So, you don't think we live in a fascist state?

I know. You think I'm being hysterical or overly dramatic. What fascism, right? There are no concentration camps. No one is being marched? Well, that's true. But, people are being killed, people are being intimidated, people are rioting and street fighting, are trying to kill cops and to defund the police (as I've pointed out before, only gangs and other criminals want that) and are trying to make us base policy, law and even personal decisions on ethnicity. 

There are definitely reasons many of you - I would say the overwhelming number of people - don't think we are headed towards fascism. Or autocracy, totalitarianism, etc. It doesn't matter what form it will take, how it happens or what you call it. What matters is that the degree of freedom you have as a private citizen, if there is such thing, has already decreased remarkably in a few years. Remarkably. And the Democrat's are doing everything they can to make this a one party country and to further racism and fascism. 

And, they, the fascists, are winning. Many people haven't recognized or refuse to do so because they can't stop reading/watching our version of Pravda (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, NYTIMES, WAPO, Bloomberg, etc.) and their continuous misrepresentations and propaganda. Or they are immersed in a community - their career, friends, family, neighbors, where it is all one side - the left. Of course, some Trump hating Democrats are very politically knowledgeable, but they are still caught up in what even Rose McGowan (though a Trump hating nut, if you ask me) calls a "cult." Some people just don't want to believe it is possible in the U.S. I get it. I was one of those people and didn't want to, until the evidence became overwhelming. We must fight fascism even if others laugh at or hate us. Even if we should be scared.

I couldn't decide whether to make this post about the extra-ordinary hypocrisy of the Biden administration or the fascism inherent in what I call the "great leap left," that is, when the left started to not continue to drift further left, but to take giant steps in that direction, culminating in the hate and hysteria-fest accompanying Trump's election. I decided to go with fascism. The examples of hypocrisy will take care of themselves.

So, you don't think we are becoming a fascist country? Perhaps it is because you haven't studied how the Nazis came to power (you can read my 9/16/20 post - The Nazi's Playbook, which focuses on the likeness between the left's radicals and the Nazis). Perhaps its because you have always been a Democrat or liberal (or at least identified with them) and it is painful to recognize when your side is wrong. I went through that too many years ago when emerging from the strident liberalism I was raised into and became a moderate. Perhaps you just want to bury your head in the sand and not think about it, and certainly not react to it. I'd like to, but fascism is too dangerous and must be fought.  Perhaps you are fearful for yourself or your family. Who wouldn't be? These are dangerous and violent people or they support those who are. I mean, I can't think of a Republican or conservative that supports the KKK or neo-Nazis, but there are many on the left, most of them, who support BLM, or Antifa or even Maxine Waters. 

One problem I have in doing these posts is that the acts of fascism are happening so frequently and so fast, it is literally impossible to keep up with, probably even on a daily business. So, here I give just some examples of it (though you probably will find it lengthy). Regrettably, I write almost exclusively about fascism now and will likely give more examples soon.

I have no intent to prove anything here. If you open your eyes to the possibility of it and don't just say nyet or bury your head, you can verify everything yourself - easily. You know it just from your own life. If you work in most places, not just for the government, you have probably felt the crush of the cancel culture and fascist pressure. You are forced to listen to lectures on sexual harassment or racism even if you never harassed or discriminated against anyone, or maybe you've even been pro-active helping women or minorities, and you know if you voice an opinion contrary to the speaker you might get fired. You already are judged by your ethnicity, one of the hall marks of fascism. Worse, if you are honest, depending on where you work, you must admit you have to pretend you agree with radical thought or someone will say they don't feel "safe" with you around. 

Certainly, some number of people have told me that they are afraid to make any joke at all in an office anymore in fear of getting reported or just fired. Here's a study showing 62% are afraid to share their political views. Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share | Cato Institute. Not as many, but some men have told me they try not to talk to women alone at work or go to lunch with them. No, not because they can't keep their hands to themselves, but because even innocuous acts or statements can be seen as harassment or discrimination just because someone feels offended, no matter how ridiculous - as with the ridiculous claims against Cuomo right now. Worse, some people who can hire no longer want to hire women or minorities, the opposite of what the left is seeking. I wouldn't recommend that myself, but I get it. They are scared - just like you. 

I can generally state these cancel culture problems in a paragraph or two, but they are countrywide (and other countries too) and and growing. But, you might say, it's not fascism, it's just a culture change. I don't think so. Culture is always changing. With this level of violence, intimidation and personal destruction, fascism applies. Feel free to bone up on the fear of being reported in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You can look at how I define fascism in my October, 26, 2020 post, What is fascism?

Of course, if you live in a place where BLM or Antifa can't or won't likely get to you, or where the violence stemming from under-policing won't affect you, you might just shrug and say, oh well, it doesn't seem so bad. That's what Portland's idiot mayor, Ted Wheeler thought until Antifa showed up at his house. That's what people often do until its them. You know the famous poem by German Pastor Martin Niemöller that begun, "First they came for the Jews, and I said nothing. . . ." You know what? I wasn't going to, but let me print some of the translation of what he originally wrote in prose, prior to the poem (I pulled this right off Wikipedia, but you can check it out yourself in many sources; there is no doubt it is Niemöller's words and thoughts, but, exactly when he wrote it, in exactly what form, when it became a poem, etc., is really not certain at all. But, that doesn't detract from his message):

["T]he people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians—"should I be my brother's keeper?"

Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? Only then did the church as such take note.

Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible?

The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out.

We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934—there must have been a possibility—14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30–40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now."

Remember, fascism is not going to happen the same way it did in Germany or Italy, or any other country which self-destructed by authoritarianism of some sort. Each time it happens it is new, although usually, maybe always, lying and coercion play substantial roles. 

You really don't see the fascism? Are you one of those who says I don't think the media is one-sided or that Big Tech is trying to cancel the right's expression? Really? After reading the open letters of Bari Weiss of the New York Times and the similar letter from Ariana Pekary of MSNBC detailing what the news channels do? After seeing Bloomberg News decide it was not going to investigate any wrongdoing by a Democrat during the last campaign? Are you one of those who thinks our justice system works the same for liberal pols as it does conservative ones? After seeing Hillary Clinton not get prosecuted (after the FBI's director described what she did fitting all the elements of a crime and then making up a new element for it that doesn't even make sense) but watching now as NYC desperately goes through Trump's tax returns hoping to find something it can prosecute on (when did it happen it became okay to investigate a person for political purposes?) New York actually holds political prisoners as it did with Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, after he was given a lengthy sentence by the feds. After watching the judge on Trump supporter Michael Flynn, who the FBI absolutely set up, try to hold him after he was pardoned, you can think this? After watching the FBI investigate Trump's campaign based on information they new was phony supplied indirectly through the Clinton Campaign? After watching the two years of RussiaGate, after the phony over-dramatized impeachment over Ukraine (which Biden looks like he is showing how little the Democrats care about, while during the hearings they wrung their hands over it)? After watching the second phony impeachment, done for no purpose except to get Trump and tar Republicans? After watching the Big Tech companies try to paralyze the conservatives by defunding or de-platforming them? After watching the lies about what was deemed the Capitol Armed Insurrection where there turned out not to be no firearms and only a few idiot insurrectionists. You don't see it? Nothing I can do about it. You either don't know because or won't believe. 

