By Erik Rush
The latest in the ongoing saga of real estate mogul Donald Trump’s quest to secure the presidency has given rise to an interesting and deceptively revealing phenomenon. For those unfamiliar: Trump University, a venture set up by Trump in 2005, offered real estate investment training programs. A group of students who alleged that they were defrauded by the outfit are in the process of suing Trump.
Par for the course with regard to the left and the establishment press, some comments recently lodged by the GOP candidate and directed at the trial judge have elicited a firestorm of rhetoric because they referenced the judge’s ethnicity.
Heaven forfend …
Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel is overseeing the Trump U case, and he is Latino. Trump has claimed that Curiel has “an absolute conflict” (of interest) in the case for this reason.
Indelicate though Trump’s rhetoric may be at times – and it most definitely is – it would probably have been more prudent for him to cite Curiel’s political affiliations as tangential to his ethnicity, because that is a far more damning indictment of the judge than anything being leveled against Trump due to his comments.
What wasn’t reported right away relative to this story was Curiel’s connection to the National Council of La Raza, an indisputably subversive, racist organization which advocates for the return of the U.S. southwest to Mexico so that the region can become a Third World toilet just like Mexico. “La Raza” translates to “The Race,” and this name itself suggests that this group should have been stigmatized out of existence long ago. That did not occur, because nonwhites are allowed to be as racist as they like here in America.
Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which sponsors extreme pro-illegal immigrant causes.
And he’s a federal judge. Does anyone detect a dangerous status quo here?
So, Curiel’s association with La Raza does indeed reveal “an absolute conflict” with regard to his presiding over a case against a defendant who intends to build an anti-illegal immigrant fence along our southern border if elected.
But defending Trump is not my objective here. One more anecdote and I’ll get to that.
This week, WND reported on the case of Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney, who was stymied in his efforts to alert his superiors to the infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the Department. While this is certainly newsworthy, it is not new, inasmuch as over the last few years, online venues from WND to social media have featured the Obama administration’s program of insinuating Islamists into sensitive positions in the federal government.
This, too, is obviously a dangerous status quo.
Which brings us back to Donald Trump. I have maintained that with regard to the candidate – as with any candidate – we won’t know if he plans to be faithful to his campaign promises until he is in office.
Even if Trump did hold to his vows to seal our southern border, dial back the suicidal economic policies and foreign trade agreements of his predecessors, and shore up our national security infrastructure, there are some pretty significant underlying issues I tend to think he might not address at all – although given the mandate of his election, he certainly could.
For example, I seriously doubt that a Trump Justice Department would launch an aggressive investigation into the dealings between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups, or into the dealings between Bill and Hillary Clinton and those same groups. I doubt that Trump would aggressively pursue prosecution of Eric Holder and other Obama appointees in relation to crimes that the Obama Justice Department is furtively “waiting out” until after the next president takes office.
I doubt that Trump would attempt to get to the bottom of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, or the treason committed by those in the White House and Congress attendant to the arming of “vetted Syrian rebels” (read “ISIS”) who were being supplied through Benghazi.
I also doubt that Trump would engage world leaders in prosecuting Mr. Obama and his surrogates for war crimes relating to White House actions in the Middle East, Africa and Ukraine. Nor do I think that a President Trump would mobilize the executive branch and law enforcement to neutralize socialist activism in general, activist judges like Gonzalo Curiel, or Islamist activism, since doing so might overshadow or compromise other aspects of his agenda.
I don’t believe that Trump approves of the aforementioned measures taken or policies executed by the Obama White House and beltway elites, but I think that because of the level at which he operates, he would be more likely to focus on the issues specific to his campaign pledges.
Unfortunately, I do not think that Trump, like most of the electorate, is disposed to engaging in an analysis of why the issues that are so important to them became issues at all. How did we get here? A few bad policy decisions? Hardly – it is the result of a decades-long strategy to debase America and fold it into a megalithic global socialist mediocrity, and I don’t think that Trump or the electorate yet realize this.
If next January we had a president who was truly willing to do some major housekeeping in Washington – complete with the dire ramifications to hundreds of people in government past and present, finance, lobbying and industry – would the American people stand by that president? Because even with a president willing to make hard and even unpopular decisions – rest assured that in the ensuing four to eight years, the elitists who caused the pain to which voters are currently responding with their affinity for Donald Trump will be eagerly poised to sweep away any advances he makes in the interim and re-establish their international socialist agenda once he is gone.
Remember: The “Reagan Revolution” died the moment Ronald Reagan left office.
Originally published in WorldNetDaily