Thoughts on the Debate

As I was saying to my libertarian-minded friend Don today (and a lot of other people on previous days), I have given up being serious about political predictions. Long-time ago I realized that I was wrong more than I was right, like everyone else. 

Why do we keep doing it? I'm not sure. But, at some point I realized that when it was right, I thought it was because of my analysis and when I was wrong, it was because of something unforeseeable. And so it is with you too. 

The famous psychologist who wrote Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, gave an example of when he was in the Israeli army, and he and a group were tasked with evaluating which soldiers among a group of trainees would become good leaders. He found two things. One, they were almost always wrong. And, two, it didn't make any difference in their analysis. They just kept applying the same strategies that didn't work the first time.

I do know who I want to win. Whatever win means in a debate when, unlike sports, both declare victory. I want Trump to win. 

I wrote this morning to some friends something like:

"All my hopes and fears for us rests in the hands of our President, who represents our country and is the last best hope for mankind. And whom I often refer to as an idiot."

Because he is right now, our last hope, despite his almost preternatural ability to f' things up with his biiiiiiig mouth (or evatweetin' fingers). You might have read the previous quote and said - wait, the last best hope for mankind can refer to the country, not to the president. It's actually derived from a Lincoln line, and I can write whatever I want. Until those who want to declare whatever they disagree with hate-speech, ban my blog, I can still write what I like. 

If Trump loses the election, for the first time in a long time, I really give up hope that we can have a decent society for a long time. I mean, I do think we will correct ourselves eventually, but I think it will be bad. Because the guys on Biden's side - well, they are scary. Not all of them, of course. Some of my best friends are voting for him. But, I mean the radicals who are slowly populating the party like the Borg or Replicators, depending on whether you prefer Star Trek or Star Gate, a media which has mostly given up the idea of journalism and a good deal of government, which panders to whoever will elect them. Someday they might decide, unless our education system changes dramatically (and, no, it's not likely) that Socialists are necessary to form a majority (essentially the situation now) - which is exactly how the Germans ended up with Hitler as Chancellor, except then, they were right-wing monsters fighting the socialist or communist monster. And, it starts right now, with this election. For the first time I agree with what Sean Hannity said for years - this is the most important election in our lifetime.  

Why will I give up hope? Because I see a country so filled with self-loathing that it can't see when things are actually going well, can't bear to see anything that he does as good (they say this all the time) even if it's an almost unparalleled accomplishment in the Middle East (for which someone at least, nominated him for the Nobel Prize - which would be impressive if it hadn't become a joke). And because the great economy prior to the pandemic had - had - to be Obama's doing (although oddly, they don't blame him for the racial insanity which actually did restart during his term).  Some people hate Trump so much that they don't care if voting Ds in destroys their personal life or even if a meteor hits the earth. Well, they say that. I think they'd change their minds, but . . . they think it. 

It's not going to be much better under Trump, because the same crazies are still out there. But, better than if we have them running around the White House and Capitol.

Even Trump has just offered a bribe to blacks - his platinum plan - a half-trillion dollars, declaring the KKK and the Nazi Party, both of which have less people in them than a really big school district - and I mean all the KKKers and Neo-Nazis in the whole country as opposed to one big school district. According to the Anti-Defamation League - hardly right-wingers, right, there are only 3,000 in the whole country. Nazis? Well, I couldn't find a total - but the Wikipedia article says the largest Neo-Nazi group in the country has 400 people and there are 3 larger organizations. Let's give them some ooomph though and say 2000. So, 5000 hate-filled morons on the right, against tens, maybe hundreds of thousands on the left - who many people seem fine with - BLM, Antifa, DSA, despite the fact that their united movement repeatedly burns buildings (sometimes with cops in them), beats up people, tries to and does kill cops and others, attacks regular people - every day - and are the best-funded revolutionary movement/gangs in the history of the world. Despite the fact that the media is overwhelmingly of the left persuasion, how come no one is reporting right-wing violence every day? Because, it doesn't really happen relatively much. When they do almost anything, even in self-defense, the idiot government arrests them. Yes, occasionally they are violent too, and it's always horrible, but it's like comparing a pro-wrestling tag team to the Olympic teams of every country. Actually, it is like comparing the number of panda bears in zoos to the number visitors to zoos.   

You know what, I just can't think of a clever analogy right now. But my point is, Trump just made the Klan and Neo-Nazis "terror-groups" as a sop to the crazies on the left who are actually daily threatening and acting against our company. So, he sucks too, but at least he's for a border and the police, actually against racism (he at least stopped the pseudo-scientific "critical race theory" being taught to federal workers; it's another name for racism).

Go ahead, if they are genuine threats, make the Klan/Nazis terrorists too, but can we please include the groups that threaten cities and the country? And are routinely doing horrible things to it. If Trump and Biden and even Obama say these acts aren't civil rights, but vicious crimes, shouldn't we figure that out as a country?

Trump and Biden actually have a lot in common.

They are both rich, older white men.

They are both either pathological liars or just constantly wrong about everything. 

One can't help saying stupid things that don't help him at all. The other can't help saying stupid things that make him look like an idiot. Which is which? You tell me. You can make an argument either way.

Why pick one? I'm picking the one whose party is for borders, the police, not out burning and killing (not even remotely close), not wanting to pack the Supreme Court (so they win every case), not wanting to end the electoral college (so that NY and California pick each president), which doesn't carry on like the Ds did in the Kavanaugh hearing (like fascists), after they lost a gun-control fight and took over the floor, during the impeachment hearings, etc.

I don't like Trump. I don't even like Republicans or conservatives. But, he'd better win. They'd better win. 

Someday, I will go back to my Zen state. Not right now. 

POSTSCRIPT: THE DAY AFTER

Still in shock. Good God. 

Here are my main thoughts:

Objectively speaking, Biden looks and acts more "presidential." It's much easier to like him, even to listen to him speak. Trump landed more blows (it was a windmill style of debating) and a few hard ones, but missed many opportunities. And, I think . . . I think (can hardly believe it - did I misunderstand), he even called Joe "no. 2" during the debate, and everyone let it slide. Really, someone, did that happen?

But, to be fair to Trump, he did have to debate the host too and Chris Wallace wasn't particularly fair, although I expect fairer than the next two will be, his questions favoring the left, in my view (e.g., asking Trump to condemn right-wing violence as the cities are being rent by left-wing violence, not asking Biden to condemn Antifa or BLM) sometimes just agreeing with Biden rather than letting them fight it out. Biden didn't even have to answer Chris's question about whether he supported BLM and he didn't call him on it at all. And Trump is right that no president in recent memory has faced this kind of opposition (back to probably Nixon). I'm sorry, but the media were like house pets to Obama, even when he wasn't nice to them, and many Republicans actually did vote for his nominees and didn't impeach him when they could have.

I don't know what the outcome of the polling will be and don't care much. I only care about what it does in the swing states. I've learned by experience, views on who won, including my own, are too biased to our own likes and dislikes to have any accuracy. 

But, I've been pessimistic about Trump winning because of the opposition he faces. We shall see. 

POST POST SCRIPT - NO, phew, someone sent me the transcript  (thank you). Amongst all the arguing, Trump did not call him no. 2, although, that's what I had thought I heard. They were arguing about, it seems, who got to go first or last - whatever. I'm relieved.

Last Wishes and Fairness? Other words for control.

As we know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg died last week. I'm not going to do a eulogy, but obviously, she was an uncommonly gifted, courageous and interesting person, beloved by the left and even some on the right (not that they wanted her on the court any more). 

I just want to talk about her last wish and about what's fair or not.

She lived the last few years with cancer, but had an absolute right to hold on to her job; in fact, it was nobody's business but hers, certainly unless her illness would have caused her to no longer have the good behavior required of Article III justices. She was nominated, she earned it (almost unanimously approved, 96-3) and she was, though bent over, sick and frail, seemed mentally sound.

According to Ruth's granddaughter, her most fervent wish before passing on was that the next Justice would not be chosen except by the next president to be elected. Let's take her granddaughter's word for it, because, I suspect it is true. But, if RBG wanted to blame anyone for the current situation, with Donald Trump nominating and possibly having confirmed the next Supreme Court Justice shortly before election day, she can blame herself. She could have given up her seat earlier. She did not give up her seat when Obama could have filled it, back when she was in her '70s, maybe thinking that she would outlive the next president's term if she didn't like him/her and, that likely, Hillary Clinton was going to be president for 8 years, anyway. 

So, riddle me this, Batman - if Hillary Clinton was president right now, and Donald Trump was leading her in the polls by a substantial margin, do you think RBG would have had that last wish. You might if you are blinded by partisanship. You might think - what? Are you saying she didn't have integrity? No, I'm not saying that. Maybe she (or you) would have liked to think she would say the same thing in the circumstances I've just envisioned . . . but, come on. I mean, come on. 

We all know she couldn't stand Trump (not that this is a rare occurrence - I suspect Justice Roberts and at least 3, maybe more of them, feel that way) and what this really proves, is that she maybe should have recused herself from cases involving him (like the one about turning over his tax returns). She had already had to walk back a July, 2016 insult, calling him "unfit for office" and other remarks that caused consternation even among some liberals. She said she regretted her remarks, but, did she? Or did she, like so many people in public, realize it was a smart thing to say. The non-apology apology.  Was it even grounds for impeachment? Arguably. If, despite the only non-double hearsay quote to the contrary and what the president of Ukraine says, Trump bullied the leader of a foreign country (hell, we've killed others) and that's grounds, why not her highly criticized behavior. And, if impeachment is all political, as often claimed (though, truthfully, that's not what the Constitution says, and I despise that argument) why shouldn't she have been impeached? If crazies on the left still want to impeach Kavanaugh for maybe, possibly, fondling a young girl when he was 16 (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary and despite the fact that Joe Biden is accused of far worse) sure she could have been if the Republicans were the Democrats in temperament when they had the power to do it before the 2018 election. I doubt much she'd have been convicted. But, it was let go - I doubt anyone seriously considered it, and she ruled on his cases.

