Fealty and Rendering To Caesar: Why White Catholics Should #TakeAKnee

This is the post excerpt.


Catholics are generally familiar with the concept of “rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s”. When Jesus tells the Pharisees and Herodians in the Gospel of Matthew (22:21) to “render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s,” he sets the framework for how we should think about religion and the state even today.  Caesar does have rights.  We owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience.  But that obedience is limited by what belongs to God.  Caesar is not God.  Only God is God, and the state is subordinate and accountable to God for its treatment of human persons, all of whom were created by God.

Also familiar to Catholics are oaths of fealty.  It has been considered a “Catholic Thing” for centuries, to pledge fealty to the Church.  (See, David Warren, “Fealty”, A Catholic Thing, May 13, 2016,  https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/05/13/fealty/).  The question is whether a Catholic should express fealty to the National Anthem and flag, in light of the reality of racism and white privilege.


Perhaps our greatest job as believers is to determine what belongs to Caesar, and what belongs to God — and then put those things in right order in our own lives, and in our relations with others.

Tolerance is not a Christian virtue.  Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty – these are Christian virtues.  And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle.  But it’s never an end itself.  In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.   Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners.  A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive.  Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square – peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment.  Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.

As Christians, we cannot claim to love God and then ignore the needs of our neighbors.  Loving God is like loving a spouse.  A husband may tell his wife that he loves her, and of course that’s very beautiful.  But she’ll still want to see the proof in his actions.  Likewise if we claim to be “Catholic,” we need to prove it by our behavior.    And serving other people by working for justice, charity and truth in our nation’s political life is one of the very important ways we do that.

The “separation of Church and state” does not mean – and it can never mean – separating our Catholic faith from our public witness, our political choices and our political actions.  That kind of separation would require Christians to deny who we are; to repudiate Jesus when he commands us to be “leaven in the world” and to “make disciples of all nations.”  That kind of radical separation steals the moral content of a society.  It’s the equivalent of telling a married man that he can’t act married in public.  Of course, he can certainly do that, but he won’t stay married for long.

We owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil.  In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions.  The truest respect we can show to civil authority is the witness of our Catholic faith and our moral convictions, without excuses or apologies.

In democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs.

It does not matter what we claim to believe if we are unwilling to act on our beliefs.  What we say about our Catholic faith is the easy part.  What we do with it shapes who we really are.

For many years, studies have shown that Americans have a very poor sense of history.  That is very dangerous, because as Thucydides and Machiavelli and Thomas Jefferson have all said, history matters.  It matters because the past shapes the present, and the present shapes the future.  If Catholics do not know history, and especially their own history as Catholics, then somebody else – and usually somebody not very friendly – will create their history for them.

Consider, please, the history of white privilege in America, as explained by Larry Adelman the executive producer of RACE – The Power of an Illusion and co-director of California Newsreel:

Many middle-class white people, especially those of us who grew up in the suburbs, like to think that we got to where we are today by virtue of our merit – hard work, intelligence, pluck, and maybe a little luck. And while we may be sympathetic to the plight of others, we close down when we hear the words “affirmative action” or “racial preferences.” We worked hard, we made it on our own, the thinking goes, why don’t ‘they’? After all, it’s been almost 40 years now since the Civil Rights Act was passed.

What we do not readily acknowledge is that racial preferences have a long, institutional history in this country – a white history. Here are a few ways in which government programs and practices have channeled wealth and opportunities to white people at the expense of others.

Early Racial Preferences

We all know the old history, but it’s still worth reminding ourselves of its scale and scope. Affirmative action in the American “workplace” first began in the late 17th century when European indentured servants – the original source of unfree labor on the new tobacco plantations of Virginia and Maryland – were replaced by African slaves. In exchange for their support and their policing of the growing slave population, lower-class Europeans won new rights, entitlements, and opportunities from the planter elite.

White Americans were also given a head start with the help of the U.S. Army. The 1830 Indian Removal Act, for example, forcibly relocated Cherokee, Creeks and other eastern Indians to west of the Mississippi River to make room for white settlers. The 1862 Homestead Act followed suit, giving away millions of acres – for free – of what had been Indian Territory west of the Mississippi. Ultimately, 270 million acres, or 10% of the total land area of the United States, was converted to private hands, overwhelmingly white, under Homestead Act provisions.

The 1790 Naturalization Act permitted only “free white persons” to become naturalized citizens, thus opening the doors to European immigrants but not others. Only citizens could vote, serve on juries, hold office, and in some cases, even hold property. In this century, Alien Land Laws passed in California and other states, reserved farm land for white growers by preventing Asian immigrants, ineligible to become citizens, from owning or leasing land. Immigration restrictions further limited opportunities for nonwhite groups. Racial barriers to naturalized U.S. citizenship weren’t removed until the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, and white racial preferences in immigration remained until 1965.

In the South, the federal government never followed through on General Sherman’s Civil War plan to divide up plantations and give each freed slave “40 acres and a mule” as reparations. Only once was monetary compensation made for slavery, in Washington, D.C. There, government officials paid up to $300 per slave upon emancipation – not to the slaves, but to local slaveholders as compensation for loss of property.

When slavery ended, its legacy lived on not only in the impoverished condition of Black people but in the wealth and prosperity that accrued to white slave owners and their descendants. Economists who try to place a dollar value on how much white Americans have profited from 200 years of unpaid slave labor, including interest, begin their estimates at $1 trillion.

