While we were taking a break, leftists had more time on their hands than usual, so they had to find something to be OUTRAGED about. That explains the attempt at virtue-signaling by declaring “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” to be racist. But it was so stupid and so utterly ignorant of Charles M. Schulz’s courageous efforts at integrating comic strips that it mostly met with the derision that it deserved.
Here’s some more history on how Schulz put his entire career on the line to stand up to racism.
Luckily, the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) can always find something to be OUTRAGED about in the statements of President Trump. This year, we got a double-whammy for Turkey Day. Before I relate them, I’d like to note that these both fall into a pattern I’ve noticed.
Yes, it’s true that Trump sometimes hands his critics ammunition by saying or tweeting things that are combative, ungracious or factually questionable (there have been a lot of politicians who’ve done that and gotten a pass.) But I’ve noticed that the most over-the-top, outraged reactions come not from things Trump says that are false or debatable, but things that are plainly, indisputably true – yet, not being a politician or diplomat, he says them anyway. He violates the sacred rule, decided in a sealed hall of power somewhere, that we’re all going to pretend that it isn’t true.
We’ve seen this time and again, as establishment politicians, pundits and power brokers flipped their wigs over Trump stating outrageous “falsehoods,” such as that illegal immigration is harming American workers and people who want to come here should do it legally; that North Korea’s leader was a little bully who’s too big for his britches; or that MS-13 gang members are vicious animals who need to be deported and kept out of the US. In all these cases, there was ginned-up outrage, followed by polls showing that a majority of Americans agreed with him. And why shouldn’t they? All those things are obviously true. Even Hillary Clinton is finally, grudgingly, sort-of admitting that nations need borders:
Trump’s critics not only can’t admit that these things are true, they’re infuriated that anyone in power would dare to say them out loud. This week brought two more examples of Trump critics blowing a gasket because he said something you and they and the chickens in the henhouse all know is true.
One came when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts “rebuked Trump” (that’s the way the media put it, although he didn’t mention Trump’s name) for his criticism of liberal 9th Circuit federal judges constantly trying to overrule his efforts to enforce border security and immigration laws. Roberts wrote:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
I don’t want to throw shade on a Chief Justice, but has he been smoking something other than the turkey? That’s a comment so absurd, it’s downright laughable. Everyone knows there is a vast difference between conservative, strict constructionist judges and liberal, “the Constitution is a living document that I can bend to my whim” judges. That’s why so many SCOTUS decisions fall along the same partisan lines. It’s why liberals who want to impede Trump always go judge-shopping to San Francisco. If all judges are nonpartisan and evenhanded at all times, then why did Democrats move Heaven and Earth to slime Brett Kavanaugh? Roberts sounded like FBI Director Christopher Wray insisting that there is no such thing as a political partisan inside the FBI.
Trump brushed off Roberts’ comments, tweeting, “Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned.”
We’ve had three days and counting of harrumphing in media and political circles over Trump saying something that everyone knows is indisputably true. He just wasn’t supposed to say it!
There was also the matter of Trump’s statement that the US will remain an ally of Saudi Arabia, despite a CIA report linking the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi to the highest levels of the Saudi government. Trump called it a terrible crime and said 17 Saudis known to be involved have already been heavily sanctioned. But because of Saudi Arabia’s importance in keeping oil flowing, Iran in check and Israel safe; its heavy investments in America and its role in fighting terrorists and protecting the security of the entire region; it’s a matter of putting “America first” to preserve our relationship.
That statement sparked a tsunami of outrage from both the left and right, with politicians and media figures assailing Trump for putting American strategic interests ahead of taking a moral stand against the brutality of the leaders of a government we’re allied with.
But again, it wasn’t that he said anything new or untrue. He just dared to state what’s been going on for decades, but there was a “gentleman’s agreement” never to admit it out loud. Trump either doesn’t know or care about diplomacy, once defined as “the art of saying, ‘Nice doggy,’ until you can find a rock.” He just calls the growling dog a dog and tells it he’s going to hit it with a rock.
Lest you think I’m being a partisan Republican Trump defender, here’s an article by leftwing journalist Glenn Greenwald, hardly a Trump fan, blasting all the politicians and media people who’ve turned a blind eye for decades to the two-faced art of mouthing morality while supporting dictators, and who are now fulminating as if Trump invented the concept of national self-interest.
I don’t agree with his views of some of the examples of it, but there’s no denying that he’s compiled quite a list of people who’ve done the exact same thing Trump is being slammed for daring to say bluntly, and the list includes Barack Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Greenwald calls them “purely situational opponents of tyranny and murder who pretend to hold such values only when doing so undermines their domestic political opponents and enables their political allies to be restored to power where they can continue the same policies of murder, tyranny-support and atrocity-enabling that they have spent decades defending.”
He calls this hypocritical moral preening destructive because it insures such practices will endure, “by dishonestly pretending that they are unique to Trump, rather than the hallmarks of the same people now being applauded because they are denouncing Trump’s actions in such a blatantly false voice, all to mask the fact that they did the same, and worse, when they commanded the levers of American power.”
I think Trump’s worst sin in the eyes of the media and his political opponents isn’t that he’s doing anything new that’s awful. He’s just exposing all the awful stuff they’d agreed nobody would ever talk about. To borrow a phrase from Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men,” “They can’t handle the truth.”