So...Brian Williams gets caught in a blatant lie regarding his reporting of combat operations in Iraq and there's handwringing and gnashing of teeth going on in the media. OMG!... NBC's credibility is even being called into question. Eric Wemple of the Washington Post asks some reasonable questions here, specifically:

"Why did it take pushback from “some brave men and women in the air crews,” however? Do these folks have to fight our wars and fact-check NBC News?

A production crew accompanied Williams on the helicopter outing. The Erik Wemple Blog has asked NBC News who and how many people were on that crew. But where have they been as Williams has gone about misremembering the episode in media appearances in recent years? Upon the 10th anniversary of the incident, the anchor visited David Letterman and couldn’t have been more unequivocal about having ridden in the ‘copter under attack: “Two of the four helicopters were hit, by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47,” Williams told the “Late Show” host.

Also in March 2013, Williams told Alec Baldwin in an interview on WNYC’s “Here’s The Thing.” Speaking of his tendency to say “I’ve got this” in sticky situations, he said, “And I’ve done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter I had no business being in in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe,” Williams said.

Again: Where were Williams’s crew members, who surely knew that Williams had either “conflated” his Chinook with another Chinook — his explanation — or was using the passage of time to embellish his own exploits — another explanation. And what of other NBC News employees who worked on the story? Why did they remain silent on these matters? Are they still with NBC News?

We put these questions to NBC News and haven’t heard back."

Of course, Brian Williams reporting on the whopper Hillary Clinton told about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia didn't seem to take into account that she may have "misremembered" or "conflated" which aircraft she happened to be on. But...politicians lips move; they lie. This is taken for granted. Then, here I am watching the former Propagandist-in-Chief for Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, reporting on the story, apparently oblivious to the irony of questioning Williams' credibility as the self admitted "true believer" attempts to play the part of a credible news anchor.

As for Stephanopoulos' relationship with Clinton, he writes that he had become a "true believer" during the 1992 campaign and, in retrospect, "an enabler" who wanted Clinton to see him "as his defender, not his interrogator."

"A dynamic had already started," he writes of the fallout from the Gennifer Flowers episode, "that would repeat itself many times in the years ahead -- one explained well by Reinhold Niebuhr. 'Frantic orthodoxy,' he wrote, 'is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure.' I now had doubts about Clinton, had seen his flaws up close, which caused me to focus even more intently on his strengths and believe even more fervently in his ideas."

How can Stephanopoulos reconcile his willingness at the time to spin the Gennifer Flowers story with his current anger over the Monica Lewinsky affair? "I didn't think I was a hypocrite," he writes, "because my defense of Clinton against past bimbo eruptions had been predicated on my belief that he wouldn't create new ones, but maybe I was complicit because when I worked for Clinton I had been willing to suspend my disbelief about some of his more suspect denials."

Such tortured explanations -- part rationalization, part mea culpa, part masterful spin, part earnest self-doubt -- are in many ways characteristic of this book, which one minute has Stephanopoulos reveling in tactical stratagems and the next moment worrying that he has become as shameless as his nemesis Dick Morris; one minute trying to convince himself that his boss' policies matter more than anything else and the next minute fuming at Clinton's recklessness and talent for evasion.

Well, here's the thing. We could just shake our heads and dismiss Williams and Stephanopoulos as craven careerists (which they undoubtedly are), but here in America we rely on a free press to report to us the shenanigans which our government is involving us in, as well as uncovering simple corruption of government officials so that I can have the unmitigated joy of watching the spectacle of criminals doing the "perp walk" (some of the truly happy moments in my life are when I consider "public servants" behind bars). But who can forget Dan Rather blatantly producing a forgery in an attempt to influence the 2004 election?