Jim Crow laws, instituted in the late 19th and early 20th century and not overturned in many states until the 1960s, reserved the best jobs, neighborhoods, schools and hospitals for white people.

The Advantages Grow, Generation to Generation

Less known are more recent government racial preferences, first enacted during the New Deal, that directed wealth to white families and continue to shape life opportunities and chances today.

The landmark Social Security Act of 1935 provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement. But the act specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants, who were predominately African American, Mexican, and Asian. As low-income workers, they also had the least opportunity to save for their retirement. They couldn’t pass wealth on to their children. Just the opposite. Their children had to support them.

Like Social Security, the 1935 Wagner Act helped establish an important new right for white people. By granting unions the power of collective bargaining, it helped millions of white workers gain entry into the middle class over the next 30 years. But the Wagner Act permitted unions to exclude non-whites and deny them access to better paid jobs and union protections and benefits such as health care, job security, and pensions. Many craft unions remained nearly all-white well into the 1970s. In 1972, for example, every single one of the 3,000 members of Los Angeles Steam Fitters Local #250 was still white.

But it was another radicalized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans – but not others – to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as “redlining.” Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

Today, Black and Latino mortgage applicants are still 60% more likely than whites to be turned down for a loan, even after controlling for employment, financial, and neighborhood factors. According to the Census, whites are more likely to be segregated than any other group. As recently as 1993, 86% of suburban whites still lived in neighborhoods with a black population of less than 1%.

Reaping the Rewards of Racial Preference

One result of the generations of preferential treatment for whites is that a typical white family today has on average eight times the assets, or net worth, of a typical African American family, according to New York University economist Edward Wolff. Even when families of the same income are compared, white families have more than twice the wealth of Black families. Much of that wealth difference can be attributed to the value of one’s home, and how much one inherited from parents.

But a family’s net worth is not simply the finish line, it’s also the starting point for the next generation. Those with wealth pass their assets on to their children – by financing a college education, lending a hand during hard times, or assisting with the down payment for a home. Some economists estimate that up to 80 percent of lifetime wealth accumulation depends on these intergenerational transfers. White advantage is passed down, from parent to child to grand-child. As a result, the racial wealth gap – and the head start enjoyed by whites – appears to have grown since the civil rights days.

In 1865, just after Emancipation, it is not surprising that African Americans owned only 0.5 percent of the total worth of the United States. But by 1990, a full 135 years after the abolition of slavery, Black Americans still possessed only a meager 1 percent of national wealth. As legal scholar John Powell says in the documentary series, Race – The Power of an Illusion, “The slick thing about whiteness is that whites are getting the spoils of a racist system even if they are not personally racist.”

Rather than to recognize how “racial preferences” have tilted the playing field and given us a head start in life, many whites continue to believe that race does not affect our lives. Instead, we chastise others for not achieving what we have; we even invert the situation and accuse non-whites of using “the race card” to advance themselves.

Some white people even suggest that differential outcomes may simply result from differences in “natural” ability or motivation. However, sociologist Dalton Conley’s research shows that when we compare the performance of families across racial lines who make not just the same income, but also hold similar net worth, a very interesting thing happens: many of the racial disparities in education, graduation rates, welfare usage and other outcomes disappear. The “performance gap” between whites and nonwhites is a product not of nature, but of unequal circumstances.

“Colorblind” policies that treat everyone the same, no exceptions for minorities, are often counter-posed against affirmative action. But colorblindness today merely bolsters the unfair advantages that color-coded practices have enabled white Americans to long accumulate.

As much as any white Catholic would like to deny his or her own white privilege in America, there is a moral duty not to do so.  The question remains whether simply acknowledging one’s own white privilege is enough?

Colin Kaepernick’s protest of the National Anthem is a real, tangible way to express the disdain for the injustices perpetuated by generations of white privilege in America. The reality is that the perpetuation of white privilege is what contributes to racism and to the killing of innocent black people by police officers in America.  For the Catholic who chooses to join Kaepernick’s protest, it is saying, “Here I am, on one knee, my sword thrust in the ground.”

When I think of Jesus, I think of all my ancestors who put their lives in his hands, of all the brilliant, powerful, and saintly people who have gone before me who believed. I think of my children and the generations to come and how they will look upon my life and my faith, and how I want to blaze a trail for them to follow.

Unlike anything Man can ever be, Jesus has no wrong in him, he goes down no wrong paths and evil has no dominion in his heart. I can swear blind fealty to this Lord. I can follow him. I can tell him anything and it changes him not at all. He is the perfect country in which to live, he is the perfect Lord to serve, he is the perfect friend to trust, the One True King to follow.

Jesus does not embody the forces which bring about systemic racism and white privilege.

We serve Caesar best by serving God first. We honor our nation best by living our Catholic faith honestly and vigorously, and bringing it without apology into the public square and its debates.  We’re citizens of heaven first.  But just as God so loved the world that he sent his only son, so the glory and irony of the Christian life is this:  The more faithfully we love God, the more truly we serve the world.

To join our black brothers and sisters in solidarity with a rejection of systemic racism and white privilege is more complicated than protesting a symbol of that system.  And yet, to #TakeAKnee is a good place to begin.


A Bernie Or Buster’s Comprehensive Guide To The Election

It is time to come clean.

