After I posted my brief response to the Wired Op-Ed, I started going thru some old mail when I came across an article on the subject of racism. It posed an interesting question, why does cancel culture never consider cancelling Charles Darwin? While Darwin didn’t create racism, he is singlehandedly responsible for advancing the scientific basis that some races are more fit than others. His beliefs have been the basis of eugenics and genocide for tyrants all over the world. Millions have perished and millions more have been subjugated because of the impact of Darwin’s racist ideas. Yet, Darwin is given a free pass.
The following is printed in Answers, a publication of Answers in Genesis. The article that is quoted below is Should We Cancel Darwin by Mark Looy.
Modern views about human origins are built on a toxic error. Unless these opinions change, racism will keep raising its ugly head. Any serious desire to solve racism must inspire the question, “What about the influence of Charles Darwin’s racist views? Should they be banned (or ‘canceled,’ in popular jargon) from the culture?”
In a sequel to the better-known On the Origin of Species, Darwin’s The Descent of Man argued that humans, having descended from apelike creatures, were continuing to evolve and produce various races. Darwin posited that some races were more developed than others. Throughout Descent, Darwin labeled different people groups other than his European race as “low” and “degraded,” including Africans. Darwin argued that the “highest races and the lowest savages” clearly differed in their “moral disposition” (Darwin, 445).1 These “savages,” he further claimed, possessed “insufficient” powers of reasoning (Darwin, 489). At the end of Descent, Darwin declared he would prefer to be descended from a “little monkey” or an “old baboon” as opposed to an Indian “savage” from South America (Darwin, 919).
Darwin’s racism and belief in white supremacy were an outgrowth of his ideas regarding natural selection (a view popularized later by others as “survival of the fittest”). Accordingly, he excused aggressive colonial imperialism with the comment, “The civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world” (Darwin, 521). Although he may not have explicitly endorsed such imperialism, Darwin saw the elimination of nonwhite races as the natural result of white Europeans, who “stand at the summit of civilisation” (Darwin, 507), being the superior race.
Such reasoning, even before Darwin laid it out, was essentially the same rationale used by European, Muslim, and American slave traders, who viewed the Africans as less than human and deserving of enslavement.
If they were consistent, cancel-culture advocates would ban Darwin from society. But most won’t touch him, for he is like a prophet for their worldview. Even if they condemn racism, they blindly still want to commemorate Darwin. From him, they have a supposed scientific justification for rejecting the Creator and living as they please with regards to abortion, sex, and so on.
Answers in Genesis proclaims that there is only one race of men. Toward the end of his article, Looy writes:
The Bible’s history is crucial to a true understanding of “race.” God’s Word reveals that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. At the tower of Babel, God separated the rebellious people by both geography and language. The population broke up into sub-groups, and as people married within their own group, certain genetic features (like skin shade and eye shape) became more prominent. Some people groups ended up with light skin and others with dark skin. All people today are actually shades of brown, depending on the amount of melanin, the main pigment, in our skin (and some other minor factors). There are no truly black or white people.
Funny how, no matter how you look at the Scriptural position, it really is about the content of your character and not the color of your skin.
Folks, I do occasionally try to understand other points of view but this article which appeared on Wired.com was just begging for a response. Frankly, its hard to take this guy seriously, but he thinks he is. If this is the best the “Woke generation” has to offer, then Lord have mercy.
The piece starts with race and name calling disguised as facts. Not a good start.
EARLIER THIS MONTH, in the wake of the fatal incursion of an angry, mostly white and male mob into the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, Facebook and Twitter blocked Donald Trump’s accounts. YouTube followed with a temporary ban, which it has continued to extend in the weeks since. According to these platforms, Trump’s dangerous pattern of behavior violated their content management rules. Shortly after, Amazon Web Services ended its hosting support for the neo-Nazi online haven Parler.
The paragraph above starts with the incident at the Capitol Building. Why is it whenever Liberals write about this, they have to say some variation of “angry, mostly white and male mob”? What does race have to do with any of this?
Then the author goes after Parlor for being a haven for neo-Nazis. Classic strawman argument. Again, the author thinks he is being intellectual while throwing hammers at imaginary foes.
Then he celebrates the censorship of conservative folks with the following.
The collective sigh of relief that rippled through the digital spaces occupied by Black, indigenous and other people of color following the wave of deplatformings was visceral, and the impact was almost immediate. A study conducted by research firm Zignal Labs found that online disinformation, particularly about election fraud, fell by an incredible 73 percent in the week after Twitter’s suspension of Trump’s social media account. Online forums for Trump supporters are now fractured and weakened.
OK so how did “Black, indigenous and other people of color” benefit from censorship? Oh, and who talks like that anyway? Why is it that Black folks—which as you will see, the author considers himself—can never look at people by the content of their character but only by the color of their skin. Yet they celebrate MLK as their hero? Sir, have you never heard his I Have a Dream speech?
Folks, this brings up another issue. Why is any attempt to discuss the fraud that occurred in the last election somehow disinformation? The evidence is overwhelming that election laws were violated, ignored, and not enforced. This debate (or lack of one) is framed in a peculiar way. Liberals maintain that there was absolutely zero fraud in the last election despite many examples and Conservatives know there was rampant fraud. When Liberals acknowledge that there was fraud then at least we can have a discussion on whether there was enough to change the outcome of the election but until they recognize the same set of facts, there can be no dialogue on the issue. Denial is not dialogue. Ignoring facts does not make them go away it just makes folks ignorant or worse.
