My White Privilege Complaint

There was a ritual when we came in from the boondocks to visit my grandma in her adopted Midwestern city. Before we got out of the driveway and entered the house, weather permitting, she took my dad on a walk to show him all the improvements she’d made since his last visit. She described the projects in detail as her youngest son dutifully complimented all her handiwork.

She was in the habit of using the first-person singular, as in “I built this fence” or “I moved this tree because it was starting to shade my garden.” She had a husband and, believe you me, she got a day’s work out of him. So we all understood that she meant “we” built this or that.

But Grandpa couldn’t resist hamming it up, staring in fake amazement at his outstretched hands and telling us for the umpteenth time that he couldn’t figure out how she did all the work, and he got all the callouses.

The time has come to add my voice to the chorus of recent complaints against white privilege. You might have noticed that most of the complaints thus far have been vague and theoretical, even speculative. But mine is practical, immediate and vivid: white privilege is killing my back!

As a cisgendered patriarchal white male, I’m so privileged that sometimes I don’t want to get out of bed in the morning. (Note to privileged white males: Absorbine helps some.) I don’t really have a choice, so I still get up and go to work. But if I weren’t so dang privileged, I’d stay home and binge-watch Hulu re-runs.

Sometimes it’s the little bones in my hands, but usually it’s my back. When I get in a hurry or I forget to put on my work gloves, sometimes I tear my fingernails. White privilege is sneaky. It comes at you from a dozen different directions.

When I first entered the workforce nearly 50 years ago, we didn’t know about white privilege. But there was talk of “economic justice” and “redistribution of income.” I was an ultra-liberal George McGovern supporter, and that all sounded pretty good to me.

Like other people of my generation, I thought it was self-evident that I deserved more money. I hadn’t heard the apocryphal Willie Sutton quote that banks are where the money is, and I assumed money comes from the government. Where and how the government gets its money was a matter of supreme indifference to me.

They should tax the dickens out of the greedy exploiters and overpaid bourgeois, and cut checks to us, the deserving. It’s not that complicated. If a government can’t do that, what good is it?

Then I went to work on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline construction project: 12-15 hours per day, seven days per week, sleeping in camps, eating on our work buses. We went weeks at a time without seeing a town or a television. I thought the Bee Gees singing falsetto on my eight-track were a Black female trio because I’d never seen them on TV or in a magazine.

I was a local-hire Alaskan laborer supporting itinerant welders, mostly from Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas. The pay was lavish by the standards of that decade, and word got out via news stories and word of mouth. Seattle and Vancouver young women perked right up and paid attention when you mentioned you were working on the Alaska pipeline project.

The Internal Revenue Service was on top of the situation, too. Alaska has no state income tax, but the stiff federal tax deductions from my pipeline paychecks in those pre-Reagan years, when I filed single with zero dependents and minimal deductions, were a weekly discouragement. Still, I was pulling down the biggest money I would ever make, barely old enough to enter a bar.

It was great to be making that kind of money at the beginning of my working life, but it was still the Alaskan wilderness and the Arctic climate. I worked mostly in the Brooks Range, which is the northernmost mountain range before the Arctic Ocean.

While we were working on the line one morning, a grizzly bear got on our work bus and tore open our lunches and donuts. The Texans and Okies were trying to get snapshots of the beast when it came off the bus. The Alaskans, who know their grizzlies, were climbing on top of the other buses, and locking themselves in truck cabs.

In winter, the welders went home or to warmer out-of-state pipeline projects to wait out Alaskan temperatures of 50 and 60 degrees below zero, round-the-clock darkness and occasional knifelike wind. I will say this: they missed some truly spectacular Northern Lights in the winter. Most of the laborers went back to town after the welders left, but I worked camp security 11.5 hours per day through the winter.

This was shortly after Richard Nixon left office. Because the pipeline crossed federal lands, Affirmative Action was in force. There were two job lines at the union hall: the long one, sometimes stretching out the door and onto the sidewalk, and the short one.

The short line was for racial minorities and (very rare) women, legally entitled to hiring preference. I seldom saw the number of workers in that line amount to double digits. For them, hiring was almost instantaneous and they had first pick of the choicest assignments.

The long line was for us, the white males whom Professor Anita Hill would later call “the lowest form of life on the evolutionary scale.” Sometimes our line was so long that we couldn’t get a job after wasting our day at the hiring hall, and we had to come back the next day and the next. Minority union members could quit a job in the morning and be back on a job that afternoon.

Even in town, most of the pipeline laborers were alone, without family, unconnected to the community. We tended to run with fellow unemployed workers until we could get dispatched to a remote pipeline camp. We’d usually see our friends at the union hall, and either go our separate ways for work or continue socializing in town.

Two middle-aged pals there were inseparable. One was Black, and the other was a white guy with a German name. They were loud and profane, apparently hit the bottle pretty good, and they were a lot of fun in the union hall. But they couldn’t stand in the same line because one was a racial minority and the other wasn’t.

They didn’t want to split up to ship out to different pipeline camps, but the Black friend didn’t want to accept the inferior jobs that would remain after the minority job dispatch. So he loudly told his white friend to tell the union that his mother was Mexican. We all laughed because this guy looked like a pedigreed Scandinavian.

But he went inside the office, and when he came back out, he got in the minority line and took a prime job dispatch with his Black buddy. Good for him, I say. We owe no loyalty to that corrupt racist system. But I never got to stand in that line.

I visited my lamentably white grandparents, who were wintering in Florida. St. Petersburg was well known for its large population of elderly retirees, but I didn’t know there was also a large youthful lower-class community with all the usual pathologies. I saw large numbers of young men my age standing around, “smoking and joking” on weekday afternoons. Employment was apparently not on the agenda.

On the first day of the month, welfare checks came out and young men found their way to women who were able to bankroll their frolics for a few days thereafter. I learned that the slang for that first day, the welfare day, was “Mothers’ Day.” Liquor flowed, sirens whooped, and skirts and music volume were elevated for a few days, until the government money for that month ran out.

