” to go to a “black party” where according to all witnesses she apparently had a consensual sexual encounter with the three athletes in a bathroom; far from “coercing” her, the three allowed her to leave to get a drink of water, and instead of just going home, she apparently without coercion returned to the bathroom to continue the encounter. She even admitted to having consensual sex with one of the accused the following morning. One of her friends with her that night told investigators that she believed the accuser did lie about being assaulted; the accuser was a “partier” who had frequent consensual sexual encounters, but had a habit of feeling “dirty” or “regretting” it the next day. How did feeling “dirty” turn into “sexual assault” in this one instance? Because the accused were black? The athletes should have filed a lawsuit against the university for violation of their civil rights.

I have an idea. Black students at FSU should turn this thing right around on the school. They should talk about racism at the school—by both male and female students—and ask why the school tolerates this, because that is essentially what the school is doing in the Johnson case, tolerating racism by whites and denying a black male due process and the opportunity for an education or athletic success because of the “in the heat of the moment” way he reacted  at this racism. They may not “win” the argument, but they can make it uncomfortable for the school administration and academic and student gender activists who use racist stereotypes to further their agenda by forcing them to address this issue—I mean, really get into their faces and not accept their propaganda lines and excuses and cross-accusations. 

Did the FSU student “deserve” to be struck the way she was? No, because violence doesn’t solve anything, and in her case she wouldn’t have “learned” anything anyways. But let’s turn this around: If Johnson had filed charges with police or the university about this white female student attempting to assault him and using racist epithets, what would have happened to the accused? Not a damn thing. Or maybe just laugh at him, or accuse him of being a "woman-hater."

Donald Trump apparently not alone in racist ignorance

Donald Trump, a man who made his wealth investing his father’ money in real estate adventures, then “saved” it by repeatedly going into bankruptcy proceedings to avoid paying his debts, recently announced that he is entering the 2016 presidential fray as a Republican. He has of course done this before, his principle campaign agenda in 2012 to “prove” that Barack Obama was not born in this country, despite the evidence of a birth certificate that proved otherwise.  Trump never loses an opportunity to outrage, and his latest “presidential” decree didn’t disappoint on the subject of immigration:

When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting.

This incredibly despicable and stupid statement that essentially is saying that most immigrants from Latin America, and Mexico in particular, are either mentally retarded, sexual fiends or criminals. If this were said about blacks, Trump wouldn’t survive the wild fire that would erupt. But it was about a group that in this “culture” and in the media is largely marginalized and dehumanized, and “mainstream” reaction has been mainly to attack Trump—not his “message.”

To be sure, the retailer Macy’s cut its line of Trump “ties,” but most of the “pain” Trump has had to endure is from Spanish-language media, Latino entertainers, and some personal embarrassment. But by and large, there has been no “outrage” from non-Hispanics; one can speculate if to a certain degree they “agree” with Trump’s paranoid stereotyping, or simply don’t wish to start on a “conversation” on pervasive racial bigotry against Hispanics, perhaps because blacks might object.  However, Trump’s suggestion that the “golf world” supports him in his racist statements obliged the PGA to release this statement:

"In response to Mr. Trump's comments about the golf industry 'knowing he is right' in regards to his recent statements about Mexican immigrants, we feel compelled to clarify that those remarks do not reflect the views of our organizations. While the LPGA, PGA of America, PGA Tour and USGA do not usually comment on presidential politics, Mr. Trump's comments are inconsistent with our strong commitment to an inclusive and welcoming environment in the game of golf."

Interestingly, the PGA and LPGA did not suggest that they would retire Trump-run golf courses from their tour schedule, which was the basis of Trump’s claims of support. If they had, then it would have made a “meaningful” statement. Instead, the golf world remains what it is: A for all practical purposes exclusionary sport. 

Trump, feeling the need for “damage control,” told CNN’s Don Lemon that  his “concern” about immigration had something to do with his “anguish” over job losses (despite the growth in jobs since 2009), insinuating that it was the “fault” of Mexican immigrants, even though the jobs lost in the past have largely been the result of corporate profit-pirates, the greed of executives (like Trump), the deflation of middle class wages and subsequent consumer movement to cheaper foreign-made goods that American retailers are only too happy to market in order to stay in business. Like most conservative business types, Trump doesn’t understand that increasing the wages of the bottom half of the labor market increases consumer spending while the highest paid in this country simply horde their money, failing to recycle it into the economy which would create more jobs.

Trump went on to insult Hispanics by claiming that "I love the Mexican people. I've had a great relationship with Mexico and the Mexican people." Is this man off his medication or going senile? Lemon challenged the context of his “rapist” claims, to which Trump harrumphed  "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?...Go to Fusion and pick up the stories on rape. All I'm doing is telling the truth."

First of all, it is highly unlikely that Trump ever “visits” the  Fusion website since it has a “progressive” agenda. Furthermore, the only story that he is referencing was a survey by a couple of American feminist “researchers,” whose veracity or credibility should be taken for what it is. These people have a political agenda, and likely skewed their questions for a very small and self-selective pool of female migrants to lead them to the answers they wanted to hear.  80 percent of migrant women “raped” is almost certainly a gross—or grotesque—exaggeration. I also have no doubt that since these women are “illegals,” it would seem logical to conclude that while certainly some were at least unwilling sexual partners or raped, it is also highly probable that some of these women simply told the “researchers” what they wanted to hear, in the hopes to gain sympathy and improve their legal status. 

