Is the long-standing love affair between Fox News and President Donald J. Trump hitting some rough waters?
The President said over the weekend that he “was unhappy,” with Fox News, and that “something is going on over there.”
The comments came in response to a question tossed at Trump about the network’s recent survey showing the President losing head-to-head matchups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary candidates. Trump’s full reply to the reporter was “There’s something going on at Fox [News], I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.”
The President quickly added that he didn’t “believe” the poll, adding, “Fox has changed. My worst polls have always been from Fox.”
He then went on to complain about how Democrats had barred the network from hosting or televising the party’s 2020 primary debates and signaled a warning about the general election cycle.
“And I think Fox is making a big mistake,” the president said when asked about the polling and the network’s leadership. “Because, you know, I’m the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates.”
A New Target?
President Trump railing against the news media is nothing new, but the usually “Trump Friendly” Fox News has rarely been the target of his ire. But, lately, Trump has increasingly lumped in Fox News with the rest of his “enemies” for what he views as unfavorable coverage.
Earlier this year he had admonished his “favorite network” for providing a forum for 20202 Democratic candidates. Trump took jabs at Fox News over the network’s town halls with Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders in April and Pete Buttigieg in May.
The polls in question that caused the current spat between Trump and Fox showed Trump’s approval rating in the low 40s and had him losing by six or more points to Democratic 2020 rivals Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Of course, Trump questioned the veracity of the polls, but he seemed more upset that Fox had the audacity to report the actual results of its own poll.
The President also teed off on Fox News political analyst Juan Williams, who Trump said, “has never said a positive thing” — following up on a tweet earlier in the day in which he called Williams “pathetic,” “nasty” and “wrong.”
However, like all lovers that have a bit of a falling out, Trump went on to list “his partner’s” good qualities, following up his comments outside of Marine One on Sunday with, “I’m certainly happy [with]– I think Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs, and I think Tucker Carlson and Laura and Jesse Watters, and Jeanine. We have a lot of great people.”
In a lengthy response to last week’s mass shootings which claimed the lives of 31 people in Ohio and Texas, Barack Hussein Obama laid out his case for who it is that we all should blame. The former President, who most Democratic presidential candidates would prefer not to have their name associated with, attributed the country’s violent culture on President Trump, ‘white supremacist websites’ and guns.
The former president, in a message shared to Twitter, called on U.S. lawmakers to enact more gun control measures to prevent more mass shootings, as if that would do anything at all.
In the statement, Obama wrote, “Until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.”
In a fashion no different than any other liberal politician, Obama laments that “no other nation on Earth” has the degree of violent gun crime as the U.S. does. Of course, he fails to take into account the other kinds of extreme violence other countries like the UK or Germany suffer from, but that’s beside the point I guess.
From his letter, the former president seems to think that we can just legislate this problem away.
Obama also called for increased censorship of so-called ‘what nationalist websites’ to help combat ‘radicalization’.
He writes, “There are indications that the El Paso shooting follows a dangerous trend: troubled individuals who embrace racist ideologies and see themselves obligated to act violently to preserve white supremacy.” Obama then goes onto draw false parallels between the radicalization of ISIS terrorists and the radicalization of white nationalists. “That means that both law enforcement agencies and internet platforms need to come up with better strategies to reduce the influence of these hate groups,” he adds.
Although Mr. Obama didn’t call out President Trump’s rhetoric by name, he urged Americans to “soundly reject language coming out of the mouths of any of our leaders that feeds a climate of fear and hatred or normalizes racist sentiments.”
Additionally, he condemned rhetoric designed to “demonize those who don’t look like us” or which suggests immigrants are a threat to America. He suggested that this kind of rhetoric has been the source of his worst events in human history.
“It has no place in our politics and our public life. And it’s time for the overwhelming majority of Americans of goodwill, of every race and faith and political party, to say as much — clearly and unequivocally,” he concluded.
Democrats and their media allies spent the better part of two years falsely convincing much of the American public that Trump was guilty of criminal collusion with Russia and subsequently, obstruction of justice. You may recall how Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stated that he had seen the evidence among the documents that were provided to the Congress – although he was prohibited from sharing the details and the documents.