I literally hated Hillary. I detested her. I made fun of her. To this day, I cringe when I hear her speak, because I associated her voice and face with my extreme disdain. It is difficult to unlearn those associations. I posted horrible memes about her and even called her a few names. I delighted in her demise.

I drank from the “Killery” well, ate from the “Hitlery” banquet, and shit from the “Shitlery” toilet.

Waking up with “$hillery” hangovers for months on end, in the mornings, I knew and I professed that I would vote Blue if Bernie lost. Afternoons rolled in and, by evenings, I was whooping it up in the Bernie or Bust feeds.

And so it goes that after Bernie lost, I had to reconcile my Hillary hate.

Problem is, hypocracy is not my thing. I cannot vote for any person in whom I have no faith. I set out, therefore, about three weeks before the CA primary, to research and to fully brief my position, so that I could explain to all why it was that I refused to vote for Hillary.

At every corner, I was rebuffed by the facts. No matter — I would find something to justify myself. Wall after wall. False lead after false lead. The gold pan was full of fool’s gold.

Walk with me now, through my journey:


I am tolerant. Very tolerant. For months, I have listened patiently to anti-Hillary rhetoric. Hell, I even participated. I was deeply embedded in the Bernie or Bust crowd. I have been with Bernie since 2011. Bernie, to me, represents everything that is or should be the best of who we are, and for any Democrat who resents him for challenging Hillary or the party, too bad.

Was the DNC biased? You bet. Were they colluding with Hillary’s campaign? Probably. I mean, she has been, after all, a Democrat for decades and was a FLOTUS, a US Senator, a Secretary of State, and a damn fine lawyer. They preferred her. Yes.

Does that rankle me? Well, of course it does.

Do I wish it had gone differently? Yes.

I have read all 19,452 DNC emails. I consumed them. I was sickened by the unprofessionalism, and angered by the entitled tone in some.

Fact is, not one DNC email went to or from Hillary. And believe me when I say that I was looking for that smoking gun. Not one email involved illegal behavior. Not one email did anything other than to demonstrate that the DNC was very biased.

Some would argue that the bias should be permitted. I can see both sides of that coin. I really can. But, no. When it becomes apparent that a candidate is viable, the Party organization should maintain a level of impartiality.

Bernie and others have called for changes to the DNC which could remedy some of the problem. That is a tug of war, for tomorrow.

Today, we have Hillary.

I said in early February that if Bernie lost I would vote Blue. Not out of fear. Rather, I vote Blue because at this time it is the most progressive option available which has a realistic chance of prevailing.

Do I want more? God, yes.

Will I allow others to demonize Hillary without an answer? No. There are many people who vehemently disagree with me. More power to them. I love a good debate.

But when a person posts sexist, obscene memes or uses sexist language in opposition to her — good bye.

No one has to agree, but if you do disagree, come armed with citation links to legitimate, cogent authority. If your fall-back is a nonsense, unfounded argument, be prepared to get firmly corrected. If you dig in, be prepared to look silly. You are marginalizing yourself. I need not do that for you.

In between the lines is Donald Trump. We cannot pretend that he is not there. We cannot in good faith debate anything without factoring him into the discussion.

Which brings me to my final point: nothing I have seen from the DNC measures against the Fascist. No disagreement I have with Hillary or the neoliberals weighs heavier than the Authoritarian.

And nothing — I mean — nothing, can cancel out his stated intention to surveil and control our citizenry with his armed brown shirts.


It can be confusing so here is the nutshell on emails:

19,452 emails hacked from DNC server. (Wikileaks)

44 emails hacked from Clinton campaign server (and Clinton friend server) (Wikileaks)

Thousands of SOS emails tendered under FOIA (Judicial Watch).

Hillary’s personal server was NOT hacked. There were 2 attempted breaches, neither succeeded.

Let me begin by noting the irony of one relying upon illegally-obtained data to call someone a law-breaker.  This practice is a typically white privleged manuever.  It demonstrates a complete disregard for the rule of law, unless, of course, it suits your own white privileged agenda.

Interesting, in the near-20,000 alleged DNC hacked emails that not one comes to or from Hillary. After hours of reviewing these unauthenticated documents (again), this appears to be one, big red herring.

Who cares if the DNC engaged in lawful, political jockying? To quote the Redneck Liberal: “Welcome to America. It’s sure nice to meet you.”

Lemme splain something. Listen carefully, please, because it is kind of technical.

ALMOST all criminal statutes require proof beyond a reasonable doubt (BRD) on the element of intent.

The criminal statutes which do not require such are called “per se offenses”, because intent is per se implied. An example of a per se offense is statutory rape. If the girl was under age 12 in some states, it is not required to prove BRD whether the man intended to have sex with someone under age 12. Many environmental crimes are “per se” offenses. If the corporation dumps toxic sludge it is not required to prove it intended to poison the environment.

But in most cases, there are 3 different types of criminal intent:

(1) knowing and intentional
(2) reckless
(3) negligent

The federal crimes which would have applied to the email scandal require knowing and intentional intent. Not intent that X knew emails were on the private server or that X knowingly used a private server.

Rather, proof BRD that X knowingly and intentionally intended to commit Y and Z crimes by X’s knowing and intentional use of the private server. There was no evidence that this was the case, much less enough evidence to give rise to probable cause.

In almost every single Hillary hating internet post I have read, the authors have no sense of the legal requirements for intent. They treat every act of Hillary’s as a per se offense.

