Is The Establishment Trying To Bury Trump With Political-Correctness?

By Chris Rossini

Libertarians are pretty much outside observers when it comes to this presidential election. We have no dog in this fight. No matter who the winner turns out to be, more authoritarianism appears to be the only thing on the menu. Liberty will suffer for at least another 4-8 years. 

With that being said, when authoritarians battle one another, you can't help but grab your popcorn and watch the show. So much power is up for grabs that the nastiest things politicians have to offer will be on full display.

We know that Donald Trump is not politically-correct, which is an admirable quality. Cultural Marxism and its political-correctness offshoot are a clear and present danger in American society. We also know that Donald Trump is despised by the political establishment. Those who wield political power (as a career) don't want anyone upsetting their apple cart. Trump most certainly has done that. Finally, we all know that the media can't stand Trump either, and the feeling is mutual, as he hates them as well.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the political establishment and media succeed in taking down the un-PC Trump with political correctness? Can the king of speaking your mind freely lose to the "thought police"?

We may be witnessing that very thing, or at least an attempt.

Trump claims that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has treated him unfairly in a Trump University court case. Everyone (literally) is solely focused on the "Mexican" comment that Trump made. Trump claims that because he wants to build a wall, the fact that Curiel is of Mexican descent poses a conflict of interest. Trump also said that there were "other reasons" why Curiel may be treating him unfairly as well.

Those "other reasons" get completely buried. After all, Trump's lawyers would never win an argument in court based on the fact that Curiel is of Mexican descent. As far as this writer's understanding goes, they've never even attempted to do so.

So what are those "other things"?

A few days ago, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post. Before we get to what Gonzales said, it should be pointed out that he was a part of the George W. Bush Administration. The Bushes do not like Trump. However, Gonzales said (despite that fact):

...this is not about the judge. This is about whether or not someone can receive a fair trial before an impartial judge.

Have you heard the media or political establishment use the words "impartial judge"? No, it's 24/7 about how Trump is a racist because of his "Mexican" comment.

Are there reasons the believe that Curiel cannot be an "impartial judge"?

Again, we libertarians (especially this one) are just observers of this circus. We have no dog in this fight either way. But let's look at a few things that may help make Trump's case:

• Curiel was appointed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the California state superior court. Now, whenever you hear Scwarzenegger, think "Kennedy". Whenever you hear Kennedy, think "political establishment". 
• Curiel was then appointed to the federal court by President Obama.
• Curiel is a member of The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally “The Race.”
• The National Council of La Raza is federally-funded and its motto is “For the Race Everything. Outside the Race, Nothing.”
• Curiel is a member of The Hispanic National Bar Association, which specifically has stated: "take … actions against Donald Trump’s business interests."

Should these things raise some eyebrows? Maybe.

Can race come into play when judges make decisions?

Pat Buchanan made a great point in his latest piece:

When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in a speech at Berkeley law school and in other forums.

Translation: Ethnicity matters, and my Latina background helps guide my decisions.

Is there evidence that Curiel would not be "impartial" towards Trump? That's for others to figure out. But there appears to be more to the story than the simple soundbite that "Trump's a racist".

Yet it's the simple PC-soundbite that the media and political elites have jumped on. They have shown their cards. It's been well advertised that the Republican Party and its leadership do not like Trump. They've been itching to ditch him somehow. 

Republican leaders look like they're trying to convey to voters that it's OK to separate yourself from the GOP's presidential nominee. This is very unusual with party politics, as traditionally everyone walks in lock-step.

Neocon Senator Lindsey Graham summed up the playbook this morning when he said:

“If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

Will PC takedown the un-PC Trump?

From a libertarian perspective, it would be more significant if the ideas of liberty were the tools that everyone used against Trump. Sadly that's not the case. 

The "thought police" are having their day in the sun instead.