A Deeply Fractured US

[ModlrMike]

An interesting, and somewhat frightening survey from the CATO Institute:

Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions

*Bias check

 

[Xylric]

An interesting, and somewhat frightening survey from the CATO Institute:

Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36% of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors; 32% are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions

*Bias check

Clearly, an understatement. Everyone who responded is lying - they just think that anyone who does not think EXACTLY like they do is a threat that needs to be contained.  ;D

 

[FJAG]

Thought provoking article albeit high on opinion and a little weak on substantiation. One probably needs to read the book he's hyping:

White Supremacy Shaped American Christianity, Researcher Says
Racist theology is deeply embedded in the DNA of white Christian churches, influencing even their theology on salvation, PRRI founder Robert Jones argues in a new book.

By Carol Kuruvilla, HuffPost US  07/26/2020

Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, comes from a line of white American Christians that stretches back before the Revolutionary War. His ancestors weren’t large plantation owners or Confederate generals, or ― as far as he knows ― active members of the Ku Klux Klan. For much of his life, Jones believed the “unremarkable” nature of his family’s background meant that white supremacy wasn’t a part of their history.

But he’s recently started to tell a different kind of story ― one that acknowledges that white privilege shaped his family’s sojourn on American soil.

His ancestors were wealthy enough to own slaves, Jones said. The family settled in Georgia on land the government seized from indigenous Creek and Cherokee people. They became Southern Baptists, part of a denomination founded in 1845 on the belief that it was perfectly moral for Christians to be slave owners.

Decades later, after Jones’s great-grandfather was killed in a clay mining accident, co-workers allegedly killed an innocent Black worker in retaliation. Jones still remembers how satisfied his great-uncle appeared while retelling that story, as if this arbitrary and unjustified act of racial violence helped balance the scales after a white man’s death.

It wouldn’t be hard for many white Christians to find examples of white supremacy’s claims on their own family’s trees, Jones said. But white Christians’ image of themselves and their religion has been warped by what Jones calls “white-supremacy-induced amnesia.”

Jones wrestles with that amnesia in his new book, “White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity.” He argues that white Christians ― from evangelicals in the South to mainline Protestants in the Midwest to Catholics in the Northeast ― weren’t just complacent onlookers while political leaders debated what to do about slavery, segregation and discrimination. White supremacist theology played a key role in shaping the American church from the very beginning, influencing not just the way denominations formed but also white Christians’ theology about salvation itself.

HuffPost spoke with Jones about his book earlier in July. Just as his own family history would be incomplete without acknowledging the influences of white supremacy, Jones said it’s impossible to talk about American Christianity without recognizing that racism helped shape the church.

...

See rest of article here.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

To those who believe that white supremacy shaped everything about the US, it would have to include religions.

I suppose politics and non-religious aspects of culture influence religion.  Someone should start a program of studies about it.

 

[Xylric]

To those who believe that white supremacy shaped everything about the US, it would have to include religions.

I suppose politics and non-religious aspects of culture influence religion.  Someone should start a program of studies about it.

Dude, don't tempt me with an unspoken open-ended question like that one!

I can give a fairly simple overview about the interplay between culture and religion, but what you're looking at would take three doctorates and a few million in "donations" to a university!

I kid, of course. I've actually been studying the neuroscience of belief for the past few years, and generally have concluded that the only meaningful difference between religious belief and political ideology is the identity of one's deity. Both establish frameworks for the processing and interpretation of information, with the same ultimately fatal flaws.

Which is why keeping them seperate is so damned useful - you can use one to error-check the other!

 

[FJAG]

...'ve actually been studying the neuroscience of belief for the past few years, and generally have concluded that the only meaningful difference between religious belief and political ideology is the identity of one's deity. ...

I can't worship what I can't see and the politicians I see I refuse to worship. I have had some fairly strong religious experiences with schnitzel, beer and cheesecake though.

;D

 

[Xylric]

I can't worship what I can't see and the politicians I see I refuse to worship. I have had some fairly strong religious experiences with schnitzel, beer and cheesecake though.

;D

A very good answer! That would tell me that your "deity" (as much as anything could be considered one) is your certainty in the validity of your perceptions. Which is probably the most useful one to have absent the Big Ones (IE, organized religious belief). Probably much harder to misuse!

