The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

No, Donald Trump’s Tweets On Sunday Do Not Prove He is a Racist

So on Sunday, Donald Trump tweeted the following…

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019 is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2019

…and within minutes everyone was sure 1) who he was talking about and 2) it is racist.

For instance, Chris Cillizza of CNN wrote an entire piece at CNN making both claims on both points.  At the website, it gives the following headline “Donald Trump’s racist tweets show he doesn’t understand America,” while the preview on this tweet says “Donald Trump’s Vision of America isn’t American.”  Cillizza states that the tweets were definitely “directed at freshman Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.)” and then, says:

Let’s start with some facts. Of the four people Trump told to go home to their own country, 3 of the 4 were born in the United States. The 4th -- Omar -- was born in Somalia, spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya, arrived in the US at age 12 and is a naturalized US citizen, according to the New York Times.

So, telling them to go back to their “totally broken and crime infested placed from which they came” makes very, very little factual sense. But Trump isn’t terribly concerned with the facts here. It’s the sentiment that matters to him.

And that sentiment is racist. Again, this is not an opinion. This is a fact.

But hold on for a moment.  How does Cillizza know Trump is talking about those four?  As Cillizza admits, Trump “did not name” whom he was talking about.  So how does Cillizza know Trump was talking about them?

It’s bad logic.

Indeed, the best way to take Cillizza's analysis apart is to treat the issue like an old school logic game.  Lawyers all know about these, because almost all of us had to take the LSAT, which includes Godawful questions like this:

An athlete has six trophies to place on an empty three-shelf display case. The six trophies are bowling trophies F, G, and H and tennis trophies J, K, and L. The three shelves of the display case are labelled 1 to 3 from top to bottom. Any of the shelves can remain empty. The athlete’s placement of trophies must conform to the following conditions:

J and L cannot be on the same shelf

F must be on the shelf immediately above the shelf that L is on.

No single shelf can hold all three bowling trophies

K cannot be on Shelf 2

Question 1

If G and H are on Shelf 2, which of the following must be true?

1. K is on Shelf 1
2. L is on Shelf 2
3. J is on Shelf 3
4. G and J are on the same shelf
5. F and K are on the same shelf

Jesus, I just gave myself a flashback.

Still, if we want to figure out who Trump is talking about, you have to start with what we know.  So let’s review what he said about them:

1.      He called them Congresswomen.  That means:
a.       There are at least two of them.
b.      They serve in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.
c.       They are women—I mean that is obvious, but needs to be said.
d.      They are citizens—because you cannot be a Congresscperson if you are not a citizen under the Constitution.
2.      He called them Democrats.
3.      He called them “progressive” but the quotations marks indicate that maybe he doesn’t think they are really progressive.
4.      They are immigrants—but remember they have to be citizens, so we are talking first generation Americans.
5.      They are originally from countries that I will paraphrase as being a “mess”—at least in Trump’s mind (a “complete and total catastrophe, the worst,” etc.)
6.      They put down America (how I summarize the bit about viciousness)

So, can we logically figure out who he was talking about?  Well, actually, we can’t.  Too many of the terms are subjective.  But we can at least narrow it down to four Congresspersons he might have been talking about, and only one of them are on the list that Cillizza gave: Ms. Omar.

Allow me to show my work.  First, this page from Pew Research counts the number of Congresspersons who are immigrants.  They are counting both immigrants and the children of immigrants, but fortunately they mark which is which, so we can sift through them.  We will also sift out any men or Republicans, and if we do that, we get the following first generation American Democratic Congresswomen, as well as their countries of origin:

Mazie Hirano (Japan)
Pramila Jayapal (India)
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador)
Stephanie Murphy (Vietnam)
Norma Torres (Guatemala)
Ilhan Omar (Somalia)

Now can we whittle that list down more?  Well, with some educated guessing, we can. Trump said that the women he was talking about came from countries that are a mess (my word).  And, bluntly, there is a great deal of subjectivity in that—even if you believe the country is run well, Trump might feel it is not.  So, the only country I feel absolutely confident that Trump would not believe is a mess would be Japan, so Ms. Hirano is eliminated.  I admit that is a little subjective, but I feel safe in that assumption.