They also do not understand the level of proof required to reach probable cause to charge on all of the elements of an offense. And that is just the first step. It also must be proved BRD at trial that X knowingly and intentionally committed all elements of the offense.

You may hear lots of grumblings about 18 USC 793(f), which is a gross negligence MISDEMEANOR provision being bandied about by the GOP and their unwarey suckers.

This provision applies to the use of government space for data. It applies to data extraction from a statutorily designated storage space.

Hillary was not EVER considered by the FBI to have violated 18 USC 793(f), because there was NO LAW PROHIBITING THE USE OF A PRIVATE SERVER.

The 18 USC 793(f) “discussion” is a red herring. It no more applies than to the man on the moon.

The Espionage Act provisions for which she WAS investigated require specific intent.

Anyone who states that she “got away with it” or that the FBI looked the other way, is either lost in emotion and not thinking clearly, or is an unwarey GOP tool, or is paid by Karl Rove & Co.

Also, I have read the most recent 44 emails “leaked” by the self-avowed anarchist and wannabe Marxist, Julian Assange.

I spent 18-years regulating legislative lobbyists. I attended every governmental ethics CLE I could find. I published articles and commentaries on federal and state ethics laws. I still read all governmental ethics case laws, statutes and administrative rules. I can safely speak with some authority to this recent WikiLeaks “scandal” about the SOS and the Clinton Foundation.

Yes, the laws need to be improved. However, there is no federal prohibition against a non-profit foundation interfacing with a federal agency, even when the agency head owns the non-profit. By “interface”, I mean interacting, recommending job candidates, and conduct which does not involve the agency directly paying the non-profit for goods and services.

ZERO proof of quid quo pro. NO “pay for play.” Nadda. Nothing. ZIPPO. As well, not one email came from or to Hillary.

Would I have done things differently? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

You see, the federal government’s ethics laws have been obstructed and watered down by the GOP, which has controlled Congress and the Senate.

That anyone would fault a woman for doing LEGALLY, EXACTLY what men do, within the laws created by the (mostly male) GOP is — You guessed it: RANK MISOGYNY.

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, wants US immunity for himself, from criminal prosecution. He wants a pardon for Chelsea Manning. He wants a pardon for Edward Snowden.

Because his demands have gone ignored by President Obama, Assange recently turned his energy to discrediting Obama by releasing a batch of emails on 9/14/16, which date back to 2008.

I have read this batch in its entirety.

That WikiLeaks has failed to subject the RNC to the same level of scrutiny is telling. Identical practices can be found with the RNC. Indeed, it was Karl Rove who brought forth Citizens United v FEC, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), to the US Supreme Court.

Of importance is that the allegations made in the 9/14/16 batch have no connection whatsoever to Hillary Clinton.

What is alleged is that Obama provided quid pro quo in the form of important appointments, in exchange for monies paid to the DNC and to his own campaign funds.

After examining all documents, I can find no direct proof of quid pro quo, as required by the US Supreme Court in McDonnell v United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).

I also find no evidence of personal enrichment to Obama or to Hillary.

In short, the practice of political patronage has a long history in the United States. Under current law, absent an express agreement of quid pro quo at the time of the monetary transfer, no criminal laws are violated.

Do I like the current state of federal governmental ethics law? No. Do I agree with McDonnell v United States, or the ruling in Citizens United v FEC? No.

It is significant to note that Citizens United v FEC, was authored, as follows: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor.

None of Obama’s SCOTUS appointees participated in authoring the majority opinion put forth in Citizens United v FEC.

Likewise, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the majority opinion in McDonnell v United States, and in McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).  (See,http://www.politico.com/…/what-john-roberts-doesnt-get-abou…).

In short, there really is no such thing as political bribery in America, thanks to Republican-appointed SCOTUS justices.

To demand that our black POTUS be held to a different, extrajudicial standard is, well, damned racist behavior, put forth by — you guessed it — privileged white males.

To claim that Hillary is liable for Obama’s completely LEGAL decisions is rank misogyny.

Bottom line here is we have sour grapes Republicans who are angry because the Democrats are winning by the very rules the Republicans established for the game.

We have law breaker, Assange, hiding from the authorities in an Ecuadoran embassy, trying his darnedest to extort others for his own freedom pass.

And so it goes that the none of political patronage about which WikiLeaks complains was illegal.

If you do not like it, change the laws.

Vote for Hillary, who has pledged to offer a constitutional Amendment to reverse Karl Rove’s Citizens United case.

Vote for Hillary, who will appoint SCOTUS justices to counter the Republican appointees who authored the caselaw I have referenced herein.

I also read the 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span the time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton herself.

The emails were made available by WiKiLeaks in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act.

This information is different from the 19,252 DNC hacked emails and different from the 44 emails released from the hack of Hillary’s campaign server.

I have read everything released by Assange.

It took me two months to read every stitch of information in my spare time. I took notes and made an inventory.

I have one thing to say:

Julian Assange just wasted my time.

I was looking for any evidence of criminal wrondoing. Anything. I found nothing. Nadda. Zippo. Zero.

Additionally, I have reviewed the 242 pages of emails and correspondences released by Judicial Watch.

Given the limited information I have, I can find no criminal wrongdoing in any of the 242 pages.

Most of the correspondences involved logistical discussions about Hillary’s schedule. Most related to requests for photo ops or speaking at commencement ceremonies, and a Roosevelt Luncheon. Some of the pages include her testimony regarding USAIDS.

Several pages were marked classified and redacted, and 15 pages were in Portuguese, which I cannot read.

There was a request by a Clinton Foundation donor for the SOS to assist with a visa for an inelligible applicant. There is no information that any attempts were actually made to help or that a visa was obtained beyond legal means.

There was and is no legal obligation for Hillary to have been Chinese Walled, and from the information released  by Judicial Watch, there is no indication of illegal activity or any behavior which might call her integrity into question.

Again. No illegal conduct. No evidence of improper behavior by Hillary.

What is most important to note is that the authenticity of the leaks is questionable:

“The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document.

“Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.”

See, http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/07/russian-hackers-emails-wikileaks-23928.html.

If you hang your voting hat on these emails without conducting thorough due diligence, then you are stupid.  You deserve Donald Trump as your president.


Left with no rational option but to admit my defeat, I set about to hang my stubborn hat on Hillary’s foreign policy, only to be short-stopped by her pragmatic flexibility.

We can differ about many things.

You do not even have to like Hillary.  But facts are facts.

It would be disengenuous to examine Hillary’s foreign policy in a vacuum.

To be clear:  Hillary is the only thing standing between us and the fucking apocalypse.

No. I am not histrionic by nature. I have a long history of under-emoting, which has gotten me into some hot water throughout the years.  My life philosophy is that if you ignore a problem, 99% of the time it fades away.  It is not necessary to confront every problem or person.

Trouble is, Trump is not going away unless Hillary wins. He is what I call a “1% problem”.

Fact:  Either Trump or Hillary will be elected on November 8. To indulge in third party voting is horrendous narcissism, under the present circumstances.

To be safe, let us examine the alternatives to Hillary:


There is a big, green elephant in the room:  Jill Stein is not the “candidate of peace”. She is the candidate of disaster. She is the candidate of Putin expansionism — of Balkin wars, of Russian barrel bombs and of indiscriminate Russian bombing.  She has no experience with foreign policy.

Most important, though, is that over 95% of Stein’s supporters are white privileged voters, who have zero empathy for what a Trump POTUS means to black people, Mexicans, and Muslims.

After having spent weeks doing some necessary research about the Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka ticket, I see much “green” but not the type of green I expected.  I wanted to understand Stein, a doctor, a self-described “environmentalist”, a purported champion of campaign finance reform. What to make of, as primary season ended, Stein offering Bernie the top spot on the Green Party ticket? Selfless altruism? Was saintly Stein placing her beliefs ahead of her ego? Was her offer about commitment to building a major third party effort by stepping aside for the darling of the far left?

If so, one would expect for Bernie to snap up her offer. Not to be — Bernie declined, endorsed Hillary, and, in doing so, disappointed Stein. How did Bernie’s refusal impact Jill Stein? Was she disappointed, angry, or embarassed? To whom would she turn next?

Stein invited Nina Turner to the veep spot. Turner declined, saying she wants to “save the soul of the Democratic Party from within.” Stein also spoke with Chris Hedges. Uh huh. Nope.

C’est la vie

Stein found herself a VP mate who makes Turner and Hedges seem like Reagan Democrats: Ajamu Baraka, who has little use for Bernie Sanders or his followers. In Baraka’s own words:

“A President Bernie Sanders would simply be yet another imperialist warmonger who’d support continued war crimes from the sky with drone strikes and Saudi-led terror in support of the Western imperial project.”

“Sanders supporters have not only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow ‘left’ nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for the grater good of the West.”

“The Sanders campaign (like Obama’s presidency) is “a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy.”

“Every sheepdog candidate surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democrat nominee in time for the November election. This is how the Bernie Sanders Show ends.”

I will not bore you with Baraka’s other ramblings. He is an angry, Western-powers-loathing, self-pronounced Marxist “revolutionary” who makes Sanders look like a silly little choir boy. According to Ajamu, Sanders is part of a “media-driven pseudo-opposition” (along with Ta-Nehisi Coates) and Sanders’ true believers are baby “sheep” being led over a capitalist whore’s cliff.

Ajamu Baraka leads the Pissed Off Party of Left Field.

How speaketh this of Jill Stein, who abandoned her lack of ideology for more lack of ideology? Remember, Bernie Sanders had been Stein’s “soul-mate”, a man she supposedly regarded enough to whom she would surrender the top of her ticket. Now Stein offers a partner whose disdain for Sanders and his supporters translates only into raw contempt.

Stein is a loathsomely angry woman who, if altruism were her guide, would have set aside her Green Envy and walked with Bernie, a true American hero, to defeat the fascist bigot knocking at our door. Instead, she clings to no real agenda, while surrounding herself with hate mongers.

Every single plank in the Green platform is subsumed and exceeded by the Democratic platform, except for the Cornel West-Israel-hating, rigid stance on Palestine. Yeah, but for their loud tinged anti-Israel bias, I agree that something must be done in favor of the Palestinians. Except, for the Greens, the Palestinians have nothing to do with it.

Come on, now, let’s be honest.

And what of her siding with anti-vaxxers? Insanity.

Yes, she DID say that “WiFi is bad for kids’ brains”. Watch the video to the end. It cannot be denied. Or ignored. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQjaSJP2Xg&feature=youtu.be

Faith healing? She believes that anyone can faith heal. An MD. I kid you not.

Stein thinks that the US military should be directed by the United Nations.  Fact. Stein thinks that the US should give up its seat on the UN Security Council.  Fact.  Stein has the same view of Israel as Neo-Nazi, David Duke.  Fact.  Stein’s idea of protest is to spray paint construction equipment during a photo-op.

As a blood-quantum Iroquois, I find her white privileged protest to be nothing but personal opportunism.

So, yeah.  Vote Green: Strap on your tinfoil hat and climb right into bed with the angry self-described Marxist wannabes.

Green Envy is a horrible thing. Truth is, stupidity and today’s US Greens share the same mother.


Donald Trump is the apocalypse candidate.  He is a fraud.

When the Atlantic City Taj Mahal Casino went belly up, it drained Trump’s other casino businesses. By 2007, Trump was completely broke. This is when the Ukrainian Oligarch money flowed in to him through the Cayman Islands. Between 2006-2008, Trump received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian and Ukrainian banks. One bank, in particular, was owned by the deposed Ukrainian president’s son.  In 2012, the IRS and DOJ began scrutinizing Trump for unlawful money laundering activities. By 2014, as a last-ditch effort to avoid further scrutiny and possible prosecution, Trump threw his hat into the POTUS ring. He is a criminal, in bed with international criminals.

Please consider:

1. Trump wants an isolationist United States.

2. Trump doesn’t speak out against Assad in Syria, whom Putin is helping.

3. Trump wants to walk away from NATO, leaving Europe to Putin as far as influence goes.

4. Trump owes millions to Russia in loans. Russia is heavily invested in Trump Enterprises.

5. Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, worked as consultant to ex-Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych.

6. Yanukovych was granted asylum from Putin after being driven from power in Ukraine.

7. Manafort was hired to clean up Yanukovych’s image in Russia, just like he’s attempting to do with Trump.

8. Trump’s tax returns would likely show his connections to and dependence on Russia and Putin.

9. Trump refuses to produce his tax returns because “It will hurt my campaign”.

10. Trump’s debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. His liquid assets have also decreased. Trump has been blackballed by all major US banks.

11. Post-bankruptcy Trump has been highly reliant on money from Russia. He has relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.

12. Trump’s Soho project was the hit with a series of lawsuits claiming fraud against investors. Emerging out of that litigation however was news about secret financing for the project from Russia and Kazakhstan. Most attention about the project has focused on the ties to the Russian criminal underworld.

“The project occasionally received unexplained infusions of cash from accounts in Kazakhstan and Russia.”

13. Trump’s campaign manager and top advisor, Paul Manafort, spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close Putin ally.

14. Trump’s foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom. You can’t be involved with Gazprom without being wholly in alignment with Putin’s policies.

15. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump. Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, not only in the abstract but often for the authoritarian policies and patterns of government which have most soured his reputation around the world.

G’head.  Do your own research about Trump.  I will make it easy for you:

Trump openly calls for the U.S to commit war crimes advocates for the murder of innocent women and children.





Trump doubles down after veterans speak out claiming U.S soldiers would not commit war crimes or torture children even if ordered to. Trump responds with, “They’re not going to refuse me. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.“








Trump on torture: “Even if it doesn’t work they probably deserved it anyway.”



Trump renews calls for torture citing public executions and mass rape committed by ISIS promising for the U.S to do the same, “fighting fire with fire.”
Trump says Geneva Conventions a problem and needs to be changed since, US soldiers are to afraid to do their job due to laws which outline the definition of war crimes.
Trump threatens to shoot down Russian planes starting war with Russia.
Trump says he, “won’t rule out” using nuclear weapons in Europe.
Trump calls for a global nuclear rearmament.


Trump says he would declare a World War as President.



Trump’s solution for high gas prices is to violate The Geneva Convention by invading several of America’s allies in the Middle East and Africa unprovoked to forcibly seize the oil fields for himself.


When asked for clarification about the above mentioned plan to steal land from multiple nations on two different continents Trump responded with, “We’re not stealing anything. We’re taking.“
Trump says during debate he wants to invade Syria with 30,000 soldiers.
Trump runs TV add promising to seize foreign oil fields.

North Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un endorses Donald Trump.





Russian leader with history of human rights abuses Vladimir Putin endorses Trump.


Imam of known Islamic Terrorist (Omar Mateen) endorses Trump.
K.K.K endorses Trump.


Convicted Neo-Nazi Terrorist Don Black endorses Trump.


Chinese Communist Party endorses Trump.
Serbian War Criminal Vojislav Seselj endorses Trump.


Greek Neo-Nazi leader Ilias Panagiotaros endorses Trump.
White supremacist cult leader August Kreis III endorses Trump during sentencing hearing after he is found guilty of child molestation.
Russian Fascist Aleksandr Dugin endorses Trump.



Trump brags about endorsement from convicted murderer and repeatedly accused fraudster Don King.
Trump praises Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.


Trump retweets quote from Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini.



Trump uses picture of Nazi soldiers in official campaign poster.
Trump picks famed Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Leader as Delegate.



Trump’s son gives interview with Holocaust denying radio show host who wants to bring back slavery. Trump then gives the radio host press credentials and invites him to events.




Trump tweets anti-Semitic Hillary Clinton picture created by Neo-Nazis.





Legal Experts find dozens of Trump policy propositions that would violate the constitution. “Trump is threat to rule of law.”
Trump Retweets message from Pro-Hitler, white genocide conspiracy Twitter account multiple times.




Law Scholars agree, in order to enact plans Trump would have to violate First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment, due process, equal protection, and the doctrine of enumerated and limited executive powers.


The ACLU made a list of all of Trumps unconstitutional propositions. (It’s 28 pages long.)
Trump’s Immigration plan unconstitutional.



Trump’s Muslim plan unconstitutional.





Trump pledges to open up Libel Laws on Newspapers in order to curb Freedom of the Press.








Trump fights against separation of Church and State.



Trump promises to violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech to force retail workers to say Merry Christmas again.


Trump argues for the repeal of the 14th Amendment (Which would allow for the creation of a government similar to the totalitarian police state from the novel Starship Troopers in which Americans could only earn their rights through loyalty to the government.)




Co-Chair of Trump’s Presidential campaign calls for black attorney general to be lynched.


Top Trump ally threatens GOP delegates who won’t vote for Trump with being executed for treason.
Senior Trump Campaign staffer calls for police to make black community leader and political opponent “disappear”
Trump’s right hand man made millions working for Arms Dealers, Dictators and War Criminals and defending them from allegations of torture and genocide.



Trump supporter arrested building pipe bombs to target Muslims.



Trump supporting ex-cop calls for, “lone-wolf patriots” to murder blacks at The GOP convention.
Trump supporter yells pro trump slogan before open firing and murdering 6 people.



Trump refuses to condemn violence committed by his supporters.





Trump supporters chant at rally for Hillary to be lynched.
Trump supporters shout racist/sexist/homophobic chants at rallies.
Trump supporters try and ruin the life of the journalist who reported the above story.
Trump supporters send sexist/anti-semitic death threats to journalist.


Trump supporter physically attacks minorities at gas station.


Trump files DMCA notices to get micropenis painting taken off the internet. Art galleries refuse to exhibit it after threats of violence from Trump supporters over the depiction.
Trump supporters send death threats to artist for making aforementioned painting of Trump depicting him with a small penis.
Trump supporters track down previously mentioned artist through home address and brutally assault her.






Trump encourages his supporters to use violence, again and again and again.





















When asked for comments on two of his supporters who brutally beat and urinated on homeless man, Trump responds by defending the men as just being “passionate”.






Trump defends his supporters attacking man with, “He was obnoxious maybe he should have been roughed up.”






Trump tells crowd he would love to punch protesters.




Trump may pay legal fees for supporters arrested for assault.
Trump supporters shout N-Word while they beat African American man so badly he’s hospitalized for concussion.



Mob of Trump supporters brutally attack meditating man for having sign saying, “America is already great.”



Trump claims pictures of woman savagely beaten was a Trump supporter assaulted by democrats until image revealed to have been a hoax showing actress Samara Weaving on the set of a Television show.
Trump supporters call for black man to be lynched and set on fire while shouting, “Sieg Heil!” at Trump rally.



Trump Supporter laughs while attacking peaceful protesters and reporters with pepper spray.


Trump supporters start physical altercations and spits on Latino after being “revved up” during rally.


Trump supporter who beat and kicked protester charged with assault.
Trump supporter pepper sprays a 15-year-old girl point-blank in the face after she was sexually assaulted by another Trump supporter, shouting “nigger lover” as she attempted to run away.
Trump supporters attempt to provoke violence telling Jews to, “go back to fucking Auschwitz” and accosting black woman screaming in her face for her to “go back to Africa.”





Trump supporter who sucker punched protester, “Next time, we might have to kill them.”


Trump bodyguard throws veteran White House photographer to the ground and chokes him.



Why Hillary Will Not Be a “Hawk” as POTUS

Consider this analysis from the Brookings Institute:


But while there is no doubt that Clinton has often supported the use of force, she just as frequently supported diplomacy and negotiations as the nation’s first line of defense.

As the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, Clinton frequently complained about the militarization of U.S. foreign policy when she was secretary of state and touted the virtues of “smart power” (the idea that all elements of national power are needed to solve foreign policy problems) and diplomacy in tackling the nation’s most serious national security challenges.

Consistent with this approach, she started the secret negotiations with Iran in 2012 that ultimately led to the Iran nuclear deal. She has similarly supported President Obama’s opening to Cuba. She supported and implemented the reset with Russia that began in 2009.

When China started becoming aggressive in the South China Sea, she did not reach for military tools, but rather looked to a regional diplomatic approach that stood in stark contrast to Beijing’s military aggression.


In Syria, the idea of risking U.S. boots on the ground or war with the Russians to support an opposition that consists largely of Islamist extremists is not likely to appeal to her any more than it has to President Obama.

For fighting ISIS, Clinton seems comfortable with Obama’s template for the use of military force: the limited use of armed drones, special operations forces, air strikes, and efforts to build local capacity for ground operations and stabilization duties.

Clinton has often emphasized that terrorism cannot be fully defeated on the battlefield. To deal with the evolving threat of transnational Islamic extremism, Clinton asserts, the real payoff lies in improved intelligence and law enforcement, greater international cooperation, limiting access to weapons, and efforts to stop radicalization and terrorist recruitment.


The most important reason that a President Hillary Clinton is unlikely to have a hawkish foreign policy is that she will no longer be a senator, or the secretary of state, or a presidential candidate. She will be president. And that means that her priorities will be very different.