Before I continue, let me make these comments on the First Amendment.
First, strictly speaking the First Amendment applies to the national government. Via various laws and Court actions, the First Amendment has been extended to cover the various states.
The tech companies are private, but Congress has extended protections to them for the purpose of allowing free speech on their platforms and giving the companies legal protection, so they don’t have to moderate all posts on their websites. (I think this is intended to emulate the FCC regulation of broadcast media.) I’m fine with this arrangement as long as all points of view can be expressed. When only one point of view is allowed, and all others are banned or people that feel differently are intimidated to the point that they can’t express their point of view without fear of reprisal then the First amendment is not in operation. This is the current situation for both my wife and I and many others that we know. We cannot express what we believe either politically or religiously at work or on social media without fear of reprisal. While this blog in technically on the public internet, its just my corner to vent and not subject to the whims of big tech algorithms.
In addition, what frosts me, and my fellow conservatives is that the rules (whatever they might be) should be applied equally to everyone and they are not. The selective enforcement and resulting uneven playing field really grates on me.
In his essay, the author goes on to mention the First Amendment.
But many reacted to the social media bans with outrage. First Amendment fundamentalists across the political spectrum raised “free speech” concerns, claiming that the social media bans were a slippery slope. Though they’re being used to hold the powerful to account today, the argument goes, they could be used to repress minority groups in the future. Others worried that a digital oligarchy of big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, and Amazon with the unchecked power to silence individuals represents a threat to democracy.
I share the concern about the outsize influence of big tech on governance and the economy. But, as a Black activist who’s been fighting for digital rights and justice and against digital disparities, surveillance, and hate for more than a decade, the reaction that most resonated was relief and a sense of collective triumph. Finally, after years of organizing, movements for racial justice and human rights were able to hold these companies accountable to the demand that they give no platform or profit to white supremacy—at least momentarily.
To summarize the above two paragraphs, the author states that he shares the concerns expressed on the First Amendment but since his side won, it’s OK because his political opponents were silenced. He’s relieved that big tech put their thumbs on the scale to interfere. He calls this a triumph.
Now I will try to unpack the second paragraph. What caught my attention was this part, “…as a Black activist who’s been fighting for digital rights and justice and against digital disparities, surveillance, and hate …”
What does this even mean? This guy is talking in code and not the King’s English.
Digital rights are the copyrights on digital content which clearly is not what he’s talking about.
Justice is a meaningless word in the context used above. True justice is measuring man’s behavior by God’s Standard which is not what this guy has in mind.
What are digital disparities? Poor people need the Internet too? Heck every homeless person I’ve seen in California over the last decade has a cell phone.
Surveillance is how Apple, Google, Facebook, and most of the rest monetize your personal information. Most users, regardless of race, are OK with this. Whatever is the real concern, I sure can’t tell from this article.
Hate is another buzz word. The author doesn’t mean hate in the classic dictionary definition. This has to be another term related to race. Wanna bet he thinks only white people can hate or be racist?
Lastly, the author concludes the paragraph by again equating silencing President Trump as silencing White Supremacy. This is demonstrably a false claim and his insistence on making it proves that he is uninterested in an honest discussion of facts and is instead wedded to a political opinion which he must defend no matter what.
For the past decade, we have witnessed the resurgence of white supremacy in mainstream political and public debate, and it’s only been enabled by media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. While those already in power may rely on the Constitution and the democratizing promise of the open internet, Black people and other marginalized groups need more than the intent of the law to enjoy its equal protection.
OK, again what resurgence in white supremacy? The KKK was founded by Democrats and was at its peak just over 100 years ago. Virtually no Republicans were even Klan members, and none was a slave owner. The Democrats are the ones trying to keep Blacks on the plantation not me. (Note to Liberals, I’m quoting a Black man when I talk of Democrats trying to keep Blacks on the plantation.)
White Supremacy is routinely condemned by folks in both political parties so what is this guy angry about? Trump condemned both White Supremacists and neo-Nazis all the time, but it was a cold day in hell when CNN finally aired the comments during the second impeachment show. The mainstream media just denied that Trump ever said it because they would rather edit the tape than trust people to make up their own minds. Sadly, this supposedly informed author never bothered to do the research because he would rather have Trump lumped into the White Supremacist basket because then he can just dismiss the guy without having to hear what he actually said. In short, falsely labelling Trump and his supporters enforced his prejudice and presuppositions.
Please note that the author asserts that the First Amendment is not enough. Wrong. Dear Sir, the First Amendment is freedom of speech, assembly, press, and religion. There is no right to be heard or receive government subsidies if you’re not.
Then the article goes on to list various grievances that the author has with people due to real or perceived racism. None of the things he lists are the fault of Donald Trump, Parler, or the 75 million people that vote for Trump. Thus, why banning Trump, Parler, or others is a victory—since they’re not part of the problem—just mystifies me.
All of the above is used to justify Some Black Lives Matter as the hope of Blacks due to their “largely peaceful anti-racist protesters in almost every US city”. Sorry but I’ve never been to a peaceful protest that needs police, medical, and fire personnel on call because of how peaceful we were acting. I’ve never been to a peaceful protest where random people were dragged out of their cars, businesses, or homes and beaten because of the color of their skin. Doesn’t the fact that DR. King protested such thuggery mean its not ok to do no matter what color your skin is? How does playing the race card inoculate you from doing what you know is right?
