“Trump is a racist.” Well, at least that is what “they” are saying. Who are “they”?

I watch a lot of news, and it seems to me “they” includes every Democrat/progressive/liberal/socialist who has something derogatory to say about President Trump. Calling anyone a racist is about as ugly a thing one can do. My point is, a person who does that should be sure of their facts.

With tens of millions of Americans calling President Trump a racist and national media daily venting their emotional outrage over his racism, perhaps it is time to look at some facts.

Other than Hillary Clinton calling Candidate Trump (and all of his supporters} racist with zero evidence, my research tells me the genesis of the current Trump racist movement was the riots in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017. Several factions of right-wing extremists were in Charlottesville, including white supremacists, KKK and neo-

Nazis. Right-wing organizers arrived with stated goals of unifying the American white nationalist movement and to oppose removing a statue of Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park.

About two hours after James Fields killed Heather Heyer with his vehicle, President Trump spoke on camera, saying, “We all must be united and condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides.” Isn’t that what one would expect the president to say?

“On many sides.” Those last three words alone have generated a national outcry, “Trump is a racist.” Why? Several reasons.

First, many of the protesters were local residents and University of Virginia students. However, so too were members of Antifa, a conglomeration of left-wing groups. The principal feature of Antifa is its tactics: property damage, physical violence and harassment against those on the far right. There you have it. Two groups of ignorant thugs — from the far right and left — who are not acknowledged by any reasonable individuals or groups as anything but scum-of-the-earth bigots.

Second, Virginia politicians and the mainstream media went absolutely off the rails. The day following the rally, Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer addressed the rally participants: “You are not wanted in this great commonwealth.” Signer faulted Trump for inflaming racial tensions during his 2016 campaign, stating: “I’m not going to make any bones about it. I place the blame for what you’re seeing in America today right at the doorstep of the White House and the people around the president.”

Third, the media soundly criticized Trump for blaming “both sides” and for not specifically naming each individual right-wing group that was in Charlottesville that day. By not naming all of the right-wing groups, the president was presumed to be a supporter of the right-wing groups.

The media’s meltdown prompted the White House to issue an addendum to his initial remarks: “The president said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred. Of course, that includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

Notwithstanding the Democrats’ and media’s biased conclusions, a poll by Economist You Gov showed that, when asked, “Which group is more likely to use violence?” 45 percent of those polled said both sides were “equally likely.”

Keep in mind that three months prior to this incident, a Harvard study found that 88-93 percent of daily reporting from ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post reporting on President Trump was negative. Fox News was 50/50 positive/negative. Recurring polling shows that the negative reporting percentages continue today.

What we do not hear about are decades of Trump’s positive relations with minorities. He sued the city of Palm Beach for excluding African-Americans and Jews from social clubs. He was praised by Jesse Jackson for support to Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, which pressured corporations to hire and promote black employees. Trump has actively supported the NAACP. He made campaign contributions to black political candidates. The list is long; Google it.

Most individuals who routinely call the president a racist cannot give a reason why they believe that. Those who can give a reason usually say, “Charlottesville” but cannot recall exactly what the president said that day. This is a perfect example of intellectual honesty being clouded by hate. Better check your facts.

There is a good and valid question floating around: Can you love your country more than you hate your president?

(17) comments

Mark Hayes

White flight residents speaking about racism.

Richard Wright

You might explain yourself better Mark?

Mark Hayes

When racism is brought up anytime on this site, pay attention to those that accuse others of being racist, their predictable comments , you will find them to be Democrats, those that reside in the most segregated area of Moore County. Elect to live where one chooses, but don't bring up, or call others racist when one lives in a 97% White area, so hypocritical. Best explanation I can offer, not meant to offend, just a dose of reality.

Stephen Cheek

Check our facts? Lol. One word. Birther. I suggest the General follow his own advice and "Google it".

Richard Wright

How is that racist? Obama's past is translucent at best. The man walked through life leaving no footprints.

ken leary

“Most individuals who routinely call the president a racist cannot give a reason why they believe that.” Perhaps, but he does “routinely” call the people fleeing the United States Army’s School of the America’s graduates “rapists” and “murderers.” He seems to lack any historical perspective, or facts for that matter, as to why people are coming north, so he “routinely” vilifies them as other, not us; people to be walled off, left to die in deserts, or “Ice Boxes” in Texas. He uses language, one could hardly call it rhetoric, to incite his largely caucasian base and to demonize societies of people who are not “us.” That is racist, and fascist. It only appeals to people who feel frightened, are so frustrated by their condition they need someone to blame and punish, or “leaders” who have an agenda to distract people from the real problems. The General is a shill for the established power structures. Nothing more.