You don't have to believe it. Of course, one day they will come for you unless you totally succumb. Even if you think you are one of them, you can fall out of favor and be crushed, because radicals eat their own. The Nazis did. The French Revolutionists did. The communists did. All murdered many of their own.

The Difference between the Chauvin prosecution and the Capitol prosecution - fascism.

One of the best examples of both the oncoming fascism and hypocrisy stems from some the way different investigations/prosecutions are treated. For example, Derek Chauvin was named and charged with murder in 3 days. Kimberly Potter, an officer with a 26 year career, accidentally shot a young black man who was running from her execution of his warrant, thinking she was tasing him. She warned him and screamed "Taser" more than once, before absent-mindedly grabbing her pistol and shooting him. She was named and charged with Manslaughter II and arraigned in 4 days. Who could have fully investigated them by then. Why did they rush to judgment? To stop rioting, of course. Not protests. Riots. When fear of ethnic or other group riots leads to prosecutions or rushes to judgment - that's fascism. And fascism often works until people, realizing appeasement just encourages fascists, make the sacrifices necessary to stop it.

What's my point? Well, the D.C. officer (I believe a woman, but could be wrong) who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the Capitol riot hasn't ever been even named, never mind prosecuted. Not slower than Chauvin and Potter - she was never named or prosecuted ever!  She was never arrested. But, you can watch on video Ashli, among a group of people who had broken into the Capitol Building and were trying to penetrate further, was surrounded by cops with guns, being gunned down by her.  She wasn't warned, or given a chance, just shot. The police don't even shoot Antifa when they are trying to burn cops alive. Are cops now allowed to fire upon trespassers? Do all those rules and cases we heard about in the Chauvin case about using force - mean nothing if you are a white Trump supporter? Of course they don't. And you wonder why they rioted. They've watched the success BLM and Antifa has had with it.

Is there a difference between the the events in Minnesota and the Capitol "insurrection?" Well, hmmm, Potter and Chauvin killed black men. That fits the narrative being perpetrated by BLM, our media and now the federal government - that cops are singling out blacks to shoot (even though every year they kill more whites and everyone kills more cops). George Floyd, whose neck Chauvin kneeled upon, had a record of home invasion and spent 4 years in prison. Daunte Wright, who Potter accidentally killed, was wanted for not showing up in court and fleeing arrest for possessing weapons. Floyd was resisting arrest (I think only he wasn't obeying instructions). Wright also wouldn't listen to the officer and was fleeing. I'm not justifying what happened to them as a result of their history or behavior. It doesn't mean they deserved to die. I'm just saying, these probably weren't good people, even if they are now being lionized and transformed by the media and BLM as saints. 

Ashli was a decorated veteran. Didn't matter. You see, Ashli was a white girl and thereby obviously had the Mark of Cain. She gets little more consideration than a voiceless unborn baby. Ashli was surrounded by armed cops and unarmed herself.  She was not only white but obviously a Trump supporter. No one was going to burn D.C. because she was shot for no reason. No one even tried to arrest her before she was murdered. Not one of the trespassers/rioters brought a firearm into the building. 

It would be hard to be more hypocritical than the left is about the late Officer Brian Sicknick, who died soon after the riot. I have nothing to criticize him about at all. I'm sorry he's dead, but I care about cops. But, the left exploited his death and had a State Funeral while castigating the cops in general, and trying to defund the police. I can't tell you what any individuals might think about that, but one thing the defund the police movement on the left doesn't care about in general is cops. Despite the lies we've been told about Brian Sicknick, he wasn't murdered by rioters, as first reported. He apparently died of a stroke. That is, after they refused to tell us how he died, the truth came out. Even his own family said it wasn't true. Lies that fit the narrative are permitted. And, just as tv personalities will still call George Zimmerman a murderer, I assume they will keep saying he was a hero killed by Trump supporters. My guess, but since I don't watch tv, someone will have to tell me.

The capitol rioters didn't kill anyone. Four of them died. It was not an armed insurrection (no firearms anyway) and it looks like very few of them were actually intending an insurrection at all. The other three than Ashli supposedly died of natural causes - but, given the enormous lies coming from the government about this, can we believe it? I sincerely doubted that Sicknick was murdered for the same reason. I didn't have a pre-cognitive event? I simply recognize we are living in a fascist state and they will lie to further their narrative. No cops died at the hands of the trespassers. 

Narrative, narrative, narrative. Not only do we not know the name of the officer who shot Ashli, but the feds took 3 1/2 months to investigate what was clearly seen on video. Then, they apparently decided shooting a white Trump supporter, even a veteran, in cold blood, because she is trespassing, was not a crime. You know BLM wants to lynch the officer who shot a knife wielding teenager about to end the life of another girl, but, that too is part of the narrative. Ma'khia Bryant was black (as was her intended victim), but that furthers the BLM narrative. They don't care she was going to kill a black person (as they don't care that most murders are black on black or that their nationwide riots and demand for less policing has sent the murder rate skyrocketing - they accept as many victims as necessary to further their aims) but they sure appreciate the fact that a cop shot her because it fits their narrative.  

But, the Capitol Building shooting of Ashli and the lies over the death of Brian Sicknick were not the only hypocrisy about the event. Our President, the "Great Uniter" has further divided our country by another ridiculous lie that follows the narrative the left is perpetrating. After the riot, he said we should imagine how much harder they would have been fought if black. Seriously? They probably would have been given keys and a hall pass. I am only slightly exaggerating. Pelosi and Schumer have already dishonored their country by taking knees in support of BLM. They might have said they understand, just like they understand Antifa and the rioting.

BLM or its supporters, like Antifa, get treated with kid gloves. Though the idiot mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, has learned his lesson about Antifa, he used to lead "Black Lives Matter" chants. Now Wheeler begs for help to take back his city. Good luck to him. Trump tried with federal troops and Wheeler and others complained - called them something like storm troopers (not sure of the exact words). Now, I doubt the feds are coming to the rescue because the DOJ doesn't even consider the cop-murdering Antifa a terrorist group. In the meantime, supposed protesters (why I believe are trying to destroy Portland, if they can't take it over) have won court battles to make the cops be nicer to them. The cops don't kill the rioters even when they are trying to kill cops.

The difference between the way the feds are treating those who rioted at the Capitol and the way rioters on the left are treated is extraordinarily different. I believe the federal government has arrested about 450 or so of them, everyone they can find, making great efforts to locate them and at great expense.  What other riots have any such effort been made. They hold some in solitary confinement without bail. Solitary confinement! The FBI, the media, the pols all ganged up on the Capitol rioters (and, of course, Trump) as the worst rioters ever. 

It was much different in Minnesota than it was for Ashli. But, the narrative of only blacks lives mattering was the same, the narrative is that only the right constitutes a civil threat. There, soon after Floyd died, BLM and its allies went to work trying to intimidate people with threats and violence - their hallmark, despite all the nonsense about their "protests" being mostly peaceful. Hundreds, 500-600 so-called protests across the country were violent in 2020 (recorded by a non-profit organization that counts these things). In Minnesota, because of the death of Floyd, who after all, even if wrongfully killed, is one man, BLM and their allies tried to set Minneapolis afire. Literally. They did set numerous fires - 150 of them. Do we forget how serious even one fire is? If the Nazis set 150 buildings on fire, would we not say - would you not say - those horrible fascists?

The Floyd rioters damaged, according to a local paper, 1300 properties, including - 267 restaurants, 207 retail stores, 114 Service businesses, 85 grocery stores, 63 auto stores, 53 residences, 52 barber shops and 47 health care businesses. What did those people do to them? They looted and assaulted people, doing an estimated $500 million - 2 billion in damage.  They set fire to a police precinct, trying to murder the cops. The largest contingent of Minnesota's National Guard was called out since WWII. This unlawful violence doesn't just destroy the livelihood or lives of the owners of these buildings, but anyone who worked there. If you disagree that you are supporting fascists by sticking with the left's narrative or supporting them, answer this for me - what did those people do to George Floyd? Even Joe Biden had to say that looting wasn't protest at some point before the election (I don't think anymore, but I could be wrong). It's not protest. It's extortion. It's violent. It's fascist. Regrettably, it works. 

And, 2 deaths. What were their names? I didn't know because the media could care less about them. We should know their names. I learned them and I'll tell you - one was Calvin Horton, Jr.  He was in a pawnshop while it was being ransacked and came within a few feet of the owner, who shot him. The mob prevented the EMTs from getting through to him until the police, being pelted with rocks, were finally able to move him. Though the owner was briefly arrested, he was released and never charged. The other to die was Oscar Lee Stewart, Jr., also in a pawn shop. He told his family he was going to watch the "protests." He died of thermal injuries. A 25 year old has been charged for setting that fire. 

I don't know if either of these people were good guys or bad guys, but I know they are dead and not talked about, because they don't fit the narrative. I guess their lives don't matter. Actually, people died during riots all over the country. And many more died as a result of being easily murdered do to the lack of policing. A one year old and a five year old died in NY. Not directly because of BLM, but indirectly. What if it was your child, your spouse or friend who was killed as a result of the rioting or under-policing? Do you think you'd be more likely to call it fascism then? This was Minneapolis's Kristallnacht and BLM is responsible. But, it wasn't just one night. It was many. And it spread all over the country. 

Of course, that wasn't all. They "protested" (hah!) at local authorities houses. They didn't go to hold hands and sing Kumbaya! A mob went last August to the home of an important state senator, Warren Limmer, and banged on his door, demanding he come out (his wife and he had already escaped). Is that protest? They, banged on a drum, screamed through a loud speaker, cursed at little children and frightened the neighbors. In fact, apparently the police who showed up thought better of it and were chased off - probably afraid of being accused of racism and using excessive force. These people aren't fascists? They sound like Nazis to me. You think this is the way Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi conducted actual peaceful protests? 

The same month protesters went to the home of Bob Kroll, the head of the police union and demanded he be fired. Was it peaceful? They hung piñatas up and struck them with bats. Not just a likeness of him, but his wife, who is a reporter and therefore doesn't report on the police. Why did they pick on her too? That's what fascists do. They try and destroy everything in your life if you get in their way. That's what terrorists do. Let you know if they can, and you don't do what they want, you will be beaten like a pinata? Imagine the targets here weren't whites, but a black family and the piñata smashers were the KKK. I do think you'd see it then and call them fascists. 

And what of the trial of Chauvin? How was it possibly fair? A state of emergency was called before the verdict. The State sure wasn't worried about right wingers rioting if there was a conviction (and they certainly didn't). Yet, it was quite clear to everyone if Chauvin was not convicted, possibly of murder, then the city would burn again. Guardsmen were even shot at in a drive by shooting, injuring two of them.

How was that possibly a fair trial? The jury, who wasn't sequestered until they deliberated, was aware of the State of Emergency, aware of the demands that Kim Potters be charged not with manslaughter, even if it was an accident, but murder. They had to be aware of the ends the courts were having to go to to protect their lives (and their own lives) if they made a decision of which BLM didn't approve. Yet the judge wouldn't change the locale or delay the trial.

So, who steps in just before deliberation? One of the leading fascists in the federal government, in my view, Maxine Waters, who has nothing to do with Minnesota, goes to Brooklyn Center, bordering Minneapolis, and makes a speech, even knowing about the arson and deaths and damage after the Floyd killings, and knowing that there were more riots even recently after Kim Potters accidentally shot Daunte Wright, and that the National Guard is called in to prevent further disaster and are being shot at. What does she say? Certainly not, "peacefully march." She says, among other things:

“Well, we’ve got to stay on the street. And we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.”

More active? Mean business? More confrontational? Does she mean not enough people died? Not enough livelihoods were destroyed, buildings burned, children and families terrified? Sorry Minnesota, if he's not convicted you pay the price. Didn't the Nazis murder many innocent victims when the underground assassinated one of them? They were going to get their way. No why? BECAUSE THEY ARE FASCISTS! So is she.

She also said she disapproved of the curfew and that SHE wasn't hanging around. Why would she? She just lit a fire.

So, what happens in response to Water's instigation of murder, arson and mayhem (that's what it was)? Pretty much nothing. Yes, the judge in the Chauvin case was miffed at her, said it might cause the case to be overturned on appeal. But, despite the jurors having to know what will happen to the city, perhaps themselves, if they acquit - the judge doesn't do that himself. When's the last time that you heard a Democrat demand her resignation? Never, maybe? Educate me if I'm wrong (but a resolution in the House to condemn her for it was defeated on party lines). I can't even find anything showing Joe Manchin condemns it.

The silence from the left on her remarks is deafening or approving. And it is no surprise. Threats and violence has been the hallmark of the left the last few years and they haven't criticized it. The Democratic Socialists of America and other radical groups, all left wing, have threatened and assaulted politicians in restaurants and on the streets. Waters was one of the pols who encouraged it. Rand Paul literally thought he was going to be killed as a mob attacked. Unlike AOC, he was in the middle of it. For years Antifa and radicalized students have been attacking conservative speakers on college campuses. And Antifa, if you know anything about them, is simply a fascist group (going by an ironic name) that our wonderful DOJ likes to look the other way about, which literally emulates Nazi street fighters or brown shirts. In fact, Democrat politicians on many occasions have either ignored or supported them. One of the candidates during the campaign, when asked about them, pretended (I think - how could he not know) and then virtually ran away.

Of course, most run-of-the mill Ds do not engage in street fighting or even wish anyone harm, at least not out loud (some will admit they hope the opposition dies, but that describes many Rs too). And what do the regular - let's call them normal - Democrats do or say about their militant brothers and sisters? Almost nothing. Rarely anything. At least publicly. If they say it is wrong, they say it to those who already know it. But, they don't risk their jobs over it. Frankly, neither do most people on the right.

Biden, of course, now an electoral hostage of BLM and Antifa after black people literally saved his campaign, made matters worse after the Chauvin trial. He, the self-proclaimed Uniter. He indicated that yes, cops are killing blacks, by stating the conviction "ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see [systemic racism]." So, basically, not only is he backing up our national enemies like China, Russia and Iran when they say that, but he's indicating to police all over the country, we are not on your side. 

What's the difference with how Waters, who faces no consequences (it means nothing that the out of power GOP thinks she did something wrong) to Trump? Trump was vehemently attacked by the Ds, and the press, accused of fomenting insurrection. Here's the truth. He was not speaking to people who had rioted dozens of times, nor hundreds for that matter, burned buildings, tried to murder cops and destroy a city. He told the group that came to here him that they should  "[march] over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He also tweeted that it should be peaceful. It wasn't, at least for a small portion of the crowd, but clearly, he asked for the opposite - and again, there was no history of violence by his supporters (unless you want to count when they are attacked by the left such as at Charlottesville and many other places). 

And, of course, those who did invade the capitol didn't kill people, didn't burn down the building, didn't kidnap congresspersons (perhaps some intended that - but they didn't get close, so hard to say). They didn't bring guns or shoot at the officers defending the building. It was wrong, of course, even criminal. But, immediately a friend texted me that this proved the right wing is the more dangerous side. One instance as opposed to hundreds in the same past year by the left. How is that more dangerous?

What does the shamelessly hypocritical left do? They impeached Trump a second time - tried him for impeachment even after he was no longer president, which makes no sense (sadly, the large majority of Ds do not care about the law - they simply want what they want, regardless of how far it need be misshaped). I don't believe Nancy Pelosi is stupid. It just fits the narrative that only white supremacists (for them, almost all Republicans and conservatives) are dangerous. It supports their attempt to take assert a one party government (at least one party with power), much the way the Nazis did. And, even those Ds (or anti-Trump Rs) who do not approve of bad behavior, simply shrug at it. It's not so bad. Nothing is going on. Well, again, if they are not at your door, I guess not.

The damage groups like The Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and others did to the Capitol building is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what has been done to this country by BLM and their movement, including Antifa. It's a fraction of what has been done in either Portland or Minnesota alone. Still, hundreds of the Capitol street rioters have been arrested, and great effort has been made to scoop up as many as they can. Some are kept in solitary confinement (while even some accused murderers across the country walk out on bail). Even as vicious a democrat as Elizabeth Warren, one of the most duplicitous and nastiest of the Democratic Party, and Dick Durbin (who at least is somewhat civil) said that this was not right. Of course, it's not right. But, these are political prisoners. Why? Because that is what fascists do - take political prisoners.

Now, what do you think will happen to the defendants? Will they be convicted? Of course. The first has already pled guilty. Query this? What happened to the 500 or so rioters, burners, looters at the Trump inauguration who were charged? Nothing. The first two hundred or so were acquitted by the extremely liberal D.C. jurors and they let the rest go because it is obvious nothing resembling justice could be done there. Do you think the same will happen this time. The scales are tipped so far against the right in this country at this time, it is astonishing.

Of course, I am just using what happened in Minnesota and at the Capitol as examples of the fascism and hypocrisy that is now ubiquitous in this country. Anyone could write an entire book about what has happened in this country the last decade, but especially the last 4 years. Even about these two issues I could go on far longer. Here's just one more item:

Dr. David Fowler was Maryland’s chief medical examiner from 2002 to 2019. Someone must have liked him as he was appointed for so long through various administrations and health commissions. 

But, then he did something seen as beyond the pale. He testified for Chauvin. I thought he was a lousy witness. But, that's besides the point. What do fascists do when they disapprove of you? Well, in more developed fascist state where they can ruthlessly exercise power without dissent, they might beat up, arrest or kill you. In our country, where total power has not been attained yet, they will simply try to find some way to arrest you or destroy your career - to cancel you (hence, the cancel culture).*

*E.g., if the administration doesn't like you they might, for example, have the FBI raid your dwelling looking for evidence (probably like NYC with Trump, anything they can call a crime). I hope Giuliani - - by the way, someone I don't like and think is a little deranged - is smart enough not to answer questions for them, because they will take any mistake of fact he makes and claim it is a lie about a material fact to federal agents and therefore a crime.

In Fowler's case, the State of Maryland is on the job, right away. They are investigating Fowler, looking back at 17 or so years of examinations by him. Why? Those people are long dead. There's no indication he would have any motive to give false reports, just because they didn't like his opinion here. They say they must do this, but really, this is what fascists do. They want to intimidate anyone who might testify for a party in an action in a way not favored by the keepers of the narrative. Actually, it is a little reminiscent of an early Nazi law almost immediately after Hitler came to power, a law purging the civil service of Jews, followed by other laws barring them from many professions and parts of German life. Remember, folks, once fascism starts, it tends to get worse.

In our day, conservatives, white men and especially Trump could be compared to the Reich's Jewish victims. By that I mean, they are groups singled out for persecution. Unfortunately for actual Jewish people in America, most who now support the party of fascism (not one thinks he or she is), they will find that they are already in that group too. They should know it already if they are paying attention to 70 percent of the D party voting against including anti-Semitism in a discrimination bill, to BLM more than once rejecting Jews as supporters, to the Biden administration funding an vehemently anti-Israeli group long cut off.  

If you don't think this is happening, explain to me what is happening with the companies My Pillow and Goya. Explain to me all of the companies and people de-monetized or de-platformed from social media. Explain to me Fowler. Explain to me AOC trying to halt free-speech and suggesting that the names of Trump supporters need to be archived. Explain to me the calls for no police or incarceration (though a huge majority of blacks have said on a Gallup poll that they want the same or more police.)

Perhaps this has happened in America before - an expert witness rendering an opinion being persecuted by his own state government for it. Lucky for him, he retired several years ago and they can't fire him. If anyone has an example of this in any country, not just America, please comment and increase my knowledge. Of course, if it has happened before, it is exceedingly rare in our country. 

I'll end like I started. I'm not a natural firebrand. I hate to say bad things about people, even public figures. When I write these posts, I can't help but think of my relative, one of nicest people I know, who stopped speaking with me for a few months because it hurt his feelings that I said he was supporting fascists (though he routinely suggested I was doing the same and had no problem with that). I think of the many extremely intelligent and pleasant people I know today who are Ds or even Rs who hated Trump so much they voted for Biden and other Ds and all they represent. I know you don't want to think you are supporting a fascist party. Trust me, I hate to say it, but, you are, no matter how smart you are, no matter how nice. I write this "stuff," rather than about the art and science and history and top ten lists I used to, because it's really important. And, if I can influence a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of people who read it, that is important enough to deal with close friends and family being angry with me. 

This isn't an advertisement for Rs or conservatives, as I've never been one of them either (though I once was certainly very liberal), and I have had plenty to complain about them. But, they aren't acting like fascists. The D party, which for so many years was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow and the KKK, has returned to its root. This time, they are not attacking blacks, who are the most important base in the party. But, they have their victims. 

So, you don't think we live in a fascist state? I bet I've upset some of you.

Chauvin trial summations and the fascism of Maxine Waters

I like Peter Cahill. If you aren't watching the trial, and most people aren't, he is the judge on the trial. He seems not only to have the temperament we want in a judge. I do not know if he has done his job well though, because there were a number of issues that he didn't resolve and it seems like didn't address. But, I don't blame him most. The prosecutors did their job and I believe they feel justified in the actions they took, even if I didn't appreciate all of them. It's the defense attorney who I think has blown this trial. I say that, even thinking that Chauvin is most likely guilty of manslaughter. I write this during the instructions and summations (I can do both) and that's why I say most likely.