I know BLM in Sacramento has had the District Attorney’s Office under siege for several years which as required the DA to install temporary fencing, hire extra security, and take other precautions due to their “peaceful” nature.
I’m not saying that all BLM protests end with violence and businesses being burned but I have never once heard of BLM trying to police their own and expel those who break the law or cause harm to life and property; thus, a reasonable person can only conclude that such violence is encouraged by the organization. Seems like a strange way for a billion-dollar corporation to behave. (Yes Virginia, Some Black Lives Matter is a corporation worth more than a billion dollars). They spend funds promoting violence while their supporters claim they are poor and voiceless. In the final analysis, it’s just another race based shakedown group.
As an early member of the Black Lives Matter Global Network in the Bay Area, I was among the leaders responsible for managing several BLM Facebook pages, and I witnessed the inequity first hand. I spent hours each day from 2014 until 2017 removing violent racial and gendered harassment, explicitly racist anti-Black language, and even threats to maim and murder Black activists.
I don’t agree with BLM, but I also don’t agree with online harassment. Its that old “do unto others” credo that Jesus taught. Bullying is out of bounds in civil discourse.
Again, I don’t know why Black people need different protection than anyone else. Why don’t we have the same protections for everyone? I thought we believed in equal justice under the law—a core biblical value by the way.
In this context, an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment—that all speech is equal, that the internet is a sufficiently democratizing force, and that the remedy for harmful speech is more speech—willfully and callously ignores that all speech is not treated equally. A digital divide and algorithmic injustice has fractured the internet, and, together with the racial exclusion of mainstream media, has turned the remedy of more speech into a false solution.
Dear sir, try being a Republican or a Christian if you think Black folks are having a rough time of it. Better yet, take a look at the treatment of Black Republican Christian Conservatives on the Internet and then see how much better that you are doing. None of us has a billion dollars in our bank account to underwrite our movement or hire lawyers if we want to take someone to court. Sharpton and Jackson don’t come to my aid or theirs when we get dumped on by “the man”.
The article has a few digs at the media and a token shot at “white liberal elitism”. Dude have you never watched ESPN or anything else sports related? The commentary is all about race and rarely about the sport. They spend way more time on athlete’s felony arrests than player trades. The entertainment industry has their diversity quotas to try and stay in your good graces as well. Truth is that the news media tends to give you cover and protection and amplify your message because they agree with you politically and are afraid of offending you. What more do you want of them? You’re just ungrateful; but it always circles back to that subject when discussing liberals.
The author then says that tech companies need to write algorithms to fight hate rather than promote it. However, who gets to write that code and then enforce it? The author presumes that we are stupid sheep and someone—either big government or big tech—needs to care for us. Sorry but trusting either—government or tech—is destined to fail.
Concluding Remarks
The bottom line is that the author is looking for a political solution to solve spiritual problems. Human nature is broken and neither BLM nor any other political interest group can fix the human heart. Civil government was established in part to restrain the acts of evil doers but only God and His Bride the Church can mend the flaws and brokenness inside people. Sin divides us from each other. Dr. King’s vision of a colorblind society is ultimately the work of God’s Holy Spirit. Until we get the logs out of our own eyes, we are ill equipped to get the splinter out of our neighbors. Malkia Devich-Cyril needs to start at the Cross not with Karl Marx if he truly wants to improve the lot of all lives; Black or otherwise.
If BLM was mobilizing their community to shun Planned Parenthood—an organization founded to eliminate Blacks via genocide—and advocating that they look to God and not Washington for assistance, then I would take them a lot more seriously when they claim to be a force for good. Until then, I regard them as a criminal organization using hate and intimidation to achieve political and social aims. Sadly, Some Black Lives Matter is a proudly Marxist organization and thus will never look to God for true justice. Ironically, theirs are much the same tactics that the KKK has historically used on Blacks. Is this an example of the saying that “you become like what you hate?”
Better to love the hell out of someone than beat it out of them.
This week an actress employed by Disney’s Star Wars subsidiary was fired for saying that we should respect people’s political opinions even when we disagree with them. Yep, this revolutionary concept used to be a bedrock value when this country was known as America, but no longer.
Here’s the story. Please understand that due to the transitory nature of content on the Internet that the original and allegedly offensive comments were purged. Furthermore, most news stories on this incident don’t have the courtesy and objectivity to tell you what was actually said. I recall that journalism once prided itself on telling you all sides of a story and trusting readers to make up their own minds. This has not bee true in many decades.
According to Variety, Carano, 38, shared a message on the social media platform in which she compared today’s political divide to the events in Nazi Germany.
“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views,”
Two things to point out on the above; first, she did not write this comment, it appears that she reposted the comment; and secondly, is the end where it states, “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”
Note to Liberals: Those of us that are devout Christians see many parallels with the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany and the current treatment of Christians in this country. Our faith has been under attack; especially over the last 15 years. Our love for Trump is based in large part to his removing the heavy hand of the federal government from restricting religious liberty. Joe Biden has been signaling that persecution of people of faith will resume under his leadership. California government has never stopped persecuting us, but they have had their agenda derailed while focusing on Covid. Thus, the comparison above which appeared on social media is in fact a valid comparison.
Thus, Gina Carano is saying that we should not hate people that have different views from ours. Translation don’t hate me or other conservatives that disagree with you.