What I mean doesn't change even if there are indeed no gods in reality - Removing deities from the equation, you're left with another way of phrasing it. The only meaningful difference between religious belief and political ideology is the depth to which one's self is suborned. Both are extraordinarily damaging when misused, as both rely on the same mechanisms in the brain which cannot easily be repaired. After all, when the framework one uses to establish a worldview is shattered, a person's understanding of themselves and their relation to others is equally devastated. This is one of the key reasons why cults can be downright terrifying. From a practical standpoint, I see no difference between the two if the question is about which is potentially the most harmful.

I completely believe that the ruling party of Germany immediately prior to and during the Second World War is the second most devastating cult in human history. I'm just not entirely convinced that what I view as taking the top spot actually qualifies as a cult.

 

[FJAG]

...
I completely believe that the ruling party of Germany immediately prior to and during the Second World War is the second most devastating cult in human history. I'm just not entirely convinced that what I view as taking the top spot actually qualifies as a cult.

Not making any excuses for pre war Germany here (and with German heritage I'm doubly mindful not to) but when one looks at Nazism one needs to put the German people's adoption of it in context.

A devastating defeat in war followed by a complete collapse of the economy, runaway inflation, armed gangs of ex soldiers roaming the streets having wars between Nationalists and Communists and a depression that makes the Dirty Thirties in the US look like a day in the park.

The Nazis ran on a revival of German pride, a booming economy, social stability and almost full employment. (Kinda a cross between the "New Deal" and "Make Germany Great Again"). The anti-Jewish rhetoric at first was nothing different than you would see in most European countries and North America at the time. Remember that this is the same period of time when the KKK had re surged in the US with over 4 million members to the point where they had a massive parade down Pennsylvania Ave in Washington.

The degree of anti-Jewish violence and number of deaths, prior to 1939, was probably significantly less than the various pogroms in Russia. After 1939, of course, everything went to hell in a hand basket. It should be noteworthy that the Nazi regime was somewhat unprepared for how to deal with the "Jewish Question" at the time of and after the Kristallnacht riots particularly when the capture of Poland brought another 2 million Jews under their control. Remember too that at this time the regime was also just starting to deal with the euthanasia of over 100,000 "mentally defectives" and the sterilization of close to another 3-400,000. Involuntary sterilization was equally in vogue in North America and other European countries but never to the cleansing of undesirables that descended on Germany around this time.

I guess that is to say that I think the whole Nazi cult thing is more in the nature of the boiling frog experiment. You know the one: put a frog into boiling water and it jumps out; put him in warm water and heat it to boiling and the frog will stay put until it boils to death. My view of the average Nazi-era Germans is like that second frog. The Nazis brought Germany back from the brink of disaster after WW1 and did things before 1939 that were not noticeably outrageous by the general public. By then they were used to the system and even enthusiastic with some of the early steps: Anschluss with Austria, retaking Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland etc. By then, they were in for a penny, in for a pound and couldn't extract themselves even as things deteriorated around them.

I know this will arouse fury in some of the members here but I see a lot of similarities between the later stages of the Weimar Republic and now in the US. Deeply divided political factions, entities with long grievances, paramilitary organizations in the streets, and a cult figure for some wearing a red hat and driving deeper wedges into the society. The only difference then was you had real fascists on the right and real communists on the left instead of the make-believe ones these days and they had bolt action rifles instead of AR-15s (maybe the odd Maxim machine gun).

So who's in the running for your #1 cult?

op:

 

[mariomike]

I know this will arouse fury in some of the members here but I see a lot of similarities between the later stages of the Weimar Republic and now in the US.

"Babylon Berlin" is worth watching.

The only difference then was you had real fascists on the right and real communists on the left instead of the make-believe ones these days and they had bolt action rifles instead of AR-15s (maybe the odd Maxim machine gun).

Perhaps moving closer to a tin-pot dictatorship, than fascism?

a cult figure for some wearing a red hat and driving deeper wedges into the society.

A far cry from the great Republicans who fought for America.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41.