I don’t remember a strong feeling of moral censure, but I was acutely aware that all this fun was literally at my expense, and the expense of other hapless working men and women. I was single and ready to mingle, but I opted instead for deferred gratification, to work in remote isolation, to make that money while I could. Why did I have to go in my pocket to fund uproarious living by frivolous and idle people?

Talk of redistribution of income began to ring hollow. Economic justice, it seemed to me, ought to consist of more than redistribution of my income. How about redistributing some of that 60-below-zero? They [were] welcome to frozen fingertips. How could we redistribute my solitude, my social isolation, my sleep deprivation?

The truth, of course, is that all the risks, costs, sacrifices and rewards are distributed efficiently, which is to say perfectly, by a free market. Freedom begets freedom. What a privilege to turn 21 in a relatively free country before parasites and race hustlers zeroed in on productive, innovative, risk-taking, hard-working opportunity seekers. I wish I could privilege my grandchildren with such a country.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Exposing the Maskerade: The Questions Every American Should Be Asking About Indefinite Mask Mandates

The trope of “just shut up and wear a mask” is not science, ordered liberty, or constitutional governance. It’s what they do in North Korea. We need real debate on the effectiveness of masks, the type of masks, the situations in which they are worn, the duration of time, the benchmarks that need to be met to measure effectiveness, and the process for promulgating these rules. We are no longer 24 hours into an emergency. We are four months into this virus, and it’s time to function like the representative republic that we are.

There are numerous political and scientific questions any thinking person should be asking at this point:

Why did the CDC, World Health Organization, and such luminaries as Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams so emphatically dismiss the effectiveness of masks, then flip 180 degrees to the point where they shame people who don’t wear them, without ever explaining what changed? While we learn more about the virus every day, the micro-biology of the particles hasn’t changed, and the premise that non-professional masks worn by non-trained professionals run the risk of counterproductive cross-contamination did not change.

The suggestion that this is needed to protect others raises the obvious question: If me not wearing a mask transmits the virus to others who are wearing a mask, then is that not an admission that masks do not work to stop a respiratory virus that is microscopic and gets through the mask? Garbage in, garbage out. It makes no sense to suggest it doesn’t penetrate the transmitter’s mask from inside-out, especially with the air pressure of a cough or sneeze, but can penetrate the mask of the receiver through suspended molecules that are stagnant without pressure pushing those molecules outside-in to the receiver. If anything, the opposite should be true – it should be more effective for protection of yourself.

How can mask-wearing work when everyone just stores them in their pockets to collect bacteria, as our government officials predicted from day one?

How could kids ever keep it clean and not collect more bacteria, and where is the evidence that children are even a vector for viral transmission? My home county is mandating that even two-year-olds wear masks. How can anyone suggest that children can keep them clean, and where is the evidence that young children are a vector for transmitting the virus, when numerous studies from other countries have shown the opposite?

Mask-wearing in all of the major cities – from Los Angeles to Miami – has been in place and followed by pressure and community shaming for months. Compliance in most of these places has been off the charts, according to the NYT. Yet the virus is still spreading more than before the mandate. The virus is now spreading in Japan, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, which have near universal mask-wearing. At what point does the mask cult have to provide evidence of the effectiveness of these unconstitutional mandates, and at what point do benchmarks have to be met to maintain such a draconian and life-altering requirement?

Do masks that are continuously reused, cross-contaminated, and not properly disposed of become a trap to further transmit the virus or become retainers for other pathogens – or at the very least for bacteria, which are larger than viruses – that can harm the mask-wearer and others alike?

What are the known side effects to one’s health after wearing these masks for hours on end in the heat, especially for children in school? Does long-term mask-wearing lower oxygen levels and compromise our immune systems?

Do masks cause people to touch their faces more often, the exact opposite of what was originally the desired result?

To suggest that individuals be forced into something so personal as covering their own faces indefinitely under the guise of protecting other people is a huge, dramatic change in the relationship between the government and the citizen. We should at minimum get clarity on these questions before allowing any executive authority to unilaterally decree it. Doesn’t the near-universal opposition to widespread mask-wearing from these very same “experts” before the issue became political hold any weight? Doesn’t their reversal demand explanation?

To this day, there has never been a clinical study with randomized controlled trials in non-health-care settings that vouch for the effectiveness of universal mask-wearing in public. All we have so far are anecdotes and laboratory filtration studies, not real human-to-human studies. When asked about conducting one, Dr. Fauci said there is no intention to do so. In fact, he went from resolutely dismissing the idea of wearing masks in March to now telling a group of Georgetown University students that he couldn’t even conduct a study because he was so scared of having even a study group go without masks!

Thus, we are told we are not allowed to breathe free air without a mask – no studies allowed. Fauci’s view? No votes, no hearings, no debate, no studies, no time limits, no performance benchmarks. Shut up and cover your mouth indefinitely and don’t you dare express the view he used to espouse … or else.

Until now, the only time mask use has ever been a studied in a non-health-care setting showed the opposite of what the political class is saying. As Dr. Andrew Bostom of Brown University wrote earlier this month:

Moreover, a subsequent pooled (so-called “meta-”) analysis of ten controlled trials assessing extended, real-world, non-health-care-setting mask usage revealed that masking did not reduce the rate of laboratory-proven infections with the respiratory virus influenza. The findings from this unique report — published May 2020 by the CDC’s own “house journal” “Emerging Infectious Diseases” — are directly germane to the question of masking to prevent COVID-19 infection and merit some elaboration.

One study evaluated mask usage by Hajj pilgrims to Mecca, two university-setting studies assessed the efficacy of face masks for prevention of confirmed influenza among student campus residents over five months of surveillance, and seven household studies examined the impact of masking infected persons only (one), household contacts of infected persons only (one), or both groups (five). None of these studies, individually, or their aggregated, pooled analysis, which enhanced the overall “statistical power” to detect smaller effects, demonstrated a significant benefit of masking for the reduction of confirmed influenza infection (also see tabulation). The authors further concluded with a caution that using face masks improperly might “increase the risk for (viral) transmission.”

