Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Trump Announces Major Speech on Clinton Scandals Next Week!

June 8, 2016

Trump Announces Major Speech on Clinton Scandals Next Week via YouTube, June 7, 2016

Here’s a link to an article at Jonathan Turley’s blog. It notes the Trump University “scandal,” widely covered by the media, and then segues to a far worse scandal involving the Clintons and the Laureate Education for-profit college. Here’s a quote:

The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal. [Emphasis added.}

There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.

I found the video posted above in one of the comments appended to the Turley article. Will Trump deal with the Clinton schools scam?

Right Angle: Is Hillary Bat-Guano Crazy?

June 8, 2016

Right Angle: Is Hillary Bat-Guano Crazy? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, June 7, 2016

Trump and Democratic Political Incorrectness

June 8, 2016

Trump and Democratic Political Incorrectness, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 8,2016

Trump and PC

Remember the time a presidential candidate suggested that Gandhi used to run “a gas station down in St. Louis.” No it wasn’t Trump. That was Hillary Clinton. Had Trump said it, we would still be hearing about it. But since Hillary Clinton was responsible for it, it went down the memory hole.

Along with her more recent “Colored People Time” gag.

And who can forget the time that Trump said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” But that wasn’t Trump. It was actually Vice President Joe Biden.

But still it was indisputably offensive when Trump told the Asian Chamber of Commerce, “I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are.”

Then he followed that up by joking, “One problem that I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.”

You would have to be ridiculously politically incorrect or an outright buffoon to say something like that to the Asian Chamber of Commerce. And this is exactly why Trump is… but wait, those lines actually came from Democratic Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Reid recently popped up to call Trump’s comments racist. And he ought to know. Harry Reid believed that Obama was electable because he was “light-skinned” with ”no Negro dialect”.

Memories are short when it comes to Democratic racial and ethnic stereotypes. Not to mention slurs.

Trump is certainly not the only prominent politician who says wildly politically incorrect things. Democrats do it all the time. And they do it in more pointed ways.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is running for the Senate. Sanchez is a racist who accused the “Vietnamese” of “trying to take this seat” when running against a Vietnamese-American candidate. Last year she managed to ridicule both Hindus and Native Americans with one slur.

There was the time that Bill Clinton suggested that, Obama “would have been getting us coffee”. Or when Biden described his future boss as the, “first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guy.” Despite two terms in which Republicans were accused of racially stereotyping Obama with secret dog whistles, nothing any major Republican figure said was anywhere as bad as what Obama’s Democratic predecessor and his own Senate ally had said about him.

Democrats actually say politically incorrect things all the time. Trump has become famous because he’s one of the few Republicans who talks like a Democrat and says the sort of things that Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid have no problem saying in private and even in public speeches.

A Republican who told the Asian Chamber of Commerce that he had trouble “keeping my Wongs straight” would have been forced out in disgrace by a combination of media pressure and Republican shame. And having standards of respectable civic discourse is not a bad thing. But standards that are applied unilaterally to one side are not standards, they’re weapons.

Political correctness is a weapon brought out to punish political opponents for statements that run the gamut from offensive to those whose offensiveness is entirely manufactured by the media’s political echo chamber, such as Romney’s comments about having binders of qualified female candidates. Challenging political correctness does more than challenge these standards. It challenges the dishonest ways in which they are applied for political purposes.

Any of the above comments would have disqualified a Republican, but barely rate mention for Democrats. The truth about Trump is that he hasn’t said anything that plenty of Democrats haven’t said.

Long before Trump’s call for a Muslim ban, President Carter responded to the Iran hostage crisis by banning Iranians from America. Harry Reid had also proposed eliminating birthright citizenship long before Trump did. Building a wall with Mexico? Hillary Clinton called for it back in the Senate. Before she was condemning “talking about building walls”, she was talking about building walls. And warning that, “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations”.

