Groupthink part 2: YouTube censors; 1619 project lies about USA.

If you hate Donald Trump, and believe he is the embodiment of racism, the phobia family (homo, islamo, trans, xeno), and evil, and you believe that there are two ways to almost guarantee he won’t be re-elected President, and those ways were censoring any videos, tweets and Facebook posts that weren’t anti-trump AND publishing an alternative history of the United States in the New York Times that “proves” that we are the most racist and hypocritical country in the world and Trump’s election is the direct result of that history, would you do those? If so, who would be your choice for President?

Is YouTube a publisher or a public forum? It matters. A publisher decides what content to put up, and can be sued if their content is defamatory, violates copyrights, or libels. They can be held legally responsible for what they publish. The NY Times is an example, as are other newspapers and most websites that have their own content. In contrast, YouTube is a “public forum” and that’s what they call themselves. They are not legally responsible for what is uploaded to their website. They are “hosting” a website.

Social media–Facebook, YouTube/Google, Twitter–started as public forums. That’s how they got so much content FOR FREE, with the legal protections that come with being a public forum! Gradually, they all started acting as if they were publishers, censoring or “demonetizing” content, yet still expecting the legal protections of a public forum, under section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act. PragerU is suing YouTube for violating section 230 by blocking selected videos. The stakes are no less than “can the most powerful and widely used websites in the world subject anyone’s posts to their “acceptability” criteria? They all believe they can, and it’s all good if it undermines President Trump.

Speaking of powerful media and censorship, the most powerful newspaper in the country, if not the world, the NY Times, just published their first essay of the 1619 project, which I wrote about yesterday. The purpose of this project is, as Dean Baquet, executive editor the the paper declared in a staff meeting is to “teach our readers how to think about racism and slavery.” Erick Erickson wrote about this essay today in In my analysis, I will reprint actual writings from founders and true historical facts of this nation first, then parts of the essay. You can decide who is telling the truth. The facts and quotes are in bold and the essay is in italics.

“The rights of human nature [are] deeply wounded by this infamous practice… the abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state…” Thomas Jefferson. Introduced by Britain, may I remind you.

“…shocking ill effects and terrible consequences” to both enslavers and enslaved.” Sermon by Rev. Stephen Johnson of Lyme Connecticut. Samuel Cooke, in his Massachusetts election sermon of 1770, argued that in tolerating Negro slavery “we, the patrons of liberty, have dishonored the Christian name, and degraded human nature nearly to a level with the beasts that perish,” and he devoted most of his text to “the cause of our African slaves.” Benjamin Rush, in a sweeping condemnation of slavery, “On Slave-Keeping” (1773), begged “Ye advocates for American liberty” to rouse themselves and “espouse the cause of humanity and general liberty.” Bear a testimony, he wrote in the language of the Quakers, “against a vice which degrades human nature… The plant of liberty is of so tender a nature that it cannot thrive long in the neighborhood of slavery. Remember, the eyes of all Europe are fixed upon you, to preserve an asylum for freedom in this country after the last pillars of it are fallen in every other quarter of the globe.”

By 1774 this cry had become a commonplace in the pamphlet literature of the northern and middle colonies. How can we “reconcile the exercise of SLAVERY with our professions of freedom,” Richard Wells, “a citizen of Philadelphia,” demanded to know. There was no possible justification for the institution, he said. Even Patrick Henry, while admitting the colonists could not immediately eradicate slavery, said he hoped “an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.” Samuel Hopkins, in 1776, authored A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of Africans; Shewing It To Be the Duty and Interest of the American Colonies To Emancipate All the African Slaves, which was widely circulated among those who attended the Continental Congress.

The NY Times describes project 1619. “No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. In the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.The truth: The House of Burgesses convened in Jamestown, Virginia on July 30, 1619, before any African had set foot on the North American continent. The Mayflower pilgrims landed in New England in 1620, completely separated from those in Jamestown, with different goals, views, values, and priorities. It is also worth noting that white indentured servants outnumbered slaves and arrived before slaves. Quibble all you want with the distinctions, but in 1619 they were roughly treated the same — terribly on all counts.

To make it all about slavery is to ignore that there were already Europeans in North America before the first slave arrived and there were Europeans arriving in America in different locations quite apart from where slavery was. For a project that claims truth for itself, it is deeply dishonest. The pilgrims in Massachusetts in 1620 were not exactly a group of slave holders as they were setting up shop, forming modes of government, and adopting private property and capitalist meta-structures to avoid failures from collective farming. In fact, in 1623, still well before slavery made it into pilgrim settlements, the Plymouth Plantation abandoned communal property rights in favor of private property rights and a system of free enterprise. (See William Bradford’s On Plymouth Plantation”)

The first essay is by Nikole Hannah-Jones: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade. This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South. The wealth and prominence that allowed Jefferson, at just 33, and the other founding fathers to believe they could successfully break off from one of the mightiest empires in the world came from the dizzying profits generated by chattel slavery.” The truth: During the War for Independence, the French Government provided the Americans with loans, eventually totaling over two million dollars, most of which were negotiated by Benjamin Franklin. John Adams also secured a loan from Dutch bankers in 1782. After fighting between the Americans and the British ended in 1783, the new U.S. Government established under the Articles of Confederation needed to pay off its debt, but lacked sufficient tax authority to secure any revenue. The government struggled to pay off the loans, stopping payments of interest to France in 1785 and defaulting on further installments that were due in 1787. The United States also owed money to the Spanish Government and private Dutch investors, but focused on paying off the Dutch because Amsterdam remained the most likely source of future loans, which the United States successfully obtained in 1787 and 1788, despite its precarious financial state.

“In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation’s first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy.” No, Nikole the slavocracy is your enslavement to your narrative over the truth.

Massachusetts’ began considerations on abolishing the slave trade in 1767 and voted again in both 1771 and 1774 to end its practice altogether, though both times were overriden by the British governor’s veto. William Wilberforce, a British Christian of the most “fundamentalist” sort that today’s leftist-liberals despise, wrote “So enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did the trade’s wickedness appear that my own mind was completely made up for abolition. Let the consequences be what they would: I from this time determined that I would never rest until I had effected its abolition.” His antislavery efforts finally bore fruit in 1807: Parliament abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. Wilberforce was the single greatest enemy of slavery; the British empire did everything possible to discredit him. He was just the sort of Christian that staffers like those at the New York Times hate.

Yes, it took 58 years longer to abolish slavery in this country than in Britain, mostly because the federalist system allowed the states powers that no entity in Britain had to oppose the central government. In 1865, the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery in the United States, was ratified. One would never know from the NYT essay that 365,000 white union soldiers were killed on battlefields to end the Civil War and another 275,200 soldiers were wounded or fell ill. Only in the last decade have the total war deaths of Americans in all wars combined equaled the loss of live in the Civil War.

So dear readers, back to the question I raised in the beginning. Was the question about Trump, or about you? Would you put ideology ahead of integrity? If not, would you condemn the dishonesty of the New York Times? If so, how are you better than what you think Trump is? Ideology ruled in Soviet Russia, communist China, Nazi Germany. Integrity got you the gun or the gulag. The heroes of history put integrity first. What about you?

Groupthink explained: NY Times “townhall” crisis meeting transcript.

The ultra-liberal online opinion journal just published “a lightly condensed and edited transcript” (sez them) of a 75-minute crisis meeting inside the NY Times. Most of this post is from that transcript. I wish I could take the space to print the whole transcript, though you can find it via Most of what I have left out is NYT policy and “housekeeping” stuff, but my purpose here is not to praise or bash The NY Times but to illustrate how subtle groupthink is.

