This Is What The Media Isn’t Telling You About Trump’s ‘S***hole’ Comment

Liberal media made a huge deal about the fact that Trump allegedly called some third world countries a “s***hole”. We all know that liberals hate Trump but this is a bit much isn’t it?

Trump denied the statement in a post to his Twitter account Friday, saying the remark had been “made up” by Democrats to discredit him.

Trump wrote: “Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!”

Via Daily Wire:

“First, the illegitimate: people angry that Trump called some countries “s***holes,” because they object to the idea that countries are different. That’s idiotic. It is absolutely inarguable that some countries are awful. North Korea is a horror show. Sudan is a dumpster fire. Haiti is, by statistics, a terrible place to live, which is why so many people want to immigrate to the United States. The argument that Trump is wrong to call some countries s***holes comes down to a nicety, not truth – which is why Rich Lowry of National Review took Joan Walsh of CNN to the woodshed over whether she’d rather live in Haiti or Norway.

Now, there are two reasons that Trump could have said he wanted curbs on immigration from those countries. The first is racist: the suggestion that ethnicity dictates the possibility of good Americanism. That’s obviously garbage, and bigoted garbage at that. That’s why Trump’s alleged comment, “Why do we need more Haitians?” is far worse than his comment about s***holes. It suggests that Haitians – who may or may not already be here – are somehow incapable of assimilation. That’s ridiculous. Some of our greatest Americans have been immigrants from s***holes. Immigrants leave s***holes seeking the American way of life, and embrace our Constitutional order, our Western culture, and our perspective God-given freedoms. That’s the essence of Americanism.

The second rationale for restricting immigration from so-called s***holes has nothing to do with ethnicity. It’s quite possible, as the White House suggests, that the president meant that if we’re looking to choose immigrants solely based on country of origin – a dubious and quasi-racist concept that prizes group identity over individual qualification – we should prioritize immigration from countries that have values similar to our own. Great Britain is more likely to send, on average, immigrants who assimilate easily than, for example, Russia. That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and language and history; the same president who smacked Haiti said he wanted more Asian immigrants, for example, according to The Washington Post, so this isn’t just a question of white vs. non-white. A merit-based individual system would take country of origin into account, but it would certainly not be the primary qualifier.”

If racist now means brutally honest and factually correct, then yes, it was very racist! But it’s funny that some people can say anything and others get crucified for saying the same thing. Left wingers are hypocrites.

What do you think? Scroll down to leave a comment below!

Natalie Dagenhardt

Natalie Dagenhardt is an American conservative writer who writes for  Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot," and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do," drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a "constitutional conservative".

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
catherine graham
6 years ago

I feel he is right. Too many people with no ambition to better themselves and their families are already here. All the want is to live free and be burdens