Oh, she also once posted a meme disagreeing with the stupid mask requirements.
A second post contained a photo of a person wearing cloth masks to cover their face and head with the caption: “Meanwhile in California.”
Gina also posted the following:
“Expecting everyone you encounter to agree with every belief or view you hold is fucking wild”
This is not the first time Carano, who played former Rebel Alliance soldier Cara Dune on The Mandalorian, has been the focus of social media ire for her political comments. Last November, she issued contentious tweets, one in which she mocked mask-wearing amid the novel coronavirus pandemic and another in which she falsely suggested voter fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election.
“They have been looking for a reason to fire her for two months, and today was the final straw,” a source with knowledge of Lucasfilm’s thinking tells THR.
If you want to find the pot calling the kettle black, search for James Gunn liking the posts about Carano being fired. Gunn was fired by Disney and was subsequently rehired for actually posting derogatory stuff on social media. Also, note that at the time, I posted a blog in support of Gunn. I don’t have a problem with free speech only with people demanding that I have to agree with them.
The following excerpts are posted without comment:
A peer-reviewed study contends the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violated federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers.
The figures were inflated by at least 1,600%…
That fact, the National File notes, corresponds with the CDC’s “quiet admission that it blended viral and antibody test results for its case numbers and that people can test positive on an antibody test if they have antibodies from a family of viruses that cause the common cold.“
Among the notable findings in the study is the conclusion that the CDC “illegally enacted new rules for data collection and reporting exclusively for COVID-19 that resulted in a 1,600% inflation of current COVID-19 fatality totals,” the watchdog group All Concerned Citizens said in a statement provided to National File.
COVID-19 was to be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death, regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions.
On its website, the CDC says, just 6% of the people counted as COVID-19 deaths died of COVID-19 alone.
The researchers estimated the COVID-19 recorded fatalities “are inflated nationwide by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks,” said All Concerned Citizens.
Folks, the merry band of health officials claiming that a vaccine will fix everything Covid related are once again showing their hand… and it’s a very empty bluff that needs calling. If you get the vaccine, it changes nothing.
The following is from the State of California, specifically “Dr. Heidi Bauer, the head of public health for California Correctional Health Care Services.”
Let’s go through this one question at a time. Oh, please keep in mind that the text which I am quoting is the best arguments that your government can offer as to why you should get vaccinated.
After the vaccine, can I stop wearing a mask?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. We as a society are going to need to continue to protect ourselves and to protect other people by masking and distancing for at least the next six months and possibly longer. It will take weeks to months to get enough people vaccinated before we can really let down our guard. Masking and distancing will continue to be really important prevention measures until we know more about the protection that we get from the vaccine.
Getting the vaccine will still require you to socially distance and wear a mask. You will need to do so for at least six months.
Note to readers, depending on the article that you read on vaccines, the Covid vaccine is claimed to be good for a period of three months to as long as a year. These claims are constantly being revised because the truth is that nobody really knows. Some articles are even claiming that you will need a Covid vaccine annually for the rest of your life or until Dr. Fauci changes his mind (yet again).
Oh, if you’ve had Covid, you will still have to get the shot because its assumed that you don’t develop any immunity by being infected. My question is, if surviving Covid—as over 99 percent of people do—does not result in immunity, then how does getting a shot do something your body’s immune system can’t do on its own by successfully fighting it off?
Am I exempt from testing after getting the vaccine?
Unfortunately, no. As I mentioned, people can still become infected even if they’ve been vaccinated so testing continues to be important for identifying people who become infected and may be infectious and pass along that infection to other people. We’re going to continue all of those other strategies. So the vaccine really gives us another tool in the tool kit. Unfortunately at this point. It doesn’t replace any of the tools that are already in use.
So, getting the vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting Covid and getting Covid doesn’t prevent you from getting the vaccine. This is called circular reasoning; which by the way is a logical fallacy.
Given the above, the next question is at least a logical one. Please understand that the answer is directed at people working in the correctional system.
If I still have to wear a mask and get tested, what’s the point of the vaccine?
That’s a great question. People have many reasons for wanting to be vaccinated for COVID-19. The primary reason is for the benefit of health and the ongoing risk of exposure to COVID-19, particularly in congregate settings and prisons are very much congregate settings. And we know from our experience over the last nine or 10 months that there is very high risk of transmission, and these viruses some of them are becoming even more transmissible. And so the main reason I think that people want to be vaccinated and should be vaccinated is to protect their health. The other really important reason is to protect the health of people around you and family members and people that you come into contact with.
Did you catch the answer? You should get vaccinated to protect yourself and the people that you love even though it doesn’t really do anything but make you feel better. The ultimate reason is in your head (the mental health of vaccine recipient) and an appeal to your sense of citizenship not based on science.
Maybe the Surgeon General should require wording like this on the vaccine: Warning, any immunity that you develop to COVID-19 is purely coincidental and not necessarily the result of this highly experimental chemical cocktail that we are injecting into your body. Just in case this vaccine proves ineffective, keep pretending that you are the most highly infectious individual in your family/ church/ school/job or community by continuing to stay six feet away from other people and wearing a mask. Shouting out, “Unclean” when a stranger passes you by is encouraged but not yet required.”
Oh, and even though millions of folks have been vaccinated, its just a drop in the bucket. Which ties in with this next article. Please note the headline is: COVID-19 cases drop 40% since last week
The number of reported COVID-19 infections has plummeted 40% in the United States in just one week and 30% worldwide in the past three weeks.
