Donald Trump’s supporters are not racist – they are sick of being let down

First published December 29, 2015 in the Telegraph

Donald Trump is doing “mind-glowingly” well. The more Trump talks, the more Republicans like him. He speaks the unfiltered truth about what’s killing America and has interesting ideas about how to fix it. Trump now leads his rivals by 39 per cent, according to the CNN/ORG poll, and Republicans think Trump is the best of all the dozen or so candidates to handle the economy, immigration and Isil.

This looks like the sign of a winner to me. But Trump’s disruptive, self-funded, politically-incorrect campaign has incensed establishment Republicans and liberal politicos, who face an existential threat in the absence of you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours politics. As a result, political commentators who will lose their influence in 2016 have gone into panic mode. They are turning their columns into Trump trashing tools.

The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker put it more crudely. Apart from calling Trump’s wife “a pin up girl,” Parker attributed the candidate’s popularity to his being “the White Man’s last stand.” As of December, 72 per cent of Republicans view Trump favourably, so Trump doesn’t only appeal to “racist, xenophobic, nativist, anti-immigrant — or ignorant” white guys as she suggests.

Back in 2008, I don’t recall Parker attacking Barack Obama as “the Black Man’s last stand” for having won 95 percent of the black vote . In 2012, black voters gave Obama a repeat performance with over 93 percent of blacks voting for him. For their undying loyalty to the nation’s first black president, black people were left on their knees with diminished wealth and double-digit unemployment. Some stand that was.

Unlike Obama, Trump has lots of experience successfully running businesses and “his politically incorrect shtick” — as Parker called his campaign – is anything but. Donald Trump’s “noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not …,” wrote political commentator David Frum.

Trump’s calls for a temporary moratorium on Muslims entering the US and deportation of illegal aliens who steal jobs from and kill American citizens aren’t insane ideas. These policies protect us and national security.

Recently, President Barack Obama accused Trump of “exploiting” blue-collar men. Trump wouldn’t have an opportunity to appeal to blue-collar workers if Obama had given them jobs instead of looking out for the economic prosperity of illegals. Through executive orders, Obama has granted amnesty, tax credits and other measures helping illegals remain in the US, competing for jobs those blue collar men used to have.

Does Obama remember how he exploited black people for their vote, based on the colour of his skin in 2008 and 2012? Or does Obama recall how the 2012 leader of Congressional Black Caucus Emmanuel Cleaver told blacks to vote for Obama again because he was black (even though black unemployment was out of control)? In an interview with the Root, Cleaver said:

“Look, as the chair of the Black Caucus I’ve got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticise the president. With 14 per cent [black] unemployment if we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House.”

With no record to run on in 2012 to earn the black vote, Obama’s message to black voters was basically “vote for me because I’m a brother”. In the recent NPR interview, Obama admitted that under his watch, wages and incomes have “flatlined” and workers have a right to be frustrated. But because Trump is white and appealing to white blue-collar workers, the black president implied that Trump’s supporters are racists and said that Trump’s “taking advantage.” Presidential campaigns are about exploiting the outgoing leader’s weaknesses, which is exactly what Obama did to Bush in 2008.

For the past seven years, Obama – aided and abetted by the mainstream media – has waged a jihad of political correctness on the nation, seemingly in defence of everything but America. A growing number of Republicans are supporting Trump because they’re tired of their grievances being silenced and ignored – not because of racist appeals.

Dueling Amigos, Trump, and Paul Dominate Final GOP Debate of 2015

Two Hispanics, a diminutive Libertarian and a Donald loomed large in the fifth and thankfully, last Republican debate of 2015.  The amigo Senators Rubio and Cruz stole the night “insulting” each other in what can only be described as a full-on duel between the sole Hispanics running.  This was also the first time Senator Rand Paul had some strong moments, while Trump sustained his triumphant position with even more verbal firepower.

Rubio vs Cruz

“And you know, there was one commentator that put it this way that, for Marco to suggest our record’s the same is like suggesting ‘the fireman and the arsonist because they are both at the scene of the fire.’”

“He was fighting to grant amnesty and not to secure the border, I was fighting to secure the border,” said Cruz, landing one of the best shots of the night.

But Rubio had his own slings and arrows, exposing the fissure in Cruz’s “carpet bomb ISIS into oblivion” strategy.