Democrats predicted – as fact – that Special Counsel would present the evidence. He did not – neither in his long-anticipated Report, his one and only press conference nor during his testimony before two committees of Congress.
Coming off the much hyped but ultimately disastrous congressional hearings with Mueller, Democrats are already looking for yet another bite at the apple. They are hoping to get former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify. They are now claiming that he will provide the evidence that failed to surface in the Mueller Report, the press conference and the hearings. They simply cannot accept that there is no there, there – at least in terms of criminal culpability.
What can be added that has not already been reported in the media ad infinitum?
Of course, the answer is “not much.” Many Democrats have long ago lost all hope of finding some smoking gun that will have the public clamoring for impeachment. But they have made some progress. Various polls suggest that public sentiment has shifted from 60 percent against impeachment to approximately 53 percent.
Democrats seem to believe that the more they can stage political performances with the same old script and the same characters, there is a chance that the public will bite on their stale bait.
So, how does McGahn fit into that strategy? A bit of retrospective will help.
As counsel to President Trump, McGahn was privy to Trump’s legal issues – official and personal. His more important role, however, was selecting all those conservative judges that Trump has been putting on the federal courts in record numbers – including two Supreme Court justices. But that is another story.
In terms of the Mueller investigation, McGahn is the person who advised Trump not to fire Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the chef at the Trump Tower.
Now this is where the plot thickens. Democrats contend that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller– and they allege that such a command would constitute obstruction of justice. A more benign explanation is that Trump discussed such a possibility to gain McGahn’s legal advice. At any rate, despite every effort by Democrats to put words into Mueller’s mouth, the Special Counsel has refused — again, refused – to say that Trump is guilty of criminal obstruction. He left that decision to the Department of Justice.
The only thing that can be said for sure – factually – is that no one got fired. Mueller stated in his Report and subsequently testified that no one had hindered his investigation. In fact, Trump allowed McGahn to be interviewed by Mueller for more than 30 hours even though he could have claimed executive privilege to prevent such interrogation.
McGahn is mentioned 72 times in the Mueller Report – which in and of itself is not damning. To Democrats, that alone makes him an important witness. On the other hand, with so many references, it is unlikely that there is anything that McGahn can tell the Congress that has not already been summarized in the Report.
McGahn has shown no desire to testify and it is not certain that even a subpoena will get him before the committees of Congress. Even though McGahn is now a private citizen, Trump can exert executive privilege on information relating to McGahn’s days in the White House.
So far, McGahn is not responding to the congressional subpoena. Whether he will eventually be compelled to testify will have to be decided by the courts – and that could take months, even years to determine. But for now, McGahn appears to be the Democrats best chance to regurgitate the collusion and obstruction issues.
Maybe McGahn will testify before Congress. Maybe not. But in pursuing yet another staged event to put on the same production may be wearing thin with the public. It is starting to look like … excuse the expression … a witch-hunt.
So, there ’tis.
Virtually every person who follows current events even casually knows that the national news media has a left-wing tilt – actually more than a tilt. When it comes to putting the journalistic thumb on the partisan political scale, the elitist media is onboard with both feet. Even some of the most liberal observers admit to the media bias.
It has been firmly established by study-after-study. They show that approximately 80 percent of the so-called journalists are liberal Democrats. That figure goes even higher when you look at the east coast, bubble-encapsulated Big Seven – ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post. That is, by far, not a complete list of the biased media. You see others as regular panelists – including, but not limited to, The Atlantic, Associated Press, Politico, Axios, Huffington Post and on and on.
It is an empirical fact that FOX News — despite its conservative lean — provides the most balanced reporting than either of their chief competitors, CNN and MSNBC. Unlike MSNBC, FOX has anchors and permanent contributors who offer the more liberal viewpoint. It frequently provides a legitimate debate between representatives of opposing opinion.
The FOX News ratings swamp those of CNN and MSNBC – combined. The most hardline conservative hosts – such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham – draw a much larger audience than Rachel Maddow, Larry O’Donnell and the crew on Morning Joe.
