Share This Article with a Friend!

Transition to Trump: Trump receives warning from the affirmative action police

As the Donald Trump transition team has worked diligently since Election Day to find the most qualified people to serve in leadership roles in his upcoming administration, the forces of the left are keeping score -- not only in terms of the backgrounds and histories of the nominees, but also on what they look like.

Of course there have been a plethora of media reports about Trump choosing too many out-of-touch rich people, militaristic generals and greedy profit-centered business tycoons to run federal departments. But Trump supporterswhat’s really bothering liberals the most is the lack of so-called “diversity” in Trump’s proposed leadership circle.

S.A. Miller writes in the Washington Times, “A top adviser to Donald Trump on diversity issues is offering no apologies for the preponderance of white men filling the Cabinet and key jobs in the new administration, insisting that the lack of minorities reflected the president-elect’s color-blind approach to hiring decisions.

“Bruce Levell, who spearheaded a minority outreach effort for the Trump campaign and now serves as an adviser to the transition team, said that Mr. Trump isn’t looking to check off diversity boxes with his hiring decisions — and that’s OK with black and Hispanic Americans.”

Well, it’s not okay to the most race-conscious black and Hispanic Americans. They want to see as many non-white faces surrounding Trump as possible.

Miller also notes that of 18 Cabinet-level picks so far, Mr. Trump has selected 13 white men, two women of Asian descent and one white woman. The only black nominee so far is retired neurosurgeon and former presidential candidate Ben Carson, tapped to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

And that’s not all -- of seven senior counselors named to his point, only Kellyanne Conway has two X chromosomes. Almost sounds like a poker game, doesn’t it?

There’s little doubt that “affirmative action” will be a hot topic for the left in assaulting the Trump administration in the coming years. Whereas our society judges organizations such as the NFL for the quantity of minority coaches it employs, the left will certainly be counting the number of minorities in positions close to Trump – and they’re not going to like what they see.

These same people may not feel as much angst towards the dearth of representation of women, however, because to liberals, Republican and conservative women don’t count towards their quotas. To them, if a woman doesn’t have some sort of bra-burning advocacy for abortion on demand in her background, she doesn’t count towards membership in the female gender.

And the same definitely goes for homosexuals as well, or as is more commonly accepted these days, folks in the “LGBTQ community.” (What exactly does the “Q” – queer – demographic constitute that isn’t covered by the other letters?) It’s common knowledge that close Trump advisor Peter Thiel is homosexual, but he hasn’t yet been offered an official position in the administration, so he won’t count towards an affirmative action head count either.

In fact, Thiel is enduring the usual level of leftist hatred for his willingness to work with Trump. As a candidate to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Thiel is being attacked from all sides.

Robert Goldberg writes at The Hill, “Trump has promised to find ways to accelerate the pace of medical innovation. And so groups such as Public Citizen and the Center for American Progress that make a living and maintain a media presence bashing the pharmaceutical industry are howling that Thiel wants to water down the scientific and conflict of interests standards regulating the FDA and NIH, in order to allow Big Pharma to get rich by exposing consumers to dangerous, ineffective treatments.”

While it’s true that in this case the liberals aren’t specifically targeting Thiel’s sexual orientation, the fact that “one of them” is actually advocating for loosening government controls must anger them to the core. The same goes for their opposition to Ben Carson taking over the direction of HUD. If a black man favors more private enterprise in housing, that’s a bad thing.

Meanwhile, the media and liberals fail to note that Trump has placed several Jewish individuals in prominent roles. Commerce and Treasury nominees Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin are both Jewish, right?

Muslims must feel slighted. I’m sure that’s the way the left looks at it.

It all doesn’t really matter, however. When push comes to shove, Trump could assemble a cabinet chock full of so-called ethnic minorities, women and folks with alternative lifestyles and he would still be labeled as racially and culturally biased by the left because of his colorblind policies. They’re not interested in someone’s background half as much as what he or she believes government’s role should be in enforcing the leftist accepted cultural norms.

Need proof? George W. Bush elevated African-Americans to positions never held before by people of color and was there any credit given? Wasn’t Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice black enough? Does Elaine Chao lose her Asian identity because she’s a Republican and is married to Mitch McConnell?

And we don’t even need to mention Justice Clarence Thomas here, a man who’s endured decades of race hatred and scorn because he dares to be conservative and black at the same time.

So don’t give too much credence to the left’s ethnic scorecard where Trump’s team is concerned. There’s just no way to satisfy them, short of packing his cabinet with the Eric Holders and Loretta Lynches of the world.

Trump’s inauguration day could lack big name entertainers but the real “star” will be there

In addition to crowing over the apparent lack of ethnic and gender diversity in Donald Trump’s leadership team, liberals and the media are having a merry old time “keeping score” on the relatively low number of entertainment industry A-listers who are outwardly willing to appear at his inauguration.

Nolan D. McCaskill of Politico reports, “In the final days of the presidential campaign, Trump blasted Clinton for using such luminaries as Jay Z, Beyoncé, Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga to attract larger crowds at her campaign stops. He boasted that he didn’t need such attractions because his supporters showed up at his massive rallies to ‘make America great again.’

“His tweet followed reports that Trump was struggling to secure talent to perform at his inauguration. So far, the only confirmed acts include the Radio City Rockettes, ‘America’s Got Talent’ runner-up Jackie Evancho and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.”

According to sources, the entertainment “stars” that have officially turned Trump down are Elton John, KISS front-man Gene Simmons, Celine Dion, Italian singer Andrea Bocelli, The Chainsmokers (???), Garth Brooks, Justin Timberlake, Bruno Mars, Katy Perry, Aretha Franklin and songwriter/producer David Foster.

Trump officials indicate the president-elect isn’t bothered by the deficiency of headlining acts willing to appear at his big day. And why should he be? The biggest “celebrity” in the country will be the main attraction that day.

Donald Trump earned well over 60 million votes in this year’s election. There isn’t a bigger “star” in America right now. His inauguration is likely to draw millions from all over the continent. Name one entertainment act that could do the same on a likely cold day in January in the nation’s capital.

And besides, if entertainment figures weren’t so concerned about the backlash they’d get from appearing on behalf of Trump, I’m confident the line of those willing would be long and the list impressive. There were no doubt many, many famous people who didn’t jump on the “With Her” phony bandwagon. They supported Trump even if they wouldn’t say so publicly under fear of being blacklisted in shallow Hollywood.

After all, if you’re not “With Her” in Hollywood, doesn’t that mean you’re not “With Her” at all?

Last summer’s Democrat National Convention was packed with celebrities – both those who were Hillary supporters and those who backed “senile old coot” Bernie Sanders. They made videos. They made speeches. The delegates loved it. They partied with the famous. But outside of that enclave of liberalism in Philadelphia, no one cared.

The media made hay over Gold Star father Khirz Khan’s speech and ignored Benghazi mother Pat Smith’s emotional address at the Republican convention in Cleveland.

To liberals, Democrats count, Republicans and conservatives don’t.

Not to worry, there will be plenty of “entertainment” at Trump’s inauguration one way or another. At the very least, the biggest “star” of them all will be present for the entirety of the hoopla. Donald Trump will be there along with his biggest supporters. And for the people in attendance, that’s really all the big names they’ve come to see.

Obama’s inflammatory statements and transition roadblocks were entirely predictable

When Donald Trump met with President Obama two days after last month’s election, the president-elect seemed very deferential and grateful to his two-term predecessor as well as being impressed that Obama would offer his assistance during the transition.

Obama appeared to be more than willing to help at the time. You had to figure it wouldn’t last.

Eugene Scott of CNN reports, “Donald Trump accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of making ‘many inflammatory statements and roadblocks’ during the President-elect's transition to the White House.

“’Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks. Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!’ Trump tweeted.”

As is becoming all too common these days, CNN’s Scott called Trump’s tweeted words a “morning tirade” and then reported that Trump talked to Obama later on in the day on Wednesday, which the president-elect described as a “nice conversation.”

So all might be well on the surface but it isn’t when you get down to it. First Obama pledges to assist Trump in the transition and then in practically the next breath brags that he could have won the election if he’d been able to run for a third term. The outgoing president also said he’ll “speak out” if the occasion calls for it after leaving office.

Isn’t eight years of hearing Obama’s opinions, lies and distortions enough?

Meanwhile, Hillary herself has reemerged in public throwing hints that she’s not so willing to go away after all. Or maybe she’s just threatening to stay engaged because of depression – she was spotted over the weekend looking awful lonely and sad.

It all seemed too good to be true when the Democrats promised to cooperate. But we should have known better – a liberal cannot resist a microphone and an opportunity to start an argument. To get along is simply against their nature.

But in thinking about the situation, it could easily be seen as a positive development that Hillary and Obama are going to be popping up periodically in the national news. Hillary and Bill will certainly be talked about numerous times if conservative members of Congress follow through on their promises to investigate and potentially prosecute the former first couple for their law-breaking.

And despite poll numbers and reports to the contrary, I doubt Obama is as popular as the media makes him out to be. The opinion survey results depict a personally likable man (for some at least) on his way out. Liberals are wistful over his exit. Conservatives couldn’t be rid of him fast enough.

In the end it’s not surprising that Trump talked about Obama’s “roadblocks” to his transition. The Democrats will be setting them whenever and wherever feasible – nothing that a clever politician with “GPS” can’t escape.

Share this