 

[Xylric]

Not making any excuses for pre war Germany here (and with German heritage I'm doubly mindful not to) but when one looks at Nazism one needs to put the German people's adoption of it in context.

A devastating defeat in war followed by a complete collapse of the economy, runaway inflation, armed gangs of ex soldiers roaming the streets having wars between Nationalists and Communists and a depression that makes the Dirty Thirties in the US look like a day in the park.

The Nazis ran on a revival of German pride, a booming economy, social stability and almost full employment. (Kinda a cross between the "New Deal" and "Make Germany Great Again"). The anti-Jewish rhetoric at first was nothing different than you would see in most European countries and North America at the time. Remember that this is the same period of time when the KKK had re surged in the US with over 4 million members to the point where they had a massive parade down Pennsylvania Ave in Washington.

The degree of anti-Jewish violence and number of deaths, prior to 1939, was probably significantly less than the various pogroms in Russia. After 1939, of course, everything went to hell in a hand basket. It should be noteworthy that the Nazi regime was somewhat unprepared for how to deal with the "Jewish Question" at the time of and after the Kristallnacht riots particularly when the capture of Poland brought another 2 million Jews under their control. Remember too that at this time the regime was also just starting to deal with the euthanasia of over 100,000 "mentally defectives" and the sterilization of close to another 3-400,000. Involuntary sterilization was equally in vogue in North America and other European countries but never to the cleansing of undesirables that descended on Germany around this time.

I guess that is to say that I think the whole Nazi cult thing is more in the nature of the boiling frog experiment. You know the one: put a frog into boiling water and it jumps out; put him in warm water and heat it to boiling and the frog will stay put until it boils to death. My view of the average Nazi-era Germans is like that second frog. The Nazis brought Germany back from the brink of disaster after WW1 and did things before 1939 that were not noticeably outrageous by the general public. By then they were used to the system and even enthusiastic with some of the early steps: Anschluss with Austria, retaking Alsace-Lorraine, the Sudetenland etc. By then, they were in for a penny, in for a pound and couldn't extract themselves even as things deteriorated around them.

I know this will arouse fury in some of the members here but I see a lot of similarities between the later stages of the Weimar Republic and now in the US. Deeply divided political factions, entities with long grievances, paramilitary organizations in the streets, and a cult figure for some wearing a red hat and driving deeper wedges into the society. The only difference then was you had real fascists on the right and real communists on the left instead of the make-believe ones these days and they had bolt action rifles instead of AR-15s (maybe the odd Maxim machine gun).

So who's in the running for your #1 cult?

op:

Indeed. When you look at the reasons why people join cults, nearly all of those reasons exist in the rise to power of the Nazis - but the biggest reason in my mind is that the social cohesion of being part of "the Party" directly answered the fear of the chaos that the post-war Weimar Republic experienced. I do not doubt that I would have been one of the individuals steraliized simply because of my family medical history - if not murdered because of my brother marrying a woman from Africa.

Everything you say here is essential to why, when you view Nazism as a cult, it is so incredibly devastating. You're absolutely correct about it being akin to the boiling frog experiment, with the unfortunate added twist of the idea that crabs in a bucket will pull others back down (though I doubt that particular metaphor actually occurs in nature). By the time the Nazi had legitimately reached a point where it could have been considered a cult, Europe was inevitably headed for the flames. If I had to pick a point in time to establish when the Nazis became a cult, it'd be either May 10, 1933 or August 19, 1934.  Pretty sure you know the precise significance of *those* dates.

I completely agree about the similarities between the late Weimar Republic and the current situation in the US. When we were studying civil war in grade school (Not the American Civil War, civil war as an entire concept, so to thereby include the dissolution of Czechoslovakia - going on at the time, which is why it was being studied), I made the comment that by the time I was forty, the United States would probably have torn itself apart yet again. There's still four years left to go on that, and unless I miss my guess on the timeline parallels, we're at the equivalent of June 1932.

As for who is in the running for the top spot, I would have to immediately disclaim that I am not counting major religions as options because they all had their cult phase more than a thousand years ago. If I didn't, I would have to unironically put the religious traditon to which I myself adhere due to the countless ways it has been misused over the past nineteen hundred years. No, I think in this context there is an exceptionally clear frontrunner.

