Dissident Veteran For Peace

American society has never upheld or realized truth and justice in a manner fully consistent with American rhetoric. Yet, for most of my life I thought our society was at least headed in the right direction. No more.

In the flurry of non-stop anti-Trump (someone I never supported) lies I finally realized that somewhere, in my lifetime or before, the country took a wrong turn. It's tempting to say it happened in the last ten years but it may be more accurate that it was during the 1991 Rodney King police brutality/racism hoax and subsequent rioting when politicians and the media openly abandoned truth, justice, and integrity. The American public, in general, then showed itself to be too gullible and lazy to know or care that vital principles were being gutted.

Don't get me wrong, politicians and the media were not paragons of virtue before then but it does seem like we as a society turned the corner down into dangerous alley back then and things have gotten steadily worse ever since. Academia and the clergy have followed suit or, perhaps, helped lead the way.

In any case, I followed the prosecution of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin very closely. Before the verdict I had estimated the outcome in order of probability (most to least) was as follows:

1. Hung jury
2. Full acquittal
3. Partial acquittal
4. Guilty on all charges

It's obvious I couldn't have been more mistaken. My estimation was based on the clearly erroneous assumption that the jury included at least one intelligent, rational, and principled juror. I don't have a lot of hope that Chauvin will get justice in the appellate courts.

I wish I knew what to tell people to do to turn this country away from the abyss but I don't. I can say there's no hope in Biden or Trump or most of the other denizens of the two wings of the political uniparty. What I do know is that defeatism is a faster path to destruction.

Here are a few more perspectives on the Chauvin trial and verdict:

• "It's a lie: 'Systematic police racism' and the Derek Chauvin Trial" on LawOfficer.com
• "The Derek Chauvin Trial: Reasonable doubt exists" on LawOfficer.com
• "Chauvin Guilty Verdict Completes the Total Collapse of Law, Order, and Due Process in Biden’s America" on Revolver.news
• "Candace Owens: 'This was not a fair trial. No person can say this was a fair trial.' " on Tucker Carlson Tonight via Twitter
  
• "After the Derek Chauvin Verdict: Initial Thoughts and What Comes Next" on RedState.com
• "The Chauvin verdict" on AmericanThinker.com
• "The American Crisis" by Ben Domenech via Twitter

If there were any Left-wing writers who care about truth and justice in the matter of George Floyd and Derek Chauvin then I would link to them but I am unaware of any.

21 April 2021 Addendum: In "George Floyd's Death: Test Your Knowledge" I mentioned that "the written report of the unofficial autopsy of George Floyd requested by Floyd's family and performed Michael Baden, MD, and Allecia Wilson, MD" had never been publicly released. They and their findings were much in the news last summer but unless I'm mistaken neither of them testified in the trial of Derek Chauvin nor was their report offered in evidence by the prosecution. If true, then this suggests that the "family autopsy" was primarily a media prop to advance the financial interests of George Floyd's family and lawyers in extracting a sweet financial payout.

Labels: Biden, crime, critical thinking, George Floyd, Justice, media, police, politics, race, Trump

On December 8, 2020, I wrote about the State of Texas' motion in the Supreme Court to allow it to file a complaint over alleged problems in the 2020 election in several states. Back then I made two observations relevant to the present post.

First, I said: "I think the State of Texas should have standing but that is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition and it's motion comes awfully late." Second, I said: "If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court refuses to hear this complaint then it's probably game over for all the election challenges."

The Supreme Court did indeed reject Texas' motion. Here's the full text of the Court's unsigned order:

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Now, it's clear Texas does not have an interest in how other states elect their own state officials. But the notion that they have no "judicially cognizable interest" in how other states elect the one President and VP of all of the United States defies logic and facially undermines constitutional republicanism. I'm not suggesting there were no reasonable grounds to deny Texas' motion but, rather, that the one the Court came up with was unreasonable. 

Supporters of Biden like to mention that many of the federal judges denying 2020 presidential election challenges have been Trump appointees. The implication is that the legal challenges have been so hollow that even Trump loyalists had to reject them.

There may truth to this but it doesn't follow that because Trump nominated these judges that they would necessarily do him any favors. That is the whole point of lifetime appointments for federal judges—to try to insulate them from political influence.

Also, Trump "relied on outside conservative legal organizations and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell" to select and manage the confirmation of his judicial nominees. Moreover, these are people who were on the judiciary career path long before anyone took a Trump presidency seriously and who always knew they would likely be on the bench long after Trump was gone. They might even despise Trump but were willing to accept a nomination (or, possibly, reject an election lawsuit) to advance their own careers and political commitments.

Thus, there are scant grounds to think Trump necessarily got special or even fair consideration of his post-election legal complaints. I'm not saying he was treated unfairly but that you cannot infer much from the fact that some Trump judicial appointees rejected his election claims.

###

The January 6, 2021, Capitol rioters are criminals who should be prosecuted. They are also fools and idiots who played right into the hands of the "progressive" authoritarians and their program of racism and repression.

Trump has now been impeached a second time on purely political grounds—they're afraid he'll beat them in another election. Barring a miraculous transformation I hope Trump quietly retires to another, far away country.

In any event, I read the new article of impeachment and it presents no sound legal basis to claim that Trump criminally incited the rioters. If prosecutors believe there is probable cause that Trump committed a crime then they should seek an indictment.

