Rick William Elkin was born in Pasadena, California,
Chris Cillizza, Editor At Large for CNN says that too many journalists 'totally missed' the most important part of the much discussed 'tough language' Trump used in the recent meeting with Congressional leaders up on Capitol Hill.
Only problem is, so does he!
But even worse, he mischaracterizes Trump's intentions as a racial slam. "Trump has trafficked in racial language, racial stereotyping and racial animus. This is who he is and what he does; the history is conclusive."
Not so fast...Liberals are hair trigger fast to use the term 'conclusive' because they don't want anyone to actually fact check them. He was referring to an attack on Trump's truthfulness the New York Times published in January:
"He uses the gang MS-13 to disparage all immigrants. Among many other statements, he has suggested that Obama’s protection of the Dreamers — otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children — contributed to the spread of MS-13."
'Otherwise law abiding' immigrants couldn't be further from the truth. The facts are that many Dreamers did contribute to the spread of the notorious MS13 gang. Once again, this claim leaps to the conclusion that Trump 'disparages all immigrants.' That's another leap with no basis in fact. It may be the Times reporters opinion, but how can anyone speak for 'all immigrants'?
"He began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech disparaging Mexican immigrants as criminals and “rapists.”
Trump actually said, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
There is a ton of truth to that statement, as inarticulate as it may be. The enormous overabundance and representation of illegal aliens in Southwestern prisons attests to the accuracy of his claim. No bones about it.
"In December 2015, Trump called for a “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” including refusing to readmit Muslim-American citizens who were outside of the country at the time."
Trump was pointing out the stupidity of allowing unvetted Muslims immigration rights when radical Islamic Muslim groups all over the world are actively trying to infiltrate our society to commit crimes of mass destruction. His recommendation was on a temporary basis, exactly as Truman and Roosevelt had recommended during World War II. But it provided an opportunity for Democrats to conveniently forget their own 'racist' political history and to paint Trump as Islamophobic.
"Trump said a federal judge hearing a case about Trump University was biased because of the judge’s Mexican heritage."
He actually said "he might be" biased. Apparently it is racist for Trump to question someone's heritage influence in litigation, but liberals try to restrict Jews from actively commenting on Palestinian issues because of their 'inherent bias' all the time.
Once again, Cillizza has made an unsubstantiated racial stereotype accusation, and my guess is he will not be challenged on it.
During the Capitol Hill conference, Trump was asking, in a typical New York street slang sort of way, "Why does our immigration policy favor people who have little to offer our country?" But the knee-jerk reaction by the biased news media was to leap-frog from an immigration issue to the racial angle.
"But focusing on the specific words Trump used missed the broader -- and much more important -- point here. Trump's message could not be clearer: Why are we taking in immigrants from places primarily populated by black and brown people when we should be taking in more white immigrants?"
He is putting words in Trump's mouth, because that is not what Trump said.
First of all, what Trump said was not a message, it was a question, which in light of the recent immigration debate is appropriate. Many Americans are frustrated by our Federal immigration policies and the appearance that unskilled, unvetted and potentially dependant people are getting pushed to the front of the waiting list. The issue is security, safety, and our Federal priorities. Race has little or nothing to do with any of the process.
Cillizza says it "could not be clearer." that Trump was referring to the race of the people because of how he characterized the countries of origin. The transcripts show Trump never mentioned anyones skin color. But that point is of no consequence to the anti-Trump columnist, because from his perspective we already know Trump is a racist who hates people of color so it is the responsibility of the arrogant and elitist Fake News Media to 'reinterpret' his 'hateful' comments. He thinks we Trump supporters are too dumb to understand the 'real issues,' so he must point them out to us.
Cillizza is practicing Orwell's NewsSpeak, taking apart quotes and refabricating them to reflect the approved GroupThink. Would it ever occur to Cillizza to look at what Trump was getting at, minus the race issue. No matter what color the people are, if they are not prepared to support themselves, to adopt our culture, and to assimilate, why should we bend over backwards to bring them into our country?
Is it America's responsibility to intervene on behalf of anyone who dislikes their country and wants to come to America? Are we xenophobic just because we think it appropriate to impose some kind of immigration standards?
I would suggest that it is the leftist Media that is acting racist. They are the ones preoccupied by race, never once recognizing that America has a security and immigration crisis. They are unable to have any discussion about immigration without demanding the presumption of white xenophobia before we even start the conversation.
Now that is racist!