“Three times he voted against the Defense Authorization Act, which is a bill that funds the troops. It also, by the way, funds the Iron Dome and other important programs. And I have to assume that if you vote against it in the Senate, you would also veto it as president.

He has also supported, by the way, a budget that is called the containment budget. And it is a budget that would radically reduce the amount of money we spend on our military. You can’t carpet bomb ISIS if you don’t have planes and bombs to attack them with,” Rubio assailed.

But Cruz shot back at Rubio on his Achilles’ heel: amnesty.  With searing precision, Cruz reminded voters that Rubio was one of the main architects of the 2013 pro-immigration-reform Gang of Eight who successfully got the Senate to pass a bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.

“Border security is national security. And, you know, one of the most troubling aspects of the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight Bill was that it gave President Obama blanket authority to admit refugees, including Syrian refugees without mandating any background checks whatsoever,” Cruz said.

“Now we’ve seen what happened in San Bernardino. When you are letting people in, when the FBI can’t vet them, it puts American citizens at risk. And I tell you, if I’m elected president, we will secure the border. We will triple the border patrol. We will build a wall that works and I’ll get Donald Trump to pay for it,” added Cruz

By connecting Rubio’s support of open borders with terrorism, Cruz – with the help of Senator Rand Paul – successfully portrayed Rubio as weak on national security (now a top – if not the number one – issue for voters).

But Rubio fought back, stabbing Cruz with his own weak record on national security, lambasting his adversary for voting against allowing the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records. Under the new USA Freedom Act, which Cruz vigorously supported, the NSA must obtain a court order to spy on terrorists – which slows down the good guys.

“Because I promise you, the next time there is attack on — an attack on this country, the first thing people are going to want to know is why didn’t we know about it and why didn’t we stop it? And the answer better not be because we didn’t have access to records or information that would have allowed us to identify these killers before they attacked,” Rubio warned.

Senator Paul

Denouncing Rubio’s support for increased spying on Americans’ phone records to prevent terrorism, Paul picked up the skewering of Rubio where Cruz left off.  To thunderous applause, Paul declared Rubio “the weakest of all the candidates on immigration.”

“He is the one for an open border that is leaving us defenseless. If we want to defend the country, we have to defend against who’s coming in, and Marco is — has more of an allegiance to Chuck Schumer and to the liberals than he does to conservative policy,” Paul added.

Paul also went after Governor Chris Christie, who found himself elevated from the so-called “undercard,” to the main stage, after achieving higher poll numbers.  After Christie responded that he would shoot down a Russian plane if it flew into a hypothetical no-fly zone over Syria, the dovish Paul chided Christie for being a warmonger without the temperament to be president.

“This is something — this type of judgment, you know, it’s having that kind of judgment; who you would appoint and how you’re going to conduct affairs, that is incredibly important.  I mean, I think when we think about the judgment of someone who might want World War III, we might think about someone who might shut down a bridge because they don’t like their friends,” Paul elaborated, referring to the Christie scandal that became known as “Bridgegate.”

Trump vs. Bush

Amid these pretty stellar performances, frontrunner Donald Trump loomed large while Jeb Bush couldn’t resist trying to attack Trump.  While Bush showed more aggression than in past debates, it fell flat.

Bush said Trump lacked seriousness as a candidate because of his positions on immigration and temporary ban on Muslims entering the country; and the two snipped at each other like dogs for a few seconds.

Then Trump warned voters that Bush too is weak on immigration enforcement and thereby would jeopardize US national security.

“When Jeb comes out and he talks about the border, and I saw it and I was witness to it, and so was everyone else, and I was standing there, ‘they come across as an act of love,’ he’s saying the same thing right now with radical Islam. And we can’t have that in our country. It just won’t work. We need strength,” Trump said.

During the debate, Bush kept repeating Trump couldn’t insult his way to the presidency. To which, Trump chortled:

“Well, let’s see. I’m at 42, and you’re at 3. So, so far, I’m doing better.”

Whatever you want to call Trump’s strategy, it’s working. In contrast, Jeb’s position on the debate stage keeps “moving over further and further” from the center, based on his declining poll numbers. “Pretty soon you’re going to be off the end…” laughed Trump.  Clearly, he already is – along with many others who should just step aside.

Our National Security Plan: Obama vs. Trump

In predictable fashion, Democrats blamed Muslim couple Syed Faroook and his wife Tasheen Malik’s terrorist rampage on loose gun laws.  California has some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. The couple began purchasing guns and stockpiling thousands of rounds of ammunition three years ago – legally. The shooting was a failure of President Barack Obama’s national security, specifically the FBI, State Department and Homeland Security.

Why weren’t they on the FBI’s terrorists watch list? The FBI manages the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) which gun sellers must use before selling anyone a gun. FBI Director James Comey admitted that his agency is faltering on its job. Comey noted that Dylan Roof, who killed parishioners in the Charleston, SC church, had an NICS file indicating he had a history of mental illness in 2008 – but still purchased a gun. The FBI should have stopped the sale of that gun.

 In 2014, Malik was granted a K-1 or fiancé(e) visa by the State Department’s consulate in Pakistan, so she could travel to the US to marry Farook. She then passed criminal and terrorists background checks conducted by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued her a green card as recently as July 2015. Nowhere along the multiple layers of national security checks did any of these agencies think about perhaps looking into her husband. Comey admitted that the terrorist couple had been in communication with people “under FBI surveillance.”

What happened in California was a complete breakdown of America’s national security. It appears that George W. Bush did keep us safe after 9/11, but that safety has evaporated under Obama. In response to the president’s disastrous handling of combating terrorism, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”  This would include Muslim tourists, “refugees” and those seeking visas.

Seems more than reasonable to me considering ISIS comprises Muslim terrorists who have proven they’re adept at committing atrocities across the globe, “beyond comprehension,” as Trump characterized. Yet on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough summarily silenced Trump as the candidate rationally explained his proposal. Trump said it was a “temporary proposal.” Due to lax immigration laws, France is now home to 5 million Muslims, the largest populations in Europe.  About 1500 have left France to receive training in Syria from ISIS. Using the example of France’s loose immigration laws, Trump explained:

“Paris is no longer the same city it was. They have sections in Paris that are radicalized where the police to go in there. They are petrified. We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and vigilant…I want to get our hands around a very difficult situation.”

Oozing with condescension, Scarborough interrupted Trump, “You’ve got to let us ask the questions, you’re just talking.”

“I’m not just talking, I’m giving you the facts,” responded Trump.

Scarborough responded by dumping Trump off the air and cutting to commercial break. When liberal reporters can’t distort facts, they cut off or “silence” the debate.

Before he was summarily thrown off the air for his logic, Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski accused Donald of liking to stir up controversy. There’s nothing controversial about Trump proposing that America have a comprehensive plan to combat a growing terror threat to homeland.

House Speaker Paul Ryan demanded Obama develop “a comprehensive strategy to defeat and not to contain ISIS.”  Addressing the nation, Obama said he would review the K-1 visa program, and put forth “no new plan, just a half-hearted attempt to defend and distract from a failing policy,” noted Ryan.

Speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CIA Director John Brennan offered shocking news:

“[ISIS] was, you know, pretty much decimated when US forces were there in Iraq. It had maybe 700-or-so adherents left. And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al-Qaida in Syria, and set up its own organization.”

Under Obama’s watch In September 2014, a CIA analysis found under Obama’s presidency, ISIS grew 4,400% from 700 to about 20,000 to 31,500 fighters in Syria and Iraq.

“This new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.”

Trump is offering a plan to fight terrorism and he’s getting more (negative) media coverage than our president who is offering nothing.


Over 40,000 Black kids killed in US by Guns, No Outrage from New York Times 

It took a Muslim couple’s killing spree of Americans in San Bernardino, California, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, for the New York Times to conclude America has a “gun epidemic.”

America does have a gun problem. But it’s not a legal-gun-owner/mass-murder crisis. It’s an illegal-gun/black-children epidemic. Guns in the US have killed over 40,000 black children. Fewer than 800 people have died in America at the hands of mass shooters.

The difference: one is blown way out of proportion by liberals and the media, while the other one is shamefully ignored. In a damning opinion editorial, End the Gun Epidemic in America, the Times wrote: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”

The New York Times op-ed ran on the front page of its December 5, 2015 print edition. This is only the second time the paper has done this since 1920.

Why isn’t the Times calling for gun control to stop the number of blacks being killed by guns in America, which far outpaces people killed by mass shootings? Could it be race matters in Times’ selective outrage?

