Systematic racism, who is really to blame?

 

Growing up in the 1960's I lived through genuine systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you, it is accurate. Perhaps one should say systemic racism was real. 

Civil rights leaders, race-baiters, Democrats, and advocates are demanding an end to systemic racism, a reference to the systems in place that create and maintain racial inequality in nearly every facet of life for people of color. "This is not about one incident," said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. "This is about the systemic and pervasive nature of racism in this nation that must be addressed." Glenn Harris, president of Race Forward and publisher of Colorlines, defined it as "the complex interaction of culture, policy, and institutions that holds in place the outcomes we see in our lives." 

Harris used the example of housing, explaining that today, a disproportionate number of people of color are homeless or lack housing security "in part due" to the legacy of redlining. Redlining refers to a system used by banks and the real estate industry in the 20th century to determine which neighborhoods would get loans to buy homes, and communities where people of color lived — outlined in red ink — were deemed the riskiest investments. The question becomes, was this racism, or was the redline statistically correct in gauging risk? I might suppose this is another topic to research later, but for today let's say some loans were declined based on the color of one's skin, which is wrong. 

Harris, of course, is referring to an era of 1900-1999 in his example of systematic racism. Harris blames racial discrimination in mortgage lending starting in the 1930s, to be specific 1934-1939, shaped the demographic and wealth patterns of American communities today. The discriminatory practices captured by the redlining maps continued until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in housing. 53 year years later and Harris is still blaming racism for the ills of the black community. 

Never mind the social ills of the black community since 1968. Seventy-five percent of black children being born to single mothers with no father. Never mind the 1980's when politicians like Joe Biden incorporated a drug war. A war that sent millions of black men to jail for lengthy sentences. Never mind the poor decision made to participate in drug dealing and the self-destruction of one's own life when the decision to use drugs is made. Never mind the idea of being responsible for oneself and, of course, for the decisions, one might make that could be detrimental. No, never mind a look inside; let's blame the actions of others 50 - 83 years ago. 

The problem is, systemic racism is not coming from white people today. Systemic racism is not a part of our laws, both federally and state. There are a few incidences that appear to be racist to some and not others, and indeed there are instances when racism rears its ugly head, but it is also well to say this is a rare exception and not the rule. 

Today like decades before, black culture is born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system captured in a historical timeframe and applied to today. The idea of rebellion and the want to blame others have failed to change with society's changes and evolution of our laws and our people. In other words, if one believes white people are just as racist today as we were 80 years ago, I think I would have to disagree. If a person were to say black people are just as rebellious today as they were in the 1960s, then I would have to say no; it is worse today. 

Today, black culture is not a culture that can mix with other cultures readily because it is, by design, rebellious, low moral compass, and resistant. It was not always like this, mind you. Dr. Walter Williams wrote about black families of the1950's and earlier. These families were, in fact, far better off social-wise than after the 1960s. Today, everything from language, music, and appearance is almost the direct opposite of social norms, for lack of a better term. I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying social models in one society of America are vastly different than another. Asking a group of people to accept or adapt to the American black culture is not practical or even possible because black culture today is in direct conflict and geared to rebel against most white people. We see this play out in the black lives matter movement, black music and lyrics, black leaders calling for others' death based on religion, black leaders calling for our law enforcement officers' deaths, and skin color. Do I have to educate anyone on the anti-Semitic teachings of Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton? 

I have to say I am proud of my fellow brothers. Living through the 1960s compared to today and I see a significant improvement in the black community. I see a portion of the black society assimilating into a higher moral value of society's social norms. That is not to say all of our brothers and sisters of the white race are of higher moral value, as they are not. What I am saying is brothers and sisters of the black community are making great strides through education. My best advice is to stop blaming all white people for the social ills of those who do not or have not simply made good life decisions. If I had the chance, I would create communities where life is taught. That is to say, how to make good decisions. Some in the black community, as in the white community, need to be reprogrammed to think good and not evil. Life is as simple as good and evil, and we tend to forget that.  

This isn't hard to understand. In America, black culture has been conditioned to believe white people are the enemy from the start. This hate training perpetrated by the media and the left has to change before anything else can make our world a better place. Sixty years of higher educational indoctrination of our youth, describing white people as the enemy has brought us to where we are today—blind followers of the Democrat party, which offers free trinkets and does not deliver. Promises like a 15.00 minimum wage, the free trinket is another false hope the black American must begin to recognize or forever be at war with white people. This indoctrination is based on lies offered by elitists who use black Americans to divide the country. 

Naturally, an inherently rebellious culture is not sustainable, even for its people. Once the rest of society distances itself from the culture, the same rebellious qualities will turn inward toward each other because that is all they know. This is why you see horrendous murder rates in our large cities like Chicago. Black Americans are right about a systemic problem, but they are looking to make changes in the wrong place.

Top Law Professor at William and Mary, indicates he is for the popular vote thus rule by mob.