They are prejudging white people and Trump supporters before they even know what they are actually thinking. And when anyone, especially Trump, tries to articulate or investigate sensitive issues like immigration, the biased media starts using misstatements, fabrications and invective to reinforce their own racist views about nonconformist white people.
Trump has a knack for using slang and profanity to reveal a much greater underlying truth.
Let me try to be sensitive and respectful, because I have nothing against Oprah. I stand in awe of her success, her self awareness and willingness to invite people into her personal space. She has endured more life changing weight loss plans than anyone should even contemplate.
Her speech at the Golden Globes ceremony was a nice attempt to focus attention on the plight of women in the workplace. But that is where my pleasantries ends. Because it is the height of temerity to suggest that Hollywood can or will be the force that ends the very thing they made a common term in American lexicon. To suggest that Hollywood can ban the 'casting couch' is absurd. Especially with regard to women in any workplace situation where they must be evaluated by men for advancement.
And even more far fetched is the idea that Oprah will be the next Democratic candidate for President.
I don't see her attracting the numbers required. She will not get the die hard Trump populists. She would have serious problems overcoming some of her past racial epithets and marginalization of conservatives. As nice as she can be, she harbors serious anger about her blackness. Like Michelle Obama, her unwillingness to embrace Americanism will become a major issue should she decide to run for President.
Oprah is Hillary on popularity steroids. She is the most successful black female to have ever lived. She is a media mogul, a television icon, a talk show Liberal who can reach moderates from both sides of the isle. She is much more self effacing and willing to listen to people than Hillary, and she has enormous cache with a broad range of women. That said, she is not a policy wonk like Hillary.
And what about men? Hillary at least had years of policy experience as Secretary of State. Oprah has reported on, or interviewed experts on many domestic and international issues, but she has no historical record of being engaged in policy discussions or decisions. While Trump ventured into many political subjects (taxes, trade, war and nation building) for decades., Oprah has been mostly quiet on national policy. Many of the pressing issues of the 2016 campaign may no longer exist: We are approaching full employment; the threat from ISIS is shrinking: our terrible trade agreements are being renegotiated: by 2020 the immigration issue could well be solved.
So that leaves the only issue that Progressives want to deal with anyway, and that is social justice. I believe that is the main reason Hillary lost: she never understood how narrow the appeal of politically correct social justice issue is and why the majority of Americans think it is low on the priority list.
The Democrats need someone with a near hypnotic allure, because their past policies have proven to be so ineffective. From Carter to Obama, when Democrats start increasing regulations, taxes and political correctness, the economy tanks, every time!
So they need to influence people with a collectivist religious fervor, an emotional and spiritual assault that supersedes reason and accountability. They need to build an alternate universe that followers fall in love with. They will only be successful if they can field a motivational speaker. Making emotional appeals to Hollywood worked for Obama, but that recipe may be less effective if Trump has four years of economic success under his belt by 2020.
I have often characterized Conservatives and Liberals as Father and Mother figures. Conservatives are the Critical Father of the family, pragmatic and sometimes insensitive, looking for results and disinterested in excuses. Liberals are the Mother figures, nurturing and encouraging, but seldom willing to make tough decisions and exact discipline. Trump has demonstrated his willingness to be hated but still make difficult calls. Oprah would have problems with that. Being the leader of the Free World requires a certain level of insolence and certitude, attributes she may well have but will be difficult to demonstrate to the electorate.
Watching a gracious, intelligent, and enduring woman engage with a wide variety of interesting people on a daytime talk show is extremely appealing television. For her demographic, females who watch midday TV, she is the best. But to extrapolate that into a role on the world stage, making enormous decisions on domestic and international economic and government affairs, on military operations, on the wars between Islam and everyone else, between men, women and others, and dealing with the everyday situations that Presidents have to mitigate, would not sit well with Oprah's well documented fragile psychological profile.
She long ago admitted her weight problems stem from insecurities and fear.
Plus, she would suffer an enormous attack on her personal and professional history should she decide to run. And I don't think she really wants to get into such detail. Insiders know how ruthless and ambitious young Oprah was, and she never hesitated to step over other women to get to the top of her profession. She has on more than one occasion suggested the world would be better off if it didn't have so many white people.
I can definitely see Oprah becoming a major power broker in future Progressive Party politics, but she is not going to give up what she has attained for political reasons. And although it may have looked like that when she spoke to the fawning Golden Globes audience, she is not the 'Drink the Kool Aid' candidate Progressives will need to challenge Trump in 2020.
The search for the new Jim Jones-style Democratic candidate will have to continue.