The Patriot Front marches

Twitter was full of stuff on this march held by the Patriot Front.

Much was made of the marchers being masked, masked to conceal their identities rather than any submission to COVID-19 masking requirements, and it looked so staged that many though it had to be a joke, a set-up by the Lincoln Project or some other silliness group. The group marched in quasi military order, and they were carrying American flags. To the left, carrying the flag is apparently a hate symbol. That the marchers were masked led to cries of outrage by the left, the same left which thought nothing about antifa marching masked throughout 2020’s summer of riots.

The hand-written copy of the proposed articles of amendment passed by Congress in 1789, cropped to show just the text in the third article that would later be ratified as the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And that’s the point: the Patriot Front exercised their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly. Unlike the left’s Mostly Peaceful Protests™ of last year, the Patriot Front was peaceful. They assaulted no one, and they set no buildings on fire.

The masks? Given how the feds were using facial recognition software to identify and prosecute people who took part in the January 6th Capitol kerfuffle, and have held some of the charged without bail, despite not having charged them with any violent offences, who can blame them? Antifa have largely gotten away with violence, mayhem, looting and arson by going masked, so why shouldn’t the Patriot Front use the same tactic during a peaceful protest. The Southern Poverty Law Center classifies the patriot Front as a white supremacist group, and tries to get members fired from their jobs, so yeah, it’s important to the members.

You don’t have to agree with the group’s message to support their right to speak and assemble as they please.

As people get tired of living in fear, fear must be stoked again, to enable greater government control

It seems that the plebeians have been getting a little bit too complacent, so, once again, fear has to be ramped up. From CNBC:

Are you terrified yet? Are you quaking in fear? Are you ready to surrender more of your rights, your freedoms, your liberty, to those who know better than you, those who only want to protect you, for your own good?

Dr Leong is in Singapore, and should have no influence on US policy, but, not to worry, we have our own Dr Anthony Fauci:

    “The profile of the mutations strongly suggest that it’s going to have an advantage in transmissibility and that it might evade immune protection that you would get,” U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

Dr Fauci does have the President’s ear.

The CNBC article included this video, with Dr Syra Madad, an infectious disease expert and a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, which is part of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

And that’s the key: she may be an infectious disease expert, but she’s part of the Kennedy School of Government! She’s ‘urging’ everybody to mask up and get tested frequently, but when someone connected to a school of government ‘urges’ something, we all know that significant non-compliance will result in that asked to become something mandated.

Starvation as a tool of diplomacy

Now we know why Kim Jong-un has lost weight!

Food Aid to North Korea Leads to Starvation | Opinion

Gordon G. Chang | Monday, November 29, 2021

A North Korean court on November 10 sentenced two cadres to life imprisonment for “anti-socialist and non-socialist acts”—in this case, “violating the closed border.” The officials, trying to alleviate a severe food shortage in North Hamgyong province, were buying rice from China.

The convictions come as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea heads into another famine, perhaps even worse than the four-year “Arduous March” of the mid-1990s. Then, perhaps as many as 3.5 million people died, representing more than 10 percent of the population.

North Korea’s people have just been told to not expect relief until 2025. “Some of the residents are saying that the situation right now is so serious that they don’t know if they can even survive the coming winter,” said a “source,” a resident in the border town of Sinuiju, to Radio Free Asia Korean Service on October 21. “They say that telling us to endure hardship until 2025 is the same as telling us to starve to death.”

Several paragraphs follow, telling readers about the policies which have led to serious food shortages, not the least of which was the Kim Jong-un regime’s decision in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; as the Hermit Kingdom closed down its borders and restricted trade, the things needed to increase food production went unsupplied.

Then we get to the money quotes:

Why not send in trucks with assistance? The essential problem is the diversion of food aid from intended recipients. “The Kim regime controls the distribution system and prioritizes a certain class of people—the elites who help run the system,” Tara O of the East Asia Research Center and the Hudson Institute tells Newsweek. “In the past, North Korea even exported food aid in the midst of famine, and it’s likely it used the foreign currency derived from the sales for other purposes, such as nuclear weapons development.”

