Posted on 08/01/2015 4:10:59 PM PDT by conservativejoy
The New York Times is playing the race card on Donald Trump. Surprise!
In a front page story on Friday the so-called "paper of record" headlined the surging GOP presidential this way: "Donald Trump's Instinct for Racially Charged Rhetoric, Before His Presidential Bid."
So, you might ask. What are Times readers about to discover in this latest liberal media hit piece on The Donald? We've now been through the media manufactured Trump/McCain crisis. In the aftermath his poll numbers went up, not down, as almost universally predicted by all with the solitary exception of Rush Limbaugh. Rush shrewdly understood that the conservative base of the GOP -- no fans of McCain -- would see this particular firestorm as what it really was, another media attempt to zap a popular Republican candidate. Thus understood as what Rush called a "teachable moment," with Trump refusing to back down, Trump's numbers, as mentioned went up.
Then there was the miserably untrue "Trump raped his wife" story over at the Daily Beast. That flatly untrue story drew the outrage of Ivana Trump, who directly refuted the story, leaving the left-wing media outlet and reporter Tim Mak with egg on their face. On the heels of that was the supposed scandal of the angry response to that story by Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen, who in a moment of serious and decidedly provoked anger hotly misstated New York law on spousal rape, quickly apologized. Next up was a Times front-pager that a female lawyer had drawn Trump's wrath by producing a breast pump in the middle of a deposition - drawing a Trump exclamation that she was "disgusting." That story too had no traction, and his numbers kept going up. Now, but of course, its the race card.
This go-round the headline in the Times leaves readers eagerly scanning the fine print. What did Trump say that was racist? Did he use the N-word? No. Did he let loose with a rapper-style string of racial expletives? Well, no. OK. Let's bite. What exactly was this "racially charged rhetoric"?
It turns out this jewel of a story contains the following "racially charged" examples:
-- He paid for an ad about stopping a casino being built in the upstate New York region of the Catskills by the St. Regis Mohawk Indian tribe. The "racially charged rhetoric"? This sentence: "The St. Regis Mohawk Indian record of criminal activity is well documented." Wow. A statement of his opinion? Surely. But racist? Hardly. In fact, the race card was played not by Trump but by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, which called what the paper labeled as "incendiary ads" a "naked appeal to racism." Trump was, at least, quoted as responding in what would seem the obvious non-racial fashion to anyone other than a liberal media outlet. Said Trump: "I wasn't knocking the Mohawks; I was knocking their record. That's not because they're Mohawks. That's because their record is bad and was proved to be bad at the time."
-- In 1989 a female jogger was assaulted in Central Park. The Times, in typical leftist style, quickly racialized the story, transforming the fact of a jogger being assaulted into being a "white female jogger" being assaulted. What did Trump do that was racist? He ran an ad calling for return of the death penalty. Which, if it had happened, would have been executing those convicted of specific crimes regardless of race. Trump's response to this charge was as obvious as his response to the Mohawk kerfuffle. Said he: This had nothing to do with race. I have always been a big believer, and continue to be, of the death penalty for horrendous. crime."
-- The third example involved a Trump idea to sell a piece of Florida property to the Unification Church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, which the Times notes was at the time viewed by many as a "cult." What was the "racism" here? Liberals charged Trump was using “the Unification Church as a scare tactic in an attempt to compel Palm Beach officials to submit” to his will to subdivide the property. Reverend Moon is Korean. So this, interprets the Times, meant Trump was somehow anti-Korean. Trump's duly quoted response was this, as the paper reported: "Indeed, Mr. Trump sounded incredulous at the notion. 'That's Korean,' he said of the church."So now I'm against the Koreans, too, you mean?" Yes, that is exactly what the Times was implying.
-- Last but not least, the paper cited the fact that Trump called the illegal immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle in cold blood in San Francisco "this animal." This too was supposed to be an example of racism. Apparently a common non-racial description of a murderer that has been applied to killers of all races is now suddenly racist.
So what do we have here?
What we have in this latest Trump gotcha is a blatant attempt to paint him as a racist - with one example after another that never gets even close to "proving" the case. What this does illustrate yet again is the left's perpetual dependence on race-card playing to sell everything from Big Government to, in this case, the New York Times. The laughable part of this is the paper's own record on race and the considerable hypocrisy behind it.
A few years back, after the Times published a blistering editorial on a Supreme Court decision titled "Firefighters and Race," in which the paper huffed that a decision that ruled against the racial bean counters in a case involving New Haven firemen "dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace."
