Democrat Suleiman’s racialist comment about “GOP base”

Atlantic County Democrat Party Chairman Michael Suleiman today issued a press statement in which he made racialist comments about the “GOP base”.  Suleiman said:  “They (the GOP) never miss an opportunity to not stand up to their base.” 

What does Suleiman mean by the “GOP base”?

Does he mean “property taxpayers”?

Maybe he means “religious Christians and Jews”?

Or the “unionized working class” that his own party once represented?

Or is he making a snide reference to “white Christians”?

Suleiman needs to explain himself because he holds a taxpayer-funded patronage job and some of the people he might be disparaging pay his very generous salary, benefits, and perks.  In March 2018, the Democrats gave Suleiman a public job as the lobbyist for the South Jersey Transportation Authority.

While the Democrats cut school funding across New Jersey, guys like Suleiman get paid.  Of course, Suleiman supports Murphy’s illegal Sanctuary State scheme that bullies law enforcement into ignoring the findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission).

Suleiman is a made member of a corrupt political machine.  He would support a horseshoe crab for office if his party told him to.  Suleiman’s Twitter page is filled with selfies featuring the love-struck Suleiman with Hillary Clinton, Phil Murphy, and Cory Booker.  Talk about having some explaining to do – we’re surprised this moron didn’t feature panegyrics to Jeff Epstein and Al Alvarez. 

Oh, and we wonder what Suleiman thinks about this stunt by Cory Booker…

While attacking taxpayer advocate Seth Grossman, Suleiman ignored this anti-Jewish prank by Cory Booker.  What does Suleiman have against taxpayers like Grossman?

But wait… in his statement, Suleiman compounds his racialism by making ethnic (and racial) assumptions about who comes into the United States illegally. He makes the claim that it is “race-baiting” to oppose illegal immigration.  That is a horrible generalization.  The term “illegal” does not denote a racial or ethnic group.

For Suleiman’s information of the 707,265 LEGAL immigrants who became LEGAL naturalized American citizens in 2017, 17 percent were from Mexico (118,559), followed by 7 percent from India (50,802), 5 percent each from China (37,674) and the Philippines (36,828), and about 4 percent each from the Dominican Republic (29,734) and Cuba (25,961).  Nationals of these six countries accounted for 42 percent of all naturalizations.  Other leading countries of origin included Vietnam (19,323 or 3 percent), El Salvador (16,941, 2 percent), Colombia (16,184, 2 percent), and Jamaica (15,087, 2 percent).

In common with many Democrats, Michael Suleiman uses race as a measurement for every human interaction.  People who do this – who think in terms of “people of color” – are called racialists.  Wikipedia notes that “Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.”

The philosopher W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism was merely the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories.  DuBois held that racialism was a value-neutral term and differed from racism in that the latter required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings.

But science has largely erased such arguments.  Aside from some genetic correlations in the incidence of diseases in this subset or that, the idea of “racial identity” that is forced down every American child’s throat, that haunts our society in everything from census forms to employment applications, is entirely a political construct.  The American idea of “race” is nonsense and calling people “racist” is a nonsense game.  The actor Morgan Freeman got it right…

The Democrats’ insistence on the primacy of race is an inverted return to their past.  Like then, Democrats today are obsessed with what measure of blood from this group or that flows through someone’s veins.  They seem to forget that our blood – the blood of our common humanity – is categorized, not in terms like Black or White or “of color” or “not of color” – but as O, A, B, and AB.

The Democrats need to end their obsession… and embrace humanity.

Suleiman didn’t learn the lesson of Charlie Hebdo?

All public figures must suffer the slings and arrows of humor.  Whether a politician or a celebrity… comedy adds a measure of humility into the lives of those proud souls who consider themselves to be “the great and the good.”

But some folks don’t take too well to humor – especially when it is directed at them or those they feel a kindred nature with.  They seek to restrain or codify free expression, and in doing so they kill the very nature of comedy itself.

 Imagine what would happen if the Federal Elections Commission took comedy seriously and began requiring Saturday Night Live or Jimmy Kimmel to count their comedy routines as corporate-sponsored paid political advertisements?  What would become of the humor once it was codified and restrained in such a way?

Earlier today, a political figure – the top Democrat Party official in Atlantic County – asked a small, local newspaper to take punitive action against a journalist for engaging in the high crime of humor.  In this case, the journalist made a joke at the expense of United States Senator Elizabeth Warren, about something that she choose to focus the world’s attention on… namely, her self-identification as a native American or, in the parlance that she was brought up with, an “American Indian”. 

Yes, yes, we all now have endlessly heard that “American Indian” is somehow “incorrect”, but it is a matter of historical perspective isn’t it?  The same way that “British” somehow became the correct form over “English” and an American is a “Yank” in Britain, even if he’s from Alabama, and someone of Italian-ancestry is an “Englishman” to an Amishman, simply because he doesn’t speak Pennsylvania Dutch.  Understanding takes away the offense (unless one is seeking to be offended). 

So this journalist (and the United States Supreme Court has given wide leave as to who can be called a “journalist”) made a joke aimed at Senator Warren, who earlier had announced her intention to run for President of the United States in 2020.  And this prominent Democrat politician – Michael Suleiman – responded, not with his own joke, but with a call for brutal repression.  How uncool.

We’ve seen this before.  In Europe. 

On February 9, 2006, the French-language humor magazine Charlie Hebdo published an article titled “Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists” in which it added its own cartoons and reprinted twelve cartoons previously published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.  In response, the top politician in France – President Jacques Chirac – condemned the journalists for their “overt provocations”.  The politician argued against Freedom of Expression, saying:  “Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided.”  It should be noted that Monsieur Le President comes out of the notably authoritarian traditions of bureaucratic France.

The Grand Mosque of Paris, the Muslim World League, and the Union of French Islamic Organizations condemned the humor as “racist”.  It should be noted that Charlie Hebdo (Hebdo is French for “weekly”) is a decidedly Leftist publication and that its humor is more generally aimed at the National Front and Catholicism.  It describes itself as “secular, skeptic, atheist, far-left-wing, and anti-racist.”  But it does believe in comedy and in the right to Free Expression – and, as a result, it got into trouble with the political thought police.

What happened to Charlie Hebdo is an important reminder of what happens when you can’t take a joke and escalate humor into something it’s not.  Some offended parties brought a legal action against the publication, with the publisher memorably stating:  “It is racist to imagine that they can’t understand a joke.”

When the legal action was tossed out, the anti-comedy crowd took it further, they firebombed the offices of Charlie Hebdo and hacked its website.  But Charlie Hebdo, true to its traditions of free expression, refused calls for “self-censorship” and went on its merry way. 

Then… on January 7, 2015… two terrorists who clearly had no sense of humor, two determined repressors of comedy, forced their way into the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo and proceeded to murder journalists, cartoonists, editors, and staff – plus two police officers – twelve dead in all and eleven wounded.  It was an act of terror justified by the offense taken at a joke. 

America today is at a crossroads.  Do we use humor to combat humor… or do we oppress it every time someone is offended?  The latter equals the end of humor, for as all great comedians have recognized, the core of humor is transgressive – somebody is going to be pissed off.   

This is why what this politician – Michael Suleiman – has done is so dangerous.  By asking the newspaper publisher to take punitive action against a journalist for publishing a joke, he has placed himself with those who are at war with comedy and free expression.  If you want to “get back” at a joke you don’t like, undo it with a better joke of your own, don’t seek to harm those engaged in the free expression of humor. 

We hope Democrat Chairman Suleiman will withdraw his silly complaint.