As doctors from the Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Children’s Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia, concluded in arguing against even health care workers wearing surgical masks when treating low‐risk patients, “There is no good evidence that facemasks protect the public against infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID‐19.”

They explain how the way most people use masks could actually become counterproductive:

One danger of doing this is the illusion of protection. Surgical facemasks are designed to be discarded after single use. As they become moist they become porous and no longer protect. Indeed, experiments have shown that surgical and cotton masks do not trap the SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) virus, which can be detected on the outer surface of the masks for up to 7 days. Thus, a pre‐symptomatic or mildly infected person wearing a facemask for hours without changing it and without washing hands every time they touched the mask could paradoxically increase the risk of infecting others.

They cite a “desperate situation” in the U.S. as the impetus for the CDC’s reversal on masks and note that it is based on “scant” evidence. Which is why, “In contrast, the World Health Organization currently recommends against the public routinely wearing facemasks.”

Even N95s, which certainly cause people to get headaches by stifling fresh air, don’t necessarily show conclusively positive outcomes. A 2019 study of 2,862 randomized participants (Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019)) published in JAMA found, “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

There’s a reason why as late as May, the CDC was citing the 10 randomized controlled trials that showed “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.” Containing the virions that are emitted from the aerosols in a mask, much less a cloth that so many wear, is like locking up a bee in a jail cell. As the CDC notes, masks were not designed to protect against microbiological particles 0.1 micron in size — or one hundred-thousandth of a centimeter — but from visible contamination.

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

How does such a grounded observation built on 10 unrefuted clinical studies change in just a matter of weeks if not for politics? If anything, COVID-19 is more of a dry cough than the flu, which would likely produce more atomized particles that are certainly not larger than the wetter flu emissions. Yet the CDC has gone from vehemently opposing masks to promoting even cloth coverings, which everyone agrees do not filter out most particles.

And these people have the nerve to call conservatives anti-science?

The question we must ask ourselves is this: if our government can now mandate such a personal and disruptive lifestyle change to our bodies with assertions that contradict their own long-standing evidence from just weeks ago and with so many unanswered questions, what else can they do to us without presenting evidence or a transparent and democratic debate? It appears that “my body, my choice” only applies to murdering babies.

We deserve hearings and we deserve answers. We are citizens, not subjects. Just because this virus came from China doesn’t mean the politicians can use it as a pretext to turn us into China. (For more from the author of “Exposing the Maskerade: The Questions Every American Should Be Asking About Indefinite Mask Mandates” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Young Americans’ Ignorance of Socialism Threatens Our Freedom and Vitality

Vice President Mike Pence last week powerfully described the stark choice facing America as it recovers from the effects of the coronavirus. In a speech, Pence said:

Before us are two paths: one based on the dignity of every individual, and the other on the growing control of the state. Our road leads to greater freedom and opportunity. Their road leads to socialism and decline.

In times of crisis, it is natural that people will look to the government for answers. Yet the damage to our society and our economy from new government controls and regulations will be real.

Indeed, 2020 has become a critical year in the history of the United States, with the nation polarized and divided on a number of issues. In almost every case, however, the political divide rests squarely on the extent to which we want, or will accept, government direction or control.

According to Merriam-Webster, socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Yet the adherents of “socialism” typically claim to want something different, specifically a large, cradle-to-grave welfare state. Often forgotten or ignored is that such a welfare state must be financed, and that resources only will be available if the economic system is functioning efficiently and with a high degree of productivity. Government control is typically the enemy of both.

As a matter of fact, history unmistakably shows that “power for the ruling class” in any of its forms never has really worked anywhere. Everywhere it has been tried, socialism has done harm. It’s a cautionary tale that should be taught to every new generation.

Socialism is a failed economic and social arrangement. In many cases, socialists have ended up being forced to adopt capitalist measures for their survival.

Free-market capitalism does not, of course, guarantee happiness and success. However, it does enable the quest for them. It is this freedom to pursue a self-determined, better life that brings real meaning to the lives of individuals and collective benefits to our society.

Arguing forcefully that America must never become a socialist country, Pence said in his July 17 speech:

You know, it’s not so much whether America will be more conservative or more liberal, more Republican or Democrat, more red or blue. It’s whether America remains America. It’s whether we will leave to our children and our grandchildren a country grounded in our highest ideals of freedom, free markets, and the unalienable right to life and liberty—or whether we will leave to our children and grandchildren a country that is fundamentally transformed into something else.

As Kay C. James, president of The Heritage Foundation, noted last year in a commentary: “We who cherish freedom must take on the false prophets of socialism and spread the truth that limited government, free markets, and a nation based on the rule of law are the surest ways to ensure freedom, prosperity, and opportunity for all.”

Those are words of wisdom for those who will listen.

The deceptively false glamour of socialism is a mirage that each new generation will be tempted to run toward—unless they are told the truth about socialism’s true legacy. (For more from the author of “Young Americans’ Ignorance of Socialism Threatens Our Freedom and Vitality” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Silent Majority Won’t Be So Silent Come November

. . .The culture that has been fostered and empowered by intersectional academic elites protected by tenure at well-endowed (and government-funded) universities as well as the arbiters of acceptable behavior who sit behind plexiglass desks in cable news studios high above the streets of Manhattan, the lessons have been carefully and painfully taught to all Americans. If you’re not in-line with the woke minority with the loudest voices, better stay quiet if you know what’s good for you.

. . .You see, we don’t have to win arguments on Twitter. We don’t need to dominate someone’s Facebook page. We don’t need to prove our point in the lunchroom at work. We don’t have to one-up our liberal brother-in-law at the dinner table.