Here’s a staggering reality check, 44,038 black children have been killed by guns since 1979; that’s less than 50 years ago, according to data from the Children’s Defense Fund.  The reality is most of these kids like the 9-year old Chicago boy killed recently, were killed by other blacks. According to the Justice Department data, blacks are committing more homicides than whites — at a rate of 7 to 1, and are homicide victims at rate of 6 to 1.

We rarely see news articles from the liberal press lamenting these black lives lost to guns that were obtained almost exclusively illegally. Yet the Washington Post ran a story “The Math of Mass Shootings.” Using an elaborate corresponding graphic, the article illustrates that over the last 50 years, there have been 794 victims killed by mass shooters in the US. (The writers acknowledged there is no universally accepted definition of a mass shooting.)

Do liberal newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post believe black homicides are acceptable but mass shootings aren’t?

For decades, blacks have been dying at the hands of other blacks who are largely buying, stealing or otherwise acquiring guns illegally. Homicides have more than doubled in DC this year. Baltimore experienced its deadliest summer since 1972. The cities experiencing the most gun violence have the strictest gun laws, and that’s because the guns are being acquired illegally.

Chicago’s murder rate is always horrific, earning it the murder capital moniker in 2012. I don’t recall reading a single op-ed from the New York Times unleashing “righteous fury,” condemning the spread of firearms” or appealing to America’s “sense of decency.”

Why has this wholesale killing of black children been ignored by Democrats like Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? Democrats’ refusal to even address the problem is particularly vexing when one considers blacks vote almost exclusively Democrat.

“Here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.” — ‪ President Barack Obama after the San Bernardino shooting.

To the contrary, it’s way too easy for black children to be murdered by guns in America — something with which liberals, including the nation’s first black president — have grown increasingly comfortable. I wonder if it will take 100,000 black kids to die from guns and another 95 years for the New York Times editorial board to write an op-ed about that gun epidemic. The media should start doing the math on black homicides and ask the question: which matters more, black lives or political pandering?


No Protest (Or Obama Outrage) For Murder Of 9-year Old Chicago Boy, Killed By Black Gang Member

First published December 4, 2015 in the Daily Caller

Where’s the media’s nonstop coverage and outrage over the murder of a 9 year-old black boy in Chicago, shot multiple times in the face and back by a black 27 year-old gang member? Where are the marches led by so-called “black leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Where is President Barack Obama’s Justice Department’s investigation? Could it be that black lives don’t matter when murdered by other blacks?

 On the afternoon of November 2, 2015, Tyshawn Lee, a fourth grader, went to play basketball at a playground near his grandmother’s house. Cory Morgan and other gang members lured Tyshawn into an alley where Morgan executed him at close range. The autopsy found that in addition to two other bullet wounds, part of Tyshawn’s right thumb was blown off, as he tried to defend himself against the rain of bullets.

Police believe Morgan murdered Tyshawn because his father was involved in a rival gang responsible for killing Morgan’s brother. The murder of this unarmed black child occurred in Chicago’s South Side, notorious for crime – a virtual war zone of blacks killing blacks. Auburn-Gresham, the neighborhood where Tyshawn was killed, is where gangs fight for control to sell drugs. Almost numb to gun violence, residents of the neighborhood expressed shock at Tyshawn’s murder, saying they’ve “never seen anything this violent.”

“Tyshawn Lee was murdered in probably the most abhorrent, cowardly, unfathomable crime that I’ve witnessed in 35 years of policing,” observed (now former) Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy.

Yet in the face of such a heinous act, we don’t see blacks shutting down Michigan Avenue in anger, like they did over Laquan McDonald’s death. Nor do we see Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush – who, for decades, represented the district that includes Chicago – leading a protest like he did Black Friday with Jackson.

 Don’t get me wrong: the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, a black teen, by Jason Van Dyke, a white Chicago police officer was awful. The officer’s life didn’t appear to be in danger in any way, yet he savagely shot McDonald multiple times. But the liberal news media’s obsession with cases like this one, of white police officers killing young black men, has conditioned news organizations to ignore murders of blacks by blacks and distort facts.

 It’s an absolute false narrative to suggest that the majority of young black men being killed in America are being killed by white police officers. That’s beyond an exaggeration. It’s negligent reporting. More than 390 people have been killed in Chicago this year and the majority of them weren’t killed by white police officers. In 2012, the city was declared the murder capital of the United States with 503 homicides. According to the FBI, in 2014 Chicago had 411 homicides.