Jim Tomashoff

"Trump talked about how he didn’t want black people handling his money; he wanted the guys with the yarmulkes. He was very much the kind of person who would take people of a religion, like Jews; or a race, like blacks; or a nationality, like Italians, and ascribe to them certain qualities. Blacks were lazy, and Jews were good with money, and Italians were good with their hands—and Germans were clean." www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

"Antifa, or anti-fascist activists, certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists, according to the New York Times reporters Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Hawes Spencer, who covered the violence in Charlottesville. But there is one stark difference between the violence on the two sides: The police said that James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio drove his car into a crowd and killed at least one person, Heather Heyer. Mr. Fields was charged with second-degree murder.

Comparing Antifa to Mr. Fields’s act is like “comparing a propeller plane to a C-130 transport,” said Brian Levin, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

“Using the fact that some counterprotesters were, in fact, violent, creates a structural and moral false equivalency that is seriously undermining the legitimacy of this president,” Professor Levin said." www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-alt-left-fact-check.htm

The General is indeed trying to establish what is in fact a false equivalency. And doing so is immoral and he should know better.

"...in the past 25 years, according to a breakdown of two terrorism databases by Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S. building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and other left-wing groups."

Now Trump's defenders will almost certainly note that the information and analysis noted above can just be ignored because the sources were the N.Y. Times and The Atlantic, both, they will argue, "far left" mainstream media. Is the CATO Institute a "far left" organization. Ask Kent, our resident Libertarian. Even he'll tell you it is not.

Richard Wright

Interesting Jim. Just so you know, the C-130 is a propeller plane - in fact the C-130 has four propellers. There is no comparison between Field's acts and Antifa's actions. One was the act of a single person. Antifa to the contrary is a radical "Brown Shirt"-like group who believes that threats and physical force is appropriate to stifle speech and intimidate those who disagree. As for the article in the Atlantic, no real facts just the opinions of those opposed to Trump. The article is little but a hit piece. You can do better Jim.

Jim Tomashoff

"Antifa to the contrary is a radical "Brown Shirt"-like group who believes that threats and physical force is appropriate to stifle speech and intimidate those who disagree." You mean like any one of a dozen or more far-right groups? The Klan, neo-Nazi's, skinheads, and on and on. Field's act was not just the "...act of a single person." As was clearly demonstrated in Charlottesville many individual counter-protesters were physically attacked, and filmed doing so, by groups of far-right demonstrators. I'm very aware of what a C-130 is. I was a military analyst, among other things, both in and out of government. In my humble opinion the Atlantic article was not in any way a "little...hit piece." You can do better Richard.

Jim Tomashoff

I guess the General cannot tell the difference between a statement drafted by staff that Trump read, in his usual monotone whenever he reads remarks prepared for him, and his honest off the cuff remark that there were good people on both sides. If Trump is not a racist then Hitler was just a misunderstood social reformer. I'll have it both ways General, I love my country, and I want it to continue to be a representative democracy in which Congress has the right to practice oversight on the activities of the executive branch by requiring its employees to testify before it and submit such documents as it sees fit, and, as a consequence, I hate Trump, who clearly does not want our form of government, based on checks and balances, to continue.

Peyton Cook

You should read the lead Opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. It very clearly details why the President has “executive privilege”. Even President Obama has invoked it. Here is crux of it: “The reason is rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers and co-equal branches of government. The White House can’t compel a member of Congress to visit the Oval Office, and likewise Congress can’t compel the President to appear on Capitol Hill”. His close advisers as agents of the President can’t be compelled to testify as he needs the candid counsel in order to fulfill his duties. This nation is not a democracy: it is a Federal Republic made up of States. Hence the United States. Your last sentence is false. It is the Democrats who want to trash the Constitution with talk of eliminating the Electoral College, stifle free speech, disarm law-abiding citizens. Members of Congress were elected to serve their constituents not, not a Party. The House has not passed any legislation that will benefit all citizens. It is too vested in attempting to unseat a duly elected President who endured a two year investigation which found no collusion and wrongly did not clear him of obstruction. The current investigations are witch hunts with no basis.The real scandal is how unelected bureaucrats attempted to prevent the President’s election and after elected attempted a coup to remove him from office. Even now members of the coup, like Brennan and Comey are blaming each other for what happened.