Despite FOX’s relative objectivity and popularity, those panels of parroting pundits on CNN and MSNBC engage in classic projection by accusing FOX of being the captive of the political right – when, in fact, they are the promotional platform for Democrats and the political left – but I repeat myself.
Objective reporting is no longer the standard among the left-leaning press. What passes for news is opinion, conjecture, hypothecation and, as they say, spin. The once rare and unethical practice of single sources and unnamed sources has become standard operating procedure. They – with malice aforethought – refuse to report facts and opinions that are not supportive of preconceived narratives as news. Their analysis of events is uniform and consistent. It is anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative and contemptible of the millions of Americans who disagree with their port-side perspective. Major portions of the east coast news industry have succumbed to propaganda as their stock-in-trade.
While there is considerable discussion about the manifest biases of the elitist mainstream media, there seems to be less attention paid to the all-important outcome. Are those biases tipping the political scale? And as the headline question asks: Can Democrats win without a biased news media?
The extent of the advantage should be recognized. Many Americans are living with an old image of the news industry – with a bygone belief in its honesty, integrity and fairness. The most ill-informed voters in America are those who fixate on MSNBC. They never hear the other side of the story. They absorb propaganda in the belief that they are getting all the news.
Consider, for a moment, the huge advantage that provides to Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups. Whatever they say or claim will be given the highest credibility and most favorable spin. Arguably, it is one of the reasons that Democrats have become so outrageous in their comments.
Even after the Mueller Report put the lie to more than two years of claiming that President Trump criminally colluded with Russia – presented as a matter of fact – Democrats continue to press that claim and their allies in the media ignore the facts and continue to favorably report (spin) in favor of a political absurdity.
It is entirely possible – even likely – that the constant negative spin against Trump and the Republicans was a deciding factor that handed the House over to the Democrats. There can be no doubt that it is the strategic intent of the anti-Trump east coast media to hand the Senate and White House to the Democrats – an achievement that would seem far less likely in a political environment in which the Fourth Estate operated with the spirit, traditions and ethics of … journalism.
So, there ‘tis.
As is my plight in life, I find it necessary to monitor ALL the news networks. It was my sad task to watch “Deadline: White House” anchored by Nicole Wallace on the day of the 75th D-Day anniversary celebration.
In all fairness I must confess that I respond to Wallace, as a person, much like I respond to the annoying sounds they use to interrupt television shows with severe weather warnings. She has an annoying habit of laughing whenever anyone says something ugly about Trump, Republicans or conservatives – even when she is the one saying it. I never met the woman – and hope to continue such avoidance – but I still take her mocking guffaws personally.
Oh yeah! The show.
Among Wallace’s panel of parroting pundits for this particular program were Princeton Professor and “Morning Joe” regular Eddie Glaude, former federal prosecutor Paul Butler, both Eugene Robinson (another “Morning Joe” regular) and Robert Costa of the Washington Post, Heide Przybyla, National Reporter for NBC and Nick Confessore of the New York Times. The one thing they have in common is that they are among the most strident Trump antagonists on the telly. If the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement were an army, these folks would be generals. Wallace does not let considerations of fairness, balance or even honesty interfere with her propaganda-based program.
As a sidebar, I was particularly interested in the appearance of Confessore since the New York Times recently let it be known that they did not intend to have their reporters appear on biased opinion shows because it would cast doubt on the newspaper’s objectivity. If the editors at the Times had been serious, the Wallace program would have been one of the first to be boycotted. I guess you just cannot believe what comes out of the Times.
Rather than praising Trump’s excellent D-Day speech – as even much of the liberal press did – the Wallace crew dismissed it out of hand as just a well-written speech that Trump delivered without any major blunders.
Rather, they focused on Trump’s earlier interview with Laura Ingraham of FOX News in which he said that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was “foolish” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was “Nervous Nancy.” In terms of Trump’s ability to insult, those are just short of compliments. But boy, did the Wallace gang pounce.
Wallace unfavorably compared Trump’s comments to those of Pelosi, who talked about bipartisanship when it comes to military and veteran matters. Wallace complimented Pelosi for not picking up on Trump’s remark. However, I had seen the Pelosi interview and the Wallace production team took one quote out of context and intentionally did not air Pelosi’s other comments about Trump. And as far as not picking up on Trump’s comments, the Pelosi interview preceded the Trump interviews. Nice going, Wallace.
