A Surreal Presidential Race Gets Stranger

President Trump is not running against former Vice President Joe Biden, no matter what the ballot reads. Even Democrat voters admit the election has less to do with their candidate.  This election pits President Trump versus Donald Trump.  Running against yourself is a first in modern political history

The recent Democratic Party National Convention focused on Mr. Trump at the expense of their candidate. It was a hate-fest loaded with speaker-after-speaker who skewered the man with the orange tan. Each word dripped vitriol.  Mr. Trump was the devil in disguise with the bad comb-over.

For a majority of Democrats, their candidate might as well not exist. (And he mostly has been MIA.) They have only one candidate: ABT (Anybody But Trump). The party, since 2016, has targeted removing him from office by whatever means necessary.  Now they have a legitimate opportunity.

And let's face it, Joe Biden was not the party faithful's first choice. His resume includes two failed races for the White House.  He was trailing in the early primaries before the power brokers anointed him their guy to avoid a potential election disaster with socialist Bernie Sanders heading the ticket. 

Even former President Obama dawdled until the race was settled before endorsing his former veep, whose campaign lacked the electricity of Sanders. Biden allies are still flustered over Mr. Obama's betrayal when he embraced Hillary Clinton as his successor.  Perhaps, Mr. Obama knew Mr. Biden is unelectable.       

Mr. Biden has the charisma of a turnip.  And that's unkind to turnips. He shuffles on stage wearing a mask.  His speeches ramble. His mental flubs are legendary.  The few media interviews he has granted end in nonsensical malapropisms. He seldom ventures outside his basement to face questions.

Let's pause here for the Democrat response.  None of this matters. People loath Donald Trump.  He is the opposite of likable, kindly Joe. A reckless, strident, narcissist.  He is a science denier who allowed a virus to bring America to its knees.  He is a racist and unpresidential. And have you seen his Tweets? Gag!

Whipping up pathological revulsion for the enemy may work for Democrats.  But party leaders are clearly worried about voter enthusiasm.  That is why Sen. Kamala Harris was tapped for the second spot on the ticket.  Democrats keep reminding us she is a "woman of color."  I guess no one has ever seen her photo.

Now the newly minuted vice presidential candidate is front and center in the campaign.  Sen. Harris is likely to be the face of the Democratic Party presidential race, relegating Mr. Biden to appear groundhog-like from his bunker.  The strategy certainly appears to be on target with voters.

After Biden became the apparent nominee, polls showed the 77-year-old with a double digit lead.  Some had the former Delaware senator 15 points ahead of the president.  Now the polls are tightening with 65 days until the election and a wave of panic has risen, a disturbing  reminder of what happened in 2016.

A clear majority (58%) of Democrats say their vote is mostly "about opposing Trump."  Only three in ten Democrats (36%) admit their decision to vote for Biden is more about their candidate.  In comparison, 74% of Trump voters say they are backing their candidate rather than opposing Mr. Biden.

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center's latest survey underscores the shifting tide nationwide.  Mr. Biden currently enjoys an eight point lead, but it was 10 points a few months ago.  The Real Clear Politics average of all polls has Biden ahead by eight percentage points, down from a 10 point margin.

Just when giddy Democrats were popping champagne corks, the latest Rasmussen Reports national presidential poll was released at the end of last week.  It showed Mr. Biden holding a razor-thin lead over President Trump: 46% to 45%.  What was a runaway election, suddenly looks like a squeaker.    

Several polls rate some of the most important swing states as toss-ups after Mr. Biden was ahead in earlier research. The two candidates are virtually tied in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  Since the election is decided by the Electoral College, state polls are a better barometer than national surveys. 

Mr. Biden's slippage can partly be attributed to a growing suspicion among voters about his diminished mental capacity. Political research firm  Zogby International polled 1,007 likely voters and found that 55% believe Mr. Obama's former wingman "is in the early stages of dementia."

A breakdown of the results shows 55% of independent voters and 32% of Democrats agree with the premise of intellectual impairment. Even worse for Democrats, a majority of women (50%) are on board too. Women are a key demographic for the Democrat presidential candidate.  

Democrats who suggest the subject of Mr. Biden's dementia is off limits have convenient amnesia.  The party and its candidates openly questioned President Ronald Reagan's mental capacity during his campaign for a second term.  No one thought it was inappropriate given his age.

For the record, Mr. Reagan was 77-years old when he left office in January, 1989.  Mr. Biden will be the exact same age on January 20, when he will be sworn in if he wins the presidential office.  At the time of his election, Mr. Trump was age 70. 

Of course, Democrats have trashed Mr. Trump's mental acuity since his election and every day since.  The man is certifiably bat poop crazy, their lackeys in the media hee-haw at every opportunity.  If mental health is legitimate issue for Mr. Trump, then it certainly should be applicable to Mr. Biden.

Voters even predict Mr. Biden will not serve out his first term, if elected.  The latest Rasmussen Reports national survey finds 59% of likely voters believe the former veep's running mate will become president before the first term concludes.  That includes a near majority (49%) of his own party's voters.

So Democrats have to wonder.  How does a politician who voters believe may be mentally unfit and too old to serve out a four-year term appeal to the electorate? The current strategy appears to be avoiding the media except for the occasional friendly MSNBC or CNN interview, while Sen. Harris shines.  

There so many other strange qualities about this race.  The Coronavirus has shutdown the normal campaigning that flourishes at this juncture in the race.  Virtual campaigning is a non sequitur. The excitement of a crowd is missing.  There is little emotion. Interest is dwindling among the electorate.

If you doubt that assessment, consider the viewership for recent political conventions.  Both parties failed to garner the same audience ratings as they did in 2016.  Interestingly, the most watched evening of the Democratic Convention was the night former First Lady Michelle Obama spoke.   

The Coronavirus also has stolen Mr. Trump's secret campaign weapon: large indoor rallies.  His packed rallies in 2016 built voter enthusiasm and turned political elections on its head. No one had campaigned that way, eschewing media advertising for the most part to increase turnout. 

Both parties are anguishing over voter turnout, the key to winning any election. Since Trump voters are more motivated according to polling, that cannot be good news for Democrats.  They are counting on Trump Derangement Syndrome to galvanize their legions to return their mail ballots.

Issues have taken a backseat to hatred.  The Democrats top theme is how Mr. Trump bungled the handling of the Coronavirus. With many schools still closed and businesses struggling to reopen, the Democrats are mining the rich vein of anger about the seemingly endless quarantine regime.

However, Democrats have served up a prime issue for Republicans. Incessant rioting in Democrat-controlled cities and the steady march to defund police departments has struck a chord with many voters. Republicans are drumbeating the issue of "law and order," a winner in past elections.   

In the aftermath of rioting, Mr. Trump's approval rating soared to 52% last week in a Zogby analytics poll.  "The president has recorded his best job approval rating on record," said pollster Jonathan Zogby.  Mr. Trump's job rating among African-Americans climbed to 36%, an alarming trend for Mr. Biden.     

Despite the news, Democrats are maintaining a facade of confidence. Mr. Biden has already hinted at some of his likely cabinet choices, including the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. His minions probably are considering ideas for redecorating the Oval Office. He is a shoo-in.

In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently shocked some political pundits when she openly suggested Mr. Biden should skip the presidential debates.  "I don't think there should be any debates," she said, claiming President Trump will make any confrontation "an exercise in skullduggery."

With a comfortable lead in national polls, other Democrats share Ms. Pelosi's opinion but have expressed their views privately.  They picture the debates as a lose-lose proposition for Mr. Biden.  They don't trust him on the debate stage because of his penchant for verbal mischief and think he will be bested by Trump.  

That may explain why Democrats are preparing for the worst.  Two organizations with Democrat fingerprints have been formed with the mission of ensuring Mr. Trump leaves office when he is vanquished and preserving election integrity.  The groups are Stand Up America and Indivisible Action.

Despite their stated purpose, some suspect their real intent is to unleash a storm of protests if Mr. Trump wins the election.  One of their leaders admitted on One America News that his group would stir up chaos about the results, raising issues about outside interference in the election.  Sound familiar?

And the Biden campaign has assembled a group of 600 lawyers and thousands of others to prepare for possible "chicanery" in the November election. According to his campaign, about 10,000 volunteers have signed on to stake-out polling places.  That seems odd in light of Democrat focus on mail-in voting.

An anticipated record number of mail-in ballots raises the specter of delays in announcing the state results on election night.  In a tightly contested race, this could drag on for weeks or even months. It heightens the prospect of a contentious political legal battle like the nation has never experienced.

That would be the capstone on this surreal presidential race.     

Post Office Mess: Stop Pretending It's About Voting

Suppose you own a business that hemorrhages red ink every year.  In the latest year, your firm loss $8.86 billion. Your company's total indebtedness is $160 billion and climbing. Even worse your main source of revenues is shriveling. Would you keep pouring more of your money into this miserable business?

The enterprise described above is the United States Postal Service. The archaic service is the subject of a fierce political battle in Congress. Democrats want to throw a $25 billion lifeline to the embattled agency.  They claim the issue involves nothing less than maintaining the integrity of the presidential election.

With Democrat-run states promoting mail-in voting, they have dredged up a canard to force Republicans to relent after the GOP refused to support a $20 billion bailout in March as part of the stimulus package.  This is nothing more than a stunt to paint the president and his party as villains opposed to fair elections.

In the spring, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi charged the Postal Service required an immediate injection of taxpayer money to avoid imminent bankruptcy.  Her opening gambit called for $25 billion. She revised it to $50 billion and upped the ante to $75 billion. Last week the House settled on a $25 billion bailout.

At the time of Pelosi's dire prediction, the kerfuffle over mail-in ballots had not escalated into a full throated political catfight. With the election looming, the speaker decided to flip the issue to forge a new narrative.  This is really about ensuring that mail ballots are delivered, she now insists.       

To put the dispute in perspective, the agency has $160 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and debt with no clear path to profitability, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report issued in May.  The watchdog highlighted "progressively worsened" financial viability since its 2009 review. 

In its report, the GAO underscored that the post office was organized to be self-sustaining but rang up a $78 billion deficit during the fiscal years 2007-2019.  The GAO singled out declining mail volumes at a time when wage and benefit costs are spiraling at an increasing rate.

Despite handling fewer pieces of mail, the agency has increased its workforce.  In 2007, the agency's head count was 786,000.  Faced with less volume, USPS trimmed its force to 617,000 in 2013. Today the Post Office has 633,110 workers.  Increasing head count in the midst of falling volumes is bad business. 

Since 2012, the Postal Service has defaulted on payments for pre-funding retiree health benefits.  As a result, from 2012-to 2016 it failed to pay $33.9 billion toward funding the benefits. It puts future payments to retirees in jeopardy.  USPS keeps raising rates to stave off the inevitable collapse of its scheme.

In January this year, the post office raised overall mailing rates by 1.9%, on the heels of a 10% hike in the cost of a first-class stamp and an increase of 2.45% on other services in 2019. The moves were designed to raise revenues by more than $2 billion. However, expenses continue to outpace revenues.    

In its annual report to Congress for the most recent fiscal year, the Post Office recorded $71.3 billion in revenues and $80.1 billion in expenses.  Compensation and benefits accounted for $47.5 billion of the expenses.  The agency had a net loss of $8.86 billion.  

Until 2007, rising mail volumes and high-margin letter delivery enabled USPS to frequently break even.  Then the recession struck and businesses, the originators of the majority of all mail, bailed on paper mail.  USPS, which handled 213 billion pieces of mail in 2006, processed 142 billion in 2019, a 33% decline.

The Post Office's retail operation has also suffered a steep decline. Customer visits to post office locations totaled 1.06 billion in 2012. In 2019, in-person visits plummeted to 812 million, a decline of 23%. In the face of such results, prudent business managers cut personnel and lower expenses.  

As volumes plunge, less infrastructure is required to manage the flow of mail.  The postal service began consolidating operations to reduce costs, including the removal of sorting machines. This practice predates President Trump and current Post Master General Louis DeJoy, who took office in June.

The previous Post Master General Megan Brennan, a former letter carrier who worked 34 years with USPS, served from 2015 until 2020. She and Mr. Trump exchanged verbal jabs during her tenure. Even after ordering cost reductions, she said the service would continue to post losses at an "accelerating rate."

That hasn't stopped Democrats from accusing the administration of election tampering.  Their allegation includes charges the post service is removing collection boxes to thwart ballot counting.  In reality, there are 141,000 blue-collection boxes in the nation, which are often moved from low-to-high demand areas.

The Democrats know this, but are branding it a heinous plot by the post master general.  Nonsense.  Undeterred by the truth, Democrats also charge the Post Office is locking some blue mail boxes to prevent ballots from being inserted in mail slots. This one hardly dignifies a response.

This practice of locking some blue boxes is standard operating procedure.  These so-called caps are put on collection boxes when there is a rash of mail thefts.  Postal workers place the red caps on the boxes after the final pickup of the day and remove them the next morning, since thefts are mostly done at night.

In an effort to placate Democrats, Postmaster General DeJoy announced last week the planned removal of mail processing equipment will be suspended until after the November election. But even this concession will not prevent Democrats from ginning up conspiracy theories to extort a parachute for USPS.

The Democrats' allegations are also part of a coordinated effort to counter Mr. Trump's claims of the possibility of massive voter fraud with mail-in ballots.  They want to shift the talking-point to the administration's alleged attempts to sabotage mail balloting by manipulating the postal system. 

This is all a smokescreen for Democrats to bail out the financially insolvent USPS. If the post service were a private business, it would have long ago declared bankruptcy.  But because its service touches millions of Americans, Congress keeps feeding it more money, including a $10 billion loan earlier this year.

Democrats also want to save the post office to prop-up the National Association of Letter Carriers, the union that represents most postal workers. Democrats have a vested interest in keeping the NALC union afloat because 77% of its political action committee donations go to Democrats, according to OpenSecrets.

No matter what happens USPS should be able to easily handle the increased volume.  The agency sorts and delivers billions of items every single week.  The scale of the mail-in ballots is in the tens of millions.  On any given week, the volume of mail-in ballots handled will be a few percentage points of the total.

There will be a larger surge in mail during the Christmas holiday season.  Despite the annual spike, the Post Office manages to handle the Tsunami of mail and packages.  How will mail-in ballots be any different?  The USPS union has seized the mail-in ballot issue to lobby for funding.

A San Antonio union official inadvertently revealed the threat his members fear most.  "This (lack of funding) is to undermine how good we are, and to finally say, 'Oh, well, you just got to privatize it,' and that's totally wrong, what they're doing," complained Carlos Barrios of Local 195 in San Antonio.

Union leaders are clearly worried about renewed calls to privatize the Post Office.  Such a move would likely result in thousands of layoffs, weakening the power of the union.  Given the agency's deteriorating finances, privatization makes more sense than continuing to prop up a business dinosaur.

Democrats and all Americans should be more concerned about the states' ability to count every ballot in a timely manner.  Converting to a vote-by-mail system is an arduous process.  Many states are ill prepared to conduct a mail election with their current resources. Look no further than what happened in New York.

Six weeks after New York's June 23 primaries, election officials were just wrapping up the vote count.  An election official told The Atlantic the "jury-rigged system" had failed its debut.  It is a dire omen of what can be expected in November as many states struggle with building the election infrastructure.

Five states have regularly conducted exclusively mail balloting: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington.  Twenty-eight states have expanded absentee balloting; mailed ballots to all eligible voters; or relaxed the rules governing who may request an absentee ballot. 

This stew of different procedures and varying levels of state experience with mail balloting is likely to produce an election night catastrophe rivaling the hanging chads controversy of the 2000 election. Even a $25 billion infusion into the Post Office will not solve that looming calamity. 

The House package still must be approved by the Republican controlled Senate and signed by the president.  Expect the GOP to cave on the issue.  Then it will be up to Mr. Trump to end the charade and insist the Post Office operate within its budget.   

The Murky Money Trail to Black Lives Matter

Tracing funding for Black Lives Matter requires following a murky trail of complex legal entities that facilitate raising millions of dollars for the activist group. In some ways, the path has characteristics of a money laundering operation because other nonprofits act as a pass through for funding BLM. 

Black Lives Matter has evolved from a hashtag in 2013 to an international movement with a seemingly unlimited supply of cash to fund operations.  Although BLM has never been certified as a charitable organization, it is the recipient of millions of tax-free donations from other lesser known groups.

Navigating the financial labyrinth, involves deep research that no mainstream media outlet is interested in doing. The intricate curving trail appears to be a deliberate effort to skirt the edges of laws of the Federal Elections Commission and charitable foundations.

The corkscrew road begins with ActBlue, a political action committee (PAC) that fundraises for Democratic Party politicians and causes.  In what appears to be a sleight of hand to frustrate nosy reporters, ActBlue is an umbrella brand for two separate not-for-profit entities.

The duo includes: ActBlue Charities, a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; and ActBlue Civics, another charitable group that fundraises for liberal advocacy groups.  The ActBlue PAC and the two charities share leadership and office space as well as the same political goals.

The political action committee ActBlue functions as a fund raising platform for the three affiliated entities.  Billions of dollars have been raised to support the trio.  The ActBlue PAC website claims it has collected $5.75 billion online since it was established in 2004.

The Black Lives Matter's website has disclaimer language at the bottom in small print that alerts visitors donations are processed through ActBlue Charities, making gifts tax-deductible.  Money given directly to Black Lives Matter cannot be deducted.  ActBlue is in fact functioning as a pass through to BLM.

There is nothing illegal about this arrangement.  However, the funds arrive at BLM without the names of donors attached, allowing individuals to give money while remaining anonymous. The fundraising arm ActBlue charges a transaction fee of 3.95% for each donation it receives and passes along.

When the two ActBlue charities file their reports, the money it paid out is listed as a lump sum under pass through contributions.  The two nonprofits don't have to identify which groups received the money or the amount of each donation, making it impossible to learn how much cash was funneled to BLM.

ActBlue is just one of the actors financially propping up Black Lives Matter.  Another organization Thousand Currents, a non profit, provided what it called "fiduciary oversight, financial support and administrative services" for several years.  However, it came under increasing public scrutiny.

Reporters at a conservative website recently revealed the vice chairman of Thousand Currents was Susan Rosenberg, a former member of the terrorist Weather Underground who was sentenced to 58 years in prison for possession of a cache of weapons and explosives after her arrest in 1984. 

Rosenberg also allegedly was an accomplice in the 1981 Brink's truck robbery that resulted in the deaths of two guards.  Her sentence was commuted in 2001 by President Bill Clinton.  She served 16 years of her five-decades long sentence.  Despite her crimes, the activist finagled a gig as vice chairman of a nonprofit.

After word leaked of her association with Thousand Currents, the organization was folded into a California nonprofit with ties to billionaire George Soros.  A filing by Thousands Currents with the California Department of Justice on July 13, 2020 contained the following notice.

"Thousand Currents, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, (and) all the assets associated with Thousands Current fiscal sponsorship of the Black Lives Matter Global Network project," is being transferred to the Tides Center, a California nonprofit.

At the the time the papers were filed, an audit for 2019 showed that the organization held about $3.4 million in assets for Black Lives Matter. Thousand Currents had pumped nearly $1.8 million into the activist group in the previous fiscal year. 

In the filing, Thousand Currents notified the state  that Tides Center would "serve as the new fiscal sponsor for the Black Lives Matter Global Network project."  Publicly available records show that the Tides Center had nearly $1 billion in total assets at the end of 2019. 

InfluenceWatch, a public interest watchdog, has published extensive research on Tides Center, created in 1976.  Tides operates like no other nonprofit.  Donors make gifts to "savings accounts" held by Tides investments that grow in value.  At some point, donors advise Tides to pay out grants.

Tides Foundation, an affiliate of Tides Center, paid out $291 million in grants to other liberal, Democrat nonprofits.  Tides Foundation brags it has worked with more than 15,000 individuals and organizations to support projects which advocate "shared prosperity and social justice."

Under the Tides model, donors can give directly to fund projects without being identified with the political or social cause.  Tides officials have made no secret of their mission to offer "anonymity" to donors.  Tides promises this same anonymity to foundations that give money to fund their causes.

When a traditional foundation sends cash to Tides, they are not required by law to reveal any information about the grants eventual destination to the Internal Revenue Service. When Tides files its annual tax return, it lists its donations but is not compelled to reveal where the money came from.

Another unique feature of Tides is that it serves as an incubator for new activist groups.  For example, if a donor wants to fund a specific agenda for which no group exists, Tides will assist in creating one, offering recruiting, financial, administrative and oversight support. 

The Tides Foundation and the Tides Center fatten their idealogical war chest by charging an eight-to-nine percent handling fee on funds that pass through their accounts on the way to other activists. When Ben & Jerry's designated some profits to environmental charities, 20% of the cut was shipped to Tides.   

Pew Charitable Trusts has dispatched more than $40 million to Tides since 1996. At least 17 other foundations have poured money into the charitable arm.   Open Society Foundation, a George Soros nonprofit, has given at least $3.5 million to Tides.  Tides has also supported nonprofits connected to Soros.

This tangled web is necessary for funding Black Lives Matter, according to its defenders.  The reason? The organization claims it created a Black Lives Matter Global Network, which was incorporated in Delaware in 2016, as the initial step in creating its own foundation.

However, the network has not yet been recognized as tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code Section 501(c)(3) and thus must rely on "fiscal sponsorships" from other nonprofits.  Fiscal sponsorships are legal arrangements, according to the National Council of Nonprofits.

There is a difference in operating in a technically legal fashion and being totally transparent.  An organization, such as Black Lives Matter with millions of dollars, should demonstrate it has nothing to hide by publishing a list of individuals and foundations that have provided funding.

The Black Lives Matter movement demands public accountability from police, public officials, businesses and individuals. Apparently, the group does not apply the same principle to its leadership or organization. 

Defunding Police In The Midst of Crime Waves

One-year-old Davell Gardner reclined in a stroller near a Brooklyn playground.  His father stood admiring his son.  Suddenly two men approached and opened fire.  A bullet pierced little Davell in the stomach.  He died minutes later at a local hospital.  Davell was two months shy of his second birthday.

The tragedy in the New York City area was one of seven murders on the same day.  Davell is just the youngest victim in a deadly killing spree in the nation's largest city.  In one bloody 28-day period, New York City recorded 42 murders, a 13.5% increase from the same period a year ago.

Davell's sad death was the exclamation point to New York City's 24% spike in murders from 2019. The boy's father, Davell Gardner Sr., had a message for the thugs who killed his infant son: "These guys just took my son's life.  For what?  He didn't do nothing to nobody."

The boy's grandmother Samantha Gardner minced no words.  "For the cowards that did this, you should be ashamed of yourself because everybody talks about Black Lives Matter.  What about baby lives? You took an innocent from his mother and father as well as the grandparents."

New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio presides over the crime outbreak with appalling ineptness. He has the audacity to proclaim his administration has been tough on crime, while leading the effort to defund the police department, the thin blue line that stands between peace and anarchy on the streets.

De Blasio championed the city council's recent vote to slash $1 billion from the police department's $6 billion budget.  The mayor pledged the funds would go to "youth programs and recreation centers." It wouldn't have prevented Davell Gardner's murder. He was wounded near a Brooklyn playground.

De Blasio, a harsh critic of the police department, ignores the soaring number of shootings. Last week New York passed another grisly milestone when it recorded shooting number 777, surpassing the figures for all of last year.  The mayor has done nothing but assure New Yorkers he is praying for the victims.

Since the George Floyd death on May 25, there has been a nationwide escalation in crime.  The last time the country witnessed such a rise of this magnitude was in 2015 and 2016, after the controversy connected to the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Gotham City's crime surge pales in comparison to gory Chicago.  In the Windy City, murders are up 51% from 2019.  In one 28-day period, Chicago killings soared 89% compared to the same period a year ago. Shootings have increased 47%,   There have been 414 murders this year, a record clip even for Chicago.

One of the latest victims is a nine-year-old boy who was playing in a vacant lot near the site of a former housing project.  Janari Ricks and  a few friends were caught in deadly gunfire that ignited nearby.  A stray bullet struck the youth in his chest. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

A few days earlier 15 people were wounded in an a mass shooting at a funeral.  Gunmen fired from a vehicle that sped away before it crashed one block later.  The criminals fled.  The victims included at least 10 women, according to police reports. The scene is all too familiar to Chicagons.  

Last year 13 people were wounded, four of them critically, in a memorial gathering.  In 2018, six people were shot as mourners were leaving a church. In 2013, gunmen shot 13 people outside funeral services, wounding a three-year-old boy.  In 2012, two men were shot outside a church memorial service.

Police have not escaped violence.  Three Chicago police officers were shot by a carjacking suspect on a Thursday morning.  The prisoner was taken out of a patrol van and walked into the Northwest Side police station when he opened fire wounding the officers. Police are investigating where the suspect got the gun. 

In the midst of a crime rampage, Chicago's tragically incompetent Mayor Lori Lightfoot has stiff-armed growing calls to defund the police by city council members.  Her stance has more to do with racial politics than her support for the city's men and women who are hired to protect citizens.

"When you talk about defunding, you're talking about getting rid of officers.  Most of our diversity lies in junior officers.  Which means you are getting rid of black and brown people," she told the Chicago Tribune. Like many mayors, she views the police department as part of the political spoils of her office.

West Coast cities have been some of the most aggressive in scaling back police budgets.  In Seattle the city Council carved 50% out of the current budget and has already chopped spending for next year by $76 million.  Seattle experienced a stunning 525% increase in crime in July.

During the height of violent protests, Police Chief Carmen Best warned local residents and businesses that her department would not be able to contain unruly crowds to prevent looting, arson and rioting.  The city council had shackled police by outlawing the use of pepper spray, a tool for dispersing crowds.

Portland's City Council sliced $15 million from its police budget.  "Defunding the police is a victory," the City Council said in a statement. And the council threatened: "We are not done."  Violent shootings have surged 240% in the city compared to the same period a year ago.

Portland recorded more homicides in July than in any other month over the last 30 years.  And the violence is spreading like a cancer.  In the latest incident, rioters doused an elderly woman with white paint and harassed another who was using a walker to shuffle through the crowd.  

In Minneapolis, scene of the George Floyd incident, the city council ripped $10 million from the police budget.  Homicides have jumped 60% from 2019.  Violent shootings have totaled 269, surpassing the number for all of 2019. 

There are two ironies to the cities' Bataan-like march to defund police.  The overwhelming majority of shooting victims listed in this article are African-Americans. Secondly, the neighborhoods most impacted by the crimes are predominantly black.  African-Americans are demanding more police presence not less.

That is paradoxical because the loudest voice for defunding police has been the Black Lives Matter crowd. There are other organizations that have joined the chorus too.  However, if activists are concerned for black lives they should be advocating for beefed up police funding and presence in black neighborhoods.

A recent Pew Research study found more Americans agree with increasing local police spending (30%) than endorse defunding (25%). A total of 42% of those surveyed support the current level of funding as appropriate.  Despite the media drumbeat, most Americans are not in favor of defunding police.

The fact is Black Lives Matter and other politically motivated organizations care more about creating chaos and spreading a false narrative than about African-Americans.  Appallingly, the result has been a media-backed stampede in support of BLM's campaign to defund the very people protecting black lives. 

White Fragility: A Racist Rant Not Worth Reading

A white academic has penned a scathing treatise on white racism.  Her book, White Fragility, accuses all Caucasians of being racist, even if they believe they are progressive.  The author eschews data or surveys to document her allegations.  You must take her word for the charge or be scorned.

Robin DiAngelo, currently an Affiliate Associate Professor of Education at the University of Washington, published her book in 2018.  Sales skyrocketed, landing her book on the New York Times bestseller list. Its publication was greeted with fawning critical reviews in the lackey media.

The author's thesis, summed up in The New Yorker, is that America stands on racist beliefs.  Such ideologies as individualism, the American Dream, choosing one's destiny and objectivity reflect the racist bias of Caucasians.  Ms. DiAngelo's conclusion is whites who embrace these ideals are racists.

In her view, whites have "counterproductive" reactions when their assumptions about race are challenged.  Those reactions prevent whites from acknowledging that racial inequality exists in the country.  On the other hand, people of color get a prejudicial pass from Ms. DiAngelo.

"People of color may also hold prejudices and discriminate against white people, but they lack the social and institutional power that transforms their prejudice and discrimination into racism; the impact of their prejudice on whites is temporary and contextual," she writes in her book. 

