Turley Testifies In Senate On Antifa and The Anti-Free-Speech Movement in the United States

downloadToday I am testifying in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution on the anti-free-speech movement in the United States.  The hearing is entitled “The Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble: Protecting Speech by Stopping Anarchist Violence.” The hearing will be held at 2:30 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building and will be broadcast on C-Span and available on the Internet through the Committee. My testimony is below.

My testimony begins with this overview:

The protests in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd have served to focus the nation on the transcendent issues of racial discrimination and police misconduct. It is an important moment, as we deal with the continuing scourge of racism, to achieve the promise of equal opportunity and equal treatment in our country. We cannot let this moment pass for a national dialogue on racial justice.

That dialogue, however, is increasingly turning into a diatribe on our campuses, on our streets, and in our media. We are losing this opportunity to reach a consensus because of rising violence and intolerance for opposing views. If we are to come together as a nation, we have to be able to speak to one another freely and without fear. That is not occurring due to the campaigns of intimidation and retaliation against those with dissenting views.

Recently, the federal government arrested George Washington University student Jason Charter as the alleged “ringleader” who led efforts to topple statues in Washington, D.C., including the nearly successful effort to destroy the historic Andrew Jackson statue near the White House. Charter has been an active Antifa member on our campus for years, and, after his arrest, reportedly proclaimed “The Movement is winning.”

He is right. A visit to virtually any college or university will expose that success. In my three decades of teaching, I have never seen the level of fear and intimidation that we have today on our campuses. Many professors are afraid to voice dissenting views of the current protests or other issues out of fear that they could be accused of racism or even physically attacked. Some professors have indeed been assaulted or required police protection after voicing opposing views. To put it simply, Antifa and these other extremist groups are winning, and few people seem to be taking notice.

They are winning because universities are now effectively blocking conservative or opposing speakers to avoid violent clashes.

They are winning because the media and politicians downplay such violence to avoid criticism.

They are winning because local officials are ordering police to stand down or prosecutors to drop charges to avoid further conflict.

They are winning because free speech itself is being viewed as a destabilizing factor in our schools and society.

Antifa has achieved its anti-free speech agenda to a degree that even longtime critics never imagined possible. It only took inaction from our government and silence from our citizens.

I would like to briefly describe the agenda of Antifa and its history of violence in our country, including how recent violence fits into its militant philosophy. I would then like to suggest ways for the federal government to fill a vacuum left from the inaction of local and academic leaders in dealing with attacks on the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly. It is by no means an easy task since government enforcement itself can also chill free speech and free association rights. However, threats against free speech have reached a critical mass, from our schools to our streets. We can either act or remain passive pedestrians to what inevitably comes next.

Here is the full witness list:

Panel I

  1. The Honorable Ron Wyden

    United States Senator
    State of Oregon
  2. The Honorable Jeff Merkley

    United States Senator
    State of Oregon

Panel II

  1. The Honorable Erin Neely Cox

    United States Attorney
    Northern District of Texas
    Dallas , TX
  2. Mr. Ken Cuccinelli

    Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary
    United States Department of Homeland Security
    Washington , DC

Panel III

  1. Mr. Andrew Ngo

    Editor-at-Large
    The Post Millennial
    Portland , OR
  2. Professor Jonathan Turley

    J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
    George Washington University Law School
    Washington , DC
  3. Ms. Nkenge Harmon Johnson

    President and CEO
    Portland Urban League
    Portland , OR
  4. Mr. Kyle Shideler

    Director of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
    Center for Security Policy
    Washington , DC

Here is my testimony: Turley.Testimony.Free Speech.Senate.Final

453 thoughts on “Turley Testifies In Senate On Antifa and The Anti-Free-Speech Movement in the United States”

  1. And in today’s installment of “Trump is an idiot,” he demonstrates that he doesn’t know how to pronounce Yosemite:
    https://twitter.com/alexnazaryan/status/1290664907772506112
    In yesterday’s installment, he falsely claims “you can’t do that” when confronted about our high per capita COVID-19 death #s:
    https://twitter.com/axios/status/1290497186489348096
    (To be honest, there can easily be multiple daily installments, as he may reveal his stupidity multiple times in a single day, or even in a single interview: youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY )

    1. our high per capita COVID-19 death #s:

      We’ve been over this particular falsehood before and you claimed you couldn’t find data that everyone in the discussion could locate.

        1. Death rates State by State per 100,000 People:

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

          Nationwide, the overall death rate has plummeted since the end of April.

          That’s why all of the MSM news org’s only talk about positive test results, never mention the much larger amounts of negative test results, and never ever mention the fact that death rates have dropped dramatically over the past 3+ months.

          So that is not reporting the news, it is spreading and propagating propaganda.

          Once again, you have failed miserably, Buggy. But that’s very familiar territory for you.

          1. Rhodes, more people have died in the U.S. than any other country: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
            Is this what “Make America Great Again” means?

            If we’d had a competent President, we wouldn’t have so many deaths, so many people with longterm COVID-19-related health problems, so much economic chaos. We have one of the world’s best healthcare systems, Obama left Trump a pandemic playbook and a pandemic response team on the NSC, …, and Trump f’d up. He’s not the only one who f’d up, but the buck stops with him.

            1. Committ – More people have died in China of the CCP Virus, we just do not have accurate numbers. We also know that hospitals are paid an additional 13K per CCP Virus patient, so it is in their interest to declare each death in the hospital a CCP Virus death, regardless of real cause.

              1. Paul, we don’t know that and we get that anything making Trump look bad is a conspiracy. Given we have 4% of the world’s population and 25% of the cases, spin it however you want.

                By the way, too bad Herman Cain got tested or he’d still be alive today.

                1. Anon – China is locking down cities again and welding people into their apartments. Please do some research.

                  1. Their figures are totally bogus. Everyone outside China and the WHO seems to agree on that one point.

                    However, consider this. If their amazingly low figures are true– then maybe it’s GOTTA be a weapon, because evidently they understood precisely how to handle it as soon as it “surfaced”

                    Now. lest anybody misunderstand that viruses CAN be synthesized in labs, read this

                    https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/15/844752/biologists-rush-to-re-create-the-china-coronavirus-from-its-dna-code/

                    in other words, they are trying to build a copy of the sars-cov-2 in a US lab, from the molecular level on up.

                    Kind of scary to think, they can do this. i explained this back in what March, and I was laughed at like a kook

                    One of Obama’s strongest moves was declaring that laboratory “gain of function” research should stop.
                    Why Trump adminstration reversed this policy about a year into his term, I have no clue and havent been able to discover.
                    Some strange things about this whole mess remain ever elusive and unclear.

            2. CommittTo: Actually if your globalist Dems or RINOs were running the show the flight ban to China would never have happened……Xenophobic you know. And how about the open border, I guess illegal caravans are virus free.

              1. Tony, there was no “flight ban to China.” In fact, tens of thousands of people entered the US from China in the first few months of the pandemic: “The Associated Press reported that more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals based in those territories entered the U.S. in the first three months after the travel restrictions were imposed. Additionally, more than 27,000 Americans returned from mainland China in the first month after the restrictions took effect. U.S. officials lost track of more than 1,600 of them who were supposed to be monitored for virus exposure.” (https://apnews.com/d227b34b168e576bf5068b92a03c003d)

                “how about the open border, I guess illegal caravans are virus free”

                If you think anyone is suggesting an open border during a pandemic, you’ve got an active imagination. FWIW, our border with Canada is currently closed because there’s too much coronavirus in the U.S.

            3. CTHD claims to be female but talks like a truck driver in some seedy men’s bathroom at a truck stop where the bums hang out.

              The incompetence was that of the Democrat governors of a number of Democratic states. I will repost some of the numbers by reposting a recent comment of mine.

              1. If CTHD wishes to cast blame she should take note of the states where the Covid death rate per million exceeds that of Belgium.
                —-

                This marathon on masks seems never ending. I don’t agree entirely with John, but he is providing a scientific point of view with some important data. Btb and the bug seem to base all their conclusions on correlation. They do not recognize that correlation does not imply causation.

                I will use the btb-bug scientific method to determine the cause of severe covid viral spread. Democats.

                Methodology: In a study I used Belgium as a cut-off point. It is the European state with the highest number of deaths per million, 850 deaths per million. That is the highest count in the EU where different states have handled things differently. In the US we have 50 states that handled things differently so I will look at the states that surpassed Belgium’s death rate.

                Results:
                The states are Deaths per million

                New Jersey 1,793
                New York 1,686
                Massachusetts 1,256
                Connecticut 1,245
                Rhode Island 954
                Louisiana 871

                Discussion: The common denominator of those 6 states is that they are all run by Democrat governors.

                Conclusion: Democrats are the cause for the widest spread of the Covid-19 virus

                After recognizing the cause of the widespread Covid virus to be Democrats it is imperative to vote Republican and Trump in 2020.

      1. We have a high per capita death rate:
        https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality (click on “Deaths/100K pop.” column in the lower, more comprehensive chart, and you’ll see that we’re the tenth worst globally).

        “We’ve been over this particular falsehood before and you claimed you couldn’t find data that everyone in the discussion could locate.”

        LOL. You never linked to the data you claim you located. You wimped out of actually linking to the Worldometers page you pretend supports you.

        Moreover, our previous discussion (https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/02/he-chose-his-poison-grandma-implicates-grandson-as-bomb-thrower-in-portland-attack/comment-page-1/#comment-1985398) was about Steven Dennis’s claim that “The *entire* European Union — population 446 million — is still averaging fewer cases per day than Florida alone. … For the most recent 7 days, USA has about 12X the EUs new cases and 24X the EUs death toll on a per capita basis.” That’s a claim about the relative per capita deaths in the US vs. the EU recently, and I would have assumed that you understand that the EU is not a country. Am I wrong about that? Do you mistakenly think the EU *is* a country? Or are you simply so inattentive that you don’t understand the difference between Dennis’s claim and what Jonathan Swan was trying to discuss with Trump?

          1. “14th out of 20”

            Hmm. Mespo, do you not understand the difference between the case-fatality rate (the data you’re referencing) and the per capita deaths (what I was talking about)? You’re trying to do the same thing that Trump did with Swan, ignoring the latter data.

            Nor are there are only 20 countries in the world (honestly, I wouldn’t have expected you to make that particular mistake).

            According to that data, the U.S. has the 10th worst deaths per capita out of almost 200 countries globally (which is why I explicitly said “click on “Deaths/100K pop.” column in the lower, more comprehensive chart“), including the ones Trump referred to as “sh*thole countries.” If you think that being in the worst 5% globally is something to shrug about, your values need work.

    2. Compare with Obama’s calling a Navy Corpsman a Navy ‘Corpseman’ multiple times. This from the commander in chief of the Corpseman and, of course, the United States Marine Corpse.

      In a contest for stupidest award Obama easily wins.

      1. No, Young, Obama doesn’t win “In a contest for stupidest.”

        Because if you actually wanted to compare them, you’d look at all of the relevant data, not a single example from each, and especially not when I wasn’t trying to present Trump’s worst, only very recent examples.

        1. The relevant data is that Trump prospered for over four decades in several demanding lines of business.

          Obama spent 12 years drawing a salary from the University of Chicago wherein he taught boutique courses (40% time) and never published any scholarly papers. Pro-rating part time and seasonal employments, he worked in law offices for about 4 years (and was never granted a partnership). He was a functionary of an inconsequential NGO for 2.5 years and, prior to that, was a copy editor at a commercial company which produced corporate newsletters under contract. This last is the only normal year-round job he’s ever had. He spent 12 years farting around in legislatures, but never established himself as a maven in any area of policy. (His wife got handsome raises at suspicious intervals, though).

          1. TIA, wow, talk about moving the goalposts.

            Young and I were talking about stupidity. Nothing you list from Obama is an indication of stupidity.

            You want to compare their entire lives and ignore that a Trump inherited millions and filed for bankruptcy multiple times, when Young and I were only comparing their presidencies.

            Trump wasn’t aways in cognitive decline. But he clearly is now.

              1. It’s a beaut. Did you get the Yo Semite quote?

                https://twitter.com/i/status/1290663954419798016

                “When we heard “Yo, semites” myself and my fellow Jews perked up our ears.”

                “It being a strange world, Yosemite Sam is actually Jewish. He bore more than a passing resemblance to his creator, Isadore Freleng, and his full name is given in one episode as Samuel Rosenbaum.

                But until today, it never occurred to me to pronounce his first name like that.

                “I look forward to his 10 min explanation next event. “It’s a tricky word. Slippery like an ice rink. Possibly foreign. And it starts with a Y, which is sometimes a vowel. Did you know that? Not many people knew that. So, I’m trying to read this word with leather shoes on…””

                “Trump, this morning, introducing his Secretary of the Interior: “He loves the Interior.”

                1. Yo semites lol
                  the subtext of yosemite sam is that same is a goldstein, a gold stone, common jewish name, and yosemite is a place historically searched for gold mineral deposites

                  even today you can pan for gold there

                  https://www.yosemite.com/things-to-do/gold-panning/

                  the association of the jewish people with gold is a well known history, and not necessarily anti-yosemitic

            1. Young and I were talking about stupidity. Nothing you list from Obama is an indication of stupidity.

              You’d rather avoid actual assessments of how they’ve lived their lives and what they’ve accomplished, because dishonest or shallow.

          2. Cyrus Vance has good bead on Trump’s business ventures and we’ll probably get a clearer picture from it then the fantasy world description TIA has painted.

            Pro Publica has also found tax and loan applications from Trump which suggest fraud.

            “Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits and occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than they provided to New York City tax authorities. The discrepancies made the buildings appear more profitable to the lender — and less profitable to the officials who set the buildings’ property tax.

            For instance, Trump told the lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during the same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrapers, located at 40 Wall Street.

            A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica they saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in the documents. The discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance and real estate at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”

            New York City’s property tax forms state that the person signing them “affirms the truth of the statements made” and that “false filings are subject to all applicable civil and criminal penalties.”

            The punishments for lying to tax officials, or to lenders, can be significant, ranging from fines to criminal fraud charges. Two former Trump associates, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, are serving prison time for offenses that include falsifying tax and bank records, some of them related to real estate…..”

            https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies

            1. a mere inconsistency is not even proof of misrepresentation, let alone scienter. that is usually required to prove fraud.

              people who toss around the word fraud in the context of taxes, are usually people who don’t have any experience in preparing or litigating the issues

              now on to these socalled “real estate professionals.” a “real estate professional” can be simply a broker. i bet you can find hundreds of brokers who would swear trump is Satan himself
              a broker can also be a person who is very canny about real estate, but has a very shallow education besides. i know some will chafe at this observation but its true. a lot of fantastic brokers havent been to college. this is fine if all they are doing is selling. but they are not experts on “fraud” which is a legal term

              a lawyer who is responsible for his or her opinion, will not make the same kind of wild generalizations that a broker will

              how do i know they were talking to brokers? because of the euphemisms of journalism and what they imply.
              trust me if they were talking to lawyers then they would have said so.

              brokers say all kinds of crp about real estate assessments and so forth. in some places they pretend to be lawyers and will challenge assessments. and in some places the tax authorities let them get away with that. in some places they don’t let brokers usurp the role of lawyers in such proceedings. in some places broker opinions are worthless and you need an appraiser. in other places they let brokers spout off their cheap opinions and take them as evidence.

              most of all, you can bet there are a lot of brokers in NYC who hate Donald’s guts just out of pure jealousy, and perhaps personal rivalries. biased, in a word.

              book you probably know these things quite well but you post this thing anyways. it will only convince those readers who were biased against trump from the start.

              biased “experts,” biased journalists, and biased readers, will only convince themselves.

              1. Planned and or purposely misrepresented presentations are fraud, and the article cites more than one example. But of course a review of Trump’s tax and other business documents will yield the information. I think we’re going to get it.

            2. Cyrus Vance has good bead on Trump’s business ventures and we’ll probably get a clearer picture from it then the fantasy world description TIA has painted.

              Cyrus Vance is a lawyer who knows jack-squat about the world of business.

        2. So have ever in your adult life pronounced “corps” as ” corpse”?

          Did you ever think you had been to 57 states and had three more to go?

          Did you think the people of Austria speak Austrian?

          Did you ever confuse Pearl Harbor Day with the day we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?

          I could go on but why bother? Obama is basically a lightly improved version of Hank Johnson who thinks Guam is going to flip over and who wants to call midgets ” abnormally small people” because he thinks “midget” is offensive.

          1. No doubt our Secretary wannabe Young had similar things said about him in law school:

            Bradford Berenson Harvard Law, class of ’91; associate White House counsel, 2001-’03, Federalist Society past officer

            “[A]fter [Obama] became president of the Review, he was under a lot of pressure to participate and lend his voice to those debates. And he did, I think, to some degree. But I would not have described him as a campus radical or a campus political leader. He was the president of the Harvard Law Review, the leader of that organization. But, in that role, his job was to manage, in essence, a publication, and the editors who brought it forth and to do a lot of close editing of academic legal articles. …

            You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability. Barack was at the very top of his class in terms of legal ability. He had a first-class legal mind and, in my view, was selected to be president of the Review entirely on his merits.

            It was very hard to find. And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. …

            We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category. …

            [After Obama is selected,] he does a very able job as president. Puts out what I think was a very good volume of the Review. Does a great job managing the difficult and complicated interpersonal dynamics on the Review. And manages somehow, in an extremely fractious group, to keep everybody almost happy.

            Some of the people who are not as happy as others, I think much to their surprise, are some of the African American people who believe that now it’s their turn.

            Absolutely right, absolutely right. I think Barack took 10 times as much grief from those on the left on the Review as from those of us on the right. And the reason was, I think there was an expectation among those editors on the left that he would affirmatively use the modest powers of his position to advance the cause, whatever that was. They thought, you know, finally there’s an African American president of the Harvard Law Review; it’s our turn, and he should aggressively use this position, and his authority and his bully pulpit to advance the political or philosophical causes that we all believe in.

            And Barack was reluctant to do that. It’s not that he was out of sympathy with their views, but his first and foremost goal, it always seemed to me, was to put out a first-rate publication. And he was not going to let politics or ideology get in the way of doing that. …

            He had some discretion as president to exercise an element of choice for certain of the positions on the masthead; it wasn’t wide discretion, but he had some. And I think a lot of the minority editors on the Review expected him to use that discretion to the maximum extent possible to empower them. To put them in leadership positions, to burnish their resumes, and to give them a chance to help him and help guide the Review. He didn’t do that. He declined to exercise that discretion to disrupt the results of votes or of tests that were taken by various people to assess their fitness for leadership positions.

            He was unwilling to undermine, based on the way I viewed it, meritocratic outcomes or democratic outcomes in order to advance a racial agenda. That earned him a lot of recrimination and criticism from some on the left, particularly some of the minority editors of the Review. …

            It confirmed the hope that I and others had had at the time of the election that he would basically be an honest broker, that he would not let ideology or politics blind him to the enduring institutional interests of the Review. It told me that he valued the success of his own presidency of the Review above scoring political points of currying favor with his political supporters.”

            https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html

            1. “You don’t become president of the Harvard Law Review, no matter how political, or how liberal the place is, by virtue of affirmative action, or by virtue of not being at the very top of your class in terms of legal ability”

              Apparently you do if you are black. When I heard Obama discuss the Constitution I could see he simply did not understand it. Other professors at the university thought he was a shallow political toy with a meager understanding of law.

              Outside of law his falsity is on shocking display. For years he was warning costal homes were going to drown because of global warming. Then he spends millions on a home on the beach.

              Not very bright but we are assured his pants have a perfect crease by the NYT.

          2. And I could likewise go on with other examples of Trump’s stupidity. For example, you ask “Did you ever confuse Pearl Harbor Day with the day we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima?,” but Trump apparently didn’t even know what occurred at Pearl Harbor: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-book-new-very-stable-genius-pearl-harbor-putin-modi-tillerson-a9285896.html

            If we focus on things that are more meaningful, we’d find that Obama handled H1N1 better than Trump has handled COVID-19 (despite Obama literally leaving Trump a pandemic guidebook and a pandemic group on the NSC that Trump allowed Bolton to disband), Obama inherited an awful economy and left Trump with a good one, whereas Trump inherited a good economy and trashed it by his incompetent handling of COVID-19, Obama maintained our relationships with allies better than Trump, …

            1. Obama inherited an awful economy

              Actually, every therapeutic measure was in place when he took office and the economic contraction concluded in May 2009. The Democratic Party added two things: the porkulus, which was a mess of Democratic Party wishlists stapled together and sold as a stimulus bill; and the rape of Chrysler’s secured creditors to pay off Democratic Party clients. Three of the five people supervising the stabilization of the financial sector were the same (Henry Paulson and Christopher Cox were replaced; Sheila Bair, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner remained).

              1. Numerous post crash analyses (incl the CBO) showed the Stimulus bill – which was fully transparent with a website showing awards, contract details etc, and no fired IGs like Trump’s attempts to hide his administration of virus funds – helped the recovery significantly. I wonder if absurd objected to the Trump Fat Boy Stimulus bill of 2017 (during an already growing GDP) which gave his buddies and Ivanka a multi million dollar tax break and the rest of us $1trillion in red ink to pay off?

                1. Numerous post crash analyses (incl the CBO) showed the Stimulus bill – which was fully transparent with a website showing awards, contract details etc, and no fired IGs like Trump’s attempts to hide his administration of virus funds – helped the recovery significantly.

                  ‘Numerous’? Where did you get that talking point?

                  Try this on someone who isn’t at least vaguely familiar with some literature on the multipliers associated with fiscal stimulus. Or who did not read the viewpoints of eminent economists on the optimal means of fiscal stimulus. Or who did not know that the economy began to expand before any fiscal stimulus kicked in.

            2. CTHD again is not telling the truth, but this time it is more spin than lying.

              There is no quote that indicates Trump didn’t know what Pearl Harbor was. The author of the book was quoted but that didn’t even provide adequate context. This poster might as well get her information off the walls of the men’s bathroom.

              I take note of all the video’s that show many of our young Democrat voters can’t even place Lincoln and the Civil War at the same time. That is the type of education Democrats wish to provide for our children. Not only that but they wish to keep schools closed.

              I’ve heard Trump speak many times when he was a Democrat and when he was a Republican. In fact there are videos interviewing Trump decades ago and what he had to say was prescient and turned out to be true. His suggestions at the time seem to be good today.

              The hate Trump crowds are so obsessed with Trump it makes them look like fools everytime they post garbage in an attempt to prove something they know little about.

        3. What felony crime has the Trump admin committed to top this Obama doosy? https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/veneer-justice-kingdom-crime/#:~:text=The%20intriguingly%20titled%20documentary%20The,Crime%20examines%20the%20reasons%20why.&text=Their%20failure%20to%20successfully%20investigate,failing%20in%20America%27s%20legal%20system.

          Obama committed confirmed felony murder, with a drone strike, of innocent 16 year old American citizen, without any court action and without criminal charge (Anwar Al-Awlaki). Obama first similarly murdered Anwar’s father by the same name. Turley wrote extensively of these murders.

          Name a similar felony murder Trump committed, Mr. “Honesty?”

          Turley also pointed out many times that Obama personally is responsible for Cheney and the CIA and military felons getting clean away with felony international war crime torture. Obama just woke up one day and declared, “IT’S ALL GOOD! NOTHING TO SEE HEAR! YUS ALL CAN GO HOME NOW AND MAKE BELIEVE THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN!”

          When Obama did that, how did that make him a liar Re. his oath of office to uphold the law Re. multiple felony crimes committed by his predecessor’s administration?

    3. CTHD is a troll and a negative nabob who above posts something totally irrelevant to the Professor’s article. No thank you.

      1. You’re wasting your time and ours Kurtz. Anyone with a functioning brain can see Commit is one of, if not the most substantive of posters here. Try to keep up.

          1. I’m a woman, so that would be “she.”

            You dislike my values, but that doesn’t make me dishonest. And LOL that you think I’m “parroting” anything.

          2. Well then Rhodes, you should have a field day knocking down the falsehoods you imagine ………. and yet …………….

    4. Well, since your proclamation of quite literally anyone as an idiot is firstly, an *opinion*, and a personal one (known as a ‘personal pet peeve’ in folks less unstable than yourself) and secondly, because someone you will likely never meet and who will be gone from the public eye regardless of what happens in less than five years in spite of your vitriol but who will nevertheless likely remain emblazoned upon what passes for your consciousness a lot longer than that, I daresay, that individual – or any individual that fits that description for you – is not the one with the problem. Thirdly, the fact that you lie like a mofo on a disturbingly regular basis is just another layer.

      I am SO glad that Jonathan Turley is a free speech advocate supreme and he lets the likes of you to take the work of shooting off both of their feet, miraculously, with their *mouths* (perhaps more rightly their fingers, I suppose) right into their own hands. Your comments speak for themselves, and that is indeed a gift. You do know you sound read like the National Enquirer in its heyday 40 years ago, right? Pray tell: What mischief did Trump and Tony Danza and Bo Derek get into THIS time?

      1. I think we have a winner in the “Freestyle” category – Leon!

        Now, does anyone know what he’s posting about?

    5. Needs To Be Committed

      is a flaming misandrist Feminazi White Shirt (dress).

      She is serene and coherent only in certain periods.

      She is a certified, rabid, bomb-throwing, communist Bolshevik.

      Patriotic women make Americans; lots and lots of Americans out of a sense of duty.

      Attractive women rule the world and profoundly influence the vote in the constitutional restricted-vote republic of America.

      Unattractive women rely on the antithetical and unconstitutional 19th Dumbmendment (death warrant for America), generational welfare, WIC, TANF, and Affirmative Action Privilege for their daily sustenance and validation.

      If Americans don’t stand for something, they shall fall for anything.

      These communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, Feminazis – please don’t be offended if I inadvertently left you out) don’t want freedom, they want “free stuff” from your estate; your property.
      _______

      “The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: the abolition of private property.”

      Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848

      1. George reminds me–
        another aspect of Marx and Engel’s program that has been gradually accepted and implemented is their advocacy of abolishing the family.

        Rosa Luxembourg was a communist contemporary of their and i heard someone quote her, rightly or not, “marriage is slavery”

        Engels wrote extensively about his theories about history of marriage and the family. essentially, he said it was a form of slavery too.

        there is a lot of material on how the Russians and Chinese communists started down that path of abolishing the family, it didn’t work out well, and they backed up on it.

        In America however, the feminists have taken this clear idea up, and obfuscated it behind a hundred thousand meaningless studies and boring articles– ever lacking the rhetorical style of Marx, they are habitually boring and obscure. Yet, the net effect of which is millions of abortions, plus, divorce laws and customs which have had a negative impact on the viability of the family as a social institution

        i will leave it to someone else to figure out how ‘gay marriage” fits into all of that, the subject is of little interest to me on its own. but some may deem that it fits with the red agenda too.

    6. And that had nothing to do with what Professor Turley wrote about. Why do people come on places and try to redirect whole conversations? Turley is right about what is happening because your comments are proof you want to stop conversations by re-directing them & name-calling. People need to start acting like grown ups and not 16 yr olds or younger.

  2. I’m wondering who among Enigma’s first, 2d, and 3d degree relatives got busted for crack.

      1. Which Crackers?

        The black Crackers, the white Crackers, or both?

        You are so poorly educated it would be sad, were you not such a d-bag.

      1. Well, we’re having an involved discussion of the comparative penalties for possession of crack and powdered cocaine. The effect of the differential on income streams compared o’er the color bar is diddly / squat, but its intensely interesting for Enigma, go figure. That’s to go with his other niche issues, ‘voter suppression’ (a fiction), and the ‘Ocoee massacre’ (an arson rampage a century ago in which somewhere between 6 and 30 people were killed, depending on which source you consult).

        1. Absurd, we see this from you on a regular basis. Bold pronouncements that widely held perceptions are just a bunch of hooey! Then you slip into this wonky dialect telling us what certain numbers mean. You even make an effort to be deliberately boring! Like we should be intimidated by your stodginess.

          This act is funny to a certain extent. And you don’t employ it all above. You only ‘hint’ at it there. But as a debating trick this tactic it’s getting pretty old.

          1. Bold pronouncements that widely held perceptions are just a bunch of hooey!

            That’s because they generally are. The Democratic Party is a collecting pool of people who are invested in social fictions, most of them self-aggrandizing. Very little of what I say to you is esoteric information, just things you’d rather not know.

        2. Oh, only 6 to 30 people killed. WTF? The last lynching in that area was all of 70 years ago and you know, no one is even alive from then – hardly. Heck, they even let n….ers eat in restaurants 55 years ago. All that bad stuff just stopped on a dime, the leaders vanquished and shamed, everybody happy and forgiving, keys to the city, you name it.

          Ancient history !!

          1. Oh, only 6 to 30 people killed.

            18 people were killed during the Liberty City riots. No one’s thought to discuss that here, perhaps because we have a sense of perspective. The number of homicide deaths in Baltimore since 2014 has been running at about 100 a year higher than previously, courtesy the expert skills of Marilyn Mosby, Stephanie Rawlings Blake, and Catherine Pugh at supervising and motivating the Baltimore police. None of that interests Enigma in the least.

            The last lynching in Florida occurred in 1945, and that sort of thing wasn’t a quotidienne event prior to that. But, when you’re motivated the significance of everything is magnified or reduce 1000x by the trick mirrors you care to employ. The motive is generally self-aggrandizement.

  3. Show of hands; how many of you believe this hearing will produce anything that will advance the security of our 1st amendment rights?

      1. I wasn’t challenging the needed effort. We are 3 months from the general election and there will not be any legislation coming out of this hearing. The best we can hope for is this hearing will highlight the threat the anarchists and Antifa pose and shine a spotlight on the politicians that are giving them oxygen.

    1. What only 1st Amendment rights?

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8 and the right to private property preclude taxation for any form of individual welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth, the power to regulate anything other than the value of money, the “flow” of commerce among jurisdictions and land and naval Forces, and social engineering (affirmative action, quotas, rent control, minimum wage, forced busing, Fair Housing, Non-Discrimination, etc.).

  4. I am reminded, often, of the violence against dissent that precedes the rise of a Leftist dictatorship.

    1. Yes, Karen, clearly that doesn’t also happen before “the rise of a [Rightwing] dictatorship.” /s

      Not sure why you think it’s only associated with the left rather than being associated with dictatorships in general, other than that it fits your preferred political narrative.

      1. Most dictatorships, particularly those of Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Mao have been mutations of leftist thought.

        1. SMH that you think Mussolini and Hitler were left-wing rather than right-wing.

          Unlike you, Young, I have no problem admitting that there have been dictators on both extremes.

            1. Rhodes– Exactly right. Both Mussolini and Hitler were declared socialists and they acted like it. It seems there is a Robspierre deep in the soul of even gentle-seeming socialists. The rest will destroy everything in sight to achieve their aims.

            2. There are diverse branches of socialism, including Marxism-Leninism (Soviet Union and Cuba), Maoism (China), state socialism (India), democratic socialism (Scandinavian countries), and National Socialism (Nazi Germany and fascist Italy).

              National Socialists — including Mussolini and Hitler — are right-wing. That they praised the New Deal isn’t surprising, as all 3 focused on public works, but that isn’t the entirety of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s politics, nor does history end in the 1930s.

              1. Right wingers are totally opposed to socialism. All the socialists are lefties. Reality says they were lefty socialists with crazy, utopian visions of the world which they sought to impose on everyone else through violence. You know the kind. That’s the definition of the modern left.

                  1. not all lefties are nazis or marxists. I’ve always been an independent, but I have some lefty tendencies…my brothers more so. We’re all voting against the Dems because we think they’ve gone nuts and have become a danger to all.

                1. “All the socialists are lefties”

                  Nope. Hitler’s Nazi Party — the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) — was right-wing, and they arrested Marxist socialists and communists: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-terror-begins

                  Mussolini was Duce of the Italian Social Republic and his National Fascist Party was also right-wing and opposed to Marxist socialism, though he was part of the Marxist Italian Socialist Party when he was younger.

                  1. CTHD just loves to troll and oversimplify things

                    without a viable definition of fascism, or a clear conception of what is left or right, the conversation is just argumentation

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Roger_Griffin

                    [Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led “armed party” which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.[29]

                  2. Commit, the Nazis incorporated ‘Socialist’ into their name simply because socialism was considered the future at that point in time (the early 1920’s).

                    1. Commit, the Nazis incorporated ‘Socialist’ into their name simply because socialism was considered the future at that point in time (the early 1920’s).

                      Actually, at the time, the German freikorps were stomping the German red haze flat. “I’ve seen the future and it works” was a bit of fatuity that came out of the pen of Corliss Lamont. Wasn’t necessarily all that prevalent.

                    2. Absurd, even moderate, mainstream Germans were thinking of socialism as a positive trend. That’s ‘why’ the Nazis inserted ‘socialism’. It had mainstream appeal.

                      But no Trumper in 2020 is going to ever admit that socialistic ideas have taken root anywhere. We can’t acknowledge that!

