Biden, Hitler and Mussolini walk into a bar . . . .

Biden, Hitler and Mussolini walk into a bar. 

Biden, explaining to Hitler and Mussolini the reasons for what he believes are constitutional vaccine mandate laws, says: "This is not about freedom or personal choice. It’s about protecting yourself and those around you . . . ." In other words, safety.

Then Hitler reads the Presidential decree of 1933 which gave him extraordinary powers to take over state governments based on the idea of keeping Germany safe from communism, saying: "Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Mussolini, explaining fascism, says: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans, which care only for the species and seem ready to sacrifice the individual." In other words don't worry about individual rights, but only the group, in the name of safety.

Not a funny joke? I know. The quotes are real, but it's no joke at all. However, there is an important point. I am not saying Biden is just like Hitler or Mussolini. Yet, anyway. Though his intent to flood the country with immigrants based on his race theories (he has said it will be good when there isn't a "white" majority), his gross incompetence and the ongoing going leftist urging of more racism and their surge to power have made him one of the worst presidents in history in just a few months and is helping pave the road to fascism. It started before him and will likely continue long after.

It is so critical to recognize that fascism happens differently every time (that I will put it in my brand new font - Fjalla One, if you care). It just ends up the same, with authoritarianism and brutality. Hitler didn't show up suddenly in Germany in 1933 and say, come on everyone, lets get ready to murder.  It often starts slowly by a small group of very energetic people with a vendetta who prepare the conditions for it - feelings of great division in a society, the inability of the normal processes to handle change, the destruction or control of important government or public functions (e.g., the police, the media), feelings of victimization, hatred and lies, lies, lies. Often, like Hitler, they want the appearance of legality. 

And what's their solution in most events - more governmental power - allegedly for everyone's benefit, but really favoring one or more favored groups - and the consequential loss of individual rights. That German decree referred to above, was specifically promulgated based on the lie that it was necessary because (the Nazis claimed) the Reichstag fire was caused by Communists and Jews. How similar the January 6, insurrection is now claimed by Democrats and socialists to have been called for or incited by Trump (who literally did the opposite - asked for peaceful protest). If you listen to repeated Biden statements, the federal government will take away people's rights (by bullying those who choose not to get vaccinated) because of safety. We are racing down that road, and whatever means are necessary will be used, including the new "go to" reason to limit freedom - safety. 

Using safety to take away people's rights is not new. It's always been around. I'm certainly not anti-safety (or anti-vaccine, for that matter - I'm vaccinated and would have been first to get it if I could have been). When it doesn't violate constitutional rights, few things could be more important than safety for a myriad of reasons. But, as years go buy we see more and more of the use of safety to try and pass unconstitutional legislation or to legitimize a president to act without legislation. Whether its more cameras or tapping your phone or calling China to say don't worry - we won't let Trump nuke you, it is a very sellable way of ending freedom, overriding the laws or of dooming your society.

Concerning specifically these proposed federal mandates - I am not aware of any federal vaccine requirements before this (they will say it is not "required," but you will be fired or excluded if you don't go along and paid if you do). State and local vaccination laws, yes. Federal no. Even the Supreme Court case that upheld a smallpox vaccination mandate in 1905, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, involved a state - not the federal government. If there is, I'll mea culpa. I'm always learning something new.

In fact, the Jacobsen case might be used to find the new federal mandates unconstitutional. It held, among other things: "The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,- a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution." The state, not the federal government, has the police powers. That's one of my chief complaints with Obamacare or even a Republican substitute - it used the opened up the entire health care system to federal intervention.

The federal government, despite every appearance of being able to legislate about any subject or issue it wishes, is actually supposed to be limited. Two cases not that long ago showed that congress couldn't just legislate about anything it desired. In 1995, in United States v. Lopez, it was held that "The Constitution...withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation." In fact, the court would not "pile inference upon inference" to convert the the Commerce Clause granting congress the right to legislate about interstate commerce to a general police power - which was the province of the states. Lopez concerned a federal attempt to regulate guns - it was about safety, of course. 

Five years after Lopez the court shot down another federal law, this time concerning violence to women. The law was clearly about safety. What rational person is not for protecting women or everyone, for that matter, from violence or is against gun safety (no, gun owners are not against gun safety)? People will always disagree about the best way to effectuate it, but the reason these were cases, was because of federal attempts at usurping state power. It probably has worked more than it has failed, mostly because the left keeps trying. 