Jim Tomashoff

I am very well aware of executive privilege. You have an unerring capability of missing the point. You state that the Mueller investigation "...wrongly did not clear him of obstruction." How do you know this? You believe it, but how do you know it?

The Courts have made it explicitly clear that a President cannot use executive privilege to stifle a Congressional investigation involving the commission of a crime committed by the Executive Branch.

Firstly, Congress has the right to investigate the actions of Executive Branch personnel, including the President: "The power of Congress to investigate and obtain information is very broad. While there is no express provision in the Constitution that addresses the investigative power, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress."

Secondly, turning specifically to the use of executive privilege by an Administration to rebuff Congressional access to its actions. You may remember Watergate. You may remember that Nixon wanted to withhold the so-called "White House tapes" in which his discussed Watergate with senior aides. Congress, you will recall, got the tapes, or at least all but 17 minutes of them.

"In the landmark case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that it had authority to resolve the conflict between President Richard Nixon and Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who had been appointed to investigate the Watergate affair, over the issue of executive privilege. Cox had obtained a grand jury subpoena requiring Nixon to deliver to the district court tape recordings of various meetings with assistants. The Supreme Court acknowledged, for the first time, that an executive privilege exists under the Constitution, but it qualified the scope of the privilege by subjecting it to a balancing of the competing interests and legitimate needs of the executive and judicial branches."

Thirdly, "...Nixon’s executive privilege claim was unanimously rejected in July 1974 by the Supreme Court, which ordered him to produce White House tapes subpoenaed by the special prosecutor.

Nixon’s lawyers first told the court that communications between the president and his advisers were absolutely privileged and courts were powerless to order their disclosure. The Supreme Court was unimpressed, holding, “We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court ‘to say what the law is,’” citing the seminal 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison.

After confirming its authority to rule on Nixon’s executive privilege claim, the Supreme Court found that executive privilege did not supersede Nixon’s duty to comply with the subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Following the 8-0 ruling, Nixon had to produce the “smoking gun” tape recording that he had tried to conceal under the cloak of executive privilege." www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-executive-privilege-claims-over-mueller-report-are-preposterous-ncna1003896

The bottom line: Nixon could not use executive privilege to withhold evidence of a crime being investigated by Congress. The House is investigating whether or not Trump committed crimes, to wit: obstruction of Mueller's investigation of his campaign's contact with Russians and whether said contacts constituted a crime. Mueller essentially cleared him. But Mueller categorically did not clear Trump of obstruction, no matter how many times Trump lies and says he did. The focus of the House's ongoing investigations concern obstruction of Mueller's investigation. That's a crime, potentially. Following the Nixon precedent it would seem unlikely that Trump will be able to block Congressional subpoenas or block current or former White House employees from testifying.

The rest of your screed is irrelevant to the issue at hand. It reiterate my conclusion as stated in my last sentence. At stake is nothing less than our system of checks and balances. But I realize that you would prefer to live in an autocratic state where the supreme leader's decisions cannot be challenged.

Peyton Cook

Mueller as a Special Prosecutor had the obligation to put his evidence before a Grand Jury if he believed the President committed obstruction. If he does not have any evidence he should say so and drop the case. Innocence is presumed until proven guilty. Because Mueller found no crime of obstruction, The President does have the power of “executive privilege “. Your right about checks and balances, but in this case the House Committees are over stepping their authority To the contrary it is your party which desires to create an authoritarian state. The decision by the President to declassify documents concerning the efforts of unelected individuals in the Justice Department, Intelligence community, the Hillary Campaign. and the Obama Administration to prevent the election of the President. When that failed they attempted to unseat him, duly elected. The House committees are still attempting to unseat him. It’s not the President who is crazy and needs intervention, but Pelosi and many in the Democrat caucus.