Instead, the Democrats and their media allies are simply hyping and milking the riot for every political advantage they can extract no matter how dishonest the effort. Referring to the upcoming impeachment trial, Jonathan Turley writes: "A private citizen is being called to the Senate to be tried for removal from an office that he does not hold." 

The Democrats had some conceivable legitimate grounds to impeach Trump while he was president though not on events connected to Russia or Ukraine. For instance, the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was, arguably, illegal under US and international law. It was also dangerous and counter to American strategic interests. Yet, because that attack was perceived to be in Israel's interests impeachment was never on the agenda for it.

Trump might also have been impeached for his attempt to suborn Mike Pence to violate the Constitution and federal law by unlawfully interfering with the certification of Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021. But, no, to impeach Trump for that would draw more unwanted attention to Pence who refused Trump's entreaties and followed the law while also undermining the Dems specious and profoundly hypocritical claims that for members of Congress to lawfully object to certification "borders on sedition or treason" and such.

###

The election of Donald Trump was always a symptom of the larger problems of, in no special order, economic inequality, toxic consumerism, empire, corporate globalization, Democratic race grifting for power, and the corruption of the media and political elites. Trump ran on a campaign that showed awareness of some of these problems but he was seemingly always a con man exploiting the justified grievances of millions of Americans. He betrayed them and never rose to the call of his office or of history.

Unfortunately, Trump's disastrous term has only worsened matters and emboldened "progressive" authoritarians to step up the repression of their political enemies, including the White working class, in general (which is not to say the GOP were ever their allies). This is Trump's fault, the fault of his many enemies, and, to no small extent, the fault of voters duped by him.

Biden claims he wants to unify the country but—and I hope I'm wrong when I say this—that's a lie to judge from so many of his other utterances and policy plans. When I saw recent photos of the unprecedentedly large military presence in the Capitol for the inauguration I was reminded of all the unpopular, repressive governments the US has propped in foreign countries over the years. Are chickens coming home to roost?

Virginia National Guard members in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 13, 2021 (U.S. Air National Guard photo by SSgt Bryan Myhr).

New Jersey National Guard members in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 12, 2021 (U.S. Air National Guard photo by MSgt Matt Hecht).

See also: Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations IV

 

Labels: Biden, class, Democrats, Empire, Iran, Israel, law, media, military, politics, race, repression, Supreme Court, Trump, voting

Yesterday, the Texas Attorney General filed a motion to have the US Supreme Court consider the State of Texas' complaint on 2020 presidential election irregularities and improprieties in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The four defendant states have already submitted their certificates of ascertainment regarding their presidential electors to the National Archives.

In the complaint, which, again, the Court has not yet agreed to hear, Texas is thus asking the Court to order:

E. If any of Defendant States have already appointed presidential electors to the Electoral College using the 2020 election results, direct such States' legislatures, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 and U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, to appoint a new set of presidential electors in a manner that does not violate the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, or to appoint no presidential electors at all.

In sum, as I read it, Texas wants either the four defendant states' Republican-controlled legislatures or the US House of Representatives pursuant to the 12th Amendment ("the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote") to decide the election.

Here are my thoughts:

1. The Texas action is the best pled and most concise case I've seen so far alleging problems in the 2020 presidential election. It's far better than the dumpster fire pleadings offered by Sidney Powell that I've read.

2. I think the State of Texas should have standing but that is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition and it's motion comes awfully late.

3. I have not followed the lower state and federal court election cases closely enough to say how persuasive the evidence is of substantial issues with the election so I will not presume to know how the Supreme Court should or will rule (I mention this because the Texas complaint appears to rely heavily on lower court filings and opinions). If the allegations are substantially true as pled then I would hope the Court would agree to hear the complaint; however, I am skeptical that Texas is on solid legal and evidentiary ground.

4. I think the statistical evidence offered by Charles J. Cicchetti, PhD is flawed, unpersuasive, and harmful to the case. Cicchetti tested the hypothesis "that other things being the same" Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden "would have an equal number of votes" (see Cicchetti Declaration at ¶¶ 11-13). But we know "other things" beyond alleged election irregularities were far from the same in 2016 and 2020. For example, among other things, Trump was running as an incumbent heading an administration beset by personnel instability, incompetence, and a lack of discipline.

5. If, as seems likely, the Supreme Court refuses to hear this complaint then it's probably game over for all the election challenges.

6. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this complaint then it's a game changer and, although I never want to underestimate their capacity for dishonesty, the mainstream media will probably be compelled to drop their mantra that claims of election irregularities are "baseless", etc. We'll probably also see violent protests by Trump haters.

7. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this complaint then to open up the possibility that Trump stays in the White House for another term the Supreme Court would have to invalidate the election results in at least three of the four defendant states. If they do agree to hear the complaint then I predict they will overturn the election results in fewer than three states and send Biden to the White House with an unchanged or, more likely, smaller Electoral College margin.

See also:

• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations III
• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations V
  

Labels: Biden, law, media, politics, Supreme Court, Trump, voting

Who said it?: "Even assuming there's nothing nefarious about the national election why has the cascade of irregularities around this country occurred virtually in a news blackout?" 