The larger point is though - it's just no concern of hers what gets done when she's off the bench, whatever the reason. You would think she would know this point - but, we have a Constitution. It doesn't say the president and the Senate need an outgoing justice's approval. RBG got to rule on what the law means (I mean, that's laughable, of course, but we mostly all pretend it is what justices do, because we don't know a better way to go about it), and the President - the one in office, gets to nominate justices.

So, when should he not do it, not nominate someone, arguably, when there's an election coming? That's the refrain, right? Not in the last year. That's what kept Garland off the bench (who I can't forget, publically cried when Obama picked him, at the honor of it, and I'm not mocking him at all). It's what Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and others said should happen when Bush was in office, but didn't get a chance to block him. 

Well, they were all wrong, at least in the wisdom sense as to what they should do, but legally as to what a president can do. After all, McConnell didn't stop Obama from nominating Garland and D dread of another conservative justice shouldn't stop Trump now. And now you have a legal authority (yes, me), saying so. Case closed. You know why? Because the Constitution says the president nominates and the Senate confirms. Not that the president nominates unless it is in the last (year, month, etc.). 

Suppose you have insurance on your car. And, the day before your policy expires, it burns up. Can you imagine if the insurance company said, well, we don't think we should have to pay because, you know, we were almost in the clear? No. They would have pay because it happened during the term of your policy. The full term. No one would even suggest something like this outside of politics.

The president can decide, if he wants, to wait. Or he can decide to go ahead. Personally, I think Trump knows he is in trouble in the election (and maybe afterwards) and that's why he is pushing this. He wants another conservative justice on the bench and he wants to make sure that he gets her in whether there is a month or six months left because he may need it. These idiots in congress (and I have that on good authority from Mark Twain), can do whatever they want if they have it in their power to move ahead with it or not. And, believe me, the Rs are going to do what's in their power, unless other Rs revolt, and push it through, and the Ds are going to do everything (including possibly disgusting things, if the Kavanaugh hearing was any clue as to what's coming) in their power to stop it. This is the country we have. I hate that about it. But, there it is. 

So, sorry, Ruth. I hope you are up there, young again, with your husband, Marty, and your buddy, Nino, having a party, but you can't reach back from beyond and change this. 

Okay, so that's the last wish part. What about fairness? Sen. Susan Collins, a "moderate" Republican, who it seems is always fighting for her seat, has said that "In fairness to the American people, who will either be re-electing the President or selecting a new one, the decision on a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be made by the President who is elected on November 3rd.”

In fairness to what American people? I mean, didn't pretty much the same American people vote the last time. Some percent of them is dead or won't vote again for whatever reason, and some are new voters, but, even if they were all different, everyone, isn't what's "fair" for the people who voted Trump for Trump in 2016 (I know, we have an electoral college; spare me) to have him decide this while he's in office. Isn't it fair that the people who voted for this Senate in 2016 to have them decide? Why should they lose their choice. If we don't insurance companies deciding its fair to close out your options near the end of the term, why should we decide the next set of voters needs to be treated fairly, but not the last one?

I know, I know, you just want your side to win and that decides what is right legally. I've said this a million times. Either we have a system or we don't. There's not much left of the Constitution, thanks to our Supreme Courts going back pretty much to the beginning. But, we still have an electoral system that works pretty much the way it was designed, or at least as amended from time to time. 

Last thing -  This is how I feel about it. I can't stand Trump personally either. But that doesn't mean I don't think he's done some good things as president, some great things too, and probably would have done more had the Ds not decided to be the resistance, and worked with him at least for the country's benefit. And I want him to win, because the vicious politically witch-hunting and insane radical resistance thingee going on for years now is far, far worse than having a boorish president. Far worse. 

I want to once again promote my own proposed Constitutional amendment. Every president should get to have an up or down vote on every nominee within 60 days of the nomination - which might also have the effect of also sort of making a deadline for nominations. There are many things congress wastes its time with (including most speeches - who is listening?), but, these crazy nomination battles are the worst. Not only a waste of time, but so divisive. Kavanaugh's was just the worst of the worst. 

People remember Garland.  Even some Rs I personally know who I've had a chance to repeatedly press my opinion on that not giving him a hearing was not unlawful, but foolish, have started to agree. But, again, let's not pretend, that's this wasn't exactly what the Ds said they were going to do with a Bush nominee, if it had happened with him in the last year of his term. And, let's not forget that what the Ds did to Miguel Estrada, who they blocked for two years in Bush's first term, until he finally had to withdraw (and I'm sure the late Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas would also like to be mentioned). The Rs play games too. Jesse Helms was famous for bragging about keeping his foot on the drawer with certain nominees' files in it. This party dual goes back to Jefferson and Hamilton in these United States, my friends. And the Mesopotamians and Egyptians were probably Johnny-come-latelys too when it came to playing politics. God - just go with this - probably invented politics when he decided A and E could eat from every tree in the garden except that one tree.  

And we know why, if we are actually fair? Why all this last wish and fairness stuff, why the Ds want to wait despite how they felt during Garland's nomination and the Rs want to push it through, unlike with what they did with Garland. I'll tell you why, if you can't conceive it. Because it's almost never about what they say it's about. Like most things in the political world, hell, the whole world, it's about trying to get what you want. Power. And power and fairness usually go together like the insides of a pumpkin and burnt coffee grinds. 

Allrrrrrighty then. Who is the nominee, Trumpy? 

Shouldn't it have been titled: How to be a racist?

One of the books that people are reading these days is How to be an AntiRacist, by Ibram X. Kendi. I read it, probably last year, as I always give most every side (some exceptions) a chance to convince me I'm wrong. It didn't with Kendi's book. In fact, it convinced me more that there was a dangerous trend in thinking which will accelerate the racial tension upswing that started - yes, during the Obama administration. Of course, it has accelerated even more, and the radical view is similar in many respects to Kendi's thesis, except, he is moderate compared to many others. And, I don't disagree with everything he says, but lots of it. 

I'm just going to quote from the book and comment on it. Obviously, I am cherry-picking, because otherwise I'd have to re-post the entire book. If you want me to believe I was unfair in taking something out of context, you have to tell me where and how. Maybe you will convince me. Otherwise, I will trust my judgment.

The book in back. My comments are in blue.

What’s the problem with being “not racist”? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: “I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.” But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “anti-racist.” No neutrality. What do you think he means? He means you are a racist, not only if you disagree with him, but if you don't have an opinion or don't want to state it. 

What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of 'not racist.' More of you have to take my side or you are a racist. How about, Kenzi, if I disagree with you as to what racial equality is? Or how to go about achieving it? How about I think education and togetherness rather than self-victimization, anti-education and separationism (ideas I got from John McWhorter) work much better. What if I believe that accentuating race and identity, as is the trend here now, is not only wrong, but dangerous and completely the opposite of what MLK, Jr. taught - that we need to judge one another by the content of our character, not skin color? I know, for you it means I'm a racist, right?

The claim of not 'not racist' neutrality is a mask for racism. This may seem harsh, but it’s important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word “racist” itself back to its proper usage. “Racist” is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a perjorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undue racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction."  Yet, it is a slur. What happened to it doesn't matter what the speaker intends, only how the hearer feels? Well, that's nonsense and apparently, they (the left and the young) don't really believe it either. Words can be descriptive and a slur at one time. Every Jewish person knows that someone can say Jew, and you can tell from the way they say it if it is a word or a description. And do we want to freeze you into reaction? Yes. Don't go calling people racists when you know nothing about them.

THE COMMON IDEA of claiming “color blindness” is akin to the notion of being “not racist”—as with the “not racist,” the color-blind individual, by ostensibly failing to see race, fails to see racism and falls into racist passivity. The language of color blindness—like the language of “not racist”—is a mask to hide racism. “Our Constitution is color-blind,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Harlan proclaimed in his dissent to Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that legalized Jim Crow segregation in 1896. “The white race deems itself to be dominant race in this country,” Justice Harlan went on. “I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remain true to its great heritage.”  A color-blind Constitution for a White-Supremacist America.  Here, he just seems ignorant of what he is talking about. Or, deliberately deceptive. This dissent was a turning point in American culture, the first time that a Supreme Court judge really took it to racism. Was his phraseology and mindset what we would now think of as racist? Sure, but so was Abraham Lincoln's. They were men of their time and probably couldn't believe there would be a time when race had a chance not to matter so much, where inter-marriage was legal. Here's what Harlan really said:

“The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country.  And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power.  So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty.  But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.   The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.  The law regards man as man and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved....”]

 In other words, "all citizens are equal before the law." Get it, Kenzi? Do your homework first.

THE GOOD NEWS is that racist and antiracist are not fixed identities. We can be a racist one minute and an antiracist the next. What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what—not who—we are. What? That doesn't even make sense. I'm a racist one moment and the next I'm not. Oh, brother. What I would accept is that a person can be racist and yet say or think something non-racist and vice versa. That's common sense. But, in his version, the person is changing in a short-time back and forth. His fixation on identity rather than behavior is what is confusing him (and so many others). 

I used to be racist most of the time. I am changing. I am no longer identifying with racists by claiming to be “not racist.” I am no longer speaking through the mask of racial neutrality. I am no longer manipulated by racist ideas to see racial groups as problems. I no longer believe a Black person cannot be a racist. I am no longer policing my every action around an imagined White or Black judge, trying to convince White people of my equal humanity, trying to convince Black people I am representing the race well. I no longer care about how the actions of other Black individuals reflect on me, since none of us are race representatives, nor is any individual responsible for someone else’s racist ideas. And I’ve come to see that the movement from racist to antiracist is always ongoing—it requires understanding and snubbing racism based on biology, ethnicity, body culture, behavior, color, space, and class. And beyond that, it means standing ready to fight at racism’s intersections with other bigotries. Unless I misunderstood him, that I agreed with.

So let’s set some definitions. What is racism? Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities. Okay, what are racist policies and ideas? We have to define them separately to understand why they are married and why they interact so well together. Let me think about that. Racism is a marriage of . . . that normalizes racial inequities. So, if a black couple, or inter-racial one, for that matter, decides they want to live in a black neighborhood (I've known at least one couple that made that choice), then they are normalizing racial inequities. If a Jewish person wants to move close to a synagogue or where a lot of say, Hasids, live, he's racist? Maybe I don't understand.

In fact, let’s take one step back and consider the definition of another important phrase: racial inequity.  Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Here’s an example of racial inequity: 71 percent of White families lived in owner-occupied homes in 2014, compared to 45 percent of Latinx families and 41 percent of Black families. Racial equity is when two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing. An example of racial equity would be if there were relatively equitable percentages of all three racial groups living in owner-occupied homes in the forties, seventies, or, better, nineties. . . . See, here's the problem with the new racists. They want everything to be about race, now and into the future. Like Harlan and Lincoln, they can't imagine a different age. His example is actually racist. Suppose that a racial group, or religious one, or any group decides they don't want to be homeowners relative to other groups. Or, not work as hard. I mean, do you think young white college students, as a group, work as hard as Asian ones in America. I can tell you, I've seen it myself. I taught at a college that was 30-40% Asian. But, at night, in the library, it was way over 90% Asian. Get it? Equal footing may not be equal. Should we make the NFL 50/50? Or have players of different ethnicity proportionately represented. If we listen to this rhetoric, we will drive out the merit system. Oh, right, that's what many want to do.

 A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequality between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equality between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity between racial groups.

Same response. What we want is equal opportunity, not some impossible to achieve, ridiculous to try, outcome equality. It doesn't work. It's impossible. And judging people as racist because you want a society based on ethnic quotas rather than merit and . . . ready . . . "the content of our character," is scary. 

Racist policies have been described by other terms: “institutional racism,” “structural racism,” and “systemic racism,” for instance. But those are vaguer terms than “racist policy.” When I use them I find myself having to immediately explain what they mean. “Racist policy” is more tangible and exacting, and more likely to be immediately understood by people, including its victims, who may not have the benefit of extensive fluency in racial terms. “Racist policy” says exactly what the problem is and where the problem is. “Institutional racism” and “structural racism” and “systemic racism” are redundant. Racism itself is institutional, structural, and systemic. No, it's not, because we have individualism in our country. You want to peg me as a white Jew atheist or whatever. I don't want to peg you as anything identity-wise. Can we all see color? Of course. We can all see eye color as well as skin color. The trick is trying to get it so skin color is no more unimportant to everyone than eye color. 

“Racist policy” also cuts to the core racism better than “racial discrimination,” another common phrase. “Racial discrimination” is an immediate and visible manifestation of an underlying racial policy. . . Focusing on “racial discrimination” takes our eyes off the central agents of racism: racist policy and racist policymakers, or what I call racist power. No, racial discrimination and racist policy are the same in reality; it can't be just what's in his mind.  Racist policy is discrimination. Racial discrimination is someone or things acts, but also their policy. They are policy or behavior that discriminates based on ethnicity or skin color.

Since the 1960s, racist power has commandeered the term “racial discrimination” as an immediate and visible manifestation of an underlying racial act. But if racial discrimination is defined as treating, consideration, or making a distinction in favor or against an individual based on that person’s race, then racial discrimination is not inherently racist. The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is racist. Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into relative wealth and power until equity is reached. I think I'm getting this - if it is taking from those who have, I guess of a certain race, and giving to a race he prefers . . . that's okay with him? Just great. I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.” As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. There he goes, pouring water on a drowning man. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination? So, discrimination forever, huh? This is why Justice Thomas asked, after a (supposedly beneficial) discriminatory U.S. Supreme Court decision basically said, for 25 years we aren't going to follow the Constitution. Well, what do we do then - another 25? Because if the black leadership keeps on this social justice path, they are going to lose whatever they gained; in fact, we all may.

The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right’s unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular American’s drive for a “race-neutral” one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-White Americans toward equity is “reverse discriminate.” So, forget White Nationalism for a second. I know there are some, although I've never met one, and think it's a lot more rare than the media would like you to think. But, what he is saying is that you can have discrimination against blacks, but not whites or Asians, etc. 

We are surrounded by racial inequity, as visible as the law, as hidden as our private thoughts. The question for each of us is: What side of history will we stand on? A racist is someone who is supporting a racist policy by their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea. An antiracist is someone who is supporting an antiracist policy by their actions or expressing an antiracist idea. “Racist” and “antiracist” are like peelable name tags that are replaced and replaced based on what someone is doing or not doing, supporting or expressing in each moment. These are not permanent tattoos. No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other. We can unknowingly strive to be one or the other. We can unknowingly strive to be a racist. We can knowingly strive to be an antiracist. Like fighting an addiction, being an antiracist requires persistent self-awareness, constant self-criticism, and regular self-examination.  In his mind, I am striving to be a racist. In my mind, he's a racist because he wants racism forever, thinks we should be judged mainly by our skin color, and that he can determine who a racist is or not by his decree. Well, no. I oppose the crazy idea of social justice, which is not justice at all. Only individual justice is justice. It's hard to come by for anyone. 

 The only thing wrong with White people is when they embrace racist ideas and policies and then deny their ideas and policies are racist. This is not to ignore that White people have massacred and enslaved millions of indigenous and African peoples, colonized and impoverished millions of people of color around the globe as their nations grew rich, all the while producing racist ideas that blame the victims. This is to say their history of pillaging is not the result of the evil genes or cultures of White people. There’s no such thing as White genes. We must separate the warlike, greedy, bigoted, and individualist cultures of modern empire and racial capitalism (more on that later) from the cultures of White people. They are not one and the same, as the resistance within White nations shows, resistance admittedly often tempered by racist ideas. I know the history of America. 500 years or so of oppression. But, that's the world. There's been vicious slavery and murder throughout history. You know when it's been best? Right now, when, even with BLM riots and Antifa, we are still far more peaceful than a century or centuries ago. And, you know why we are so much better than we used to be? Because of capitalism. In fact, it's the only reason he has a computer and a desk and maybe a job writing books. Is he kidding? How much did he make on this book because of capitalism while insulting capitalism?

Aside from Justice Clarence Thomas’s murderous gang of anti-Black judgments over the years, perhaps the most egregious Black on Black racist crime in recent American history decided the 2004 presidential election. George W. Bush narrowly won reelection by taking Ohio with the crucial help of Ohio’s ambitious Black Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who operated simultaneously as Bush’s Ohio campaign co-chair.  Murderous? Right now we are in a situation with hundreds of deaths and thousands of shooting more than usual. And he's worried about Clarence Thomas being murderous? Who he'd kill. At least he's pro-life. You want murderous, think about those who favor later-term abortions.

The saying “Black people can’t be racist” reproduces the false duality of racist and not-racist promoted by White racists to deny their racism. It merges Black people with White Trump voters who are angry about being called racist but who want to express racist views and support their racist policies while being identified as not-racist, no matter what they say or do. There it is, there it is. Trump Trump Trump. Racist, angry voters. I'm voting Trump because I hope the racism and murder will stop and know it will be better than if we put Biden in office and maybe BLM or Antifa in the cabinet. Mama Mia.

To love capitalism is to end up loving racism. To love racism is to end up loving capitalism. The conjoined twins are two sides of the same destructive body. The idea that capitalism is merely free markets, competition, free trade, supplying and demanding, and private ownership of the means of production operating for a profit is as whimsical and ahistorical as the White-supremacist idea that calling something racist is the primary form of racism. Popular definitions of capitalism, like popular racist ideas, do not live in historical or material reality. Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist. They were birthed together from the same unnatural causes, and they shall one day die together from unnatural causes. Or racial capitalism will live into another epoch of theft and rapacious inequity, especially if activists naively fight the conjoined twins independently, as if they are not the same. Why when people say the BLM movement is really about socialism does anyone doubt it? This anti-capitalistic rhetoric is being taught to our young and they are believing it. Thanks education system. Good job. Oy vey.

Well, am 160 something pages in. It's enough. Why would you need more? You get the drift. You want to read his book, read his book. I'd much rather have you read anything by Hayek or McWhorter first. 

This is a best-seller though. We are in a mess.

The Nazi's play book.

History rarely repeats itself in the same exact way. There are always differences between times and places. But, the past is all we can know (those who bother to know it). So, we use certain name references from it and try to use what we learned. 

Today in America, it is routine to call Trump a Nazi or fascist.

One of the things people didn't seem to learn about is fascism and how it happens. They think, I guess, if someone doesn't say, we like Hitler, they can't be fascist or a Nazi. Except Trump, of course. They have no problem making him an exception to everything. Anyway, most people I think have heard about fascism and Nazism, but they don't seem to have learned or remember how it started. 

I am using, like everyone these days, the term fascist loosely. When I say fascist or fascism, I'm not just meaning the technical Italian movement or even Nazism. I'm talking about totalitarianism at its worst, and the use of force to seize political control, wipe out dissent and rule by obtaining power, often with a dominant ethnic or religious preference.

Until it just got too sickening to read about it anymore, I spent years studying pre-war Germany and why people followed Hitler. I see many of the same things happening now and the same blindness. The Nazis had to self-destruct eventually, with a lot of help from the Allies, because like most totalitarian countries, their system doesn't work. But it can last a long time, decades - centuries, and devastate a country or countries. Now, possibly, with the super-fast transportation and communication we have, maybe the world. We are facing it now, and no, it's not overly-dramatic to think so. 

Here are some of the similarities I see. Again, not exactly, but similar:

The Big Lie: Hitler understood the bigger the lies, the more people would believe them. I'm repeatedly stunned how many educated people who watch CNN or MSNBC or read the NYTs really believe the things they do (generally, it's all Trump's fault and maybe no exceptional violence has happened on their side). They literally don't know - I mean literally - that thousands of people (more than usual) are being shot in the country, mostly minorities, due to lawlessness. I just did a post on the lies. Read it, as I won't repeat them here. Everything about this movement, whether you want to call it BLM or socialism or whatever you like, is based on lies. 