Robert Costa analyzed Trump’s speech as undermining the NATO alliance. He said the President’s allusions to “nationalism” were not overt. Not only not overt, there were none. Trump was accused of “talking more about the nation” rather then Europe of “international institutions.”
I had two reactions. When is it wrong for a President to talk about what America did in World War II and why so many Americans are interred in France? And Costa is just wrong (lying?) because Trump gave a strong endorsement to the American alliance – calling it “stronger than ever.” Earlier in the day, Joe Scarborough of “Morning Joe” made that very point – saying that our allies should feel very reassured by Trump’s comments about the greater European alliance.
After bashing Trump from every conceivable angle, Robinson summed things up by saying that Trump only thinks about himself, not the men who suffered and died saving the civilized world from Adolph Hitler. Everything is always about Trump, opined Robinson.
Ironically, throughout the entire show, none of these panelists said much about D-Day, and the more than 100,000 brave men who stormed the beaches of Normandy. Some 9,833 now resting below that sea of crosses in Normandy, some 33,000 never to be found, and that shrinking number who are still around to tell their tales.
Wallace’s entire D-Day show was consumed with Trump bashing. It was all about Trump, but not the man, who on this day, gave a moving tribute to all those souls – living and dead – that Wallace ignored completely. You would think that Wallace & Co. could have had a timeout from their unrelenting criticism of the President to have paid homage to those to whom this day is dedicated. But no. Why can’t they give up the anti-Trump screeds? Because — as the MSNBC motto proclaims – “That’s who we are.”
So, there ‘tis.
Much to the ire of Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to fill any vacancy that should open on the Supreme Court in the midst of the 2020 campaign for the presidency.
In a break from tradition, and a seeming reversal of his own previous position on the matter, McConnell, has made it clear what would happen if a Supreme Court vacancy should materialize in the midst of the 2020 election season — “Uh, we’d fill it.”
Although his comment drew laughter and support from those in attendance at a recent luncheon, progressives swiftly accused McConnell of partisan hypocrisy, based on the treatment of former Barack Obama Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge, Merrick Garland.
Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.
McConnell defended his position, then and now, as the only way a president and his party gets to enact any kind of lasting change — that is not subject to the winds of fate when another party takes the White House – is in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.
“What can’t be undone is a lifetime appointment to a young man or woman who believes in the quaint notion that the job of the judge is to follow the law. That’s the most important thing for the country, which cannot be undone.”
McConnel’s Position Not Hypocritical
Speaking to Fox News last year, McConnell suggested his stance was not hypocritical — because in 2020 during the run-up to the election, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House. On Tuesday, a McConnell spokesperson doubled down on that reasoning, saying the situations are not comparable.
“You have to go back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year,” McConnell told Fox News.
However, Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, begged to differ, calling McConnell a “complete hypocrite,” on Twitter.
“Senator McConnell’s statements further damage and undermine the Supreme Court at a time when its standing has been significantly diminished in the eyes of the public,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the nonpartisan Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News in a statement. “His naked political gamesmanship threatens to further erode the integrity of our nation’s highest court. McConnell’s comments are not only reprehensible but a reminder about the unprecedented and unprincipled tactics used to fill the seat currently occupied by Justice Gorsuch.”
Clarke continued, “For civil rights lawyers who are witnessing unrelenting attacks on constitutional rights every day, this is no laughing matter.”
With 86 year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg facing continued heath issues, and both Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, being 80, court-watchers feel a vacancy could be imminent.
It seem like instead of your “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…President Trump only wants countries to send their “top talent” to our shores.
Trump has just unveiled his long-awaited immigration overhaul that would dramatically alter how the US accepts people into the country, upending the system in order to favor admissions based on merit rather than family ties.
“If adopted, our plan will transform America’s immigration system into the pride of our nation and the envy of the modern world,” Trump said from the Rose Garden.
The proposal would judge immigrants with a points-based system that would favor high-skilled workers — accounting for age, English proficiency, education and whether the applicant has a well-paying job offer.