Why is McDonald’s killing – like those of Michael Brown and Freddie Gray before him – sucking up the liberal news media and black America’s attention – but not the murder of Tyshawn? Obama has become seized with the shootings of young black men, giving press conferences on the shooting deaths of Brown and Trayvon Martin. A representative from the White House attended Brown’s funeral. But Obama, who is from Chicago and served as a US Senator from Illinois, hasn’t made any public statement about Tyshawn killed in “an act of barbarism.”

Democrat Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel fired McCarthy, blaming him for blacks’ lack of trust in the police force due solely to the isolated killing of McDonald. The police superintendent put resources into arresting the other gang members involved in Tyshawn’s murder and pledged to destroy both gangs. Instead of firing McCarthy, the mayor should admit the real problem isn’t the police.

As Democrat politicians like Emmanuel and Obama feel a need to placate blacks, a broader question emerges. Is ‘Black Lives Matter’ a serious movement aimed at justice or a ploy for blacks to blame cops for black homicides – while news outlets make money at their expense?

Blacks’ Misguided Chicago Protest

There is no spinning the killing of Laquan McDonald by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke. A 17-year old black boy appears to have been savagely murdered by a white police officer in October 2014 for no apparent probable cause or reason – other than Van Dyke was a bad cop.

But blacks didn’t help themselves or their “cause” when they protested Black Friday in Chicago, clogging Magnificent Mile, the busiest stretch of retail stores. They just looked like another directionless group of angry black people.

In the name of Black Lives Matter, an estimated 1,000 people shutdown Michigan Avenue. Mostly black protestors locked arms and stood in front of stores blocking customers from entering or exiting. How does blocking the entrance to the American Girl Store on Michigan Avenue force Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel to address their grievance of alleged police violence against blacks?

Once again as we saw in Baltimore and Ferguson, blacks harmed other blacks who had nothing to do with the killing of a black teen. Chicago, like the other two cities, is predominately black. While the protestors didn’t destroy and loot black businesses and homes, they disrupted the biggest shopping and revenue-making holiday for retailers.

Thanks to the black protestors, other blacks couldn’t work, make money or shop. If the angry mob wanted to be effective, they should have protested Chicago’s Democrat machine—Emmanuel’s office, the City Council, the State’s Attorney and the Chicago Police Superintendent who waited over a year to release the dash-cam video.

There are many questions lingering around the case, including why it took the Chicago police more than a year to release the video, and prosecutors to bring charges of first-degree murder against Van Dyke (not to mention the timing – on the eve of a major holiday). Did the mayor pressure the State’s attorney to time release of the video and charging of the officer until after he won a tight reelection? Did Mayor Emmanuel also collude with the Chicago City Council to pay $5 million to McDonald’s relatives, as hush money? To absolve himself from blame, Emmanuel has called for the Police Superintendent’s resignation.

“We believe injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. There has been an implicit cover-up from the top down,” said J.D. Anderson, one of the protestors the pastor at Centennial Missionary Baptist Church on the city’s south side.

What would have been more effective would have been for the protestors to march on city hall, the mayor’s home and police headquarters. Instead they allowed themselves to be led by Reverend Jesse Jackson, who never met a protest (or television camera) he didn’t like, or one that actually solved problems for blacks.

A white friend who works in the mainstream media recently mused that blacks also allow themselves to be used by the media.

“The white supposedly liberal mainstream media USES blacks as entertainment — just like the old minstrel shows. They fire up the cameras on, yell “action,” and black people tap dance.  It’s vile and exploitive.”

And blacks indeed tapped dance in Chicago.

Police stood by in Chicago and allowed protestors violate the first amendment and civil rights of shoppers and storeowners. Recall in Baltimore, the mayor instructed police to stand down and give room to the “[black] rioters to destroy.” There appears to be a pattern of a double standard emerging in law enforcement where blacks are allowed to bend the rules—in the streets and on college campuses in the name of a movement gone wild.

Blacks in Chicago had a right to protest peacefully. They did not have the right to intimidate other people. I bet if the mob in Chicago had been all white protestors locking arms, blocking stores but chanting racist epithets, the cops would have wasted no time intervening. The lack of unequal application of the rule of law to all citizens, Van Dyke included, will only foment more racial animosity in America.