Violence and threats of violence: The Nazis were street fighters, battling with the left-wing radicals. I'm not even taking sides. Both were awful. If the communists, who were Stalinists took power, who knows how bad it would have been. Maybe not, but maybe worse than the Nazis as Stalin and the Soviet Union lasted much longer and communism has been responsible for millions upon millions of unjustified deaths too. But, in Germany a lot of violence started with Hitler's brown shirts, his streetfighters, who bear a striking similarity to Antifa. It's a lie. There's nothing anti-fascist about them. They beat up people and have even murdered (barely covered by the media).

This violence is ongoing. Not only are people being killed/shot all over the country, but the threats from BLM/Antifa are ongoing too. See the few links I put at the bottom. No, the reporting can't always be from The Times or CNN, etc., because they literally don't want you to know. And my friends who limit themselves to that media, they literally don't know.

They felt they were victims fighting for their rights: That's what the Nazis said. They were sabotaged in WWI by the Jews and others. And the peace treaty was brutal and not fair (although I agree about that - so do many in the West). But, nothing justified what they did. Today BLM has used the big lie theory and successfully convinced perhaps a majority of Americans that they are being systematically deprived of rights, murdered and discriminated against when the laws in the U.S. actually prefer minorities and gives them many advantages. There aren't anti-discrimination laws against majorities and our law seems to accept the idea of benevolent discrimination - meaning, it favors those it wants to. Of course, we are a violent country and there are too many deaths in normal times. But, the narrative that police are looking to kill blacks or do it too easily is a lie. Police aren't perfect; they make mistakes. And there will always be prejudice. It has gotten so much better, it's almost unbelievable. Even Obama thought so. But, BLM would have you believe they are victims fighting for their lives. That's what they teach their poor kids too.  

Take over the media: The Nazis long had their own media before taking power, but it was tiny. Prior to their 1933 takeover, they would sometimes do things like shut down a movie with smoke bombs or the like. And, when they took power, they got rid of all other media and, as you probably know, burned books. Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda was essentially in charge of all of it. Other political parties were outlawed, and the Nazis simply took over their presses and the independent ones. It did not happen overnight. The chancellor prior to Hitler notes in his memoirs, his own central party press organ wasn't taken over until 1938, just before the war, but, he had a lot of power and was on good terms with Herr Hitler, which kept him alive, but later regretted. 

Here, the left has a running start, as most of the press seems like they want autocracy, just one they think is on their side. BLM and the left, in general, are trying to take it over right now. When you hear Kamala Harris demand that Twitter shut off Trump's account or Facebook takes down conservative ads and posts (or Twitter), it's the beginning. The brown shirts, Antifa, physically attack conservative speakers and the media often ignores it or gives it a pass. If this group gets power, I believe as soon as possible they will try to make any but their own rhetoric "hate speech," and therefore unprotected by the first amendment. It's actually already the case. Frankly, they will burn down CNN and MSNBC too if you cross them. And, of course, blame Trump for it.

Demonize someone or group: The Nazis had the Jews and communists, who they sometimes merged in their rhetoric. BLM and many of the new left seems to hate straight white males unless they are subservient. Sometimes they demonize white females too, who they mock as "Karens." But, most of all, they are just taught (including some very smart people) to say, reflexively, it's Trump's fault, or this is because of Trump's rhetoric, or the like. When they have a fact to give you about him, it's almost invariably not what happened or completely unfair. One young woman told me recently that Trump admitted what he did in Ukraine was wrong. It was completely false - the only quote from him by any witness was that he said he wanted no quid pro quo from Ukraine. 

The New "Heil Hitler": You think they don't have theirs. Have you seen videos where they try to force people to say "Black Lives Matter." Sounds the same to me. Why? Not because they are saying "black lives matter," but because they are trying to force people to do it. They say "White Silence" is violence. Their excuse to be violent with you - actual violence. These are really, disgusting humans. 

Render the police harmless: Not much of a problem in Nazi Germany. The Nazi police simply took over.  You know, the SS, SA, SD and Gestapo, BLM and other gangs won't have it that easy, but have the same goal, make it so they have no opposition capable of violence to defeat them in their "revolution" (BLM's website's word). Now, in much of America, when the police just try to do their job, they are falsely accused of unwarranted violence or abuse and sometimes it is the police who get arrested (of course, sometimes it is true they are abusive). They try to, sometimes successfully, defund the police, and they attack them personally, physically assaulting them, trying to kill them, sometimes do kill them, give out their names and addresses, etc., to bring the fight to their homes.  In the town of Rochester, NY, where most of the young fascists seem to be young white idiots, the City had to let the officers cover up their names, which the radicals were calling out for future harassment.

If they defang the police - you will be at their mercy, because they are angry, often hysterical with violence and much, much better organized and motivated than you and regular working or suburban folk. That's why they are already winning. So many police have retired early. Who do you think they will let replace them? 

Violence and threat links:

Here are a few of the hundreds or could be thousands of similar articles in the last few months. To my friends on the left, I'm sorry if it hurt's your feelings, but this is your team, if you support this movement. Before you get angry, this is what they say and who they are:

They (hard to believe the unknown shooter - looks like a woman to me - wasn't a BLM supporter, but possible) shot two cops, then blocked the emergency room chanting "We hope they die."  Does that sound like a random shooting or the Audubon Society? Amazing, their side claims white silence is violence, but saying We hope they die is just fine with them.    https://justthenews.com/government/local/protestors-blocking-entry-and-exit-emergency-room-say-we-hope-they-die-after-two

This vicious, possibly psychotic young woman involved in these "peaceful" rallies, set five cop cars on fire to intimidate them from showing up where needed.                           https://whyy.org/articles/feds-use-internet-sleuthing-to-charge-philly-woman-with-arson-during-protests/

The "peaceful" BLM threatens to burn down a diamond district.              https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-protester-fox-news-interview-threat-burn-diamond-district-20200607-5wl7bc5y7zgnjefl6aq5qhbqtq-story.html

Thousands of phone threats made to a cop after one arrest at BLM rally.                    https://nypost.com/2020/07/14/threats-flood-nypd-lieutenants-phone-after-blm-rally-arrest/          Thousands of telephone calls. Yet people tell me it's not organized. It may not be centralized, that is, a central authority controlling it, but it is very organized, which is much easier with technological advances. 

Another of "peaceful" BLM leader threatens to burn down WH.                                https://www.the-sun.com/news/1392855/blm-leader-threatens-burn-white-house-police-graves/

BLM leader in NY threatens to burn down the whole system - maybe literally, and declares Bronx for blacks.  What does the whole system mean? I guess the city, your homes, whatever they feel they need to burn until you give. These really are the Nazi now.   https://nypost.com/2020/06/27/nyc-black-lives-matter-leader-hawk-newsome-on-activism-gentrification/

A newspaper editor and BLM partisan threatens white women. Yes, she apologized, but how come people are fired for just saying "All Lives Matter," or people say, his/her opinion doesn't make me feel safe, and she was fired. Well, she worked for WAPO; so, it was nothing to see here - move along.    https://nypost.com/2020/06/30/black-wapo-editor-claims-white-women-lucky-to-be-called-karen/

BLM threatens mayor unrest (in other words, more crimes even though hundreds more shot and killed in Chicago than usual) until they get their way. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2020/8/10/21362612/black-lives-matter-lori-lightfoot-police-shooting-englewood-looting

I could go on for a long time but the pace of the threats and violence would overcome my ability to keep up. I learned at the beginning of this craziness, you can't keep up unless you do nothing else. Of course, someone might respond - here's your team, and give you some examples of right-wing crazies. Here's the difference - whatever organization right-wing crazies might be from, I probably condemn them too. I probably never heard of them, and usually, there is no organization. Just some pathetic crazed loner. I'm not even a conservative. Never been, although now that they have mostly given up the anti-gay crusade, they have drifted more towards me, at least on some issues. That is, they are pro-enlightenment values, pro-free speech, pro-borders and pro-liberty with order.  

The left is not very quick to condemn BLM. Amazingly, and I'm proud of Biden for at least this, although, realistically, he's probably just trying to get elected - he once condemned the violence and Antifa. But, he didn't condemn BLM and if elected, they will be a big part of his policy and administration. And if social justice becomes policy of the federal gov't, there will be no justice. Joe Biden has already said only whites can be racist and I've heard him say the words "White Men" like they were loathsome. Sounds like he is ready.

By the way, you want to think this is racist, go right ahead. It's nothing of the kind. Of course, black lives matter, because all lives do. And it seems there are more white people gone nuts with it than black people. Sometimes I think some blacks will get mad because whites have hijacked it.

Sorry, it's mostly a lie.

There was an article I read once, some years ago actually, entitled Black Lies Matter. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/black-lies-matter. You should read it. It was published in September 2016. Trump wasn't even elected yet. One thing it shows is the lie that this all started with Trump. For example, the murder/assassination of police as a result of the BLM movement was already ongoing. The riots in Baltimore and Missouri had already happened. 

The lies of this movement never end. 

Lie no. 1 and 2. George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson are murderers. If you go to BLM'S website (blacklivesmatter.com)'s about us page you'll see the first big lie, far as I know:

 "#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer."

And what a humdinger of a lie it is. Zimmerman is currently suing over claims over comments that Zimmerman was a murderer (not using his name) Sen. Warren and Mayor Buttigieg. He's also Trayvon's family and lawyer, for, he alleges, trying to frame him. I hope he wins against the pols, who were heinous in their comments (I expect that from Warren, shame on Buttigieg, who I hoped had some decency) and if what GZ says is true about the Martin family/lawyers, well, them too.   

But, they still maintain that his acquittal and the killing of Trayvon is a primary basis for BLM's movement. Racists organizations like BLM, and I include as racist anyone who calls Zimmerman a racist or murderer, because they either watched the trial, know what the testimony was and should know better, or, they are plain idiots, who just go along with what their side states, even calling someone about whom they know nothing, a murderer . Both Warren and Buttigieg did (they intimated). Joe Scarborough, who I remember calling Zimmerman a "thug" (one of the reasons I can no longer watch his show), is another. I give a semi-pass to Martin's family because their grief may obscure all rationality, but for their emotional anger, not any lies. In fact, if you actually watched the trial, the one thing the arrogant prosecutors who mocked him didn't try to say - at all - was that he was racist. No why? Because he was the opposite of one.