According to Fox News, currently, only about 12 percent of immigrants are admitted based on employment and skills, while 66 percent are admitted based on family connections already inside the country. Administration officials estimate that those numbers would flip to 57 and 33 percent, respectively, under the Trump plan.
“Currently 66 percent of legal immigrants come here based on random chance, they’re admitted solely because they have a relative in the United States, and it doesn’t really matter who that relative is,” Trump said.
He said the plan would help recruit “top talent.”
“We discriminate against genius,” Trump said of current policies. “We discriminate against brilliance. We won’t anymore once we get this passed.”
Plan Would End “Chain Migration”
Trump has long sought to end what he has called “chain migration” as part of his broader push to reform America’s immigration laws and who is allowed into the country.
The president has also frequently called for the end to the visa lottery program, something his immigration plan seeks to do. It would be replaced by a new “Build America Visa” program that would recognize “extraordinary talent” and “people with professional and specialized vocations,” including exceptional students.
The plan does not deal with those already in the country illegally, including those who came to the country as children and were protected under an Obama-era executive order – the so-called “dreamers”.
However, Trump said it closes loopholes so that gang members and criminals are inadmissible, and would stop frivolous asylum claims.
Trump concluded his presentation of the plan by presenting it in stark contrast to anything the Democrats have proposed on immigration. “Democrats are proposing open borders, lower wages and frankly, lawless chaos,” he said. “We are proposing an immigration plan that puts the jobs, wages and safety of American workers first.”
“Through these steps, we will deliver an immigration system that strengthens our traditions, our culture and our values,” he said.
Controversial Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, doubled down on her polarizing remarks about having a “calming feeling” whenever she thinks of the Holocaust, and that Palestinians created a “safe haven for Jews” after the Holocaust during her recent appearance on “Late Night with Seth Meyers,” suggesting that here words were taken out of context and she should be speaking to “racist idiots” at a fourth-grade level.
Her remarks to Meyers followed comments which drew the ire of her critic she made during a Yahoo News podcast interview, where she said that the WWII genocide of six million Jews gave her a “calming feeling” as well as offering revisionist history for claiming that Palestinians welcomed Jews to the Middle East when Palestinian leader Grand Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini was actually an ally of Adolph Hitler and met with the dictator in 1941.
Tlaib tried to justify her heinous remarks to “Late Night” host Seth Meyers by saying that her grandmother lives in the West Bank, which she referred to as “the occupied territories of Palestine” and how many of her ancestors “died” or “gave up their livelihood” to provide that safe haven for Jews, which she wanted to “recognize and honor.”
“I want all of us to feel safe. All of us deserve human dignity, no matter our backgrounds, no matter our ethnicity, no matter even our political opinions, we all deserve that kind of equality and justice. And, you know, for me, I wanted to uplift that and bring that to light and it was unfortunate,” Tlaib explained. “You know, I got a text from a friend who’s like, ‘Hey, next time, you know, really clarify. Maybe talk like a fourth grader because maybe the racist idiots would understand you better.'”
How hard is it to understand what kind of vile human being can have any kind of “calming thoughts” about the horrific death of six million Jews?
In regard to Tlaib’s words, President Trump tweeted, “Democrat Rep. Tlaib is being slammed for her horrible and highly insensitive statement on the Holocaust. She obviously has tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people. Can you imagine what would happen if I ever said what she said, and says?”
The Republican Jewish Coalition said, “The only reason to ever take a ‘calming feeling’ from reflections on the Holocaust is out of hatred for the Jewish people.”
Trying to give her an undeserved benefit of the doubt, Seth Meyers responded by saying it “wouldn’t hurt” if everyone spoke on a “fourth-grade level” about the complex history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also told Tlaib that there’s a “bad-faith argument” regarding the notion that she was “calmed” by the Holocaust, but mentioned that there was a “good-faith argument” that her history was “not in alignment with everyone else.”
Tlaib was widely condemned by GOP lawmakers as well as President Trump, who accused her of “tremendous hatred,” and was widely defended by Democratic lawmakers including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, who called the “smear” attempt “outrageous.”