What did the defense attorney not do well? Lots. The foremost problem was not getting the action stayed and moved. I heard his motion. It was not robust or heart-felt enough. It was not passionate. It can't be told by me if he even believed it himself. But, this trial needed to be moved. It was too emotional, too dangerous, too frightening in Minneapolis to try this. The judge should have granted it on his own, so some blame lies with him too. During the jury selection itself the City of Minneapolis settled the civil case for $27 million, an unheard of number, in what looks like an act of appeasement and payoff to the rioters not to do it again. Whoever you were, your death would have been offered a a fraction of that amount. The problem grew greater over the trial. Another black person was shot, this one pretty clearly by accident, and almost immediately, the officer had to resign and was charged with manslaughter. 

More violence and rioting occurred. It was during this trial. The National Guard is in the street and has been shot at during this trial.  A curfew has been called during this trial. A fascists (and I don't apologize for using the word - that's what she is), Congressperson Maxine Waters, came to Minnesota and urged, if there is not a conviction, harder confrontation (there was violence, fires and over a billion dollars in damage to Minneapolis after the Floyd death - what's harder?). The city is girding itself to protect itself from riots if there is an acquittal. Many think that there will be riots regardless. I don't know. I do know they will happen and worse if there is an acquittal. 

The jurors seemed to feel protected (during jury selection) being in what was essentially an armed camp for the trial. So, they know they are in one, and they have to know what is outside leading to that situation. They have to be afraid of what will happen to the city and possibly to themselves if there is an acquittal. If there is acquittal (and I'm not suggesting there should be) then the jury is remarkably courageous in a way we do not expect from people. They already knew of the dangers as they were not sequestered through the summations, had been questioned during jury selection as to their fears, and Maxine Waters made sure of it, if anyone thought it had passed. Only after the jury had the case did we learn that defense counsel did ask for a mistrial and put it on the record. Like everything he does, there was no anger, no indignation, just a congenial statement of the facts. He should have made an impassioned plea and mentioned the national guard being shot at. He should have given her exact quote (the prosecution response was correct in that) and explained that since people died after Floyd's death because of rioting and because over a billion dollars in damage was done to the city, she obviously wants more.

The motion should have been granted, even if I think Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter -  I don't see any intent to cause grievous bodily harm - Chauvin most likely thought the ambulance would be there in 3 minutes, not 9. He should have moved him onto his side. This is my opinion, but I think Floyd would be alive if he was moved to his side when he had long ceased struggling. Obviously it should have been done when he stopped moving, more obviously when one officer couldn't find a pulse and more obviously when the same officer suggested they turn him over and Chauvin said, not yet.

Maxine Waters is a criminal in my view. If anyone dies as a result of rioting or under-policing, the death is on her (and now Pelosi, who said no apology was necessary) and anyone egging them on. And no, Donald Trump did not do that - he urged "peaceful "protest with no history of rioting by the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers except to fight back against Antifa and other fascist groups. They haven't tried to kill police in Portland (or anywhere) and haven't burned down buildings.  I already thought Waters was a fascist. She just keeps doubling down because in our sick country, she gets a pass. 

That Chauvin was merely following policy defense was a non-starter. I think it hindered the defense. It wasn't improved much in the summation because it did not explain the last four minutes (no pulse, etc.) The defense needed - had to - work on the basis that Floyd started dying in his car; that's why his friends couldn't wake him. When the police came, because of his history, adrenaline shot through him and he struggled with them (not maliciously in my view and certainly not with an intent to hurt or threaten anyone) until he died of the overdose. I am not saying I think that is what happened, but what the defense attorney's job was. To raise a reasonable doubt of that was the only hope Chauvin had. And that's his attorney's job.

Throughout, I was shocked by the lack of passion by the defense counsel in objecting to the leading questions by the prosecution that were unrelenting (the judge ordered them to with the teenagers - I disagree with that, but it's not what I mean here). He sat silently while more than one non-professional witness testified as an expert - e.g., the MMA fighter. He pleasantly cross-examined witnesses, even made jokes, and showed he was a nice guy to everyone. At the end of the case, he said to one prosecution as his walk-away line - "Fair enough." FAIR ENOUGH? This was one of the main expert witnesses. How does "fair enough" help his client? It means, well, that's fair. 

I have no personal animus to Mr. Nelson, the defense counsel. To the contrary, the prosecution ran with the ball until someone tackled them, leading every witness to an embarrassing degree, and only rarely was there an objection from the defense. The prosecutor who cross-examined the defense witnesses knew to roll his eyes, say "Really?" when he didn't like an answer. It seemed to me the prosecutors were just better attorneys.

I also can't understand how in the world, especially in a murder trial, the prosecution could put on George's girlfriend on the stand to testify as to their first kiss and how wonderful he was, and his brother to testify about their mother - when Derek can't get into evidence George's criminal record showing that he wasn't so wonderful. From Wikipedia: "Between 1997 and 2005, he was convicted of eight crimes. He served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated assault in a home invasion." 

Now, I am not suggesting that George's record, which neither Derek nor the other officers seem to know, had anything to do with the case. But, neither did George snuggling with his mother and neither did his first kiss with his girlfriend. The court had already ruled that most of the complaints against Derek shouldnot come in but also that George's record shouldn't come in. What's the difference? Well, for me, whenthe prosecution started putting in evidence of how wonderful George was, it opened the door to what a jerk he could be - highly dangerous and with little regard for human life. I did not see a motion to allowwhat had previously been ruled inadmissible should now be? Did I miss it? I don't think so. 

I tried to give defense counsel the benefit of the doubt during the case. Maybe, I thought, he is waiting for his own witnesses, who would be wonderful. They weren't. There was no excuse.

The Murder 3 charge also continues to baffle me. This is what the law says:

"Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced . . . ."

The judge initially said that it didn't apply to this case. But the higher court came back with a ruling that he should apply a previous case of theirs according to the facts in this case. The defense attorney did argue that well. He explained that the use of a gun and car in the other cases could have damaged other people and didn't exist in this case. It was a knee to a body. No one else was endangered. The judge did not explain away his point, but acted as if the higher court had ordered him to reinstate the charge. The judge has been fair in this case and I don't accuse him of wrongdoing, just being wrong.

I didn't get it then and I don't know. In summation, the prosecutor said that they had proved danger to others as if he had just explained it all. He hadn't. That kind of behavior by a prosecutor I will never appreciate. They have duties to make sure the trial is fair that a defense attorney does not have. 

I do not see intent to cause bodily harm here necessary to find Murder 2. There is no evidence of it and the prosecutor is relying on hyperbole, for example, claiming that Derek mocked George's complaints. They have shown me no possible motive to explain why Derek would want to do it. The prosecutor's suggestion that it was because he was angry at the crowd can't be found - for me - just because he says so. I need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If he can imagine that Derek was mad at the crowd, jurors can reasonably imagine he wasn't.

I do easily see negligence that led to George's death. Nothing that the defendant's witnesses offered us made a reasonable doubt as to the prosecutor's case that by his negligence, George Floyd died. 