The media has made a game out of pretending that everything Trump says is shocking. When Trump poses with a taco bowl and posts, “I love Hispanics”, the media gets giddy with outrage. But when Hillary Clinton foolishly panders to black voters by claiming to carry around hot sauce in her purse or posts, “7 Things Hillary Clinton has in Common with Your Abuela”, there are shrugs.

All politicians have their cringeworthy pandering moments. But the media chooses which of them it plays up and which of them it plays down.

That’s why Trump is shocking only in contrast to a Republican field that had been trained to carefully avoid even the faintest suggestion of insensitive or politically incorrect remarks. And that training did no good whatsoever with a media establishment that insisted on manufacturing gaffes no matter what.

Trump is often just as unrestrained as Democrats are. He feels the same freedom to speak his mind that is enjoyed by Joe Biden or Bill Clinton. He pays as little attention to political correctness as Harry Reid.

And it’s time that we were honest about that.

Sensitivity is not a bad thing. But what we have is not sensitivity as a value, but as a weapon. When one side is free to be as offensive as it wishes to be with no consequences whatsoever, then eventually the other side will escalate to match it. When oversensitivity becomes used to enforce an agenda that limits basic personal freedoms then the reaction to that will run roughshod over any and all sensitivities.

Political correctness, like all forms of censorship, is about power. Not fairness, sensitivity or decency. Trump is taking the license to be politically incorrect back from Democrats. The ability to determine what may or may not be said is the essence of power in a system where discourse dictates elections.

If Democrats are truly outraged by Trump, they might want to try looking in a mirror.

The race-driven San Diego La Raza Association is exactly what’s wrong with the legal system.

June 7, 2016

The race-driven San Diego La Raza Association is exactly what’s wrong with the legal system., American SpectatorJeffrey Lord, June 7, 2016

(Please see also, Trump’s Jujitsu Overthrow of Liberalism and The Donald and The La Raza Judge — DM)

The GOP Establishment is in full flight.

No Abraham Lincolns here.

In a shameful haste to embrace identity politics, the latter the political descendant of slavery and segregation, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stunningly given thumbs up to a judge who has made no bones about injecting his ethnic heritage into his role as a lawyer and judge.

In a broadside against Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presiding over the case against Trump University (a case in itself riddled with bad judicial decision-making as the judge has assigned the case to a notoriously Clinton-supporting law firm — more of which later this week), Trump has assailed the Indiana-born judge as “of Mexican heritage” who has “an inherent conflict of interest.”

The response from the Speaker? “It’s reasoning I don’t relate to. I completely disagree with the thinking behind that.” Said McConnell: “I think it’s a big mistake for our party to write off Latino Americans.” Hello? Speaker Ryan can’t relate to standing up to fight racism? Who, Senator McConnell, is writing off Latino Americans? And isn’t it time to get right with Lincoln and write off racism — aka in the 21st century, “identity politics”? Appallingly in the case of Ryan, his latest comments embracing out and out race-driven lawyering and judging comes only weeks after he said he stood for the “Party of Lincoln, Reagan, and Kemp.” Well that didn’t last long. Somewhere Abe, Ronnie, and Jack are baffled as to why their defender has suddenly thrown them over the side to embrace the absolute worst of racial politics.

Over in the Wall Street Journal, our friends on the editorial board have written an entire editorial on the subject entitled:

Trump and the ‘Mexican’ Judge

Why equating ethnicity with judicial bias is so offensive.

Well, yes, “equating ethnicity with judicial bias” is offensive. Yet the WSJ has not a solitary word revealing to readers that Judge Curiel has been actively associated with the racially-centric San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — a group entirely devoted to “equating ethnicity with judicial bias.” An association Curiel listed on his questionnaire filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The group, as I noted over at NewsBusters, specifically states its mission on its website as follows:

Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy.

Note. The group supports “equality, empowerment and justice” not for all attorneys in San Diego — only for “Latino attorneys.”

Listing eight “goals” of the group, every one of which are ethnocentric, the first three reading:

  • Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.
  • Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.
  • Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.

Note well goal number two — “Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench.” In other words? The group wants to put not qualified attorneys of any color or gender on the bench. No, the insistence is a racially-oriented drive to put only one group — a group pre-selected by ethnic heritage on the bench. (Can you imagine the uproar if the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had belonged to a “white attorneys association”? Answer: Yes, you can.) Why might this be? The answer is obvious.

In a day and age when the working assumption by the Left is that all minorities, Latinos in this case, are liberal, the way to liberal decisions is by backing openly race-centric judges of Latino heritage. To get decisions from the bench that are geared to supporting Latinos — not all Americans — but Latinos only.

This idea, by the way, is certainly not limited to Latinos. Recall the demand that retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall be replaced by a black nominee. President George H.W. Bush obliged with Judge Clarence Thomas. Thomas was quickly attacked by liberals the moment they realized he was a conservative. He is to this day attacked for being an “Uncle Tom” and a “traitor” to his race because the working assumption is that if you are black you are a liberal. And so it is with Latinos — and in this case Judge Curiel.

Most assuredly, Judge Gonzalo Curiel has gone out of his way to not only openly tie himself to this group of racially directed lawyers — but to participate in the left-wing agenda favored so deeply by leftist race-driven Hispanics. In 2014 the Judge served as a member of the group’s 2014 Scholarship Selection Committee, which in turn awarded a $1,500 scholarship to a self-advertised “undocumented.” Think of that for a moment. The very first act of this student was to break American law, and Judge Curiel awards him a scholarship — for law school!

In a blink Ryan and McConnell have shown exactly why Donald Trump has blown away the Republican Establishment in the GOP primary season. The GOP Establishment has lay down with the flea-infected mangy old political dog of racism — a left wing dependable from the days when Democratic Party co-founders Jefferson and Jackson allied the new-born party with slave owners. Later to turn into a permanent racial party appealing to every race-centered group from segregationists to Al Sharpton and today’s Black Lives Matter, not to mention various “La Raza” oriented groups of varying pedigree. As the GOP Establishment takes it cues from the Left — hence the charge that GOP Establishment types are “Democrat-lite” or RINOS on issues ranging from the economy to social issues — so now are they mimicking the Left on race, signing on for the out-and-out racism of “identity politics.”

Take a look here to see just how this game of race and gender is played by leftist California judges — and Judge Curiel. (Hat tip: Attorney Mark Pulliam, who formerly practiced in San Diego and now calls Texas home.)

Recall that on his Senate Judiciary Committee form, Curiel said that he was a member of the “California Judges Association.” And back there a mere year ago in January of 2015, the California Judges Association was enthusiastically supportive of a decision from the California Supreme Court that ruled, as reported by Fox News, this:

California’s Supreme Court voted Friday to prohibit state judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts on grounds that the group discriminates against gays.

The court said its seven justices unanimously voted to heed a recommendation by its ethics advisory committee barring judges’ affiliation with the organization.

Got that? It’s OK for Judge Curiel and a small army of California judges and lawyers to belong to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — a group openly discriminating against non-Latinos — but it’s not OK for a California judge to belong to the Boy Scouts — the Boy Scouts! — because “the group discriminates against gays.”

It doesn’t get more racist than that.

Let’s be blunt. There’s no room for identity politics in the party of Lincoln. The fact that Paul Ryan (Paul Ryan!) and Mitch McConnell would stand up and defend outright race-driven politics is utterly disgraceful.

Here, to refresh, is Abraham Lincoln himself on the subject of race. Lincoln, as noted in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, said he hoped to “‘penetrate the human soul’ until…‘all this quibbling about this man and the other man — this race and that race and the other race being inferior’” was gone from America. In more recent times, there is President John F. Kennedy telling the nation in his televised address over the racial turmoil in 1963 Birmingham, Alabama that “race has no place in American life or law.”And so it doesn’t.

Now today’s GOP Establishment, led by Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell, are saying that Donald Trump, a defendant in the rigged trial that is the witch hunt for Trump University, must be quiet about this insistent racialization of the federal bench and the law itself. Trump is being told that now that he is the soon-to-be heir to the leadership of Lincoln’s party he must sign on to the idea that it’s perfectly OK to insist that race has a decided priority in both American life and law and that he, Donald Trump, as a defendant has no right to call attention to something that left-wing racial advocates boast of freely. Recall that when it came to light that then Supreme Court Obama-nominee Sonia Sotomayor was found to be saying in speeches that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male,” leftist were thrilled.

Now? Donald Trump is calling out this flat-out racism by targeting a judge for what might be called the judge’s “wise Latino” ways? Suddenly the GOP Establishment is attacking —Trump?

This is shameful. But totally in character for the GOP Leadership in Congress that long ago abandoned principle for political correctness.

Speaker Ryan and Senator McConnell should be embarrassed.

More to come on the rigged case against Trump University.

The Donald and The La Raza Judge

June 7, 2016

The Donald and The La Raza Judge, TownhallPat Buchanan, June 7, 2016

(I seem to recall members of La Raza (“The Race”) protesting violently at recent Trump rallies. However, it would probably have been better had Trump filed a motion with the court asking the judge to recuse himself. — DM)

Trump judge

Before the lynching of The Donald proceeds, what exactly was it he said about that Hispanic judge?

Stated succinctly, Donald Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over a class-action suit against Trump University, is sticking it to him. And the judge’s bias is likely rooted in the fact that he is of Mexican descent.

Can there be any defense of a statement so horrific?

Just this. First, Trump has a perfect right to be angry about the judge’s rulings and to question his motives. Second, there are grounds for believing Trump is right.

On May 27, Curiel, at the request of The Washington Post, made public plaintiff accusations against Trump University — that the whole thing was a scam. The Post, which Bob Woodward tells us has 20 reporters digging for dirt in Trump’s past, had a field day.

And who is Curiel?

An appointee of President Obama, he has for years been associated with the La Raza Lawyers Association of San Diego, which supports pro-illegal immigrant organizations.

Set aside the folly of letting Clinton surrogates like the Post distract him from the message he should be delivering, what did Trump do to be smeared by a bipartisan media mob as a “racist”?

He attacked the independence of the judiciary, we are told.

But Presidents Jefferson and Jackson attacked the Supreme Court, and FDR, fed up with New Deal programs being struck down, tried to “pack the court” by raising the number of justices to 15 if necessary.

Abraham Lincoln leveled “that eminent tribunal” in his first inaugural, and once considered arresting Chief Justice Roger Taney.

The conservative movement was propelled by attacks on the Warren Court. In the ’50s and ’60s, “Impeach Earl Warren!” was plastered on billboards and bumper stickers all across God’s country.

The judiciary is independent, but that does not mean that federal judges are exempt from the same robust criticism as presidents or members of Congress.

Obama himself attacked the Citizens United decision in a State of the Union address, with the justices sitting right in front of him.

But Trump’s real hanging offense was that he brought up the judge’s ancestry, as the son of Mexican immigrants, implying that he was something of a judicial version of Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

Apparently, it is now not only politically incorrect, but, in Newt Gingrich’s term, “inexcusable,” to bring up the religious, racial or ethnic background of a judge, or suggest this might influence his actions on the bench.

But these things matter.

Does Newt think that when LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, ex-head of the NAACP, to the Supreme Court, he did not think Marshall would bring his unique experience as a black man and civil rights leader to the bench?

Surely, that was among the reasons Marshall was appointed.

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

All of us are products of our family, faith, race and ethnic group. And the suggestion in these attacks on Trump that judges and justices always rise about such irrelevant considerations, and decide solely on the merits, is naive nonsense.

There are reasons why defense lawyers seek “changes of venue” and avoid the courtrooms of “hanging judges.”

When Obama reflexively called Sgt. Crowley “stupid” after Crowley’s 2009 encounter with that black professor at Harvard, and said of Trayvon Martin, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” was he not speaking as an African-American, as well as a president?

Pressed by John Dickerson on CBS, Trump said it’s “possible” a Muslim judge might be biased against him as well.

Another “inexcusable” outrage.

But does anyone think that if Obama appointed a Muslim to the Supreme Court, the LGBT community would not be demanding of all Democratic Senators that they receive assurances that the Muslim judge’s religious views on homosexuality would never affect his court decisions, before they voted to put him on the bench?

When Richard Nixon appointed Judge Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, it was partly because he was a distinguished jurist of South Carolina ancestry. And the Democrats who tore Haynsworth to pieces did so because they feared he would not repudiate his Southern heritage and any and all ideas and beliefs associated with it.

To many liberals, all white Southern males are citizens under eternal suspicion of being racists. The most depressing thing about this episode is to see Republicans rushing to stomp on Trump, to show the left how well they have mastered their liberal catechism.

WAPO Columnist: Let’s Gang Up on Trump!

June 6, 2016

WAPO Columnist: Let’s Gang Up on Trump!, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 6, 2016

The Washington Post’s media columnist, Margaret Sullivan, who is also a former Public Editor of the New York Times, has an idea that she claims is novel, but may sound familiar to Republicans: news outlets should coordinate their efforts to defeat Donald Trump! It really is an extraordinary column:

Media outlets have given the likely Republican presidential nominee something like $2 billion worth of free exposure and, in many cases, let him get away with blatant falsehoods — even about something as basic as whether he did or didn’t support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall liberal columnists objecting to Trump’s free publicity during the primary season, when it helped him defeat Republicans who would have been stronger general election candidates.

Fairness is of utmost importance, no doubt, whether the reporting is on Trump, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. But what, exactly, does it mean in campaign coverage? It should mean keeping an open mind, not bringing preconceived ideas to one’s reporting, and listening seriously to candidates’ explanations.

It should never mean false equivalency, where equal time and emphasis are given to candidates or dissembling is allowed to go unchallenged. …

News outlets ought to rethink the purpose of their campaign coverage. It’s not to be equally nice to all candidates. It’s to provide Americans with the hard information they need to decide who is fit to lead the country.

In other words, the job of a reporter is to help win the election for Hillary Clinton. It isn’t long before this conclusion becomes explicit:

There have been encouraging moments: CNN’s Jake Tapper pushing Trump hard for clarity on an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Fox’s Megyn Kelly (before she went all fan-girl) asking a searing question about Trump’s treatment of women in a Republican debate. The Times’s investigation into Trump’s hiring of foreign workers at his Florida club, Mar-a-Lago. The Post’s reporters pushing so hard for answers on Twitter about claimed charitable contributions to veterans that Trump found it necessary to hold a news conference.

We need much more of this in every medium. Every day, in every news cycle.

Every day, every news cycle, in every medium: beat up on Trump!

Rather than promoting the same treatment for each candidate, how about this: rigorous and sustained truth-telling in the public’s interest. Citizens deserve some fairness, too.

Don’t treat Trump the same way you would treat a Democrat!

It’s time for tough follow-up questions, time for TV news to pick up on some of the hard-hitting reporting being done elsewhere, and maybe — radical notion alert! — it’s even time for news organizations to get together and prepare to defend themselves.

So news organizations should form a cabal to smear Donald Trump. But, hey, it’s self-defense!

That won’t come naturally to these highly competitive outfits, but given the assault on press rights that surely would come with a Trump presidency, strength in numbers is a far better idea than providing even-handed, nonconfrontational coverage.

What is the “assault on press rights” that “surely” would accompany a Trump presidency? It’s hard to say. Maybe she is referring to Trump’s desire to liberalize defamation law, or maybe she imagines there is a press right not to be contradicted. In any event, it’s not every day you see a journalist come out openly against “even-handed coverage,” while advocating ganging up on a disfavored politician, i.e., “strength in numbers.” We always knew that this is how liberals think, but it is unusual to see one of them put it in writing.

FULL MEASURE Episode 36: June 5, 2016 (P2) – Gingrich on Trump

June 6, 2016

FULL MEASURE Episode 36: June 5, 2016 (P2) – Gingrich on Trump, via YouTube, June 6, 2016

Trump’s Jujitsu Overthrow of Liberalism

June 6, 2016

Trump’s Jujitsu Overthrow of Liberalism, Power LineSteven Hayward, June 5, 2016

In other words, with this seemingly reckless attack, Trump is once again performing a high public service that is long overdue.

***************************

On the surface Trump’s attack on the presiding judge in his civil trial over Trump University is reckless, irresponsible, menacing, and . . . just plain wacko. Jonah Goldberg speculates that what he’s really trying to do is force the judge to recuse himself and have another judge take over the case, which will result in a delay of the proceedings well beyond the election, at which point Trump might settle, or who knows what. I’m wondering whether Trump really wants to win in November after all, but I’ll ponder that idea another time.

And yet, leave it to our anonymous friend “Decius” at the Journal of American Greatness (who received a very nice extended shout out yesterday from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal) to offer the case that Trump is, wittingly or not, directly attacking one of the most egregious aspects of liberal orthodoxy today—the premise of “diversity” embedded in our rigid identity politics that really means uniformity to the liberal line. Turns out, for example, that judge Curiel is a member of the lawyer’s advisory board to La Raza, a deeply ideological leftist group determined to mark out Latinos for a political and social identify largely separate from America. Take it away Decius:

The left mostly takes for granted, first, that people from certain ethnicities in positions of power will be liberal Democrats and, second, that they will use that power in the interests of their party and co-ethnics.  This is a core reason for shouts of “treason!” “Uncle Tom” (or Tomas) and the like.  People like Clarence Thomas are offending the left’s whole conception of the moral order.  How dare he!

The implicit assumption underlying Sotomayor’s comment [about a “wise Latina”] and Thomas’ refusal to play to type is that there is a type—an expectation.  By virtue of her being a liberal, a Democrat, a woman, and a Latina (wise or otherwise), Sotomayor’s voting pattern on the Court ought to be predictable.  As, indeed, it is.  So should Thomas’, but he declines to play his assigned role.

The slightly deeper assumption is that this identity-based predictability is necessary, because the institutions and laws as designed will not reliably produce the “correct” outcome.  That’s the logic of diversity in a nutshell.  If everybody in power strictly followed law and procedure, the good guys—the poor, minorities, women, etc.—would lose a great deal of the time and that would be bad.  We need people who will look past the niceties of the rule of law and toward the outcome—the end.  The best way to ensure that is “diversity,” i.e., people more loyal to their own party and tribe than to abstractions like the rule of law.

Trump simply took this very same logic and restated it from his own point-of-view—that is, from the point-of-view of a rich, Republican, ostentatiously hyper-American defendant in a lawsuit being litigated in a highly-charged political environment.  He knows full well that at least 50% of the country will howl like crazy if he wins this suit.  He knows that the judge knows that, too.  He further knows that judge knows what his own “side” expects him to do.  It would take an act of extraordinary courage to act against interest and expectation in this instance.  And our present system is not calibrated to produce such acts of courage but rather to produce the expected outcome.

That’s what diversity is for.  That is, beyond the fairness issue, viz., that in a multiethnic country, it’s unwise and arguably unjust for high offices to be monopolized by one group.  But that’s an argument for something like quotas—or, if you want to be high-minded about it, “distributive justice”—and the quota rationale for diversity is passé.  The current rationale is that diversity provides “perspectives.”  Perspectives to aid in getting around the law and procedure.  Otherwise, who cares about diversity?  Just apply the law.  Simple.

Trump is taking for granted—because he is not blind—that ethnic Democratic judges will rule in the interests of their party and of their ethnic bloc.  That’s what they’re supposed to do.  The MSM and the overall narrative say this is just fine.  It’s only bad when someone like Trump points it out in a negative way.  If a properly sanctified liberal had said “This man is a good judge because his background gives him the perspective to see past narrow, technical legalities and grasp the larger justice,” not only would no one have complained, that comment would have been widely praised.  In fact, comments just like it are celebrated all the time.  That is precisely what Justice Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” phrase was meant to convey.

Plus, Trump has whacked the hornets’ nest by his criticism of Mexican immigration, which he feels this judge is bound to take personally.  And why shouldn’t he conclude that?  The left (and the domesticated right) tell us incessantly that any criticism—however fair or factual—that touches on a specific group will inevitably arouse the ire of that group.  Don’t say anything negative about immigration or the Hispanics will never vote for you!  Don’t say anything critical of Islamic terror or more Muslims will hate us!  But when Trump uses that same logic—I’ve criticized Mexican immigration so it’s likely this judge won’t like me—he’s a villain.

In other words, with this seemingly reckless attack, Trump is once again performing a high public service that is long overdue. I still can’t tell if there’s a deliberateness behind Trump’s crazy genius, or whether this is all happening by weird instinct or randomness.

Judge Jeanine One on One w/ Donald Trump 6/4/16 FULL Special Interview

June 5, 2016

Judge Jeanine One on One w/ Donald Trump 6/4/16 FULL Special Interview, Fox News via YouTube, June 4, 2016

Man who Donald Trump called “my African-American” speaks out

June 5, 2016

Man who Donald Trump called “my African-American” speaks out, CBS News, June 4, 2016

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made headlines Friday when, with a racially charged exclamation, the candidate singled out an African-American man at a campaign rally in Redding, California.

“Oh, look at my African-American over here!” Trump had said, interrupting his own winding speech to direct his supporters’ attention to a man in the crowd. “Look at him. Are you the greatest? You know what I’m talking about, OK?”

But the man called out by Trump — Gregory Cheadle, a Republican candidate in California’s first congressional district — didn’t seem to mind the attention.

“I never, ever sensed any racism on his part,” Cheadle told CBS News in a phone interview Saturday. “Looking at it now, I can see on a script — in a transcript, or even somebody watching the clip — I can see how they would jump to the conclusion that it was racist. But I never felt anything at all.”

Instead, Cheadle took it as a flattering remark.

“It’s a compliment to me,” said Cheadle, who briefly met Trump when the billionaire waded into the crowd after the event.

Their exchange, reported by the Redding Searchlight, happened after Cheadle had called out, “Uncle Donald, Uncle Donald.” Cheadle told the local news outlet that Trump “recognized me as the guy he had called out” and they chatted briefly about job creation.

Cheadle said Saturday that the attention Trump paid him seemed more like a recognition “that my work is paying off, that we as a black people can achieve things.”

And he further laughed off the Internet uproar regarding Trump’s “my African-American” phrasing: “We are a super-sensitive people now when it comes to race,” he said. “I mean, super sensitive. And we’re so ready to pull that racist trigger and sometimes unnecessarily so.”

“I’m running in a district that’s at least 90 percent white. If I wanted to find racism, I could,” Cheadle added, but noted that “the prejudice people have against me is dissipating.”

Asked why he felt the perception toward him has been less racially tinged, the congressional candidate said it was because he didn’t fit “stereotypes.”

“I don’t wear my pants down to my knees,” he said. “I’m not a lover of rap music … They’re seeing a far more positive role model than they’ve ever seen.”

Despite Trump’s call out to him, Cheadle has not yet decided who to vote for in November. He said that he attended the Trump rally to keep “an open mind” about the presidential candidates.

“I wanted to see for myself who he was,” he said. “I just wanted to hear him. Did he sway my vote one way or the other? No. What he did do was he did inspire me.”