Also, Trump said that the Congressperson was a “progressive,” with scare quotes around the word.  So, you don’t know how progressive they are, and indeed he might be suggesting that they are phony progressives.  But let’s try to find people who he is likely to call Progressives, even recognizing that there is a lot of wiggle room in all of that.

A little googling tells me that Pramila Jayapal is co-chair of the progressive caucus and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a member.  Ms. Torres has said that some of her policies are progressive, so she might be perceived as progressive regardless of whether she sees herself as one, or most progressives would call her one of their own.  On the other hand its not clear from googling around if Ms. Murphy, who was born in Ho Chi Min City is likely to be seen as progressive.  Maybe growing up in a Communist country moderated her.  So, recognizing that this is a debatable move, let’s eliminate her.  I’m not saying its definitely not her, but I think I can make an educated guess it isn’t her.

That leaves us with:

Pramila Jayapal (India)
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador)
Norma Torres (Guatemala)
Ilhan Omar (Somalia)

The only other factor remaining is whether they made vicious statements, but, to be blunt, that is too subjective to make any headway with that.  To quote Michael Creighton’s classic lecture on Global Warming: “The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses.”  I think I could previously make educated guesses eliminating two possible candidates—Ms. Hirano and Ms. Murphy—but I don’t feel comfortable eliminating anyone else.

So, what we are left with is a plausible alternative explanation.  Maybe Trump was talking about at least two of the following: Pramila Jayapal (India), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (Ecuador), Norma Torres (Guatemala) and Ilhan Omar (Somalia).  I will make one final educated guess and say my gut says Omar was definitely on Trump’s mind.  But beyond that, I can only guess.

But Aaron, you might say, we know he meant congresswomen of color who, in actuality were born here, because Trump is a racist and that is something racists think: that certain ethnicities are “perpetual foreigners” even if their family has been here for generations.

Except the problem is that this argument cannot prove Trump is a racist, because it relies on the assumption that he is a racist.  The syllogism goes like this:

1.      Trump is a racist.
2.      Racists tend to assume that certain ethnicities are “perpetual foreigners.”
3.      Therefore, Trump was probably talking about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Omar, Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Pressley.
4.      Only one of those four women were born in a foreign country.
5.      Racists tend to assume that certain ethnicities, like theirs, are “perpetual foreigners.”
6.      Therefore, Trump is a racist.

Except that doesn’t prove Trump is a racist.  Instead, it treats his alleged racism as a given, a premise you build off of.  In other words, you can’t prove X using a syllogism that assumes X is true.

And there is another problem with this.  One thing the syllogism gets right is that some ethnic groups get stereotyped as being “perpetual foreigners.”  I have talked about it here and the stereotype is described well, here:

No matter how long they or their families have lived in the country, they are still not seen as True Americans, they are still seen as foreigners. That is why people are surprised at how good their English is and ask them, “Where are you really from?” – where New Jersey does not count as an answer.

This is a bit of a personal issue to me because my wife is a lovely Asian American who has to deal with people assuming because she is of Asian descent that she must not be American.

But if you know about the history of this stereotype, you know that it is a problem attached mainly to people who are not white or black.  If you are black or white, and don’t speak with a foreign accent, most people generally assume you are American. Its people of Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian, and South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, etc.) descent that are assumed to be foreigners.  And I think if a white or black person dresses in a way that is overtly Muslim or Sikh, they are stereotyped that way.

So, I can’t figure out why any racist would assume Ayanna Pressley is a foreigner.  I mean I pride myself as being able to put myself in the shoes of people I deeply disagree with (a good lawyer develops that skill), and, googling around, I don’t see anything indicating that she is anything but an ordinary black American.  She is not listed by Pew Research as either an immigrant or the child of immigrants.  No website seems to list any ethnicity but American or African-American.  I watched a video of her talk, and I detect no accent other than a mainstream Northern accent—the kind of accent Southerners wrongly think is not an accent at all.  I see no indication of what religion she belongs to, except she made a statement on Twitter that she was a woman of (an unstated) faith.  I haven’t seen her wear anything outside of mainstream American apparel.  So even if Trump was a racist, why would he see her as a perpetual foreigner?

Mind you, it’s not impossible, but it’s also not very likely.

So, in fact the popular assertion that Trump is definitely talking about those four congresswomen in particular doesn’t make much sense.

