Trump On The Judge

Both Republicans and Democrats - as well as the media, et. al., have been railing against Donald Trump for his supposed racist comments against Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

Most frequently has been heard the cry that Trump is a racist for his comments. I have heard this across the media and political spectrums. Well, I hate to break it to those who utter such, but being Hispanic is NOT a race. Federal policy defines “Hispanic” not as a race, but as an ethnicity. Nor does the scientific community recognize Hispanic as a "race". It would be advised that people who wish to cast insults at least have the intelligence to use words properly. Doing so will greatly increase the potential effect.

Curiel, an American born son of legal Mexican immigrants, currently is presiding over the civil trial regarding 'Trump University'.

First, here are the quotes from Trump that have everyone in a tissy:

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump -- a hater. He's a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel. And he is not doing the right thing,"

"We're in front of a very hostile judge."

"The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he's given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative."

"What happens is the judge, who happens to be -- we believe -- Mexican. Which is great. I think that's fine," he said. "You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK?"

On the continued attacks against Trump, are they fair? Well, let's take a look. And, consider the below with an objective eye.

My Commentary:

Should Trump have invoked the word "Mexican" anywhere in the discussion? No! It had no immediately discernable relevance - NO IMMEDIATELY DISCERNABLE RELEVANCE is the operative in this case. Keep reading for the potential relevance to make itself known.

From my reading of Trump's words it seemed as though he was offering his opinion - to which he is entitled, and which seems positive towards Mexicans.

Trump considers rulings by this judge not to be in Trump's best interest. So, he stated such. Were his actual statements wise considering he is running for the highest office in the land? Probably not. But, as all are aware, Trump says what he thinks; if one doesn't like what he says, Oh Well! And that's where one is entitled to THEIR opinion.

Remember, the civil case is about a series of real estate investment seminars called 'Trump University' where a maximum of 2% of the "students" were not satisfied and thought they had been cheated, as it were. 98% of students seemed more than satisfied. At least 2% of any set of people will be dissatisfied about something - anything, after all.

With the above information at hand, consider the following scenario with an open, objective mind set:

You - yes, YOU - run a company. As with most businesses, some people are happy with what your company offers and others are not. Some, in fact, have been displeased sufficiently to call for a boycott of your business. Your company has survived the boycott.

Later, a few of the disgruntled have filed a civil suit against your company.

You discover that the person to hear the case - the judge - is a member of the legal team that, earlier, had either engineered and/or heavily supported the boycott.

Now, would it ever occur to you that maybe - just maybe - it would be possible that this judge would have a bias against you? And, during the trial, this judge continually ruled against you. Would not your suspicion that this judge was biased be enhanced?

What is your answer?

Well, in the Trump University case the above scenario is exactly what is going on.

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA).

What is "La Raza"? It is the Hispanic version of the discredited and disbanded organization, ACORN.

As a slight aside here, I would not want anyone to think I wasn't serious about the correct use of words, but . . .! "La Raza" in English means "The Race". Apparently, the people who formed the organization La Raza were sufficiently ignorant of genetics that they were unable to name their organization appropriately - as noted above, being Hispanic does NOT denote a race.

Now, the HNBA is the organization which calls for demonstrations by Hispanics. A good number of the demonstrations where Mexican flags are being flown, while disparaging the American flag, are organized, it seems, by the HNBA.

Further, the HNBA is the organization that called for the boycott against all Trump business interests. For an alternative article on this, Click Here.

In fact, here is a copy of the HNBA press release:

"The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference."

Now, facing a judge so heavily involved with a political ideology diametrically opposed to your own AND a judge who continually rules against you, would YOU perceive that there may be some bias going on? Of course you would. Especially considering Sonia Sotomayor, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and of Hispanic ethnicity, offered us this: the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.” And, let's not forget this

So, is Trump really a racist? Is he being unfair? Let your own logic work through these two questions.


An Addendum

In the above were discussed the cries of "racist" against Donald Trump. These insults are clearly incorrect when one understands the definition of racism - "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Look up the word yourselves.

Those of the politically left seem to use the cry of racist at every opportunity to disparage anyone of the Caucasian race.

The term "hate speech" has cropped up into the lexicon of today. What is the definition of "hate speech"?

Within Supreme Court case law a definition may be found:

"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Now, if someone offers an opinion which is fact, should that be considered "hate speech" - even if we disagree with the opinion? Surely not.

But, should someone offer statements that are false and injurious by word or by print (i.e., slanderous or libelous), could such be thought to be "hate speech"? Well, yes.

Fortunately, so far, in the United States "hate speech" has yet to be classified as a crime. But, slander and libel are subject to civil suit.

When, mainly from the political left, cries of racist are thrown at anyone, most often such cries are either libelous or slanderous depending on the delivery mechanism. I, personally, have failed to hear a single individual utter a truly racist statement - a la, "All (you name the race) are (you name the citation)." Well, maybe there is one example of out and out racism.

I have heard people on the right politically offer that affirmative action programs are racist as they seek to favor one race over another. This too is an incorrect usage of the word racist. Some may view affirmation action programs as being anti-American and unfair; and, there is a certain rationale that supports this view. But, these programs fail the definition of racism.

Over the last 8 years or so our Nation appears to have formed a significant vector toward hatred - pitting one demographic against another merely to further the political aims of the political class - and, by the way, to increase news media circulation.

Those who use the term racist or racism against others incorrectly do harm. In the case of Trump, such insults, in fact, do harm - they will tend to lead those less adept at researching the facts away from his message. One is certainly free to accept or reject his message, but should do so on facts not based on insults, and incorrect insults at that.

These people should be sued for libel or slander. And, all of us should do a better job of seeking out the facts.