Recently there have been several articles accusing Black Lives Matter of being a Marxist Organization, as well as a number totally rejecting the assumption. Much of this comes in the wake of a re-surfaced video of co-founder Patrisse Cullors declaring that she and fellow organizers are “trained Marxist.” Black Lives Matter is an organized movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality against African American people. An organization known simply as Black Lives Matter exists as a decentralized network with over 30 chapters in the United States and sister organizations worldwide while a larger Black Lives Matter movement exists consisting of various separate like-minded organizations such as Dream Defenders and Assata’s Daughters. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people, as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation. Patrisse Cullors is one of the three co-founders of the Black Lives Matter movement. In the summer of 2013 fueled by the acquittal granted to George Zimmerman after his murder of Trayvon Martin, Alicia Garza posted on Facebook, Patrisse added a hashtag, and Opal Tometi had the vision of a platform for Black liberation. 

Is calling yourself a Marxist and declaring the organization to be Marxist in outlook a bad thing? For those who reject it out of hand, in an article for My Christian Daily, Buckingham writes. 

 As one writer said “BLM is not a Marxist movement. It is a movement that encompasses many people, no doubt some of them Marxist. A few years ago, my eldest daughter and I attended the March for Refugees in the city (Melbourne). At the March there were all sorts of people handing out leaflets/papers including Marxist propaganda. People’s opportunism doesn’t mean the March was Marxist. No doubt there will be all sorts of people hitching their wagons to BLM at this time, but that shouldn’t blind us to the facts.”

In his book ‘Disinformation’ a former Romanian Intelligence officer, LTG Ion Minai Pacepa, spoke of how the former Soviet Union established so called liberation movements to undermine western governments. Infiltrating and eventually controlling church organizations the Soviets begain the process in South America.  Elevating Cuban terrorist Che Guevara to icon status they begain to subvert the poor of the catholic countries to a view of liberation. Subverting the World Council of Churches the Soviets begain to plant false stories and incite racial hatred in the US as well. 

“A few years ago, a black version of liberation theology began growing in a few radical-leftist black churches in the United States. Black liberation theologians James Cone, Cornel West and Dwight Hopkins have explicitly state their preference for Marxism because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (white) versus victim class (black), and it sees just one solution; the destruction of the enemy.”

“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. “

The hand of the Kremlin reached the shores of the United States as well. In March 1996, a sensational story jolted the American conscience. The National Council of Churches and the Center for Democratic Renewal, which according to Pacepa are secretly Marxist organizations, held joint press conferences to announce a huge increase in  the burning of Black churches in the US. This was followed by a swift condemnation by President Clinton and the enactment of laws and setting up a federal task force. Clinton spoke passionately about his memories of black churches being burnt in Arkansas in his youth.  

According to Pacepa “Then the bubble burst. It was eventually established by a private group, the National Fire Protection Association, that in recent years there had been far fewer church fires than usual, and law enforcement officials in the South could not confirm any as having been racially motivated. No church burning had occurred in Arkansas during Clinton childhood.” 

All of this points to the ongoing interference the Russian government has had on the institutions of government in the US. This began under Soviet leadership, but reports continue to indicate the GRU, Russia’s intelligence service, continue to spread discord around the world. Does any of this indicate that BLM is a Marxist organization? No it does not. I would venture to say that most rank and file members are not in fact consciously Marxist, but in fact passionate people being led by people that do subscribe to the Marxist ideology.  

One problem with this is  that the main tenant of Marxism is class struggle, the oppressed rising up to overthrow the oppressor. Once the oppressor is vanquished all become equal and paradise reigns supreme. While this incites passions the second problem is not addressed, it does not work that way in reality. Watching the protest on both sides it is evident that passion has overtaken reason, and this is dangerous.  

B.H. Liddell Hart, a 20^th century military historian and theorist wrote in “Why Don’t We Learn from History.”  

“The history of ancient Greece showed that, in democracy, emotion dominates reason to a greater extent than in any other political system… No political system more easily becomes out of control when passions are aroused. These defects have been multiplied in modern democracies, since their great extension of size and their vast electorate produces a much larger volume of emotional pressure.” 

We see both sides using terms such as Marxist and White Supremist to raise passions. What needs to be done is to try and raise the conversation to reason and facts. If we are to discuss race relations it is best to define terms that are reasonable. BLM is not an overt Marxist organization but follows many of the teachings of Marx. Defining systemic racism also requires an understanding of a point of view. Does racism exist in the United States, of course it does as it exists in every country in the world. Did systemic racism exist in the United States, it is hard to ignore our slavery past or the imposition of Jim Crow laws, so the answer is yes. The problem today is defining and deciding if it is still in existence.  

Looking up definitions of systemic racism I became very confused. If there is government mandated actions or corporate activity that is driven primarily by race, then that is systemic racism. If on the other hand, if in day to day actions, certain activities are perceived as racist by one side but not the other, then how do we agree. One example given of systemic racism was if a white person buys a house in a predominantly white neighborhood then that can be perceived as systemic racism. The position of the writer was that even unconscious actions are driven by systemic racism. On the other hand, if the decision were driven by the fact the house was the best one you could find in your price range then what is that.  

To conclude we must as a people search out the answers in a reasonable and logical manner. This will not lead to the end state that will satisfy everyone but so be it. I look forward to the day that all Americans and America in general can live long and prosper.  