Trump also falsely reads into just this one story who it is claimed is doing the “raping”—not fellow male immigrants, but mainly those “helping” to “expedite” the process of illegal immigration for a “price,” such as coyotes, law enforcement and government agents.  Were “favors” exchanged? Why should it be discounted? As an aside, my own experience with Latinas suggests that a great many of them have perverse temperaments, enjoy being the center of attention,  like people to take pity on their alleged troubles (especially if those people can “help” them), and finding ways to injure their male counterparts—combinations that make them perfect candidates to “prove” feminist myths. 

While Trump’s ignorant racism that makes blanket negative generalizations about Latinos—particularly galling in the wake of the Charleston church shooting by a young white supremacist that left nine black parishioners dead—is made no less so than his claim that his statements are based on “facts” offered up by gender advocates that he would likely deride on any other subject, one suspects that this is a popular myth amongst the non-Hispanic population. Yet FBI crime statistics actually show that the sexual assault rate by Latinos is lower than both whites and blacks. 

Trump's total lack of self-control is further illustrated by his flailing about to "justify" his racism in a search for “sources” to bolster his accusing immigrants of being largely criminals, “killers” and “drug dealers." Other than the odd anecdote (like a recent shooting of a white female in San Francisco that is getting excessive press), one suspects who his “sources” are (and from whom he discovered the Fusion story) Right-wing racists like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, who recently parroted her new book on—“surprisingly” enough—the Fusion network. Confronted by host Jorge Ramos for her incendiary and racist diatribes in her book, Adios, America, she outraged (some) audience members by making the following statements about Latinos, all of them either false, gross exaggerations or the usual paranoid propaganda of the ignorant:

"Very easy to avoid being killed by ISIS.... If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican there’s nothing I can tell you."

"There are cultures that are obviously deficient, and if they weren’t deficient you wouldn’t be sitting in America interviewing me, I’d be sitting in Mexico."

"You fled that culture because it is a crime…..There are a lot of problems with that culture. Hopefully it can be changed, but we can share our culture with other nations without bringing all of their people here."

"When you bring the people here you bring their culture here. That includes honor killings."

"It includes uncles raping their nieces."

"It includes dumping litter all over."

"It includes not paying your taxes."

It includes paying bribes to government officials."

"America is the best in the world and we are about to lose it."

"No country has ever had the respect for women that Anglo-America does, and that is going out the door."

I have to admit I “chuckled” at that last claim, particularly because Anglo-American women like Coulter are just as racist and ignorant about other “cultures” as their men, perhaps even more so. Latinos certainly have more respect for traditional family values than does Anglo-American “culture.” But in general, Coulter is a complete moron, and perhaps that says something about even gender activists who secretly admire her. But how can anyone take her seriously? The unfortunate truth is that there are millions of Coulters in this country. People like herself and Trump seem to develop a remarkable degree of amnesia about the crimes of their own "people," forgetting the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Andrea Yates and Dylann Roof.

Would Trump dare to such things about blacks, and all the hell that would pummel him in its wake? His political career would be over, finished, his reputation irretrievably broken. Yet blacks have by far the highest violent crime rates of any demographic—including undocumented Hispanics. And why not? The vast majority of undocumented workers don’t want to call attention to themselves by committing such crimes. The vast majority of the undocumented  who are in jail are so not because they murdered or raped someone, but on legal status. Yet every time a crime is committed the media (especially the right-wing variety) uses it to paint a broad brush not just over illegal immigrants, but use it to bolster stereotypical attitudes about the “culture” of legal residents  It is an indication of just how ignorant most Americans choose to be, especially the media that perpetuates stereotypes.   

And there are “subliminal” messages in the media. Take for example television advertisements about cybercrime and identity theft, where the criminal always has a vaguely Hispanic appearance. Isn’t it “amazing” how Hispanics, who are generally portrayed as tech “dumb” and don’t know how to do anything but pick fruit or  do the most menial labor, suddenly become tech “savvy” when it comes to crime? Of course, the truth is that it is Russian cybercriminals hacking into computers collecting billions of Social Security numbers, IDs and passwords and selling them to other criminals, activities which these anti-theft companies can do nothing about. But Americans don’t want reality; they already know who the “criminals” are.

The principle problem about all of this for me is the likelihood that such negative generalizations are taken as “fact” by “Anglo” America, without any direct personal knowledge of or contact with the despised group; Trump actually "surged" in polling immediately after his comments. Nothing positive is said about Hispanics in the media, especially about the vast majority who are hard-working without complaint. All most "natives" know about Latinos is what they see in the media (mostly negative portrayals in regard to illegal immigration) or said about them by politicians who issue ignorant propaganda to feed the paranoia of their base. From what I can tell, most make their judgments based on superficial “evidence”—that is to say how they viscerally react to them on sight. This is not “evidence,” it is called racism—and having to “live” with knowing that this is what many people believe as “fact” doesn’t improve one’s view of whites, Nazis or not. And that includes Sen. Ted Cruz, the Hispanic hating white Cuban-American who is supporting Trump.