Thus, we see the popular theory that Trump is talking about those specific Congresswomen take off.  For instance, this New York Times article doesn’t tell us who they think Trump is talking about, but does say “Only one of the lawmakers was born outside the country.”  This Politico article doesn’t quote Trump, but says he was definitely talking about those four, as does this CNBC article.  Most amusingly, this article from Vox says:

The targets of Trump’s ire have mostly gone unnamed, but the remarks seem to be clearly addressing Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Each is a progressive woman of color serving her first term, and all have attracted considerable attention for their outspoken critiques of DC politics in general and the president in particular.

But, of course, to assume he is definitely talking about them is just bad logic as I have outlined above.

In any case, if you can’t establish that he has falsely indicated that anyone is an immigrant when they are not one, you can’t establish he is a racist by believing in the perpetual foreigner stereotype.  It is simple as that.  So the Tweet cannot prove him to be a racist that way.

But Aaron, you might say, isn’t it racist to tell someone person to go back to their country?

Well, it is bigoted, if the only reason why you are saying it is because of their race, ethnicity or religion.  Like if a man tells a Chinese American woman to “go back to China” because he believes that she is not a true American because she is the wrong color, then that is racist.

But on the other hand, it is downright common in our rhetoric to say “if you don’t like this country, get out” and that is not racist.  Seriously, every time a celebrity says they are going to flee the country because this Republican or that Republican is elected, there are a few sarcastic responses of “do you promise?”  That is not racist, because after all, you are judging a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Indeed, that sentiment is often aimed at the white people born in this country.

This gets a little bit into the divide in this country between two conceptions of nationhood, which I previously talked about here.  As I said before, some have believed since the beginning of this republic that America as a nation is defined by race or ethnicity, and some believe that America is a nation defined by ideals.  The ugly side of the racial/ethnic view of our nation is then everyone but certain groups and races don’t really belong, encouraging all manner of discrimination up to and including race-based slavery and lynching.  Thankfully that has been rejected by the vast majority of Americans and even by the Constitution itself.

But there is an ugly side to the view that America is a nation of ideas, too: If America is defined by certain ideas, then other ideas are un-American.  That leads to reactions that range from merely denouncing a person for what they say, to severe viewpoint discrimination even by the government (which the Supreme Court has regularly found to be unconstitutional).  Think of McCarthy and his quest to root out un-American activities.  Mind you, I say that being firmly in the “America is a nation of ideals” camp, as I hope you are, too, dear reader.  But everyone should still be aware of the danger of excess and guard against it.

In any case, Trump’s comments look more like the second scenario.  He isn’t saying all foreign-born congresswomen should go back to their country.  Just the progressive ones who say vicious things.  That might be in your mind an ugly sentiment, but it is on its face based on the content of their character, not the color of their skins.

Or so I thought.  Then as I was finishing this, I watched a video of the President of the United States saying that he knows who is and is not an immigrant just by looking at them.  And that I can’t defend.  There is no logical way to argue that statement is not racist.

So I finally agree that the President is a racist. 

In 2009-2017.

As in, it was not President Trump, but President Obama:

And of course, the point of that patented “Aaron Worthing Head Fake” is to make a point about media bias.  It takes an illogical interpretation of Trump’s words to whip everyone up into calling Trump a racist.  But Obama could clearly and unambiguously say the racist thought everyone is trying desperately to cram into Trump’s mouth, and... there was little reaction.  I mean I remember conservative media mentioning it, but the mainstream media just yawned.  What a perfect example of media bias.


P.S.: For extra bonus points, Cillizza writes about Trump’s catch phrase:

The insidious idea lurking right below the surface of that slogan [“Make America Great Again”] is this: America was better off before all of this diversity. When everyone knew their place. When people didn’t question what people who looked like Donald Trump said.

First, it’s infamous?  Only around your water cooler, Chris.

As for whether it is racist or not, Bill Clinton said it, too, and I don’t’ recall anyone calling him a racist for it.  Of course, it was also denounced more recently as a racist dog whistle by… [checks notes] …Bill Clinton.

And when you think about it, who is shocked that Bill Clinton would call Trump a racist for saying the same thing he said?

So, Bill Clinton and Chris Cillizza denounced Trump for saying what Bill Clinton said without controversy.  It would be more infuriating if it was not so typical.


My wife and I lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist (and adjudicated statutory rapist) Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.

No comments:

Post a Comment