Trump gets racist accusation because of his actions
Editor, The Beacon:
Reply to David Rauschenberger’s column “New York Times tries to pin ‘racist’ label on Trump” (in the Aug. 22-25 Weekend edition of The Beacon):
Let’s talk about facts. David Rauschenberger says Trump is a victim of The New York Times (NYT) because he is being accused of being a racist. No, Trump is being accused of being a racist because of his actions.
For example: When the neo-Nazis demonstrated in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, they chanted “You Will Not Replace Us!” “The South Will Rise Again!” and “Russia Is Our Friend!” When a neo-Nazi used his car to run over the opposing demonstrators, killing one young woman, Trump said there were “some very fine people on both sides.”
In 2018, Trump referred to Haiti and African countries as “s———-” countries, and he has referred to Mexican immigrants as “criminals and rapists.”
Trump began his presidency by proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the U.S. Trump also said a judge should recuse himself from a case because of the judge’s Mexican heritage.
As far back at the 1970s, Trump was twice accused of racial housing discrimination, and he had to pay fines. Yes, Trump is a racist.
Rauschenberger said that The NYT spent two-and-a-half years trying to impeach Trump. Only Congress can impeach a president, and it is currently working on an impeachment inquiry.
Rauschenberger says that the Mueller report killed the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia. If Rauschenberger had read the report, he would have read about the more than 100 meetings the Trump campaign team had with the Russians. In addition, Trump’s Russian associates were invited to attend the GOP convention and his inauguration.
While Mueller could not prove collusion, the report lays out extensive evidence that the president tried to obstruct justice in the investigation. Because of the Mueller report, several people on the Trump team are now in prison, and others are still in court.
Trump has taken a page out of the Russian playbook when he spouts “Fake News.” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is a brutal dictator, who for the past 20 years has held power by suppressing the press in Russia and killing his challengers.
Rauschenberger claims that gun control infringes on the Second Amendment. Numerous times, the Supreme Court has upheld “common sense” gun legislation. That’s why you cannot own fully automatic rifles or pistols, short-barreled (sawed-off) shotguns, and silencers, to name a few.
When Rauschenberger writes about the beginning of slavery, he discounts the 1619 Project. In 1619, the original colonies were British territory, and the people were all British colonists. Nobody was an American citizen except the Native Americans, so I missed his point of Americans owning slaves back then.
While both Republicans and Democrats owned slaves, in 1948 the Southern Democrats, called Dixiecrats, left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party because the Democratic Party was pushing to extend civil rights. This was the beginning of the Republican Party transition.
As a final note, Rauschenberger’s style is to use inflammatory rhetoric, such as “Hillary Clinton’s birthright,” which has nothing to do with fact.
Can anyone possess weapons of war peaceably?
Editor, The Beacon:
Not sorry to express shock, disgust and disbelief to see the image of an automatic assault rifle affixed to the ad for a gun show in Sanford on Page 7A of the most recent Beacon.
It occurred to me to wonder whether the client chose that miserable graphic or if it was selected by “helpful?” ad-marketing staff.
Either way, in light of recent, prolific mass shootings, it’s doubtful any are capable of possessing weapons of war peaceably.
In the past, young men were labeled cannon fodder … Now we all seem to be fair game. Is this the result of having lost the nerve to regulate military or official civil defense weaponry to need-only, with acquisition possible only officially?
Having gone over the line by not regulating these weapons defeats the entire purpose of the right to bear arms to ensure peace. We have brought a state of no peace into being through not asserting the civilian authority we have to restore order and sanity where it is sorely lacking.