The morning before the broadcast was scheduled to air, CBS showed the memos to the White House for a response. Dan Bartlett was the network’s contact. Before Bartlett was interviewed, he emailed copies of the memos to Albert Lloyd, Bush’s longtime National Guard expert. In an interview in 2008, Lloyd told me he immediately recognized them as forgeries: “I looked at them and I said, ‘Don’t do a damned thing with these, because these are fake.’ ”

So here is the answer to Mr. Wemple of the Washington Post: The crew didn't think to correct Williams' lie because that is what the media does; it lies. The media is guilty of dereliction of duty when it comes to providing us with the information we need to be informed and active citizens. When the president tells us he is going to war against the Islamic State, the media does not inform us that is was our own government and our so-called Middle Eastern allies who armed the Islamic State. When the nominee for Secretary of Defense tells us he is in favor of arming the illegitimate government of Ukraine in their fight against the "rebels" in the breakaway eastern provinces, our media fails to inform us that it was our own State Department that sponsored the coup and installed who we now recognize as the President of Ukraine. The media is simply the propaganda arm of the oligarchy which selects "our" candidates, making our elections as fake as our "news". It takes tremendous effort to dig out what might be the truth about what is going on in the world, and doing so will get one labeled a conspiracy theorist, another favorite tactic of "our" government to discredit those they wish to silence. Any journalist daring to oppose the occupiers of our seats of power or shine the light of truth on their workings do so at their own risk. Consider the recent PEW poll of investigative journalists as reported in The Hill:

Fears of government spying are higher among those who report on the federal government or national security and foreign affairs, with 71 percent of those journalists saying the government has collected their data. Sixty-two percent of other investigative journalists agreed.

About half of the investigative reporters surveyed said they've changed how they store their documents due to such concerns.

Fears that the U.S. government has spied on journalists have been highlighted in recent years, as the Obama administration has moved to stop leaks of national security information.

Last week, former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson testified before a Senate panel that she believed Obama officials treat investigative journalists and their sources like "enemies of the state."

"The job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult," she said during the confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch.

Or, the fact that political minders restrict access to government officials, going so far as requiring escorts to go to the bathroom:

“It was a police state. It was absurd how heavy handed the capitol police and Democratic staff were in trying to control everywhere the press went,” New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said in an interview.

or locking them in a closet:

Powers was the designated pool reporter, there to record the proceedings for the press corps in general. He told ABC News that he showed up at 11:15 a.m. Wednesday to cover Vice President Biden and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., attending a $500-a-head fundraiser at the Winter Park manse of developer Alan Ginsburg. A young female staffer met him at the door and brought him to the storage closet. "You're going to have to wait in here until the VP gets here," he says she told him. "You're kidding me," he recalls responding.

I swore an oath long ago to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have no freedom when we are propagandized by the media and the criminals occupying Washington D.C. purporting to be a legitimate government. We have a duty to our fellow Americans and to posterity to return to the principles which once made us "exceptional". Now we are well down the road to being just another dictatorship in the annals of history. If we don't perform our duty, our grandchildren will be right in cursing us for allowing freedom to slip from our grasp.

Who Will Face the Balrog?

If you have not read the Lord of the Rings trilogy - not just watched the movie (though excellent), but read the books, I encourage you to do so. I'm in no position to assign homework, but if I were, I believe this is a must read for the character development of every youth at an age-appropriate time in his/her development. If you were NOT given this assignment, or were not so much of a reader in your youth, please go back and enjoy a damn good story which is much more than just a story. Tolkien wrote this book over an extended period, much of which was in the prelude to; and the execution of, the Second World War. Those were dark times - as are these. The Ring of Power, the Dark Lord - the struggle of the simple hobbit whose only wish was to return to his beloved Shire and his garden - these are all obvious metaphors for the greater struggle of good and evil, of power over individual rights and liberties that the world faced in the middle of the past century, and which we face today.

