The Trump 'Resistance'
Trump-haters' love affair with leftist racists.
Newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in a recent "60 Minutes" interview, said there is "no question" that President Donald Trump is "racist." If Democrats — the party of slavery and segregation and whose congressional members voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a lesser percentage than Republicans — stand for anything today, it's anti-racism and anti-bigotry.
Except when it comes to liberal racism and liberal bigotry.
Former CNN pundit and "media studies and urban education" professor Marc Lamont Hill, for example, condemned what he called Trump's pursuit of "racial division, white supremacy and xenophobia." The President, Hill said, has a history of "dangling black people around as almost puppets or trinkets."
But what does Hill think of the blatant anti-Semitism of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan? In a speech last year, in which he declared, "powerful Jews are my enemy," Farrakhan said: "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through."
Hill, however, defends Farrakhan: "Again, Minister Farrakhan is my brother. The idea that we have to renounce him, denounce him, throw him away ... in the black tradition, I ain't got the luxury of throwing people who love us away. I ain't got the luxury of taking people who come out of traditions that have saved us and cleaned us and throw them away. We can't do that. We shouldn't do that."
When Trump-hating blacks — who call Trump "racist" — rattle off the list of racial sins supposedly committed by Trump, the Trump Organization's 1975 consent decree often tops the list. Trump and his father entered into the decree after the Department of Justice sued their company for allegedly discriminating against blacks as prospective tenants. The Trumps admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to change renting practices and, among other things, to advertise vacancies in newspapers that served the black community.
If being sued for racial discrimination — or agreeing to a settlement without admitting wrongdoing — proves "racial division, white supremacy and xenophobia," what about some of the major players in the Trump-hating media?
Take The Washington Post. The Observer published a piece in 2017 with this headline: "Washington Post Quietly Settles Racial Discrimination Suit: The four-year legal battle has been ignored by media." The allegations against the Post include racial harassment and forcing out older black employees to make room for younger, white workers. The Observer commentary said: "Veteran ad department salesman David DeJesus, who brought in more than one billion dollars in advertising revenue over nearly 20 years before he was abruptly fired by a shrieking and cursing boss, brought the lawsuit against his former employer. ...
"In his July 2013 federal claim, DeJesus asserted that his firing in 2011, as well as that of at least 47 other older black employees around the same time, was to make way for younger, cheaper white staffers.
"Undisputed affidavits filed by three black ex-Posties detailed rampant racial harassment, most notably by advertising vice-president Ethan Selzer, who signed off on the dismissal of DeJesus without the required progressive discipline, told one black female employee to clean the department kitchen and made racist jokes about another black subordinate's husband."
What about The New York Times? The Times is currently battling a lawsuit, filed in 2016 by two black female employees in their 60s who claim the staff in the Times' advertising department had been "systematically becoming increasingly younger and whiter." The lawsuit said: "Not only does the Times have an ideal customer (young, white, wealthy), but also an ideal staffer (young, white, unencumbered with a family) to draw that purported ideal customer. ... In furtherance of these discriminatory goals, the Times has created a workplace rife with disparities."
Then there's CNN, Hill's former employer. In 2017, the channel was sued for alleged racial discrimination. According to the lawsuit, CNN is "rife with racism": Minority workers endure "bigoted remarks," such as "It's hard to manage black people" and "Who would be worth more: black slaves from times past, or new slaves?"
The Trump consent decree occurred more than 40 years ago, when Donald Trump was 28 years old. Since then, "civil rights leaders" like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton attended gatherings where they warmly greeted Trump, the "racist" real estate magnate. They continued to associate with Trump — until he became "racist" as a presidential candidate — despite the consent decree that now serves as Exhibit A for Trump's supposed racism. Yet for Trump-haters like Professor Hill, when it comes to Farrakhan's bigotry and anti-Semitism, the no-fly zone remains.