Nothing Trumps a Trumpublican’s Feelings

There is nothing more important than a Trumpublican’s feelings. For them, and for you too. Their feelings weigh exactly the same as your facts. Equally applicable and equally valid. Trumpublican’s feelings are facts because they give rise to firmly held beliefs. If enough people have the same persistent, strong feeling, that represents an indisputable fact backed by the empirical evidence of a shared belief.

That’s why the 2020 presidential election results should have been overturned by either Congressional action or insurrection, because Trumpublicans have the feeling the results weren’t correct. They can’t be correct. Trumpublicans, in their unshakeable support of every post election legal action, will bounce from one state to another, from one case to another, and from one affidavit to another, because individual instances of “proof” don’t matter. They’re all equally utilizable until they aren’t. They are all representative of the groundswell of shared belief rooted in their feelings of dissatisfaction, hurt, and anger.

Ted Cruz will tell you, 39% of Americans believe the result was rigged. If that belief isn’t respected, that would be a “profound threat to democracy.”

We see the Trumpublican assertion that their feelings are of pre-eminent import in legislation and legal action and realize these moves are an extension of their fear of losing the “culture wars”. A war they created and perpetually lose.

In many states that have already passed nebulous anti-CRT legislation, the predicate for action is, how someone feels.

Texas‘ anti-CRT legislation: …any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.

Tennessee’s anti-CRT legislation: An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual’s race or sex

Iowa’s anti-CRT legislation: That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of that individual’s race or sex.

Oklahoma’s anti-CRT legislation: any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.

How someone was made to feel.

Why is it presumed that children are incapable of feeling empathy? Why would one presume a child would identify with the oppressor and not the oppressed? Who is responsible for teaching a child the tools by which they construct their emotional being, a parent or a teacher? Who should be responsible for that?

Which parent is likely to use the predicate of their child’s feelings for action against a teacher and school district? Probably the parent that taught their children to feel hurtsies when oppression is discussed. Probably a parent that instructed their child against empathy and to be on guard for lessons in inclusion and justice. Probably a parent more than happy to punch themselves in the face in order to “own the libs”.

Almost every post-election court action taken by Trumpublicans are based on the fact-free legitimacy of their feelings. King v Whitmer, Case No. 20-cv-13134, has evolved into a sanction case against the cadre of Kraken Lawyers: Sidney Powell, the weeping boo-boo faced Julia Haller, Lin “I didn’t have anything to do with this” Wood, Et al. The judge (extremely, almost maddeningly, patient judge) picked apart the ridiculous affidavits upon which they based their case. The affidavits were speculative and fact free.

Read the whole court transcript. It’s funny and extremely irritating. You’ll have insight into the garbage the courts have been dealing with.

From King v Whitmer:

THE COURT: All right. I want to point everyone’s attention to the next affidavit, which is the Ciantar – certainly, I’m certain I botched this person’s name. I apologize. I will spell it. It is C-i-a-n-t-a-r, set forth at ECF Number 6-7 at Page ID 1312-14. There it is right there. And the amended complaint states that Mr. Ciantar, independent — “independently witnessed,” while walking his dog, a young couple deliver three to four large plastic clear bags that appeared to be, “express bags,” as reflected in photographs taken contemporaneously, to a U.S. postal vehicle waiting. The use of clear express bags is consistent with the — there’s a whistleblower complaint that’s been referenced in the context of this lawsuit. I have not ever seen any underlying documents, but it’s a whistleblower suit by a U.S. Postal Service worker, Jonathan Clark. Putting aside the fact that Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence, as I just stated, regarding the postal service whistleblower claim, here are a few excerpts from the Ciantar affidavit which are now on the screen.

“I witnessed a young couple pull into the parking lot
of post office and proceed to exit their van, had no markings,
and open up the back hatch and proceed to take three to four
very large clear plastic bags out and walk them over to a
running postal service vehicle that appeared as if it was
‘waiting’ for them.”

Let me go further. “There was no interaction between
the couple and any postal service employee, which I felt was
very odd. They did not walk inside the post office like a
normal customer to drop off mail. It was as if the postal
worker was told to meet and stand by until these large bags

“As you can see in the pictures,” the affidavit goes
on to say, “the bags were clear plastic with markings in black
on the bag, and on the inside of these clear bags was another
plastic bag that was not clear, could not see what was inside.
There were markings on the clear bag and what looked like a
black security zip tie on each bag, as if it were tamper
evident, as if it were a tamper type of device to secure the
bag. This looked odd. What I witnessed and considered that
what could be in those bags could be ballots
going to the TCF
Center or coming from the TCF Center.”