As O, a former U.S. Air Force officer, says, “North Korea has faced chronic food shortages for decades, and it never addressed the root causes, which is its control system of central planning, skewed prioritization and isolation.” Food aid, she points out, “would be used to perpetuate the very system that brings about hunger.”

O is right. Donors unfortunately allow the regime to distribute their food, which leads to a multitude of ills, including the regime bragging that other nations are sending tribute to the Kim family. That’s why the regime continues to practice “mendicant diplomacy.”

Simply put, Gordon G. Chang, the author of The Coming Collapse of China and Losing South Korea, is telling anyone who will listen that it’s wiser, in the long run, not to send food to the starving people of the DPRK, to destroy the Kim dynasty, or at least radically change the system. The food will be provided mainly to Kim dynasty allies, and the common people won’t see much of it, so it’s wiser just to let them starve, to weaken the regime.

But, let’s be honest here: in World War II we were perfectly willing to kill civilians, through bullets and bombs, through firestorm attacks and, in the end, two atomic bombs. Starvation is slower, but again, honesty demands that we acknowledge that the destruction of Germany and Japan’s infrastructure and delivery systems did lead to some dying of hunger.

The Third Reich’s siege of Leningrad led to 1.1 million deaths, mostly of starvation, and if that was ‘just’ last century, much of Europe saw such tactics in medieval siege warfare. The starvation of the common people to force a military decision is not a new tactic.

But, are we really willing to do that to force regime change in North Korea? And if we were, how long would that take?

Is Our Bishop Catholic?

Whenever I read that His Excellency, The Most Reverend John Stowe, O.F.M. Conv., Bishop of Lexington, is in the news, I cringe, because I know it’s not for something good. From the Catholic News Agency:

Bishop Stowe ‘not in favor’ of Eucharistic document, but predicts it will pass

By Joe Bukuras | November 12, 2021 | 19:05 EST

Boston: An outspoken critic of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ draft document on the Eucharist predicts it will be adopted at their fall assembly next week, though he intends to vote against it.

“I’m afraid it is,” Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv., of Lexington, Ky., said during a media briefing Nov. 11 when asked if he thought the document, “The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church,” is going to be adopted.

“I think it will [pass] because it’s blander than what was proposed at first, and it’s got something that I think was trying to appease everybody,” Stowe predicted, “and I think a lot of bishops would have a hard time voting against it because there’s not something so objectionable contained in it.”

Stowe’s comments came Nov. 11 during a livestreamed forum about the fall assembly sponsored by Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture in partnership with the National Catholic Reporter. The assembly begins Monday with a closed-door meeting at which the bishops are expected to have a private preliminary discussion about the Eucharistic document, prior to discussing and voting on it in public later in the week.

There’s a lot more at the original, but it basically informs the reader that the document does not contain any explicit language which states that abortion supporting politicians like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi should be denied communion, but addresses worthily receiving the eucharist.

In response to Stowe’s comments, Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver told CNA that the document on the Eucharist is in accordance with Pope Francis’ teaching.

“Bishop Stowe presents the discussion surrounding Eucharistic coherence as being motivated by a desire to return to a pre-Vatican II Church and to ignore Pope Francis’ teachings,” Aquila said.

“On the contrary, I believe that directly addressing the issue of worthily receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is completely in line with what the Holy Father has called for and is directly linked with encouraging a deeper belief in and reverence for our Lord in the Eucharist,” he said.

“Some bishops seem insistent on portraying this effort to teach clearly on worthy reception of Jesus in the Eucharist as divisive. By framing the discussion this way, they are in fact increasing division by failing to address the scandal given to the faithful by those public figures who insist on saying they are devout Catholics in communion with the Body of Christ, when they are blatantly advancing laws that allow the taking of innocent life and the serious distortion of human sexuality,” Aquila said.

From St Paul’s website; note the ‘rainbow’ stole being worn by a clergyman. Bishop John Stowe is at the far right of the photo. Click to enlarge.

It’s that second part that bothers His Excellency the Bishop. The Diocese of Lexington does not have a lot of Catholic politicians advocating abortion, but it hosts, with the Bishop’s full support, a parish which openly supports homosexuality. He has openly supported homosexuality and transgenderism among parishioners, and if abortion is not a big topic in the Bluegrass State, a parish which welcomes open homosexuals in the same city as the Cathedral parish is pretty hard to ignore.

