Fight fascism - READ!

What can we, simple citizens, raised to peaceful ways, do to fight fascism? Well, one is vote. Two, is raise your voice about it to friends and family, who may not want to hear it. I don't mean start fights or talk about things your friends/family can't bear to hear, but if they get to say X, you should get to say Y. If, like me, you enjoy writing and don't mind the lack of a huge audience, right about it.  Third, read. Yes, read. If you read the right things, it is a subversive act - subversive to fascism.

Reading is kind of like the way I learn about my hobbies, which are far too many. I'm sure there are many people who read more than I do but, I am aware that most years I might read more books than most people read in their adult lives. It comes easy for me, and will not come easy for others. But, if you are reading this - you probably read.

The following are just some things I've read recently that resonated with me on the fight against fascism. As to whether I am an alarmist, we can discuss when you get to the last quote (there are four).

Ali. I read the following in a book, Ali by Jonathan Eig, which was not about fascism or freedom, but on the "Greatest," the former heavyweight boxing champ, Muhammad Ali.  Ali fought in the '60s and '70s, so racism in America was a genuine issue. It was real.  At some point Ali joined the Nation of Islam, which has always been controversial. Having read some Malcolm X on racism in America, I often had to agree with him, because of the context of the times he lived in - when racism was prevalent, murderous (so too was the Nation of Islam) and deep. But, I often had to disagree with him too, as sometimes he was just plain wrong. Eventually, when suspended from the Nation (in reality because he knew the leader had impregnated many women not his wife), he disagreed to, enough so that they killed him. Now, of course, the Nation of Islam is long under the guidance of Farrakhan, who I despise. 

In any event, in Ali, Eig made reference to and quoted from an FBI bulletin on the Nation of Islam (which it referred to as MCI, for the Muslim Cult of Islam). I quote it here because it reminds me of BLM now. You only need to make a few changes and that's what it seems like. Change "MCI" to BLM, "negro" to black, "temples" to groups, etc. and it could be written of our modern fascists now:

1.     "The MCI is a fanatic Negro organization purporting to be motivated by the religious principles of Islam, but actually dedicated to the propagation of hatred against the white race. The services conducted throughout the temples are bereft of any semblance of religious exercises. 

2.      Organizationally, the MCI is a collection of autonomous temples bound by a tremulous personal relationship between the heads of the temples and the headquarters of the Cult in Chicago, Illinois. 

3.     The MCI, although an extremely anti-American organization, is not at the present time either large enough or powerful enough to inflict any serious damage to the country; however, its members are capable of committing individual acts of violence. 

4.      The aims and purposes of the MCI are directed at the overthrow of our constitutional government, inasmuch as the Cult members regard it as an instrument of the white race; therefore, it is obvious that this group, as long as it retains the ideas now motivating it, will remain an investigative problem to the FBI."

Blacks had a tremendous reason to fight oppression in the 1950s when the above was written (if you doubt that, you really should read up on the subject). And the FBI, as racist as the society it was trying to protect (or control), had a lot to answer for in their own behavior then, as they do now when they again seem determined to protect the fascists and punish those seeking freedom. Of course, the FBI wouldn't write the above paragraphs now about BLM, but, they could fairly do so. I'd rewrite it thus:

 " BLM is a fanatic black organization purporting to be motivated by concern for the lives of blacks in America, but actually dedicated to the propagation of hatred against the white race. The rhetoric and actions by it are bereft of any semblance of care for blacks or other minorities. 

2.      Organizationally, BLM is a collection of autonomous groups bound by a tremulous personal relationship fostered by social media. 

3.     BLM, although an extremely anti-American, anti-family and anti-capitalistic organization, is not at the present time is large and powerful enough to inflict serious damage to the country; moreover, its members are capable of committing individual acts of violence. 

4.      The aims and purposes of BLM are directed at the overthrow of our constitutional government, inasmuch as the Cult members regard it as an instrument of the white race; therefore, it is obvious that this group, as long as it retains the ideas now motivating it, will remain an investigative problem to the FBI."

 As I've written about at length here, there is no systemic oppression against minorities in America nowadays, as BLM claims, though of course every type of prejudice exists, including against white people - the prevalent form. That's why all these claims you hear warp the truth. Like "silence is violence" (which means either verbally support me or I have a right to attack you in self-defense), like microaggressions (in other words, not actually aggressions, but let's call it that), like systemic racism (when our entire system, including the laws, is now geared to favor minorities), like "white fragility" (if you claim you are not racist, that's because you are "fragile" and can't help it), like "I don't feel safe" (which really means someone wants you fired because you differ politically) and like "anti-racism" which is actually racism, just against whites. And so forth.

***

The Russian Revolution  Daniel Pipes wrote A Concise History of the Russian Revolution in 1995, somewhat summarizing his previous scholarly works. Thus, it long preceded the the modern woke" or cancel culture, the BLM riots or Antifa. Still, when I read it, that's all I see.

The quote below is from the Introduction. What does it remind you of, particularly the second paragraph?:

Historians have noted that popular rebellions are conservative, their objective being a restitution of traditional rights of which the population feels itself unjustly deprived. Rebellions look backward. They are also specific and limited in scope. The cahiers des doléances (list of complaints_ submitted by French peasants in 1789 and, under a different name, by Russian peasants in 1905, dealt exclusively with concrete grievances, all of them capable of being satisfied within the existing system.