This will not go over well with some of my friends or those who have called me a Trump apologist but here goes. Enough is enough its time for everyone to grow the F… up. When I was a young man and running as a democrat for town council someone asked me what the difference between Dems and Republicans was. My answer then is the same as it is now, both see the same problems but have different solutions.
Generally, the Democrats have looked to government solutions and the Republicans have look at more, for lack of a better term, capitalist solutions. A case in point is health care and pre-existing conditions. Under the current Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) you cannot be turned down for any pre-existing condition. This sounds great but based on the increases over the years in premiums it is making the care less affordable. Under the proposed American Health Care Act (Trumpcare) the definition and allowed premiums would be set by the insurance companies in compliance with state mandates and regulations. What this last means is if you have a condition that will require long term care your insurance company will be allowed to charge a higher premium. In 2017 this passed the House but not the Senate. Instead of trying to compromise both sides yelled and screamed and declared the sky was falling. This can be worked out but not under the current state of congress.
A similar program in healthcare is how to reduce drug costs. There is in congress currently a bill, HR3, which is designed to lower costs by applying foreign drug cost guidelines to Medicare part D purchases. The effect of this is to decrease revenue to drug companies that would be used for R&D to bring newer innovative drugs to market. Trumps plan is to force drug companies to reveal prices they give to hospitals and the discounts so that patients will see what they are paying for. This would force insurance companies to reevaluate what they charge us for these services. This plan would likely just cost the hospitals their discounts and provide little long-term relief. In all likely hood both would increase the cost of drugs to the public.
I could go on, but the point is that the main difference in how the two parties view different solutions is in the level of government involvement. Not that very long ago this was fully understood, and the result was a fight to see how much could be compromised before a middle ground solution is found. Today we see a dysfunctional government on both sides of the aisle refusing to talk compromise. Further they refuse to listen to each other.
The result was the debacle that was the State of the Union address. The truncated introduction, the refusal to shake hands, failure to applaud success or acknowledge a 100-year-old Tuskegee airman, and so on. The final was the tearing up of the speech calling it a manifesto on misinformation, and here we have it. The number one problem that polls tell us the people are interested in is healthcare. There are several good healthcare proposals out there. Obamacare has good points but needs to be modified and more control returned to the insured. This will not happen until we turn from ideology to pragmatism. Gun violence is another area of concern, truthfully violence should be the concern. While minimum federal laws may be good, minimum age, hours of training etc, States need to step up and work on local requirements, a 14 year old in NYC likely does not need to walk around with a rifle but a 14 year old in Wyoming on a cattle ranch might need it.
We must also get away from the feel good laws/regulations. Red flag laws sound good, being able to disarm the mentally ill, however they go against the 2d, 4th,5th and 14th Amendments may be used against it. This would hold true, different amendments, on any religious ban on immigration or entry. Open discussions between the branches of government or more importantly the government listening to the people would go a ling way to return integrity to the government.
What all this means is the children must leave the room and let the adults be adults. PLEASEThink before you vote next time. Take the time to understand the candidate and their positions and who they are. Do not rely on social media or news outlets to make up your mind for you. It does not take that long to check out a Representatives voting record to see if it truly aligns with your beliefs.

So now we have an open and pubic vote on beginning an official impeachment investigation. All republicans voted against, no surprise, but two democrats also voted against, a little surprise. It will be interesting to see how the various committees handle themselves when the hearings are open. Will they call back witnesses who had testified behind closed doors or not? Will they truly allow the republicans to call witnesses or will they throw up roadblocks? How will they handle cross examinations? It is interesting to also note that unlike the Nixon and Clinton impeachment investigations different committees will hold hearings instead of just the judiciary committee.
There is no doubt the house will impeach since all the democratic members of the committees as well as most of the house have already declared Trump guilty. I am sorry, regardless of guilt or innocence of the president there is no way to take these investigations seriously. This has devolved into what the president has called a witch hunt. The hope here is that open and fair hearings can right this ship and show the president broke the law beyond a shadow of a doubt or that there is not enough actual evidence to move forward giving the dems plausible reason to end this.
We can only wait and see.

President Donald Trump is not a great communicator, nor is he a racist, Nazi or wannabe dictator. The tragedies of the last week call on us all to come together as a country and face up to the problems that have led us to the point we find ourselves. When the president of the United States calls for unity and a rejection of hate and bigotry the opposition, regardless of politics, should get behind him. The incessant chatter from the news media and Trump opposition, calling him a racist repeatedly for anything he says or does, does not make it true. When used for political gain I understand, to a point, but when a national tragedy strikes it is time, even for a moment to come together as one people.
Something has happened and continues to happen to our country and society that goes beyond the normal. Is the prevalence of guns to blame on mass shootings or is it mental illness, video games or whatever? The answer is a little bit of all. But a broad look at the country and its past must show that we have had guns and mental illness and racism etc. since the beginning. What has changed? Is the prevalence of violent video games making our youth insensitive to mass killing?
It has been 20 years since Columbine, what have we learned? Apparently, nothing, as we have a hard time learning. Violence against immigrants is also nothing new. In Louisville Kentucky 22 people were killed in religious and race induced rioting, 164 years ago. On Bloody Monday Protestant mobs rioted and attacked German and Irish Catholic neighborhoods causing a migration of citizens out of the city. The Protestant Democrats were bitter rivals of the Know-Nothing Party with a large German and Irish support base.
Did Trumps tweets in the last two and a half years suddenly increase race hatred in the country, of course not. The constant misquotes and opinions passing as news stories have not help but are also not totally to blame for the increase in violence and mass shootings.
We have a societal problem that returns every now and again, but this time we have social media platforms and mass media bias fanning the flames. Increased gun control laws are not the answer since a very tiny fraction of legally owned guns are used in the reported gun violence in the country. Will increased background checks or “red-flag” laws help, maybe. But until we look to the underlying cause we will continue to suffer the consequences. Pointing fingers and backing feel-good laws that will accomplish nothing will not replace taking a long hard HONEST look at the problem.