And the primary reason is not the distribution of vaccines, contend experts, who point out that only 8% of Americans and 13% people worldwide have received their first dose, DailyMail.com reported.
A New York Times COVID-19 case tracker indicated cases in the U.S. were down 30% from just last week, according to Marketwatch.
Statistics from Johns Hopkins show the nation’s seven-day rolling average is down 40%.
Daily cases have dropped 45% since the latest peak Jan. 11, according to data from the COVID-19 Tracking Project.
Didn’t Michael Crichton tell us that “nature finds a way?”
Meanwhile the plethora of COVID-19 mutations which we told you about last Spring are finally being reported by the mainstream media. Some are finally asking in light of the virus’ ability to mutate, “will the vaccine remain effective?” Please note, this presupposes that the vaccine was effective to begin with. Give the responses by Dr. Heidi Bauer, this claim is very suspect to me.
The editorial board met over chips and salsa at a possibly open indoor dining establishment in our hometown to discuss the recall. This is actually the 6th recall Newsom has faced since being elected about 2 years ago. Those recalls never got the steam or funding like this one has. Here is what we feel will happen and our prediction.
First the recall will go to a vote, with 1.3 million signatures gathered, and a very high accuracy rate so far, only about 600k more signatures are needed. This will not be a hard feat since around 6 million Golden State voters voted for Trump last election. We firmly believe Gavin Newsom will be a former Governor by summer’s end. Personally, we feel he will wind up working for his Aunt Nancy Pelosi.
We feel this way due to a variety of reasons. Namely his poor handling of the “pandemic” I use air quotes not because it’s a hoax but due to the ever-changing rules. Lock down, open partially, lock down, outdoor only, barber and nail places ok, lock down again, ICU filling to quick, lockdown extended, lockdown ends, and his refusal to release the data he attributes the lockdown too. Then he comes out and says we serfs wouldn’t understand. However most painfully is the lack of communication with the county health directors with regard to his orders on reopening. The Chief’s mother was on a Zoom call with Dr. Olivia Kasirye (the replacement for racist Dr. Beilensen) who was befuddled at the re-opening in Sac County effective the following day, having said she had spoken to Newsom an hour prior and this never came up. Again, Newsom is toast.
However here is the main stumbling block; as of press-time, 3 major GOP candidates have thrown their names into the ring to replace Newsom. You have “Sandy Eggo” former Mayor Kevin Falconour who has raised a little over a million and is in need of work; Doug Ose the former congressman from Sacramento, a similar moderate to Falconour but can self-fund; and John Cox, a businessman and former Republican gubernatorial nominee who can self-fund, he is the most conservative of the three but was blown out 2 short years ago.
many will enter; 1 will win
Just like McDonald’s Monopoly contest that takes place every so often, many will enter; 1 will win. I can see a field of about 15 or so easily, most of whom are GOP types, several fringe players will enter, I broke down the main three above.
How we see it playing out is as follows; about 62% vote to throw the useless pond scum out. This will be viewed as a favor as he will be able to enjoy a meal at the French Laundry in Napa as often as he would like. He can even say he is “one of us.” I use 62% because all food service, bar, gym, retail, and other affected business workers will want him gone, and these are the groups democrats love to pander to the most. Most of the affected also happen to be those of color, another group the democrats are used to pandering too.
As for who replaces Gavin, get ready…it will be another Democrat. The GOP will split the vote regionally; Falconer gets San Diego vote, Cox the LA area vote, and Ose gets the Sac, and parts of Bay Area vote. In essence they will split the GOP voter block. This will allow an LA democrat to take over. This is the main difference between the GOP and democrats in this state, while our side doesn’t want a farm team, the democrats line up behind one nominee and let them win. The democrat will focus on being anti- Gavin, but just as progressive. Remember 2/3 of the voters in this state live south of the Bakersfield area. In addition, every voter gets a ballot (sometimes more) in this state so while the GOP will win the battle in our opinion, they will lose the war. Get ready for a far left LA democrat moving into Sacramento to rape and pillage the state even more.
The family voted to get one month of Disney Plus to watch the Mandalorian and see what else that they have to offer. We did a quick binge on the Marvel movies less anything Spider-Man (Sony stills owns the rights so not much Peter Parker on the Mouse channel) and then moved on to Star Wars.
Folks, the Star Wars franchise is one that editors tweak on a regular basis. Even before Disney bought the franchise from George Lucas, the original trilogy had been released in at least three different edits. As a rule, each of the edits added more special effects and content to the films. When Disney bought the franchise, they promptly killed-off almost every spin-off, series, or story idea marketed during the thirty or so years that Lucas owned the rights. In effect, Disney purged the “Star Wars cannon” so they could make the new Star Wars universe in their image—oh and market the crap out of the galaxy far, far away…
The latest trilogy—episodes seven thru nine—haven’t been out that long. Tonight, we watched #8 The Last Jedi (2017) and while the movie is much as I remember it, there was a noticeable edit at the end that didn’t escape my attention. I’m not that immersed in the Star Wars lore, but I do remember the end of episode 8 because it completely undid everything in all the previous films except maybe Jar Jar Binks. After Luke Skywalker dies, goes to his reward, or whatever— (“Die” just seems like the wrong word because just like a comic book, when is someone really dead enough not to come back to life? Even the grave didn’t keep Carrie Fisher out of the ninth movie.) — anyway, the last scene of the movie had shots of random children exercising “The Force” with the idea that it was now freely available to everyone. The Force was unleashed. When I saw it the first time, I was really angry that the whole idea of wrong versus right was gone and replaced by shades of gray and moral relativity. At the time I even blogged on my feelings. However, watching it this time, the stuff that offended me was absent. Magically, some uncredited person at Disney removed the offending material and set the story on a path more in tune with the concept used by Lucas of good versus evil. Star Wars was again a morality play in a galaxy far, far away…
As much as I disliked the theatrical release of The Last Jedi, I have a problem/gripe/concern with what I witnessed (or in this case didn’t witness). Most people will never own a physical copy of this or any other film that they can stream from the internet but folks, doesn’t the idea that some mega corporation can change content on a whim bother you just a little? If something can be added or removed without letting you know then isn’t that just a step or two nearer the dystopia of Orwell? Truth is reduced to what government or mega-corp. says it is. Isn’t that why many of us have left Facebook and Twitter? Yet when it comes to digital media, we usually don’t notice when they edit your eBook or flat out delete it from your Kindle reader. Real books are portable and immutable, but the internet and other forms of digital communication are malleable, ethereal, and transient.
So, while in this particular case, I think the edit strengthens the story, it bothers me that it was done without notice or disclaimer. How many other things have I streamed into my living room that have received edits which change the plotline of the story and I never knew the difference?
Folks, please keep my experience in mind when you interact with anything digital. It can be manipulated or removed from your device without any notice to you. If it’s important enough then buy a copy of the physical media whether that be a book, DVD, or whatever. If the content lives on some else’s computer then you don’t really own it no matter how much you paid for the illusion of ownership.
As I am sure you have read by now, Jorge “the drunken Jedi” Riley is in custody for his part storming of the capital in DC. While we can debate whether he was right, wrong, or indifferent we can all agree on one thing, it was flat stupid to do what he did. Even dumber was to post video and other photos on his Facebook page. Far dumber was to make comments about killing people or taking back the People’s House. While we can agree he probably didn’t mean those comments, they are very dumb to say in an era of big tech hating conservatives, and when “screenshotting” is taboo.
Jorge Aaron Riley
The point of this blog is not to dance on the grave of one’s misfortunes, as Mr. Riley in the words of a federal judge “is looking at a lengthy sentence, due to the nature of his crime and evidence against him.” The point of my writing is to bring to light his enablers, who will all be called out by name, and I feel are accomplices to the behavior leading to the crime.
They are listed in no particular order.
Sue Blake (Former Sac County GOP Chair): Sue or madam chair, as you can call her, had a front row seat to Riley’s sobriety issues. Riley was known to attend the meetings with his “backpack” carrying the elixir by which he would consume, before, during, and after each meeting. Blake would call on Riley to give a report, we would hear a plethora of racial or homophobic slurs, and she would smile and say thanks for that report.
Tom Hudson (Former CRA President) same as above but worse. Hudson is a smooth-talking lawyer who for some reason really liked Jorge. He too had no issue with the drinking, and every time there was a CRA board election, Jorge would find himself safe from any challengers. Last I heard, he owns the server and membership lists for the statewide group. Hudson is still known to be protecting Riley even though he no longer wields much power.
The Park Brothers (George and Aaron): While both may be removed from CRA, both allowed Riley to consume copious amounts of booze and stir up trouble at conventions. Aaron may have written a blog or two disparaging him, but too little, too late. Aaron, you are just as culpable. Notice his blog has been quiet about this, when news of Riley’s arrest spread like a PG&E induced wildfire. Aaron and George know they are neck deep in this. Does the fact that Riley’s middle name is Aaron immunize him from their criticism?
Bill “The Wookie” Cardoza: By far the biggest enabler. Bill, like any liquid, takes the shape of whatever vessel he is poured into. Bill is a very close friend of Riley’s. Bill has never done anything to advise Jorge of his behaviors. Bill on numerous occasions has even allowed Jorge to drive under the influence…Some friend! On occasion Bill was a sober passenger. Let that soak in! Bill has worked for several elected’s in his day and he should know better. Jorge was protected by Bill, so he is equally at fault for his behavior. Rumor has it, Cardoza bought Riley’s ticket to DC. Worse yet, Cardoza is a ranking member of the Sacramento CRA unit, and he has allowed Riley to destroy that once proud unit!
Jared Kopp (Former Sac County Republican Executive Director) Kopp was a drinking buddy of Riley, he also allowed Jorge’s drinking to shape who he is now. Jared used to think this behavior was amusing and funny. Jared, Sue and Terry Mast (RIP) defended this behavior and marginalized those who tried to stop it.
Folks if you know any of the above, please do not buy their BS. They are all equally culpable. Jared, Sue, and the other central committee members knew this man was a liability, yet they kept protecting and promoting him. Cardoza? He keeps protecting him, rumor has it he is actively searching for counsel to help defend Riley of the federal crimes he is charged with. Aaron and George? I doubt Jorge paid you so how did you have such blind loyalty to him? Tom Hudson, ditto. Folks that is a collection of supposedly smart folks who sold out their futures to help a deranged human.
In short, the folks named above fought to enable and cover for a man (Jorge) who has unpaid child support from 4 different women, and allegedly has a criminal past. Riley drinks alcohol from his backpack, before, during, and after meetings. He has threatened folks with physical violence and once bragged about committing a double shooting. (Said crime is still listed as unsolved by local police.–Editor) I guess he must be a great volunteer or do quite a bit for the Party, right? To justify defense of these actions? Nope, he has not done squat since being a member of local politics.
The Drunken Jedi (aka Jorge Riley) has finally screwed-up beyond the ability of his enablers to cover for him. He was arrested by the FBI and is currently being held without bail awaiting a hearing in Federal Court in early March. I’ll have more on this in just a moment.
First why is this individual called the Drunken Jedi on our blog? The short answer is that Sith Lord and Apprentice were taken. This individual is the polar opposite of the Sith Lord, thus in order stay with the Star Wars motif, he was a Jedi. Second, this individual has substance problems which his peers have enabled for decades, thus to point out the obvious is to mock them for enabling and even rewarding bad behavior. (Another blog contributor is going after these enablers via his own post so I will deal only with other aspects to this story.)
I learned of this story via a friend that happened to be dining with the Sith Lord when stuff hit the fan. Folks, this one incident did more to unite the California Republican Party than anything else the CRA (California Republican Assembly) has done in decades. This was the day prior to this story hitting both local television stations KOVR and KCRA. It seems after the raid on the Capitol building January 6th that the Drunken Jedi did an interview video telling how he was in the front of the pack entering the Capitol building and Speaker Pelosi’s office. He talked of getting maced on three occasions as he went about pillaging the People’s House.
The day of the Sith Lord’s fateful meal, knowledge of the video was circulating thru the Republican electeds at the California Capitol. They were reaching out to anybody they could find in CRA and the Sith Lord got his share of calls demanding that CRA repudiate this guy and his actions.
The following day, the story hit the local TV news stations. Understandably they got a few key details wrong and were unaware of other information which I will attempt to correct in the following paragraphs. But first, the news accounts.
A Sacramento man who admitted his involvement in the U.S. Capitol riot in a video has resigned from his position as a local Republican leader.
The California Republican Assembly is condemning the actions of board member Jorge Riley, who they identify as the man in the video, and any plans for further violence.
A Sacramento Republican leader was forced to resign on Thursday after backlash following his involvement in the pro-Trump mob that stormed the nation’s Capitol on Jan. 6.
Jorge Riley, corresponding secretary of the California Republican Assembly and president of the Sacramento Republican Assembly, resigned from both positions Thursday afternoon. Photos and posts on his personal Facebook page document his participation in the siege.
The California Republican Assembly issued a press release condemning Riley’s actions, and said the CRA was not involved in the incident.
The statement also said the CRA president demanded Riley resign his membership immediately or be removed.
“CRA President Johnnie Morgan has demanded that the member, Jorge Riley of Sacramento, resign his membership in CRA immediately as it is important to have leaders who’s actions exemplify positive engagement in the civil governance process. If he does not resign, we will seek his expulsion from the organization.” Members with the CRA told KCRA 3 Riley resigned from both positions at 4 p.m. Thursday.
KCRA 3 reviewed photos, videos and comments posted to Riley’s Facebook page during and after the riot, including a since-deleted Jan. 8 post that read “You will all die.” That post was removed Thursday evening.
In a series of photos and videos, he is seen participating in the rally with President Trump, before moving with the group to the Capitol. As the photos continue, Riley is seen with the group storming the Capitol building. He also shared photos of broken windows inside the Capitol hallways and outside Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Photos of Riley inside the Capitol were removed Friday afternoon.
Folks, sorry but Mr. Riley didn’t cut his ties with CRA as stated in the press accounts. I have been unable to get any confirmation that Riley has submitted anything in writing resigning as statewide Correspondence Secretary, President of the Sacramento Chapter of CRA, or resigning from CRA itself.
Whether Riley leaves the Board voluntarily or is removed, such an action cannot be taken without a duly called Board meeting. As of this writing, two weeks after the media accounts above, such a meeting has not been called. CRA is incorporated in California and all Board members, including Riley, are officers of the corporation. Removal is not official until certified by the Board at a properly called and noticed Board meeting.
Riley has not been replaced as President by Sac CRA.
Riley has not been removed as a CRA member.
In fact, some CRA members are fighting behind the scenes to keep him in the organization.
Oh, there’s more. Riley is the keeper of CRA’s membership rolls. Yep, he has the master copy of who is in the organization and who has paid their dues. This information is needed for Board meetings and conventions.
Riley also owns the web servers hosting the CRA website. Thus, he owns the CRA’s website! Without his cooperation, he can hold the CRA hostage and prevent them from updating content. This is more proof that the CRA leadership learned nothing from their dust-up with the Just Us Brothers.
The FBI has also arrested a Sacramento man, Jorge Riley. Though no court documents have been filed against him, he can be seen on videos posted to Reddit storming the United States Capitol.
About the time that the FBI narrative came to my attention, I was given information that Riley was being held with no bail and a preliminary hearing date of March 5. It appears that Mr. Riley is slated to be the poster boy for what happens to you when you raise hell in the Swamp and then brag about it on social media.
Folks I have lots of questions about this whole incident not the least of which is why travel from Sacramento to Washington DC in the first place? Several folks arrested at the protest were from the Left Coast. I have yet to hear of any of these people who were arrested making political contributions to President Trump’s campaign. I’m sure if the Dems could tie them to Trump via donations that they would do it. Given the above, how did they afford to travel to DC if they wouldn’t even write a check to Trump’s campaign? (It only takes a $100 contribution for your name to appear on campaign contribution records filed with the FEC.)
I was just at the Capitol Building a year and a half ago and I thought there was an enormous amount of security so how did these guys get in the building en masse? What about reports that the raid on the Capitol started 20 minutes before Trump spoke to the crowd? Did some protesters get in the building thru security before this started? Or stated another way, was this truly spontaneous or planned?
Media reports raised the possibility that Riley and others would be tried in Virginia or elsewhere in the DC area. Is it necessary to extradite them to the other side of the country or can the preliminary court appearances be done locally?
Apparently, we didn’t have to wait very long for the answer to my last question. Hours after I penned the above, a staff member forwarded the answer to my question with this update.
Jorge Riley, the Sacramento man accused of participating in the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riots, was in a heated hearing Wednesday where a federal judge ordered he remain in custody and be transported to Washington, D.C. courts, calling him “a man of impulse and poor judgment.” Judge Carolyn Delaney held firm that there was plenty of evidence against Riley, saying that his incarceration will be a lengthy one if he is convicted. Timothy Zindell, Riley’s attorney, vehemently argued against the judge, saying that the former Sacramento Republican leader was neither a flight risk nor a risk to public. Zindell also argued that Riley is a disabled veteran with no money and that he had to use his $600 stimulus check intended for coronavirus relief to buy a plane ticket to Washington.
These paragraphs contain a lot of info related to the theme of this post.
First, Riley will be sent to DC for trial.
Being in a “heated hearing” with a federal judge is never a good thing.
The judge, as we suspected, thinks Riley will be on ice for a long time.
It’s interesting that Riley—who allegedly resigned from his positions in CRA—is still described as a “Republican leader.” As we all know, were he a Democrat, his Party affiliation would never be mentioned in the story. This type of media bias has been the case for the last forty-plus years.
If Riley is transported out of California-which I understand happened yesterday-then maybe CRA will have grounds to remove him since he no longer resides in California, although we learned during the most recent election that living in another state is not necessarily a barrier to voting in the once golden state. The only sure way to ensure Riley’s removal from the CRA and Republican voter rolls is if he is convicted of a crime that results in his loss of the right to vote. Again, many within CRA don’t want Riley removed from office or the organization.
Lastly, if Riley had done the exact same things that he is accused of now and been a member of Some Black Lives Matter, Antifa, or another liberal group of malcontents, he would be out on bail and not be facing any charges as they would be dismissed by prosecutors.
Riley’s day of reckoning has been a long time coming. Had some in CRA said “NO” to him years ago, maybe he wouldn’t be drowning in this pool of excrement today.
Folks, its not that we haven’t addressed the topic of the complete capitulation of virtually all the churches in this country in the face of the Covid nonsense at times in the past; however, it seems to be getting worse. Clearly those claiming the name of Christ fear microbes more that God. The shepherds of the faithful have chosen to scatter their flocks to the four winds to be thrashed by the Evil One while they hide their lamps under the bushel basket cringing in fear and looking to government for salvation.
I took this photo on my way to work this morning.
Oh, on a side note, California taxpayers, thanks for the full paycheck this month when I have spent less than five hours in the office all month. This is the “new normal” for government employment in case you missed that. Yet another story you won’t know if you only watch cable news.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Its one thing when our Governor calls churches nonessential but it’s a whole ‘nother level of stupid when the churches agree with the proposition and call themselves “nonessential” as in the photo above.
The truth is that the offering plate at your local house of worship is really empty these days. Many places of worship—especially in high-cost areas such as here in California—will never recover either the money or the members that they had prior to the Covid collapse. In fact, Jake the Snake said that his parish-which had 1.5 million cash in the bank before Covid-just applied to get a government loan to keep the church’s payroll afloat. This bothered both of us. We talked that such bailouts would come with strings and we wondered aloud if churches would soon lose their tax-exempt status under the Harris/Biden administration.
Folks there’s even worse news for churches than all the above. Last Thursday, I was at the men’s gathering at the local Speak Easy and learned that the men of my congregation are perfectly OK with complying with all the Covid restrictions and see no difference between church on YouTube and worship in person. In fact, they want to hand over more money to Facebook and Twitter to advertise the fact that either way to attend church is equally valid. Oh, when I brought up the historic and biblical model of church being in person and there is no such thing as virtual Sacraments, I was told that watching YouTube services by yourself was not good but if you invoked the “whenever two or three are gathered in my name” that such virtual worship with the family was just fine. (I let it slide that the application of this verse to worship is completely out of context with the passage.) Oh, YouTube is also great because why just watch our service on YouTube when you can watch all them other guys too?
In a congregation that once numbered between 800 and a thousand, three services once a week with a one-hundred-person limit is fine with these guys. In my opinion, its congregational suicide.
Oh, Jake and I also agree that our congregations have buried way more folks than they have either baptized or confirmed since Covid started. The trend line is indisputably in the wrong direction.
Lastly, as I’ve pointed out before, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between closing churches and the rise of socialism in our nation. If your pastor neglects to fill the spiritual vacuum in our society with Christianity, then people will fill it with other stuff to sooth their itching ears. Trust me that there’s much more stuff like that on YouTube than anything with spiritual substance to it. If your church has ceased or restricted in person worship, then your church is part of the problem and not offering solutions.