You should read the complaint filed by Zimmerman (found in - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144670/george-zimmerman-lawsuit-warren-buttigieg-travyon-martin-defamation-tweets), which will tell you a lot of things that aren't usually said in the media. These are at this point, allegations, which are just what what the plaintiff (here Zimmerman) says, and allegations are sometimes proven, sometimes not. These, well, we will see. But, I'm betting they are based on truthful evidence, because the whole affair was a travesty and lie.

Are you even aware of the death threats against Zimmerman and his family? And they are real, unlike many death threats. One man has already tried to kill him and been given 20 years (Matthew Apperson). Do you know a $100,000 bounty was put on Zimmerman's head by a rapper in a song? Funny, right? Ha ha.

The same nonsense happened after Michael Brown was legitimately killed by a police officer, who had to resign and hide (I think he is still hidden), despite a federal investigation BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION - not the Trump administration, which found many things wrong with the local police department, but also that Brown, who had just robbed a store, not only tried to get Officer Wilson's gun, but then attacked him in the street. Still, BLM puts their hands up and says "don't shoot" in honor of Brown, as if that made-up story is what happened. If they had truth on their side, why make that up? The scenario is frequently repeated. They don't care about the justice of it, or what the facts are, they care only that a black man was shot and therefore some white man or a police officer of any color must pay, guilty or not. Not that sometimes a black man isn't wrongly killed by the police. Of course, it happens and George Floyd is a good example. But, it is far more frequently a white man killed by police than a black man (not by the proportion in the population though). What I notice, is that when anyone, yes, even the demonic white people, see what happened to George Floyd, they are furious and call it murder. You see the few unjustified murders of blacks by police over and over again in the media and they try and convince you it is ever ongoing, frequent. No matter what the criminal did, if it ends up as a black's (usually male) death, there is only one possible judgment for them. That certainly isn't justice. It's social "justice."

Lie no. 3. We have to say "Black Lives Matter," because people don't know it.  

Not true. The overwhelming number of Americans realize that blacks and other groups underwent horrible and murderous oppression (still like that in much of the world). And we realize, most people anyway, that it has ramifications that last generations. When Jack Johnson won the world boxing championship in the early 1900s, he was ripped apart by the media (not least the NYTimes), framed for a crime and hated. That was then. Now, successful blacks, just like whites, are lionized. And when they die, people care. Did you see the outpouring of grief for Kobe Bryant? John Lewis? Ali? Mandela?

Lie no. 4. PEACEFUL? You call this "peaceful?" BLM pretends that it is peaceful. Hmmm. In the early days of this, in (I think) Baltimore, NYC in 2014, there were a string of police murders by individuals who stated they were inspired by the movement and thus killed officers in cold blood. Does anyone even remember that? Maybe not, as it was cops killed, most of the media can't be that interested (they were then). Those are far from the BLM advocates and followers who have killed people. And I'm not even talking about the arson, bullying, punching and other assorted viciousness.

In 2016, six - yes, six officers were killed at a BLM rally in Dallas. The killer invoked BLM. Peaceful?Obama then said that it wasn't the '60s, we were more united than that (Donald Trump, then just a candidate, said we were not united, and obviously, he was right). Obama called Micah Johnson, the killer demented and said he wasn't representative of anyone else, and he just used BLM as a way to express his anger. Hmmm. Okay. Seems like we have thousands doing that now - because since the George Floyd killing, there has been a whole lot of rioting, killing, arson . . . etc., in the name of BLM.  

Recently, the laughable study came out that 93 % of the rallies are peaceful since Floyd was killed. That left only 543 violent rallies in the roughly three months and they don't count individual or smaller acts of violence, such as out and out murder based on the movement - like with former officer David Dorn right at the beginning, or local outbursts, like bullies and scum in Rochester, NY who scared everyone out of a diner. If you watch many cable news channels or network news, you can't even realize what is going on. But, there have been increased shootings in the thousands and deaths at least increased in the many hundreds (could be a thousand by now - I'd have to study it) as a result of these rallies after Floyd's killing, particularly in NYC, once with an admirably low homicide rate. Chicago, Seattle, and other cities where the government, usually mayors, take the "protesters" (read - murderers, arsonists, etc.) side, at least until they show up at their house. Who do they blame? Trump, of course. Even though he has offered federal help, which they refuse; even though he is one of the few who regularly denounces the violence (yes, Biden, who at the same time, blamed Trump without an explanation, and said the feds weren't coming to help in his administration). Actually, if Biden is elected, I expect the D led cities will beg for federal help because it won't be Trump they are asking. They'd rather their citizens die, in my opinion, and cities made unlivable than help themselves if they think it will help Trump.

More lies? Any analysis of killings by police, including liberal outlets like the Washington Post, shows that there are few unjustified killings by police in this often violent country with 330,000,000 people. More police are killed by people than police kill anyone of any ethnic group. More whites are killed by police than blacks, despite the fact that the overwhelming number of suspected and convicted murderers are black. And they are mostly killing other black people or Hispanics. 

Lie no. 5. Their name. They sure don't act like they think it matters.   Black Lives Matter certainly doesn't care about black lives.The movement ignores the overwhelming deaths of people in the aftermath of Floyd's killing and call for more revolution (that's what they call it). Little children are shot down in cold blood and they don't seem to care at all.  A survey during the recent riots showed over 80% of blacks wanted the same or more police, not less, but the BLM movement calls for defunding police. Is George Floyd the only one whose life mattered? Another generation of black children will be taught they are victims and whites privileged, rather than be taught the value of education. The movement seeks to change education to make it about social justice rather than you know, things like math and history.

You know who could care less about black lives?  If you don't know who Davell Gardner, Jr. is or David Dorn (look them up) - two examples, but you know George Floyd's name well, it's because BLM and most of the media could care less about those who don't advance their crooked narrative. But, somehow, though partly responsible for anyone's death as a result of the movement, Al Sharpton eulogized that poor one year old. Gun violence, he blamed. Not BLM's inciting thousands of shootings and hundreds of additional deaths above normal since Floyd's killing by getting their supporters super-charged for violence,and making the streets super-unsafe while they are busy trying to defund and render useless the police against gangs.

Lie no. 6. But, Black Lives Matter is just the name of different non-profits, right? You can't blame BLM as a thing. Yes, it's decentralized, but their t-shirts, their slogans, their chants and speeches, their constant theme tells us its a decentralized movement. Still a movement. Even the media recognizes that. Decentralized works because it makes it harder to blame individuals.

Imagine if we applied that same rationale to the "mafia." Remember, "there's no mafia." Or applied to the many separate Klan groups or neo-Nazi groups or just White Supremacists. Can't blame them because there are different groups? "Don't be ridiculous," they'd say. And it would be ridiculous. Just like it is to say it about BLM. It's a movement and its deadly, mostly for blacks and other minorities.

7. Black lives are not given the same value as white ones. What? 

So, Critical Race Theory, according to Wikipedia -  "Critical race theory (CRT) is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power."  

Sounds, hmmm, like science. Of course, it's nothing of the sort. It's just racism put into fancy words. You think not. Get this, from the same article: 

"From the CRT perspective, the white skin that some Americans possess is akin to owning a piece of property, in that it grants privileges to the owner that a renter (in this case, a person of color) would not be afforded.^[31] Cheryl I. Harris and Gloria Ladson-Billings describe this notion of whiteness as property, whereby whiteness is the ultimate property that whites alone can possess; valuable just like property. The property functions of whiteness – i.e., rights to disposition; rights to use and enjoyment, reputation, and status property; and the absolute right to exclude – make the American dream more likely and attainable for whites as citizens.

Believe it or not, some law schools in America teach this. Whiteness is a property right? Tell that to white people passed over for a job and literally told they are the wrong race. Do whites get extra points on SAT scores (known as adversity points)? Do white males get contracts set aside for them by the government? Are there quotas (or, factors, as they pretend) in colleges helping Asians or whites?  There are many other examples, of course. You can even argue there are good reasons for all of this. But, don't tell me that white skin is a property right. Maybe at one time. Not for a long time now. Well over a half-century and getting better all the time.

Lie no. 8. "No justice, no peace."  

Really, just another excuse to commit crimes, at the very least, disorderly conduct, at worst, murder. If they wanted justice, there would be no lies about Trayvon, Michael and Crystal, etc. Wait, you don't remember Crystal Mangum. She was the stripper who performed at a frat party at Duke University and then tried to destroy the lives of some white boys because she didn't get paid enough by claiming rape. And, with the help of idiots and vicious racists, black and white, she almost succeeded. Thankfully, in the end, it was the prosecutor who got disbarred and went to jail. He shouldn't have been the only one. She walked away scot-free even though she clearly committed a crime. Was that the justice they want? Actually, it is. She had black skin and that's what matters to racists, skin color. In real life, we often treat blacks better than we treat white people. It's consistent with studies showing that police are actually slower to shoot blacks they are arresting than whites. Read the Black Lies Matter article, I mentioned the top. And that was years ago.

What justice do they want? We know some want money, because we hear about reparations all the time, and not millions, not billions . . . trillions. Is the justice they want that the first 200 or so defendants tried after the violence at the Trump inauguration were acquitted. All of them. They gave up on the rest to save money. Well, that is the justice they want.

It's not justice - it's the opposite.

I could go on. What does it matter? Those with ears will hear. Others will shut their eyes, ears and mouths. You want to think this is racist, go ahead. It's the opposite of racist - 

Because all lives matter.

What do reparations for blacks and social justice have in common?

The answer to the question is that both are based on the same racial theories that underlay Nazi Germany and the Klan's positions that we are what our ethnicity is (as defined by them, of course). It is the opposite of MLK, Jr.s dream that we be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin.

Has anyone ever explained to you what reparations really mean? It means, in the abstract (any law would have particulars) that certain people are entitled to financial payments because of their skin color from others because of their skin color. Or maybe birth. And if we should do that once (you know that many would never be satisfied it is enough) why not every year? 