The idea that there is no such thing as objective truth.

I'm not going to throw out all of postmodernism, because much of it has practical value, but to counter cults, you *must* be able to objectively dispute their fuel source. The capacity for disagreement must be held sancrosanct, or else all rationality ceases to have function.

 

[FJAG]

"Babylon Berlin" is worth watching.

I've been watching a fair number of foreign language movies on Netflix (my favourite was the Russian "Better Than Us"). Currently on the Norwegian "Occupied" and the Austrian "Freud". Even the Scottish "Shetland" and the Welsh "Hinterland" ;D

All that to say I tried about two episodes of "Babylon Berlin" and just couldn't get into it. (I sometimes think German TV is the equivalent of CBC dramas) Does it get better as it goes along?

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

All that to say I tried about two episodes of "Babylon Berlin" and just couldn't get into it. (I sometimes think German TV is the equivalent of CBC dramas) Does it get better as it goes along?

:cheers:

It's an interesting period in history. I've read most of Hans Helmut Kirst's books from the library. He put a lot of things in perspective.

Such as, the power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated.

It makes me appreciate how fragile post-war democracy, and "the peaceful transition of power" is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Trump taps Homeland Security BORTAC squad, air marshals and Coast Guard

“The Department of Homeland Security was never intended as a national police force let alone a presidential militia,” said Peter Vincent, former general counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

They are the most highly trained members of the Border Patrol, agents who confront drug traffickers along the U.S.-Mexico border and track down dangerous fugitives in rugged terrain.

One day this past week, they were in a far different setting — a city park in Portland, Oregon, looking for two people suspected of throwing rocks and bottles at officers guarding the downtown federal courthouse.

Beyond the debate over whether the federal response to the Portland protests encroaches on local authority, another question arises: whether the Department of Homeland Security, with its specialized national security focus, is the right agency for the job.

It’s not just the Border Patrol Tactical Unit that has been called to duty in Portland. DHS has dispatched air marshals as well as the Customs and Border Protection Special Response Team and even members of the Coast Guard.

“The Department of Homeland Security was never intended as a national police force let alone a presidential militia,” said Peter Vincent, a former general counsel for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is also an agency within DHS.

The deployment of DHS agents and officers is legal, both under existing law and an executive order President Donald Trump signed June 26 to protect federal property and monuments. But it has made the agency, created to improve the nation’s response to terrorism, a target of widespread criticism.

Congress plans to delve into the issue Friday, when the House Homeland Security Committee holds a hearing on the federal response to the protests in Portland and Trump’s announcement that he plans to send federal agents to Chicago and Albuquerque, New Mexico, to help combat rising crime while making “law and order” a central theme of his reelection campaign.

“Americans across the country are watching what the administration is doing in Portland with horror and revulsion and are wondering if their cities could be President Trump’s next targets,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who is chairman of the committee.

As of Monday, there were 114 federal agents and officers deployed to downtown Portland, according to an affidavit from Gabriel Russell, the regional director of the Federal Protective Service, the DHS component that provides security for federal buildings.

Protests have been taking place in Portland since May 26 but the federal agents kept a “defensive posture” by staying inside federal buildings until July 3, Russell said in the affidavit, filed in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking protections for journalists and other legal observers covering the demonstrations.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-racial-justice-protests-trump-taps-homeland-security-bortac-squad-air-marshalls-and-coast-guard-2020-07-25

 

[QV]

In my opinion, the main reason the US is deeply fractured today is the MSM reporting.  Some will say the media was always slightly left and maybe a little bias and I agree with that.  But recently I think the MSM has taken a hard swing towards outright false or highly misleading reporting.  Internet and social media make it hard for the MSM to get away this. 

National Review online has a good explanation of where they see journalism going:       

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/national-review-webathon-fighting-rising-tide-anti-journalism/

...Major institutions of American journalism have decided that certain viewpoints must not be expressed within their pages, and certain factions and narratives must not be questioned, challenged, or opposed...

...This is not the pursuit of knowledge; this is the avoidance of knowledge. This is not curiosity; this is an ironclad certainty that everything that is needed to be known about any given subject is already known. This is not informing the audience about what is going on in the world; this is making sure they don’t hear what is going on in the world, because it might run counter to a preferred narrative...