The catch? As I wrote at the time in The American Spectator:
The New Haven fire department, according to press accounts, is 43% black and Latino. Or, if you prefer the term of art, 43% of the fire department is "minority."
The New York Times editorial board, according to the information provided by The New York Times, is -- wait for it -- 12% black and Latino. Or, again, 12 % "minority" if you prefer the term.
The New York Times Op-Ed page team of columnists, an elite group of which Ms. Dowd is a star, is 19% black and, again according to the Times listing of its Op-Ed page columnists, 0% Latino."
In other words? When the standard the Times was applying to the racial composition of the New Haven Fire Department was applied to the Times itself - the paper came out looking like one big oozing sore of non-diversity. If you will, a white boys' playground.
Before the Times begins writing empty pieces falsely accusing Donald Trump of racism they should, according to their own standards, take a very good and long look in the mirror.
If the end of the GOP nomination fight winds up not with Trump on the ticket but, say, a ticket of Latino Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina? One can rest assured that the Times will quickly be out there insisting the GOP ticket is both racist and sexist. That's the way the left plays the game. That's the way the Times is playing it right now with Donald Trump.
Is there no shame at the Times when it comes to exploiting race?
No. And there never will be. This is what they do.
- See more at:
We B jus followin’ orders from da massas down at da DNC.
Left in fear of Trump Hilarious.
We were just talking about this kind of crap this morning on FR....sure didn’t take them long did it?
All I gotta say is ‘try em if you think you can, but people that aren’t ‘bought and paid for’ it’s a waste of time’....
Can’t the Trump just buy the Slimes and put it down?
Ditto
“In the aftermath his poll numbers went up, not down, as almost universally predicted by all with the solitary exception of Rush Limbaugh.”
Predictions were his numbers would go up or down? I got thrown by the sentence, but I think he meant Rush was right on the outcome.
Trump now says if they are not criminals all the illegals will stay (until they murder one of us, at least). He does not talk much about that big Trump Wall, either, anymore. The flood of mess and expense Obama put on us, is here to stay to get free stuff we don’t have to give and to commit crime.
We can’t even employ Americans with college degrees...and we need Millions, upon Millions of illegals? Thanks, Mr. Trump. You are a globalist just like the other guys and could care less about America or Americans.
Glad you let the truth out before you fooled any more people with your fake wall business. Our country is screwed.
Even Cruz is all for bringing in as many people as he can on visas as requested by global corporations. Pay is cheaper and they don’t know their rights nor have the power to claim their rights as a worker in the US.
Senator Cruz is for reducing Legal immigration drastically. He says the level should be determined based on its effect on the American worker. This has been his policy for a long time, but he has not done a very good job of getting it across to people.
I don’t think Trump has abandoned the wall deal at all. He still sees it as a major part of securing the border, but he says we will begin deportation immediately before it is finished and will use increased border patrols, drones and enhanced e-verify to increase security.
Both Trump and Cruz agree that the criminals and those on public assistance go first and will not be returning. All will be deported, but some can come back by going through a legal process.
If legal immigration is cut from the current million to 250,000 a year as Cruz is proposing, the numbers will be reasonable. Both candidates say we must not allow anyone to be here illegally, period.
Trump has a book coming out on Aug 6th that is a revised and expanded version of a previous book. In it, he gives detailed plans for what he would do as President. The name of the book is “Time To Get Tough”.
I have seen Trump’s Tax Plan and it is the best I have ever seen from any candidate.
The best thing that could happen would be for Trump and Cruz to be on a ticket together. They are our country’s best chance of being the country we should be again.
Desperados.
“Desperados”
Now there’s a visual! LOL!
Trump now says if they are not criminals all the illegals will stay (until they murder one of us, at least). He does not talk much about that big Trump Wall, either, anymore.
Actually, that’s not any where near what Trump has said, regarding his immigration plan.
He’s stronger on this issue than ANY of the candidates have been, as far as I know...as far as 1) building the fence...some areas wouldn’t require the fence, IF we... 2) allow our BP do their job 3) making those here ILLEGALLY leave, and if they want to come back, to do so LEGALLY and 4) fixing system to allow those - from other countries, who want to come here, to do so LEGALLY.
Here’s a fairly recent interview, where he goes over his thoughts/plan, on immigration...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCwc57x3-9U
“If legal immigration is cut from the current million to 250,000 a year as Cruz is proposing”
Legal immigration should be cut to a baseline of zero, with a maximum of 10,000 humanitarian visas. Military family visas should be rubber-stamped, but limited to the immediate family.
Cruz may be saying all the right things, but he is fundamentally a weak man. It shows in his face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.