                    3. That’s right Seth, and the town SS and Medicare built – The Villages in central Florida – will defend those institutions from government interference to their last patriotic and freedom loving breath

                    4. No Seth it was as simple as this. They believed that the greater good of society could legitimately over-ride private interests, and that the state could and should pass laws to affect social and economic activity for the good of society. Really most Americans of both major parties today believe pretty much the same thing. We prohibit all kinds of bad private social and economic activity by law, both civil and criminal laws.

                      That is all socialism means in the European Continental Context. It may or may not be a Marxist form of socialism. German NS were definitely anti-Marxist socialists.
                      unfortunately most people can’t seem to imagine that such a thing is a valid description.

                      So how to define socialism in a way that is useful today?

                      One might ask well, where does socialism go from its moderate mixed economy form into something like what Bernie calls socialism?

                      I think that would be an interesting conversation. Perhaps it is when the advocate claims that the government should entirely take over an industry to the exclusion of private interests. Ergo, Medicare for all with no public insurance, versus, Medicare for all with only government pay allowed. Definitely the latter is socialist, and the former is less socialist.

                      “privatization” is a term that means that former state industries are to be auctioned off to private interests and that private interests will compete.

                      today, privatization is embraced by left-moderates on the Continent, often called “neoliberals,” even at the same time there are some “Right wing” parties like Chryssi Avgi in Greece which deplore privatization. They are not alone. I could provide other examples in other European states.

                      in such conversations, the term or epithet “socialist” is meaningless. as it is in the context of discussing politics from Europe a century ago. hell according to what people think socialism is now, they were all socialists at that time, so what does it matter now? that would be my contention.

                    5. Seth says:

                      “But no Trumper in 2020 is going to ever admit that socialistic ideas have taken root anywhere. We can’t acknowledge that!”

                      I acknowledge that.

                      Socialism, if we define it as the idea that the state may legitimately pass laws to broadly curtail private social or economic activity in the public interest, then yes of course socialism was on the rise in the 1930s in Europe and America and everywhere else.

                      Today it’s obvious we have elements of socialism in our mixed economy. Medicare, medicaid, and a literal thousand other programs.
                      some want more, some want less.

                      We can see how George has reminded us, that the modern liberal democratic states including the USA has adopted many of the platform points of the 1848 Communist manifesto. That does not mean we are communists. It just means that a democratically elected majority over time adopted such programs, perhaps even most of them, if not all.

                      For me, socialism is not a bogeyman. I have tried to bring this out here, but the conversation never seems to have gone as far as it did today.

                      If we are in a mixed economy, then we accept a degree of socialism. That is ok. That is not to accept the premise however that government can fix everything. That is insane utopian fantasy. I don’t think most people even like Bernie who calls himself a socialists believes that. Or maybe so, but I dont.

                      Some socialists want to remove government from prohibiting certain forms of private market activity, like sex work. That varies across socialists and leftists quite a bit.
                      Likewise, it varies among some self described right wingers too.

                      So we can see a lot of these terms are so plastic that they are not helpful to any precise or serious conversation.

                    6. Absurd, even moderate, mainstream Germans were thinking of socialism as a positive trend.

                      The Social Democratic Party of Germany had a constituency. So did all the other parties.

                    7. Kurtz, I agree. Far-right governments can steer capitalism to ‘serve the state’ while letting capitalists keep their wealth (in exchange for loyalty).

              2. Left wing and right wing came from the French Revolution and seem to confuse people.

                Better to look at acts. You think of Stalin and Mao as left wing.

                Now, are the acts of Hitler and Mussolini more like those of Stalin and Mao or more like those of Britain and America?

                The answer is obvious. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao are all creatures of the same scales and claws. They all said they were socialist and they all acted the same, totalitarian and murderous.

                Leftists in America were comfortable with Mussolini and even Hitler when Hitler and Stalin were allies in starting WW II. When Hitler attacked the Soviet Union the left spun around and decided there was a huge gap between their political philosophies. There isn’t. It is another leftist deception to pretend they are ‘opposites’.

            3. Rhodes, Mussolini was a fascist. Not a socialist. Antifa means Anti-fascist.

              Hitler wasn’t a socialist either. In fact he was a capitalist.

              “ But despite joining what would be called the “National Socialist” German workers party, Adolf Hitler was not a socialist. Far from it. In fact, in July 1921, Hitler briefly left the NSDAP because an affiliate of the party in Augsburg signed an agreement with the German Socialist Party in that city, only returning when he had been largely given control of the party itself.

              Whatever interest Hitler had in socialism was not based on an understanding of socialism that we might have today — a movement that would supplant capitalism in which the working class would seize power over the state and the means of production. He repeatedly pushed back efforts by economically left-leaning elements of the party to enact socialist reforms, saying in a 1926 conference in Bamberg (organized by Nazi Party leaders over the very question of the party’s ideological underpinnings) that any effort to take the homes and estates of German princes would move the party toward communism and that he would never do anything to assist “communist-inspired movements.” He prohibited the formation of Nazi trade unions, and by 1929 he outright rejected any efforts by Nazis who argued in favor of socialistic ideas or projects in their entirety.”

              https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert

              1. It was Hitler who put the word ‘socialist’ in the party name. The term Fascist was an Italian term for union when Mussolini a prominent, life-long socialist and union man adopted the term for an invigorated socialist party. Antifa is best described as fascist– violent, destructive and totalitarian– evil.

                1. Young, show us support that Hitler put ‘Socialist’ into the Nazi name. The party was already founded when Hitler joined.

                  1. Yes, it was founded before he joined and the army asked Hitler to and investigate it. After joining he insisted that Socialism be added to the name. He said several times ‘we are socialists’.

                    1. Young, I invited you to show support for that contention.

                      These arguments about ‘Nazis and Socialists’ all began with Donald Trump. I don’t recall hearing this issue debated before 2016. Any reader of Nazi history has always been aware that ‘Socialist’ was in the Nazi name. Yet from the 1930’s to 2016 Hitler was portrayed as ‘far-right’ in every history textbook, encyclopedia and nonfiction publication. But we’re supposed to forget everything we have ever read and now believe that Hitler was a ‘fascist liberal run amok’. It sounds like a Trump era gaslighting campaign.

                      This Wikipedia page appears unedited. But it suggests, as I contend, this argument is new.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASocialism/Socialism_and_Nazism

                    2. Seth– Wherever did you acquire the notion that others need to do research for you?

              2. this whole conversation is tiresome to me. right and left are nearly meaningless terms, though it seems we can’t escape using them.

                one might say that anarchists are also not socialists, considering that Marx considered them useless, got them thrown out of the Communist International, and denounced Bakunin

                this was not a specious difference, and communists later only used lumpen street anarchists much in the same way the Democrats cynically use antifa and blm today

                one might say that BLM is plausibly socialist, but, there is no socialism without a state.
                since ANTIFA is obviously patently anarchist, i could argue that they are per se not socialists, just total savages,
                sincerely, I think antifa anarchists are way beneath the quality of even the worst communist. they are lunatics

                but i don’t see much appetite to debate these things, instead the trolls always want to argue about hitler hitler hitler.

                well hitler has been dead a long time. after he died, communists were responsible for tens of millions of deaths in Asia, which academics still can’t seem to admit, and in the past 2 and half months the anarchists have rioted, looted, attacked police and public art and buildings and courts, committed arson, as we have seen, with impunity

                but somebody here wants to harp on old hitler again. events from 80-75 years ago.

                does anybody else get tired of this too or is it just me?

            4. An interesting essay, along these lines.
              thought provoking reading on the subject of the shared views of Mussolini, Hitler, and FDR especially on public works

              I guess i would only add, not everything a leader does is all good or bad.
              it’s pretty hard to argue the Autobahn is a bad thing, if you ask me, for example

              https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt

              “In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel‐​creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

              Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self‐​interest.”

              In Rome, Berlin, and D.C., there was an affinity for military metaphors and military structures. Fascists, National Socialists, and New Dealers had all been young during World War I, and they looked back with longing at the experiments in wartime planning. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt summoned the nation: “If we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army.… I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

              1. The Nazi’s spent their time before gaining power street fighting with Communists and Socialists and the conflict was long lived and natural. Here’s a summary of the forces at work in that period in Europe and the aftermath.

                The right needs to stop falsely claiming that the Nazis were socialists
                The Nazis hated socialists. It was the governments that rebuilt Europe that embraced social welfare programs.

                By Ronald J. Granieri
                Ronald J. Granieri is director of the Center for the Study of America and the West at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and director of research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Lauder Institute.

                “……The Nazi regime had little to do with socialism, despite it being prominently included in the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP, from Hitler on down, struggled with the political implications of having socialism in the party name. Some early Nazi leaders, such as Gregor and Otto Strasser, appealed to working-class resentments, hoping to wean German workers away from their attachment to existing socialist and communist parties. The NSDAP’s 1920 party program, the 25 points, included passages denouncing banks, department stores and “interest slavery,” which suggested a quasi-Marxist rejection of free markets. But these were also typical criticisms in the anti-Semitic playbook, which provided a clue that the party’s overriding ideological goal wasn’t a fundamental challenge to private property.

                Instead of controlling the means of production or redistributing wealth to build a utopian society, the Nazis focused on safeguarding a social and racial hierarchy. They promised solidarity for members of the Volksgemeinschaft (“racial community”) even as they denied rights to those outside the charmed circle.

                Additionally, while the Nazis tried to appeal to voters across the spectrum, the party’s founders and initial base were small-business men and artisans, not the industrial proletariat of Marxist lore. Their first notable electoral successes were in small towns and Protestant rural areas in present-day Thuringia and Saxony, among voters suspicious of cosmopolitan, secular cities who associated both “socialism” and “capitalism” with Jews and foreigners.

                This fear of social revolution and a sense that democracy, with its cacophony of voices and the need for compromises, would threaten their preferred social hierarchy gave Nazism its appeal with these voters — even if it meant sacrificing democracy. While Communists abetted the destruction of German democracy, seeing it as a way to eventually produce the revolution they wanted, the only German political party that consistently resisted Nazi arguments, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), offered another sign of the discontinuity between socialism and Nazism.

                Those outside Germany who embraced Nazi ideas were also generally anti-leftists. When Frenchmen murmured “Better Hitler than [Socialist Party Leader and Prime Minister Léon] Blum,” they were well aware what National Socialism represented, and it was most emphatically not “socialism.” When many of those same Frenchmen set up the puppet Vichy government in 1940, they did so under the banner of “Travail, famille, patrie,” (Work, family fatherland), happy to use state resources to support their idea of authentic Frenchmen — even as they criticized capitalism for providing benefits to people they didn’t view as French.

                Unlike much of the European left, many conservatives proved willing to work with Nazis — something they later regretted — an association that tainted postwar European conservatism. When it came time to rebuild European politics after the war, therefore, it fell to center-left parties such as Labour in Britain, the Socialists in France and the SPD in Germany, which abandoned rigid Marxist doctrines, alongside the new center-right movement of Christian Democracy, which rejected traditional nationalism, to take up the challenge. This was the hour of the welfare state, supported by social and Christian Democrats, which encouraged social solidarity within a democratic and capitalist framework.”

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/05/right-needs-stop-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

                1. please get a view on a coherent definition of fascism. like Roger griffin’s:

                  [Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led “armed party” which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.[29]

          1. Mussolini was a Socialist Party newspaper editor prior to the war. What was notable after the war was his adoption of specifically nationalist and imperial-revisionist (if not revanchist) postures and his endorsement of corporatist structures. The latter isn’t derived from any notable strand of liberal or conservative thought from the period prior to 1914 (though there are some species of Catholic thought which might be precursors). The former has more precedent, but not specific expressions of it. As for the Hitler regime, some of it is prefigured in pre-war volkisch thought. That was a late addition to the German political spectrum. Zevedei Barbu offered a social-psychological interpretation of both fascist and communist movements; neither particularly resembles any element of the 19th century political spectrum or the postwar spectrum.

            1. I accept Action Francaise of Charles Murras as something of an inspirational precursor to Italian fascism, Italian fascism was genuinely more socialist and less conservative than Murras. Not sure if that is what you were implying Absurd but I have seen it that way before. But Murras was a royalist and Mussolini really was not.

              I would say Spanish fascism under the Falange was also more leftist, more syndicalist, to be precise, but the Falange was quietly sidelined by Franco more and more as time went by. Again, while the Carlist monarchists were aligned with Franco, Franco was really not a royalist himself.

              I think it’s fair to use left and right in the context of comparing Action Francaise to Italian Fascism and Spanish fascism because those are Continental nations more closely connected to the original context of left and right which related to the post-revolutionary French Directorate.

              This article discusses the origin of these terms

              https://theconversation.com/the-evolution-of-frances-left-and-right-politics-from-the-1789-french-revolution-to-this-years-election-76226

              in the Anglo Saxon world, left and right simply do not have the same meaning as they do on the Continent. The terms are much more useful for them then they are for us.
              Here the popular notion seems to be, and we hear this most often from libertarians: that higher degrees of socialism is leftward and less socialism is rightward.

              But this oversimplified notion was mostly advanced by a certain liberterian person named Ayn Rand and her acolyte Leonard Peikoff in order to sell her brand and books. It is not really all that helpful and especially on the Continent, outside the English speaking world, it is not really useful.

              Explaining why is a high expense low gain conversation so I am learning to avoid it.

            2. Julius Evola, an Italian aristocrat intellectual who was associated with aspects of the Italian fascist and German NS regimes, wrote three essays from his perspective criticizing the regimes. He was not an official of either regime but he wrote certain works that influenced laws and the thinking of the times.

              Fascism Viewed from the Right
              Notes on the Third Reich,
              A Traditionalist Confronts Fascism

              —————————————–

              Julius Evola decried the populism and pragmatism of both Italian fascism and national socialism.

              Julius Evola described himself as a “Pagan Imperialist” at one time, other times a man of the right, or a Traditionalist

              Julius Evola was charged in the postwar period with having “inspired terrorism” done by right wing Italians around the 60s I think it was, and he was acquitted. Some people think he was hooked up with NATO organized Gladio stay behind units that became involved in the Italian 1960s anti-communist “strategy of tension” …. it’s a long story, I’ll just leave it at that.

              So if somebody wants to read what an Axis-aligned intellectual thought about these things, they could look him up. His many books, written over the decades starting before WWII and long after it, are all in English translation and new printings now. Oddly, the “New Age” people find him very interesting. He also wrote about yoga, Buddhism, hermeticism, etc.

              https://www.amazon.com/Julius-Evola/e/B001JOMNN8/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1

      2. Yes, Karen, clearly that doesn’t also happen before “the rise of a [Rightwing] dictatorship.” /s

        There aren’t any ‘right wing dictatorships’. Institutional military regimes and soldier-caudillo regimes have almost completely disappeared outside of Tropical Africa, and aren’t more than a half-dozen even there. The only examples of fascism in the post-war period have been in the Arab world. I doubt you find much literature in the English-speaking world defending Nasserist and Ba’athist regimes, but what you will find was written by leftoids (other than the residue of Ba athism in Syria, those regimes are pretty much gone). There’s the Islamist regimes in Turkey and Iran, but the occidental starboard is actually more antagonistic to them than the left is. There are patrimonal and machine-boss governments in Africa (and Central Asia), but I’m not seeing how those quality as specifically ‘right wing’.

        1. “There aren’t any ‘right wing dictatorships’.”

          Historians and political scientists disagree with you. Right wing dictators include Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, Marcos, and Pinochet.

          1. Commit, I give you credit. They won’t listen or do research, nor do they care but thanks for trying.

          2. Again, the people who pay you aren’t getting their money’s worth. Diversions which incorporate deliberately misinterpreting simple statements and then attacking what the interlocutor did not say are crude. If you’re going to be sloughing off work to help your father in these threads, you can do better.

          3. Historians and political scientists disagree with you.

            Historians aren’t the most capable taxonomists and political scientists would be much more involved in their discussion of taxa.

          4. Commit– Ignore the names you have been fed for propaganda. Classify them by what they do. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all belong in the same pot.

            1. All three were totalitarian and very cruel. There were differences in the venue of their cruelty, of course. Prior to the fall of 1939, the Nazi regime was not anywhere near as blood-soaked as was the Soviet Regime during the period running from 1917-24 or the Chinese regime during the period running from 1949-56.

          5. Franco is somehow different. He was on a razor’s edge trying to appease both the Allies and Hitler just enough to keep Spain out of a world war. After meeting with Franco to try to get more commitment Hitler said he would rather have teeth pulled than negotiate with that greasy little man. Franco kept Spain out of the war.