The first sentence in Slate’s reveal quotes executive editor Dean Baquet: “What I’m saying is that our readers and some of our staff cheer us when we take on Donald Trump, but they jeer at us when we take on Joe Biden.” Baquet, in his remarks, seemed to fault the complaining readers, and the world, for their failure to understand the Times and its duties in the era of Trump. “They sometimes want us to pretend that he was not elected president, but he was elected president,” Baquet said. “And our job is to figure out why, and how, and to hold the administration to account. If you’re independent, that’s what you do.”

“Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,’” Baquet said. “And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s. It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.” Whose decision? Is character analysis really a legitimate mission of a newspaper? “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well. Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story, a story about what it means to be an American in 2019. It is a story that requires deep investigation into people who peddle hatred” (what exactly does that mean?) “but it is also a story that requires imaginative use of all our muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way than we have in years. In the coming weeks, we’ll be assigning some new people to politics who can offer different ways of looking at the world. The newspaper will publish the 1619 Project, the most ambitious examination of the legacy of slavery ever undertaken in [inaudible] newspaper, to try to understand the forces that led to the election of Donald Trump. And that means trying to understand the segment of America that probably does not read us.”

Staffer: “Could you explain your decision not to more regularly use the word racist in reference to the president’s actions?” Staffer is typical of groupthink; already decided that Trump’s actions are racist, now wants the paper to solidify that perception.

Baquet: “Look, my own view is that the best way to capture a remark, like the kinds of remarks the president makes, is to use them, to lay it out in perspective. That is much more powerful than the use of a word. The weekend when some news organizations used the word racist, and I chose not to, we ran what I think is the most powerful story anybody ran that weekend. [inaudible] [chief White House correspondent] Peter Baker, who stepped back and took Trump’s remarks, looked at his whole history of using remarks like that, and I think it was more powerful than any one word. My own view is, you quote the actual remarks. I’m not saying we would never use the word racist. I’m talking about that weekend. The most powerful journalism I have ever read, and that I’ve ever witnessed, was when writers actually just described what they heard and put them in some perspective. I just think that’s more powerful.” I agree with him, that’s showing respect for your readers, let them decide what a person’s words mean rather than tagging them with a label.

Staffer: “But what is [inaudible] the use of a very clear word most people [inaudible]?” Staffer doesn’t agree, thinks “most people” are clear on the meaning of racism. They are not.

Baquet: “I think that that word it loses its power by the second or third time. I do. I think that these words—can I talk about the use of the word lie for one second?”

Staffer: “As long as you come back to my original question.”

Baquet: I will. I used the word lie once during the presidential campaign, used it a couple times after that. And it was pretty clear it was a lie, and we were the first ones to use it. But I fear that if we used it 20 times, 10 times, first, it would lose its power. And secondly, I thought we would find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of deciding which comment by which politician fit the word lie. I feel the same way about the word racist. I think that a bizarre sort of litmus test has been created: If you don’t use the word racist, you’re not quite capturing what the president said. That sentence exposes the groupthink of most of the media. “I’m going to ask you to go back and read the most powerful journalism of the civil rights movement. The most powerful journalism of the civil rights movement—for instance Joe Lelyveld’s portrait of Philadelphia, Mississippi, after the murders of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman—were vivid descriptions of what people in Philadelphia, Mississippi, said and how they behaved. The lead of the story described an old white man sitting on his front porch, saying that the town wasn’t racist, saying that everybody lived peacefully in the town. And as he was saying that, a much older black man walked by, and the guy called him “boy.” That is 20 times more powerful, by my lights, than to use the word racist. If the lead of that story had been “Philadelphia, Mississippi, is a racist town,” it would have been true, but it wouldn’t have been as powerful. I don’t expect everybody to agree with me. In fact, some of the people who were in the discussion that weekend don’t agree with me, but that’s how I feel, strongly.”

Different Staffer: “Hi. You mentioned that there could be situations when we would use the word racist. What is that standard?” Baguet obviously understands the power of labeling, but many staffers are so self indoctrinated that they can’t see beyond their own prejudice.