Of course, Biden knows all about federalism and so do all the states. What Republicans and conservatives don't seem to get is that they just don't care. Do you remember not so long ago when Trump was president that some of the states with Democrat governments said if he tried to interfere with their handling of Covid-19 they would not listen to him, because it wasn't the federal government's place? What's the difference now? Just that a Democrat is in power in the White House. Here, for example, is an article from March, 2020 - in other words, the beginning of lockdowns and so forth, published in the Brookings Institute (probably the most famous left-wing think tank in the country) explaining to President Trump if he didn't want to violate the Constitution -Trump or governors: Who’s the boss? (brookings.edu). I will give them credit if they write a similar article now. 

Because Trump, unlike Biden, was not heading down the pathway of fascism, despite the left-wing drumbeat that he was fascism incarnate, he actually did not interfere with the states' Covid responses - and some, like New York and Michigan probably killed (I presume unintentionally) a lot of people in their control as a result. Will there ever be a real investigation into that? In any event, despite how vigilantly the governors protected their states while Trump was in office, I don't hear Democrat states complaining about the vaccine mandates and federalism now - only red states. 

Though federal powers have been greatly expanded since the 1905 Jacobsen case, which case I believe both sides will rely on), so too have the definitions of due process, privacy and equal protection - all expanded. In fact, both as a constitutional principle and as a subject of federal legislation, medical privacy has also grown tremendously (the HIPAA laws) as the notion of "my body, my choice." This will weigh against, not for, federal vaccine mandates. Not that the left is paying that any attention. 

Unfortunately I can no longer maintain the belief that our Supreme Court really binds itself by established law. Many of the justices prefer to establish law. That has been true of the right and left at times, but now seems like it is the goal of the left. If you don't believe it, ask yourself why if they can't get the justices to do it, they say - pack the court. Despite even the recriminations of Justice Thomas that it is not so, the Roberts Court seems to more about protecting the court as an institution and being liked by the media more so than actually applying the law. I suppose with the Democrats threats of court packing and Senator Goebbels' - sorry - Schumer's, public personal threats against individual judges if they did not vote the way his party wanted (I have never seen such a gleeful Nazi imitation by a U.S. Senator - Unhinged: Chuck Schumer Threatens Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch And Kavanaugh - YouTube), they are all rightly a little nervous of the court being diminished, even neutered, by the oncoming fascism (though I'm sure they would not put it that way). If people like Justice Thomas, who doesn't worry about what people think doesn't say so, who will? I didn't always think that way, but I've given up defending them, particularly Roberts. Not that I think he's a fascist, just deliberately determined to protect the court from the only ones attacking it - the left, by compromising as much as he can. He's not alone.

Why should I say that this mandate is on the road to fascism and not just that there is a new administrative rule I don't like? You have to look at the context and what is going on in our society. I could go on and on for another long-winded post (I excel at long-winded), but I won't. I write about it all the time and you can just look at past posts or the ones surely coming. You know - End border enforcement, abolish the electoral college, add D.C. or split states, pack the Supreme Court, threaten Supreme Court Justices, physically threaten Republican members of congress, all towards one party power; threaten our allies (not Trump, but Democratic congresspersons threatened Ukraine, institute modern racism (whites are inherently evil) through the schools, military, federal agencies, engage in censorship by partnership with tech companies that are largely the village square now, the established Clinton campaign and FBI attempts to derail Trump's campaign, attempts to derail his administration and impeach him with the silliest impeachments to date (they now mean nothing - just a conventional tool) and the like. 

We are in danger, not just a little bit, because of what's going on, but gravely so. And, people, many of whom would know better if not conditioned to almost a Pavlovian response into believing Trump was some kind of bogeyman controlling marauders like Barnaby in Babes in Toyland and about to nuke China. I can no longer be shocked that the decent, intelligent people I know believe this to the degree that almost nothing else matters and no set of facts can change it. I've read about it all my life, and have seen it too many times in the last few years.

I don't particularly like writing about this "stuff." Fascism, the iniquities of an administration, the divisions in society, etc. But, it's important and I have to continue. And if the Republicans ever claw back power and head towards fascism, I will continue the same. 

Does Black Lives Matter really hate black people?

Do you really belief any of what has been going on this past year has been good for black people? I can't see how. It is so destructive, I feel like they have lost a generation. Not that I believe most black people are for CRT or rioting or defunding the police (I think a great deal of them are white kids actually - and I have to add - some very ignorant white kids), but, it has to have a terrible impact on them. 