Ms. DiAngelo reserves special derision for white males, a breed of Homo Sapiens she finds sneeringly heinous.  From her book:

"For most of our history, straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future free of past encumbrances and sins."  White men represent all that is wrong with America, she claims.

The words on the pages of her book are filled with disgust even for those men who helped right wrongs.  "...Although we are taught that women were granted suffrage in 1920, we ignore that it was white women who received full access or that it was white men who granted it."

The author, who has spent many years writing and lecturing about white racism, claims Caucasians lack of understanding about "implicit bias leads to aversive racism." Translation: Whites are conditioned to be racists, no matter their experiences or personal beliefs.

Missing from her 192-page book are any facts, data, scientific studies to document her litany of white transgressions.  Ms. DiAngelo is the sole authority because she is after all, white.  She is better equipped than an African-American or anyone else to indict Caucasians based on her own biases. 

This kind of intellectual fraud has now become the definitive narrative on white racism. Sincere white people who purchased her book in hopes of valuable insight into race-related issues have been duped. Ms. DiAngelo sees herself as an evangelist who has founded a new religion based on white guilt.

I grew up in the grips of racism in the South.  I know what it looks and sounds like.  On the other hand, Ms. DiAngelo never set foot in the South.  Her views are informed by her prejudices. Apparently, she never bothered reading research studies that lampoon her own theories.

In 2019, Pew Research published the results of a seminal study on race relations.  The findings show that whites and blacks agree the country harbors racist views. Majorities of whites acknowledge racism endures, debunking Ms. DiAngelo's simplistic theme that Caucasians ignore its existence.

One of the illuminating findings in the Pew study is that African-Americans are overwhelming more likely to see their race or ethnicity as central to their identity.  Only 15% of whites identify themselves by the color of their skin. Irrefutably, your identity informs your viewpoint.

Research, however, has no place in Ms. DiAngelo's narrow world view of racism.  In her own words: "All white people are invested in and collude with racism. The white collective fundamentally hates blackness for what it reminds us of...We are capable and guilty of perpetrating immeasurable harm."

Each page oozes with adherence to identity politics, a central theme.  She makes no attempt to hide it, admitting that her book is "unapologetically rooted in identity politics."  Her unique insight comes from her ability to speak as "an insider" because she is white.  Huh?

This is nothing more dishonest than indicting an entire group of people--white, black, brown--using stereotypes.  Imagine authoring a book with no research based on the premise that all African-Americans are criminals because you've seen blacks in prison.  It would be rightfully condemned.

Ms. DiAngelo spent her early years as a tenured professor of multicultural education at Westfield State University. Teaching multiculturalism has become trendy at state supported colleges.  Universities gain cache with the liberal establishment, which aids fundraising.

Apparently that experience burnished her credentials as an expert on race. But her words belie credible scholarship.  For example, she writes the following as evidence that all white people cling to deep seated feelings of superiority.

"White people raised in Western society are conditioned in a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and institutions."  She continues, "Even if you have people of color in your workplace or family, the ubiquitous socializing power of white supremacy cannot be avoided."

As the pages drone on, she concludes even righteous whites are not fooling African-Americans. "We do have them (racist views) and people of color already know we have them; our efforts to prove otherwise are not convincing."

Her thesis not only indicts whites as racist, but concludes African-Americans are equally prejudiced against well meaning whites.  It is an impeachment of both races.  My conclusion is Ms. DiAngelo herself is a narcissistic, self-loathing, bigot and her book belongs in a dumpster.

But don't take my word.  Here is Ward Connerly writing on the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal:    

"The claim that America is "systematically racist" is a false narrative that fuels racial paranoia, division and hatred.  If we can identify specific institutions or people within them that are racist, we should confront them.  If not, it doesn't serve us well to allow a false presumption of guilt to guide our conduct."

Who is Mr. Connerly?  A Trump supporter? A white supremacist?  Hardly.  Mr. Connerly is an African American from California, whose grandfather was born a slave and whose father lived through the Jim Crow era.  He currently is president of Californians for Equal Rights.

Mr. Connerly's views are much more informed than some cloistered academic.