            Less well known is that Allied pilots shot down in Europe tried to get to Spain and then returned to England. If they had gone to truly neutral Switzerland or Sweden they would have been interned for the war. Something more was going on with Franco than we have been led to believe.

            1. About Franco and Salazar: neither regime had much of a revanchist aspect. Franco was brutal to the quondam Republican forces in 1939-40, but that’s it. Spain and Portugal were status-quo powers following a mundane foreign policy derived from reasons-of-state. The Salazar regime had certain structural features in common with Italy’s, but relied on a bevy of financial and macroeconomic policies commonly called ‘orthodox’ and was animated by pre-1914 Lusitanian integralism. As for Franco, Allan Bloom found him the last manifestation of the union of throne and altar. George Will’s view was summarized thus: “he had no ideology; none was necessary to justify his right to rule”. The ruling party was a fusion of Falangists and Carlists, to which the Alfonsine monarchists signed on. The Falangists were the strand which most resembled Fascism, but their chief ideologist had his misgivings about fascism and Nazi-ism. Like in Portugal, the regime in industrial relations did have some similarities to Italy’s These were quiet-life regimes, unlike Italy’s and very much unlike Hitler’s.

              As for Pinochet’s, it was a technocratic regime devoted to economic liberalization and development. Authoritarian, non-Communist, but otherwise as distant from inter-war Fascism as you could get.

          6. CTHD

            Those guys were autocrats, they were repressive authoritarians, and they were not fascists.

            This is a matter of valid political taxonomy and there is good academic quality analysis that can explain why. If i say it you wont believe me so just go read Roger Eatwell

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Eatwell

            What absurd said is right. The only post wwii fascism were Baathism in the Arab world. And those were genuinely fascist I would agree.

          7. At the time of Hitler and Mussolini, “Liberal” meant what we call “Classical Liberal” today. It referred to extremely strong individual rights and a limited government. Obviously, that’s not what Liberals believe today. Ironically, their views are illiberal, as they want a strong government and limited individual rights. Anti-Liberal statements in the foundational documents of these horrid philosophies referred to what we now know as Classical Liberalism.

            Mussolini’s fascism was created by Gentile. Gentile was strongly influenced by Socialism. Where he diverged was that he disagreed in the inevitability of class warfare, and he believed that the purpose of government was the good of all the people, as a collective, represented by the country and the government, whereas Socialism was supposed to be more fair to the individual man. If you read his manifesto on Fascism, it sounds like something that would be welcome at any Democrat rally today.

            Same with Nazism. It, too, incorporated many socialist principals. It was, after all, the National Socialist German Workers Party. Like all the other Socialist experiments, they always think they’re the ones doing it right, and everyone before them just didn’t do socialism correctly. The Nazis incorporated many social benefits that, again, would be at home in any Democrat rally today. Like free child care. Where they diverged with Socialism is that some capitalism was allowed. It also added the good of the fatherland, and a homicidal antisemitism.

            Nazis wanted to preserve some of the traditions of Germany, which is considered right wing. They believed in preserving German culture. But they also completely abandoned some of its social traditions. Women were urged to become mothers out of wedlock to birth as many “Aryan” children as possible. Mothers were forced to work outside of their homes, with the children put into indoctrination daycare and youth camps. The traditional roll of the family was wrecked. There was also quite a bit of pressure put on religion, as well. Gentile would have excised religion entirely, except it was impossible. Rome is the heart of the Christian faith, and it could not depose the Vatican.

            Nazis viewed themselves as progressive. They believed they were using scientific principles, which were tragically also in use in the US. Eugenics, genetic hygiene, culling the unfit from the gene pool. CA was quite active in eugenics, including forced sterilization of the “unfit”. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who created Planned Parenthood to reduce the progeny of whom she believed to be unfit – blacks, the promiscuous, the uneducated poor who had way more children then the educated elite. She created what became Planned Parenthood to slow down the growth of the unfit.

            There has been a lot of debate as to whether Fascism and Nazism were phenomena of the Left or Right. What further complicates the issue was a that both were offshoots of Socialism, but nevertheless opposed some of its core tenets. Both certainly did oppose Socialism and Communism. It was rather like the Protestants opposed Catholics, yet they were all Christian.

            There is certainly room to debate where on the spectrum Nazism and Fascism lay.

            However, they both were able to abuse its people because they both abolished individual rights, and created a strong government for the “greater good”, as defined by that government.

            Today, it is indisputably the Left that does this, which is probably why I categorize such movements on the Left, when in reality, they had attributes of all sides of the spectrum. But its defining attribute, that allowed its horror, was that individuals ceded their rights to a strong government, which then abused the people and the world.

            That’s the warning Democrats ignore.

            1. “Today, it is indisputably the Left that does this”

              Nope.

              It’s mistaken to suggest that people on the left want to restrict individual rights, and people on the right don’t.

              Both the left AND the right want to restrict some individual rights and don’t want to restrict others. Both the left AND the right appeal to having a strong central government for some things and not others. The left and the right simply differ on which rights they do/don’t want to restrict and where they do/don’t want the government to be strong.

        2. Absurd, you’re asserting false talking points all over the place today. “No fascist governments in the postwar era”??

          Franco Francisco ruled Spain until his death in 1975. Juan Peron ruled Argentina in the 1950’s. The Somoza’s ruled Nicaragua through much of the postwar era. The Nationalists in Taiwan were far right. South Korea was far-right in the postwar era. The examples go on and on.

          1. The KMT was not fascist. Authoritarian yes, but not fascist.

            The various strongmen of the ROK were authoritarian and not fascist

            please if you are going to use the word fascist give Roger Griffin some time and study. Get a book of his on the subject or at least start here from wiki
            and by the way in another post i confused his name with roger eatwell. i meant griffin

            “Roger Griffin
            Historian and political scientist Roger Griffin’s definition of fascism focuses on the populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a “re-birth” of a conflated nation and ethnic people.[28] According to Griffin

            [F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence[3]

            Griffin writes that a broad scholarly consensus developed in English-speaking social sciences during the 1990s, around the following definition of fascism:

            [Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led “armed party” which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome a threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.[29]

            Griffin argues that the above definition can be condensed into one sentence: “Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.”[30] The word “palingenetic” in this case refers to notions of national rebirth.”

          2. Franco Francisco ruled Spain until his death in 1975. Juan Peron ruled Argentina in the 1950’s. The Somoza’s ruled Nicaragua through much of the postwar era. The Nationalists in Taiwan were far right. South Korea was far-right in the postwar era. The examples go on and on.

            The term is a misnomer for all of these regimes. Franco is discussed above. Peron ran a messy, semi-pluralist, mercantilist, patron-client regime. It had no external objects and not much in common with fascism other than a rejection of the liberal economy. The Somozas ran a crooked patrimonial regime whose object was the aggrandizement of the Somozas and their clients. There was no social mobilization incorporated into their methods and not much political repression (at least prior to 1975). Taiwan and South Korea were run by technocratic developmentalist regimes for whom the object of military power acted to discipline economic relations, but their objects were not revanchist or imperial. Both were threatened status-quo powers devoted to self-preservation. Neither was ever particularly abusive and the Korean regime is properly defined as semi-pluralist.

            1. Absurd, they were all far-right regimes. Whether they actually used the term ‘fascist’ is just a technicality.

              1. they were all far-right regimes.

                You haven’t in your addled head a valid definition of that. You might as well just call them poopy-pants. Usage is the same.

        3. I agree with Absurd. Baathism is the one major incarnation of post wwii fascism.

          The other “caudillo regimes” were authoritarian and repressive but not fascist.

          Fascism is best defined by Roger Eatwell. If you guys are serious about understanding fascism as a political movement, study Eatwell’s books on it. They are the best.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Eatwell

          The major problem with most socalled “analysis” of fascism by published writers is that it takes as normative the academic western marxist interpretation of fascism.
          This is deeply flawed not so much because it is “marxist” per se but rather because it is propaganda coming from the usual second rate academics who are trying to parrot and recycle French intellectuals they don’t understand. Eatwell explains the problems in the marxist analytical approach better than i can, read him if you care to get the best.

      3. CommitToHonestDiscussion:

        Conservatives believe in very limited government, strong individual rights, preserving the Constitution, and free speech. It would be pretty hard to be a dictatorship.

        A hard right belief in tradition, that suspends individual rights or free speech, would also be tyrannical. Like if there was an Antifa for conservatives that harassed, threatened, and attacked invited Liberal speakers across America, and threw bricks through the windows of Liberal companies. If it made Liberals frightened to wear Leftist political clothing.

        The dictatorships that I was thinking of were from Leftist thought – Mao, Stalin, Hitler (German Socialist Party), Mussolini, DPRK…What they had in common was the suspension of individual rights, in favor of an all powerful government, all for the “common good” as defined by that government. That is inherent in a Leftist philosophy. But I do agree with you that any coup followed by a dictatorship would follow uprisings and punishing dissent.

        Juntas are often viewed as right wing, although they obviously do not follow modern American conservatism. They can’t, as there can’t be individual rights or free speech.

        As long as there are strong individual rights, and a limited government, you cannot have a dictatorship. The only ones currently fighting for that are Republicans, Libertarians, and the few moderate Democrats left.

        It has long been my opinion that the Democrat Party has slowly been leaning towards dictatorship over individuals, with a rapid toppling Left in recent years. They have steadily opposed free speech. Harass and threatened violence against invited conservative speakers on college campuses. People are afraid to wear Republican political clothing, or MAGA hats. You read the blog. You know.

        If the conservatives abandoned their principles, and wanted a powerful central government, at the expense of individual rights, opposed free speech, harassed Liberals at college campuses across America, threatened people’s jobs and businesses for expressing Liberal views, Liberals were afraid to wear political clothing, etc, then I would be right there condemning it.

        But that’s not the reality in the US today. The thread to individual rights and free speech, and diversity of thought, comes from the Left.

        1. “The thread to individual rights and free speech, and diversity of thought, comes from the Left.”

          Yeah, that’s why conservatives are pro-choice: they favor individual rights. /s
          And that’s why all of the anti-Muslim rhetoric comes from the left: they dislike diversity of thought. /s
          That’s why conservatives supported football players taking a knee during the anthem: they support free speech. /s

          There are lots of counterexamples to your false overgeneralization.
          Both the left AND the right sometimes do the things you complain of, they simply do it for different rights, different speech, different kinds of thought, …

  5. If the Constitution provides freedom of speech, it provides freedom of thought.

    If the Constitution provides freedom of thought, the Constitution cannot compel any particular thought or opinion.

    If the Constitution provides freedom of religion, the Constitution cannot compel any particular belief.

    Government cannot compel acceptance or rejection.

    Government may not deny constitutional rights to one individual for the pleasure of another.

    Government is not charged with providing success.

    All men are equal at the point of creation.

    All men must create equality of success in their lives by themselves.

    Understanding the need for laws against property damage and bodily injury, including unlawful restraint and slavery, the Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals as it severely limits and restricts government.

    Free people must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.

    The outcomes of freedom do not adapt to people, dictatorship does.

  6. Will the Professor read this to the Committee or rely on them to read it themselves? I would hope it would be read out loud at the hearing.

  7. as we deal with the continuing scourge of racism, to achieve the promise of equal opportunity and equal treatment in our country.

    As always, the Prof. feels he has to make these little genuflections. If he were to tell the blunt truth, ‘dealing with the ‘scourge of racism” – brass tacks, harassment of various parties for being rude or (more likely) running afoul of an ever-lenghthening list of humbug p’s and q’s – will not improve the earning power of one black man one jot or tittle. You need orderly streets, you need orderly schools, you need educational programmes adapted to your clientele, and you need the right incentives. Absolutely nothing gentry liberals or black chauvinists advocate will give you any of these things. Maybe because they have no decent or defensible motives.

    1. As long as pigs like you continue to vote for pigs in the Republican Party and support the pigs union that backs the pigs in police, this country will never realize its promise of equality.

      There you go, I unnecessarily brought in pigs in all this… and I feel sorry for that.

      1. The unions representing pigs have declared support for Democrats for at least the last 60 years continually. This year might be different but I doubt it.

    2. I agree with Absurd again but I have empathy for the Professor who has to walk the halls of the ivory tower and justifiably fears the Red Guard.
      But he is brave so he has gone up to Congress to speak up for a more authentic form of free speech. I thank him. as a citizen.

  8. Again, professor, the Dean of Students at your institution can fix this. Just put some extra text in the student handbook and expel students who engage in shenanigans. Recall, that the students who put a Middlebury professor in the emergency room received token punishments or no punishment at all. Recall that Colgate rescinded an admission offer to a student who was playful with the college’s pieties. They’ll be absurdly lax or contemptibly draconian as it suits them. They just don’t feel like enforcing ordinary rules, because what antifa does is in accord with what actual institutional policy is. Your problem is the administrators at your institution, and the administrators do what the faculty want or at least what the faculty will tolerate.

    1. Oky1,

      “ Fascist Antifa BLM Commies are evn Racist & Bigotted towards The Bear’s Speech & other Rights!”

      Lol!! Oky1. Antifa is an acronym for “Anti-fascists”. Calling anti-fascists fascists makes no sense. 🤦‍♂️

      1. Svelaz – as my father used to tell me, You can put a handle on a printing press, but that does not make it portable. Forget the name, look at the actions.

        1. Paul C. Shulte, Antifa’s actions are not fascist either. They are anarchistic. Oky1 clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.

          1. Mr Kurtz – I would disagree. Antifa is a paid anachist mob that is the shock troops for the dictator to come. I will give you one guess on who is paying their bills and his initials are G, S.

            1. what they talk about is not fascism as it is defined by Roger Griffin. they do not care for our nation. they are not even advocating their own nation. they are anarchists which mean they are against nation states as such, just as they are against all laws. they are savages., they are very much in the vein of Bakunin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

              of course Soros is one of their donors, I suspect as well. He is openly a major underwriter of BLM. I suspect that BLM surreptitiously coordinates with ANTIFA cells who use the “peaceful demonstators” as human shields for their domestic insurrection

              BLM is not fascist either, I would call that a warmed over version of third world socialist liberation schtick aping anti-colonialist movements that were successful in Africa. But this is not Africa.

              Soros ideology is globalism, which is actually just a strategic financial plan that dismantles borders and the nation states which operate them, so that billionaires like him can move goods more freely without tariffs and such, so that they can get more cheap labor in migrants, and so that they can move their money around fast before any smart country like Hungary clips his wings.

              Now they call Viktor Orban a fascist. I don’t think so, but he is a Hungarian nationalist, and I like him. And he’s got Soros’ number.

  9. So Turley is making his umpteenth trip to Congress (and Fox News and all kinds of other media) to cry that he keeps being silenced. Then he goes to his tenured position as a college professor to complain to his captive audience of students that he is being silenced.

    1. So Turley is making his umpteenth trip to Congress (and Fox News and all kinds of other media) to cry that he keeps being silenced.

      You’re rather transparent. Correct-the-Record needs to cut your piece rate.

  10. Here’s hoping they erect an Antifa statue on the GE campus right outside of Turkey’s office window.

  11. Oky1 says:
    August 4, 2020 at 8:58 AM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Hands Up Don’t Choot, yea Right.

    How many have been murd**ed (Redrumed) & injuried by this ahole so far? How much of the nation’s economic damage has been caused by this George Floyd bull$h*t story?

    The Commie antifa & BLM are nothing but Racist,American Hating Scum.

    Meet the real George Floyd:

    https://www.infowars.com/body-cam-footage-shows-george-floyd-repeatedly-resisting-arrest/

  12. JT – Make sure you read them the footnotes. Read the whole thing, s l o w l y and c l e a r l y, so the Democrats understand that Antifa is not a myth.

  13. From Turley:
    “The protests in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd have served to focus
    the nation on the transcendent issues of racial discrimination and police misconduct. It is
    an important moment, as we deal with the continuing scourge of racism, to achieve the
    promise of equal opportunity and equal treatment in our country. We cannot let this
    moment pass for a national dialogue on racial justice.

    That dialogue, however, is increasingly turning into a diatribe on our campuses,
    on our streets, and in our media. We are losing this opportunity to reach a consensus
    because of rising violence and intolerance for opposing views.

    The problem is NOT racism. It is an UNPROVEN ASSERTION that racism is a scourge. The intolerance is not of opposing views. It is an INTOLERANCE OF REALITY.

    If the reality of “racism” was widely understood, the Democratic party would have significantly less power.

    1. “ The problem is NOT racism. It is an UNPROVEN ASSERTION that racism is a scourge. The intolerance is not of opposing views. It is an INTOLERANCE OF REALITY.”

      LorenzoValla, your statement couldn’t be more ironic. That assertion is proven on this blog, ever single day. It shows an intolerance towards recognizing racism as a problem. This blog is chock full of racists and bigots of all stripes. From the mild to the full blown sophisticated racist or bigot. Some may be due to just pure ignorance or stupidity, but overall there certainly is a scourge. It rears it’s ugly head on this blog with predicable frequency.

      Turley leaves out that racism’s ugliness is what started this whole mess. The inability or refusal to acknowledge that police departments have a problem with poor vetting of their recruits and ignoring racists or bigots in their ranks. They stain the entire profession when their own do not address that simple truth. Conservatives on colleges enable that by denigrating, dismissing, or simply mocking the very notion that racism is still a problem. When people say “all lives matter “ as an argument they are diluting the messed “black lives matter” is trying to convey. It shows an aversion to recognizing what is obvious.

      1. Svelaz, take a look at these statistics, and scroll down to:

        “Differences by family structure”

        https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/children-in-poverty

        Therein lies the source of the problems experienced by many black Americans.

        The “Baby Daddy” syndrome that is responsible for single-mother homes, is by far the primary reason that so many black Americans live in poverty.

        https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Children-in-poverty-2017-figure-3_Artboard-5-copy-2-002.png

        The only Caucasians who have contributed to that problem are the white liberals who act as enablers.

        Which is another example of why Malcolm X said; “The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the black man”.

        Yet, the founders of BLM are proponents of single-mother families. Read their manifesto.

        1. Rhodes, you assert that “‘Differences by family structure’ …[are] the source of the problems experienced by many black Americans.”

          a) Are you suggesting that that’s the sole source for disparities in child poverty? If so, justify that belief with evidence. If not, the list the other sources.
          b) Are you suggesting that Blacks alone are responsible for family structure differences? If so, why do you ignore societal actions — such as differences in policing/sentencing/incarceration that affect whether a child’s father lives with the child?

          As for your primary claim, “The problem is NOT racism,” there’s lots of counter evidence in diverse areas. Consider the treatment of pain: “Half of white medical trainees believe such myths as black people have thicker skin or less sensitive nerve endings than white people. An expert looks at how false notions and hidden biases fuel inadequate treatment of minorities’ pain.” – https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-we-fail-black-patients-pain
          Do you accept that the problem there is racism?

          1. My mistake, Lorenzo was the one who said “The problem is NOT racism.” But Rhodes has said similar things, such as “There is no ‘continuing scourge of racism’ in this country.”

          2. “Are you suggesting that Blacks alone are responsible for family structure differences? ”

            No, I am not “suggesting” it, I am clearly saying that “Blacks alone are responsible” for the propensity of single-mother homes in the black American community.

            Why are you trying to make excuses for that reality, enabler?

            I already know the answer. You want them to stay on the virtual voting plantation where their virtual white liberal Masters can pretend to look out for their interests and pretend to take care of them.

            You’re the smiling Fox that Malcolm X referred to.

            1. “I am clearly saying that ‘Blacks alone are responsible’ for the propensity of single-mother homes in the black American community.”

              Then as you claimed elsewhere, “Provide hard verifiable data that prove your claims. Otherwise, you have no valid point, just a false claim, based on a false narrative.” (Note that your earlier data only provide data showing that there *are* “Differences by family structure” but in no way claim that “Blacks alone are responsible” for that.) Put differently: meet the standards that you set for others.

              As for “Why are you trying to make excuses for that reality, enabler?,” you’re asking a loaded question, which is a common fallacy: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#LoadedQuestion Try again.

              And you’re totally silent about other aspects of racism, such as the differential treatment of pain by physicians that I linked to earlier. Maybe you have no good explanation for that, and you think that silence somehow erases it from the discussion.

          3. Commit:

            You’re such a fraud. Social scientists have known for decades the best predictor of success and lack of criminality are two-parent homes, good education and Higher relative IQs. Studies show this since the early 1900s and you can look them up if you don’t believe it. Blacks suffer in all three areas and that explains some of their plight. Of course you can’t extrapolate that to individuals of the group but the group dynamic holds up under scrutiny. And I’ve said many times, the policies of the Dims have exacerbated a bad situation particularly AFDC and Workfare where you’re remove parents out of black homes and contribute to the rise of feral black children whose chances of success are greatly reduced.

          4. You are so full of it. The single biggest common denominator to predict poverty, education level, income level, and prison time is single parenthood. Nobody ever said it’s the only denominator, only the biggest, and it’s been so forever AFAIK.

        2. Rhodes, single mothers are not the sole source of the problem. Nobody denies it’s an issue, but that only serves detract from having to acknowledge that you and people like you are also a big part of the problem. The painful and difficult task of even acknowledging that basic truth is why it’s often easier to point out things that place blame on them for issues that clearly have to do with individuals with the same views as yours.

          To put so much effort into avoiding an acknowledgement that you are part of the problem as well says a lot about why systemic racism exists.

          1. Nobody denies it’s an issue, but that only serves detract from having to acknowledge that you and people like you are also a big part of the problem.

            Except he’s not a part of the problem, you are. You want to improve the quality of life enjoyed by the black population and the income stream of the black population, you have to break a lot of rice bowls. The people you’d be displacing are part of the back bone of the Democratic Party, which is one reason it’s not done.

      1. YNOT

        I have NONE. just this one screen name. if i have an occasional comment of less than one line it will show up as brown anonymous but that is less than one a week

        is it so hard to believe that there is more than one person you dislike?

    2. Floyd allegedly tried passing a $20 fake bill. If you think his being black had nothing to do with 4 cops pointing their guns at him you’re probably wrong.

      Was the bill fake or what? Do we know?

      Recently in Aurora CO the cops ran the plates on a car filled with blacks, and wrongly detained them, including pointing guns at them, and cuffing a 6 year old black girl face down on hot pavement.

      If you think running that plate was not illegal racial profiling, you’re probably wrong.

      Beyond that, it truly seems like cops are some of the dumbest Ps of S in the universe.

      They need to stop training cops to elevate their personal safety above that of the public. THAT training meme should be a felony.

  14. Why does there need to be a meeting about this? Free speech is legal. Violence is illegal. Take action against the criminals and move on.

  15. I’m sure all parties will come into this meeting with an open mind and motivated to solve real problems. Because that’s what politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and activists are always doing – making the world a better place.

  16. “as we deal with the continuing scourge of racism”

    Jonathan, that is a lazy false sentiment. There is no “continuing scourge of racism” in this country.

    It is 2020, not 1960. So, your premise is based on a lie which only serves to further exacerbate the problem you cite regarding the “diatribe on our campuses, on our streets, and in our media”.

    To your credit, you do address the myriad of problems caused by the actions of Antifa. Yet before you even got started, you parroted the false “racism” narrative that the Marxist Antifa/BLM movement is using to sow division in this country.

    Therefore it comes across as strangely dichotomous. Because in reality, Antifa and the founders of BLM have clearly demonstrated by their actions to anyone with critical thinking skills that they could care less about racial issues.

    So why did you feel compelled to preface your statement with a falsehood that only contributes to the problem?

      1. Yes, racism exists, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that it’s a systematic problem as described.

        If you had such evidence, you would point to it and we could discuss it.

        1. You really aren’t paying attention, what you really mean is there’s no evidence you’ll accept. I’ll give you two examples that you know are true but will deny. Sentencing disparities and voter suppression.

          1. We can have a discussion, but how about if you say what you say and I say what I say, and neither of us puts words in each other’s mouth? Agreed?

            Can you expand on those two issues and explain how they indicate systematic racism? I’m willing to listen.

            It also might make sense to reply further upstream since word press will stop letting us reply.

              1. That article begins with a long examination of historic slavery in the US. I did not read it carefully, but I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that slavery and ensuing Jim Crow era did not exist.

                However, at the end of that summation, the author then asserts “Racism in America is a constant.”

                That anything in a culture is a “constant” needs to be justified instead of just asserting it, ESPECIALLY since human history is a story of how cultures change over time.

                1. America’s pattern is to do it’s best to replicate history not change it. Trump is now eliminating Fair Housing policies, guess whose vote he’s catering to and who he intends to keep out of the suburbs.

                  1. Bill – take a look at what California is trying to do. You will never live in a gated community again. 😉 Trump has won awards for his diversity.

                    1. If Trump is downgrading the ability of Fair Housing authorities to interfere in private transactions they don’t like, which almost always means one thing in practice– suing white people– then I applaud Trump for it

                      I believe people should be free to form ethnic neighborhoods as was the case for all Americans before 1965.

                      Since then, whatever the law says, in practice what it has meant is this:

                      nobody can explicitly limit housing on race, national origin, etc. nobody. this is fairly implemented against us all.

                      beyond that, in practice, the focus of enforcement is 90% aimed at white people.
                      the remaining 10% probably relates to disability or homosexual couples.

                      so basically, implicitly, white people can’t favor their own kind in real estate matters intentionally– only covertly;

                      and everybody else like blacks or asians or jewish people, who seek to form ethnic communities, well for them, it’s just ok.

                      because we know the white folks are the targets of all this. isnt that right enigma?

                      So if Trump is making things more fair, then great. in my mind, he’s just rectifying a form of implicit anti-white racism that’s run amuck.

                  2. “America’s pattern is to do it’s best to replicate history not change it”

                    Slavery USED to be illegal
                    Jim Crow laws USED to legal
                    Women USED to be unable to vote
                    Gays USED to be unable to get married

                    Regarding the Fair Housing policy, it’s not fair to say that just because a change in policy has an adverse affect on any group that the change in policy is institutionally against those people.

                    1. You skipped some parts, and not to say there has been no progress. Slavery USED to be illegal but was then replaced by the Black Codes, the Black Codes were illegal and were replaced by Jim Crow. Several Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts have been passed by Congress over the decades and each one was ultimately weakened or thrown out by the Supreme Court. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was the last major reform in housing. In most states, Addeendums are part of every real estate purchase where the parties swear there was no steering or other now illegal mechanisms to segregate neighborhood, yet there still exist restrictive covenants in HOAs and wink and nod agreements not to sell to minorities. A cross still gets burned now and then. You can make a case that America takes steps forward (we are currently in the middle of a backward step). America at is core is at best less racist, the ones that claim racism ended are most often the beneficiaries.

                    2. Bill – can you show me one HOA with a restrictive covenant based on race?

                      And, I would posit, that if any movement in racism was going backwards, it falls on BLM and its supporters.

                    3. Bill – back in the days when my wife and I lived in south Phoenix, the City of Phoenix took some of our land by eminent domain to widen the street. I had to declare to them if there were any problems with the land. So, with a straight face, with my Chinese-American wife seated beside me, I said according to the deed restrictions, only white people can live here. He had the hardest time trying to keep a straight face. 😉

                    4. Paul– there are a lot of restrictive covenants from days gone by which did restrict based on race. they are in the public land records

                      however, NONE of them are today enforceable. NONE. the issue is dead and over. and yet Fair Housing investigators are on the constant watch for trifles.

                      in practice, the thrust of Fair Housing enforcement has been 90% aimed at the white- black dynamic and the remaining 10% was not that signficant

                      If Trump tones down Fair Housing Enforcement bullying of white people now 50 some years after the Fair housing act was passed, I say, GOOD

                    5. Several Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts have been passed by Congress over the decades and each one was ultimately weakened or thrown out by the Supreme Court.

                      This is also a fiction. While we’re at it, case law ignores black-letter provisions of such laws to legitimate racial-preference schemes to manufacture patronage for blacks.

                    6. I don’t believe it has changed.

                      You’re offering a 21 year old news story about a piece of property George W Bush owned which had an antique restrictive covenant on the deed that had likely been on it since the 1930s and that the chain of owners of the property hadn’t bothered about (or even read) because it’s been unenforceable since 1948. This is your example of injustice in this world?

                  3. “You skipped some parts, and not to say there has been no progress. Slavery USED to be illegal but was then replaced by the Black Codes, the Black Codes were illegal and were replaced by Jim Crow. Several Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts have been passed by Congress over the decades and each one was ultimately weakened or thrown out by the Supreme Court. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was the last major reform in housing. In most states, Addeendums are part of every real estate purchase where the parties swear there was no steering or other now illegal mechanisms to segregate neighborhood, yet there still exist restrictive covenants in HOAs and wink and nod agreements not to sell to minorities. A cross still gets burned now and then. You can make a case that America takes steps forward (we are currently in the middle of a backward step). America at is core is at best less racist, the ones that claim racism ended are most often the beneficiaries.”

                    It should be obvious I wasn’t enumerating an exhaustive list of how American society and culture has improved throughout its history. I’m not suggesting there isn’t room for improvement.

                    Rather, I’m asking for evidence of SYSTEMATIC racism so that we know what to correct.

                    Additionally, as I have stated elsewhere, I don’t agree that outcomes where one race or group does less well is existence of racism.

                    1. Slavery USED to be illegal but was then replaced by the Black Codes, the Black Codes were illegal and were replaced by Jim Crow.

                      The black codes were in effect for about three years. Hardly an institution. Jim Crow laws were put into place piecemeal from about 1882 to about 1902, with some additional components added after 1910, again, piecemeal. They were dismantled in stages between 1948 and about 1971. Of course, slavery, black codes, and Jim Crow incorporate three quite distinct legal and social regimes, but compare and contrast doesn’t appear to be one of your hobbies.

                      It doesn’t seem to occur to you that there’s nothing wrong vis a vis the black population that’s actually addressed by more legislation regulating commercial transactions.

                    2. No absurd, Jim Crow was not “dismantled” in 1948, it was busted down by the Feds in 1965. What a croc of ignorant s..t

                    3. “Additionally, as I have stated elsewhere, I don’t agree that outcomes where one race or group does less well is existence of racism.”

                      Even if that was the exact plan.

              2. Bill – when you use facts in your article, it is good. However, then you decide facts are not necessary, just your opinion. As a historian, I have some problems with some of your earlier conclusions because I don’t think you can back them up and you cannot back up any of your opinions.

                1. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether I can back up my opinions. In a forum like this, almost no one is actually listening and all I will accomplish is wasting time. If you have a specific opinion you’d like me to back up, hit me. That offer doesn’t extend to those who aren’t sincere.

                  1. Bill – I did a far amount of research on early slavery in the colonies and of course had to deal with indentured servants, who are treated like slaves for the first couple of years. However, I was interested in your comment on failure to educate. Now, we know that at a certain point in some states it became illegal to teach either free or enslaved blacks. However, I never found evidence that all the colonies adopted that policy. Do you have such evidence?

                    1. Bill – thanks for the article. I was as I remembered, the South was restricting literacy and the North was not.

                    2. The South had more laws restricting literacy, the North was almost as fearful of rebellion just the same. While some in the church felt it a duty to teach slaves to read, most felt the opposite which is what I said in my article.

                  2. Unlike the average white person, I am not emotionally invested in denying racism. Of course it exists. It is a natural instinct– for all peoples. It’s the white people however, who are the butt of the joke, that we are supposedly the only naughty racists. I reject that.

                    Rather, if racial thinking is a natural human phenomenon, and if it’s ok for blacks then it must be ok for us too. I will elaborate on that, but then after I do, i want to make a pitch for mutual respect and political cooperation against the billionaire oligarchs who stir black and white folks up against each other. But first, about ethnocentric organizing.

                    I believe in group solidarity. If it’s ok for you Enigma, then it should be ok for me. I believe we can live in peace both as individuals and groups if we are law abiding
                    The democratic process gives us ways to effectuate gradual change. It may involve a certain amount of group competition, of course.

                    We desire peace, we desire law and order.
                    But if we go to war, I want my side to win. As Malcolm X said,

                    “By any means necessary”

                    I don’t believe i am being histrionic to say that race war, however unlikely, is impossible. indeed when i heard the BLM leader say, “if we do not get our demands then we will burn this system down”– I thought: wow, he seems like a brave and serious fellow. I therefore must allow the possibility

                    if it comes to that, i want my kind to win. Surely you do too. I don’t resent you for that. And I appreciate the situation for black Americans is tenuous and difficult in many ways. Right now, sure. And if it came to that, it would be an even worse picture. The American situation is not like Kenya nor Rhodesia, and it would not turn out the same. Lets pray for peace and avoid such an awful scenario. it is not an acceptable outcome for either side.

                    Really, I would like to see a more honest and open debate such as Eric Holder called for. I just think, it’s not really a sincere invitation. I think white people are taught by the powers that be, that we are supposed to self abnegate, apologize ceaselessly, and sacrifice our political, social, and economic interests, because we are naughty Taetervolk. I reject that. I say we have a right to exist. But Eric Holder, was clearly a pawn of financialism, or he would have locked more big fish up for their role in the mortgage crisis. As it was, he just charged a bunch of nobodies and let the big fish go. So Holder was fake.