Photo from St Paul’s Catholic Church website. Click to enlarge.

Let’s be plain here: in stating that one should only attempt to receive the Host validly, all active and non-repentant homosexuals are necessarily excluded. Of course His Excellence the Bishop is going to be opposed to it!

Our Bishop just does not want to seem to be Catholic!

Then, on The Philadelphia Inquirer’s website main page on Wednesday, was this bit of joy:

Philly priest sexually abused a teen at Cardinal Dougherty High and on a Shore trip decades ago, lawsuit says

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has been sued by a man who claims he was sexually abused by a priest in 1981.

by Mensah H Dean | Wednesday, November 17, 2021

A Philadelphia priest who was on the faculty at Cardinal Dougherty High School in the 1980s sexually abused a teen there and also took the boy on a trip to Margate, where he served him alcohol and assaulted him, according to a lawsuit filed in Atlantic County Superior Court.

The Rev. Peter Foley sexually assaulted the boy, then 16, on a trip to the Shore in 1981 and also at the school, where they worked together on student council, the suit says.

Foley, 83, reached by phone Wednesday at the church-run retirement facility in Upper Darby where he lives, said he had never abused the teen — or anyone else — although he acknowledged he had given him alcohol.

“The allegations are false,” he said. “I did give the kid alcohol, but that’s as far as it went. He was 17 or 18.”

There’s more at the original.

I will admit to having a low tolerance for such stories, because a claim forty years old can hardly be defended against. Mt impression is that the petitioner is just seeking a f(ornicating) payday. But the story is at least credible, because, as always seems to be the case, the alleged victim is male. Three other related stories appeared:

And, what do you know, the only other story which specified an individual accuser also specified a male ‘victim.’

Bishop Stowe is going to bat to defend homosexuality, when homosexual activity is explicitly forbidden in the Bible he purports to believe. More, homosexuality has been a huge problem within the Catholic priesthood, and that problem has spilled out in the form of predator priests. while it is wholly politically incorrect to say, the sexual abuse of minors in the Church has been a problem of homosexuality: the vast majority of sexual abuse by Catholic priests has been against boys rather than girls. The John Jay Report noted that, of the abuse cases it studied, between 1950 and 2002, stated:

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

The biggest problem with the Catholic priesthood has been homosexuality, and the Bishop of Lexington, by opposing this move by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is supporting allowing that problem to continue.

A Republican Form of Government

In his New York Times biography, it states that “Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine.” Yup, you’re right: that’s pretty much the definition of an American political liberal. Mr Bouie on Friday set out to claim that the Guarantee Clause to the Constitution means that Democrats can fight gerrymandering by Republicans:

    Madison Saw Something in the Constitution We Should Open Our Eyes To

    by Jamelle Bouie | Friday, November 12, 2021

    Not content to simply count on the traditional midterm swing against the president’s party, Republicans are set to gerrymander their way to a House majority next year.

    Last week, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled statehouse passed a new map that would, in an evenly divided electorate, give it 10 of the state’s 14 congressional seats. To overcome the gerrymander and win a bare majority of seats, according to the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, Democrats would have to win an unattainably large supermajority of votes.

    A proposed Republican gerrymander in Ohio would leave Democrats with two seats out of 15 — or around 13 percent of the total — in a state that went 53-45 for Trump in 2020.

    It is true that Democrats have pursued their own aggressive gerrymanders in Maryland and Illinois, but it is also true that the Democratic Party is committed, through its voting rights bills, to ending partisan gerrymandering altogether.

Of course, Maryland, in which the Democrats hold veto-proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature, wants to gerrymander the state’s lone Republican congressman out of office.

The Democrats in Congress are concerned because there are simply more “red” states than blue ones; Joe Biden is President only because the blue states are mostly larger in population than the red ones. The Democrats were perfectly fine with gerrymandering decades ago, when the South was solidly Democratic, and most elections were determined not in November, but in the earlier Democratic primaries.