It is radical intellectuals who translate these concrete complaints into an all-consuming destructive force. They desire not reforms but a complete obliteration of the present in order to create a world order that has never existed except in a mythical Golden Age. Professional revolutionaries, mostly of middle-class background, scorn the modest demands of the “masses,” whose true interests they alone claim to understand. It is they who transform popular rebellions into revolutions by insisting that nothing can be changed for the better unless everything is changed. This philosophy, in which idealism inextricably blends with a lust for power, opens the floodgates to permanent turmoil. And since ordinary people require for their survival a stable and predictable environment, all post-1789 revolutions have ended in failure. 

Probably not since the Civil War have we faced an existential crisis like this, with an energized force, backed by the media, seeking to radically change or destroy America - change it fundamentally, to a race-conscious, race-controlling, apartheid state that casts merit and hard work on "the ash heap of history." If you aren't familiar with that, welcome to the blog and go back and read. Remarkably, the new fascism, always in embryo somewhere, began when everything was best for the minorities (so said Obama, as I often quote) that the radicals - who are not just minorities, but often some of the dumbest white kids in the country- claim to be out to protect. In fact, they themselves are more responsible for the death of so many minorities, including kids, that the KKK must envy them. But, with the media largely in the hands of people who are at least sympathetic with the radicals, we might be on a very slippery slope - whether they regret it or not. I know many people who agree with me, I know many people who just can't see it at all - in fact, they see the opposite. Some are on the fence. But, what radicals rely on is crises, so that they can gin up fear and the phantom of need for change. With Biden in charge, especially after his almost historically inept bumbling in Afghanistan, his pampering of his base and the media's blinders to all of his faults and looming disaster, we will probably get it soon.  

***

Spinoza?  I picked up very old copy of Spinoza's works one day, and perusing his Ethics, came across something that reminded me of the very dissonance that seems to exist in this country between those who think this way and those who think that way - kind of those who hate Trump and those who like or tolerate him as the lesser of two evils. I admit, I am baffled by those who hate him their submission to the media narrative and a preference for someone who has proven to be a bumbling fool that only seems to make mistakes, and I am sure they are baffled how I could ever think to vote for someone they can only see as a bogeyman or incubus. 

Here is Spinoza, in whom some see almost a Saint and others a genius, from the 17th century:

"We thus see that it is possible for one man to love a thing and for another man to hate it; for this man to fear what man does not fear, and for the same man to love what before he hated, and to dare to do what before he feared. Again, since each judges according to his own affect what is good and what is evil, what is better and what is worse . . ., it follows that men may change in their judgment as they do in their affects, and hence it comes to pass that when we compare men, we distinguish them solely by the difference in their affects, calling some brave, other timid, and others by other name. For example, I shall call a man brave who despises an evil which I usually fear, and if, besides this, I consider the fact that his desire of doing evil to a person whom he hates or doing good to one whom he loves is not restrained by that fear of evil by which I am usually restrained, I call him audacious. On the other hand, the man who fears an evil which I usually despise will appear timid, and if, besides this, I consider that his desire is restrained by the fear of an evil which has no power to restrain me, I call him pusillanimous; and in this way everybody will pass judgment. Finally, from this nature of man and the inconstancy of his judgment, in consequence of which he often judges things from mere effect, and the things which he believes contribute to his joy or his sorrow, and which, therefore, he endeavours to bring to pass or remove . . ., are often only imaginary . . . ."

It appears to me that our media, a virulent part of the left, has succeeded in making a  "Trump" a variation on a "Jew" in the same fashion as the Jews were made into scapegoats and villains by the Nazis and their media. But, others, who I know to be kind, decent, intelligent people, disagree with me vehemently.

Partly, of course, with his own seemingly irresistible need to say stupid things, Trump is also at fault. But, his presidential performance, in the face of the most sinister, dishonest and un-American opposition since Lincoln, was thereby made remarkable - from solving the border crisis, to the Abraham Accords (for any other president, the Nobel Peace Prize would have been awarded), to making our economy stronger, to destroying ISIS in Syria and Iraq, to fighting back against China and Russia, operation warp speed and other tasks. But, to this day, numerous friends or family, when faced with the new administration that 

    - so bungled departure from Afghanistan that an unknown amount of Afghanis died, 13 U.S. soldiers died, that according to the State Department left almost 400 Americans stranded there STILL (about which most of the media is silent - unlike the Iranian hostage crisis where it was front page every day), in all an embarrassment so great that a German leader called it NATO's greatest disaster and the British parliament actually; 

    - has created the greatest crisis on our border ever (we don't have any idea of these refugees, including the children, which the Ds say they care about died on the way; 

    - has tried, somewhat successfully, to install racist teaching into our military, our federal agencies, and supports its teaching in schools to little kids 

    - has allowed and contributed to spiraling inflation, low employment, low labor participation, a shipping crisis, and other economic disasters (all of which Trump avoided while he was president during the pandemic without a vaccine); 

    - has an executive who makes statements that constantly need correction by the White House (leading some to ask - who actually is in charge that is correcting him?), including saying we will defend Taiwan, the walking back of which will only encourage Red China;

    - has stymied our oil production (stopping the Keystone pipeline continuation) while giving approval to Russia to go ahead with its gas pipe to Europe, helping put western Europe at Russia's mercy if it wants to pressure them the way it has Ukraine (do countries never stop putting themselves in difficult positions);

    -has sowed hatred over vaccination and further divided an already divided country; 

and I'm sure all future problems and disasters by simply repeating some form of  - "But, Truuuuummmmpppp!" You don't think so? Biden has already blamed the economy, Afghanistan and the border on Trump, who has been out of office since January.