If you guessed Tucker Carlson or some other right-wing crank then you are mistaken. It was MSNBC's Keith Olbermann talking with Newsweek senior editor and columnist Jonathan Alter days after the 2004 presidential election. Back then, Media Matters for America was complaining:

Media conservatives have labeled MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann a "voice of paranoia" and accused him of perpetuating "idiotic conspiracy theories" for his sustained spotlight on the numerous local news reports of voting irregularities during the November 2 presidential election. Olbermann's emphasis during Countdown with Keith Olbermann on voting irregularities has been part of a critique of what he has called the "Rube Goldberg voting process of ours" -- as well as a criticism of the major media outlets' failure to report on the irregularities.

So, in 2020, is Media Matters still complaining now that the shoe is on the other foot and the mainstream, pro-Democrat corporate media is engaged in a full court press to ignore, deny, and dismiss alleged irregularities in the 2020 presidential election and to denigrate anyone who makes or reports the allegations?

Why, yes, they are complaining ... about "Donald Trump's attempts to steal and thwart the election" and they are cataloging "right-wing media figures who have supported Trump's efforts to spread false claims and conspiracy theories about the election". In short, they have hypocritically done a complete about-face.

You see, it was not so long ago that some Democrats and other left-of-center folks took allegations of electoral irregularities and concern about voting machines very seriously or at least put on a good show of it. Election integrity activists produced an Emmy-nominated 2006 documentary, Hacking Democracy, and started groups such as VoteTrustUSA, VotersUnite, and Black Box Voting (all now moribund). Now that Biden has presumptively won the 2020 election such talk, from Democrats and their media lackeys, at least, is verboten.

Back in the day it was Diebold that lefties were mainly concerned about. Diebold, renamed as Premier Election Solutions, was sold to Dominion Voting Systems in 2010. That same year Dominion also bought assets of Sequoia Voting Systems.

In 2010, Project Censored published "Election 2008: Vanishing Votes, Disappearing Democracy And Media Misdirection" by Brad Friedman. Friedman, who is anti-Trump and now sees no evidence of voting irregularities wrote:

There was, of course, reason for everyone to be concerned, particularly about voting machines made by Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. The company had been on the verge of bankruptcy and hostile takeover all year, and—though they had told federal investigators that they had divested from Smartmatic, their Venezuelan-owned, Hugo Chavez-tied parent company, in late 2006, after a hue and cry from Republicans—all of their systems’ Intellectual Property rights had secretly remained under the ownership of the Venezuelan firm.

The Venezuelan connection has, of course, recently been echoed by Sidney Powell along with allegations about Dominion. Though the Project Censored crowd seems uninterested in her allegations. 

Also, in 2010, Project Censored published a revision of a 2006 piece by Dennis Loo titled: "No Paper Trail Left Behind: the Theft of the 2004 Presidential Election". Loo writes:

Welcome to a world where statistical probability and normal arithmetic no longer apply! The Democrats, rather than vigorously pursuing these patently obvious signs of election fraud in 2004, have nearly all decided that being gracious losers is better than being winners, probably because – and this may be the most important reason for the Democrats' relative silence – a full-scale uncovering of the fraud runs the risk of mobilizing and unleashing popular forces that the Democrats find just as threatening as the GOP does.

On November 8, I wrote: "I doubt that Trump's campaign will be able to muster evidence of election irregularities substantial enough to overturn the presumptive Biden victory. I am inclined to believe that he actually lost the election due to his unpopularity, not error or fraud." I still believe that but more strongly than ever I also believe there probably were significant election irregularities.

It seems the reason we are told over and over again that Biden is the "president-elect" and allegations of election problems are "baseless" is precisely because the mainstream strongly suspects or knows the allegations are not baseless at all. I also believe that the undisciplined and incompetent Team Trump is likely not up to the task of getting to the truth and, in any case, they have Democrats, the media, establishment Republicans, and the Deep State working against them.

See also:

• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations II
• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations IV
  

Labels: Biden, Democrats, media, politics, Republicans, Trump, Tucker Carlson, voting

Around noon yesterday, the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets anointed Joe Biden as the "president-elect". Consistent with a plan Axios described on Nov. 3, Biden publicly assumed the mantle of leadership that same day.

Yesterday, I also searched the New York Times archive. As it turns out, they didn't refer to George W. Bush as the "president-elect" until December 13, 2000, the day of Al Gore's concession speech.

Yet, in 2020, despite the fact that the incumbent president has not conceded defeat and has made allegations of voting irregularities that he says he will litigate the mainstream media has already declared the election decided and settled. This comes less than four days after Election Day, following a highly unusual and hotly contested election, and before a single state has certified their election results.

I doubt that Trump's campaign will be able to muster evidence of election irregularities substantial enough to overturn the presumptive Biden victory. I am inclined to believe that he actually lost the election due to his unpopularity, not error or fraud. However, there appears to be enough anecdotal evidence of election errors and fraud (see e.g. here and here and here) to warrant targeted, thorough, and transparent investigations.

Nevertheless, true to form and in stark contrast to their reporting on canvassing problems in 2000, the mainstream media has repeatedly asserted there are no problems with the elections results. They may be right but this is a continuation of their unprincipled sabotage of the Trump presidency since before his inauguration. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Trump—I did and still do—but the media was not content stick with those and with honest reporting.

If the allegations of election problems are demonstrably false then why not demonstrate their falsehood with evidence instead of bare assertions repeated incessantly? If the claims are false then a proper investigation would, to most people, strengthen confidence in the integrity of the process and results. Of course, that presumes people value such integrity above their preferred outcome.

And sure, there are some people who will never believe that Trump lost in a technically free and fair election but why the rush to anoint Biden? Why not wait until the states certify enough results to give the winner 270 electoral college votes?

And why take the wholly unprecedented step of censoring the POTUS on radio and television when he spoke on Thursday? TV and radio are the primary or only sources of news for many. Here's the speech that your corporate media guardians did not want you to see or hear in order to make up your own mind.

See also:

• Lessons of the 2020 Election
• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations II

Labels: Biden, media, politics, Ralph Nader, Trump, voting

Donald J. Trump has endured more than four years of constant public drubbing by most of the mainstream media, academia, and the entertainment industry. Trump survived the bogus Russiagate conspiracy and a failed impeachment related to Biden family dealings in Ukraine. A significant number of establishment Republicans betrayed their party to publicly campaign for Biden. Biden has collected far more campaign money ($1,380.1 million vs. $863.6 million) than Trump.

In many ways Trump's presidency has been an incoherent mess marked by numerous self-inflicted wounds, including but not limited to, bad policies and inept policy implementation. Yet, despite all this and during the worst pandemic in 100 years and the worst economy in 90 years, Trump once again defied the pollsters and pundits to mount a strong challenge to the presidential nominee of Democratic Party. It looks like Republicans will hold the Senate and cut the Democratic majority in the House to single digits. Meanwhile, in solid blue California voters soundly rejected an attempt by political elites to remove an anti-discrimination clause from the state constitution.

This all begs the question: Will Democratic (or Republican) elites learn the right lessons from the 2016 and 2020 elections and resolve to work "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"? Nah.

See also:

• Anointing Biden & Election Irregularity Allegations I
• "Tucker Carlson: A Vote for President Trump Is a Vote Against America's Ruling Class" by Joey Pietro for The Western Journal
  
• "Ketman And The Left's Problem" by Rod Dreher for The American Conservative

Labels: Biden, COVID-19, media, politics, race, Russia, Trump, Tucker Carlson, voting

Thanks to a fawning, largely uncritical media and a feckless, gullible public, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York was able to falsely position himself this year as the COVID-19 anti-Trump. In May, The Guardian published an op-ed titled "Andrew Cuomo is no hero. He's to blame for New York's coronavirus catastrophe". The authors noted:

Andrew Cuomo may be the most popular politician in the country. His approval ratings have hit all-time highs thanks to his Covid-19 response. Some Democrats have discussed him as a possible replacement for Joe Biden, due to Biden’s perceived weakness as a nominee. And there have even been some unfortunate tributes to Cuomo’s alleged sex appeal.

All of which is bizarre, because Cuomo should be one of the most loathed officials in America right now. ProPublica recently released a report outlining catastrophic missteps by Cuomo and the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, which probably resulted in many thousands of needless coronavirus cases ...

Federal failures played a role, of course, but this tragedy was absolutely due, in part, to decisions by the governor.

Nevertheless image triumphed once again over reality, as The Atlantic put it last August: 

The opening night of the Democrats’ virtual convention was the beginning of a coronation for Joe Biden, but it was also a victory march for Andrew Cuomo, New York’s governor and a supposed hero of the coronavirus pandemic. “For all the pain and all the tears, our way worked,” Cuomo declared in his five-minute speech. “And it was beautiful.”

“Beautiful” is an odd way to describe a virus that has killed more than 25,000 New Yorkers, or about 15 percent of the total number of Americans who have died from COVID-19. But Cuomo has long been a curious leader for Democrats to hold up as an emblem of successful leadership during the pandemic: He has somehow presided over the worst and deadliest coronavirus outbreak in the country while eluding the widespread criticism that has surrounded both President Donald Trump and New York City’s Democratic mayor, Bill de Blasio.

Earlier today I had bizarre conversation about one of Cuomo's many failures. In 2015, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law (TFLL), its members appointed by Cuomo, released its "2015 Ventilator Allocation Guidelines".

The TFLL estimated that during the "peak week" of a severe "1918-like" pandemic scenario the state would have a ventilator shortfall of 15,783 units (p. 30). Instead of urging the state's leaders to come up with a plan to close the shortfall of ventilators and trained personnel to operate them the TFLL accepted a shortage of life-saving equipment as a fait accompli. The TFLL was focused on rationing ventilators without any analysis of whether the shortage could be ameliorated through advance preparation. Cuomo implicitly, if not explicitly, agreed he could live with the projected shortage and the deaths that would entail.

Their solution, then, was to create a triage plan that, by design, likely consigned hundreds, if not thousands, of patients to a needless death when the pandemic arrived this year. When I pointed out this to my friend she defended Cuomo asserting there was little or nothing he could have done differently. I replied he could have said: This is unacceptable, we need to figure out how to close this gap. She claimed, "That's not how government works." I'll never understand why some people make excuses for corrupt and/or inept politicians.

In 1984, the governor's father, Mario Cuomo, who was then himself governor of New York, gave one of his best known speeches at the Democratic national convention. His vision of government included the idea that people should be "protected in those moments when they would not be able to protect themselves." Andrew Cuomo echoed this notion when, in 2017, he asserted of the subway "crisis": "There is no time for delay and there is no tolerance for a lack of commitment on this issue ... The fundamental responsibility of government is to respond in a timely and effective way when people need help."

If Cuomo's TFLL could identify the problem then they could also have come up with a better solution. Moreover, Cuomo could have demanded one. No, he can't magically conjure ventilators or the money to buy them but experts have been predicting a serious viral pandemic for years. Cuomo (and governors and legislators across the country) had the ability and responsibility to ensure his state was better prepared for it.

Instead in March, Cuomo lied or betrayed a profound ignorance. As Colin Kalmbacher at Law & Crime wrote:

On Wednesday morning, during his quotidian Coronavirus press briefing, the three-term Democratic governor told an easily verifiable falsehood about New York’s state of health.

“No one has these ventilators and no one ever anticipated a situation where you would need this number of ventilators to deal with a public health emergency,” Cuomo said–explaining the Empire State’s recent move toward rationing the highly in-demand medical devices.

“So we have purchased everything that can be purchased,” he added. “We’re now in a situation where we’re trying to accelerate production of these ventilators, and a ventilator is a complicated piece of equipment.”

But Cuomo’s claim that “no one ever anticipated” the “number of ventilators to deal with a public health emergency” is directly undercut by a report from New York State itself–under his own administration–released halfway into Cuomo’s second term in office.

Like Cuomo, the New York State Commissioner of Health he appointed, Howard A. Zucker, was also given to uttering falsehoods. In a letter accompanying the TFLL's report he claimed: "Protecting the health and well-being of New Yorkers is a core objective of the Department of Health." So, Zucker knew about the anticipated ventilator shortage and the "death panel" solution to deal with it. 

Yet, in March of this year, Newsday reported: 

"I always felt if you can improve the life of others — whether an individual or many — you should," he [Zucker] said in an interview. "I learned practicing clinical medicine that I have to do everything possible ... it's our role in society."

"But I never expected this kind of situation," he said of the coronavirus threat."

Zucker has mostly flown under the radar compared to his boss but his COVID-19 performance prompted one editorial titled: "New York health chief Howard Zucker: Call him Dr. Death".

By April, Cuomo was throwing tens of millions of dollars around to try to buy ventilators at elevated prices from people who often couldn't deliver. If instead, he had ordered 15,783 ventilators in 2015 when his Task Force released its report then the state would likely have had a stockpile on hand during the COVID-19 crisis for less than 0.14% of the state's 2015-16 disbursements.

For the calculation above, I used a 2020 ventilator retail price via ProPublica of $12,495 per unit. I have no doubt that price is actually significantly higher than a competitive bidding process in 2015 would have obtained. If the state had spread the acquisition out over five years then the cost would have been less than 0.03% of the annual budget.

In any event, it seems both unsurprising and clear that few high-profile politicians of either major party actually concern themselves much with the victims of COVID-19, whom they largely regard as superannuated drags on the economy or otherwise disposable people. They don't say this out loud but their policies speak volumes. Instead of taking effective steps to save lives and safely re-open the economy, Democrats blame Trump, Republicans blame China (or engage in various forms of denial) and, in the meantime, the US has the largest COVID-19 death toll and one of the highest per capita COVID-19 death rates in the world.

Labels: Biden, COVID-19, Democrats, government, health, media, medicine, politics, science, Trump

Whoopi Goldberg poses with members of the Proud Boys in Florida in 2019.

After the sh*tshow that was last night's presidential "debate" the mainstream media's major talking point is the allegation that Trump refused to "condemn white supremacists". Never mind that, beginning no later than August 2017, Trump has repeatedly "condemned white supremacists". Never mind, too, that White supremacism is virtually a non-issue in modern America.

In any case, the media frenetically seized on Trump's failure to condemn a group fingered by Biden—the Proud Boys. Earlier today, I ran a search on "proud boys" + "hate group". Every news hit on the first page of results claimed, assumed, or implied that the Proud Boys is a violent "hate", "white nationalist", and/or "white supremacist" group, mostly on the strength of allegations by the disreputable ADL or SPLC. In typical fashion, spineless Republicans and Fox News piled on.

Here's the strange thing, as even some of its detractors acknowledge, the Proud Boys is a multi-racial group. Here's what one critic wrote earlier today:

Indeed the group has a membership that includes those of Black, Hispanic, and Asian backgrounds. This fact would be the core argument against the Proud Boys being termed a "white nationalist" group, which goes along with its also-problematic rebranding to center on the coded language of "Western values."

"Proud Boys is a multi-racial fraternity with thousands of members worldwide," a lawyer for McInnis asserted in 2018. "The only requirements for membership are that a person must be biologically male and believe that the West is the best."

So, how is a Progressive goodthinker supposed to reconcile the Proud Boys' racial/ethnic diversity (good) with White people/hate (bad)? Injunction 1: Who said you were allowed to think? Your betters have told you what to believe, just accept that the Proud Boys are a hate group and leave it at that. Injunction 2: If you disobey Injunction 1, realize that their refusal to accept (White) racial guilt proves their crime. It goes like this:

However, the group's [i.e. the Proud Boys'] website includes a list of core values [see also here] as tenets: "Minimal Government, Maximum Freedom, Anti Political Correctness, Anti-Drug War, Closed Borders, Anti-Racial Guilt, Anti-Racism, Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment), Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment), Glorifying the Entrepreneur, Venerating the Housewife, Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism."

The impossible notion of couching "anti-racism" together with "anti-racial guilt" is informative, in the implicit suggestion that Proud Boys do not hate non-whites as long as they (whites) aren't guilted into taking ownership of their privilege or past sins of racialized violence. In other words, per their ideology, "others" can join as long as they fully adhere to white-centered, libertarian ideals of freedom, and inherent superiority.

In fact, all ethical and thinking people reject both racism and racial guilt. Moreover, the Proud Boys nowhere, that I have seen, claim or imply that non-White members are "others" who must "fully adhere to white-centered, libertarian ideals of freedom, and inherent superiority."

In one of the rare, more balanced accounts USA Today reported:

Current Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who is Afro-Cuban, says the group has "longstanding regulations prohibiting racist, white supremacist or violent activity," Ronald D. Coleman wrote in an email to USA TODAY. Coleman said he is a spokesman for the Proud Boys.

"We do not care what color you are or what your background is ... if you love America ... we consider you a brother," Tarrio said in a written statement provided by Coleman. The group condemns racism, fascism, communism and socialism, the statement says.

As for the allegations of violence. I have little doubt that some of the Proud Boys and/or its associates have instigated violence and they should be arrested and tried for it. However, I have watched a lot of video of the violent encounters and they, overwhelmingly, seem to be defensive on the part of the Proud Boys.

One recent example occurred this summer in Kalamazoo. The USA Today report quoted above said simply: "When the Proud Boys met with counterprotesters in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in August, the tensions boiled over into fights requiring law enforcement to step in." The reporter did not see fit to tell his readers that Kalamazoo police determined, and provided video showing, that "counterprotesters" initiated the violence (see also here).

In a largely ignored statement issued before Kalamazoo police had their press conference the Michigan chapter of the Proud Boys said, in part:

For those in Kalamazoo city government who claim to reject our values of hate – we merely ask who do we hate? African American Proud Boys, Asian Proud Boys, Jewish Proud Boys, Arab Proud Boys, Hispanic Proud Boys were all represented as photo and video documentation of our protest prove. We hate no one, but we do pity those that must resort to violence when confronted ... by those who vote for a different political party than they do, and support the current President of the United States.

All this is not to say the Proud Boys are angelic beings who can think or do no wrong but all the evidence of which I am aware indicates that the mainstream media has generally shamefully misrepresented them for transparently political purposes.

Labels: Biden, critical thinking, media, politics, race, Trump, Tucker Carlson, video, White folks

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they [do] not want to lose their jobs.

A story told me by a coloured man in South Carolina will illustrate how people sometimes get into situations where they do not like to part with their grievances. In a certain community there was a coloured doctor of the old school, who knew little about modern ideas of medicine, but who in some way had gained the confidence of the people and had made considerable money by his own peculiar methods of treatment. In this community there was an old lady who happened to be pretty well provided with this world's goods and who thought that she had a cancer. For twenty years she had enjoyed the luxury of having this old doctor treat her for that cancer. As the old doctor became -- thanks to the cancer and to other practice -- pretty well-to-do, he decided to send one of his boys to a medical college. After graduating from the medical school, the young man returned home, and his father took a vacation. During this time the old lady who was afflicted with the "cancer" called in the young man, who treated her; within a few weeks the cancer (or what was supposed to be the cancer) disappeared, and the old lady declared herself well.

When the father of the boy returned and found the patient on her feet and perfectly well, he was outraged. He called the young man before him and said: "My son, I find that you have cured that cancer case of mine. Now, son, let me tell you something. I educated you on that cancer. I put you through high school, through college, and finally through the medical school on that cancer. And now you, with your new ideas of practising medicine, have come here and cured that cancer. Let me tell you, son, you have started all wrong. How do you expect to make a living practising medicine in that way?"

I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.

Source: Booker T. Washington. My Larger Education; Being Chapters from My Experience (Doubleday, Page & Co., 1911). pp. 118-120. Washington was born into slavery in Franklin County, VA some time during or about the year 1856.

###

People who expected the election of President Barack Obama to lead to racial healing and a post-racial society failed to take account of the political reality that racial healing and a post-racial society would, at a minimum, reduce black voter turnout.

Black votes matter to many politicians -- more so than black lives. That is why such politicians must try to keep black voters fearful, angry and resentful. Racial harmony would be a political disaster for such politicians.

Racial polarization makes both the black population and the white population worse off, but it makes politicians who depend on black votes better off.

Source: Thomas Sowell. "Black Votes Matter." Rasmussen Reports. July 26, 2016.

Labels: Biden, Black America, Obama, politics, quotations, race, slavery, Thomas Sowell, voting

In the current American context reparations refers to the idea of forcing people who never owned slaves to pay compensation for slavery to people who never were slaves. Newsweek recently reported the estimated cost of reparations, according to one 2020 study, was "$6.2 quadrillion as of 2018" which "divided by 40,909,233 Black non-Hispanic descendants of the enslaved, could result in a total reparations payment per descendant of $151.63 million."

And don't get any ideas about a discount if one of your ancestors died fighting against slavery during the Civil War. The study's authors have that covered, too: 

... some reparations opponents point to the federal government's expenditures in blood and treasure to end slavery through the Civil War as a form of reparations already rendered. This argument suffers from two major problems. First, ending an injustice is not the same as making reparations for its enduring effects. Second, more than 200,000 Black soldiers, including slaves and free, fought and died disproportionately to earn the freedom of the enslaved. The moral credit for this self-liberation goes to them, not to the federal government that had permitted their enslavement for so long.

With Joe Biden and Kamala Harris poised to possibly begin relocating to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and 1 Observatory Circle, respectively, next January it's worth thinking a bit more about reparations.

Apparently, Biden's chronologically impaired thinking has, shall we say, quickly evolved on the issue. He reportedly said in 1975: "I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I'll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 [sic] years ago."

In a 2019 presidential debate Biden gave a muddled response when asked: "What responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?" However, by February of this year Biden was on board with a proposal by Cory Booker (he of not inconsiderable, say 45%, European ancestry) "to study reparations and make a judgment whether or not what they should be and what they should do". Then Biden publicly stated about two months ago that he is in favor of "slavery reparations".

Kamala Harris, the privileged daughter of not one but two PhD possessing immigrant parents, co-sponsored Booker's legislation. She also reportedly supports reparations when she's not hiding in the "study it" column.

It's worth pointing out that the idea of slavery reparations is not new. I do not intend here to go all the way back to 1865 and Special Field Orders, No. 15. Given its limited scope and purpose, it is debatable that the order was intended as reparations for slavery. No, my goal is much more modest and I wish only to go back about five decades.

In 1969, James Forman of the Black Economic Development Conference (and formerly of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) "interrupted services at New York City's Riverside Church to demand $500 million in reparations from white churches to make up for injustices African Americans had suffered over the centuries." These demands were in accord with the BEDC's "Black Manifesto".

As Jason L. Riley put it:

Civil-rights organizations rejected the idea, which the NAACP's assistant director called "an illogical, diversionary and paltry way out for guilt-ridden whites." Bayard Rustin, who organized the 1963 March on Washington and was one of Martin Luther King's closest advisers, was another vocal skeptic of blacks cashing in on the tribulations of long-gone forebears. "The idea of reparations is a ridiculous idea," Rustin said. "If my great-grandfather picked cotton for 50 years, then he may deserve some money, but he's dead and gone and nobody owes me anything."

Rustin, profiled in this blog in 2006, called the demand for reparations "preposterous" and accused Forman of "hustling, begging." Rustin continued: "Furthermore, I don't believe that any black man in this country wants to be given a thing—just the opportunity to work, to work and take care of his family." Times have changed, Bayard.

Labels: Bayard Rustin, Biden, Black America, class, economics, history, Obama, politics, race, slavery, White folks

I found quite a few articles about the billboard pictured above. It appeared in Caldwell, ID last summer. None of the reports I saw allowed that the sign's creator might just have a point. Caldwell Mayor Garret Nancolas opined: "It's a private sign on private property and protected by the First Amendment, but this message crosses the line by politicizing the killing of innocent civilians in a movie theater." In other words, how dare you use your rights to say something that offends me.

No word on whether Mayor Nancolas is condemning Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, etc. for "politicizing the killing of innocent civilians" in Newtown by using the tragedy to push through gun control measures. Although, to his credit, the Mayor did speak out over a National League of Cities "letter advocating a ban on certain weapons."

Labels: Biden, civil liberties, crime, critical thinking, guns, Obama, video, violence, War

Back in April, I quoted a Jewish Daily Forward piece that included the following from Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council: "Politics in America has become a Jewish profession, just like arts and the law. We now are overrepresented in all these areas." So, what's the Forward saying these days? Well, below are some excerpts from three recent articles (emphasis added).

From "The Race Is on for Hot Job as Obama's Liaison to Nation's Jews":

Speculation about the members of President-elect Barack Obama's Cabinet and other senior staff has drawn headlines -- but there's also no shortage of interest in who will be the next presidential representative to the American Jewish community, or in how much influence that person will have in a White House chock-full of well-known Jews. ...

How influential the position will be remains a key question, particularly with such prominent Jews working in the White House: incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel; David Axelrod, an Obama strategist, and Ron Klain, Vice President-elect Joe Biden's chief of staff.

Jews, you may recall, make up less than 2% of the United States' population and with Jews so greatly overrepresented in politics already one wonders why Obama also needs a "presidential representative to the American Jewish community."

From "New Congress Has Record Number of Jews":

When the new Congress debuts in January 2009, a record 45 Jews will take the oath of office: 32 in the House of Representatives and -- regardless of the outcome in the still-contested Minnesota election — 13 Jews in the Senate.

Jews will, thus, be overrepresented in the House by factor of 4.1 and by 7.3 in the Senate. By contrast, women will be underrepresented in the 111th Congress by factors of 3 in both houses. Similarly, Blacks were underrepresented in the 110th Congress by factors of 1.2 and 12.4 in the House and Senate, respectively.

The "regardless of the outcome" in Minnesota bit is a reference to the fact that both Al Franken and Norm Coleman are Jews and Zionists to boot. This is not unlike the fact that all of the major party nominees for president and and vice president were Zionists or close facsimiles thereof.

From "Chicago Temple Takes New Security in Stride":

On a recent Sunday afternoon at a historic Chicago synagogue, the sanctuary was packed but the mood was restrained: A longtime congregant had died, and about 300 people had turned out for his funeral service. But amid the solemnity, the occasional mourner discreetly pulled loved ones out to the synagogue's front steps to snap cell phone pictures of a large brick house, mostly obscured by shrubs, across the street.

Such scenes have become commonplace in recent months at KAM-Isaiah Israel, a Reform congregation in the Hyde Park neighborhood. The dome of the historic Byzantine-style synagogue looms over the red-brick house where Barack Obama has lived for the past three years, and from which he made the short trip across the street to deliver an early political speech to a Jewish crowd. ...

Inside KAM-II, the two communities are living side by side. On the morning of the funeral, a crowd of mostly older Jewish congregants gathered in the sunny social hall to hear a professor from the nearby University of Chicago speak about Martin Buber and the Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, the domed sanctuary was occupied by a small black Christian congregation called City of Faith ... This sort of cross-pollination has touched Obama's life in the neighborhood, as well: His daughters went to preschool at the nearby Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School.

Several of KAM-II’s congregants and leaders, including the synagogue's emeritus rabbi, Arnold Jacob Wolf, and current president, Larry Bloom, know Obama personally and have supported him from the outset of his political career. ...

Bloom, a former city alderman, said that he used to introduce the candidate to locals on commuter train platforms when he was running for state senate. ...

"This is a congregation where the question wasn't, 'Are you going to vote for Obama?' The question was, 'What state are you going to help canvass?' " said Darryl Crystal, the synagogue's interim rabbi. ...

"When Sarah Palin said she knew about Russia because you could see it from Alaska, I wanted to say, 'Obama can see a synagogue from his house; he obviously knows Jews,' " Bloom said.

Labels: Biden, Jews, Obama, politics, United States

The video at bottom is merely anecdotal evidence of ignorance among Obama supporters but it is backed by a scientific poll conducted by the respected polling firm, Zogby International. Below is an excerpt from a news release on the Zogby web site.

Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin. Obama voters did not fare nearly as well overall when asked to answer questions about statements or stories associated with Obama or Biden -- 83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry. Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground. Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech, and nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President. In addition to questions regarding statements and scandals associated with the campaigns, the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

John Ziegler, who commissioned the poll and produced the video, makes hay with the results on www.howobamagotelected.com. FWIW, I suspect that ignorance among McCain voters is just as common as it is among Obama voters. Ziegler actually tried to commission a Zogby poll to test that idea but Zogby reportedly refused.


See also: No, Dear, Barack Obama is NOT The Messiah

Labels: Biden, Obama, politics, United States, video, voting

The day after US national elections last November, I wrote a post entitled "Iraq War Will Worsen." Here's part of what I said:

... The Dems now have the power of the purse (US Const. Art. I, Sec. 7) and could force a US withdrawal but I expect US troop levels to increase in Iraq in the next two years and more Iraqis and Americans to die.

Here's why: Both parties are in the grips of the arms industry and the Israel Lobby. If anything, the Democrats are even more pro-Israel--albeit only slightly (think about the difference between 97% and 99%). Furthermore, when the new Congress is seated we will be less than two years away from the 2008 presidential election. ...

Tonight, George Bush made it official that he has already "... committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq." Moreover, in a move that so far has generated little attention, Bush stated that previously there have been "too many restrictions on the troops we did have." What exactly this means is unclear but, apparently, Bush is going to relax the rules of engagement for US troops in Iraq. It seems that, in part, Bush is referring to where US troops are deployed in Iraq. He said:

... In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

All of this means more Iraqis and Americans will suffer and die in an illegal, undeclared war waged on false pretenses primarily for the benefit of Israel. The Democratic 'opposition' to the war is mostly smoke and mirrors although there are probably a handful of Democrats (and Republicans) who truly want to end the war.

Even before Bush announced the troop increases, the Democratic leadership was already making it clear that their party would not support using Congressional power to end the war. Presidential aspirant and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden falsely bleated: "As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop' ... You can't go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, 'You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece.' CNN reports: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, told reporters at a Capitol news conference Monday, 'Democrats will not cut off funding for our troops.' "

CNN also reports:

Regardless of what Democratic leaders decide about funding, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who organizes with the Democrats, predicted most Democrats won't support cutting off funds for the troop increase.

Lieberman held a news conference with Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, to release a letter they sent Bush urging him to send additional troops to Iraq.

The "hawkishly pro-Israel" Lieberman, Chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, was singled out by Bush in his speech: "Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror." This will undoubtedly include pressuring or attacking Iran and Syria, which not coincidentally is Israeli policy, too. Bush set the stage in his address:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

One of these days, I hope, the peace movement will wake up to the fact that Zionists are driving US Middle East policy and, for starters, throw the Zionists out of the peace movement. Then, we will finally be able to begin truly working for peace. We can start with the Zionist shill Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice. Cagan has, more than once, teamed up with Darfur deceiver Ruth Messinger, president and executive director of the American Jewish World Service, to make sure the American anti-war movement does not see the links between the Iraq war and American Zionist support for Israel.

See also:

• The Impending US Troop Buildup in Iraq
• The Israel Lobby and the US War Against Iraq
• Four Ways To Stop the War (Emily Bazelon in Slate)
• "Out of Iraq, Into Darfur?" (Gary Leupp in Counterpunch)

Labels: Biden, Bush, Cagan, Darfur, Democrats, Iraq, Israel, Ruth Messinger, Syria, War, Zionism