    The larger context of the Republican Party’s attempt to gerrymander itself into a House majority is its successful effort to gerrymander itself into long-term control of state legislatures across the country. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other states, Republicans have built legislative majorities sturdy enough to withstand all but the most crushing “blue wave.”

And in those states, Republicans seized control of state legislatures after Republican candidates won under district maps passed by Democrats. In Kentucky, the GOP finally won control of the state House of Representatives in the 2014 elections, in districts drawn by a previously Democrat-controlled state House, and signed into law by Governor Steve Beshear, a Democrat. In districts drawn by Democrats, Kentucky Republicans won 75 out of 100 state House districts in the 2020 elections.

In the 2004 elections, President George W Bush got zero votes in five Philadelphia precincts; John Kerry won twenty congressional districts by greater percentages than Mr Bush’s best district. In 2008, John McCain got zero votes in a whopping 57 city precincts, and four years later, Mitt Romney was blanked in 59 precincts. The Philadelphia Inquirer, of course, could find no evidence of fraud in any of this, but it points out a fact that everyone knows, but the Democrats just don’t want to talk about: Democrats, and Democrat votes, are very heavily concentrated in our major cities. How would you redistrict Philadelphia to not gerrymander the state of Pennsylvania? Remember: it’s the weight of Philadelphia that carries statewide elections for Democrats. President Trump would have easily carried the Keystone State in 2020, which he lost by 80,555 votes, were it not for Joe Biden’s 471,305 margin in Philly. Mr Trump just barely overcame Hillary Clinton’s 475,277 margin in the city to carry the state in 2016. Even President Obama’s 2012 309,840 vote margin in Pennsylvania would have been a loss without his 492,339 vote win in Philadelphia.

The problem for Democrats isn’t that Republican legislatures have gerrymandered the districts; the problem is that the people have gerrymandered themselves with their choices of where to live.

    In Article IV, Section 4, the Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Mr Bouie claims that the Guarantee Clause should mean something other than what it was understood to mean, a government not headed by a King or Prince. Rather, he wants it to mean, citing Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v Ferguson, that Congress should have the right of approval of each state government:

    Still, a broad understanding of the Guarantee Clause might be a potent weapon for Congress if a Democratic majority ever worked up the will to go on the offensive against state legislatures that violated basic principles of political equality.

That cuts two ways; Congress is sometimes controlled by Republicans!

But, it seems to me that the wisest way to read, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” given that “Republican” is capitalized in the original document, is that the United States should guarantee to every state that it will be governed by Republicans! 🙂

The Dems blew off the best they had!

One thing I’ve said all along: while Republicans wouldn’t have been happy that President Trump lost, if the Democrats had nominated then-Representative Tulsi Gabbard Williams (D-HI) in 2020, we’d have been a lot happier with the outcome than we are about Joe Biden being President.

Make no mistake about it: Mrs Williams is very much a liberal. But she’s a lieutenant colonel in the Hawai’i National Guard, and has served in Iraq and Kuwait. Most importantly, she understands and respects our individual liberties. Were she President today, she would be strongly encouraging vaccinations, but she’d never try to order them.

Happy Veterans’ Day!

Happy Veterans’ Day to my daughters. Our older daughter, a staff sergeant in the United States Army Reserve, will be headed for an overseas deployment in May, while our younger daughter has completed her eight years in the Army Reserve and is a civilian again.

And Happy Veterans’ Day to Hoagie, a Vietnam veteran!

Also having served: my mother and father, during the Korean war, and grandfather, during World War I.

I’m in Twitter jail!

From the New York Post:

    Activists swarm Joe Manchin’s Maserati as he tries to leave parking garage

    By Samuel Chamberlain | November 4, 2021 | 7:38pm Updated

    A gaggle of far-left environmental activists followed Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) from his DC houseboat to his car Thursday morning and attempted to prevent him from leaving a parking garage — the latest fit of progressive pique over Manchin’s current opposition to the multitrillion-dollar Democratic social spending bill.

    Video tweeted by John Paul Mejia, a spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, showed Manchin walking from his houseboat on the Potomac River — where the senator rests his head when not in his home state — to the garage.

    As he strolled, Manchin was serenaded by chants of “We want to live!” while individual activists yelled at him to “Fight for us!”