We have a system of justice and law that allows for reparations every day, of course. But, not ones based on ethnicity or religion for people who were not wronged. It is one thing to ask that if X injured Y, that X (or in today's world, often the insurance company) pay for Y's injury. It is one thing to ask if X's son inherited Y's property which X stole from Y, it is returned to Y. It is quite another thing to say if people who shared a skin tone with people who had slaves 155 years or more ago, they must pay people who have a skin tone similar to some people who were slaves 155 and more years ago.

Race reparations is repulsive for many reasons. Foremost, of course, because it calls for the law to judge between us based on our ethnicity, that is, the DNA our parents gave us. Which normally is against the law, of course, for many decades now. 

It is repulsive because there is no way to do it. No one is really black or white or any color they are identified as by themselves or others. Now it is considered okay to say "black" or "white," but not yellow or red, for who knows what reasons. Some would add black, but even black lives matter uses black and says it is a "black" movement (read their webpage). Whites, whom popular culture now has determined is the skin color to be demonized (just listen to Joe Biden say "white men"), seems to be okay. Obama said he was black enough (when some on his own side said he wasn't black enough) to get pulled over for no reason by a cop. But trust me, they don't take that very far. They don't mean Italians with dark-colored skin.

It is repulsive because it is anti-historical. And, if you speak to some who support the black lives matter movement, they are against the teaching of history in school or history books. Why? They have no rational reasons that I heard, but it is based on the fact that it is western civilization - that is, European-American-centric. No doubt, to some degree it is. But, I notice that I learned about slavery and many negative things about our country. Why is it important to learn? So we can get better. No teacher ever suggested to me that slavery was okay, only wrong. Here's the reason I think they want to destroy history. If we destroy history, we destroy the reasons we have certain laws, or fairness, or equal opportunity or ideas about justice. And then they can substitute their own theories, all, which, no surprise, favor them.

So, because of your skin color, you, who never owned a slave, or supported slavery, or supported Jim Crow, nor did your children, are responsible to pay those who were never slaves or suffered from Jim Crow, nor their children, but for what some people who have nothing to do with you either did to other people who have nothing to do with them. Except, if you add in skin color.   

They want your money, even if your family didn't come over here until the 20th century - even the 21st. It's back to apartheid for them, and MLK, Jr. is certainly rolling in his grave.

For example, my paternal grandmother came from Russia. She was Jewish. She remembered, as an old woman, hiding under the bed with her mother as the Cossacks came through town on a pogrom. Her husband's family came from Hungary. Both got here in the early 19th century and had to start from scratch. I don't know exactly when my maternal grandparents' parents got here, as my grandparents were born in America. But, it was in the late 1800s or early 1900s, as immigrants from Eastern Europe. All Jews. It was all many decades after the Civil War and emancipation. If anything, some of them dealt with oppression themselves. Jews were not exactly a favored group. Waves of immigrants after the Civil War came over - Germans, Italians, Irish, etc. And they were also not exactly favored either, not given a starting pot of money to make it and never given reparations for unfair treatment. Nor are all blacks families pre-Civil War American or even pre-end of Jim Crow. Many have come over after. 

Do those with Arab or Hispanic background pay reparations for treatment in the middle east or the Spanish Inquisitition? Don't the Jews lives matter? What is the % of African descent you have to be to receive reparations? Do the multi-millionaire Obama's get them? Obama is half-Swedish. Should he pay and receive reparations. There is no possible way, even if you bought into the premise, to do it right. Germany did pay reperations to Israel. But, it was for what happened to living people by the responsible party.

Reparations will cause more upheaval, more hatred, than most any law since the Fugitive Slave Acts. 

What is social justice? It is the opposite of justice. It means, of course, that justice is based on skin color. In fact, reparations are based on social justice.  Now, our own constitution allows for these things. The 14th amendment was made, in part, to allow congress to fix the unfixable, except by time and education (including history). Some of the laws passed under it or the other Civil War amendments have helped our country. In some ways, I believe some of them are unconstitutional, but, I don't deny they helped. But, what is wanted now is not help, but payback or revenge or apartheid. 

Social justice apparently teaches that we shouldn't teach math because it is - get ready - racist. You think I'm kidding, look it up.  Some schools in our country teach social justice with math examples. Talk about proselytizing. Some colleges teach their education students that this is how to teach math.

You think I'm kidding? Making this up? A few years ago educators in NYC went home for the summer with required reading. Not how the children can better be taught math or reading or writing better. Not how they could better themselves. But it was a book on social justice, essentially how to teach the kids that blacks are victims and whites are privileged. It was purely political. I saw the book myself in the home of an educator and it was explained to me that this is what it was.

I now, as a lawyer, every two years take an hour class on Diversity, Inclusion and Elimination of Bias. Doesn't matter what I or anyone else believes. I must be indoctrinated. It is the only political requirement. And it presumes that we don't know that you shouldn't judge people by race, or, wait a second - isn't judging by race the whole point of the movement?

And, as Trump just learned, federal workers were being forced to take classes in "critical race theory," which, includes the premise that white skin is akin to owning a piece of property, granting privileges to them "a person of color" doesn't get. This from Wikipedia:

"From the CRT perspective, the white skin that some Americans possess is akin to owning a piece of property, in that it grants privileges to the owner that a renter (in this case, a person of color) would not be afforded.^[31] Cheryl I. Harris and Gloria Ladson-Billings describe this notion of whiteness as property, whereby whiteness is the ultimate property that whites alone can possess; valuable just like property. The property functions of whiteness—i.e., rights to disposition; rights to use and enjoyment, reputation, and status property; and the absolute right to exclude—make the American dream more likely and attainable for whites as citizens."

Of course, you know if Biden is elected, whatever Trump does to stop it, every federal employee will be getting their dose of indoctrination. 

Social Justice means, if Trayvon Martin tries to kill George Zimmerman, and is killed instead, while he beats George's head in on the ground, George must be further traumatized with death threats and prosecuted for murder without even a grand jury because he's white (I don't know how he wasn't considered a person of color too) and Trayvon was black. Our most divisive president, far more than Trump could ever be, didn't say, Trayvon or George could be my son, even though Obama was half-European. He said Trayvon could be my son. 

Social justice means that if Michael Brown tries to get an officer's gun, and then attacks him (which is what even Obama's justice department found), the officer must be demonized and his life severely impacted. You know the first social justice math example they should really use is - Social justice = no justice.

You want to know something real creepy? This social justice movement is pretty close to the one Hitler used against the Jews. I'm going to do a whole other blog on the movement's relationship to fascism, so I will stop there except for one last point -

No one with a brain denies that there is a million-year history of slavery, oppression and generally horrible behavior of every group against different groups throughout the world, as long as there were humans. No one disagrees that America's founding including a murderous and hideous oppression of blacks, Native Americans and others. No one denies that women, gays and many ethnic groups were burdened with oppression and the need to fight their way up. Many make it. I was for the Civil Rights movement of the '60s and '70s. I was young then, but I still feel that way. I'm for many of the improvements in our culture in the '50s and '70s (some afterwards), and even agree that sometimes, even often, violence against oppression was justified. John Brown who died for trying to free slaves was a historic hero to me. But, the world changed. I never tire of quoting President Obama in 2016. He said this or things like it repeatedly, while on the side of his mouth he encouraged feelings of victimization and separationism (now, more his wife's job). He said this to graduates at a historic black university:

"If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be–what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you’d be born into–you wouldn’t choose 100 years ago. You wouldn’t choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You’d choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, “young, gifted, and black” in America, you would choose right now."

Do you think BLM members would approve? Please.

Letter to Biden supporters

I write this letter, heavy at heart, for it is an open letter to many of my best friends, who, not surprisingly, have decided they will vote for Biden -in fact, they must!

Unlike many conservatives, of which I've never been, or other Trump supporters, I don't think it is because they are bad people. That's ridiculous. Some are wonderful people. But, they tell me that Trump is too egotistical, too self-centered, too delusional, etc., and seem to have no problem - they never mention it - with the huge amount of Democrats who are pro-socialism, pro-rioting, pro-antifa, anti-police, anti-border, anti-American history, etc, and the threat that with Democrat takeover, these will all become entrenched in our lives. Yes, I would rather have an egotistical, often idiotic president than a party in power that is against our having borders or acts the way Ds did at the Kavanaugh hearing, trying to disrupt it, or before Trump even took power, trying to take over the House floor because they didn't get their way on votes, or the attacks on free speech, including trying to drive speakers they don't like away or physically intimidate or harass Republicans (or kill them), or won't condemn Antifa, the modern-day brown shirts, as the fascists they are. 

In fact, often I hear from them that they have never heard some of the things I tell them. I've been hearing that for a few years from friends on the left.  Inevitably, they watch CNN or MSNBC or get their news from other former mainstream media sources, all now part of the "resistance."

I can think of some of them who I believe keep up on what really happens (btw, for the few readers who think you recognize yourself, you really don't - many people tell me the same things and some you might have said some of the same things too), but they, probably you, have adopted what I can only call the delusions of the left, that Trump is some evil spirit, and everything he says or does must be canceled, sued, attacked in the press. As a mere commenter said pithily in a comment in a newspaper when someone said that he did one good thing - No, no credit for Trump ever. Though I doubt more than a handful of people read that; it seemed to become the mantra. The hatred seems that deep. 

I cannot say I differ much in many of their views of Trump, although I don't think as badly of him as many do. I have long said he was bad for Republicans, called him an idiot, crazy, irresponsible, and many other names. But, now, watching the greatest effort to unseat a president since Lincoln, the most irresponsible, anti-American sentiment since the 1960s, and that at least he has stood up for our country against other countries, stood up for a beleaguered judicial nominee when no other president I remember ever would have, and even stands up against our allies when they are wrong, and for them when they are right - well, he's a lot better than Obama, even if he has none of his charm. Trump may deserve to be disliked, but our country does not deserve to be destroyed.