There is an old adage in politics that where you stand depends on where you sit. And from where President Clinton would be sitting in the White House, the world—and more importantly, the domestic political context—will look different than it looked from her perch at the State Department.

As secretary of state, her views on matters of war and peace were shaped to some extent by the institutional viewpoint of the State Department. The secretary of state does not need to worry about domestic policy or the president’s public approval rating. As president, though, Clinton will be beholden to the American public and will have many other priorities beyond foreign policy that will occupy her attention.

As recent presidents have learned, military intervention abroad can carry a heavy political price at home. Despite the headlines of global disorder, there is no clamor from the American public or the Congress for a more active military policy, except from a handful of charter members of the Washington foreign policy establishment (or, as Obama’s aide Ben Rhodes described it, the “blob”).



Fracking. That’s it. Fracking. But, no. It is not that simple. The Democratic Party platform is Greener than the greenist. I could not in good conscience hang my hat on fracking.

To all of the people worried about Hillary being a “war hawk”, our greatest threat as a species is not a centrist Democrat, but is Climate Change.

Peter Corless (a former Green Party voter who is voting for Hillary) shared this:

If you look at the Green party platform, they have no actual target or plan to alter the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for the nation. If you are not familiar, RPS would represent the percentage of renewable green energy in the nation — wind, solar, hydro, thermal, tidal, etc. The Democratic platform has an RPS standard of 25%.

Given that in 2015, renewables accounted for 13.44% of domestic electricity production, this is an aggressive but accomplishable goal.

In other words, Hillary is calling for a doubling of green energy. It’s realistic, accomplishable, and economically viable.

If you read the Green position on power, all they really say is to minimize consumption and get rid of cars. That’s just unviable as a nationwide strategy.

This is why, though I used to be a Green, I went back to the Democratic party. War chants alone do not change electric grid infrastructure. Wanting rainbow-powered cars is a non-starter.

Also, it is telling that both the League of Conservation Voters *and* Sierra Club came out in favor of Clinton, not Stein.

I want green energy. I want a clean nation. I want to preserve habitat and ensure our climate goals are met. To do so, you will need to negotiate with power producers. GE makes a lot of wind turbines. Why? Because they are pros at turbine development. Solar isn’t a low-tech industry either. So if you want to go green, as a nation, you’re going to have to figure out how you turn that into a profitable industry sector, with jobs, factories, mineral extraction, waste management, and all the rest.

The more the ultra-left want to keep solar and wind some sort of “cottage industry,” the further away the goals of producing quadrillions of BTUs of power annually become. If you don’t even know what a “quad” is — and most people don’t, you should do some research on the EIA website, and look at the raw numbers needed for production and consumption, both in 2016 and projections out to 2025 or even 2050.

Nowhere in the Stein proposal is there any realistic plan behind the hope to accomplish 100% of clean energy production by 2030.

So, while I applaud the Greens — still love their goals — it is their ideological fantasizing that drove me back to the Democratic party.

Neither the Stein (Candidate) nor Green Party sites specify how, specifically, to accomplish their goals. Jill Stein also promises to provide full income to any worker displaced by the shift to Green energy. She doesn’t limit how long such a benefit would last. Theoretically, in perpetuity:

Ensure that any worker displaced by the shift away from fossil fuels will receive full income and benefits as they transition to alternative work.

As you can also read in that document, Stein proposes a radical restructuring of the entire energy industry towards one of “public, community and worker ownership.” In other words, she wants to apply socialism to the entire power grid. While this is attractive to anti-corporatists — power to the people! — I don’t know if I trust members of the general public, without any sort of electrical engineering or financial background, never mind knowledge of regulatory law or compliance, to be the stewards of gigawatts of critical, life-sustaining energy.

Go ahead.  Do your own homework on the EIA:


Hillary opposes TPP.  Do your homework.  (See, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-08-11/clinton-i-oppose-tpp-now-and-i-ll-oppose-it-as-president).

For those who argue that Hillary will flip flop back over to supporting TPP after elected, I say that I do not rest my vote upon fear and speculation.  If Hillary flips on TPP, it is because the lazy, naval-gazing far left failed to hold her accountable.  Period.

I have yet to meet a voter opposed to Hillary who has actually read the TPP.  I have read it. What I do know is that the TPP can be tweaked with arbitration clause remedies.  It is not that complicated.


As I dug and dug, what I learned was that there is an irrational hatred of Hillary out there.

It is palatable. It is cozy. It is self-edifying. It is lots of fun.

But it is, well, batshit crazy.

From one Bernie supporter to another, I say: Toughen up. Grow up. If you do not like the system, be like Bernie and dedicate your entire life to changing the system with the most liberal people you can find within the system.

For sure, the GOP delights in you fixating upon, rather than you paying attention to their GERRYMANDERING (see, ‘Gerrymandering On Steriods’: How Republicans Stacked The Nation’s Statehouses, http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/07/19/gerrymandering-republicans-redmap), their NRA PAYCHECKS (see, https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082), and their VOTER DISENFRANCHING (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-w435890).

So, no.  I do not take your white privileged protestations about Hillary at all seriously.  You have not done your homework.  You are protesting the wrong party.

You deserve a Trump world if you do not vote for Hillary.


(Thank you to Peter Corless for his invaluable contribution to this article)