What about the drugs in George's system? I think the prosecutors witnesses did a very good job of explaining why he died and that it wasn't drugs, certainly not the only reason. Though no one denies that he had fentanyl and methamphetamines in his system, defense could not touch the fact that it was quite little, dangerous as those drugs were. 

But, what of my scenario that George started dying in his car from drug use - certainly possible - and that after the burst of adrenaline from the cops showing up - and then returned to dying? Well, in order for me to find that a reasonable doubt as to his death, I would need to hear the defendant's experts tell me that. I didn't hear it. I just heard some questionable opinions that were child's play for the prosecution to cross. I didn't hear it in the summation either.

I thought the summation was defense counsel's best work. He continued to be the same person he was throughout the trial. He slowly went through the case. But, did he raise a reasonable doubt? Not as to the last few minutes of the case, in my view, not as to why Floyd died. It just isn't possible, without at least passably convincing testimony from witnesses to the contrary, conclude that it was reasonable to continue keeping George prone with weight on his neck or back with 4 minutes to go up until the time he died. I can't help but believe firmly that he would be alive if he had been rolled on his side. We know what we saw. Oddly, he left out some very common sense attacks on the inconsistencies of the prosecutor's own experts, the rush to judgment (they arrested his client in three days before almost any of these experts had done almost any work). Frankly, the whole case should have been about that from defendant's point of view.

The rebuttal for the prosecution was handled by Jerry Blackwell, who opened for them. He is a special prosecutor, a private attorney, who signed on for this case. He's the most effective of the prosecution team, my opinion I think, but probably the consensus. However, I didn't think he did much with it. I would have showed the last 4 minutes again.

These are my thoughts as deliberation starts. I can't predict what will happen. I hope justice is done, and I also hope that still more people don't die as a result of Floyd's death because of people like Maxine Waters. 

As always, apologies for the font and highlighting issues above. I have no control over it as far as I can tell.

What color privilege?

One of the many words used these days by the left to shut down conversation or stop people from thinking are the words "white privilege," meaning that by virtue of having white skin, white people, even little children, even poor whites or crippled ones, get special treatment. This is closely related to what is called "critical race theory," which is a supposed academic theory that laws favor whites as the dominant group and similar meanderings. That it is in anyway scientific or well thought out, as the word "theory" makes it sound, is somewhat laughable. It is, mostly just racism disguised as a theory. It is scientific in the same way as "Soviet" and "Aryan" science was.

But, I'll leave that aside for the moment and just say, of course, there can be racial bias in a society leading to one ethnic group having privileges and other groups being oppressed. And, that can include the laws being made to favor one group over the other as a method of privilege and/or oppression. In fact, the history of the United States and its predecessor colonies and territories is, like most, if not all, countries in the world for most of our collective history, one of racial privilege and oppression, including, slavery.

However, you are all aware of the expression - that was then, this is now (my favorite usage being from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who used a bazooka on a powerful demon who bragged to her that he was indestructible). Since the 1960s there has been a gradual improvement in the ways blacks and minorities in general were treated (really since the 1860s, but glacially slowly so as to make little improvement), and laws were bent in their favor. A quote I repeatedly rely on, because it so clearly shows the hypocrisy and falsehoods of the left, is from Barack Obama in 2016, a few years after BLM was formed and not long before Trump was elected: 

"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."

He made it clear, he wasn't saying that prejudice no longer existed and talked about it too in the same speech, but it is clear that he thought, it was the best time ever for everyone. I agree. I notice he has stopped saying things like this, but, if he strays too far from the narrative, even the Great God Obama would be canceled by those whose side he's generally on. I'm sure he would say that whites are privileged and blacks oppressed, as his comments have been trending that way more and more. 

I know intelligent whites who buy into the narrative that whites are still privileged. But, it seems to be that after decades of righting the imbalances and actual privileges in society (often proved by reminding people that Obama was voted president twice in a row and the present VP is also black - 40% of all executives voted into office in the last 3 elections, almost 3 times blacks relative population). 

There can be little doubt that at this time in our history, blacks, right now, are not only not oppressed, but they are the privileged class themselves. There are many reasons to come to this conclusion. Obviously, it is not something you can experiment with or do studies on. It is opinion, of course, but I think there is a lot of support for it. 

This is driven home virtually every day to us. Seattle is teaching math as a sub-category of social justice (no, seriously). Black and white kids, and those of every other group, get to learn how whites are oppressive and blacks oppressed. Read this curriculum and cry for the children of all colors - Math SDS ES Framework.pdf (www.k12.wa.us). In Illinois, teachers are now required to teach to “culturally responsive teaching and leading” standards. If you think that means anything other than "social justice," "white privilege" and the like, start googling those words. The tv journalist Meghan Kelly pulled her two children from a private school in NYC where a letter from a blog post on how to teach white kids was circulated to be read to classes including the following:

“There is a killer cop sitting in every school where white children learn. They gleefully soak in their whitewashed history that downplays the holocaust of indigenous native peoples and Africans in the Americas. They happily believe their all-white spaces exist as a matter of personal effort and willingly use violence against black bodies to keep those spaces white.

I am tired of white people reveling in their state-sanctioned depravity, snuffing out black life with no consequences. Where the urgency for school reform for white kids being indoctrinated in black death and protected from consequences? Where are the government-sponsored reports looking into how white mothers are raising culturally deprived children who think black death is okay?” 

NYC schools has for several years focused on white privilege rather than education. I learned about 3 years ago that administrators in NYC schools were instructed that teaching about white privilege was there no. 1 concern - not actual education that might help those minorities. But, in schools all over the country Black Lives Matter Weeks have been instituted. Not white lives matter - black. In other words, kids are being taught that society doesn't appreciate black people's lives and whites are why, despite the fact that overwhelmingly, blacks are killed by other blacks. Every year. I'm not suggesting it is some violent defect in blacks at all, but that it is a product of poverty and lack of education. Not, white oppression either.

 As Hitler pointed out, “Whoever has the youth has the future.” These school districts and states seem to realize it and are in the business of proselytization. But, that's just schools. There is ample evidence of the incredible privilege of blacks in our country right now.

The idea that black lives are much more valuable than white lives is one that is becoming fixed in our culture and government despite the complete opposite being true. Here are just a few examples. In Florida, in 2013, George Zimmerman (supposedly a white man, though I think in any other circumstances, he would be considered Hispanic - see, for example - Why did New York Times call George Zimmerman ‘white Hispanic’? - The Washington Post) killed Trayvon Martin with a gun after Martin attacked him. After investigation, it was clear that Florida had no reason to prosecute a man who acted in self-defense. But, Florida, eschewing a Grand Jury which probably would not have prosecuted, did, using a rarely used privilege of a special prosecutor simply bringing charges. I watched the trial. The evidence was overwhelming from the first witness, that he acted in self-defense. The jury acquitted him because, there was literally no evidence against him. The media and advocates lashed out in anger at every prosecution witness who testified in a way that couldn't help but support the defendant - BECAUSE HE WAS INNOCENT OF A CRIME. 

Privilege - what privilege did George have? Barack Obama made said that Trayvon, not George, could have been his son, though Obama was bi-racial himself. Presumed guilty, George has been called a murderer ever since, though he was acquitted. I heard two panelists (one black, one white) on a CNN derivative proclaim that a any young black woman approached by a white male was entitled to kill him. I'm not kidding.  There is a man in jail right now who actually tried to murder George. His life has been threatened over and over from day one, he's been savaged by the fascist media. 