Even if you want to debate what she was referring to in “feeling calmed,” for the record, she is totally wrong about the picture she is painting of post-World War Two Palestine. Representative Tlaib said that Jews were given “safe haven” in British Mandate Palestine after the Holocaust. This is simply not true. Arabs who lived in British Mandate Palestine did not welcome Jews who fled to their historic homeland before, during and after the Holocaust. In fact, the local Arab leadership worked to bar the entry of Jews to Mandate-era Palestine.
In a series of recent tweets, President Trump blasted Democrats for saying that the United States has been facing a “constitutional crisis,” calling it “pathetically untrue.”
Trump tweeted, “The Democrats new and pathetically untrue sound bite is that we are in a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ They and their partner, the Fake News Media, are all told to say this as loud and as often as possible. They are a sad JOKE! We may have the strongest Economy in our history, best employment numbers ever, low taxes & regulations, a rebuilt military & V.A., many great new judges, & so much more. But we have had a giant SCAM perpetrated upon our nation, a Witch Hunt, a Treasonous Hoax. That is the Constitutional Crisis & hopefully guilty people will pay!”
Trump’s scathing tweet came four days after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., declared a “constitutional crisis” after his committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for defying a subpoena for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted Russia report and underlying documents.
The next day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she agreed with Nadler’s statement that the U.S. was facing a “constitutional crisis.”
“This administration wants to have a constitutional crisis because they do not respect the oath of office that they take,” Pelosi told reporters during her regularly scheduled news conference last week on Capitol Hill.
The Biggest Hoax in American History
Nadler’s committee voted along partisan lines to hold Barr in contempt on Wednesday and angered the White House by not delaying the vote. At the same time, the president invoked executive privilege — refusing to comply with Congressional subpoenas.
Nadler accused the White House of “stonewalling” the American people and attacking “the essence of our democracy.”
Barr was set to testify before the House panel earlier this month, following his remarks before the Senate, but pulled out after Democrats insisted committee staff, rather than members of Congress, be allowed to ask the questions.
Rather than any kind of “constitutional crisis” President Trump continues to see the Mueller investigation as nothing more than a great big hoax, also tweeting, “Despite two years and millions of dollars spent, the Democrats are acting like crazed lunatics ever since the results of the Mueller Report were made public. But they knew there was NOTHING even before the Report was started. It is all a big Hoax, the biggest in American history!”
In an ongoing slew of vitriolic tweets, the president continued that the only, ’Constitutional Crisis’ is the Democrats refusing to work. Let them start by fixing the mess that their Immigration Laws have caused at the Southern Border.” Which was followed by another tweet in which he defended his stance on trade with China, and said that China would be happy to back a democrat in 2020. “China is DREAMING that Sleepy Joe Biden, or any of the others, gets elected in 2020. They LOVE ripping off America,” Trump tweeted.
The world of sports and the presidency of Donald Trump have collided in yet another example of modern racial divisiveness. I have long held that the VAST majority of Americans are not racists and get along very well in all walks of life. From time to time I feel obligated to quote from the manuscript of a book I am just competing as a backdrop to opining on the most current racially charged event. To wit:
“If we take a fresh look at America, we might just discover that we are not a nation of racists after all, but rather the victims of racial baiting by politicians and the mainstream media. We should keep in mind that billions of times every day … yes, billions … black and white Americans smile and nod to each other as we pass on the streets. We serve each other in restaurants and stores. We work side-by-side in factories and offices. We do favors for each other. We come to each other’s aid. We cheer alongside each other on both sides of every sports arena. We play on the same teams. We chat on social media. We die alongside each other in battle. We become lifelong friends. We adopt each other. We fall in love and marry each other. We laugh together at the same movies and we weep together at shared tragedies.”
Despite my generally positive view of the American people – of all backgrounds — I do recognize a disturbing growing tension being promoted in the name of identity politics with a subtext of political race-baiting. The cause is easily identified. As a political strategy, the Democratic Party is working overtime to convince the black community that Republicans and white folks are racists and that they are the victims of society-wide oppression. In fact, examples of racial hostility pale compared to the overwhelming examples of racial harmony – but that is not the narrative Democrats so callously proffer.