Looking back at my youth a few years ago, I believe after Muhammad Ali died, I realized that most of my childhood heroes were black. Most of them were athletes too, because most of my heroes were athletes period (pretty common for kids, I think). Not all of them were black, of course, but probably the majority. And some were not athletes, like Martin Luther King, Jr. The thing was, I didn't care what color they were. I was born in 1959. The '60s, of course, was a famously racist time. MLK, Jr. was assassinated, Malcolm X was a pariah (I've come to appreciate him more now). Muhammad Ali was a hero to many, but was a goat to others for converting to Islam, changing his name and refusing the draft. 

For a long time, the history of civil rights was a special interest for me - decades of reading. But, what I learned was for educational purposes and didn't really didn't make me any more aware of what was known to all reasonably intelligent people with even a smattering of education - that for centuries blacks were oppressed - even murderously oppressed. 

The '70s showed progress, but there was still a lot of racism. In the '70s the case of Loving v. Virginia was won by a wed couple in the Supreme Court, striking down a Virginia law that did not allow those of different races to marry. It is still stunning to me, and I'm sure to others, that this was actually a law in our country 50 years ago that needed to be struck down.

In the '80s, '90s, '00s and twenty-teens, racism declined further. Since roughly the 1950s, civil rights laws were enacted, and most famously and effectively in the '60s.  You can argue about the unconstitutionality of some them. You can argue about the wisdom of some of them, or fairness. But, you can't reasonably argue but that the laws of this country have since favored minorities and do not oppress them. 

Remarkably, but also predictably, this country elected, Barack Obama, a black man as president in 2008. You can argue he's bi-racial, not black - his mother and her parents were white - but he "identified" black and almost everyone describes him as black. Not only was he black, but he was clearly on the side of blacks as opposed to whites. In every black v. white issue, many of them concocted, he seemed to reflexively leap to the side of the blacks, rather than seek out facts and justice (by justice, I mean actual justice, not what is called "social justice," which is another form of racism). 

When a brouhaha broke out about a black Harvard professor who was stopped by the local police from breaking into his own home (the door was jammed, and a neighbor called the police), Obama immediately said the police "acted stupidly." He later relented and helped make peace. 

When George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in Florida, he said that "Trayvon" could have been his son. Not, George, whose head was being beaten into the ground when he shot the teenage boy, saving his own life. As I've said many times here, I watched the trial. Even the prosecution witnesses couldn't help but testify in a way that showed it was self-defense. Because it was clearly self-defense. That didn't stop Obama from making his statement. 

When Ferguson, Missouri blew up over Michael Brown's shooting, and the grand jury would not indict (always uncommon), he made a speech absolutely decrying violence, but at the same time making it clear that there would be a federal investigation into many communities and said not a single word about Darren Wilson, the officer who was treated like a murderer, despite the fact that many witnesses, including blacks, corroborated his story, and a number of the witnesses against Wilson actually admitted they made their stories up - or they were just not possible. The federal investigation also found that Officer Wilson, who had to quit his job and now lives in hiding, acted in self-defense. On its face, his speech may seem balanced to you. But, it is difficult to call it that when what happened was rather one sided, and favored the officer.

Obama was undoubtedly protected, and while it may be partly because he is a Democrat, and has the media in his pocket (despite the fact that many complained how opaque and threatening to journalists his administration was), part of it has to do with his skin color, for which he was favored, not oppressed. After all, this is the president who won a Nobel Prize for being elected, and he himself seemed embarrassed because he hadn't done anything yet. In fact, it is almost never mentioned that right after the Putin and Obama personally met in America in 2015, Russia unannounced, but long planned, secured its airbase on the Mediterranean in Syria. Can I prove that Obama gave it his okay? No. I don't know if Putin just told him what he was doing de facto or sounded him out, but it was not opposed. But the meeting was at Putin's request and I can't imagine that Obama would have been furious had he not known. That airbase is now permanent.

He was able to get away with telling Russia's prime minister that he would be more flexible after the election - in other words, essentially saying to America's enemy, Don't worry, I'll lie to the American people to get elected again - and we only know it because it was caught on a live mike (though some people tell me they never heard of such a thing happening, given the press's non). U don't think it was treasonous, but I do think impeachable.

Obama was also able to get away with an extended period of time in excess of that allotted by the War Powers Act helping Europe bomb away in Libya, getting rid of a bad guy, Ghaddafi, but also sending that country into a chaotic tailspin that has lasted to this day. He was able to survive the blowback from the tragedy that unfolded in Benghazi, Libya, when a terrorist group killed our ambassador and others due to a lack of American security. Compare, all this happened and no impeachment, but Donald Trump was impeached because he asked a president of another country for a favor and because some of his supporters attacked the capitol house (after Trump told them to protest "peacefully").  In fact, as to everything Obama did, you can only ask, can you imagine if Trump did that?

Of course, Obama, who was very sensitive about minority issues, knew very well that things had gotten tremendously better in America for them, and though prejudice exists, it was better than ever. We know this because, three years after BLM started its assaults on capitalism (yes, sorry), on race relations, on justice, he kept saying so. I never get tired of quoting this because it puts the lie to the false narrative of the left that we have a systemically racist country:

"I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don’t worry -- I’m going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. 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."

If you read the whole speech, you will see that most of minority's experiences were  better, much better, than it had been. And getting better still. Obama's full remarks at Howard University commencement ceremony - POLITICOPOLITICOSearchSearchCloseBack ButtonSearch IconFilter Icon.

So, if that was the case in 2016, why are we having the discussion now that things aren't better, that blacks wouldn't want to be born here and now?  Why isn't Obama still saying it. Well, that's simple. Because the radicals won. And when I say radicals, it is not a synonym for blacks. There are blacks, Hispanics and whites, lots of whites, and others, proselytizing away with radical cunning. While we were busy working, living and playing, they won the schools, the media, big tech, and many branches of government who now believe that Barack Obama was wrong (not that they know he said it), and that we are systemically racist. 

Was he wrong? 

Maybe, coached by co-workers or at school, repeatedly told it by CNN or one of the other radical outlets, that seem all for socialism while racking up millions in capitalist activities, you believe he was wrong then too. 

So, I ask you, do you really think this is good for black people? I mean, Black Lives Matter name implies it should care for black people, doesn't it? Then why have they asked to defund the police, leading to THOUSANDS of deaths and shootings (we usually count deaths, but being shot can destroy a life too) that sprung immediately upon the cries for no more police. In Portland, it is so bad - that is, the idiot government and prosecutors are so harsh on the police, that they now just let Antifa fight it out with the Proud Boys or whomever else. That's Oregon now and much of America thinks it wants to head that way too. Is that what you think is good for black people, watching their neighborhoods burn, watching their kids die, watching looting and so many crimes go unpunished. 

Well, thank goodness, many actual black people don't think so. Not that long after Floyd's death and the rioting and defund movement started, a poll showed that over 80% of blacks - so by far most - wanted the same or more police? Why wouldn't they? The best friends blacks in poor urban neighborhoods have are police. In Chicago where police have been neutered - they can't even chase a suspect without permission from a supervisor - homicides and shootings continue to spiral out of control. 58 people got shot, including children, last weekend there, with five dying. It was the most shootings this year, but not by far the most deaths. 12 died one weekend this year. These are predominantly black neighborhoods. Who are they helping by muzzling the police? Not black people. Not poor black people. 

Does BLM care? Do you care? 

What's happening in Chicago is happening to a large extent in cities, particularly Democrat led cities throughout the country. I've said this before but let me say it again - BLM's defund the police movement has led to the killings of blacks in a short time at a much faster rate than the KKK and others ever lynched them over their whole history. Maybe you think it is impossible, but it's crystal clear. According to the NAACP, obviously a pro-black organization (that used to believe in civil rights but now just hurts blacks), they have concluded that between 1882 and 1968 3,446 blacks were lynched. Look at the numbers of blacks who have died as a result of under-policing. We can't give an exact number but according to Time (a left leaning magazine) "according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit organization that advocates for stricter gun laws, Black Americans make up 68% of homicide victims in larger cities, many of them victims of gun violence." Remember, they are only about 12% of the population, so do the math. By the way, whites generally aren't killing them. It is in fact relatively rare, as it is for a cop to kill an unarmed black person. So, probably in 6 months of post Floyd hysteria and additional 2500 blacks, including little children died from homicide. We are on another record pace this year. And until cops are empowered again - and that means allowed to defend themselves, reasonably protected by the law and permitted to be aggressive with the bad guys, it is going to keep getting worse. Much worse.

In America, homicides went up from about 16,000 to about 20,000 - a rise of 4,000 people. It is reasonable, based on what we know to therefore estimate that perhaps somewhere between 2000-2500 more blacks died IN SIX MONTHS at least indirectly as a result of the under-policing caused by the defund and defang the police movements. 