THE COURT: Now, this is quite a — I don’t — I don’t think I’ve really ever seen an affidavit that has made so many leaps. This is really fantastical. So my question to counsel here is: How can you, as officers of the Court, present this type of an affidavit? This is pure — is there anything in here that’s not speculative, other than the fact that the individual saw individuals with plastic bags? They don’t know what were in them, happened to be located at the post office, and then there’s a leap made there. Someone answer that question for the Court.

MS. HALLER: Yes, your Honor. The witness is stating or setting forth exactly what he observed and his information that he bases it on and he includes pictures.


MS. HALLER: He does not say more. He does not say less than what he knows to be true. It is a true affidavit. It is a person with some information, and he is setting forth that information. When we put the case together, we put forth a pattern of evidence that shows fraud. So it’s a pattern of evidence that comes together, and this is one piece of a pattern. He is testifying, in his sworn statement, as to what he knows to be true. He saw these plastic bags. He’s explaining what he saw, and he takes pictures of them.

THE COURT: Okay. (repeatedly judge ends discussion on individual affidavits with, “Okay, moving on…”)

MS. HALLER: I would submit, your Honor, that it’s not fantastical. It’s simply what he knew to be true.

This affidavit is the highest example of the Trumpublican thought process. It is the ultimate expression of feelings turned speculation. If something could be true— it must be, particularly (exclusively) if it aligns with a Trumpublican’s feelings.

The affidavit is a representation of what the observer felt to be true. He’s telling his truth. Surely this weighs something in a court of law. The judge repeatedly, over the course of hours, quizzed the Kraken lawyers, how does believing it, make it true or even reasonable? How is this representative of a theory to the case? Where is the due diligence?

Sidney Powell was probably the most intelligent Kraken lawyer in this case— because she said next to nothing the whole time, which was wise. But, she did defend the importance of the affidavits by stating:

The very fact that we attached 960 pages of affidavits reflect how seriously we took this matter, how concerned we were about the constitutional issues that we raised on behalf of electors, who are, themselves, mentioned in the Constitution.

In other words, it is the sheer, literal weight of the words that are self-validating. If enough people feel it, well…it only follows it is true. Judge answers this assertion:

THE COURT: All right. Well, let me say volume, certainly for this Court, doesn’t equate with legitimacy or veracity. So please understand that is certainly my position.


In the more recent, and equally insane election lawsuit in Colorado, brought against a massive, make-believe conspiracy of defendants on behalf of all American voters for $160 Billion in damages, the judge has dismissed the case for the same reasons as above case which resulted in seeking sanctions against the Plaintiff’s representation.

Judge Neureiter: This Court dismissed the entire case for lack of standing on April 28, 2021

Note to self: every time a Trumpublican says election lawsuits were dismissed merely for lack of standing as if that were an unjust technicality, that doesn’t reflect the nature of the dismissal. Courts are not obligated to hear what appears to be fact-free innuendo and speculation, even if they are predisposed to plaintiff’s bringing a case. And, when they did hear post election lawsuits, they often dismissed them on that very basis, as in this case and the one above. They did observe the affidavits. They were garbage. All of them. Every one.

I use the words “vast conspiracy” purposefully. The Complaint is one enormous conspiracy theory.

In short, this was no slip-and-fall at the local grocery store. Albeit disorganized and fantastical, the Complaint’s allegations are extraordinarily serious and, if accepted as true by large numbers of people, are the stuff of which violent insurrections are made.

But that’s the point. If enough people believe it, it must be true. If it’s true, than an insurrection is just. Obviously.

The personal affidavits Plaintiffs attached to the original Complaint recount the generalized fear and suspicion that the “system” is rigged, and a sense that American democracy no longer works. The affidavits are notable only in demonstrating no firsthand knowledge by any Plaintiff of any election fraud, misconduct, or malfeasance. Instead, Plaintiffs’ affidavits are replete with conclusory statements about what must have happened during the election and Plaintiffs’ “beliefs” that the election was corrupted, presumably based on rumors, innuendo, and unverified and questionable media reports.