And screaming But Truuuuummmpppp apparently works. Go back and read the Spinoza quote in that light.

. . .

1930s Germany   In 1955 Milton Mayer published, They Thought They Were Free: Germany 1933-1945, a book containing ten conversations with a variety of Germans to try to understand why they became Nazis. Though I've researched this subject for a long time, I only came across this book recently and am reading it now. It is worth giving a long quote, ten paragraphs, because the same warnings we have today existed then too for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Call me an alarmist after reading this, my friends:

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."

I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.

We aren't in the final stages of fascism yet, but we are in the beginning stages. Whether you are merely one of those who can't speak out because you fear being fired, or someone who is castigated for thinking whether to take a vaccine actually is about freedom, you know of what I write. But, you too are uncertain. So am I, so am most people I know. A long time friend - who would not mind my mentioning his name (I won't) - says it is past time and we must act soon, whatever that means. They've already gone too far, declared their intentions to cripple the country, deprive us of freedom, and it's time to fight back. I think we at least have another election or so (if it can be done fairly), to see what can be done democratically. But, if the fascist party takes over the Supreme Court by packing, or frightening enough of its members, or by making Democrat packed areas states, or by cancelling the electoral college, or the filibuster, or eviscerating the border, it may be too late. 

Don't feel sorry for Merrick Garland

I just want to clear something up about Merrick Garland. I come here not to praise or bury him, but to castigate him soundly. 

When Merrick Garland stood beside Barack Obama being announced as the next nominee for the Supreme Court, he teared up. I don't blame him. It was quite an honor. When the Republicans did not give him a hearing or move forward on his nomination because it was in an election year, I opposed it. He should have had a hearing. I think he'd be on the court, because Republicans are more likely to vote for a Democratic nominee than vise versa, but, it is hard to say. It seemed at the time he was not so different than Brett Kavanaugh, who, despite all the venom shot in his direction, is at best a moderate conservative. I'm sure Trump is sorry he nominated him. In any event, blocking Garland inflamed and energized the D party.

That said, now that Garland is the Attorney General, I take back my empathy. Despite his declaration that he's independent of the White House, he usually appears to be a true lap dog to the president in a way Bill Barr certainly never was (he sometimes made Trump very unhappy). 

For example, he had the DOJ file a civil rights action against Texas. Some would be mad at me if I assume it's because Texas is trying to find away to stop babies with heart beats from being torn apart in the womb, but I have trouble not seeing that - as it is the whole point of the law to avoid it. The civil rights complaint claims to seek the protection of women's rights. But, note, not women who are in the womb, of course. That will not even be considered. 

Though I don't think as the abortion cases stands now - with it being constitutionally protected before viability, there is a chance much above 0 that this law will survive the Supreme Court decision (contrary to rumor, Texas has not already won in the Supreme Court - the Court only decided not to uphold the lower court stay while a different case was being determined), the federal suit is a second bite at the apple. There is no doubt that Texas is seeking an end around of Roe and the Casey case, which modified it. A federal judge has now, based on the federal suit, issued a stay, despite the Supreme Court striking down the previous one. However the appeals court reinstated the operation of law and it will probably get a second Supreme Court hearing. 

The reason I hold this against the supposedly independent Garland at the DOJ is that if you review the previous cases concerning abortion that made it to the Supreme Court, none of them concern federal civil rights suits against a state. I could be wrong, as I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of abortion cases, but I think this is the first time the federal government is a plaintiff (they have frequently filed briefs known as Amici briefs - that is, friends of the court briefs). 

While Biden at one time claimed to be personally opposed to abortion and supported the Hunt Amendment that forbid our country using public funds to support abortion outside the country, he through his core beliefs under the bus in order to win the nomination in his party.  As for Garland, when he was nominated, he had zero public record on his abortion beliefs. Had he had a hearing, there is little doubt he would have said what virtually everyone else says - Roe v. Wade is precedent, perhaps super-precedent, but also say that he's not given abortion much thought. Now as AG, he can act on his beliefs, but he is clearly doing what Biden wants. Those who said when he was nominated - we don't need to know his beliefs, we know Obama's, were correct.

He also is seeking the investigation of parents upset with the racist CRT teachings to their innocent children. At his nomination hearing, Garland famously refused to acknowledge Antifa as a terrorist group. I wonder how he would feel if they showed up his door, particularly when he wasn't home and his family was (as has happened to others). But, he clearly sees these parents as terrorists, which was exactly what was asked of him by pro-CRT groups.

I'll get back to his adventures as U.S. AG below, but the main point I want to get to here is that the narrative that has so inflamed the left - that the Republicans unfairly blocked Garland from the Supreme Court - is basically ridiculous. Blocking nominees, including for Courts, is hardly news. Both parties have done it. 