So my question for this blogpost is "who will face the Balrog"? In the famous scene ending the first book of the trilogy, Gandalf the wizard. faces a Balrog who is attempting to prevent the "Fellowship of the Ring" from continuing on their quest to destroy the 'Ring of Power' in the fires of Mordor where it was forged - the only heatsource strong enough to destroy it. The danger of the ring - a metaphor for the 'absolute power which corrupts absolutely' is that it cannot be wielded without corrupting the wearer, a constant theme throughout the novel. Being blocked from the mountain paths, the fellowship is forced to go through the mines of Moria, which they find has been destroyed, the dwarves killed by armies of Orcs and finally a Balrog. Gandalf has explained to Frodo, the simple Hobbit from the Shire, that the dwarves who established their kingdom in Moria had "delved too deeply in their greed" for gold, and particularly mithril - a lightweight silver. Escaping from the army of orcs, the group must pass over a final bridge and the Balrog makes his appearance. Gandalf uses all his powers, telling the Balrog famously, "You Shall Not Pass", ultimately destroying the Balrog but sacrificing himself in the process.

We, in the "Shire" that was the American ideal of individual liberty - which never was and may never be, but is certainly an ideal worth striving for - are again (and possibly always have been) facing the Balrog which attempts to prevent us from continuing on our journey. I will not say the Balrog is liberalism (in the modern sense of the term, which is truth upside down - our founders established the principles of Liberalism, the idea that the individual has rights which supersede the power of the state), nor Democrats, nor even Progressivism. Most liberals/democrats/progressives simply want a more fair and just state - ideals we should all embrace. The danger - the Balrog, if you will - is totalitarian statism - ultimately, this is the absolute power which the Ring is a metaphor of, and which both parties of Mordor (Washington, D.C.) seek. Standing in the way of the Balrog is the Constitution which limits the power of the state. It does not grant or create rights in any way - it limits power. So, the Constitution itself is Gandalf, telling those who seek the absolute power of totalitarianism "You Shall Not Pass!".

But Gandalf is faltering. The Constitution gets its power from "We, the People" who ordained it. In our greed, we have delved too deeply and we face the Balrog. Our greed stems from the envy, the covetousness of wanting what others have. The greed of "the others" is also to blame, as they have used their wealth to buy representation from those who take an oath to defend the Constitution which they usurp and now represent "the others" and not their own constituents. WE must support Gandalf - the Constitution - as it faces the Balrog. The Balrog of the federal government has grown too strong and too corrupt to expect that any hobbits we send to Mordor can have much effect, though we must continue to seek to send them, in the hope that there will be some who will not succumb to the power of the Ring. But it is here - in our respective humble Shires - that the battle must be fought. We must elect and support state legislators and governors with the courage to face the Balrog; to stand up to the power of Mordor and reverse the tide. And we must support them with our 'lives, our property and our sacred honor'. The time is long past to meekly accept the unacceptable. The Shire is in danger. WE must stand in the breach and tell the Balrog, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

Eric

While I Was Sleeping...

Good Lord! I logged into blogger today, as I do from time to time and saw that my pageviews had gone from sub-100 to nearly 1000...err...wth??? I suppose I should keep up with my blog more and I offer apologies to anyone expecting greater frequency of posts. I will try to rectify the situation although I can make no promises. I am not a "full time blogger", I am a full time homesteader, quite busy with cutting wood, raising organic meat and eggs and keeping up with all the other chores of the homestead.

So, welcome...err...whoever you are...and I will try to do better than my monthly or so musings.

Eric

The Next American Revolution

The first American Revolution may have been an occurrence of history impossible to replicate. The history I was taught did a poor job describing the constant turmoil and revolutionary behavior of the colonists toward the European powers which attempted to keep them under control. We were essentially given the Readers Digest Condensed version – people were being persecuted for religious reasons, they came across on the Mayflower and nearly starved to death until the Indians fed them and taught them to grow maize. A bunch of other folk came looking for gold, mapping out in a haphazard way a new found continent and then they got sick of being overtaxed and had a revolution, which they won. Then it was time for Christmas break, you came back and found that a second revolution was happening, with the revolutionaries losing (the American Civil War). Then we fought the war to end all wars, had a depression and battled Hitler and Hirohito until it was time to go home for summer. In the fall you went back to school and repeated the cycle.