This case too, shall find itself in sanctions against the plaintiff’s representation. This is a necessary action to teach Trumpublicans, your feelings are not facts. Hopefully this will dissuade future legal actions in 2022. We’ve arrived at our last lines of defense.

Understanding Texas’ Anti-CRT Legislation

There has been one bill passed in Texas which is considered their anti-CRT law, that would be HB3979 signed into law on June 16. The newer bill, SB3, seeks to amend HB3979 and has not been passed because their is no quorum in the House to pass it.

There has been a recent bit of noise in how SB3 would strike certain issues of racism, slavery, and inclusivity from being taught in Texas. Like this Huffpost piece and various other similar takes.

Texas Senate Bill Drops Teaching Requirement That Ku Klux Klan Is ‘Morally Wrong’

Eliminated requirements also include the writings of Martin Luther King Jr., United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez and suffragist Susan B. Anthony.

To understand how this story is not completely accurate, nor portraying the necessary facts, we have to go back and look at how HB3979 formed.

When it came to very specific topics that must be taught, according to this legislation, the statement in the original bill looked like this:

There wasn’t much in the way of specifics. By the time the bill was in its final form, it contained several dozen specifics. Almost all of which were blue lined out in SB3, to take HB3979 back to something more closely resembling its original form.

So, when these were struck down, the effect was not proclaiming that these things could no longer be taught, it was removing that language from legislation. The implication isn’t that all of these additions were already taught and are now being removed. Furthermore, some of these topics are in fact already taught and this legislation does not remove them from requirements.

Some already exist in Texas Administrative Code:

Keven Ellis, chair of the State Board of Education, told lawmakers that he did not believe the bill would ban anything in the curriculum standards adopted by the board, including for its courses on African American and Mexican American studies. But he suggested adding an amendment to clarify that.

It is important for people in Texas to understand this, because you go to the code to see what is being taught, not knee-jerk reactions in legislation.

Neither bill is anti-CRT legislation. They are touted as such, but neither mentions Critical Race Theory, CRT, or anything about limiting CRT. We could say these are anti-1619 project legislation. Both bills state 1619 may not be required, which is different from saying the 1619 project can’t be mentioned. The language is, “…may not…require an understanding of the 1619 project.”

That’s it. Regardless of the outcome, that’s the only language.

The concerning portions of these bills are language of how one is to approach teaching certain topics.

  1. (1)A teacher may not be compelled to discuss a
    particular current event or widely debated and currently
    controversial issue of public policy or social affairs;

(2)A teacher who chooses to discuss a topic described
by Subdivision (1) shall, to the best of the teacher ’s ability,
strive to explore that [the] topic from diverse and contending
perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective;

What is the result of this language? Teachers are to devise a “whataboutism” to counter a statement of fact? Without deference. The result is not critical thought, it’s Donny Trump style, “Nobody knows.” There are no sure things, it’s all a matter of mushy perspective. The “marketplace of ideas.” How does a teacher teach any current event without worrying about politics? What’s the countering narrative to BLM protests? Proudboy marches? Is that it?

Is the goal not to teach current events at all? When from the top of SB3 it is stated:

(A)A[(1)] the fundamental moral, political, and
intellectual foundations of the American experiment in

…as a theoretical? Is this dead language speaking to the dead? Do future adults have no place in that experiment, except as the morally vague and indifferent?

“How could a teacher possibly discuss slavery, the Holocaust or the mass shootings at the Walmart in El Paso or at the Sutherland Springs Church in my district without giving deference to any one perspective?” Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, asked.

2. School districts may not require, make part of a course, or reward credit for:

i)A lobbying for legislation at the
federal, state, or local level; or
(ii)A social policy advocacy or public
policy advocacy;
(B)A political activism, lobbying, or efforts to
persuade members of the legislative or executive branch at the
federal, state, or local level to take specific actions by direct
communication; or
(C)A[(B)]A participation in any internship,
practicum, or similar activity involving social policy advocacy or
public policy advocacy; and

This language doesn’t make clear that a teacher couldn’t encourage activity in social/justice reform, just that it may not be part of a curriculum or rewarded. However, coupled with the inability of a teacher to take a moral stance, I suspect the point is taken. No SJW’s allowed.