There’s more at the original, but the post then included this tweet:

That is an actual assault on a sitting United States Senator, but Twitter is just fine with that. But Twitter sure didn’t like my response:

So, it’s perfectly acceptable to publish a tweet showing an actual assault, but it’s not OK to say that, if the Senator had actually done what hey claimed he was trying to do, run them over — which he did not — they would have deserved it.

Of course I appealed, but I know that it will be rejected, and I’ll have to dump the tweet — which I most certainly meant! — or dump Twitter.

The 2021 elections: a victory for normal people!

Yascha Mounk, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the founder of Persuasion, clearly doesn’t like Donald Trump, clearly wants Democrats to win, but he is also clear headed about why Democrats lost so badly in Tuesday’s elections.

But the one option that is both intellectually dishonest and electorally disastrous is to insist on a verbal trick unworthy of a middle-school debate team: to keep claiming that widespread concern over these ideas is misguided because the term by which they have publicly come to be known technically applies to an academic research program rather than the lessons that real children are being taught in real schools. And yet, this is precisely what McAuliffe and so many others attempted to do—with disastrous results—over the closing months of his campaign.

For anybody who cares about making sure that Donald Trump does not become the 47th president of the United States, it is crucial that Democrats avoid repeating the mistakes that just put a Republican in Virginia’s governor’s mansion. It is impossible to win elections by telling voters that their concerns are imaginary. If Democrats keep doing so, they will keep losing.

Dr Mounk spent a fair amount of bandwidth telling us how ‘Critical Race Theory” is an academic concept taught only at the collegiate level, a defense made by many on the left, but he’s smart enough to note that some of its concepts and conclusions have filtered down to the teachers educated at those universities, and some of them have come up with lessons which stress some of CRT’s ideas.

(A)cross the nation, many teachers have, over the past years, begun to adopt a pedagogical program that owes its inspiration to ideas that are very fashionable on the academic left, and that go well beyond telling students about America’s copious historical sins.

In some elementary and middle schools, students are now being asked to place themselves on a scale of privilege based on such attributes as their skin color. History lessons in some high schools teach that racism is not just a persistent reality but the defining feature of America. And some school systems have even embraced ideas that spread pernicious prejudices about nonwhite people, as when a presentation to principals of New York City public schools denounced virtues such as “perfectionism” or the “worship of the written word” as elements of “white-supremacy culture.”.

There’s a lot at his original, which you can read for yourself by following the link.

As I write this, #whitewomen is trending on Twitter, and it’s filled with all sorts of leftist hate for the white women in Virginia. Those voters helped Joe Biden to carry the Old Dominion in 2020, but, just a year later, they broke heavily for Glenn Youngkin over Terry McAuliffe, 57% to 43%. Tweets like this, this, and this show the foaming at the mouth anger of the left, but it demonstrates the wholly limited political view of the left. In creating every sort of demographic as a special interest group, and then setting themselves up as arbiters of what beliefs are acceptable for those groups, the left can’t see much beyond their noses. White women are supposed to vote for Democrats to support abortion, don’t you know, but the left can’t quite seem to grasp that white women are very often white mothers, and mothers have different interests. If elements of CRT have trickled down into secondary and even primary education, white mothers of white children are going to be worried about whether the far-left positions on race are going to have negative effects on their own children.

Amanda Marcotte, who is childless by choice, and thus has no first-hand experience in worrying about what the future will hold for her children, wrote:

Republicans are reliably easy to rile up with two main weapons: bigotry and resentment of liberals. The performative freakout over trans rights and “critical race theory” in public schools was built on easily debunked lies, and will be dropped the second it’s no longer electorally useful. But none of that matters, because Republicans live in a cloistered media ecosystem where kids reading “Beloved” in high school and imaginary rapists-in-dresses jumping strangers in the bathroom are treated like far more pressing threats to society than climate change or wealth inequality.

Dr Mounk debunked, with examples, her claim that CRT has no influence in the public schools, and her first link, in “trans rights” leads to her own article in which she claimed that transgenderism had nothing to do with the bathroom rape stories out of Loudoun County, Virginia, a claim which has been debunked by the (alleged) assailant’s own mother. No matter how many times the left try to tell us that there are no heterosexual boys who will exploit ‘transgender’ policies to get into the girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, it doesn’t take many incidents like this to blow that argument out of the water. That it became public just a couple of weeks before the election surely didn’t help the Democrats.

Those white women in Virginia, the ones who gave a majority of their votes to Mr Biden? A lot of them might have a great deal of sympathy for the transgendered, in an abstract sense, but when their daughters are the ones put at risk by some of these policies, guess which side wins.

Mr McAuliffe made a huge gaffe in a debate, saying, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” Uhhh, that’s saying that the state, not parents, ought to guide children’s development, and perhaps, just perhaps, a lot of parents disagree.

Then, just two days before the election, he said:

I promise you we’ve gotta diversify our teacher base here in Virginia. Fifty percent of the students in Virginia schools K-12 — 50% are students of color and yet 80% of the teachers are white.

In saying that, Mr McAuliffe raised the obvious question: why, in a state in which 67.63% of the population are white, are only 50% of the public school students white? How bad must the Commonwealth’s public schools be if so many white parents choose to put their children in private or parochial schools? Just as an example, at St Mary Star of the Sea School in Hampton, Virginia, where my daughters went to elementary school, tuition for two children, of parishioners, is $10,450 for the ten-month academic year, or $1,045 every month. For non-parishioners, it’s $12,620. That’s not just chump change, but, for a private school, that’s actually kind of low.

In the aftermath of the death in custody of drug addled convicted felon George Floyd in Minneapolis, and the #BlackLivesMatter riots that lasted much of the summer of 2020, the hard left thought that they could dramatically reduce or even eliminate police departments across the country. In the city that started it all, the voters rejected, by a wide measure, a ballot measure to amend the city charter to replace the police with a department of public safety.

It was all too, too much. Voters in Minneapolis may have had some qualms about the actions and tactics of their police department, but they realized that one is needed. The fact that the city is on a near-record pace in murders might just have influenced them. [1]“This killing is the city’s 81st homicide so far this year, according to a Star Tribune database. The man’s identity has yet to be released. The highest one-year number of homicides … Continue reading

I actually supported the Minneapolis measure; I wanted the idiots there to serve as a test case.

The left, emboldened by victories in the 2018 and 2020 elections, thought that they had carte blanche to ruin impose their agenda on America, and, were it not for Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) doing something really radical like representing the people who elected him, rather than the ‘progressives’ of the districts of the Squadristi,[2]Six radical members of the House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14), Ilhan Omar Mynett (D-MN05), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA07), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI13), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16), and Cori … Continue reading they might have succeeded.

But the voters, most of whom are actually normal people, want a normal life. They may have some sympathetic support for those afflicted with gender dysphoria, but they don’t want their kids put in greater danger. They might accept that #BlackLivesMatter, on an abstract scale, but in seeing the greatly increased murder rates in our cities, both the large majority of victims and perpetrators of which are black, the idea of defunding or eliminating the police departments was something which would have exposed their children and themselves to greater danger. They might accept the idea that black Americans were still impacted by historical discrimination, but that didn’t mean they wanted a society in which being white, and their children being white, would be legally pushed into a discriminated against situation. They wanted a calmer, safer lifestyle, and that was exactly the opposite of the radical societal reforms that the left were promising. And that was how they voted!

References

References
1 “This killing is the city’s 81st homicide so far this year, according to a Star Tribune database. The man’s identity has yet to be released. The highest one-year number of homicides in Minneapolis was 97 in 1995. There were 85 last year and 83 in 1996. By comparison, before the pandemic and the killing of George Floyd in May 2020, there were 48 homicides in Minneapolis in 2019.” 81 murders in 304 days equals 0.2664 homicides per day, which works out to 97 for the entire year, which would tie 1995’s record.
2 Six radical members of the House of Representatives, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14), Ilhan Omar Mynett (D-MN05), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA07), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI13), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16), and Cori Bush (D-MO01) call themselves the “Squad.” Given their authoritarian bent, I find the term “Squadristi” far more accurate; the squadristi, singular squadrista, were how Benito Mussolini’s Blackshirts were referred to in Italian.