We just need to keep our heads down, smile as they scream and rant, and try to burn down their own failed Democrat-run cities, and vote.

We don’t need to constantly argue for funding our cops; we just need to elect representatives who are paid to make that argument for us. . .

We don’t need to convince anyone about the dangers of a Biden administration populated by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Ilhan Omar; we just need to re-elect Donald Trump, who is not afraid to make these arguments for us. (Read more from “The Silent Majority Won’t Be So Silent Come November” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Chicago Funeral Shooting Shows Yet Again How Black Lives Don’t Matter to Politicians

Where are all the frantic press releases from every corporation in America amid the worst mass shooting of black people in Chicago’s recent memory? Where are the protests? The demands for more prison time? More cops? Or, if you only get your news from superficial corporate media sources, perhaps you don’t know what I’m talking about.

While most people bring flowers and tissues to funerals, that is not the Chicago way. There, they bring guns. According to CBS Chicago, mourners were attending the funeral of Donnie Weathersby, himself a black life cut down at age 31 by gang violence, when a car full of gunmen drove by and sprayed 60 bullets into Rhodes Funeral Services funeral home, wounding as many as 15, some of whom are in serious condition. One of the victims was reportedly a bystander who was not a target of the assailants.

Some of the attendees reportedly shot back at the drive-by shooters, which is in itself peculiar given how hard it is for ordinary people to get a concealed carry license in Chicago. But Chicago is the Sodom and Gomorrah of America, where peaceful citizens can’t exercise their rights while gang members carry openly and never face serious consequences for committing violent crimes, including gun crimes. . .

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 70 percent of all black victims of violent crime in 2018 were victimized by black criminals.

A huge focus of the BLM movement is to abolish police and abolish incarceration. But once again, who are the victims of jailbreak policies almost every time? Yes, the black lives that absolutely do not matter to the political elites.

This year, the numbers of shootings and homicide victims in Chicago are eclipsing the numbers from last year by approximately 50 percent and are approaching record numbers year-to-date. Rather than spending the past three years fighting against criminal release and weak deterrent against gun felons, Republicans have joined in on the Jared Kushner jailbreak agenda, suggesting that we somehow have an over-incarceration problem. At the same time, when in control of all three branches, Republicans failed to pass a single self-defense or pro-Second Amendment bill, but passed a gun control bill. Gun control without criminal control is a recipe for disaster.

According to UCLA’s database on prison releases, Illinois has released over 4,600 criminals from prison and 800 from Cook County Jail.

Even before the acceleration of the jailbreak movement over the past two years, crystalizing during the coronavirus outbreak, incarceration rates have been plummeting. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the black imprisonment rate nationwide has been down 28% from 2008-2018, while the white imprisonment rate dropped by just 13%. The jail incarceration rate for black criminals dropped 30% – to the lowest level since 1990 – while the white incarceration rate actually increased 12% over the past decade.

According to data I tallied from the Illinois Department of Corrections website, the number of Illinois prisoners plummeted 21.86% just in the 27 months from March 31, 2018, through June 2002.

Republicans and Democrats alike have been cheering on this trend and continue to suggest that we still have an over-incarceration problem. But behind all these criminal releases are more victims of crime, most of them black.

How can Republicans agree to throw more money at the states for a coronavirus response in the coming days without conditioning the funds on terminating these releases?

This is not just about the rioting and retreat of the police in major cities. Just because there are no police on the streets doesn’t mean that people like you and me start committing crimes. It’s the career criminals who commit the most crimes. They have been released over the past few years and increasingly so in recent months. That was the first step of the breakdown in law and order. They are the fuel for the criminal fire, while the war on cops supplied the match to kindle the fuel. This is why crime has been able to spike so high so rapidly in some places, nearly as high as it was before the generation-long decline in violent crime beginning in the 1990s.

This is happening everywhere. In Los Angeles, Jose Enrique Esquivel has been arrested a dozen times for stealing cars since being released under coronavirus jailbreak, and every time, he was set free. There is simply no deterrent.

In a series of tweets, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called the shooters “cowardly” and asserted, “We cannot give shelter to killers.”

Actually, Mayor, this is exactly what you have done by releasing so many criminals and declaring war on the cops.

“When a person picks up a gun, we suffer as a city. This cannot be who we are,” Lightfoot said.

So why is it that Chicago keeps putting gun felons with violent criminal histories on parole instead of locking them up? Just over the weekend, a man who was on parole despite a history of robbery and burglary convictions dating back 30 years was arrested for beating an elderly woman at Chicago’s Union Station.

How hard is it for Republicans to open the BLM narrative and show how its very policies are the ones resulting in all the dead black lives? Yet in an interview with Newsweek, Jared Kushner recently defended his de-incarceration agenda, suggesting that “people need a second chance.”

Well, what we are seeing in the justice system today is that they get 5-10 chances or an infinite number of chances, which ensures that many victims of crime don’t get a second chance at life. It’s easy to blame dead Confederate generals or pictures on food boxes for all the death and misery in inner cities. Leadership to address the source of the problem is what seems to be a rare commodity at this moment. (For more from the author of “The Chicago Funeral Shooting Shows Yet Again How Black Lives Don’t Matter to Politicians” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Rioting for Its Own Sake

When I was twelve, we moved into faculty housing on a large Job Corps facility that had taken over a vast decommissioned Army base. My dad taught reading to high school dropouts there from major East Coast cities. It was part of President Johnson’s “Great Society.”

I don’t know how many Job Corps trainees were at our facility, but there were a lot, maybe in the thousands. They slept in the same painted wooden Army barracks where Bob Dole and Jackie Robinson had trained in World War II.

I don’t remember any sense of culture shock although I was a scrawny small-town white boy moving in a sea of young Black and Puerto Rican men. It was a great adventure learning their masculine slang and profanity, and curating the vulgar restroom graffiti. We knew our cultural appropriation was frowned upon, but we didn’t know it had a name.

Of course, we didn’t invent cultural appropriation. Pat Boone had served up an unthreatening whitebread version of Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti.” Elvis Presley made a career out of appropriating Black music and salacious, suggestive hip thrusts.

My mom told me that when I was a toddler, people at Nalley’s Cafe in Francisco, Indiana used to give me a nickel to belt out “you ain’t nothing but a hound dog,” Elvis-style. We had no idea that was Big Mama Thornton’s song, because Elvis never mentioned her. I hope she got lots of royalties.

The Beatles were so bold about lifting Black music that they eventually were sued by Chuck Berry’s music publisher. “Come Together” came out the year I started high school, and we all took John Lennon at his word that he wrote it. But Berry’s lawyer noted the Beatles’ song’s melodic similarity to his client’s song “You Can’t Catch Me,” and the fact that Lennon’s song actually used some of Berry’s lyrics, for crying out loud. It’s perfectly legitimate to “cover” another person’s song, as long as you pay, and you ought to acknowledge the songwriter’s authorship. But the Beatles had to be sued for copyright infringement.

Plagiarism is theft, and it’s not the exclusive domain of white entertainers. I’ve written previously about the plagiarism of Martin Luther King Jr. and Roots author Alex Haley.

We’re no longer as stratified and segregated as we were in the 1960s. It’s hard to draw a definitive line between Black and white culture anymore, and therefore more difficult to identify cultural appropriation. It doesn’t seem odd anymore to see white athletes giving one another high fives, or to see Black teenagers skateboarding.

But the last frontier seems to be appropriating grievances. At first glance, the massive turnout of woke white Millennials at anti-racist demonstrations seemed like a heartwarming gesture of transracial solidarity. Maybe this generation of Americans could finally put racism behind us.

But on closer examination, a lot of these white demonstrators appear to have come out for the fun. A Black police officer in Portland told one of my friends that he was usually able to engage young Black protesters in respectful conversation until they were interrupted by shrieking white Leftists who brought the conversation to a halt with name-calling and accusations, and often with racial epithets.

Let’s be clear: rioting is fun. It’s an adrenaline rush. We had one at the Job Corps center. What could be more intoxicating for the criminally inclined than to defy authority, destroy adults’ property, menace the police, and maybe take home a big-screen souvenir to remember the riot by?

I remember looking into the sweaty faces in our Job Corps riot. They were similar to the faces of a football team after a touchdown, but happier, more exultant. What I was witnessing was ecstasy. And so when I hear urban riots described as a product of “black rage,” I am skeptical. Most looters and arsonists will have very fond memories of their riot.

It’s not surprising that unaccomplished young whites, former latch-key kids whom nobody has ever taken seriously, covet the grievances that enoble and entitle Black victims, grievances that they believe are a blank check. The right to bellow accusations at detested adult authority figures, to give free unchallenged rein to your darkest impulses, to hush and intimidate your critics? That’s irresistible to people of their neglected character.

Perhaps it was inevitable that these hyper-entitled, over-indulged young white people would eventually try to appropriate Black Rage itself. James Baldwin, meet Little Richard.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

If the Panicmongers Were Consistent, We’d Close the Schools Every Flu Season

On December 17, 2014, Rebecca Taylor received a call from the school nurse in her daughter Scarlet’s Tacoma, Washington, school saying that Scarlet had a fever and Rebecca should pick her up. Two days later, and after just four hours of being in the hospital from what should have been a routine flu in an otherwise healthy child, Scarlet was dead.

While this was a rare tragic story, it’s less rare than parallel stories of COVID-19, yet nobody ever thought to shut schools during the flu season.

Adam Ratner, an NYU physician of pediatric infectious disease, noted that so far this season he has had young patients who have developed life-threatening pneumonias and needed surgeries to drain abscesses in their chests — and most of these children were perfectly healthy before they got the flu.

That is a quote from a CNN article on January 7 about the deadliness of the flu season to children in a year when the seasonal flu killed 174 school-age children. Yet, like most facts that can be gleaned through extensive research online, if it’s not published incessantly in daily headline news and obsessed about by the media-political complex, people don’t know about it. And if they don’t know about it, they are not scared of it.

The reality is that every flu season, many more children die from this common ailment than have from COVID-19. And unlike with COVID-19, where the rare pediatric deaths are among those who have serious conditions, many of the flu deaths occur in perfectly healthy children. According to the CDC, “influenza is dangerous to children,” and during the 2017-2018 flu season, which everyone forgets was considered a pandemic, the federal agency estimates that the actual number of pediatric deaths was closer to 600.

A 2018 CDC study of six flu seasons concluded that half of flu-related deaths occurred in otherwise healthy children, 22% of whom were fully vaccinated. Thus, even with a vaccine, the flu is still much more deadly for children, especially perfectly healthy children.

Just how scary is the flu to children, if we were to apply the same lack of context and perspective as we do with this virus? Perfectly healthy children could die so quickly, the parents don’t even see it coming. From the 2018 CDC study:

Nearly two-thirds of children died within seven days of developing symptoms. Over one-third died at home or in the emergency department prior to hospital admission. In fact, children without other medical conditions that would predispose them to serious flu complications were more likely to die before hospital admission.

Moreover, other kids get seriously ill and develop side effects, such as blindness. One four-year -old girl in Iowa was left blind by the flu this past season. Even those who suffer no serious consequences are often bedridden for a week or longer with high fever, muscle ache, and incessant coughing, unlike with COVID-19, where almost every child who develops it is asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic.

Thus, if we are going to limit or modify or schooling and mandate that kids wear suffocating masks all day, shouldn’t this be done every year from November to April – by a factor of 10? And given that the flu does linger for all months of the year at least at the threat level of COVID-19 to children during the off months, if schools are closed for COVID-19, shouldn’t they always be closed because of the flu?

In other words, if you give me control of the media and medical academia for a month, I will have every parent in America easily convinced that children must be locked down forever. If the threat level of COVID-19 to children is the new threshold for shutdown, we are done as a civilization, even if this particular virus becomes extinct tomorrow. Remember, unlike with this virus, where children barely contribute to community spread, with the flu, children contribute substantially to the spread and pick it up most often from other kids in school.

This is a glimpse into the context and perspective that is lacking in the hyper-focus on the worst outcomes in any group of people in a country this size.

Just consider the statement from California Superintendent of Instruction Tony Thurmond. “I do think that, if school had to open tomorrow, most of our districts would open in distance learning,” he said during a briefing earlier this week as county governments in L.A. and San Diego closed schools in September. “And that is a decision that I think is a good decision if conditions don’t change.”

If conditions don’t change? Not a single child has died of COVID-19 in the state of California. Not one in this state of 40 million people. Kids are not only more likely to die of the flu, but are more likely to die in a car crash on the way to school or in a playground accident at school.

Also, consider the fact that they are insinuating that schools can’t return to normal until there is a vaccine. Well, when was the last time we had a foolproof vaccine for a respiratory virus? Notice how the flu is much more dangerous for children than COVID-19, even though there already is a vaccine. According to the California Department of Public Health’s Influenza Surveillance Report, there were 187 reported ICU and fatal cases of the flu among children during the 2017-2018 season. Among those cases with available influenza vaccination information (120 cases), 61 (50.8%) received the 2017–2018 influenza vaccine.

Not only does that show the flu is more deadly, but it also demonstrates that even once we get a vaccine for a respiratory virus, they are often not nearly as foolproof as other vaccines. Thus, if zero pediatric deaths in California is too much of a risk to assume, then a half-baked vaccine won’t exactly matter.

Finally, we already know that children almost always get the virus from adults and that the primary location for transmission is at home. So, if we are really concerned about an infinitesimal degree of risk to children, who’s to say that school closures would mitigate that degree of risk? As a Johns Hopkins analysis of mass quarantine in 2006, which was co-authored by famed smallpox eradicator D.A. Henderson, noted, “When schools closed for a winter holiday during the 1918 pandemic in Chicago, ‘more influenza cases developed among pupils . . . than when schools were in session.’”

What is truly driving the agenda to close schools? (For more from the author of “If the Panicmongers Were Consistent, We’d Close the Schools Every Flu Season” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Black Lives Matter Agenda Is Racist and Anti-Semitic. Why Are Politicians Embracing It?

When was the last time we saw governments embrace the violent, racialist political agenda of a specific racist organization and make the citizenry obey it by force of law while exempting its adherents from the actual laws on the books? If you are conjuring up images of the KKK during the Jim Crow days in the South, you are not missing anything. So why is this suddenly OK when it comes to an organization that names itself Black Lives Matter?

We have never seen an individual political movement accorded this much accommodation and coerced adherence by society and government. It’s to the point where it has become a national religion that one would think might run afoul the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. BLM protesters are not arrested for violence, vandalism, arson, or blocking roadways. But if you defend yourself against them, you are the one who is treated like a criminal. If you don’t support this political organization – its anti-Semitism, violence, disruption, and all – you will lose your job and any position of prominence … and might even wind up in jail.

On Tuesday, the Contra Costa, California, district attorney charged a married couple for civil rights violations and vandalism after they filmed themselves painting over a large “Black Lives Matter” display on a main city street in Martinez.

“We must address the root and byproduct of systemic racism in our country. The Black Lives Matter movement is an important civil rights cause that deserves all of our attention,” stated Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton. “The mural completed last weekend was a peaceful and powerful way to communicate the importance of Black lives in Contra Costa County and the country. We must continue to elevate discussions and actually listen to one another in an effort to heal our community and country.”

Here we have a prosecutor elevating a violent, anti-Semitic group to the level of legal juggernaut, where anyone who opposes them gets charged with civil rights violations. Is this the equal treatment under the law that Dr. King dreamed of?

Obviously, defenders of the prosecution will suggest that the protesters got a permit from the city to paint this “mural,” thereby making this act of defacement a criminal violation of vandalism. But therein lies the problem. This is not some mural of a city image on the side of a wall. This is the name of a particular racial and political organization painted right on a city street. When has that ever been sanctioned by a city to a private organization, much less a political one, much less a violent racist one to boot?

Do you really think any city would allow such a painting of “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter,” much less “White Lives Matter” on a city street? And if that were to happen, would citizens who paint over it be charged with vandalism, not to mention civil rights violations? How is this equal treatment?

What about Jewish Lives Matter?

The only response you will hear is that black people were oppressed many years ago and somehow everyone today is retroactively responsible to publicly endorse today’s movement in order to atone for the sin. But if that history justifies a need for obsessive coddling of an organization that names itself “black lives,” then by a factor of 1,000, state and local governments have an obligation to “address the root and byproduct of systemic racism” against Jews in this country. Hate crimes against Jews are much more widespread and are happening now and are on the rise, not simply a part of history. So, is Martinez, California, going to paint a mural of “Jewish Lives Matter”? Or is it only those who riot, threaten, and intimidate who get their grievances validated and indulged by government and law?

According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2019, there were 2,107 anti-Semitic incidents throughout the country, a 12% increase from the 1,879 incidents recorded in 2018. Just how prominent are those numbers per capita? Jews are just 2% of the population, but were the victims in 56.9 percent of the anti-religious hate crimes in 2018, according to the FBI. The hate crime rate per 100,000 against Jews was 14.8, nearly three times that of anti-black hate crimes.

And guess what: Unfortunately, most of those attacks, especially in New York City, come from black assailants precisely because of the resurgence of pro-Lois Farrakhan sentiment that is promoted by groups like BLM. According to NYPD’s statistics on hate crimes, 58% of all hate crimes (not just anti-religious ones) in NYC were committed against Jews, even though they are just 12% of the city’s population. The number of anti-Semitic incidents increased by 30% over the previous year.