Not much different, although he wasn't tried, was the fate of a young white police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Michael Brown, an 18 year old black man, a bully who had just robbed a store, who threatened him and tried to take his gun. Immediately, lies about Brown putting his hands up and surrendering were spread. The federal government investigated - a federal government led by two incredibly biased men, Obama, who always leapt to the side of blacks when racial issues arouse, without the benefit of having any facts, though he was supposedly president for all of us. What did they find? Overwhelming evidence that Wilson acted in self-defense. Hence, no charges were brought against Wilson by the federal investigation, and keep in mind, this was the DOJ of Eric Holder, also black. A grand jury found likewise. Why did they even investigate and seek to prosecute him? My opinion, because he was white and Brown was of the privileged class, by benefit of his skin color. Wilson, though, had to leave his job, became unemployable, and go into hiding. Still, 5 years later. And, of course, police officers were assassinated in retaliation, and others, mostly black, died because of riots and under-policing. Does Black Lives Matter care? Of course not. They still call Wilson a murderer. Does the media care? Of course, not. BLM is given a pass on most everything. Why? My opinion. They are black and now the privileged class.

This goes on and on. I can only give a few examples. But, the Breonna Taylor, a black EMT, case is a good one to understand the process. What happened here? A tragedy no doubt. Taylor's former boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, a reputed drug dealer, used her address. Three officers, executing a legal no-knock warrant broke into her apartment while she and her new boyfriend, Ken Walker, were in bed. According to reports, Glover has said in jailhouse conversations that Taylor would hold money for him. They ran into hall, thinking Glover was invading the home, Walker firing at the officers. He hit one in the leg, nearly killing him. They fired back, killing Taylor, not Walker. 

Get it? Three cops executed a legal warrant, mistakenly believing her old boyfriend would be there. They were fired at and fired back in return. A tragedy ensued. You'd think it should be a walk away, everyone sad. So, what happens next? They were going to charge Walker with assault and attempted murder. They dropped it. Why? My opinion, because of the protests, rioting and their fear of more mayhem. But, also, because he is black and among the privileged class. The officers were not privileged. They underwent the grand jury process. Two of them, Jonathan Mattingly (who had been shot by Walker) and Myles Cosgrove, were not indicted, ironically, the ones who hit and killed Taylor. The third, though, Brett Hankinson, was charged with reckless endangerment, because his bullets passed into the next apartment. How does it make sense that a police officer, being fired upon cannot fire back, particularly as he cannot see anyone else who might be harmed? It doesn't make sense, but they needed a sacrifice and a white man to be it. Why would that be if whites were privileged?

Meanwhile, Kentucky has settled the Breonna Taylor civil wrongful death case for 12 million dollars. I'm sorry she's dead, even if it is true that she facilitated in a drug business.  But, if the cops killed me, my family wouldn't be given millions of dollars. They would get very little. The truth is, the municipalities always seem to want to appease the rioters (both blacks and whites). Forget about the fact that this appeasement never works with BLM or its adherents of whatever color - they keep trying. George Floyd, a drug addict and convicted felon (including home invasion with a gun) got $27 million. TWENTY-SEVEN. Why? His skin is black. They seemed to have named the street where he was killed after him? Why aren't streets named after whites who are killed, even wrongfully, by cops? The answer is - skin color. The opposite of what Martin Luther King, Jr., preached and dreamed about.

Probably the tragedy at the Capitol building on January 6th shows the difference between being white and black privilege right now. During the unarmed, that is - no guns - protest, which was violent only against property (which, BLM says is okay), and where it turns out the protesters didn't kill anyone (the FBI will not say how Officer Sicknick died, so I have to presume it had nothing to do with the protesters, for now). But, one officer there did take aim, and shot and killed - an obvious murder -Ashli Babbitt, who, though part of a violent encroachment of which I don't approve, was in an area completely surrounded by other armed cops who were doing their best not to kill anyone. The officer who shot her clearly endangered everyone in the area. Had he hit a cop (I guess we have to congratulate her on her aim), the other cops might have mistakenly opened fire at the crowd. 

So, what happens. Despite the fact that Derek Chauvin is being tried for murder (and, after watching most of the trial, I can see manslaughter for negligent homicide - there is no actual evidence of intent) for something he probably didn't intend, this woman took aim and shot a woman. If you apply the same legal standards that they are using in Chauvin - this officer would be charged immediately. Chauvin was charged in three days. Kim Potter, a 48 year old officer who recently mistook her gun for her taser and killed a young man who was resisting arrest and heading to his car where she thought he could have a gun, had to resign and was almost immediately charged with manslaughter.  What's even the name of the killer of Ashi? Do you know? We don't get to know. After deliberating for months, the DOJ decided that they didn't have enough evidence, despite the video, to bring charges. And, we don't get to know her name. 

I have to tell you, in a more perfect world, I do see why Ashli was shot. It may have saved lives. But, if you apply the standards being applied in Chauvin, the anonymous (to us) shooter is completely guilty, not only for shooting Ashli (if it was okay to kill her, why then could the police not shoot all of the trespassers or those in every rioter?), but for recklessly endangering everyone else who was there. What is the difference? Why was this woman not prosecuted where other officers are immediately prosecuted, fired or forced to resign, persecuted, even have to hide? Well, for one thing, she didn't kill a black woman. Had she, her name would be known to all of us and she'd be well into her prosecution for murder or at least manslaughter. But, the capitol riot itself is its own story and another huge indicator of black supremacy and privilege.

The Capitol Riot was predicted. It was mostly perpetrated by Trump supporters (even if there was an Antifa guy there - I don't know). Mostly white. I'm sure there were some Proud Boys and Oath Keepers there and other people with similar ideas. I wrote a post a few months ago explaining why they rioted. Essentially, it was why not? We've had a half year of violent riots by BLM and their supporters and few are arrested. Police don't kill them like they did Ashli, and people, numbed by the fascist media either think these riots are okay or outright support it, despite how many people it has killed, some in the riots, most indirectly due to the resultant under-policing. So, why shouldn't non-BLM groups think it is okay - or, if they knew they'd be treated differently, not give a damn? I'm not justifying what they did. It was wrong the same way the the BLM riots - the thousands of them, were wrong.

The other reason the officer isn't being prosecuted, is it fits the narrative of the powers that be right now. Only right wing extremists, which they make equivalent to Trump supporters, are dangerous. The others, that is, leftist extremist groups, who are far, far larger group (you notice at right wing extremist marches, they are usually greatly outnumbered by their adversaries). They are treated completely different, even by many Republicans, who seem to believe the media's Svengalis. The Proud Boys, though they don't execute cops, haven't burned down buildings or caused billions in property damages, are condemned as terrorists (I believe officially in Canada) whereas our feckless DOJ Secretary, Garland, who I used to feel sorry for), has said Antifa and the like, which does try and sometimes succeeds in murdering cops, is not considered a terrorist group by him. His excuse that the fascists (I mean Antifa) who were trying to get into the federal building in Portland for a long time by destroying the protective fence, might not be terrorists because they acted at night, brings to mind the Ku Klux Klan, who often operated at night to terrify people and keep their identity secret. Why would someone like Garland, who actually prosecuted terrorists, now shrink at calling those rightly earning the epithet by the proper name? In my view, it's because he needs to say that to keep his job with the Biden administration which is about as racist a presidency as we've had since Wilson. And Antifa is linked with BLM, and they are protected. Much of the media will not even discuss it.

Joe Biden, who I once thought a nice bumbling guy, is now racist-in-chief, claiming such things as only whites can be racist, and after the Capitol riot, said to the effect of - imagine how tough the police would have been if the rioters were black? I can imagine that. Ashli, had she been black, certainly would not have been killed, that's for sure. Brian Sickwick would not have gotten a state funeral, but probably castigated as a racist cop. If arrested, the defendants would not be convicted anymore than any of the rioters arrested during the Trump inauguration were convicted (none, out of about 500 arrester were - the prosecutors gave up trying after about 200 were acquitted by the politically biased juries - D.C., where the trials were held, is almost all black).

I could go on and on. Some of you already know these things, some of you can't accept any of it, because if you did, you'd have to recognize you've backed a party that has leaned hard into becoming fascist. I know it hurts to recognize that what you once believed was fervently right is wrong, because I've gone through it myself (a story long ago told her and which I won't repeat). And, I know, some people who read this would believe that I am a racist or white supremacist myself, or hypnotized by Donald Trump (who I never personally liked but greatly prefer to actual fascists). 

Actually, I've spent most of my life trying to learn things like why the German people took Hitler into their hearts (so we would know how not to do so) and about the civil rights struggles of blacks (the real ones, not the new fake ones like BLM) and others. And what I see is that thanks to BLMs leaders like Patrice Khan Cullors, a supposed Marxist who now apparently owns millions in real property) and Al Sharpton, as dishonest man as can be imagined, who I believe could care if a charged person is guilty or innocent, but only his skin color, have set the black communities back a generation, teaching young people that the way to success is through hate (not, as MLK taught - through loving, at least in some ways, your enemy), through rioting (don't tell me they don't accept it - they could shut it down if they wanted) and not through educating themselves. 

I don't watch tv anymore, because I won't support the fascist supporters in Hollywood. But, I don't run out of the room if someone I'm visiting turns it on. So, on New Years, I saw a BLM commercial with a march that focused on a young black girl who looked fiercely into a camera, showing that she will fight hard against the imaginary oppression against her. A little girl.

I immediately wished it had shown her studying. 

The truth is, I don't think things will improve in America or racial tensions will lesson, until all blacks (I'm sure some do) reject the self-defeating ways of the most vocal leaders. I say that realizing that there are actual racists and white supremacists out there. But, there are, in reality very few of them if you actually look at the statistics. Maybe more now than a few years ago, because, sadly, they have been energized by the political assault on whites, including the absurd lie of white privilege.

Of course, some who have read this far and are not sizzling with anger, already know that - 

-there are no laws in America which oppress blacks.

-there are many laws that favor blacks - the civil rights law, the disparate impact law*, the laws recently passed by some municipalities that give guaranteed income depending on ethnic group, laws that set aside certain government contracts are set aside for blacks and other protected classes, laws that require companies to hire blacks and other minorities.

*A 1993 federal law which holds that in United States law that allows protected classes, that is - not white males, to sue, if they believe an employment or housing law has not led to the same beneficial result for their group, even if it was not intentionally discriminatory. 

-had George Floyd been white, we wouldn't know his name and if his family had been successful in a wrongful death action it would have been given maybe a hundred or two hundred th0usand at best - certainly not 27 million or any millions.

-had white supremacists violently rioted some 500-600 times in America last year, no one would be saying they were mostly peaceful.

-that cops, particularly in urban areas, are afraid of arresting a black person, who have been now taught to resist or run, that cops are instead told to ignore most crimes committed by blacks if they can, because they will be prosecuted if they have to use force to overcome them.

-murder rates are skyrocketing in most cities because of the under-policing.

-blacks and other minorities have points added to their SAT scores.

-blacks and other minorities are favored in getting into many college even if they otherwise would not have merited it. 

-any death of a black person by cops (no matter what their own ethnicity) is now an excuse to riot for some (also, regardless of ethnicity), even if the deceased was the cause of their own demise.

-federal workers, many licensed people, are required to listen to lectures like about critical race theory or similar social justice issues.

-the media, in large, will favor narratives that benefit blacks or other groups and are detrimental to whites.

-MLK,Jr.'s dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is dead, if not, for those in tow of BLM, reversed.

You can even argue to me that we should have these laws described above. Certainly I'm happy for many of the anti-discrimination laws. But, they've worked, along with education, to a large extent. We have a far less racist society in America than we did in the 1960s. Even this new assault on whites, now the under-privileged class (more so men, but also women, who are denigrated as "Karens" to the BLM world), hasn't made people I know hate blacks. In fact, though I'm sure many blacks are persuaded to the themes of BLM, not all are (though they would be understandably afraid to say so). As we saw, even in the height of the George Floyd mayhem (the greatest boon to BLM ever as they could feel they finally have on video an actual case of abuse of force against a black man), most blacks wanted the same or more police - 81% of them according to a Gallup poll. Of course they do. Fascists arguing no more police, no more incarceration, are essentially gang leaders wanting no consequences for gang activities. 

You know, I never, never, never thought I'd be writing stuff like this. I was always the guy interested in civil rights, the one made fun of for being a moderate by people on both sides of the "aisle." I hate every kind of fascism, bullying and the like, no matter who is the bully and who the victim. And I was raised on many of the lies of the left. I still say thank God for the liberals, because until the last few decades, many social changes they yearned for and which were hard fought by conservatism, passed into the mainstream for the better. Not all. And now the times have changed. Even the goals of the ideologies have changed. It used to be the left that was for free speech and freedom of conscience, against censorship and preached love. Now they preach hate. If you read a speech or book by MLK,Jr., and I've read I think all of them, you will not recognize anything he believed in the dogma and exploits of BLM. 

But, when I see the world change, the media give up its values completely and support fascism, when I see the dream of MLK which most Americans have taken to hear squashed by fascists and their supporters - many of them under the pretense of being for civil rights, especially the media, when I see the left try as hard as they can to forge a one-party system and engage in the censorship, propaganda, police and media control tactics of prior fascists (whatever their denomination) - I try to have the courage to call it what it is, and that, to me fascism - trying to force policy changes by threats or violence and usually based on some claim of oppression. It's not going to happen the same this time as the last times, because the levers of power change. Nowadays, for example, Big Tech, plays an unprecedented role in censoring speech. But, in the end it will be similar, because it always leads to more coercion, more violence, more propaganda, more lies. We have progressed a great deal. But, there are essential aspects to the human drama that were the same for Adam's immediate family as they are for ours.

Make no mistake about it, BLM is based on lies, as I've written about in the past. They and the new fascists ironically calling themselves Antifa, and others who just want to riot or dismantle the country, are winning to some extent. You can see that when someone like Kyle Rittenhouse is prosecuted for defending his life by the government and the killer of Ashli Babbitt doesn't even get named. We grew out of the radicalism of the '60s. We grew out of a racist country. Will we age out of this? I don't know.