                    But it was a worthy notion on its face. I would welcome conversation. if the conversation will allow that white people have a right to legitimately socially and politically self organize, then I think we can have a great converation.

                    If the premise is the usual one, which is, that would be racist for us but not for you, then the conversation is bogus and I am going to think only of how to rally my own kind so that they have enough backbone to survive in the coming America wherein white folks will eventually only be a plurality. This is almost impossible to stop

                    We can survive and the American republic can too, but if we are going to be second class citizens just because we are white, then no deal.
                    and that means one more thing too: no reparations. But why does it come to this? let me turn in a different direction.

                    Now, in all seriousness. I don’t blame black people for this political terrain. The whole miseducation which demeans whites as a bad racist awful people.
                    The reality is, that was not imposed on white America by black folks. the Civil Rights movement was for political equality. Not white inferiority. No, this was foisted on we middle white Americans by Hollywood, mass media, and mass education. .

                    But guess who controlled mass media and education? Not black people. Not at all. Hence, it would be short sighted for whites to be angry at blacks for this. Stupid and short sighted.

                    No, the control of mass media and education, if you follow the money, through corporations, through charitable endowments, and through politics, it goes back to the white billionaires. Not every single one per se but them as a small but super powerful class. They are the major ones who measured this conflict up for us. Big ones. And they’re milking it still.

                    Because of that, i reiterate that I want decent, law abiding, white and black Americans to live in peace. And while I want to encourage white people to think of their own interests, I want white people to avoid blaming honest interlocutors like Enigma, avoid blaming baggy pants thugs, avoid blaming dope dealers, welfare mamas and rap singers, such are stereotypes which have little power overall; avoid blaming BLM even, and ask instead, who are the money men who wrote the checks who directed all this cultural and social conflict at the white working class and middle class, pushed us down, demeaned us, blamed us for every problem, and taxed us for every solution?

                    I propose that it is white skinned billionaires as a group who bear the greatest responsibility, who directed their massive endowments at pushing us down, and that we must understand who they are, and organize politically to get back at them, to cancel them, to punish them and give them a sense of fear to ever direct the likes of the recent 2 months of chaos at our population ever again.

                    In other words, i am saying, BLM are mercenaries. Don’t worry about the mercenary, worry about the paymasters. Find those persons, punish them, take their billions, take their privileges, treat them as the traitors of our great country that they truly are, and make it painful and make it clear why. Then, we will have supplied to everyone a sufficient notice and deterrent to ever play this wicked game again. Then we can use a reformed democratic process to manage our respective interests and negotiate them the American way, corrected by the emergent understanding that the billionaire puppeteers of globalism are a toxin that we must destroy or it destroys us all, as groups, black or white alike, just smashed into ever smaller individuals and powerless atoms who can’t resist the next thing they shove down our throats by whatever name which really just advances their strategic financial plan.

                    Failing that message being sent, we will continue to be stuck down here in the mud together. Of course at our low social level, we all see and feel race. At the billionaire level, the only race they see is green

                    1. That wins my vote for the all time best post ever at this blog, and even better than anything Turley himself authored. Brava!

                      So the rich people, all or most white, who authored this chaos, their primary goal was to simply crush all of us regardless of color? If yes, that makes sense.

                      How can we even begin to fight against them?

                2. Paul, you don’t back up your own assertions with evidence, despite being asked for citations multiple times. It’s rather hypocritical for you to call someone else out on that.

          2. “Sentencing disparities and voter suppression.”

            Provide hard verifiable data that prove your claims. Otherwise, you have no valid point, just a false claim, based on a false narrative.

            Systemic racism against American black people no longer exists in this country.

            1. You probably have no idea how many Federal Courts have provided verdicts against Voter Suppression. The Supreme Court has often allowed to go on, by ignoring the effects and requiring the intent be proven. Basically, test minorities are prevented from voting but we thing it was on;ly partisan.
              https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/voter-id-laws-supreme-court-north-carolina.html
              An example of disparity of sentencing is the current 18:1 disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine vs. powdered. That’s down from 100:1 so there’s that.
              I could present facts forever and I have no doubt you’ll reject them.

              1. Are you saying that black and white people are sentenced differently when using crack?

                As far as voter ID goes, are you saying that blacks are being denied IDs and then can’t vote?

                  1. Where do you see that in the document? Beginning on page 131, it discusses how black people are usually the ones sentenced for crack cocaine usage and then discusses how that drug compares to others, but I don’t see anything about how those sentencings are different for other races.

                    1. “that drug” is cocaine, and there is no difference between a gram of cocaine in the form of crack vs. a gram of cocaine in the form of powder, yet they aren’t sentenced the same.

                    2. There actually is a difference in their properties and no, they aren’t ‘sentenced’ differently, Different penalties are legislatively prescribed for possession.

                    3. @TIA:

                      Nope, “The physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of cocaine hydrochloride or crack cocaine (cocaine base). However, evidence exists showing a greater abuse liability, greater propensity for dependence, and more severe consequences when cocaine is smoked (cocaine-base) or injected intravenously (cocaine hydrochloride) compared with intranasal use (cocaine hydrochloride).” (This quote is from “Crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride. Are the differences myth or reality?” by D K Hatsukami and M W Fischman, 1996, Journal of the American Medical Assoc., 276(19):1580-8.) So it’s not a difference in the drug itself, but a difference in the way it’s introduced into the body.

                      Now your turn: go ahead and provide evidence for your claim “There actually is a difference in their properties,” and make sure that your evidence is about the drug itself, not the means of taking it in.

                      You claim “they aren’t ‘sentenced’ differently, Different penalties are legislatively prescribed for possession” of the same drug in different forms.

                    4. They’re not getting their money’s worth from you. You make an assertion, they provide a quotation which undermines your claim.

                    5. Apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension TIA.

                      Also, learn not to make false assumptions about anyone being paid (“getting their money’s worth”). You do this a lot. Does it helps you feel better psychologically, even though it’s false?

                    6. LorenzoValla, try page 117-118.

                      Plus this section on page 115,

                      “ Elimination of any vestiges of discrimination and reduction of unsupportable adverse impacts are especially important as the proportion of minorities in the federal offender population grows. Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of federal offenders in each of the three major racial and ethnic groups sentenced in the federal courts from 1984 until 2001. (Unlike the Bureau of Prisons, the Commission classifies Hispanic offenders based on national origin, regardless of race. Thus, the White, Black, and Hispanic categories are mutually exclusive.) While the majority of federal offenders in the preguidelines era were White, minorities dominate the federal criminal docket today. Most of this shift is due to dramatic growth in the Hispanic proportion of the caseload, which has approximately doubled since 1984. This growth is due in large measure to the growth of prosecutions for immigration law violations.”

                      https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/chap4.pdf

                  2. “LorenzoValla, try page 117-118”

                    that paragraph simply states that blacks have risen as a percent of the population. that doesn’t mean their increased representation is due to racism any more than the overwhelming majority of men in prison means that the system is rigged against men.

                1. I’m saying that a far greater percentage of crack users are minorities and a far greater percentage of powdered users are white and they are sentenced differently for essentially the same thing.
                  Regarding voter suppression (please note I didn’t say ID which is a problem but relatively small in the scope of things). It manifests itself in reduced polling locations in urban areas (in the last primary election in Kentucky there was one location each for all of Louisville and Lexington) it’s reduced early voting and voting hours, it’s 4-8 hour lines and it’s refusal to recognize certain state-issued ID’s while allowing such things as gun registrations. Nowhere in a Republican-controlled state that issued Voter ID laws did they not also introduce several other laws to restrict primarily minority (or student) voting. Then there’s redistricting and Gerrymandering with the same goal.

                  1. it’s reduced early voting and voting hours, it’s 4-8 hour lines

                    You don’t need early voting, and 4-8 hour lines are a fiction. In New York, to take one example, a typical precinct will see 160-240 voters all day. That’s 10-15 voters in an hour, ample time to process without any delays at all even with a booth voting system. In Virginia, you’re handed a ballot and sent to a carrel to fill it out. Doesn’t matter how long you take, people aren’t backed up behind you.

                    If backlogs at voting stations actually were a problem, we could open the polls on Friday evening, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon. Only about 20% of the working population regularly works Saturday shifts (which translates into 12% of the whole population over the age of 16). We could reduce the number of offices subject to election, make four year terms the default for any office other than judge, and move judicial elections and referenda to May. We could distribute offices subject to election sensibly over a quadrennial cycle: federal offices in year 1; county and municipal councils, mayors, and county executives in year 2; Governors and state legislatures in year 3; school boards and specialty executives in year 4.

                    We could also distribute poll inspector’s positions by online auctions. Each station would have at least one Republican inspector and one Democratic inspector at any one time. Anyone registered to vote in the county could bid for any shift at any station in the county. Pay your inspectors well and pay them premiums for undesirable postings, and you’ll have fully staffed stations at all parts of the county.

                    Of course, you don’t suggest any of these things, because they don’t fit your asinine metanarrative (which, funny that, makes excuses for vote fraud).

                  2. okay, for the drug stuff then we agree that they are using different drugs.

                    the disparity at sentencing was a goal of a bill from the 80s at the behest of community leaders (often black) who were fearful about what crack was doing to their neighborhoods. this ended up with with a racial disparity for what people NOW consider to be relatively equal crimes, but that wasn’t the understanding at the time of it’s passage.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-an-early-biden-crime-bill-created-the-sentencing-disparity-for-crack-and-cocaine-trafficking/2019/07/28/5cbb4c98-9dcf-11e9-85d6-5211733f92c7_story.html

                    for the voter suppression issue, are you arguing that the KY examples are emblematic of what we see systematically through the nation, or are these isolated? i’m asking because I haven’t heard of them until now with perhaps the issue of voter ids.

                    for the voter id issue, are you arguing that blacks are somehow unable to get a state issued id so they can vote?

                    lastly, for gerrymandering, that’s a bipartisan bit of corruption.

                    1. “for the drug stuff then we agree that they are using different drugs.”

                      No, they aren’t different drugs. That’s the point. They’re the same drug: cocaine.

                      Whether potatoes are in the form of hash browns vs. French fries doesn’t change that they’re potatoes, whether an ounce of gold in the form of a nugget vs. an ingot doesn’t change that they’re both an ounce of gold, … And whether cocaine is in the form of crack vs. powder doesn’t change that they’re both cocaine.

                    2. lastly, for gerrymandering, that’s a bipartisan bit of corruption.

                      Again, it’s not hard to compose a manual for the construction of districts which has very little discretion incorporated within it. However, there will be some variation in district populations. That’s fine and it would have been fine with everyone prior to 1963. You have this asinine body of case law which requires strict equipopulousness, which is wholly unnecessary. Strict equipopulousness requires free-hand drawing of districts. Added to that, the Voting Rights Act was re-interpreted to require racial gerrymandering.

                      Everything appellate judges touch, they make worse.

                    3. CTHD. Reply here b/c of WP limitations.

                      I believe you understand that the LAW treats the form of cocaine differently because it’s crack and not powder. that was on purpose and at supported by black urban community leaders.

                      however you want to slice it, it’s simply not fair to say it’s a racist law simply because it affects blacks more than others, any more to say that the criminal justice system is sexist because 90% of the prison population is male.

                    4. Lorenzo,

                      I agree that “the LAW treats the form of cocaine differently because it’s crack and not powder.” But it’s the same drug.

                      “that was on purpose and at supported by black urban community leaders.”

                      That may have been the case originally, but it is NOT the case now, nor was Congress required to act on that preference. Congress often ignores what “black urban community leaders” request.

                      “it’s simply not fair to say it’s a racist law simply because it affects blacks more than others”

                      I didn’t say that, so don’t pretend that I did. I’m saying that crack and powder cocaine are the same drug and there’s no acceptable reason for a sentencing disparity.

                    5. Enigma: I don’t know why lawmakers do not change the disparate sentencing.

                      Democrats are so powerful, maybe you should ask Pelosi. It’s a federal law and they could round up the votes no problem.

                  3. I have to say this about the crack sentencing thing. I am not sure it is racism, especially since old Bill Clinton the friend of black folks advocated and signed the sentencing guildelines that put it into effect.

                    However, it does seem unfair to me. So racist, I don’t think so. But unfair, perhaps.

                    Maybe it’s unfair to me as a guy that has allergies I can’t buy sudafed without a big hassle anymore, because they make crank out of it? meth, whatever. it is unfair but lots of laws have unfair results. i dont blame this on antiwhite racism. mostly because I have little sympathy for meth makers. even if most of them are white which Hollywood seems to suggest to us is true. to me, I dont care. I can live with the hassles of buying sudafed for allergy use.

                    so I am sympathetic to guys sentenced as drug dealers where the feds did not have to prove any actual intent to sell but merely have locked them up based on the weight of the crack rocks. that to me seems unfair in many instances that I have been informed of as a lawyer.

                    again, I don’t know if its racist, i doubt it. but it seems unfair.

              2. How does that NYTimes article prove that black Americans suffer from voter suppression?

                As to the disparity in sentencing regarding “crack cocaine vs. powdered”. The primary reason for that disparity has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the propensity of violent crime associated with crack addicts.

                The same disparity exists with opioid addicts, who are primarily white. Again, due to the propensity towards committing violent crimes by opioid addicts. 80% of which are Caucasian.

                Single-mother homes are the root problem. But that would require you as a black person looking inward and taking responsibility for that reality.

                Instead, you lean on the blame it on white people crutch, rather than looking in a mirror.

                  1. What relationship is there between mass incarceration to single mothers?

                    Again, every person who complains about ‘mass incarceration’ is complaining about punishment per se. About 40% of those convicted are remanded to state prison. The rest receive your beloved ‘alternatives to incarceration’, receive time served, or receive stays in the county jail measured in weeks. The mean time actually served in prison is 30 months. You have 1.7 million people in state prison because there are a great many criminals in this society.

                  2. Unmarried women with a mix n’ match collection of children tend to be bad and ineffective disciplinarians. (In fact, women-in-general tend to be crummy disciplinarians, with some exceptions).

                    1. My grandmother grew up in a brothel in Providence and married my grandfather at 14 to get out. Having said that, her mother, who had children with four separate fathers, made sure her kids got the education that was possible for them to get considering the circumstances. And then my grandmother made sure all her kids went to the “local college”…, which happened to be Brown. Saved nickels and athletic grant in aid did wonders apparently.

                      So I’m happy you’ve deemed from on high that there are exceptions, Absurd. My existence would’ve ceased to have meaning without that addendum.

                    2. Hey Bug this reminds me of Richard Pryor. He grew up in brothel. I think he had some funny observations about it. I am reluctant to look it up as I will almost certainly go down the youtube timewarp and lose another hour of my waning day

                1. Rhodes, you’ve said both:
                  “The primary reason for that [sentencing] disparity [between powder and crack cocaine] has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the propensity of violent crime associated with crack addicts.”
                  and:
                  “Provide hard verifiable data that prove your claims. Otherwise, you have no valid point, just a false claim, based on a false narrative.”

                  So go ahead, “Provide hard verifiable data that prove your claim[]” that “The primary reason for that [sentencing] disparity [between powder and crack cocaine] has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the propensity of violent crime associated with crack addicts.”

              3. Bill – that sentencing disparity on crack was because of black ministers and business leaders who saw crack tearing their communities apart. You are blaming the wrong people here.

                1. Let’s first acknowledge that the disparity exists and affects minorities most. As to who gets the blame, what law have black ministers and business leaders ever passed on their own? Many black leaders opposed it but the wave of support to fight the problem included the majority of white Americans who are now pointing the finger at the black people involved as if they alone were responsible. The 1994 Crime Bill was preceded by a similar bill under Nixon which had less black support.

                  1. Bill – I am an innocent in this. In 1994 I did not know the difference between snow and crack. I think Creepy Joe Biden pushed through the Crime Bill of 1994

                    1. He was part of it, Bill Clinton claims the Republican Congress was going to push through something worse and this was the best compromise he could get. There is no scenario in which black leaders shover this law down their throat.

                    2. Bill – black leaders did not shove it down their throats, they pleaded for the bill.

          3. Yes there is “racism” and we know it well as Italian Americans

            If you have an Italian last name you must be in the mob

            Italians are liars

            We steal

            Don’t hire an Italian you can trust them even help wanted signs were put in windows stating “Italians need not apply”

            We’re
            Grease Balls
            Wops
            Guineys
            Dumb
            Stupid

            And yes… Italians were used as slaves also!