3. Now we get to the what I suppose is the concern about racism, slavery, or sexism being taught in school.

It’s impossible to teach about slavery or sexism without blaming someone! “The poor chillins will get their feelsies hurt!”

(ix)A[(x)] with respect to their
relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything
other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to,
the authentic founding principles of the United States, which
include liberty and equality; and

As in Desantis’ rule in Florida, the Declaration of Independence is the only true history of the US. Everything must be measured in that respect.

And how shall we judge a school district or teacher’s shortcomings in this regard?

vi)A[(vii)] an individual should feel
discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological
distress on account of the individual ’s race or sex;

By how someone feels. How they are made to feel.

Arguing Critical Race Theory

There are no educational systems in K12 that are teaching, or plan to teach, Critical Race Theory. None. Furthermore, CRT is not an umbrella term for all discussions in racism, ethnic studies, or unequal justice. CRT was developed as a tool to examine and explain how the legal system is affected by racism.

Ex.: Brown v Board of Education was decided in 1954, why do we have no explanation in the legal process as to how this took decades to enact?

How did Jim Crow laws come to be? How were they ever legal?

Is our judicial system color blind both in principal *and* application? What are the implications of the concept “color blind”?

Critical Race Theory is an academically dense theory wielded by select scholars. It’s a useful novelty to which few dedicate themselves. It simply is not possible to teach it in K12. It’s akin to saying, “We can’t have designed curriculum for String field theory in K12!”

There is an increased interest, nationwide, to educate students in matters of racism, culture, social structures, and ethnicities, but to suggest any state or school district has gone about this by encouraging CRT, is nonsensical. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the theory, but because it would be entirely the wrong tool for the job. CRT is the domain of academics for very particular situations.

Here is the difficulty. CRT can, and has also been applied, to social and cultural issues. To further complicate the discussion, the founders of the concept have beliefs not directly related to CRT, which they aren’t shy about, and which some will refer to as proof positive of the evils of CRT. As always, diffusion of the issue into a wide, incomprehensible field of “gotcha”s, makes discussion of the nonexistent implementation of CRT in k12 impossible to keep in focus.

It’s not being taught in K12 anywhere and won’t be.

Why is this nonexistent issue now an issue? Educational, legal, social, and workplace systems are scrambling to come to terms with the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd and all of the resulting movements. Conservatives are happy to concede a single legal decision, a decision that required undeniable proof and ridiculous scrutiny. Liberals want systemic change: “How often do we have to sacrifice lives?”

As often is the case, as a distraction and cult rage-inducer, Conservatives would like a solution to an issue that doesn’t exist and would like to codify into law the willful ignorance of actual issues.

Map: See which states have passed critical race theory bills (

These laws are couched in the misdirection precept: “Teaching children about racism, is to teach white children they are racist.” OMG, it’s all about the children. These laws are focused on the politics of learning and have nothing to do with learning. Aside from the fact there are no plans anywhere to teach CRT in K12, a pillar of CRT is that: Critical race theory sees racism as systemic and institutional, rather than just a collection of individual prejudices. It was never intended or used to criticize or blame individuals, or to force individuals to take responsibility for systemic flaws. It is a system by which to critically analyze flaws in systems, not to attribute personal blame.

This strawman argument is familiar to us. Is it not so that Muslim immigrants would bring Shariah law with them? Of course, it only follows. It is impossible for anyone to work within the US legal system if they are Muslim. A judge certainly can’t be both a Muslim and impartial practitioner of law in the US, right? The “Creeping Shariah” phenomena never quite creeped, did it. But that didn’t stop conservatives from making political hay with the insane proposition.

New election laws are also a righteous solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Could conservatives highlight any better the systemic failures of some US structures, than they have through their propaganda and legal actions? To them, a democracy not capable of supporting minority rule isn’t much of a democracy. That will need to change, even if it takes an autocracy to prove it.

As of 1969 there were no ethnic studies underway anywhere in the US in K12 or higher learning. When students organized and protested for more diverse programs in ’68 and ’69 in California, and particularly at UC Berkeley:

Governor Ronald Reagan declared “a state of extreme emergency” at Berkeley, with unprecedented constant sweeps and teargassing by combined forces of not only the campus police but six East Bay police forces, the Alameda County Sheriff’s deputies, the Highway Patrol, and even the National Guard. Despite being forbidden from having any sound system or holding mass rallies and the threat of “immediate suspension” for protesting, TWLF strikers showed up in force every day and organized growing multinational support both within the campus and around the country.