...Whatever you want to call what these institutions are doing now, this is not journalism. This is anti-journalism.

...A new survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62 percent of them say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.

...Right now, powerful forces want this kind of institution to wither away and die and the future of public debate in the United States to be limited by the ever-growing censorious veto of the perpetually outraged...

 

[Lumber]

In my opinion, the main reason the US is deeply fractured today is the MSM reporting.  Some will say the media was always slightly left and maybe a little bias and I agree with that.  But recently I think the MSM has taken a hard swing towards outright false or highly misleading reporting.  Internet and social media make it hard for the MSM to get away this. 

National Review online has a good explanation of where they see journalism going:       

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/national-review-webathon-fighting-rising-tide-anti-journalism/

There was a major crime committed a few months back. Some guy killed or sexually asssaulted someone, doesn't really matter. Point was, the culprit was on the loose and the policee wanted people's help in locating the individual.

So, as I was reading the "description" of the man provided on CBC news, I noticed that they didn't include his race, which seemed like a pretty significant oversight. Curious, I went and found the story on other news platforms and discovered the man was black.

I then kept my eye open, and discovered that whenever CBC news runs a story about a crime being committed (which, if it's on CBC national news, it's probably a signficant crime), they never include the offender's race in the description of the culprit.

 

[Blackadder1916]

So, as I was reading the "description" of the man provided on CBC news, I noticed that they didn't include his race, which seemed like a pretty significant oversight. Curious, I went and found the story on other news platforms and discovered the man was black.

I then kept my eye open, and discovered that whenever CBC news runs a story about a crime being committed (which, if it's on CBC national news, it's probably a signficant crime), they never include the offender's race in the description of the culprit.

It would be helpful to see the subsequent reporting of the actual incident to see whether CBC followed its standards and practices.  But, to be candid, I don't see why, during a national level program that is talking about something happening in Hemorrhoid Hills Sask or downtown Toronto, that a description need include "race" (which can be very imprecise) when I'm watching from the comfort of my living room in Calgary.

https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/vision/governance/journalistic-standards-and-practices

Our vocabulary choices are consistent with equal rights.

Our language reflects equality of the sexes and we prefer inclusive forms where they are not prohibitively cumbersome.

We are aware of our influence on how minorities or vulnerable groups are perceived. We do not mention national or ethnic origin, colour, religious affiliation, physical characteristics or disabilities, mental illness, sexual orientation or age except when important to an understanding of the subject or when a person is the object of a search and such personal characteristics will facilitate identification.

We avoid generalizations, stereotypes and any degrading or offensive words or images that could feed prejudice or expose people to hatred or contempt. Criminal matters require special care and precision.

When a minority group is referred to, the vocabulary is chosen with care and with consideration for changes in the language.

And I suspect that other major Canadian news outlets have similar policies, as exemplified in this response from The Star when the same question was raised about their reporting (and includes comment from a police agency about their use of racial descriptions in media releases).

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/public_editor/2016/09/30/when-does-star-report-race-of-suspects-wanted-by-police-public-editor.html

When does Star report race of suspects wanted by police?: Public Editor
. . .

The Star has long decreed that “no reference, direct or indirect, should be made to a person’s race, colour or religion unless it is pertinent to the story.”

Our policy on racial references makes some exception in the case of a missing person or a criminal suspect at large. In such cases, the policy states, “there may be justification for identifying race or colour as part of a full description that provides as many details as possible. Avoid vague descriptions that serve no purpose.”

. . .

As I told this reader, generally, the descriptions of suspects published in the Star come directly from police news releases. Still, I told her, there is a strong need for the Star to be consistent about how it reports these sensitive matters, regardless of what information police provide to reporters.

The Toronto police force has its own policies on when it might include the race of suspects in its news releases.

“Our policy is clear: where we have a picture in which a suspect’s face is clearly visible we will not attach a racial descriptor to it,” spokesman Mark Pugash told me. “We want to go with the best possible evidence and a good clear photo is always best.

“If there is no clear picture, we will go with the description given to police by witnesses or victims,” Pugash said, adding that the security camera images of the suspect sought in the July 30 article did not provide a clear image of the suspect.

And the policies of both of these outlets is consistent with the ethics guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

https://caj.ca/ethics-guidelines

We do not refer to a person’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender self-identification or physical ability unless it is pertinent to the story.

We avoid stereotypes of race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. And we take particular care in crime stories.

 

[FJAG]

It's an interesting period in history. I've read most of Hans Helmut Kirst's books from the library. He put a lot of things in perspective.

Such as, the power of a police state over its people cannot be underestimated.

It makes me appreciate how fragile post-war democracy, and "the peaceful transition of power" is.

Watched 3 more episodes last night. Okay I'm back in (mostly because I like Liv Lisa Fries and her character). The Communist rioters facing off against the Berliner Polizei was quite interesting when you see what's going on down south these days. I presume this represented the "Bloody May" riots in 1929 but was a bit overdone as in total only 33 people died. Note the parallel to the deployment of the Feds in Portland:

On May 1 the KPD failed to organize a showing greater than normal, the majority of demonstrators coming from communist strongholds in northern and eastern Berlin. Most businesses operated normally. SPD-affiliated trade unions held their own peaceful, well-attended meetings in closed assemblies. The Berlin Police, however, still responded in force to the open-air gatherings, with flying squads arriving in trucks and attacking any civilians with truncheons where any demonstration was reported. When the lawful indoor conventions dispersed and people took to the streets for home, the police arrested people merely because they found themselves on the incorrect side of a police checkpoint or were caught up in fleeing a police sortie.[2]:33 Law enforcement handled the defiance of the ban as if it were the popular revolt the communist press had called for, rather than the confused and haphazard act of civic disobedience that it truly was

Interesting to see the police leather schako being worn. The police in Berlin were still wearing those in the 1950s when I was a kid growing up there.

:cheers:

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Watched 3 more episodes last night. Okay I'm back in (mostly because I like Liv Lisa Fries and her character). The Communist rioters facing off against the Berliner Polizei was quite interesting when you see what's going on down south these days. I presume this represented the "Bloody May" riots in 1929 but was a bit overdone as in total only 33 people died. Note the parallel to the deployment of the Feds in Portland:  :cheers:

I haven't seen the TV series, but I've read the books (ones translated into English) and the books start in 1929 so you may be right.

 

[FJAG]

National Guard major will dispute top administration officials over decision to clear protesters near White House

By Gregory Wallace, CNN
Updated 9:58 PM ET, Mon July 27, 2020

Washington (CNN)A National Guard official will tell Congress that the widely criticized decision to forcefully clear protesters from a park outside the White House last month was made even though demonstrators were acting peacefully, a view at odds with public comments by top Trump administration officials.

The prepared testimony of DC National Guard Major Adam D. DeMarco, who is set to appear before a hearing on Tuesday, challenges Attorney General William Barr's account of the dispersal. DeMarco, who described himself as one of the senior National Guard officials on the scene, ran as a Democrat for Maryland's 3rd Congressional District in 2018.

"The demonstrators were behaving peacefully, exercising their First Amendment rights," DeMarco is expected to say, adding he was surprised the clearing operation began well in advance of a 7 p.m. ET curfew set by Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Barr has previously defended the use of force to clear the protesters, saying his decision to disperse protesters followed signs that the crowd was "becoming increasingly unruly." The removal, he said, had nothing to do with a photo-op staged by President Donald Trump minutes later, in which he walked across Lafayette Square to hold a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church, which had suffered damage in protests the night before.
...

See rest of article here.

:cheers:

 

[QV]

See rest of article here.
ran as a Democrat for Maryland's 3rd Congressional District in 2018.
:cheers:

Astounding how the Dems have become anti police pro violence to destabilize the country.  Essentially it's do what we want or the chaos like this continues.  Supporting the defund the police movement only encourages unrest.  Ben Shapiro explains that opinion here:  https://www.foxnews.com/media/ben-shapiro-rioters-political-terrorism-democrats-chaos

I suspect if Biden wins in November this all goes away immediately, when Trump wins the chaos will hit peak levels.  I think Trump will win by a larger margin this time.