            I could go on and on and on about the “racism” the Italian Americans go through even to this day but I do believe I got my point across

            But you know what makes us different enigmainblackcom from the Black Americans
            🇺🇸 🇮🇹
            We Italian Americans got over it and we live our very best life every single day

            You should try it…

            1. Hocus, you have white skin. I agree that Italian’s were looked down upon not too long ago and quite awhile back the Irish were considered a national problem. It’s not the same thing.

            2. Hey Hocus how did you like the image of the black mob in Chicago trying to rip down the statute of the great Italian hero Columbus?
              The daring navigator, who discovered the New World, the one without whom NONE OF US AMERICANS WOULD EXIST HERE TODAY?
              AND i MEAN NONE. IF NOT FOR HIM NOT ONLY NO WHITE AMERICA BUT NO BLACK AMERICA EITHER.
              JUST NATIVE AMERICANS. and I bet there was not ONE native american indian person in that mob.

              and that mob, defacing his statue, and pelting all the cops with rocks and fireworks,. despicable!

              then the pathetic Democrat and black mayor stole the Columbus statute of its pedestal in the middle of the night. No consultation with Italian American community, shameful!

              the sad thing is that Italian Americans have been neutralized as a coherent ethnic community by the Democrat party. but also by continuing to politically back prominent Italian Americans who habitually run as Democrats. To this day. You see this with some other white ethnic communities too.

              this is a long story, so I’ll just leave it at that. But I say come over to the Republican party.

          4. Bill – be more specific. Exactly what sentence disparities and exactly what voter suppression?

          5. There are sentencing disparities. Not nearly enough blacks are being locked up given the rate they commit crimes.

        2. LorenzoValla, there’s evidence everywhere. Seriously? If you cannot recognize that there is actually systemic racism it only shows that you are fortunate enough not to be exposed to it. Just because you may have never experienced it doesn’t mean systemic racism doesn’t exist. White suprematism is just people who live in trailer parks or those who are clearly members of skin head groups or militias in the south. White supremacists can be well off individuals, church pastors, police officers, lawyers, CEO’s, executives, etc. just because you don’t see them marching in the streets screaming “white power” or attending rallies doesn’t mean they aren’t racists either.

          Look at people who were least expected to be what they are now exposed as, priests once seen as humble god fearing individuals turned out to be serial pedophiles enabled by the church as a whole. People like Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein. Both individuals who wouldn’t even be considered to be rapists and sexual abusers because, nobody expects them to be…until they are exposed.

          Bill Cosby, being a sexual predator was virtually unthinkable until it was revealed in court.

          So yes systemic racism is real and the only reason why it doesn’t seem so obvious to individuals like you is because it’s more apparent to those who are subjected to it every day, such as the victims of the Epstein’s, Weinsteins, priests that haven’t been exposed.

          1. what i see everywhere is people doing exactly what you are doing – asserting that systematic racism exists without any clear evidence for it.

            if it does exist, i’m all for getting rid of it. but we can’t get rid of something that isn’t clearly identified.

            1. “ what i see everywhere is people doing exactly what you are doing – asserting that systematic racism exists without any clear evidence for it.”

              LorenzoValla, that’s the problem. You’re expecting clear unambiguous evidence. Your acceptance of what would be considered racist is only of a white man was literally clear cut saying things like “ni$&rs shouldn’t have this or that”, “blacks are inferior because…” etc. Racism or systemic racism is not only about clear cut unmistakable examples. It has its own subtle iterations that those who expect clear black and white evidence (no pun intended) either don’t understand or are oblivious to it because they are not exposed to it on a daily basis.

              We can’t get rid of it because you or others like you can’t see the subtleties of systemic racism or refuse to acknowledge that such subtlety is BS. It’s similar to a backhanded insult vs. direct insult. The intent behind the former is the same as the latter.

              Put it another way. People know baby pigeons exist, but nobody really sees baby pigeons. They have to exist because you clearly see there are pigeons even tho you never or rarely see baby pigeons. Does that make sense?

              1. it wouldn’t take much effort to find systematic evidence that baby pigeons exist.

                i stand by the notion that a problem is not solvable unless clear evidence of the problem is identifiable.

                1. Liberals want salaried employment, financed by tax collections, for teachers, social workers, and apparatchiks supervising both. They also want to determine status hierarchies and, in that vein, who exercises authority over whom. They see the problem as limited opportunities for aspirants to positions in the helping professions and people they despise making decisions for themselves (and bossing around their clientele). Normal human beings don’t see these as problems. They understand us as having a common citizenship where everyone is bound by the law (and that includes being courteous to police officers). They also understand people as self-governing and self-supporting by default, which puts certain limits on the warrant of educational and welfare bureaucracies.

                  Richard John Neuhaus observation some years back that the foundation of social services tends also to manufacture expectations and interests on the part of provider and client alike, is salient here. So, you have Gainesville quoting some social services apparatchik enlarging on a largely imaginary social phenomenon (or, largely imaginary outside the vagrant population). People work, they get their paychecks via direct deposit, they rent apartments, they’re signed up for Social Security, they commute to and from work, but somehow they cannot see their way clear into obtaining a valid ID card. I’ve personally known people who were somewhere around the 5th percentile on the psychometric scale who had valid driver’s licenses and got their paychecks via direct deposit. Gainesville swallows it hook, line, and sinker when some social worker or NGO functionary stands up and says that there are millions and millions of people who cannot accomplish mundane tasks (so mo’ money for us).

                  We have a shirt-tail relative whose a high school teacher, who mouths off on Fakebook all the time. You know what’s an article of faith among school teachers? That the schools are ‘underfunded’. I point out to him that the ratio of annual public school budgets to annual gross domestic product has for 50 years bounced around a set point of about 0.04 and is higher than it was in 1929 or 1959. (One might also point out to him that the share of the population who are between their 5th and their 18th birth day has declined from 25% to 17% over those 50 years). He had his school teacher friends have two reactions: (1) incomprehension and (2) insisting it isn’t enough. There are, of course, all sorts of inefficiencies and inanities in the delivery of educational services in this country. All of these have to do with policy choices, not funding levels, but mo’ money is what they insist they ought to have.

          2. Svelas, the word “systemic” defines a fundamental predominant social practice.

            Any American citizen that makes the claim that racism is still a “predominant social practice” in the US in 2020, is either lying, or is ignorant to reality.

            You’re just looking for an excuse, rather than looking in a mirror.

            Own your own problems, just as you would own your own success. To do anything else is a fools game.

            1. Rhodes, you can’t recognize a systemic problem when you’re not experiencing it personally on a daily basis. Just because you’re lucky enough to not be subjected to it doesn’t mean it’s not real.

              You’re the one making excuses to not acknowledge it by blaming it as “ their” problem.

              The attitudes and views that led to the Jim Crow era and open racism of the 50’s and 60’s never went away. They are still prevalent, but are more subtle and subdued. You don’t “see it” because you don’t experience those subtleties and iterations of the same attitudes. It’s systemic because it involves individuals who now are in positions to make rules, oversee programs, policies etc that they include those views into them.

              1. The attitudes and views that led to the Jim Crow era and open racism of the 50’s and 60’s never went away. They are still prevalent, but are more subtle and subdued. You don’t “see it” because you don’t experience those subtleties and iterations of the same attitudes. It’s systemic because it involves individuals who now are in positions to make rules, oversee programs, policies etc that they include those views into them.

                It’s just like phlogiston.

          1. Your examples. Voter suppression should be voter fraud. Sentencing disparities should explain that not enough blacks are in prison in proportion to the crimes they commit.

          2. There is no voter suppression. Federal judges handle that expeditiously. If you see anyone denied who wants to vote, let me know and I’ll file the federal petition for you.

            If you mean such “onerous” requirements as photo ID cards, well that’s just plain stupid. Everyone has one or they couldn’t apply for benefits, ride a plane, get a license for anything etc., etc.

            1. I’m barely mentioning voter ID although it can be an issue based on how it’s applied. IT’S EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COME WITH IT! Sometimes the courts find against it after a few election cycles, other times they turn a blind eye and call it partisan instead of racial which they somehow find tolerable.
              https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law

              I like the quote, “Surgical precision.” They keep getting better at it over the years.

              1. For the life of me, I can’t figure out all the concerns about having a state issued ID for voting. If people can’t make that level of effort, perhaps they shouldn’t be picking our leaders.

              2. In my viewpoint, demographic analysis of rival voting blocks is always part of democracy. even going back to ancient Greece. did Greeks engage in voter suppression? Im sure they did!

                it is part of the logic of democracy. the voters ultimately can change ANY LAW. even the constitution itself.
                hence there is no way to get rid of it. you either allow it or if you let courts try and cancel it, then you are appointing judges to be the commissars who can cancel democracy itself

                to some degree, that is precisely what has been happening in America since the Voting Rights act. People are taught now, that is good.

                I disagree. It does not favor my group and I am done apologizing for thinking of my group interests. Why is it licit for every group to reckon its own interest but whites?

                I am white and I fully recognize that I may see things the same way as other white people. I believe it is my right as a citizen and a voter to reckon that into my vote just as much as a black man can organize an NAACP and take his own opinions. I believe we have the same human right to collectively politically organize inside the democratic republican system to represent our own interests. This is not racism even if it is a reckoning of our collective racial interests.

                Or call it racism if you like, but I will not self-cancel myself into not thinking about my own interests. Never

                white people have a right to vote, and a right to organize, and a right to pass laws which represent our interests. i refuse any self abnegation which cancels that.

                I see a lot of liberals out there, lilly white folks deluded by their educations, who think they have to apologize for their very existence. how generous, yet pathetic, and weak
                people who do are conditioned to do so, they are often good hearted and charitable types, but, they are fools.

                one day when we are outnumbered, and that day comes soon, the bootlickers will not be rewarded. in fact they will be the first to taste the whip hand, to use the expression that British Enoch Powell used in his famous “Rivers of Blood” speech.

                there is no angle in weakness and group self abnegation in politics. there is a gain to be had in community organization and strength. i learned this from all what i was taught about in school about the Civil Rights movement, Malcolm X, etec. and I turn it right around and apply that to people who share MY color of skin which is white.

                other white people need to see those angry BLM mobs and the antifa freaks and wake up. they’re coming for you, don’t be alone, don’t be weak, you need people on your side too.
                you got a right to vote your interests and you better do it come November or else it may be your last chance to do so, ever

                  1. hey, Enigma, thanks for having a stimulating conversation. let’s chat again anytime, you know where to find me.

            2. Would you file that same petition over shutting down polling stations systematically in poor neighborhoods?

            3. Hard for a spoiled cree like Mespo to grasp, but plenty of people – they’re typically very poor and/or old – do not have photo IDs and don’t fly in planes.

              “Supporters say that everyone should easily be able to get a photo ID and that the requirement is needed to combat voter fraud. But many election experts say that the process for obtaining a photo ID can be far more difficult than it looks for hundreds of thousands of people across the country who do not have the required photo identification cards. Those most likely to be affected are elderly citizens, African Americans, Hispanics and low-income residents.

              A lot of people don’t realize what it takes to obtain an ID without the proper identification and papers,” said Abbie Kamin, a lawyer who has worked with the Campaign Legal Center to help Texans obtain the proper identification to vote. “Many people will give up and not even bother trying to vote.”

              A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.

              Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law…..

              Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.

              A recent voter-ID study by political scientists at the University of California at San Diego analyzed turnout in elections between 2008 and 2012 and found “substantial drops in turnout for minorities under strict voter ID laws.”

              “These results suggest that by instituting strict photo ID laws, states could minimize the influence of voters on the left and could dramatically alter the political leaning of the electorate,” the study concluded.

              The question of whether photo IDs are difficult to obtain has become central to cases across the country, where government and civil rights lawyers are challenging new state laws.

              Three courts have in fact struck down the voter-ID law in Texas, but the state’s governor has not backed down and has promised to keep it in effect in November.

              In 2012, a federal court in Washington concluded that the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip.

              “That law will almost certainly have retrogressive effect: it imposes strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor, and racial minorities in Texas are disproportionately likely to live in poverty,” wrote David S. Tatel, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the panel’s 56-page opinion.

              Many of the residents struggling to obtain a valid photo ID are elderly and poor and were born in homes rather than hospitals. As a result, birth certificates were often lost or names were misspelled in official city records.

              Hargie Randall, 72, was born in his family’s home in Huntsville, Tex., and has lived in the state his entire life. Randall, now living in Houston’s low-income Fifth Ward neighborhood, has several health problems and such poor eyesight that he is legally blind. He can’t drive and has to ask others for rides.

              After Texas implemented its new law, Randall went to the Department of Public Safety (the Texas agency that handles driver’s licenses and identification cards) three times to try to get a photo ID to vote. Each time Randall was told he needed different items. First, he was told he needed three forms of identification. He came back and brought his Medicaid card, bills and a current voter registration card from voting in past elections.

              “I thought that because I was on record for voting, I could vote again,” Randall said.

              But he was told he still needed more documentation, such as a certified copy of his birth certificate.

              Records of births before 1950, such as Randall’s, are not on a central computer and are located only in the county clerk’s office where the person was born.

              For Randall, that meant an hour-long drive to Huntsville, where his lawyers found a copy of his birth certificate.

              But that wasn’t enough. With his birth certificate in hand, Randall went to the DPS office in Houston with all the necessary documents. But, DPS officials still would not issue him a photo ID because of a clerical mistake on his birth certificate. One letter was off in his last name — “Randell” instead of “Randall” — so his last name was spelled slightly different than on all his other documents.

              “I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years.

              “Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.”

              “A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said..

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

              1. IOW, you fancy these people have never driven a car, never opened a bank account, have lost their birth certificate, &c.

              2. bythebook:

                It is racist to target one race, and declare them incapable of obtaining ID. There is not this level of concern about poor Asian or Latinos obtaining ID. Rather, the argument is that Latino immigrants too commonly have fake ID or stolen identities.

                It is the bigotry of low expectations.

                Perhaps you should watch this interview, in which black people in Harlem react to the Democrat position that they are unable to get ID. Watching white students describe how they don’t think blacks can find or get to a DMV, or access the internet, was absolutely cringeworthy. Some students said they didn’t think black people knew how technology worked, or the process to get ID.

                https://youtu.be/3JGmKHrWKMQ

                You need an ID to fully function in the US, including getting a medical POA. The answer to any lack of ID is to help the poor get ID. Which is why states do this.

        1. @Rhodes, enigmainblackcom has no reason to “Provide the quote from [you] where [you] wrote that ‘racism isn’t real,’” as he didn’t claim that you said the phrase “‘racism isn’t real.” He asked the question “Are you trying to convince yourself or others that racism isn’t real?” in his own voice, using that phrase.. And the basis for his question is your false claim that “There is no ‘continuing scourge of racism’ in this country.”

          As he notes, sentencing disparities and voter suppression are two examples of the “continuing scourge of racism” in the U.S. Can you accept that truth?

            1. He did.

              And I was speaking for myself in pointing out your error where you tried to create a burden of proof for him re: a claim he didn’t make. If you were honest, you’d acknowledge your mistake.

                1. The comment of yours that I quoted in my 9:25 comment to you. Are you having trouble following this sub-thread?

          1. As he notes, sentencing disparities and voter suppression are two examples of the “continuing scourge of racism” in the U.S. Can you accept that truth?

            Both are fictions.

              1. I’m not obligated to prove something is not there.

                1. All of the complaints about ‘voter suppression’ make reference to ordinary measures in elections administration which have been in place for decades and were put in place for a reasons or which are identical to things people do every day in the most banal circumstances.

                2. People yammering about ‘sentencing disparities’ seldom cite even descriptive statistics (e.g. comparing stock and flow data of incarcerated populations). The modal reference is to the distinction between crack and powdered cocaine, which isn’t a sentencing disparity at all, but a judgement about the degree of social harm each mode causes which you fancy (w/o evidence) is motivated by a hostility to blacks.

                1. “I’m not obligated to prove something is not there.”

                  Each person who presents a claim as if it’s true has the burden of proof for showing that it’s true, even if the claim has the form “X isn’t there.” Here’s a decent overview of burden of proof (focus on the references): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

                  You claimed “Both are fictions,” so you have the burden of proof for that claim. Simply asserting more of your opinions about them isn’t proof.

                  1. Each person who presents a claim as if it’s true has the burden of proof for showing that it’s true,

                    No, you made an assertion something exists. The null hypothesis is always that it does not.

                    1. And once again, you’ve cut off the end of the sentence even though it’s relevant.

                      Again: each person who presents a claim as if it’s true has the burden of proof for showing that it’s true, even if the claim has the form “X isn’t there.” And I already gave you evidence for that. Maybe you don’t understand the concept of philosophic burden of proof. Lest you now assert that you cannot prove a negative, that’s false: https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

                      “The null hypothesis is always that it does not.”