…Soon, college students across the nation began calling for the establishment of ethnic studies courses, departments, and degree programs. Over 50 years after the strikes at San Francisco State College and UC Berkeley, ethnic studies is now a vibrant discipline with multiple academic journals, associations, national and international conferences, undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and thousands of scholars and educators contributing to the field’s complexity and vitality.

That there exists any history, other than a Eurocentric one, is the issue here, then and now, isn’t it?

The current posterchild for the evils of CRT comes from…California, of course. Conservatives are up in arms because CA is forcing CRT on the children. It’s all about the children!

IT ISN’T CRITICAL RACE THEORY. It’s ethnic studies. It’s not mandated, it’s voluntary (however it is possible it will be mandated in CA).

Conservatives are worried about the trickle down effect of Ethnic studies. Just as in- Muslims can’t possibly exist in the framework of US jurisprudence, because they are a gateway drug to Shariah law; Ethnic studies in K12 are a gateway drug to self-hate, and actual racism in implying white oppression.

But critics have charged that the writers of the curriculum narrowly defined critical analysis through the prism of critical race theory. It is a specific legal theory that seeks to explain root causes of racist government policies, like exclusionary zoning and public school assignments. They complain that attributing all actions, implicit and explicit, to white oppression would pit students against one another, create tensions and undermine ethnic studies’ goal of empathy and racial progress.

Whether or not we’d like to argue if that concern is even a valid one, the actual construction of the curriculum of an ethnic study class would be fact-based, and follow already accepted educational standards. The class would also be tailored to the composition of the class. The argument itself, drawing a parallel between a trait of CRT and a perceived equivalence in ethnic studies, is like saying: The United States, on local, state and federal levels, has a multitude of socialist policies, therefore, the US is a socialist nation.

Arguing that the critical analysis of the curriculum looks dangerously like CRT, does not affect the curriculum’s shape. It would be constructive to argue what is actually in the thorough curriculum, and not what one’s conspiratorial feelsies informs them will be a result of the curriculum.

The National Educational Association (NEA):

An established body of research affirms what educators have long known intuitively: interdisciplinary ethnic studies, or the study of the social, political, economic and historical perspectives of our nation’s diverse racial and ethnic groups, help foster cross-cultural understanding among both students of color and white students and aids students in valuing their own cultural identity while appreciating the differences around them. These studies also confirm that students who participate in ethnic studies are more academically engaged, develop a stronger sense of self-efficacy and personal empowerment, perform better academically and graduate at higher rates.Research tells us that well-designed and well-taught ethnic studies curricula that teach directly about racism produce higher levels of critical thinking and have a positive impact on ‘democracy outcomes,’ particularly when they include cross-group interaction and especially on White students.

In other words, ethnic studies do achieve, that which those contrary to the idea, pretend to hope to achieve through magic ignorance. Color blindness can afford the same satisfaction, at least if you are white. Why rock the status quo. Most importantly, employment of critical thinking is anathema to Trumpian ideologues and those which have been successfully indoctrinated.

Read- I don’t want to learn about the history and experiences of our diverse people, if it is contrary to my beliefs, and I don’t want you to learn either. I won’t contemplate the nature of our society, and neither do I want you to possess the tools to examine diversity and vocalize the fruits of your curiosity.

“CRT is a backdoor to Marxism!” Yeah, I know. Once upon a time, BLM was too, right? You know, Colin Kaepernick wasn’t highlighting the inequities in US systems, he was disrespecting police and the military. There’s always a boogieman under the bed. Mexicans are drug-dealing rapists. Everywhere we look, there’s an underlying conspiracy. What’s *actually* happening until…until that narrative is no longer useful.

If you listen to any debate surrounding the concept of teaching Critical Race Theory in K12, they all bog down in the same stumbling blocks, not only because it’s a theoretical issue that doesn’t exist, but because in the structure of the debating, opposing sides can’t even agree what CRT is because they seek to extend it’s principles beyond where it was intended to be utilized. So they have no meeting-of-the-minds from which to argue. They cannot agree if any application of it’s principles actually exist anywhere in K12, because they hem and haw in etymology and ascribing statements, and intentions of those statements, to the builders of CRT, which may or may not have any impact on CRT at all. They squabble like religious scholars keen on proving or disproving the legitimacy of a particular Hadith without even agreeing that religion is an actual thing worth discussing. Liberals are keen to point out from the beginning, “This is not and should not be implemented in K12.” Conservatives reply with, “Well, there was this one teacher in Oregon that said…” The debate devolves into Conservatives opening a wide field of talking points and Liberals having to pull up artillery all over the damn place.

How do we know the entire exercise is utter bullshit? Because just like every other manufactured, rage-inducing, OMG THE CHILDREN, Conservative warzone, it will disappear when a different narrative is required. What will not disappear is their clutching dearly to white culture, the culture we’re surely trying to erase. Identity politics will always be used to protect the sacred. Because, to recognize the existence of any other culture must mean the white, Eurocentric culture is diminished. Isn’t that how cultural arithmetic works?

This is not to say that Liberals don’t overly thought-police too. They do. We should reject the extremes in all cases.

Trump Wins in Portland

What happened was, the federal forces stopped interacting with protestors. That’s what happened at the Federal Courthouse. Whatever stormtroopers still remain, are the FPS employees that already had jobs at the courthouse before the rollout, and the unknown, unseen amount of PACT forces that stay holed-up at the Edith Green – Wendell Wyatt Federal Building the next block up.

What happened was, the State troopers, whom were supposed to take-up the arduous task of battling with the violent anarchists, haven’t been spotted in front of the courthouse in the 5 days since the Feds left…because there is nothing for them to police. Unless, you count the badass game of pickup basketball in front of the Courthouse last night.

The protests have reverted to what they were, which was small peaceful protest. Most of the action now, is with the local police over at the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, the original organization that was the focus of the Portland protest’s ire.

As a refresher, the protests in front of the Justice Center, which is next to the Federal Courthouse, were practically nonexistent when the stormtroopers rolled in. The actions of those federal forces is what drew attention to the Federal Courthouse. No one cared about the Federal Courthouse prior to their arrival, as detailed in this post.

What “Trump won” wasn’t in Portland. It was a small piece of a national narrative he created along with his DHS political operative and campaign employees, Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli. That is, the nonsensical belief that the the BLM movement is synonymous with the shadowy organization Antifa, as outlined in this post.

Similarly, what has also been semi-successful as a narrative, is that BLM is a large, national, Marxist organization, with the stated beliefs in violent confrontation, removing all symbols of national “heritage”, and disintegration of all police forces. Which will of course lead to loss of “our” identity, and total anarchy.

Whereas the founders of the BlackLivesMatter hashtag, may in fact have had some Marxist beliefs, they don’t run a national organization. They created a loose network with some chapters, which are run entirely independent with basic, similar ideologies, but no comparable statements or tenants. Of the 13 listed US chapters:

1. 2+the founders organization, list defund the police (which is not abolish police).

2. 5 chapters haven’t update their sites in forever: DC-2018, Denver-2015, Nashville-2016, Philly-2018. Southbend-2019. I’m going to guess they aren’t particularly active.

3. Only 2 list a series of specific goals/demands: Chicago’s are all exclusively about local Chicago issues (housing, funding, policing, etc), and LA’s list is exclusively in response to local Covid-19 issues.

4. Memphis, State of Michigan, and NYC are just Facebook pages.

Somewhere between 15 million and 26 million people took part in Black Lives Matter movement protests since the death of George Floyd. These would be the largest protests in the history of the United States. How many of those people could guess at the existence of an actual, legal, entity called Black Lives Matter Global Foundation, Inc., would probably be an incredibly small fraction. How many of those have any affiliation with any of its chapters would also be incredibly small and few could even guess chapters exist.

The closest the vast majority of people come to an organization, is a generalized understanding of the hashtag and the “movement”. They know literally nothing about any organization. Only a few could profess to champion whatever beliefs, code, or list of demands a chapter might have, if any. The protestors no more represent a national organization than the creators of the hashtag are familiar with any random person who is protesting.

To ascribe whatever actions a protestor or group of protestors might take “in the name of a BLM movement’s march”, to a national organization (that doesn’t exist), is as ridiculous and logic-defying as scolding an anti-abortionist with, “I can’t believe the Roman Catholic Church, via the Illuminati, stands behind firebombing abortion clinics. The shame! I HATE THE POPE!”

It makes no sense.

Hopefully, the current marches result in some police reform at the local level, if nothing else. This may prove to be fruitful. It would be sad if the majority of the impact is merely removal of statues, which although important, is not the overarching goal of the BLM movement as we understand it, or as outlined by any chapter of the loose coalition, or original entity BLM.

The BLM movement, in the form of recent protests, wanted important local and serious national reform. Reform that seemed, for a moment, obtainable in the House passed HR7120. A bill which Debbie Lesko (R. Arizona), the Roseanne Barr of the House, could only respond to with “All lives matter,” and a bill which the Senate promises to never pick up. Even the Senate’s watered-down bill appears to be DOA.

So you see, what Trump did win, was the GOP goal the whole time. The death of any progressive advancement in the issue, similar to every single progressive bill that dies to Senate indifference, competing narratives, confusion, and decay caused by the passing of time.

Donald Trump said: “If nothing happens with it, it’s one of those things. We have different philosophies.”

AIPAC- the Poster Child for What’s Wrong in Washington

AIPAC’s annual policy conference is a confluence of special interest, money, and lawmakers. If there is any doubt of that, look at its lengthy list of speakers. If there is any doubt as to the intentions of AIPAC, read their mission statement for the policy conference: The conference is a celebration of the U.S.-Israel partnership and the premier opportunity for every attendee to lobby their Congressional office to advance the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Whereas last year’s speech by AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr was primarily about the existential threat of Iran, this year’s speech was about the existential threat of those that would question the intent of U.S. pro-Israel legislation. Without naming any names, mind you. Of course this is once again improperly framed as an attack on Jewish “dual loyalties.”

“The scurrilous charge of dual loyalty is a signal, and that signal, amplified by today’s social media, is now empowering people who have long-opposed our cause, our movement, and frankly, everything we have built. Now we see the intense hatred of the Jewish state is creeping from the margins towards the center of our politics — places where political coalitions are built, places where this nation’s leaders gather to debate and make decisions.”

Howard, why don’t you just say Ilhan Omar?

How about if I make some inferences now, but mine will not be incorrect, as was the framing of Ilhan Omar’s statements about the questionable legislation the US is creating on behalf of Israel and the questionable impact of money on the process of legislation as somehow being anti-Semitic, how about if I do that?

Is the “scurrilous” charge that is a “signal,” is that a dog-whistle call from a “people who have long opposed our cause” such as a Muslim or figurative representative of Palestine “where the nation’s leaders gather” to take up anti-Semitism? Is that what you are saying Howard? Am I misreading your statement? Improperly characterizing it? Perhaps I am quite a bit closer to the mark than any mislabeling of what Ilhan Omar has said.

“If you’ve never donated to a federal campaign this is the year to start. Do all you can and even a little bit more. And don’t wait for others to step up. We are a movement of leaders.

Through the years there have been others who have attacked us, who have attacked our right to make ourselves heard. Each time we have responded as citizens should. We mobilized; we made our case; we made our movement even stronger. That’s what must happen now.

Israel’s antagonists have decided to mount a political assault on us. In return, they must get a political response. That response must be large; it must be sweeping; and it must define our movement for years to come. “

Here are some appropriate and truthful statements from Howard. They need more money donated to the cause to fight for what AIPAC believes in on behalf of Israel and to counter-attack the “antagonists”. Fine, have this debate in the realm of politics and not false narratives. The truth is, Israel is not above reproach as Howard would have it. Israel’s motives are not unblemished; it’s history not pure or divine. Israel should be questioned and the motivation of US politics should be questioned and any false narratives met with the truth of the ugliness of the narrative itself as witnessed in this speech by AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr.

We should question how it is that pushing confrontation between Israel and Iran and Palestinians through the administration’s policies is beneficial to any party. We should not only question this legislation- Israel Anti-Boycott Act , we should denounce it as unconstitutional. We should also have a larger debate about the influence of money on US policy and realize that nothing shall ever be as the framers intended until we remove it’s influence altogether. All of this without the demonization of reasonable dissent of the status quo or the mislabeling, misdirection, and pure, talking-head mumbo jumbo of which our current politics and pundits are so fond.