Earlier this year and last year, we were witnessing knockout attacks by black youth against Jews in New York almost on a daily basis. Even the New York Times admitted over a year ago that these attacks were not committed by white criminals. “During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group,” acknowledged the Times in an article titled, “Is it Safe to be Jewish in New York?”

In a shocking admission, the paper of record observed that the growing “anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York” because “it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy,” given “the varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes in the city that make combating and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.”

Well, that is one way to explain it! Those “varied backgrounds” pose a big challenge to intellectual honesty.

Yet here we have Mayor Bill de Blasio painting a Black Lives Matter “mural” in Manhattan right in front of Trump tower. He did so together with noted Jew-hater, Al Sharpton. But under this standard, shouldn’t he paint a mural of Jewish Lives Matter in front of City Hall? And given that the statistics show that Jews are attacked much more often, and increasingly so, than black people, shouldn’t he be condemning the rabid anti-Semitism and racism of the very group he sanctifies as the paragon of civil rights?

Most of the anti-Semitism is coming from BLM-type organizations

Just who are these people now being celebrated with public property and by the most high-profile politicians? The head of the Black Lives Mater chapter in Toronto once wrote on Facebook that white people are “subhuman” and have “genetic defects.” How is that different from David Duke?

On May 30, during a Jewish holiday, BLM activists carried out an attack on Los Angeles’ oldest Jewish neighborhood in Fairfax, even though it was out of the way of the protests. They vandalized five synagogues and three Jewish schools and looted Jewish-owned businesses. Daniel Greenfield reported at Frontpage that Allyson Rowen Taylor, a co-founder of StandWithUs, shared an account of the riots in which they chanted, “F**k the police and kill the Jews.”

“It’s no coincidence that the riots here escalated in Fairfax, the icon of the Jewish community. I saw the Watts and the Rodney King riots. They never touched a synagogue or house of prayer. The graffiti showed blatant antisemitism. It’s Kristallnacht all over again,” said Rabbi Shimon Raichik, a Chabad Rabbi in Los Angeles, as reported by Greenfield.

There are numerous other accounts of how the BLM rioters directed their hatred towards Jews over and beyond the general violence they were committing. Isn’t it quite revealing how support for Palestinians seems to be the only foreign policy position BLM indulges?

How can we ever strive for true equality in this country if the political elites are going to elevate a racist organization as the beacon of racial justice and equality? What message does this send to the already growing Farrakhan movement attacking Jews?

White supremacists and neo-Nazis have been banished from society. True equality would require us to do the same to all racial supremacist and hateful organizations. And that begins with government treating every crime or interaction with a political movement on an equal footing. If opposing BLM is tantamount to anti-black racism, then supporting them is tantamount to anti-Semitism. If erasing BLM graffiti on our streets is racist, then politicians painting it on the streets is anti-Semitic.

In reality, the only lives that should be singled out in a color-coded message by the governments of this country are the lives represented by the red, white, and blue – which is all of us. E pluribus unum. (For more from the author of “The Black Lives Matter Agenda Is Racist and Anti-Semitic. Why Are Politicians Embracing It?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Yet Another Stunning Revelation About the True Origin of COVID-19

In 2013, Zheng-Li Shi, the “bat woman,” and her team from the Wuhan Institute of Virology were asked to investigate the virus profile of a mine shaft in Yunnan Province after six miners contracted pneumonia with symptoms similar to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

After sampling the mine shaft for a year, the researchers identified a diverse group of bat coronaviruses, one of which was designated RaBtCoV/4991 (GenBank KP876546) and partially sequenced as a 440-base pair fragment targeting the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene (RdRp).

Despite being unique enough to be considered a new strain and associated with a human SARS-like outbreak as a Potential Pandemic Pathogen, thereafter, RaBtCoV/4991 disappeared from the scientific literature.

That is, until 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an intensive search for the origin of the coronavirus responsible, SARS-CoV-2.

In the February 3, 2020 Nature article, scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, led by Zheng-Li Shi, stated that the coronavirus RaTG13, isolated from bats in Yunnan Province, China, showed a 96.2% sequence identity with SARS-CoV-2 and, therefore, “RaTG13 is the closest relative” forming a distinct lineage from other coronaviruses and supporting China’s claim that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally-occurring.

A month later, on March 17, 2020, the article “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” widely-cited by scientists and the media, supported the conclusion that RaTG13 is SARS-CoV-2’s closest relative, which likely “jumped” from animals to humans in the Wuhan Seafood Market.

It is important to note that, Ian Lipkin, one of the authors of “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” the article supporting China’s claim that SARS-CoV-2 is naturally occurring, received a medal from the Chinese government in January, 2020.

It did not take long for doubts to appear about the validity of the RaTG13 argument or even its existence . We have now learned that RaTG13 existed only on paper. RaTG13 and RaBtCoV/4991 are the same virus.

The entire RaTG13 genome was first uploaded to the National Institutes of Health GenBank on January 27, 2020 and updated on March 24, 2020. In those filings, there is no mention of RaBtCoV/4991.

Yet, in a Chinese virus database, dated March 7, 2020 in the source code, RaTG13 and RaBtCoV/4991 are listed as being the same virus. It means that China knew early on that RaTG13 was not a unique coronavirus, but merely a duplicate of RaBtCoV/4991 and kept that important fact secret.

China has long implied that RaTG13 was only discovered in 2020 after the onset of the pandemic via a search of its coronavirus database.

That claim was echoed by Peter Daszak, President of the EcoHealth Alliance and long-time collaborator of the Wuhan Institute of Virology:

“We found the closest relative to the current SARS-CoV-2 in a bat in China in 2013. We sequenced a bit of the genome, and then it went in the freezer; because it didn’t look like SARS.”

Now comes yet another stunning revelation. It was not in the freezer.

According to new information, Chinese scientists experimented with RaTG13 during 2017 and 2018.

The evidence clearly shows that, not only did China lie in a major way about the origin of COVID-19, but that it is, without question, due to a man-made virus.

China lied, people died. (For more from the author of “Yet Another Stunning Revelation About the True Origin of COVID-19” please click HERE)

___________________________________________________

Lawrence Sellin is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel with branch qualifications and assignments in Special Forces, Infantry and Medical Services. He served in Afghanistan and Iraq and participated in a humanitarian mission to West Africa. Sellin holds a Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College and received training in Arabic, Kurdish and French from the Defense Language Institute. He had a distinguished civilian career in medical research after completing a Ph.D. in physiology, followed by an international business career in information technology, where he was a manager and subject matter expert in telecommunications, business process management, and command and control systems. He is also the author of numerous articles on military and national security issues.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

America Has Become One Mass Crime Scene, and the Victims Are Black Children

Sadly, fireworks were not the only munitions shot over the July 4 weekend. Statues weren’t the only things felled by anarchists and criminals roaming free in the streets. This weekend was a bloody one across the country, with endless shootings in America’s cities, including New York City, which was considered the safest American city for a generation. Once again, African-American victims, including a number of young children, paid the price while the anarchy was excused and even legitimized by the media and politicians.

Here are just a few of the tragic stories that should spur a greater revolution for law and order if we actually had an alternative political party pressing the issue.

Secoriea Turner, an 8-year-old girl, was murdered while in the car with her mother near the burned-out Wendy’s in Atlanta, the site of the Rayshard Brooks shooting, which has had the effect of sidelining the police. Three were killed and 20 injured in shooting stemming from the unrest in the area. According to Atlanta police, murders are up 86% over 28 days last month compared to the same time last year. Aggravated assaults increased by 22% and burglaries by 14%.

Royta Giles Jr., an 8-year-old boy, was murdered at a Birmingham mall while with his parents at the food court. Three other innocent people, including another child, were wounded in the shooting.

Jace Young, a 6-year-old boy, was watching fireworks Saturday night with his family in San Francisco when he was gunned down. No arrests have been made, but in a city that heralds criminals and criminalizes the police, I’d be shocked if the perpetrator wasn’t a career criminal let out of jail.

Philadelphia, just like San Francisco, has a leftist prosecutor who has released a number of criminals and refuses to prosecute gun felons. Just like in San Francisco, a 6-year-old was gunned down in a senseless murder over the weekend.

A 7-year-old Chicago girl was shot and killed on July 4 while playing in her back yard. In total, 70 were shot and 14 were killed over the July 4 weekend in the war zone we call Chicago.

Also in Chicago, last week, a career criminal was charged with shooting two teens to death at a candy store. The man was sentenced to probation 18 months ago for a gun felony, despite his prior record, and got no jail time, which allowed him to remain on the streets to allegedly commit this double murder.

On Friday, New York City police arrested a 35-year-old man for allegedly slashing a 2-year-old boy in the face while he was sitting in a stroller earlier last week in Manhattan.

On Saturday, Davon McNeal, 11, was visiting family in southwest Washington, D.C., when he was killed in a drive-by shooting.

Last week, a black mother and her unborn twins were killed when she was attacked by her former boyfriend in Mansfield, Texas, in a carjacking. The suspect had a criminal record.

Also, over the weekend, a black male was caught on camera in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, randomly getting out of his car and knocking out a 12-year-old boy. In this case, the boy was white. Yet, for some reason, there is no soft bigotry of low expectations in this country that everyone who happens to share his shade of skin will riot against anyone who happens to be of the same race as this criminal.

While we still don’t have information on most of the suspects, it’s quite obvious that between the jailbreak agenda in the justice system and the criminalization of the police, there is simply no deterrent against violent crime. Shootings in New York City have soared 205% in June, making it the bloodiest month since 1996 – before the great New York crime miracle. Milwaukee has experienced a 132% increase in homicides, with 86 this year compared to the 37 at this point last year, which is the worst pace of annual homicides since 1991. So far this year, black people account for 77% of homicide victims in Chicago, even though they only compose one-third of the city’s population.

I have been fighting a lonely battle since 2014 warning that we were reversing the generation-long trend of reduced crime through jailbreak policies. Yet rather than Republicans pushing this narrative, they joined the Soros bandwagon, suggesting we have an over-incarceration problem and that somehow the system is too tough. Who are they kidding? Just take a look at some recent cases that haven’t been widely reported in the news.

Last week, Peter Mallory, a convicted pedophile who, in 2012 was sentenced to 1,000 years in prison in Georgia, was placed on parole. In 2012, the judge called him “probably the most prolific collector of child pornography in the entire world.” The last time I checked, 2020 minus 2012 doesn’t equal 1,000, but that is the criminal justice math being used in our system that is too lenient by a mile.

Luis Torres, 21, was convicted of stabbing a mall employee in 2017 in Syracuse, New York. He was released from prison after just two years. Several months later he violated his parole, but was only re-incarcerated for a short period of time. Last month, just nine days after being sprung from prison, Torres was arrested for the rape of a 14-year-old girl.

Anthony Smith was supposed to be serving 25 years for felony murder in Connecticut. But like so many criminals these days, he was placed in a halfway house, where he supposedly returned to dealing drugs. Now he is accused of raping a woman. When he was arrested, he was found 58 bags of crack cocaine in his bottom.

Sleazy politicians in both parties never spend time talking to victims of crime. They parade around with criminals on TV and decry how mean the justice system is, when any sane citizen knows that it is immorally lenient and that it’s getting worse every day. Then they have the nerve to suggest that they are doing all of this to protect black lives!

Well, Mr. President, it’s not too late to return to an agenda of law and order, stiffening penalties on repeat violent offenders and parole violators, and defending victims of crime from the anarchist mob. That is the true way to protect black lives – not supporting the agenda of a racist, anti-Semitic, and violent organization that gives itself an Orwellian and mellifluous-sounding name. (For more from the author of “America Has Become One Mass Crime Scene, and the Victims Are Black Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE