Last week I read an article about Joe Scarborough that got my blood boiling. Scarborough believes, with all his heart, that the president is a racist. That does not bother me. We live in a free country and, as such, he can believe anything that he wants. I do believe that he is intentionally spinning comments that the president has made in a way that distorts the actual facts and perspective of his statements.
For example, when President Trump made comments about Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage in regard to a case the judge was presiding over that involved Trump University. Trump commented that Curiel could not be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. In fact, he repeated this many times making the correlation that because of Trump’s strong border stance, the judge would be biased against him. Is this comment racist? I don’t believe so, but it is clearly insensitive. Trump felt very strongly that the case was biased against him, and I can understand his reasoning in believing that the judge may be biased. Understand that just because I can comprehend his point of view does not mean I agree with it.
Then we also have his security ban on countries that support terrorism. In fairness, Trump did say during a campaign speech that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our countries representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” In the end, Trump only listed eight countries: Syria, North Korea, Iran, Chad, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Venezuela. These eight countries were all part of a list that the Obama administration had compiled, yet once again Trump is being branded a racist because of his actioning the list (even though not all the countries are majority Muslim). Many have tried to use this as proof of his racist tendencies. However, I can sympathize with his frustration. I personally would support a complete and total lockdown of our country if it meant that my family and children would be safer for it. Argue as much as you like about the way that we label it; Islamic Terrorism is a real thing. I believe that Trump’s argument was simply asking why we would want to risk bringing our enemies into our nation. Is banning all Muslims the best way to go about this? Clearly not, which is why he adjusted the implementation of his plan after becoming president.
Of course, the biggest uprising against Trump was for his comments about Mexican illegal immigrants. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best — they’re not sending you [pointing into the crowd]. They’re not sending you [pointing into the crowd]. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” So, what is wrong with this statement? I have a hard time seeing this comment as being interpreted as racist. Is anyone going to actually deny that the drug trade is prevalent along our border with Mexico? Am I to suppose that the left would claim that sex trafficking of women and children across our border either does not exist or does not constitute rape then? Are these not crimes? The truth is that our border is not being crossed by doctors, or physicists, or engineers. It is being crossed illegally by non- or low-skilled workers. This is a category that we simply do not need more people to fill.
The comments he made about the gang MS-13 are equally hard to misinterpret, unless of course you take them completely out of context. This controversy stemmed from a conversation between Fresno County, California Sheriff Mims and President Trump. They were discussing the sanctuary laws of California and how it interferes with policing of illegal immigrants.
Mims: “…we have state law, we have federal laws, and here we are stuck in the middle… I invited ICE to put their officers in my jails so they’re able to do their work…” Two weeks later, “Mr. President, Kate Steinle was murdered…There could be an MS-13 gang member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.”
Trump: “We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.”
When read in context there is no doubt that the president is responding to the sheriff’s comment about the MS-13 gang. The problem is that most of his comments are intentionally given out of context. In reference directly to the MS-13 classification, I do not even believe that these individuals are animals. Typically, animals do not kill within their own species; it simply goes against the biological necessity of species survival. No, these individuals are something much worse.
During my first tour in Afghanistan, I saw several field grade officers pawing at certain combat awards, and I was disgusted by their conduct. I was not the decision authority (since I was only a 1st Lieutenant), but had to review and give recommendations for each of these awards. At one point, I told my executive officer that I thought the litmus test should be that the officer wanting an award should be required to go to Walter Reed Hospital and explain to the combat wounded troops why they deserved the award. If they could do this, then the award was probably merited. I feel the same way about these people leveling criticism at the president in regard to his MS-13 comments. They should first go to Evelyn Rodriguez, whose daughter Kayla (16) and her friend Nisa Mickens (15) were bludgeoned to death by that same gang with bats and machetes, and explain how calling those responsible animals is cruel and racist. I do not think that there would be many takers.
There are other supposed examples, but just like the ones already discussed, they tend to be even less reliable in terms of their facts and conjectures. Yet, as I stated at the beginning, believe what you want about Trump. I will never be able to convince Scarborough that he is wrong, and that is fine. What is not fine were his comments on June 22, 2018, when he stated, “No, [Trump’s] been openly racist, just like we said back in December of 2015, openly racist. If you support him, then you’re supporting that, and you are that. It’s that simple.” Really, it is that simple?
I am confused: just who in the hell does Scarborough think he is? He knows me? He has been in my shoes? What gives him, or anyone else for that matter, the right to impugn my moral character. Here is a message for him:
Joe,
You claim to be a conservative, yet you attempt to dictate how I think? You claim to support freedom, yet you use your platform as a weapon to intimidate those with whom you politically disagree. Instead of using your voice to have open dialog with others with whom you disagree, you attempt to bully them into submission by attacking their virtue. I have proven my character through service to my country, service that did not afford me the luxuries of lobbyists’ gifts and five-star hotels. My choices instead let me see the true depth of human suffering and despair first hand. Do not ever presume to know me. Your attempt to label millions of Americans as racist proves that you have no true concept of what true hate looks like. I pity you.
Sincerely,
A Trump Supporter