Jim Tomashoff

Regarding you comments below: You are beyond belief. Mueller may have brought lots of "evidence" of obstruction to a Grand Jury. So far that material is redacted. You clearly do not understand the legal issues that prevented Mueller from bringing formal charges against Trump. But he did pass the buck to Congress to do so, which is as far as his understanding of the law and DOJ policy permits him to go. Further he laid out ten instances where he believes Trump's actions can be interpreted as deliberate attempts to obstruct his investigation, including ordering his subordinates to lie to Mueller. Read the Report, especially volume II which deals exclusively with "obstruction." As to the "conspiracy" against him. You're simply wrong in fact and interpretation. Federal Court opinions to come over the next few weeks to months will hopefully confirm my arguments using Nixon's failed attempts to invoke executive privilege as precedent. Your willingness to blindly buy into to Trump's bogus assertions is truly sad, but clearly demonstrates to me how otherwise intelligent and educated people can fall under the spell of would be autocrats, such is your level of hate for Obama, Clinton, and others.

Jim Tomashoff

I'm sure that the actions described below are perfectly o.k. with you.

"Manipulated videos of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that made it seem as if she were stumbling over and slurring her words continued to spread across social media on Friday, fueled by President Trump’s feud with the Democratic leader.

One of the videos, which showed Ms. Pelosi speaking at a conference this week, appeared to be slowed down to make her speech sound continually garbled.

The video has been viewed millions of times on Facebook and was amplified by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, who shared the video Thursday night on Twitter. “What is wrong with Nancy Pelosi?” Mr. Giuliani said in a tweet that has since been deleted. “Her speech pattern is bizarre.”

Mr. Trump himself tweeted a separate video of Ms. Pelosi on Thursday night, an edited clip from Fox Business that spliced together moments from a 20-minute news conference and emphasized points where she had stumbled on her words. “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE,” the president tweeted."


Trump did say that she's "....losing it..." I guess your hero can never go too far in what he says or does. I think he had you in mind when he said that it would be all right with his base if he "...shot a man in public in Time's Square," Peyton Cook, among others, would still support him.

Peyton Cook

Why do you think you have the ability to read people’s minds. I do not hate Obama. I did not support his policies which were bad for the United States. I stand by my comment about did not exercise his authority as a prosecutor to either seek an indictment through a grand jury or drop the case for lack of evidence. He did neither, leaving it up to Barr to do it for him. The House Intelligence Committee decided that Trump is guilty of obstruction without proof.

Jim Tomashoff

Peyton wrote: "I stand by my comment about did not exercise his authority as a prosecutor to either seek an indictment through a grand jury or drop the case for lack of evidence. He did neither, leaving it up to Barr to do it for him. The House Intelligence Committee decided that Trump is guilty of obstruction without proof."

Once again Peyton demonstrates his ignorance because he seems to be too lazy to actually read the Mueller Report, especially Vol. 2, the volume that deals with obstruction. I patiently explained to him why Mueller could not indict the President based on DOJ policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted. It doesn't matter whether the Special Prosecutor went before a Grand Jury or not, nor could he leave it up to Barr. Obviously Peyton did not read Barr's job application, his unsolicited 19-page memo on why President's cannot be indicted, and his now obvious view that sitting Presidents do not have to provide Congress with either documents or allow current or former executive branch personnel to testify, notwithstanding Congressional subpoenas to do so. Finally, the House Intelligence Committee did not find Trump guilty of obstruction without or with proof, there has been no such action by this Committee. Peyton, like his favorite President, just invented a "fact," or maybe it was an alternate fact? And I stand by my statement that comment after comment after comment by Peyton over the years unquestionably have demonstrated his hatred for Obama, and I stand by my statement that Trump could murder someone and Peyton would find some rationale so he could continue to support him.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Comments that violate any of the rules above are subject to removal by staff.

Thank you for Reading!

Please purchase a subscription to continue reading. Subscribe today and support local community journalism.

Digital Only Subscriptions

Thank you for visiting ThePilot.com and supporting award-winning community journalism. Not everyone wants to have a newspaper delivered to their home, but they want to keep up with the latest news in Moore County. Click here to gain digital-only access and support local journalism.

Starting at
$1.07 for 1 day

Connect Print Subscription to Digital Access

Thank you for visiting ThePilot.com. Your Pilot subscription entitles you to unlimited digital access. Simply log in. From the home page, click on Subscription Services. Then click on "Pilot All Access Print Subscribers." It should show your phone number . If so, click "Sign Up." After a few seconds, it will take you back to the home page. Log out, then log back in. You're set! For any problems, call our customer service number at 910-693-2487 or 693-2488.

Free access for current print subscribers