Maybe you don't care, because you really don't care about black people. But, I think it is because it hasn't hit you personally yet.

Oregon may lead the country in wokepidity (if you can't guess - short for woke stupidity). There, the bar association has announced they will no longer be interested in merit, but diversity. In other words, they don't care if a black lawyer is qualified, if he/she hurts the clients, or if people don't respect black lawyers. But, they are not alone. Our vaunted AMA, whose intelligence I have to question, has pretty much said the same about doctors going forward. But, Oregon still wants to lead the parade and has announced that blacks no longer need worry about learning to read, write or do arithmetic to get out of high school. Talk about the soft racism of low expectations. What are they doing to these kids? Don't they care?

Do you? 

Now the debate by the language police is that "black" (no longer wrong to say, apparently) should be spelled with a capital "B" but white with a small "w" (but you tell me that we don't have a fascist society?), because . . . why? Do you think if we spell black "Black" and white just the way it is that blacks/Blacks will feel better about themselves, as if they are dumb animals that will be filled with pride if you let them eat first (it worked with my cats)? Why do you think they need to feel better? Who says they feel inferior? Well, not a trick question, but it is a basic premise of what is (I say laughingly) called Critical Race Theory, a form of racism (or fascism, which is authoritarianism based on racism). It's racism dressed up to look like it belongs in academia. CRT actually teaches white kids (and adults) to feel as they are a threat to western society and every black person. It also teaches, for example, blacks to feel inferior. Apparently, when Verizon succumbed to what is becoming a moral plague, teaching white employees they are a danger to society, it's efforts to browbeat them included this message by a black man in a video: "As a black man in [America], we are viewed as less than. We are viewed as inferior. We are viewed that our life is not as valuable as anyone else.” It's actually worse than that, they lecture that whatever whites might fear, they can't compare to the fears and anxiety's of blacks. Why? Because they clearly think blacks are inferior and live in fear. Not me saying this. They are. 

Do you agree that we should teach black kids that they will live in fear? I know many blacks don't agree. In fact, some blacks all over the country are fighting back against a lot of this nonsense. I loved this statement by Coleman Hughes, a writer who two years ago in a congressional hearing on reparations:

"Reparations by definition are only given to victims, so the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made 1/3 of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner."

Hughes is a talented guy. He was going to Juilliard to play the trombone, dropped out to become a hip/hop performer and then went and got his B.A. in philosophy from Colombia U. But, there I go, treating him like an individual rather than just by the color of his skin. What was I thinking?

As with all my posts, I could go on and on. But, you likely have a football game or Netflix presentation to watch, and I know I get about 3-5 minutes of your time.

So, let me end with this little personal comment. I don't watch tv anymore unless I'm in a room with someone who has it on. This past New Years' I agreed with my friends to come over for the evening and watch the programs with the ball dropping on Times Square and the like. And, it was okay. But, then, just after midnight, the channel we were watching put on an ad for BLM, because, I guess, they wanted us to end the year with bad feelings, disharmony and lies. At the end, they showed a march and they focused in on the little girl (I don't remember how old, but young) marching along with everyone and fixing the  camera with a fierce glare. In reality, I don't know if she was glaring at her mother who was making her march or if she was looking at someone eating her dessert. But, what the narrative they were presenting was that she was trying to say - I'm not going to put up with your oppression and I'm going to be fearless and fight you. 

It made me really sad. Because if she really was fixing us with the fierce glare of resistance, how sad for her. How sad the loss of her childhood. How sad for a generation of both black and white kids who are learning from the media and even trusted teachers that success does not come from hard work and studying, but from angering or frightening people, burning (especially cops, if they can), looting and rioting. That Martin Luther King, Jr. (if they've even heard of him) was wrong about judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin - but that the reverse is true. They are learning that they are not individuals, but cogs in a color scheme, that there is not justice for people, but only groups (if it sounds a little Marxist, remember, BLM is openly Marxist). That their country, who must have been confused when it elected a black man twice, doesn't love them, but hates them - and they should hate it and its history. That sticks and stones break your bones and names are worse. They are learning not brotherhood, but enmity, no unity but division, not pride, but to seek victimhood. 

And they are learning all these things from the very institutions that one would hope would be succoring them, not suckering them. 

Of course, it's not everyone, and it's our job to open our mouths and make sure kids and grandkids learn the truth. Don't give up on them.