What I failed to fully comprehend was that the time between the formation of the first colonies and the revolution beginning in 1775 was roughly equivalent to the time between that revolution and the present and the friction between the colonists and parliament was ongoing the entire time. To be a British politician tasked with governing the Massachusetts colony was the kiss of death for one’s career as they were fiercely independent and essentially ungovernable. So long as Britain maintained a policy of benign neglect, all went fairly well – a condition that Washington DC would do well to emulate today vis-à-vis Flyover Country. But this independent streak spawned a generation of men and women who were well educated in the classics, moral and religious, and who truly cared about freedom. As in every revolution, it was initiated and led by the elites, but the elites did not seek to rule over their fellow revolutionaries – or, in the case of the ones who did, they were overruled by their more democratically minded brethren. Those salivating over the possibility of revolution today would do well to consider the uniqueness of this in light of subsequent revolutions; most, if not all of which, have ended with fratricide among the leaders of the revolution and simply replacing one despotic form of rule for another.

There is our conundrum. The elites are already firmly entrenched in power. Who will lead the revolution to remove them from power without seeking to replace them? Who will take the risks inherent in the endeavor to return the sovereignty of America to ‘the people’ and not seek to keep it for him/herself? This is assuming the American people will accept the responsibility that comes with sovereignty, which is a mighty large assumption when one considers the results of the 2012 elections. I know of no group seeking to return us to sovereignty that seems to be presenting a viable plan for doing so, possibly for the reasons outlined above. There is certainly no political party which would have my support. The RepubliCrats are securely controlled by the oligarchy and offer no hope at all. The Libertarians position on the issue of abortion disqualifies them for most who seek smaller government and a return to federalism as it is historically known. How can one claim the RIGHT to kill another – how can that possibly be a classical Liberal position? On the other hand, the Constitution party seems to be seeking a theocracy or something close. Most who call themselves conservatives seek to use government to force others to live by the moral standards they themselves hold. I may agree with their moral standards, but the purpose of government is not to legislate them. It is to protect the natural rights of individuals that they may live by the moral standards they choose, among other liberties. The Greens, the Progressives…well, they are not Liberal by any historical definition of the term. They seek (and have achieved) a Leviathan state with totalitarian powers controlling nearly every aspect of our lives. So I don’t know if there are enough Americans left who will actually consent to a Constitutional Republic which seeks an America as the founders envisioned. Identity politics has succeeded in producing a populace that seeks a government which uses its force to bend others to their will, whether through redistributionist policies, through legislating morality or for some other end.

What I am certain of is that, in the end, Americans will revolt against the police state in which we are either already living or which will be necessary to maintain the totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism emanating from our rulers in “that far-off country” of Washington DC. The spark may come from economic circumstances, such as the collapse of the counterfeit currency they force us to use with a gun to our heads. It may come from a political decision to disarm the populace – this I consider to be the Rubicon for too many Americans. Where it will come from, I don’t know, but I am sure it will come. The only means of preventing violent revolution (with the carnage and uncertain outcome that entails) is to have one which is non-violent - a political revolution vice an armed one. I don’t know if it is possible to wake Americans from their lethargic and apathetic slumber in time, but without offering them their ‘morning coffee’ in the form of a viable plan, they will continue to hit the snooze button. This was the outcome of both the Tea Party and Occupy movements. America said, “well, yeah – you’ve got a point – what’s the plan?” When each offered up the same-ol, same-ol of the RepubliCrats, America hit the snooze button.

So we’d better start brewing some coffee…and soon.

The Things We Dare Not Say

I have been frequently approached, especially in recent weeks since the Sandy Hook shooting, by folk talking about the relationship of the electorate to the government. One person has been considering the formation of a local militia for the purpose of having a ready force available to support the sheriff in the eventuality that it may be necessary - essentially a trained 'posse'. Of concern to him - and a legitimate concern which I share - is that this militia not morph into what he considers an 'anti-government' outfit. He referred to Constitutionalist militias as such. My question to him was if a militia (or person) is standing ready to fulfill the oath we have shared to protect and defend the Constitution, then how can it be anti-government? I would consider that a pro-government individual or outfit and any opposition to it would come from an entity that was not a legitimate government, but an illigitimate regime, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the defense of the republic and the freedom to exercise the natural rights of the citizenry the republic was formed to protect.

Last night a network ran a report on the Danish individual who was instrumental in the assasination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, one of several American citizens (including his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was specifically targeted and assasinated two weeks after his father) who have been assasinated by the Obama regime. This story prompted a 'spirited' discussion between K and I concerning the rights of the people to replace a "government" which is not performing its duty to protect the natural rights of the citizens, but rather is engaging in a state of war against its citizens.

These principles are detailed in our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*" These principles are based on the natural rights argument, primarily from John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, in which he discusses the circumstance in which a "government" embarks upon a 'state of war', with the people: "... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.**"

I will elaborate on these thoughts in subsequent blog posts - my question for today is multi-fold: 1)What is the legitimate response to government to "speech" which advocates putting into practice the right of defense which the citizenry inherently possesses, being a natural right from our Creator? Is the proper response to assasinate that citizen with a predator drone or a CIA kill team as was done to Imam Al-Awlaki (assuming the hypothetical that the extent of Al-Awlaki's offense was running a website in which he advocated for violent Jihad against the "Great Satan")?

2)Does the right of free speech and a free press extend to this discussion and is this blog post itself an "alternative press" (alternative to the main-stream media which is admittedly being used as a propaganda tool of the regime)?

3)By initiating this discussion should I expect to have my door kicked in some dark night by a CIA/DHS kill team or might a predator drone vaporize me as I am innocently brushhogging the north 40 some fine spring morning?

Please join me in considering these important issues as the regime is assasinating American citizens at will and discussing how best to limit our ability to exercise the "common refuge against force and violence" Locke describes as the appropriate response to the slavery inherent under a regime exercising arbitrary power...if you dare to do so...and if you don't dare to discuss this - is this an acknowledgement of fear of government to exercise the very natural rights I discuss here?

The Terrible Two's and Mass Murder

I spent the weekend with two-year-olds - my grandchildren, Emma and Ian. Wonderful children, mostly a joy to be around - until a 'terrible two' tantrum arrives. It's that age when they must deal with the fact that the world does not revolve around them. I remember when my oldest was that age - I had just returned from a tour in Okinawa and while I was gone she had transformed from a little baby who kept you up at night to a beautiful little girl intent on tyranny and still keeping me up all night. She and her mother had been living with grandparents while I was overseas and when I returned we got a little apartment, I got a job and started college. But she didn't have a whole lot of sympathy for my sleep schedule and would stay up till all hours, creating chaos about the house when I needed to sleep. So, after observing all this for a few nights, I told her mother I thought she needed to have a bedtime, possibly an hour or so before mine. Her mother laughed and said, "oh, she wont go to bed". I was in a state of disbelief - the child couldnt weigh 20 pounds and I topped 180 or so - I felt pretty sure I could keep her in bed until she went to sleep and I went to slay the 'terrible two dragon'. After a few hours of screaming, with me laying in bed with her, physically preventing her from getting up, she eventually wore down and went to sleep. Maybe that's not the way the child psychologists recommend, but it didnt take more than a few nights of this and she figured out that when Dad said it was bedtime, there was no negotiating the matter and she enjoyed getting a story read to her and going to bed more than screaming herself to sleep.

This is not an easy thing to do and I observed with the more "energetic" of my grandkids that this had not been established in their house. The one whose nickname is Adderall Annie obviously had Daddy's number. "Dammit, you're writing all over me with that marker!" (Daddy takes marker) Adderall Annie, "(insert deafening screams)"...Daddy, (gives back the marker). Hmm...not to compare children to dogs, but the training is not too much different, except that dogs actually want to please, while children wish to tyrannize. If that were my dog, I would be going through life barefoot, I think.

I think this is the primary issue with these mass shootings. While I hate to jump into the pop-psycho-babble fray, it just seems impossible not to consider these things a disease whose symptoms are brought on by a society in which the terrible two's are just never dealt with. Setting aside for the moment the plausible conspiracy theories that these shootings are not what they seem to be and taking what we have been told at face value (self imposed naivete, I know), we have in most cases with these shooters all-too-common profiles: white youths, teens or young adults, raised by single mothers, "addicted" to video games, etc., etc. At the risk of outing myself as a "kids these days" old codger, I see the same "terrible two's" behavior in the Occupy protests. "The system is screwing us" - check..."the oligarchs own the politicians who run the system which is screwing us" - check..."we have no voice in this system which is run by the oligarchs who own the politicians who design and implement a system which is screwing us"...check again (tell me something I don't know - welcome to life, I am thinking at this point)...then..."so we need government to have more power over society so we can stop getting screwed over"...wha-a-a-t??? Your solution to a problem caused by politicians screwing you over for the benefit of their true clients (the oligarchs who fund their campaigns and control the media brainwashing the people into thinking their "solutions" will solve their problems) is to give EVEN MORE power to the system??? What's THAT all about???

It seems to me this is the convoluted thinking of people who have never been cured of the terrible two's. "I am owed success (after all, I got trophies throughout my little league t-ball/soccer/whatever "career" although I never scored a goal and my team didnt win a championship - hell, we werent allowed to keep score!)". "When I threw a tantrum (likely seeking the attention my overwrought, overworked single mother could not provide) I was given a magical fix of ritalin/adderall/whatever instead of a good old fashioned ass-whooping". "I am addicted to video games, which provide instant gratification in the form of moving to that higher level, too often in the form of the same type of first-shooter game which the military uses to train killers". "I have been conditioned through a lifetime of watching death, murder and mayhem to observe people being killed in the most horrendous ways, then getting up and getting myself a snack".

Both Lanza and Holmes, I have read, wanted to join the Marines, but the mothers refused to allow it because they didnt think they could handle it. Now, this is likely the case, but as the child of a single mother who went to boot camp as a 17-year-old over my mothers objections, I think, "Lanza was a 20 year-old living in his mothers proverbial basement - mothers "objections" be damned, if you think joining the Marines will provide you the real life challenge you so obviously needed, what is preventing you from heading off to Parris Island, son???"

So, I know this is a terrible over-simplification of a terribly complex societal problem. I know that all children of single mothers who have grown up getting "participation trophies", having their sense of morality dulled by the viewing of endless murders and being conditioned to kill by the same video games we use to dull the senses and heighten the capabilities of soldiers being sent to kill are NOT going to wind up gunning down innocent theater-goers or mere babies in a kindergarten classroom.

But putting that child to bed at a reasonable time and ending the terrible two's at the age of two rather than seeing them act out a "terrible-two tantrum" with a gun in their hands and innocent children in their sights might be a start.

Or maybe I am just a "kids these days" old codger.

Ice, dead batteries and the racism of progressives

Had our first big ice/snow event so I am making the changeover from my summer truck (2wd Silverado) to my winter truck (4wd Dodge Ram). Neither of the batteries are too hot so I am charging this battery and jumping that battery and realized I am the stereotypical redneck whose most important pieces of essential gear are jumper cables and a battery charger. Which led me to consider the inherent racism in the fact that it is okay to mock hillbilly redneck "red staters" clinging to their guns, their Bible, and of course, to their jumper cables and battery chargers. All the stereotypes have to do with the fact that we are poor, essentially. We have multiple cars in our driveways/yards because we can never seem to find the extra couple hundred bucks to replace that starter/alternator/master cylinder. If we did, we would probably be driving with no plates or insurance for the same reason. Now if I were black or Mexican I would have the same issues for the same reasons - lack of funds. But if you comment on the guy in the ghetto or the barrio who carries jumper cables for his own vehicle you are a racist - but not the trailer trash guy. Why is this? I maintain that it is because if you are white and you have these issues, it is your own fault...but if you are black or latino, it is not your fault...consider the racism here... One of our own race is an embarrassment, but a minority needs affirmative action and income redistribution, etc. So...why are the progressives so racist, I wonder???