The Democrats’ toxic racial strategy promotes highly publicized examples of divisiveness – as well as the interpreting of benign events as racially charged. Even if racist incidents are miniscule in number and are not representative of the general population as seen in everyday life, they do garner undeserved publicity – which, in turn, convinces folks that the extremist view of racism in America is the norm.
The Democrats false, but pervasive, narratives of pandemic racism – as a divide-to-conquer political strategy — has imposed racism into virtually every aspect of American life. The most recent example comes from Bean City, U.S.A. – Boston. Sadly, it involves a feature of American life that was once –and should be – a respite from the serious issues of the day. Of course, I am referring to sports.
Sports are entertainment. It is composed of games. It is America’s pastime – something we enjoy apart from our more serious concerns of the day. Not so anymore.
The latest manifestation of the everything-is-about-race mentality has to do with the tradition of inviting championship teams to the White House for an Oval Office celebration. These have always been among the least political occasions at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Following tradition, President Trump invited the 2018 World Series winning Boston Red Sox to the White House – along with the coaching staff. The invitation had nothing to do with politics or race. It could have been an example to the nation that there are a lot of things we can share without tiptoeing into the murky waters of politics.
Unfortunately, half the team decided to snub the President. They decided that politics was more important than this nonpartisan occasion. More important than recognition for winning the World Series. More important than the sport of baseball. More important than the young people who love the sport. This had to be yet another occasion when individuals decided to let their political prejudices take dominance over the purpose of the White House gathering.
At last count, all the black members of the team have rejected the invitation and all the white members are going to attend. Coach Alex Cora, of Puerto Rico, will also demur – assumedly over the alleged treatment of his island home by the Trump administration.
This is the kind of shabby action that has resulted from the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. Nothing related to Trump can be acceptable – nothing. It is a result of a racist policy that has dishonestly pitted all people of color (which includes Hispanics, Asians and anyone with a skin tone darker than a California beach bum) against white America – especially white males with those “toxic genes.”
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough was saddened to see the Red Sox protest break so starkly on racial lines. He wished that at least one of the white players would have joined in the protest to make it more bipartisan. Of course, Joe could have conversely wished that at least one of the black players would have decided to attend the White House ceremony. I suspect that Scarborough would have liked to have had ALL the white players refuse to attend. Ya think?
If they want to have sports be for everyone, then they should respect everyone by not using a social occasion to express political views. The black players who have decided to stay home may believe that their insult is surgically directed at Trump, but, in fact, they are insulting those millions of Americans who are not part of the Resistance Movement. They are corrupting the sport, itself. And they are wrong if they believe that their action draws positive attention to racial issues or wins over new supporters for a civil rights agenda. Au contraire.
They have unnecessarily offended many fair-minded people and further widened the racial divide. They have set back the cause of civil rights by aggravating and misrepresenting the issue.
Red Sox officials assured the country that the difference in viewpoint did not create tension in the locker room. Each side respected the decision of the other. While that sounds like an obligatory public relationship statement, I am dubious. I cannot help but believe that the black players are not disappointed to see their white teammates reject their protest. And I cannot help but believe that the white players do not harbor some resentment for creating a sidebar controversy that diminishes both the event and the team’s achievement.
We have seen the same twisted thinking with the presentation of the Medal of Freedom to a man of color, golfer Tiger Woods – indisputably the greatest living golfer and one of the greatest of all time. But because the medal was presented by Trump, many Democrats and black leaders were appalled. There was chagrin that Woods did not reject the honor. It was the old traitor-to-his-race mentality.
Woods was as worthy of the honor as any past recipient – and more so than some. Had the honor been bestowed by President Obama, the same said critics would have cheered both Obama and Woods for respectively bestowing and accepting of the honor.
It has been more than two years since Trump was elected President of the United States, and yet the hostility to that reality emanating from the left has continued unabated. In fact, it may be getting worse.
I have spent a lifetime in support of civil rights and economic opportunities for minorities – especially the oppressed by long-empowered Democrat political machines in our great urban centers. But I do not admire the politicization of everything. If the black players wanted to make a positive statement about the sport of baseball and the country that invited it, they would be heading to the White House.
So, there ‘tis.