Baquet: “You know, we actually should have a written standard….I mean, it’s hard for me to answer, but yes, I do think there are instances when we would use it. It’s hard for me to articulate an example of it.” Yes, written standards, and what would yours be based on?

Staffer: “To come back to the discussion of the word racist for a second, I’m sensitive to how charged a word it is. I’m sensitive to not using labels. But I was struck a couple of years ago. I went to Little Rock for the 60th anniversary of Central High School. And I went back and I reread Homer Bigart’s story, you know, the day it happened, and it was a triple banner headline across the front page. And Homer Bigart, who was a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, his lead was, ‘An impressive array of federal force cowed racist agitators outside Central High School.’ And I was thinking, wow, that’s blunt, it’s powerful, it’s simple, it’s direct. And I was thinking, I wonder if that would ever be the way we would do it today.”

Baquet: “But I think you’d also… In a weird way, I would argue that proves my point. That was such a powerful moment in American history. It still resonates in American history. It was such a powerful scene of the American South at that moment, that in that instance, to have not used the word would have been weak. And I think, to me, I would argue that that proves my point.”

Staffer: “But the part that got me a little bit worried about is, if you compare it to how we would cover Charlottesville (“Unite the Right” rally in 2017, clash with “counter-protesters) which is different, sometimes we use these other words that sound like euphemisms or like ‘white nationalists who are racially tinged’ or we use things that seem to normalize and clean up and sanitize an ugly reality.”

Baquet: “Yeah, I hate racially tinged, racially charged, too. I think those are worse. If you’re going to do what I said, if you’re gonna put your money where your mouth is and actually just describe it, you shouldn’t use sort of half-assed words like racially charged or racially tinged either. You should either say it when the moment comes or you should describe the scene. I agree with that.”

Different Staffer: “I have another question about racism. I’m wondering to what extent you think that the fact of racism and white supremacy being sort of the foundation of this country should play into our reporting. Just because it feels to me like it should be a starting point, you know? Like these conversations about what is racist, what isn’t racist. I just feel like racism is in everything. It should be considered in our science reporting, in our culture reporting, in our national reporting. And so, to me, it’s less about the individual instances of racism, and sort of how we’re thinking about racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country. And I think particularly as we are launching a 1619 Project, I feel like that’s going to open us up to even more criticism from people who are like, ‘OK, well you’re saying this, and you’re producing this big project about this. But are you guys actually considering this in your daily reporting?'”

Baquet: “You know, it’s interesting, the argument you just made, to go back to the use of the word racist. I didn’t agree with all of this from Keith Woods, who I know from New Orleans and who’s the ombudsman for NPR. He wrote a piece about why he wouldn’t have used the word racist, and his argument, which is pretty provocative, boils down to this: Pretty much everything is racist. His view is that a huge percentage of American conversation is racist, so why isolate this one comment from Donald Trump? His argument is that he could cite things that people say in their everyday lives that we don’t characterize that way, which is always interesting. You know, I don’t know how to answer that, other than I do think that that race has always played a huge part in the American story.

“And I do think that race and understanding of race should be a part of how we cover the American story. Sometimes news organizations sort of forget that in the moment. But of course it should be. I mean, one reason we all signed off on the 1619 Project and made it so ambitious and expansive was to teach our readers to think a little bit more like that. Race in the next year—and I think this is, to be frank, what I would hope you come away from this discussion with—race in the next year is going to be a huge part of the American story. And I mean, race in terms of not only African Americans and their relationship with Donald Trump, but Latinos and immigration. And I think that one of the things I would love to come out of this with is for people to feel very comfortable coming to me and saying, here’s how I would like you to consider telling that story. Because the reason you have a diverse newsroom, to be frank, is so that you can have people pull together to try to tell that story. I think that’s the closest answer I can come.” The agenda of the Times and other opinion media (there is probably no straight reporting anymore in the media space) is revealed in his use of “teach readers to think a little bit more like that.

Different Staffer: Hi, I actually wanted to raise a different issue, not to stop the discussion about language. About the push for social media and audience engagement, it’s very clear that the direction of the paper and of management is to incentivize and reward more engagement on social media. But then you have the things that get the most traffic on social media or something like people’s Twitter accounts, where it might push them to write inflammatory or stupid or ill-thought-out things. So we’re kind of incentivizing people to get eyes, but that also incentivizes people to say stupid things on social media.“

Okay, enough of that. What was clear to me is that none of these people are evil or ill-intentioned (in that they TOTALLY believein what they spew). The power of groupthink, of social circle indoctrination, is that once you accept your group’s presuppositions—whatever group that is—you have impaired your ability to perceive evidence to the contrary. Mr. Baquet eventually gave in to the group consensus that the paper should be less mild (i.e. factual) and more powerful (use racist label) in its headlines. Why? Notice what the different staffer said about the history of our country, that it’s essentially racism and white supremacy. This person has absolutely no knowledge of history beyond the headlines. My next post will delve into the 1619 project, their effort to “TEACH READERS HOW TO THINK” PROPERLY, which is to accept the view that racism and slavery EMBODY the USA. This is how freedom is lost.

Life has no meaning?

A nationwide poll has revealed that 89 per cent of 16 to 29 year-olds believe that their lives have no meaning or purpose.

A British poll, conducted by Japanese company Yakult and reported by The Sun, revealed that 89% of young people, aged 16 to 29, “believe that their lives have no meaning or purpose.” This saddening statistic is explained with a corresponding statistic shared in the same article—only 1% of this age group identifies as belonging to the Church of England, the largest denomination in the UK, meaning that very few young people in the UK hold to any semblance of Christianity (half of UK residents are atheists). This is being reflected in decreasing church attendance. In England, such attendance is down to less than 5%. The study also found that 30% of these young people say they are “stuck in a rut,” and 84% don’t believe they are living “their best life.” But if there is no meaning or purpose to life, what makes you “stuck in a rut” or not stuck in a rut? What is your “best life”? In this worldview, there is no way even to define these things, apart from arbitrary feelings and opinions.

Across all age groups, 51% of those surveyed believe they were put on the earth to be as happy as they can be, while 37% believe that it is their role to make people around them happy, with 31% believing humanity’s “purpose should be to do good.” Based on what? Sez who? If 89% believe that their lives have no meaning or purpose, how can 31% believe that humanity’s purpose should be to do good? Does this paradox speak to a view that their life is meaningless but other people want to do good, or that they want to do good even if their life is meaningless? I believe the real explanation is the “residual Christianity credit.” Much like with a good credit history, you can keep raising your credit line. But if you start spending without paying your debts, eventually your “available credit” will be gone, your credit rating will crash, you will end in bankruptcy. That’s the Western world today.

This belief that life has no meaning or purpose is the outworking of the religion of evolutionary secularism that permeates the education system and the media throughout the UK, and here in the United States. When you adopt the religion of atheism, you have to deal with the consequences—and one consequence is that ultimately there’s absolutely no meaning or purpose to life! “Mass murder”–shootings, stabbings, acid and vehicle attacks–are also inevitable consequences. If your life has no meaning, neither does anyone else’s!

Melanin, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Why so many white faces?

Melanin: A dark brown to black pigment occurring in the hair, skin, and iris of the eye in people and animals. It is responsible for tanning of skin exposed to sunlight. People have different skin colors based on where their ancestors originated. Those from warmer, sunnier climates close to the equator have darker skin, because they needed a large amount of melanin to protect them from their sunny environment. All races have melanin, some more, some less. The only people that don’t have melanin are albinos, which is a genetic mutation. They have no melanin in their hair, eyes, and skin, they have extreme vision problems and skin is damaged badly by exposure to sun, and their life span is shorter than the rest of the population. Also, the brain has melanin, so albinos have trouble a bit more with learning and memory.

When we see or hear the term “white”, as in “white supremacy” or “white nationalism”, is it referring to melanin, culture, ideology or history? If it refers to melanin, as you can see in the definition of melanin, being white is not necessarily a good thing biologically, especially if you are too white. If it refers to culture, what is “white culture” relative to “black culture “? During the era of widespread busing, many black students interviewed said they were as nervous about harassment from their own race as from whites. Why? The black students with the highest grades were accused by friends from their neighborhood of being “too white.” Russell Wilson, the quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks, who was raised by intellectual parents, is very articulate and circumspect in the way he speaks, and is on good terms with management. It has been reported that there was a friction between him and some other black players who were raised in very different circumstances, accusing him of not “being black enough.” I don’t know what either “white culture” or “black culture” is. Is “gangsta rap” black culture? Are black geniuses like Thomas Sowell too white?

If white refers to ideology, the only ideology I embrace is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which transformed the world. “I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem.” Ecclesiastes 2:4-7. Those words were written by king Solomon. Notice how casually he uses the word “slave”, which was normal for his day and most of history. Most of the slaves Israel had were white. By the way, do you know where the word slave came from? There was a long period of Muslim oppression of the West, and their greatest brutality was perpetrated against Slavs—what is present day Hungary, Romania and Poland. They took millions of white women captive for sex, and called them slaves, because they were Slavs. Talk about inconvenient truth!

The “ideology”, if want to call it that, of Jesus Christ is demonstrated by these passages: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”– Luke 4:18. “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”– Luke 6:27-31. “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”– Luke 6:32-36.

As for white history, the United States of America, and the principles we bequeathed to the modern world, codified in the Declaration of Independence and in our constitution, came from Greco-Roman and Western European thought and people. Can this history be so bad if more people want to settle here than anywhere in the world? Yeah, we have been far from perfect, there has been injustice and prejudice…just less than anywhere else. Honest people without an “ax to grind”, that is, those who believe that gratitude is superior to grievance, will admit the USA falls short only compared to perfection itself, or to any other nation. Slavery, conquest of indigenous people, “Jim Crow” laws, were all sinful, as are all human beings. Slavery still survives in Africa, most Muslim countries, many Asian countries. Sex slavery—known by the euphemism human trafficking—still occurs everywhere. Call me racist just because of my melanin? My grandparents came from Poland and Hungary after surviving the death camps. Don’t expect me to apologize for the sins of others.

Barack Obama, in reaction to the horrid actions of the deranged, but solitary racist Dylan Root, claimed racism is in our DNA. That’s not racist? Well Barack, you’re a biochemist now? You’ve isolated a gene for racism? Why am I not surprised, since he already believes in genes for homosexuality and transsexualism. How about a gene for stupidity that turns people into leftists? The majority of Americans are from families that came to this country after slavery was outlawed. Barack Obama, great racial scold, is a product of the fanciest private school in Hawaii and his children went to Sidwell Friends, the fanciest school in D. C. He takes vacations on Oahu and his wife parties in Switzerland. By the way, most of the garbage about the USA being a racist country is vomited by whites. The NY Times is going to launch the “1619 project.” “The 1619 Project” refers to the 400th anniversary of the arrival of black slaves in the U.S. The Times makes no attempt to hide their insidious goals: “It aims to re-frame our country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are. The basic thrust of the 1619 Project is that everything in American history is explained by slavery and race. Of the 13 board members of the NY Times, 7 are white males, 1 is an Indian male, 1 is a black male, 1 is an oriental male, 3 are white females. 10 out of 13 are white!

Racism is a word thrown around too easily and corruptly. Want proof? Who said the following; are any of these comments racist?

1-“Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.” 2-“Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn’t matter which color does the hating. It’s just plain wrong.” __________________

“3-I will not permit any man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him.” 4-“If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.” ______________

5-“Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.” 6-“Over the generations, black leaders have ranged from noble souls to shameless charlatans.” 7-“The real minimum wage is zero.“_________________

8-“Fear of something is at the root of hate for others, and hate within will eventually destroy the hater.” _____________

9-“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.” 10-“Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away, and that in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.” _________

Who said it? 1-2, Muhammad Ali, 3-4, Booker T. Washington, 5-7, Thomas Sowell, 8, George Washington Carver, 9-10, Martin Luther King. Two things in conclusion: 1. If you thought any of those quotes were “racist”, YOU my friend are the racist, it is inside YOU. 2- Knowing that all the quotes are from black Americans, if you say to yourself “he has been brainwashed by whites”, YOU my friend are the racist! Apparently the parents of Martin Luther King and George Washington Carver didn’t mind “white” culture, naming their sons after the “father” of the Protestant reformation and the “father” of the USA. Let’s Make America Great Again? Nah, that’s hat-crime.

Sean Tagert, killed by Canadian “medicare for all.”

Sean was diagnosed with ALS in March 2013. For years he endured the steady deterioration of his abilities, until suffering cardiac arrest in late Oct. 2017. He was resuscitated and placed on a ventilator, and lived since then on life support, completely immobile, communicating only via an eye-tracking computer setup. Finally, with his health rapidly deteriorating, Sean opted for a medically assisted death.” Facebook post.

Vancouver Coastal Health offered him 15.5 hours of home care under the Choice in Supports for Independent Living program but not the 24-hour care he needed. Tagert was later offered as much as 20 hours per day, which his doctor said was still not enough. Relocation was not an option as that would have taken him away from his son, of whom he had partial custody.

“A single-payer health care system will always sink to the lowest common denominator, removing choice. If death is more efficient for the system, than death it will be. And that’s on top of the gaps in medical care that those with socialized medicine suffer. Instead of finding ways to serve Tagert and his son, the Canadian health care system found it more convenient to kill him. Now a young boy has lost his father sooner than necessary. This is the medical future promised by the Democrats.” John Ellis,

“Extreme risk protection orders”: Gateway to totalitarianism.

Mind reading on a vast scale: Pre-crime monitors

Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.” Foundation for Economic Education, by John Miltimore. What are these “extreme risk protection orders?” Congress is seriously considering red flag gun laws. These laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others. Why do I say they are a gateway to totalitarianism?

  • Regulating firearms is not among the powers listed in the Constitution (though this has not always stopped lawmakers from regulating them). In fact, the document expressly forbids the federal government from doing so, stating in the Second Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who dismiss the second amendment are dismissing constitutional rule, the political foundation of our freedom.
  • Federalism: Unlike the federal government, whose powers, James Madison noted, are “few and defined,” states possess powers that “are numerous and indefinite.” Indeed, 17 states and the District of Columbia already have red flag laws, and many more states are in the process of adding them. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws if they choose. If red flag laws are deemed desirable, this is the appropriate place to pursue such laws, assuming they pass constitutional muster. But do they? Those who automatically call for the central government to regulate things that can be accomplished by the smallest jurisdictions don’t want safety, they want control.
  • The Constitution mandates that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates this provision. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.” Depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutionally-guaranteed right in the absence of criminal charges or trial is an affront to civil liberties. Which control freaks don’t believe in anyway.
  • In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.
  • Red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime, a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel. Surveillance states like China are well on their way. Neutered populations in nominally free countries like Canada and most of Western Europe have slid into exchanging their freedom for security. Are we next?
  • The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like sci-fi fantasy (which it is), but the threat such ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real. Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies more suited for dystopian thrillers⁠—and police states⁠—than a free society. It’s clear that laws of this magnitude should not be passed as an emotional or political response to an event, even a tragic one.
  • I live in Washington state. If our state had a red flag law, the fact of my writing this blog and the fact that I own one pistol (with my state issued concealed carry permit) would be enough justification to enter my home without my permission and confiscate my gun, as well as search for other dangerous weapons (I have a stiletto I use as a letter opener).
  • If you “like” this blog post, keep in mind that a college student in Florida also lost his property rights under their red flag law as a result criticizing a blog post by the “young skull full of mush” (thanks Rush) named David Hogg, a very prominent gun control fanatic.

I have made my case. “Extreme risk protection orders” aka “red flag laws” are a gateway to totalitarianism! President Trump, shame on you for promoting them. Are you also a totalitarian?

Disability is helping me amend my judging on appearances.

The other day, as I was gingerly making my way from the car to Walmart, I noticed coming towards me four hispanic men in their 20’s, heavily tattooed, head-banded, face-piercings. Get the picture in your mind. A little nervous, I dropped my cane. Before I could bend over, one of the men hustled over and picked it up, handed it back to me. Another of the group got me a shopping cart. Another asked me if I needed help. I thanked them, we really looked at each other, I think at a level deeper than superficial appearances. I was ashamed of my initial thoughts. I wonder now who they really are, and what their choice of clothing and body decoration means to them.

I suffered a stroke over three years ago, and ever since have been experiencing acts of grace and mercy: at the post office, the store, the coffee shop, strangers hustle to offer a helping hand, rendering appearance irrelevant. Two years ago, I attended the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports clinic, which I also blogged about.

Look at the photo above. Who would not be nervous if a group that looked like that were walking towards them? Regardless of your ethnicity, or theirs (I would be just as nervous about a bunch of white skinheads with Nazi tattoos and accessories), we hold certain expectations and judgments about appearance, and the nervousness factors tend to be: young males; visible, especially facial, tattoos and piercings; baggy pants, especially when underwear is exposed; bandannas and backward baseball caps; dirty or torn clothing (though “artful” tears seem to be a part of young female fashion).

Yes, I AM stereotyping appearance. Even Jesse Jackson once said he would be a lot more nervous encountering at night a group of shabbily dressed black males than a group of well dressed white males. Our style-appearance is something we each control, and our decisions usually say a lot about the culture we value and how we want others to relate to us. There was a funny dialogue between Jerry and George on Seinfeld. Jerry always tended to dress very well, whereas George sometimes was a slob. This day, he was wearing sweatpants. Jerry’s take was,”George, wearing sweatpants during the day is for losers. You look like a person who has given up caring about your appearance.” George said he just wanted to be comfortable, but Jerry was right. How you show up in public is a statement about you.

But there are stereotypes that acknowledge very frequent cultural manifestations. Let’s take an example. Match the clothing and/or accessories with the following individuals: 1. white stock broker; 2. Russian mobster; 3. black African- studies professor; 4. MS-13 gang member. a. polyester track suit with heavy gold jewelry; b. facial tattoos and multiple piercings; c. Brooks Brothers suit; d. dashiki and agbada.

Unless you deliberately answer wrong to avoid charges of racism, you will get them all right. You might say, “there is no right answer.” Okay, there ARE definitely wrong answers. Matching 1 and a, b or d is definitely wrong. Matching 2 and d is wrong. Matching 3 and a or b is wrong. Matching 4 and c or d is wrong. Always? No, just 98% of the time. Does appearance tell us the truth about the individual? Here there may be many exceptions. The white stock broker might actually act like a Russian mobster after hours. The Russian mobster and the MS-13 gang member might be gentle souls who “joined” the group to avoid being beaten or killed. The African studies prof might be a Nobel laureate economist or a pastor of an African Anglican church. However, when you are walking alone late at night in Baltimore or Detroit, you are more likely to respond to appearance in stereotypical ways, regardless of your race. Which appearance letter, a-d, will you be least nervous about?

Nevertheless, my main point is that kindness can inhabit unexpected appearances. In front of or inside the store, post office or coffee shop, give kindness a chance.