Example - George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals. He was a highly respected lawyer, Harvard educated and editor of their prestigious law review. The Democrats couldn't stop his hearing and his passing through the judiciary committee, because they did not control it, but, for the first time ever, filibustered a Court of Appeals nominee. Even their basic claim for voting against him, that he was never a judge, was shown to be a fib. Pres. Clinton had, in fact, nominated Elena Kagan in 1999, and she had not been a judge. In fact, in 2010 when she was nominated and confirmed, she still hadn't been a judge (and, by the way, despite how he was treated and their political differences, Estrada publicly supported her confirmation). 

A leaked memo from Sen. Durbin's staff (Dem.) indicated that the Ds used the filibuster because, other than political reasons, Estrada was "Latino." Hard to believe, but there it was in writing (Nov. 7, 2001 memo, if you want to research it yourself). The Ds were able to distract from that because the memo and others were apparently illegally obtained. 

Though the filibuster had been used before against nominees, this was the first time it was ever successful against a nominee who clearly had majority support (if he could only get a vote), the first time it was used against a Court of Appeals nominee and the first time it prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court (the filibuster had been used to keep associate Justice and LJB friend and lawyer, Abe Fortas, already on the Court, out of the Chief Justice's chair, but, there were serious ethical issues behind it and he eventually resigned over it). After more than two years in limbo, Estrada asked Bush, who had nominated him, to withdraw his name (at least that's what they said, to make it look better for him). 

By the way, Estrada wasn't alone in being treated so by the Democrat minority - there were 9 other nominees eventually filibustered by the Ds during Bush's terms. This is when Trent Lott came up with the "nuclear option" to change the rules so that a filibuster couldn't stop a judicial nominee. The nuclear option wasn't actually used then (while Bush was president, some moderate senators from both parties worked out a compromise so that the filibuster would be rarely used against judicial nominees) but was resurrected by the Ds when they held the Senate. As Sen. McConnell said at the time the Ds enacted the nuclear option, they would come to regret it and sooner than they thought - they did when the Rs took the Senate back and Trump became the nominator. 

As also is well established, former Sen. Joe Biden himself (among others) said during the first Bush's term that he should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice in the presidential election year. He was not the only D who indicated that "belief." Sen. Schumer, who I detest as he reminds me more and more of Joseph Goebbels, actually took that position in 2017: "We should not confirm any George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not."  

I am not suggesting that Ds alone are responsible for game playing with the filibuster. Both parties have used it to stop nominations and there has been tremendous hypocrisy on both sides. I call into the void for a Constitutional Amendment deeming all presidential nominees confirmed by the Senate unless there is an up or down vote within 90 days of nomination. The inordinate waste of time, vehemence and infighting between the parties over it would be at end and the elected president, of any party, would get to have his chosen staff. There is not a chance of it happening, but, still, it should happen.

Leave aside his nomination, I now despise Garland's tenure as AG. It did not have to be so. If he had merely acknowledged the fascist Antifa as such, if he didn't bring the Civil Rights actions against Texas, if he didn't press the investigation of parents by the FBI for fighting about a racist program being taught to their children pushed by Obama and now Biden, I'd have not changed my mind about him.  He brought this contempt on himself.

Of course, he doesn't say things the way I do. His moves, like with virtually all politicians, is always couched in some bureaucratic speech to make it sound like they are the good guys. The memo he wrote about parents calls for investigating threats against school boards. Nobody should disagree in the abstract that no threats should be made against school boards because people don't like their policies. But, he nor the administration is concerned with the confrontations called for by Maxine Waters against Republicans, or the rioting across America followed by the great upswing in murders absolutely generated by BLM and their compatriots following the killing of George Floyd or insane mayors and local legislatures defunding police, leading to the deaths of so many people, mostly young minorities. Why is he concerned so much about regular parents who just want their kids to follow the MLK, Jr. dream rather than the path of racism? 

The answer is because the administration actually pushes the racist theory known as Critical Race Theory (now being taught again to our military and federal agents and also being foisted upon the captured audience employees for giant "woke" companies. I've written about CRT a number of times here - it teaches that white kids are oppressors and black kids victims. There is no concern by the administration or Garland that racism is being taught in schools, of course, because in our version of 1984, racism is considered to be Anti-racism and vise versa. 

Garland's memo to investigation supposed "threats" came on the heels of requests by the National School Boards Association and National Association of Secondary School Principals to help them get rid of parents opposing CRT even asking that they be treated as "domestic terrorists," that the Patriot Act remedies be called upon and other drastic remedies. This has led to 17 Attorney Generals from various states (all red states, of course), to protest it, noting that actual threats are rare and that the complaints seem to be disruptive, not criminal. They note that "in no known instance, has there been anything like the burning, looting, police assaults, vandalism and other criminal activity that occurred in the summer of 2020.” 

What's the real problem - our slipping further and further into left wing fascism. When Trump sent federal troops just to protect federal property that Antifa was seeking to destroy, the left, including the Idiot Mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, cried out as if the feds were storm troopers. The feds picked up a single criminal in a van and were accused of every possible form of violence and fascism - called storm troopers. To the contrary, when Jan. 6 rioters are held in solitary confinement or otherwise abused, Garland and this administration seem blind to it. I've covered before the left's acceptance, support or ignoring of Antifa and won't repeat it here again. But, it seems that to this administration and the left in general feel angry parents who are dismayed their children are being taught racism are much worse than battle-geared brown shirts who have literally murdered and tried to burn cops alive. And you wonder why I keep using the word fascists.

I no longer feel sorry for Merrick Garland. He, who once prosecuted terrorists, has now become their champion and I only feel contempt for him. People of every ideology, every ethnicity, every religion - just everyone, really do need to wake up. A single election could begin to turn the tide. The fascistic movement on the left has drowned out almost any dissent. They are relentless. We cannot just give up.

The Seven Pillars of Fascism

 The Seven Pillars of Fascism* (and how we are following that path).

I keep adjusting my own definition, but not views, on fascism. Definitions aren’t really that important as people interpret them, accept or reject them, according to their own interests and beliefs. It is one thing to define a tangible thing – although hard enough. It is another to define an idea or ideology. It does really matter much, nor one whit or iota if someone essentially evil is called a Marxist or Communist, an authoritarian or totalitarian. You are just emphasizing an an ideological aspect of it. Fascism seeks to subject everyone to its ideology and can be any and all of those things. The bottom line is that fascist fits the image created by George Orwell in  1984: 

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.”

As with the famous Potter Stewart quote about pornography/obscenity (really, one of his law clerks, Alan Novak, came up with it) - although I can’t define fascism, I know it when I see it. But, the below list contains what are right now what I believe are the main tenets or factors, not in any particular order. I am neither claiming it is all there is to it nor that all of the factors necessarily appear all of the time:

1.     The fascist uses force or intimidation to coerce people to accept their political will.

2.     The fascist claim that they are victims and that their opponents are oppressors.

3.     The fascist creates a false scapegoat.

4.     The fascist seeks to divide and often uses race, ethnicity and/or religion to do it.

5.     The fascist gains control of critical social institutions, like the media, the police and the education system.

6.     The fascist is dishonest, and often uses fake crises or exaggerates them in order to more easily take or maintain power.

7.     The fascist takes complete control of the law and all facets of society within his or her reach – not just the reins of government.

I hope to describe here and in the next few weeks or months (whenever I can, really – but it won’t be every post) all of these tenets or factors as applies to the U.S.A. now. No doubt more examples will appear as I go through the list after I have posted them because they are coming so fast and furiously. This is a topic that in years past I would have written one long-ass post on, but these days, between work, other interests, family matters, and let’s face it, reader patience, I try to break it up. Perhaps I will use post scripts on those already posted, perhaps not. I’m not always consistent, and, as this is not a professional blog, but my amateur ravings (doesn’t mean they aren’t true), I have to say I hope I finish the project.

What is more important is what we are doing now in this country. I make no bones about it. Though not a Republican or member of any party, and not a conservative who reflexively resists change (sometimes good and sometimes not), I of course know that Republicans are as capable of fascism as the Democrats. But, for quite a few years now, the Democrats have almost decisively and sometimes brutally cornered the American market on fascism.

Because WWII history is so well known, Hitler is the perfect example of a fascist. Technically, he would have said that he was a National Socialist or Nazi, and that Mussolini was a fascist. While technically true then, nowadays, the words for party names have become associated with the description of character. So, I use Hitler and the Nazis in a lot of examples here. But, it is critical to remember, it happens different every time, but the end results are the same, as the total domination of every aspect of society by cruel leaders who crush dissent.

THE FASCIST USES OF FORCE OR INTIMIDATION TO COERCE PEOPLE TO ACCEPT ANOTHER’S POLITICAL WILL.

I need not describe by example here how the WWII era Nazis and Fascists used force and intimidation to get their way, and I wouldn’t be using the phrases Nazi or fascist if it weren’t. It is too well known and would take books to cover it anyway. Suffice to say that their behavior, more so the Nazis, is the leading example of fascism in history, though, of course, brutal dictatorships have existed since time immemorial. However, though I am not claiming we are dealing with the Nazis yet or the Soviet Union, we are heading in that direction. Even the Nazis, if you study the pre-war error, weren’t using crematoriums as fast as they could manage immediately. It took a few years to consolidate power. We are in the opening stages now, but with a bullet.

Some of you might not even be aware of many of these things as the media, particularly if you watch CNN, MSNBC, the Networks (etc.), or read the New York Times, The Washington Post (etc.), simply won’t cover news stories that don’t favor the Democrats or left wing politics or they minimize them or so slant the story that it seems like they favor them. I know because for years I sporadically check when something horrible happens that one would naturally blame the left for and what are derisively referred to as the “mainstream media” just guards the left-wing narrative.

But, violence and intimidation:

Hundreds, if not thousands of riots and definitively 1000s, if not tens of thousands of acts of violence in supposed “BLM” or “George Floyd” protests after George Floyd died. The worst aspect of it was the drive to defund the police which has resulted in America’s homicide rate going up 30% in 2020 according to the FBI. Let me say that bigger:

THIRTY PERCENT!

Thank you BLM (not). If that doesn’t mean much to you, then consider that it is unprecedented. Even in 2001 – the year that includes almost 3000 murders on 9/11, it only went up 20% from the year before and then immediately began dramatically dropping in the following years as it generally did in the decade before. The rate generally ranged from 4.4%-5.8% from 2020 on before spiking enormously last year. Go ahead, blame the pandemic when people are staying home, but the truth is, it started after the Floyd death was publicized and the calls for defunding started. And, not to stray too far into another topic – protests over what? The lie that police are targeting unarmed blacks. More whites are killed every year by police and many more police officers of any skin color are killed by others of any color. By far, the greatest danger to blacks is a weak police force. The numbers of unarmed blacks who are not resisting arrest, including brandishing weapons, actually approaches zero rather than the 1000s people who are polled sometimes believe. Of course if you did not figure out that BLM was all a lie when one of its founders was discovered to have moved to a mostly all-white neighborhood in Hollywood (among her other properties) and abandoned the BLM project when she was rich enough (from looting funds meant as charity for BLM? I don’t know, but I wonder) then there is no hope you will believe any of this. As I have pointed out many times on this blog, BLMs anti-police rhetoric has resulted in the deaths of minorities, including blacks, at a faster rate than the KKK could even dream about. Not long ago the NY Post cover showed 18 youngsters, ages 5-18, who had been murdered just in NYC, where long ago Mayor De Blasio decided that crime doesn’t matter. Chicago alone is a national shame as is Portland, Oregon. As we see all over the country, left wing leadership is an urban disaster.

Antifa rioting and violence. Perhaps never has a group gotten away with using a name that was such a lie as Antifa, as they are probably the embodiment of fascism in America. Wearing black combat gear, this gang has beaten, robbed, murdered and tried – only so far unsuccessfully, to murder cops in their precinct houses. Yet, they are virtually untouched. The media ignores their violence, calls to account those who fight with them but don’t themselves attack the public or commit crimes except perhaps in attacking fascists (e.g., The Proud Boys).

Worse, our fascist government has pretty much declared hands off Antifa. Merrick Garland, who now heads the Department of Justice (I say the last word laughingly – I have no faith in it anymore at all) said in his confirmation hearing that he couldn’t tell if Antifa was a terrorist outfit in light of photographs of them trying to burn their way into a Federal Courthouse site, because it was nighttime (do terrorists only work in the day? What about 9/11?) despite all their acts and threats. I actually felt sorry for that guy when the Republicans wouldn’t give him a hearing to get on the Supreme Court. As far as I’m considered, thank goodness they did, or we’d have an Antifa apologist on the court. Now, I’m sure he is busy having the FBI investigating parents upset that their daughter was raped or who oppose CRT.

To get a better, 10x more realistic report, try Andy Ngo’s Unmasked. An intrepid journalist who has had at least once flee the country because Antifa was trying to murder him and has already been assaulted by them. If you don’t believe him it’s because why? – CNN and the NY Times won’t report on them. Democratic politicians and the media seem to want to protect this fascist group.

Democrat politicians support or pretend Antifa doesn’t exist or are harmless. Watch Sen. Hirono, one of the most fascist members of congress, literally abruptly leave a congressional hearing rather than accept Sen. Cruz’s (who I used to have little respect for, but now cherish as one of the most effective defenders of our country in the two houses) challenge to call out Antifa as a violent organization by name. Dem Sen. Hirono Walks Out Of Hearing After Cruz Challenges Her To Denounce Antifa, She Doesn't | Video | RealClearPolitics. Previously, in an interview, in the midst of the violence, she said she understood why they were being violent – it’s because, she said, of white supremacy. “Well, this is what happens. They — because when you look at white supremacists and all of that, this is what is coming forth in our country. There is a tremendous divisiveness in our country. But this is the kind of activism that occurs. And people make their own decisions. If they violate the law, then they have to account for that.”

Jerrold Nadler, a fascist congressman from my own state who did everything he could to unseat a president calls Antifa violence a myth. Rep. Jerry Nadler says Antifa violence in Portland a 'myth' (congress.gov). That’s funny, because even Portland’s idiot mayor, another Democrat who barely won against someone who ran as “The Antifa Candidate,” Ted Wheeler, has now, after denouncing the federal government for its protection of federal property, and literally blaming Trump for civil unrest, now begs for assistance against Antifa. At least he’s there now. Does Nadler really enjoy Portland burning and suffering for over a year or is he just stupid? I don’t know. But, I don’t understand how wonderful people I know can defend this party and vote for them in the face of this. I know – But Truuuuuumpppp!

Maxine Waters, a very sick woman in my view, probably was successful in frightening the jury at the end of the Chauvin trial by calling on the rioters around Minneapolis to once again repeat, but even more so, it’s violence that included 150 arsons, 2 deaths (seems to me to for Democrats, only George Floyd’s death matters, at least not ones that don’t follow their narrative), and massive mayhem for days. Here’s what she said to reporters – “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 confrontational? Mean business? All that arsons, deaths and destructions to the city didn’t mean business, wasn’t confrontational enough? The jurors knew exactly what she meant and there could be no fair trial (whether or not Chauvin is guilty). Not that I think Chauvin is completely innocent – the videos showed at least manslaughter or negligent homicide in my view, but I hope the top court has the courage to overturn the verdict and give a new trial (and Derek, you really need a new lawyer who will fight for you). Because if people completely lose faith in the law, worse things will happen.

You really think Waters didn’t mean violence? Well, she also said on another occasion when Republican leaders were getting assaulted by violent Democrats and socialists – ““Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” That discussion was over immigration. Funny, she doesn’t seem concerned about the children when the Democratic president has created a disaster on the southern border and bodies are being found all over Latin America.

Violence aimed at shutting down speech. Several years ago Antifa and the like began the modern era of shutting down speakers when they attacked in rather large numbers the building where a conservative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo is a jerk in my view, but that has nothing to do with shutting him down. Soon after it was Ann Coulter. The author of The Bell Curve, Charles Murray, was attacked at a Vermont college, and the liberal professor who asked him to speak was injured by the insane students who sought to silence him with violence (by the way, If you haven’t read The Bell Curve, and believe the lies that it is racist, you seriously have no idea what you are talking about).

This goes on and on and on. The group that goes by the acronym Fire (thefire.org-Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) is an organization dedicated to protect speech rights on college campuses. Take a look at their list of speakers who have been shut down. In the last few years, really since 2014, it is almost always speakers on the right who the left seeks to silence, not vice versa. I don’t know if the organization has a political bent, but, though The Fire is officially non-partisan, some of the attempts to silence which they assess as being from the right, clearly aren’t when you look at the details they provide. E.g., the people seeking to block Ben Carson, a staunch conservative, in 2014 were not from the right). 

These attempts are sometimes just pressure, but too often violent. Moreover, it seems that in some jurisdictions, if you are on the right, you don’t get police protection. The constitution, says our Supreme Court, requires the government to protect the speaker – but too often these days the opposite seems true.

Using the police power to frighten Trump supporters and others

Left wing states and even the federal government have committed themselves to attacking Trump and his supporters. Leave aside the two jokes of impeachment proceedings against him, NY threatened to prosecute him for years and finally got his tax returns to desperately find a crime. They couldn’t find anything and finally gave up. So, they did the next best thing in their corrupt minds and arrested.

We’ve seen only recently, that a federal judge held prison officials in contempt for their treatment of prisoners arrested for the January 6, 2021 fiasco. Glad to hear it, but a little late. The federal government acted as if it was the only riot in the history of America, spent huge resources to round up trespassers, made believe an officer of the law, Brian Sicknick, who died soon after, apparently of a stroke unrelated to the riot, was murdered by Trump supporters. They even gave him a state funeral before his own family protested the lie. The fact is that no one was killed that day by Trump supporters (and I don’t know if Sicknick was one or not). Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter, on the other hand, was murdered in cold blood, shot dead while she was empty handed surrounded by heavily armed cops. Nothing will happen to her killer, an officer, I believe because he’s black and she’s a white Trump supporter. A few other Trump supporters died that day. I don’t know why? But, they didn’t kill anyone.

The Biden administration’s reaction to 1/6 is so great an over-reaction, it doesn’t take much to recognize it as political. There is a kangaroo court variety of commission – hardly bi-partisan – Pelosi only let on it Republicans who hate Trump, like Liz Cheney. Even Sens. Elizabeth Warren (who I consider a very phony and terrible person who would do our country great harm if she ever got into power) and Bernie Sanders (who I kind of like personally, but think his policy choices are horrible for America) protested over the treatment of the 1/6 prisoners. If people like them are protesting the treatment of Trump supporters – how bad is it?

Meanwhile, we know that the FBI was aware of the phony claims against the Trump campaign and Russia, but still they acted on it. We know that the 2 year Mueller investigation – run by his staff entirely, made up of Democrat lawyers, some who actively supported Clinton – could find nothing wrong done and that at his hearing, Mueller himself seemed somewhat clueless as to what was in the report. We know that they set up General Flynn though they suspected him of no crime (the crime of lying to a federal agent while not under oath should be repealed). We know they went after Carter Page based on falsely sworn documents. We know that after Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted by the federal government (indeed, the same day), New York tried to make him a political prisoner and filed charges against him so that he couldn’t be pardoned. Eventually, the case was dismissed and he was pardoned by Trump (it is typical of presidents to do this for those who helped them – I’m not justifying it, but putting it in perspective). Basically, the case was dismissed because New York was trying to prosecute him on the same facts as the federal government convicted him and violated the State’s own double jeopardy law. The D.A. went up to New York’s high court to overturn the decision. New York also looked to prosecute Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen (who seems to me a corrupt human being) after the Federal government was finished with him, but either couldn’t find even a colorable claim or decided not to bother because he turned on Trump.

And don’t even start me on the Kavanaugh hearings or Sen. Schumer’s Goebbels like speech threatening members of the court. Really, that all okay with you?

Another example of the disgusting behavior of fascist governments using their power to intimidate people who won’t obey them, even if they have committed no crime, is the actions taken against people who do not want to obey the vaccine mandate. This is happening all over the country. I happen to be pro-vaxx, but I am very much against forcing people who don’t want to get vaccinated, or don’t want their children to get vaccinated to do so. I think it would be better for our country if more people got vaccinated, but no one should have to do it. I’ve written before about the Jacobsen v. Massachusetts case, which in 1905, upheld a state (not federal) law requiring vaccinations. But, in short, that case holding comes from the same court that thought separate but equal was okay. It was before the first amendment and other rights from the Bill of Rights were applied to the states and before privacy rights were found in the constitution – including Roe v. Wade. I don’t know if one of these cases will make it to the court, but it might. I do not think a challenge to these laws will be successful, but I do think it’s a new day and Jacobsen should not be relied on without review under the entirely different constitutional paradigm which now exists.

The most common result of violation of the mandates seems to be to lose your job – at least right now. This is not nothing. It’s incredibly important. Imagine if you were fired and had to support a family. I assure you everyone who is getting fired can’t afford it. Certainly the states and municipalities do not care about the individuals whose lives are destroyed, but you’d think they would care about the impact on society. The airlines are a mess, the supply chains are a mess, people are literally quitting their jobs in droves – but the official word seems to be, they don’t care.

I know, some of you are thinking what does this have to do with fascism? Well, as I have said, it happens different every time and gets progressively worse. But, throwing people out of jobs or driving them out is not new. Before the Nazis were gassing Jews, they made it almost impossible for them to work. Now, we have the military about ready to begin (if they haven’t begun) handing out dishonorable discharges for those who don’t want to be vaccinated, we have civilians being told if they are fired for refusal to vaccinate they won’t get benefits. Police forces, such as in Seattle, which can’t afford to lose another officer, are about to fire many, and much more. This is not just a slippery slope. It’s beyond - it’s just government doing what it always does.

Even Biden’s speech on the vaccine – where again he asked for unity after insulting and threatening a large portion of the country – gave people opposed to the vaccination ample reason to fear:

“Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinatd.”

“We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part and want to get back to life as normal.”

“This is not about freedom or personal choice.

“So, tonight, I’m announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees, that together employ over 80 million workers, to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.” (This means or else they will fire you).

And my personal least favorite – “We’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.  And your refusal has cost all of us.”

If these statements aren’t meant to intimidate and stigmatize people, I don’t know what is. Even to say it is safe, as he did, is not exactly true. It’s mostly safe, in my belief, but it cannot be doubted that some people do die as a result of it or are seriously injured – even if relatively few. I don’t recall that happening with the flu virus I get every year. Or the vaccine children get to go to school. But those aren’t new vaccines or new diseases that we know so little about.

I am vaccinated. But, if like some friends of mine who do not want it (some had Covid-19 and are better off antibody-wise than the vaccinated), I wasn’t, I’d sure feel threatened. I admit also, I would rethink all of this if I felt the virus was an existential threat to the country. Not even close.

Some cases are worse – one unvaccinated women was told that they would not do a kidney transplant on her because she would not vaccinate. In another case, someone couldn’t get a new kidney because the donor wouldn’t get vaccinated. All they need to do is check these people to see if they have it or not. There is no need for this life threatening bullying. But, that’s what fascism does to people. Empowers them to be brutal and demand others cave.

I’m going to end my examples here. I know those of you who live in good neighborhoods or feel insulated from the violence of BLM and Antifa, you don’t live in under-policed areas where you and your children or grandchildren’s life is in danger like people in Chicago, Portland or NYC. You aren’t a public speaker and maybe you don’t like conservatives, so you don’t care if they can’t speak or if their political leaders are attacked in public. You feel safe and can even close your eyes to these things. Go ahead and good for you. It doesn’t affect me very much either personally, but I can’t close my eyes to it. I just can’t. Perhaps it comes from decades of reading about pre-WWII Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union. For years people would say, don't worry, Hitler wouldn't let this or that happen. But, he did.

Good luck out there.

*Yes, if you are wondering, the title to this post is derived from a book by Lawrence of Arabia.

Post  Script 10/15/21 I saw this one yesterday. A judge in Calgary (yes, I know that's in Canada) order - ORDERED - three pastors to include the majority view on Covid-19 when preaching. Now, I know they don't have a first amendment in Canada - I know they control speech (which, sorry, fascist - and that's why we have a first amendment). But, even for Canada, what the hell?

There's a petition on change.org, "Petition · Fire UCLA Professor Gordon Klein · Change.org. This petition is to have fired the now suspended Professor Gordon Klein, for writing back to a student who asked for special favors due to the George Floyd killing. Prof. Klein did not mince words. He was polite, but it was obvious he was outraged at a request to grade based on skin color, which I would think would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws. I would be outraged too:

"Thanks for your suggestion in your email below that I give black students special treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota. Do you know the names of the classmates that are black? How can I identify them since we've been having online classes only? Are there any students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half black-half Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half? Also, do you have any idea if any students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they probably are especially devastated as well. I am thinking that a white student from there might be possibly even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they're racist even if they are not. My TA is from Minneapolis, so if you don't know, I can probably ask her. Can you guide me on how you think I should achieve a "no-harm" outcome since our sole course grade is from a final exam only? One last thing strikes me: Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be evaluated based on the "color of their skin." Do you think that your request would run afoul of MLK's admonition? Thanks, G. Klein"

Klein was suspended from teaching and currently has a lawsuit pending against UCLA, who sure look like racists to me. This country used to hate racists. Now the institutions that used to be against it are among the biggest promoters of it. 

Here's an irony for you - the student apologized to Klein and signed up for another class. Didn't matter. the emails were leaked and went viral.

Postscript 10/18/21 So, you still think we don't live in a fascist country? A NYC family court judge just cut off visitation for an unvaccinated father. If you agree with that, I don't know what to say. You won't mind then, I guess, when they tell you your beliefs aren't up to snuff and take away what's most important to you. I doubt that. This is the same type of insanity where Socrates chose to die rather than disobey the government. There isn't even a mandate which requires that he be vaccinated - not that it would surprise me in the future. This judge can't just take away a father's right to make his own health choices at risk of losing another right - seeing his child. It's sick. It's vicious. I hope its overturned immediately.

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.