Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director

Racist, Racist, Who Is the Racist?

Part One

By Gary F. Zeolla

      On June 27, 2019, during the second night of the first Democratic debates, Senator Kamala Harris accused former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden of being a racist.

      On July 8^th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that rather than Make America Great Again, President Trump wants to make America white again.

      Also in early July, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) accused Pelosi of criticizing her and the other three members of “The Squad” only because they are all women of color.

      The weekend of July 12^th, Tucker Carlson, who has a show on FNC at 8:00 pm weekdays, began a feud with Omar. She responded by calling him a racist and pushing for Fox to cancel his show.

      All along, ever since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President back in May of 2015, the mainstream media (MSM) and Democrats have been calling him a racist. They then doubled down on that claim after his “go back to where they came from” tweet on July 14^th, also referring to the four members of The Squad.

      The MSM has even gone so far as to say anyone who supports Trump is a racist. That idea got a boost when some members of the crowd at Trump’s rally in North Carolina on July 17^th began chanting “Send her back!” in reference to Ilhan Omar, another member of The Squad.

      In this two-part article, I will go discuss each of these events in order.

Harris and Biden

      Kamala Harris’ attack on Joe Biden was in reference to his stance on forced busing back in the 1970s. Anyone under 40 probably has little idea what this was all about. It concerns attempts to rectify the problem at the time of most schools either being composed of all black students or all white students. It was said that such segregation fueled racism. It was also said that due to racism, the white schools were better funded than the black schools. Forced busing was said to be the solution to these problems.

      The idea was, some white students, rather than attending the school near them that was composed of all white students, would be forced to get on a bus and travel twenty miles or more to a school composed of all black students, while some blacks students from that school would be forced to get on a bus and travel the twenty miles or more to the all-white school. In that way, the all-white school would now have some black students in it, and the all-black school would now have some whites in it.

      At this time, I was in junior then senior high school. I remember thinking how silly the whole idea seemed. The idea of forcing students to travel many miles to a school when there was one right near them just did not make sense to me. If nothing else, it was such a waste of energy, at a time when we were dealing with a “energy crisis” and skyrocketing gas prices caused by a Middle Eastern oil embargo.

      Moreover, I always lived just a couple of miles from my school and usually rode my bicycle to school, even in the winter, something I could not have done if I had been forced to go to a school 20 miles away. As such, I was very glad my school was not involved in forced busing.

      But I was not alone in thinking the idea was silly. Many people at that time were opposed to the idea. Some yes, due to racism, but others for practical reasons. Many parents had moved to a specific school district just so their kids could attend that school, as they knew it was an above average school, and they did not want their kids to now travel to a below-average school. As a result, many rich whites moved outside of the forced busing area. Consequently, that formerly above-average school become less than average due to reduced funding.

      Moreover, the forced desegregation did not have the desired effect. Blacks still congregated with blacks at schools, and whites with whites. In fact, many white students became more racist due to having to endure the long bus trips, and many black students resented having to travel those long distances.

      Given these problems, somewhere along the way, forced busing became a thing of the past. But in reviving mention of it just so should could attack Joe, Kamala has revived the while debate and bad memories many have of the plan.

      Meanwhile, her comments about Joe’s position were not accurate. He was not against busing per se. He was against busing being forced by the federal government.  He says he felt it was an issue that should be decided by local governments, not the federal government.

      With that stance, this writer totally agrees. The US Constitution does not give authority to the federal government to regulate schools. In fact, schools are never mentioned in the Constitution. As such, regulation thereof falls under the Tenth Amendment as a power that is “reserved to the states or to the people.” Of course, this also means a federal Department of Education is unconstitutional, but that is a topic for another time.

      Here, another attack that has been made against Joe by Kamala and others came by way of his comment that he was able to work with segregationists back in the ‘70s. The point of his statement was that he was able to work with people whom he disagreed with vehemently on most points on those few points on which they agreed. Thus, he believes that as President, he could work with Republicans to get things done in Washington. However, Kamala and others distorted his statement as him “praising” segregationists. That is disingenuous and just not true. He in no way said that.

      Given these two points, I was going to post a commentary titled, “Joe Biden is Not a Racist.” Though I disagree with Joe on just about all policy points, the idea that he is a racist is really absurd, given that he was VP to the first black President, and Obama, who had been a Senator at the same time Joe was, would not have chosen Joe as his running mate if there was any inkling Joe was a racist.

      I didn’t post such a commentary then, only because I didn’t have time. But let me correct that now. Joe Biden is not a racist, and any attempt to make him one is disingenuous. Moreover, Kamala Harris using that lie to boaster her presidential hopes is disgusting, almost as disgusting as her prejudging Judge Kavanaugh as guilty of sexual assault before hearing all of the evidence back in the fall of 2018, as detailed in my book Tearing the USA Apart.

      Though I do not mention Kamala by name in that book, she was one of the eleven Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee (SJC), so any time I mention the SJC, she is included. And her ignoring of the rule of law as part of the SJC back then and her lies now disqualify her from being President in this writer’s opinion.

      However, my opinion aside, I still predict Kamala will remain a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination process and possibly win the nomination. If she does, I hope Trump brings up her misguided actions in the Kavanaugh proceedings and her lies about Joe, as they expose how radical she is and show she is unqualified to be President.

Nancy Pelosi and President Trump

      Speaker Pelosi and President Trump have had many run-ins ever since he was elected President and especially since she became House Speaker again after the 2018 midterm elections. But Nancy has pushed back against attempts to impeach the President by the more radical Democratic members of the House, as she knows that would be a bad move politically. But that has not kept her from attacking the President at every turn.

      On July 8^th, in a press conference, she was discussing his attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 US Census. She said, “You know his hat? ‘Make America white again.’ They want to make sure that people, certain people, are counted. It’s really disgraceful and it’s not what our founders had in mind” (quoted from Bloomberg).

      But in fact, a citizenship question had been on the US census from 1820 to 2000. President Obama removed it for the 2010 census. What I have not heard explained is why he removed it, and why the then Republican-controlled House or Senate of that time did not push back on him doing so.

      The latter was probably due to the Republicans not having a spine and not wanting to be labeled as racists, which is what the MSM did every time Republicans opposed Obama. That was the standard ploy throughout his presidency. In the mind of the MSM, you could not oppose Obama because you disagreed with his polices. It always had to be about his race.

      But be that as it may, all Trump was trying to do by re-adding the citizenship question was to go back to what had been done for 180 years. He ultimately failed in that quest, due to the Supreme Court blocking him. But then he changed tactics and now has every relevant executive branch agency using their resources to count citizens versus non-citizens. Trump says that will give us a more accurate count than the census itself. But I fear it will set up more controversy when that count brings back a different number than the US Census. But that will be a fight for next year.

Tucker and Omar

      The phrase, “The Squad” refers to four freshman US congresswomen. They are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (Yahoo!). However, the four of them have been given other names.

      Tucker Carlson has dubbed them “The Four Morons of the Apocalypse.” If that is too strong for you, then others have called them, “The Four Horsewomen of the Democratic Apocalypse” or “The Four Horsewomen of the Socialist Apocalypse.” The latter is probably the most accurate, as their socialist ideas would lead to disease, war, famine, and death (see Revelation 6:1-8). But that would require another article to explain, so in this article, I will stick with their self-designation of “The Squad.”

      In any case, anytime anyone criticizes them for their socialist and silly ideas, they immediately respond by saying the person is racist, no matter who they are. It was in that vein that Omar called Tucker a racist.

      To explain, apparently, Tucker, on his show on Friday, July 12^th, called out Omar for her anti-Semitic and anti-American comments, such as her saying Jews have influence in Congress, because, “It is all about the Benjamins” implying Jews are bribing congressmen to support Israel. Or her saying that on 9/11, “Some people did something.”

      I say “apparently,” as I did not watch that episode, but I did watch Tucker on Monday and Tuesday (7/15,16). On the first of those shows, he discussed at length their feud over the weekend. Apparently, Omar had tweeted that he was a racist and his show should be canceled. Tucker responded by saying such is always the reaction of the left when challenged on their views and words. They cannot defend them, so they use ad hominem attacks. For those who don’t know, ad hominem means:

 

1.       appealing to prejudice and emotion rather than to reason

2.       attacking the character, motives, etc. of an opponent rather than debating the issue on logical grounds (Webster’s).

      On this point, Tucker is completely correct. The views of The Squad cannot be defended, so they respond by calling anyone who objects to what they say and do racists. The left also often tries to shut down the speech of anyone they disagree with, as has been seen in many instances of late, such as Twitter and Facebook shadow-banning conservatives or conservative speakers being shouted down on college campuses.

      In any case, Trucker went on to say that Omar was born in Somalia. But her family fled from that country when war broke out. They then spent four years in Kenya at a refugee camp. But then the USA graciously accepted her and her family into this country, where she was given a much better life than she ever would have had in either of those two countries, including giving her free education and eventually citizenship. She then was able to use that education to work her way up to becoming a congresswoman.

      Her story was thus yet another “rags to riches” American success story, which Americans love to celebrate. And you would think she would be grateful to the nation that took her in and gave her such opportunities. But no! She takes every opportunity to criticize America and one of our closest allies, Israel. Omar (along with Tlaib) even sponsored a bill supporting the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) anti-Israel movement. In it, she compares Israel to Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. Omar’s and other leftists’ only response to Tucker’s criticisms is to call him a racist and try to get his show canceled.

Omar’s Marriages

      Tucker has also brought up the controversy over Omar’s marriages. It is being claimed that she married her biological brother. But it is said that was just a sham marriage, as she filed taxes as married to someone else, who is the biological father of her three children. Tucker did not say these claims are definitely true, though a guest on his shop and reporter for the Star Tribune said there was a 90% and 98% chance, respectively, they are true.

      However, Snopes rates the claim Omar married her brother as “Unproven” and Omar’s campaign has called the claims “categorically ridiculous and false.” Snopes also correctly points out that many people have complicated romantic histories that should not be the subject of public scrutiny. Snopes also correctly says it is hard to prove a negative, so they have not been able to definitely disprove these claims. But they have not been proven either.

      Given our judicial standard of “innocent until proven guilty,” unless more evidence is forthcoming, these claims should not be used as an attack against Omar. I am only mentioning them here, as they have been circulating much among right-wing websites and talk shows. Sean Hannity has even mentioned them on his radio show, though with the qualification that he has not been able to verify if they are true or not.

      But the claims are now being investigated by the US Attorney’s office, at the urging of Minnesota Republicans. If furthered evidence is found, I am sure we will hear about it. But otherwise, I am in no way supporting these claims, and this is the only time I will mention them.

Nancy and AOC

      Nancy Pelosi and AOC have been at odds, as AOC and the rest of The Squad want to impeach President Trump, while Nancy realizes that would be a bad idea politically. The Squad is also pushing more far-left ideas that Nancy will tolerate.

      The difference resides in the fact that all four members of The Squad represent solidly blue districts. As such, they know they will be reelected, no matter how far left they go and no matter how much they criticize the President.

      However, Democrats took over the House in 2018 by winning 31 districts that went for Trump in 2016. Nancy knows that if the House Dems go too far left and try to impeach Trump and fail, that could very well turn off the centrist voters in those 31 districts, and that could lead to not only those districts again going for Trump in 2020 but also to Republicans being elected to the US House in those districts. That would then lead to Republicans regaining control of the House.

      Thus, Nancy has the long plan in view, while The Squad cannot see beyond their hatred for the President and their desire to immediately force their leftist ideas on the rest of us. But rather than debating Nancy on these policy points, AOC declared that Nancy was only criticizing her and the rest of The Squad because they are women of color, implying she is a racist.

      But that differing viewpoint in no way makes Nancy a racist. She has spent her career furthering black rights and issues. As such, I again thought of writing a commentary titled, “Nancy Pelosi is not a Racist,” even though I disagree with her on just about all polices issues. But again, I just did not have the time. But then the President did it for me when he came out and said that though he has had many run-ins with Pelosi, she is not a racist.

Trump’s “Go Back” Tweet

      “America: Love It or Leave It” has been a common refrain ever since the 1960s. I can remember hearing it many times as a kid, and it never had any racist overtones to it. It was first used in regard to the “hippies” of the 1960s and their intense criticism of the United States. Since then, it is used against people who express a hatred for America and for its ideals.

      Sometimes, it is the people themselves who say they will leave, such as the many leftist celebrities who said they would move to Canada if Trump won the 2016 election. Trump won, but they are all still here, criticizing him and his policies.

      That is fine, as political debate is allowed and even encouraged in the USA. But what is not acceptable to most Americans is when leftists degrade America itself, saying it is a racist country and has “institutional racism.” Or when they criticize capitalism or our fundamental ideals of justice and liberty, such as was seen during the Kavanaugh proceedings, when the American standard of innocent until proven guilty was thrown out the window by leftists, as detailed in my Tearing Apart book.

      It was in that vein that Trump tweeted about The Squads that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came, then come back here and show us how it is done.”

      However, the media ignored the second part of his tweet and immediately labeled it as racist. In every news report I heard, except on FNC, and in every article I read, it was called a “racist tweet.” Not an “alleged racist tweet” or a “seemingly racist tweet.” Instead, it was emphatically declared to be a “racist tweet.” CNN pundits went even further and said that in light of this tweet, anyone who still supports Trump is also a racist.

      Now, in his tweet, Trump was factually incorrect, as all four members of The Squad are Americans, with three of them having been born here. As such, there is not place to them to “go back” to. Only Omar was not born in American, but she is a naturalized citizen.

      Such imprecision in his language is common for Trump and has gotten him in much trouble. And frankly, it frustrates me, since, as a writer, I agonize over word I write, trying to be as precise as I can in everything I write. That is why I rarely need to take back or clarify what I write, as I word it accurately, precisely, and clearly the first time. That is why I am often “late” in commenting on political events, as I take my time to be sure I got all of the fact straight and my thoughts in order before publishing about it. But Trump just shoots (or tweets) from the hip, so he has had to clarify his comments many times.

      In this case, the next day, Trump clarified his comments and said that what he meant was that if they do not like it here, they can leave. He then made it clear, saying “They can stay. They can leave. It is up to them. But if they do not like it here, they can leave.”

      Again, that is no different from the “America: Love It or Leave It” slogan that has been around for decades and which never was considered to be racist. But still, Trump should have made that clear in his initial tweet, and all of the resulting ruckus could have been avoided.

This two-part article is concluded at Racist, Racist, Who Is the Racist? – Part Two.

References:

     See end of Part Two.

Racist, Racist, Who Is the Racist? – Part One. Copyright © 2019 by Gary F. Zeolla (www.Zeolla.org).

The above article was posted on this website July 21, 2019.
It was last updated July 27, 2019.

Articles     2019 Articles

Alphabetical List of Pages     Contact Information

Text Search     Biblical and Constitutional Politics

Books by the Director