What are you thinking? Do you know that cities are literally burning some nights - yes, burning. That there are regular attacks on government workers, even attempts are made to murder police - even burn them alive - as even the sicko mayor of Portland, who was leading BLM chants until they turned on him and showed up at his house, learned? Maybe you know none of it. I don't watch tv, but you can find it on the internet. And people are dying, or in terrible pain, even crippled if they live. Some may have been luckier to die. This includes little children. A report came out today that 93% of BLM rallies are peaceful. That reminds me of my favorite sick joke - So, Mrs. Lincoln, other than that, how did you enjoy the play? Are you kidding me - some people find solace in rioting all over the country that has torn the fabric of some of our cities. How about this one - well, we only dropped one bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, so it was a mostly peaceful day. Tell it to the 150,000 who died instantly or the hundreds of thousands who perished later.  

Here's what I have to tell you. The media has lied to you. Not just a little but a lot. They are not journalists but mostly advocates for the D party and many for radicals who would beat you up just for disagreeing with them. And they aren't just lying about the polls, women who dated Trump (that happened early on - and failed), Russia, Ukraine, etc., they are beating drums and you are dancing to it.

They have taught you to hate the easily hateable Trump so much, that some of my good friends, wonderful people in my opinion, have said things to me such as - well, if he was assassinated I wouldn't be upset; life won't be right until most conservatives die (sadly, though, surveys show only slightly fewer conservatives feel the same about them); I hate him so much I don't care if I lose everything; it's okay for people to harass people for what they think - and the like. The best are the ones who just won't talk about it, or will tell you their view and then say - let's not talk about it; and I presume it's because they don't like being told their facts are wrong.

They had misled you terribly as to what is going on in the world and they have imbibed and passed onto you tried and true methods of fascists everywhere; control the media; control or get rid of the police; proselytize the children; take every weapon from citizens or make it impossible to use them; try to pass laws outlawing speech they don't like and demonizing everyone against their way.

They have convinced you that Trump is a fascist, based on their knowledge that most people don't know much about fascists in our country. If you read what went on in Germany in the '20s and '30s you might realize what's going on, unless so primed you cannot see the tactics of the left-right now. And I don't care whether a fascist is left or right, or you'd rather call them totalitarians, authoritarians, bullies or gangs. It doesn't matter.  Most politicians pretty much become hypocrites one way or another.  Believe me, I'm still no fan of the right. But, what the D party has become in the last few years, approaches fascism more every turn of the screw. I've said it many times, the attempt to demonize Kavanaugh, even have him and his family suffer death threats, because the D senators hated Trump, is the worst thing I and others have seen in politics since the days of Jim Crow. I've hated Rs at times, especially in the '80s and '90s, but never was so ashamed of a party after watching what the Ds and the media tried to do to Kavanaugh, or the Russia hoax (I know, you never heard that), the ridiculous impeachment attempt, etc. It is one thing after another. 

How exactly is Trump a fascist? Oh, yes, he puts people in cages who try to cross the border, when it turns out the so-called cages were built by the Obama Administration; some of the pictures are from then too.  Oh, yes, he ignores judges - although, in reality, unlike his predecessor, he follows court orders. How else? He's authoritarian! How? If you ask, you will probably not get a response. Yes, I know he says stupid things all the time - But, you know who's killing people, and most minorities? Not Trump, not the right-wing. Not the Tea Parties. You know who most of the victims are? Minorities, killed or shot or maimed by other minorities. Does BLM care? Are you kidding me? Those people don't fit the narrative. They don't make BLM's web pages. Hundreds of blacks dead - not just George Floyd - some as young as one year old. Those babies will not see two. Their families will never be the same. Don't you care at all about that? How can you not care? 

Years ago, when Antifa raised its storm trooper head, I was shocked to see the NYT's, once my favorite media source for 50+ years, ignore them and so did most every left news org. Even now they will not condemn this violent group. Only Fox and right-wing orgs. covered it at all. So, of course, my friends on the left and even the right who hate Trump so much they watch CNN, never heard of these things. The media, even with social media, is very powerful, and dangerous. Please don't tell me the media was always partisan. In our lifetime, not like this. 

Ready for some things people on the left have told me they never heard about:

1. That President Obama accidentally said on a hot mike to Putin's no. 1 man, Medvedev, then prime minister of Russia - our enemy - that he would be more flexible with them once he won the 2016 election. In other words, he was lying to us, the American people, and pretending to be tougher with Russia over missiles. Was he impeached? Of course not. Trump has been called treasonous, monstrous, fascist, for literally made up dealings with Russia. Yet, every witness against Trump in the impeachment hearings against him for merely asking the Ukrainian pm if he would investigate corruption, said that Trump had helped Ukraine much more than Obama. Yes, the Ukraine that Ds supposedly cried for during the impeachment and we haven't heard them mention since; the ones they starved of weapons to defend themselves until Trump's arrival. But, I've been told by friends on the left, it never happened - Obama never said that. Really?

2. That Trump's administration helped foster the historic peace deal with Israel and the United Arab Emirates. I was told just the other day that I was making it up. Anyone other than Trump would have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize for this. It is all but forgotten by the media. Come on, they gave it to Obama when he elected for no other reason than skin color. He himself admitted he had done nothing to deserve it.

3. They certainly never heard something I frequently quote - that Obama repeatedly said in 2016, after BLM had started, in speeches -- that the best time ever to be a minority was right now, right here. Why doesn't he say it anymore? I'll tell you why. Even he would lose his reputation. But, you probably never heard that because the media barely reports it. But, type in google, Obama speeches best time ever for minorities - see what you get. They can't bury everything.

4.  They never heard that Biden has been caught on camera dozens of times fondling women, actually doing what they accuse Trump of doing. You can see him press himself face to face into Hillary Clinton's body for an extraordinarily long hug, while she tries to tap out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJWftTPUCCA&ab_channel=DailyMail. There's are dozens of videos starring Joe and an incredibly creepy touching problem with women and children. Just go to youtube and put in "creepy joe biden videos." You can see him place his hands right under a women's breast in one video, so she had to put her own hands over them in obvious fear he was going to feel her up in front of a crowd. If you don't only read/watch CNN, MSNBC, etc., you would certainly know that one woman, a D (or at least she was) has said he literally pinned her against the wall and inserted fingers into her body. There are some supporters who are at least honest enough to admit they believe he did that, but they don't care - and say so. They hate Trump that much. You might or might not know that another woman said though she didn't even know him he came up behind her at a political rally and kissed her on the back of the head. Trump gets accused by women in the "resistance." These women who Biden touched or even molested are on his side. 

5. Yesterday, a woman told me that Trump admitted that he had done exactly what he was accused of by the Ds in the House, on the Ukrainian issue, and that we can't have that. When I told her I watched the hearings and the only witness, an ambassador, yes, a Trump supporter and friend, but who did not testify favorably to Trump at all (in fact, the left used his testimony) gave the only testimony of anyone who actually asked Trump what he wanted from Ukraine: "“[I]t was a very short, abrupt conversation. He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky’ ” — that is, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — "‘to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.” Here's the difference between the woman I spoke with the other day and me. I actually watched the testimony (a great deal of it, anyway). I don't know where she got her information, but I would bet dollars to donuts it is CNN, MSNBC or at school (she's in academia). 

6. Only a few minutes before writing this paragraph, another friend, far left, who even admitted that the radicals on his side would literally kill him if they had the power and he disagreed with them, said he will still vote for Biden, whom he says he never liked, because he's "not Trump" [same reasoning]. He also said that the violence wasn't by BLM - but by right-wingers showing up and causing the violence. Really, the right-wingers are doing the looting burning, trying to burn cops to death in Portland (I know, you never heard that - right?), in Seattle, in Wisconsin, in Minneapolis, etc., trying to defund the police, etc.? Is there any reality left? You have to wonder why D mayors are supporting them (at least until they show up at their house).

Right-wingers?  Really. The D party controls those cities, which is why the looting and murdering has taken off there and not in R communities. If it has anywhere, it's the rarity. Too frequently, police and citizens who even defend themselves against violence or seek to declare their own message are arrested. 

I know most of you are not radicals. You don't want any of that. But you will still support the nominee who is on their side, who though he says he is for borders and that looting and arson aren't protest, also supports BLM, won't say a bad word about Antifa, and says this is a local matter - no federal troops. That guy. A local matter? I'm sure the actual oppressed people of the South in the '50s and '60s were damn glad of help from the federal government, unlike now, when the so-called protesters actually try and kill them. I will tell you one thing, if it was neo-nazis or the Klan murdering people left in right, or inspired by their movement, the feds and the police would be ordered there in a heart-beat. 

In conversations with my most friends who are voting for Biden, I find out that they even agree with me on actual issues - they are not pro-BLM or Antifa (who some have now heard of). They don't want riots and they do want police. But, then they say "you know this is all Trump's fault" too many times for me to think they aren't affected by the media campaign for radical politics. 

I wonder, have you read the letter by Bari Weiss, formerly an editor of the NYTimes, who quit over the censoring of even centrist, let alone conservative views and that she faced "unlawful discrimination" and a "hostile work environment." The most important paragraph in her letter could probably be said about every left-wing media outlet in the country:

""The lessons that ought to have followed the election — lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society — have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

Remember, a senior editor at the Times actually lost his job for publishing an article by a Republican Senator shortly before that. It's actually happening all over the country (I won't repeat earlier posts, but there have been firings for any infringement of the new radical orthodoxy). 

You think this isn't true at CNN, MSNBC, the big networks? A similar open letter arose from MSNBC, written by Ariana Pekary, who stayed as long as she could until she couldn't take it anymore. As she explains, it's not just MSNBC:

"You may not watch MSNBC but just know that this problem still affects you, too. All the commercial networks function the same – and no doubt that content seeps into your social media feed, one way or the other.

It’s possible that I’m more sensitive to the editorial process due to my background in public radio, where no decision I ever witnessed was predicated on how a topic or guest would “rate.” The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.

But behind closed doors, industry leaders will admit the damage that’s being done.

“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.”

As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings."

At CNN, they almost had a revolution because someone - gasp - allowed a conservative voice on a panel. They actually hired an ex-Trump spokesperson as an editor, but had to relegate her to a part-time post as a commentator because the left wasn't having it. They can't have people telling the truth - 

I've really never watched much FoxNews (no more, often less than MSNBC, until Morning Joe became essentially Morning Mika and insanely anti-Trump), although for a couple of years I watched The Five, which always had cons, mods and yes, real liberals on it. And, Fox is, except for their nighttime lineup, almost as liberal now as the other networks. One Fox reporter I saw even called the Seattle CHOP zone, despite the looting, arson, murder, and yes, treasonous behavior (they declared themselves autonomous), "mostly peaceful protests." But, at least Fox has both sides on their telecasts. Juan Williams and former congresswoman, Donna Brazile, and others, clearly say exactly what they want. Even some of Fox's regulars are anti-Trump and he regularly battles with them too. And, the Harvard University study found that during the campaign, virtually the only network that allowed both positive and negative stories about Trump was Fox - roughly 50/50. The others were almost completely negative. It is no secret that the radicals are after companies not to advertise on Tucker Carlson's show. Why? Well, again, I haven't watched his show on FOX more than a few times, and I found even then, I often enough disagreed with him, but he is telling the truth about the violence in the country, and they can't have that. You might not, if you watch CNN, for example, know that an Antifa gang showed up at Carlson's house and terrified his wife, with children inside. Maybe your hatred has grown to the extent you don't care. 

CNN pioneered cable news. But, it has become ridiculous biased in its coverage. I don't care what the opinions they give are - they can have stupid opinions. It's failing to cover anything showing the hypocrisy and violence of the left and the almost constant lies about Trump and anyone they associate with him (e.g., lie after lie over Russia-gate, the impeachment and Kavanaugh) that are so dangerous now. CNN has twice this year had commentators or reporters reporting that the protests were mostly peaceful with burning buildings in the background. 

Let me center my message better. I know you are good people. I know you don't want to see people murdered all over the country. I also know some of you hate Trump so much that you really don't care what happens to the country or yourselves just so he loses (a number of you have said as much to me). And you believe the litany of lies about him and his administration (he colluded with Russia, committed a crime with Ukraine  - although, not according to Ukraine). But, you are being lied to by the media and Ds at a record-setting pace.

It doesn't matter if Trump is obnoxious, arrogant, delusional, stupid, etc. Biden may not be senile (I don't believe that), but, obviously, he has significantly declined, and if you ever saw him speak, you would know that other than being far more charming than Trump, he is also conceited, sometimes arrogant, now angry, often unbelievably stupid (his gaffes are in the top rank, probably along with Dan Quayle - my favorite being when he (Biden) asked his friend, who was a paraplegic, to stand up in a crowd). Biden and Trump are no different in terms of truth-telling. Some of you may remember that Biden more than once plagiarized a British professor. But, actually, his lying was completely off the charts over and over. A Trump ad shows it by just using tapes from the past - it's not Trump speaking - it's 1980s newscasters and commentators describing Biden's history of lies and plagiarism.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCJMF7mflGE&ab_channel=DonaldJTrump. Trump wouldn't have to do it if the media was doing its job. And it was actually fact checked by Politifact and they, of course, found it true, because it is undeniable. And don't think it's just the right who thinks so. The left has repeatedly called Biden to task for lying before he was the likely VP candidate in 2008. Some still do. Branco Marcetic, a progressive/socialist, and certainly anti-Trump writer, not only wrote a book about Biden but frequently details his lies in print. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCJMF7mflGE&ab_channel=DonaldJTrump. Honestly, when Biden was caught plagiarizing on the stump way back when, I believed him when he said that it was a mistake and that he didn't realize what he was doing. I didn't know the half of it.  

Right now we are heading towards an existential crisis in our country. The most radical person I know told me he agrees with me that our country, regardless of who is elected, will be facing a lot of political violence in our future. We differ in that he imagines it is right-wingers (where were the tea party riots, I wonder, or the D politicians who are being mobbed or chased out of public places by thugs), where I can't see almost any right-wing violence for years - but oodles and oodles, hundreds of thousands of left-wing violence. Our country has not dealt with this level of violence and political upheaval (mostly minorities) since the 1960s. Biden in office, especially if it brings in a D Senate too, means power to radicals who will roll Joe Biden along with them. There's a division in the party between moderates and radicals, but the radicals are a big number now and Nancy and Chuck have already taken a knee to them (literally) and are clearly afraid of them. 

Remember, Obama had Sharpton, one of the most divisive men in America (Sharpton was dividing people when Trump was chasing his first millions), and one of the most dishonest, in the WH over 80 times. You must know that BLM will be in the cabinet or have an office in the WH if Biden wins.  I read BLM literature and they are not kidding. Whites are automatically racist. For some - and Biden has said this - only whites can be racist. They support murderers, or criminals who got killed, simply because of their skin color. They actually have declared a revolution. They actually proudly base their movement on skin color - exactly what our country had to learn not do. We were supposed to be past all that. Now, some people want the reverse. But, in over a hundred years, the Klan was never able to pile up dead bodies at this rate, and I'm not making that up. Literally, no group should be as happy as the Klan about BLM, because they are killing blacks, in droves. If only the news covered it like it deserves, you'd know that too.

I know, you think the real bad guys won't gain enough power, or it won't affect you. You'll keep your head down, or capitulate. It's not your neighborhood. That's how the Nazi's got power. And many a German said it would never get out of control, even those in leadership roles. It too was a race war. It too was a political war. BLM website calls their movement a revolution, and says it is about skin color. You think they want actual "justice?" No, they want "social justice," which means guilt by skin color, rather than the evolution we've undergone in justice over the decades. Maybe, again, you aren't aware that there are calls for "reparations," a crazy idea unless you were actually a slave owner or involved in Jim Crow, of up to 13 TRILLION dollars (I rounded down). Already in schools, jobs and governments across the country, people are simply afraid to speak or know that if they say the "wrong" thing, they will be fired. Just ask your friends who work for a school or tech job if they can say "All Lives Matter" in a public meeting, or that they dislike BLM. 

Not that I think that this is really about skin color to many of them. Many, sometimes most of the rioters seem to be whites.  Most black people polled say they don't want less police (over 80%). It's about socialism, tearing down western civilization (that has given so much to the world, even with a checkered past). Without family, without history (many radicals want to destroy - history; you will notice it has stopped being taught in some places to a large extent), without capitalism, without enlightenment values like free speech and law and order, we are actually doomed. And with us the hopes of the world - but we get ahead of ourselves here. All hope is not lost.

The biggest lie about Trump, and that's a tough statement as remember we wasted 2 years on RussiaGate, is that he is destroying our institutions. That's amazing, but part of the big lie. Here's why you should vote Trump, and why I, a dedicated moderate (formerly a liberal) who hasn't voted for President since 2008, and has voted for more Ds than Rs, am voting for a man I regularly call an idiot. 

Trump                 At least many Democrats, including most of those who ran for president

For a border         Against a border (I will say, not Biden  but a lot of his party)

For prosecution     For decriminalizing illegal immigration.

of illegal border 

crossing

Offered federal      Look at any of the radicalized cities, Portland, Kenosha, Seattle, 

troops to quell       NYC, Chicago, etc and alone it accounts for 99+% of all political 

radical violence     violence.

and keep federal 

workers from                             

being murdered 

Pro-police            Wants to defund the police (who do you think wants 

                            to defund the police other than thugs?) and get violent criminals 

                            right back on the street AND in the voting booth.

 

Pro-Israel            The radicals in the D party are anti-Israel, one of our best allies, 

                            and many anti-semitic. Some follow Farrakhan, who is notoriously 

                            anti-Semitic. Amazingly to me, most American Jews, who have 

                            long been majority D but pro-Israel, support Biden. 

For the electoral   Against the electoral college (which means only 

college (which     D states like Cali and NY Count).

means all states

count).

Keeping the        Packing the Supreme Court so that the left wins every case.

Supreme Court

at 9, as the last

150 years

For the justice   For social justice, which means no justice, or justice by skin color or 

system (which   ethnicity, not based on the individual. If there ever was a good

is always           example, it is George Zimmerman. He is still branded a murderer

imperfect)         by social justice "warriors." But, if you watched the trial, I did, you

                          would see, he was acquitted because even most prosecution 

                          witnesses testified in his favor.

And, so on. Think I'm being overly dramatic? Think I'm right-wing (I admit, the right-wing has moderated in recent years and come closer to my position and the left has been running in the other direction except on a few issues). In future posts, I hope, to show you how the "revolution" is mimicking the Third Reich's rise. It's not phony, it's not right-wing. It's your lives and the lives of your children and grandchildren.

You don't have to like Trump. It's too hard. But, you can like your country. Don't let radicals take it over. It would be like giving up food because you don't like strawberries.

I typed fast so, sorry about errors. And sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. Don't mean to. This is too serious to be quiet, even with friends. I've never felt any election is so important.

Post script - 9/21/20. I re-read this, as I often do after hastily posting, to fix some obvious typos and the like. I felt I should point out that Biden, in a recent speech, finally called out the rioters and even recently condemned Antifa. I've said as much in more recent blogs, but adding it here too. I'm glad he did it (though, probably largely political). But, ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. Why? He hasn't made the unmistakable connection between the huge upswing in deaths and shootings in the cities where they are handcuffing police by threatening them with prosecution for doing their job or defunding them - and the BLM rioting post-George Floyd. He hasn't changed his views at all on BLM, who Obama had many times to the WH, although Sharpton more. He hasn't changed his view on the evil of "white men," and that only whites can be racist. We can't have a WH that is pro-BLM, or anti-white (or anti-any ethnic group) especially as it is now the most well-funded gang in the country who frequently makes threats to destroy the country. And if you disagree with the use of "gang," read my post on "The Nazi's play book."  He is still in a party where almost every leader (certainly all the others who ran for president) is anti-border enforcement, anti-law enforcement, anti-electoral college, threatens to pack the Supreme Court, and so on. And, it seems, growing - anti-Semitism (I know, you don't believe it - but a few days ago 162 Ds [as opposed to 1 R and one Ind.] voted against including anti-Semitism in an anti-discrimination law). If Biden could flip on the Hyde Amendment, which was very important to him, he can flip on anything. I expect we will see BLM entrenched in the WH. Remember, he picked his VP not on qualifications, but his best choice based on gender and skin color.