                      Nope. The null hypothesis exists in inferential statistics (which is not what we were discussing and so is irrelevant to the discussion) and doesn’t assert that anything is a “fiction.” Deal honestly with your claim and your burden of proof.

                    2. Good answer, Absurd. IOW you can’t prove your claim of both voter suppression and sentencing disparities are fictitious. Noted.

                    3. Again: each person who presents a claim as if it’s true has the burden of proof

                      It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat nonsense, I am not under any obligation to prove that the ghost of Capt. Gregg is not inhabiting your guest cottage.

                2. GOP leaders admit voter suppression. This is from 2014. There are more recent examples of the dimmer ones exposing the tactics.

                  “Fran Millar: Georgia Senator Complains About Polling Place Being Too Convenient for Black Voters

                  Georgia state Sen. Fran Millar (R-Dunwoody) wrote an angry op-ed following the news that DeKalb County, part of which he represents, will permit early voting on the last Sunday in October. The voting will take place at the Gallery at South DeKalb mall. Here’s what Millar wrote in The Atlanta-Journal Constitution: “[T]his location is dominated by African-American shoppers and it is near several large African-American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist… Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.” Millar, who is senior deputy whip for the Georgia Senate Republicans, promised to put an end to Sunday balloting in DeKalb County when state lawmakers assemble in the Capitol in January.

                  Doug Preis: An Ohio GOP Chair Says We Shouldn’t Accommodate the “Urban — Read African-American — Voter-Turnout Machine”

                  In 2012, Republican officials in Ohio were limiting early voting hours in Democratic-majority counties, while expanding them on nights and weekends in Republican counties. In response to public outcry, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted mandated the same early voting hours in all 88 Ohio counties. He kept early voting hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays from Oct. 2 to 19 and broadened hours from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. from Oct. 22 to Nov. 2. But he refused to expand voting hours beyond 7 p.m. during the week, on weekends or three days prior to the election — which is when voting is most convenient for many working-class Ohioans. Here’s what the Franklin Party (Columbus) Ohio GOP chair, Doug Preis, and close adviser to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said about limiting early voting. “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine.” (And yes, he actually said “read African-American,” that wasn’t inserted.)

                  Greg Abbott: Texas AG Says Partisan Districting Decisions Are Legal, Even if There Are “Incidental Effects” on Minority Voters

                  The 2010 Census results showed that 89 percent of the population growth in Texas came from minorities, but “when it came to fitting those new seats in the map, Republican lawmakers made sure three of them favored Republicans, who tend to be white,” according to the Associated Press. The Justice Department claims that Texas lawmakers intentionally redrew the state’s congressional districts in order to dilute the Hispanic vote. Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for governor of Texas, wrote the following in a letter to the Department of Justice defending the state’s voting maps:

                  “DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.”

                  Ted Yoho: Only Property Owners Should Vote

                  While running for a Florida congressional seat in 2012, Ted Yoho suggested that only property owners should have the right to vote, as you can watch in this video. Here’s what he said: “I’ve had some radical ideas about voting and it’s probably not a good time to tell them, but you used to have to be a property owner to vote.” He also called early voting by absentee ballots “a travesty.” And yes, Yoho won the election, and is now a member of Congress.

                  Don Yelton: North Carolina GOP Precinct Chair: Voter-ID Law Will “Kick Democrats in the Butt” and Hurt “Lazy Blacks”

                  In an interview last year with The Daily Show, Don Yelton, a GOP precinct chair in Buncombe County, North Carolina, defended the state’s new voter-ID law, saying so many offensive things, he was asked to resign the day after it aired. Yelton admits at the start of the segment that the number of Buncombe County residents who commit voter fraud is one or two out of 60,000 a year. The interview correspondent, Aasif Mandvi, replies that those numbers show “there’s enough voter fraud to sway zero elections,” and then Yelton replies, “Mmmm…that’s not the point.” He goes on to say that “if it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.” and then adds, “The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.” After the segment aired, the Buncombe County GOP Chair issued a statement on Yelton’s comments, calling them “offensive, uniformed and unacceptable of any member within the Republican Party” and called for Yelton’s resignation. He obliged.”

      2. I agree that there’s much racism against Whites right now. To see this, all you have to do is reverse the reality of what you’re seeing, so imagine if a bunch of politicians and Whites made a show of painting WHITE LIVES MATTER on public streets. Imagine if there were 50+ years of quota programs to allow unqualified and barely-qualified White people into positions in universities, governments, etc. Not a pretty picture, is it? That is the racism that’s real and readily apparent to many people.

            1. It wasn’t as cold as calling him stupid would have been. Reverse discrimination could be possible on an individual basis, systemic racism requires control of the system. How many systems in America do minorities control? Education, Justice, Congress, even when there was a black President, he didn’t have the power to impose his will on the country. No President does though one is trying very hard. How to you think his proposed executive order stopping mail in voting is going to work? “I have the right to do it.”

                1. The “system” has always been racist without regard to who was in control, whether Democrats, Republicans, Whigs, Democratic-Republicans, Federalist, or in George Washington’s case none. AT this moment, Republicans have stocked the Court system with Republicans and if RBG died today, don’t think they wouldn’t attempt to push through another. It matters little now which Party controls the system, they are all still corrupt and were founded on racist beliefs. Southern police departments grew out of slave patrols (Northern ones were intended to control immigrants which is little different) Education systems mostly prevented black people, slave or free from getting an education. The problem Asians have getting into Harvard isn’t because black people are blocking them, it’s that there is an arbitrary cap on minorities and Asians, blacks, and others have to fight for limited seats while the almost all-white legacies skate on in.

              1. Enigma:

                Systemic racism can, and does, occur with races other than African Americans.

                There are currently no laws that expressly discriminate against African Americans. Quite the contrary, there is consistent preferential bias in favor of African Americans. Affirmative Action, and later attempts to approximate it, are well known.

                However, the universities, that control the system, are biased against Asians and Caucasians. California just voted to change its constitution to allow racial discrimination. Yes, you heard that right. This is because discrimination of Asians and Caucasians in order to favor African Americans was in violation of the state constitution. Politicians have been quite open that they have made this change in order to deliberately discriminate, on the basis of race, in order to benefit African Americans.

                There are myriad examples of industries that control the system, that are racially biased against Caucasians, and in favor of African Americans. The art world, music, literature, and public schools are prime examples.

                Merit, or guilt, does not reside in our skin.

                Caucasians should not be fined based on the color of their skin, with the “reparations” money given only to blacks, based on the color of their skin. No one should be held accountable for the actions of other people hundreds of years ago. Otherwise, given the state of world affairs at that time, everyone needs to pay up. Also, slavery was a global institution, perpetuated by all races, at all times, in all nations. Africa still commonly practices slavery, as Mauritania only outlawed it in 1981. It is absurd to believe that whites owe some permanent, genetic debt for the global phenomena of slavery, when the West was actually at the forefront of abolishing it.

                There is no such thing as “reverse racism.” There is only racism.

                I think you must be aware how common, normalized, and encouraged bigotry against whites is in the black community. You know this is wrong, because if a white person said such things about black people, it would be instantly obvious as repugnant.

                A meritocracy is fair. The answer to getting more black students into college or trade schools, is to improve the quality of their education. You are probably also aware that there are way too many majority black high schools where not a single graduate is reading or performing math at grade level. Lowering standards is not going to help those kids succeed in life. Rather, it reinforces stereotypes that they are not academically prepared.

                Do away with racial bias in college administration, and then everyone will assume black students got there based on their own talents.

                1. Affirmative Action never was and isn’t now what you imagine it is. It did provide limited access in areas where access was previously limited. But it was as much a cap as it was a minimum. Initially, it was a goal, something aspirational as Trump says, with little penalty if the goal was not met, it was to be implemented with all deliberate speed like integrating schools. When it came to contracting, affirmative action was enlarget to include women with M/WBE programs which quite often led to fraudulent front companies where the wife of a contractor set up a firm and claimed 51% ownership. There were black people paid to be fronts as well. Bottom line, if there was a 15% minimum whether in education or jobs, it was most often taken to mean that they would admit or hire a maximum of 15% which included all minorities (and sometimes women in contracting) where all minorities had to fight for that slice of the pie.

                  You are quite correct in that other minorities face discrimination. White people are quite fair in that way.

                  1. Enigma engages in a little bit of stereotyping all his own! ha ha, kind of a funny remark

                    but taking it seriously for the sake of conversation, on the contrary Enigma. I have measured up a lot of racial antipathy coming from whites outwards, and most of it flows towards blacks.

                    now many white people are color blind or at least think and speak that way. i do not address them, one hears from them quite a bit.

                    rather, I will address some negative sentiments i have heard over time, and thousands of candid conversations about race with other white people– I am different in that I am able to elicit conversations on this topic from white folks who are usually very careful– perhaps i reveal some of my own beefs and this opens them up. but based on these many conversations over about 30 past years, in which I have found the topic of interest, i have decided that, in polling way, the major reasons whites are angry at blacks are the following 4 main issues. whether one may disagree or not:

                    first, because whites associate blacks with black on white crime, first of all, this is not an imaginary problem, it’s very real. and this factor was made worse with all the rioting by the way, not that anybody cares what white people think, of course. but that’s numero uno

                    second of all, they associate blacks with urban decay, not mowing lawns and stuff like that. i have heard a hundred times white working class people say “at least the mexicans mow their lawns.” i have no viewpoint on this, it seems trivial to me.

                    and third of all, they blame blacks for high taxes. i think this is wrong personally, but i have heard it quite a bit, be based on welfare and the cost of operating jails and so forth. again, i don’t share this viewpoint myself.

                    fourth of all, i think there is some resentment about perceived affirmative action. when i was in college that was a hot one. not sure now, who knows.

                    also white people may be more subtle than you may think. it is a caricature of whites that they are closeted white supremacists who dislike all the “other” equally. For example. if we are evaluating likes and dislikes, i have heard from a lot of white people they like African migrants but not american blacks. I have also heard from some they are ok with Mexicans but don’t like Central Americans such as Hondurans or Salvadorans. Then other white people seem to group south americans into a whole other group. Some white people do not like nearly all Hispanic migrants it seems except for Cubans. This is complicated and often relates to personal connections.

                    some white people like Asians. some dislike Asians. some may be OK with them but not as migrants. or some may be partial to one national group or another. some white people basically see asians as yellow white people.

                    some white people seem to like Arabs, some dont. some dont like Muslims and it’s religious and not racial. some people seem not to care about the religion and have a racial sentiment aimed at them instead. likewise, some white people don’t like Jews, even say they arent white. some white people seem very enchanted with jewish people. this one varies quite a lot. some white people have a religious issue with jewish religion. heck, seems like jewish people often have the biggest issue with the jewish religion! People are complex.

                    but, to summarize, to me it seems fair to say that the deepest racial antipathy which a large number of average white Americans has toward any racial, ethnic, or national other, is towards blacks. You can contemplate on your own why this might be, of course we all may have our own speculations on such things.

                    In a way it is odd, because white and black have characterized the American social experience since even before the war of independence. And there is a lot of black culture that is freely accepted by white people without any complaint or reservation, from musical idioms from jazz to rock or hiphop; or foods such as Southern cooking which often has roots in African cuisine. there is a lot of irony in this, it is complicated.

                    I do not represent these views as my own , I am just reporting the diversity of remarks i have heard from many different people over decades. i may or may not be right about how i have summarized these opinions. i am not a pollster. likewise i am not judging these views, regardless of whether I might agree or disagree with any particular one.
                    i am just trying to share this in interests of advancing candid conversation on race from my white man’s social experience.

                    1. I’m reminded of a recent NPR author interview with Isabel Wilkerson (as an NPR listener you may have heard it) where she was discussing her new book “Caste: The Origin of our Discontent.” You both seem to be saying there’s a caste system in America, which may differ as to where individual people place the rungs but white people always place themselves at the top and Black people near or at the bottom.

                    2. There is no caste system. There is a modest degree of social aversion and the distribution between social strata differs between subpopulations.

                    3. Enigma, I didn’t hear that one NPR but I’ll check it out

                      I do believe that all successful societies tend to become hierarchical and layered.

                      The only genuinely flat, classless societies were those of prehistory, which were destroyed by nations which organize in cities.
                      There is no way around this tendency of civilization. In this respect i deeply disagree with Marx and Engels that reversion to classless society will ever happen. Complex societies are always going to be layered in one way or another.

                      Caste is a different thing. Caste systems must exist in secular or religious law, or they do not exist at all. As of the abolition of chattel slavery, there is no caste in America.

                      So I would say for example, the PRC has class, as all industrial societies do, but it does not have caste. CCP members are an upper layer of that society, but, they are not a separate legal caste under the law or religious grouping.

                      India argaubly still has caste, due to the Hindu religion, although it does not have legal effect. Dalit is word for the underclass i hear

                      Japan had caste until the Meiji Restoration, when it was abolished by law. 1868 maybe? the fall of the Tokugawa. Its effects may have persisted for a few generations but I think it has little effect. But of course they have class structure. the word for the underclass was eta. I read a fine novel once about this. Forget the title.

                      Every Muslim society has a form of caste as well, per religious law: believers in the Prophet, above, and below, we infidels. I believe the word for us is “kaffir.” In feudal Islamic society, i think we infidels had to pay a special jizya, if i have the term right for the infidel tax.

                      However, class remains everywhere. One may not like it, I often dislike it, but it is unavoidable consequence of civilization as such. And, there is grouping along a lot of other characteristics too, naturally. I am not troubled by the human tendency of “like unto like”

                      I do not believe white people put blacks anywhere. But i did say there is common animosity towards blacks which whites feel, group versus group. For whatever reasons. Animosity is a feeling. It is not an action.

                      Do you feel that blacks often feel antipathy towards whites? group on group, so to speak?

          1. You definitely qualify to give lessons on how to “cry yourself a river”, enigma.

            While taking no responsibility for the reasons you’re doing so much crying.

            Your race is your crutch. The longer you use the crutch, the weaker you become.

            1. And with a white child’s taunt, and lack of evidence for any of the claims he’s made, Rhodes checks out with the classiest of remarks.

        1. Dude, there have been 400 years of a white quota system affecting everything from jobs to education to voting and only in the last 50 years an effort to balance the field. Since affirmative action only applies to large companies and public institutions, preferential hiring is still the rule among American small businesses, where most of the jobs are. It’s not necessarily a conspiracy – though in some instances it surely is – but the hard reality. Anyone thinking that systematic oppression and dismantling of family structures visited on one race by our majority would be fixed in 2 generations and the score settled is out of their mind.

          I believe most Americans are not racists, left or right – though this board is at least 1/2 overt racists – but it is hard to see the world from someone else’s vantage point. We mostly wish well for our fellow countrymen and want others to succeed. Interacial social mixing is greater than ever before, and especially among the young, and even our “race riots” are a rainbow of protesters. White people often have black sports or celebrity heroes and visa versa – all good things. But still much remains.

          1. though this board is at least 1/2 overt racists

            No, this board is about 70% people who point out from time to time you’re given to displays of narcissism and dishonesty. The ‘overt racists’ hoo-ha is your effort to feel batter about yourself.

          2. Title VII which is a federal law prohibiting discrimination in employment, has a minimum threshold. 15 employees.

            most folks dont know that.

            now while state laws may have more coverage, thats the minimum for federal law. 14 or less, title vii does not apply.

            under that, yes, we can discriminate in employment in race, and it is not violation because title VII does not apply

            now there is another law rarely used called section 1981, which relates to discrimination in contracts, but again, very rarely used

      3. Enigma:

        We can’t manage to have a society free of murder, rape, and even lying. It is not possible to have a society free of prejudice. Look at all the political bigotry we all see everyday. We will never get rid of character flaws without using some sort of technology only seen in science fiction. Such a technology would have to supersede free will.

        We can’t get rid of racism and more than we can get rid of irascibility, hostility, or violence.

        But we have made it socially unacceptable.

        1. “But we have made it socially unacceptable.”

          Would that were the case. Steve Bannor says when you’re called racist, “Wear it like a badge of honor.” Who here says anything to George as an example for his constant racist barbs? Stephen Miller is running the nation’s immigration policy, Donald Trump is President. Racism is doing quite well, thank you.

  17. When Pearl Harbor was bombed and the war began, we rounded up both Germans and Japanese, whether I.s. citizens or not and put them in concentration camps. The German American Bund was depressed and had no free speech in favor of Hitler.
    Round up Antifa or whatever ya call em and lock em up.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: