Amazing.
Former President Donald Trump accepted the invitation of the National Association of Black Journalists to come for an interview. And right off the bat, the supposedly nonpartisan group took offense when Trump truthfully answered the first question.
That Harris plays the race card is the truth that must not be mentioned. Trump had the audacity to mention it — so the media pounced.
His opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, he said,
“was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn’t know she was black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So I don’t know. Is she Indian, or is she black? I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t.”
He would later go on to post this photograph of Harris’s Indian-oriented family.
To say the least, there is zero wrong with having an Indian family heritage. Or any other heritage for that matter. This is, after all, America — home to countless heritages from all over the globe. Harris does indeed have some black heritage. But for speaking truth to power, for telling the truth, all media hell broke loose.
Which brings the point — the easily obvious point — what does the record say about Harris on this score?
The Washington Post headlined this on the subject not that long ago:
How India’s warm embrace of Kamala Harris grew chilly
India was excited about Kamala Harris in 2020. Four years later, the reaction to her presidential bid is more complicated.
The Post reported:
NEW DELHI — When Sen. Kamala D. Harris joined the 2020 Democratic presidential ticket, Indian media were excited to detail her Indian ancestry. They traveled to her grandfather’s village and expounded upon her love for foods like idli, a savory rice cake.
Harris leaned into the identity. She made a masala dosa with actress and screenwriter Mindy Kaling in a viral 2019 video. A memoir published that year detailed her South Asian roots and upbringing. Television chef Padma Lakshmi cooked tamarind rice to celebrate her and the 2020 Democratic win.”
And then.
And then it dawned that there was little political lift for Harris in identifying with her Indian roots. But if she identified as black? That would be a whole different story.
The Post reports that:
… her early politicization revolved around being black in America, including growing up in Oakland, Calif., during the Black Power movement and studying at Howard University.
Which is another way of saying that the modern Democratic Party — the longtime Party of Race — does not give as much political weight to those with Indian heritage as opposed to those with a black heritage.
Race is and always has been central to Harris’s party.
As noted in this space ages ago, among other things:
- The Democratic Party when first organized wrote six platforms supporting slavery.
- Seven of its first presidents were slave-owners.
- Twenty of the party’s first platforms either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject.
- It was the Democrats who set up the notorious Jim Crow laws that segregated America.
And on and on goes the list of just how the Democrats used — and still use — race to advance their political agenda. The sad political fact is that there is no political pull inside the Democrat Party in having an Indian background. To be black, on the other hand, has all kinds of power within the Party of Race.
So Harris, as noted in the Washington Post, made certain her “politicization revolved around being black in America.”
The fact? Anyone can grow up in Oakland or attend Howard University and not be black. But clearly Harris has been all about ignoring her Indian identity in favor of a black identity because the latter has more political influence in the Democrat party. Harris’s party.
And for Trump to have the audacity — the nerve! — to call attention to Harris’s race card–playing drew outrage from those in this group of journalists for whom race — skin color — is the most important qualifier to do their job as journalists.
And speaking of Trump’s hosts — the National Association of Black Journalists? In truth the more accurate name for the group should be “the National Association of Leftist Journalists.”
The hard fact here is that liberals believe that to be black is to be left. So too with “women,” “Hispanics,” and “gays.”
Americans learned this lesson all the way back in 1991 when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first black on the Court and a decided liberal — announced his retirement. The call went up from liberals that this was the “black seat” on the Court and President George H.W. Bush must nominate an African American.
Bush did just that — and Democrats freaked out. Why? The nominee — Judge Clarence Thomas — was indeed black. But? But he was a decided conservative. So Democrats and their allies on the Left in the media and interest groups went out of their way to trash Judge Thomas and try to defeat his nomination. They failed. But, all these decades later, they are still out there trashing him.
In 2008, the call went up from Dems for a woman on a national ticket. The GOP presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, obliged by nominating a woman as his vice president — Alaska’s Governor Sarah Palin. And as with Judge Thomas, the Dems freaked — because Governor Palin was a conservative.
Thus, in today’s world, for Trump to actually call out Harris for her race card playing causes the “National Association of Black Journalists” to fume because speaking truth to power is not their thing.
The bottom line? Whether Harris wins or loses this election, it will be politically incorrect to note her Indian heritage as opposed to her “black” heritage, the latter of which she plays up endlessly.
That Harris plays the race card is the truth that must not be mentioned. Trump had the audacity to mention it — so the media pounced.
Of course they did.
READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: