I recently came across this post on Trump and racism here. To be fair, the writer gets it 80% correct, but he misses some truly important points.
While there’s enough evidence to support the idea that Trump is a racist, he ignores Hillary’s racism. I guess the author is a Democrat, which explains his blindness to liberalism’s inherent racism, but to constantly pound one candidate for racism and to ignore the guilt of another candidate is deceptive at best.
Hillary is a huge abortion fan, and worse than that, she favors taxpayer money going to racist organizations like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was founded as part of the eugenics movement, for the purpose of obliterating inferior races, but blacks specifically. Abortion = population control. The Democrat party has always been in favor of abortion for this very purpose. The only thing that has changed is the method by which they sell their racism. Now instead of “know your place” it is “let me make your plantation comfortable”.
Hillary also is a fan of the bigotry of low expectations. Rather than encouraging blacks and other minorities to succeed, she favors government solutions that keep them from achieving. She assumes they are helpless and stupid, which is why they need government assistance (affirmative action, welfare, and so on).
Hillary’s immigration policy continues to funnel in low-skilled people who will not assimilate into American life. Why do that? So that a permanent underclass can exist for liberals to help, at the same time keeping the colored folks poor and economically segregated.
That is why the racism, while true in Trump’s case, is also true in Hillary’s case, and that leads into the problem with addressing the race from just two perspectives. The author makes the same error that so many people made – assuming that they only had two options. In Florida, my ballot listed six.
Most thought that they were responsible for RESULTS, not CHOICES. They thought if they voted for someone who lost, then they failed. No, your person just happened not to win. (If you’ve ever voted more than once, you learn that your candidate not winning happens, and it’s not the end of the world.) Voting is not about picking winners in a horse race, anyways. It is about exercising a MORAL APPROVAL of a candidate that represents your values. You aren’t responsible for winning. That’s up to the candidate. You’re only responsible for voting.
So while some felt morally superior for voting Hillary instead of her donor, the very same people wanted to elect the person responsible for the deaths of four American servicemen in Benghazi, someone who ran a quid-pro-quo scam with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and someone who favored sending taxpayer dollars to racist abortion factories. Then there’s the email server/national security fiasco, FileGate, Whitewater, and on and on. The Cinemax theory applies to Hillary as well.
Although I despise racism and anti-semitism, and I would not vote for anyone who supported such, we have had racist presidents (Woodrow Wilson, for one). We have had anti-semitic presidents (Jimmy Carter, for one). Both poisoned racial relations. The Republic tottered on. However, no nation can survive many men who feel themselves unbound by law and have no awe of God. What makes Trump a threat is the combination of anti-semitism, racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism. The historical parallels are too clear to ignore.
One last thing lost in the analysis of the author, and that is the responsibility of people further up the chain. How did Trump manage to become the GOP nominee? Who helped him get there? I refuse to let the moral sellouts who voted for Hillary or Trump off the hook, but I am more enraged still at those who made it possible for Trump to be the nominee out of a field of 16 better candidates – they bear a greater share of the blame for this man as president.