An opinion was written by Dr. Spencer, a top law professor at W&M, and found in the Virginia Gazette on October 25th, 2020. This opinion seems to indicate an explanation, or shall I say, an indication he is for mob rule or the removal thereof the electoral College in deciding our Presential elections. I wrote the man and sent an email to the President of W&M, my local county board of supervisor John McGlennon, and Dr. Spencer asking for clarification and a rebuttal. I have yet to receive a response.

Dr. Spencer,

You wrote, "You have a system in which the will of the people has become disconnected from electoral outcomes." "If that was not enough, there are ongoing efforts to frustrate citizens' ability to have their vote count." You go onto creating an opinion. In your statement of Shelby County vs. Holder, "we as a nation have created obstacles to voter registration, engaging in purging voters rolls on "dubious grounds" and then summarizing your opinion with "making it more difficult to vote other than on election day." Shelby vs. Holder was deliberated and voted on by the Supreme Court with a 5-4 vote to strike down section 4(b) as the data was over 40 years old. Research shows that preclearance led to increases in minority congressional representation and increases in minority turnout. References provided: Your premise is wrong or at least challenged with reasonable discourse.

You wrote: "When there are structural or partisan barriers to electing a government that reflects the popular vote." In federalist paper #68 written by Alexander Hamilton, "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one avenue, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention has guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the President's appointment to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes. Still, they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office." In my opinion, and assessing your published opinion, you mean to be a deadly adversary to the Republic? What more of a reason to use an electoral college to elect the POTUS, knowing Joe Biden or his family has taken money from Russia, Ukraine, and China in return for favors administered during Joe Biden's term as Vice President.

I have read your opinion many times, and still, I have to ask, are you for removing the Electoral College and, thus, through popular vote, contend to resort to "rule by the mob or ochlocracy?" Ancient Greek political thinkers regarded ochlocracy as one of the three "bad" forms of government tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy instead of the three "good" forms of government monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They distinguished "good" and "bad" according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community ("good") or (bad) in the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice. I contend this is why our founding fathers created a republic. To say we should live by popular vote will deliver more discrimination to minorities. The only change will be "who is the minority." That sir can be anyone and at any time. Let the witch hunts begin.

Quoting Martin Luther King: "give us the ballot; MLK referred to (black people) in this context. "We will no longer have to worry about the federal government giving us our basic rights." "Give us the ballot, and we will transform salient misdeeds of the bloodthirsty mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens." I find this to be in rather bad taste to be truthful. For example, black lives matter terrorists along with Antifa mobs are, in fact, bloodthirsty. Killers of men, burning of our cities and certainly not orderly citizens, would you not agree? Do you really think MLK would have condoned such BLM and Antifa violence under any circumstances? No is the answer. We will not fry our police officers like bacon, yet you and the Democrats do not condemn such words, do you?

When you write, "it is up to us to use it." Are you referring to only black people, or are you referring to all United States citizens who have the right to vote? It seems you are referring only to black people, and that, sir, is a typical elitist view from those who stand behind locked doors and tall walls. Does my vote not count? It seems to me (when quoting MLK), and like most black people, you are still living in the past. You cannot possibly move forward if your eyes are diverted to the past with hate and rage. The civil rights war has been won, and I, for one, am glad.

I have often asked John McGlennon with no response, so maybe you will muster up a response where my county board of supervisor fails to respond to his constituents. Failing to respond to your constituents' questions is a failure in our government, so yes, I know all too well about the failure of representation. What federal and state laws discriminate against black people today?

The fact is black people are the most protected class of people in America today, and you still complain. Always looking for someone to blame when the blame is staring you (black society) in the mirror. I reference your reading pleasure Dr. Walter William’s book "Race and Economics."

Furthermore, I offer a reference to an opinion written on July 31st, 2020, to provide support for my argument.

What concerns me most is you are teaching what you preach in your classes at W&M. If this opinion that you wrote dictates what you conduct, then sir, you are a threat to the Republic. That sir makes you a traitor in my eyes, whereby I look forward, and you look backward.

Reed Johnson

Reference: Ang, Desmond (2019). "Do 40-Year-Old Facts Still Matter? Long-Run Effects of Federal Oversight under the Voting Rights Act". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 11 (3): 1–53. doi:10.1257/app.20170572. ISSN 1945-7782

Reference: Schuit, Sophie; Rogowski, Jon C. (2017). "Race, Representation, and the Voting Rights Act". American Journal of Political Science. 61 (3): 513–526. doi:10.1111/ajps.12284. ISSN 1540-5907.

Reference: https://triblive.com/opinion/walter-williams-is-racism-responsible-for-todays-black- problems/

Heuristics: Why President Trump makes good decisions, the left can't seem to understand

Heuristics, the workplace, good life, and the President

Do you ever wonder about the thought process that goes into making a decision? Do you ever think I don't know why? I don't know why I make that decision, I just know, or I have this feeling? Do people ask you or wonder how you can decide based on the perception of no information to base your decision?

 

Does your co-worker ever say to you, don't come back until you have more data? Do you work with people who take forever to make a decision? Are you compelled to gather, what you believe, is all the information before you make a decision? As a manager, have you ever supervised an employee that you deem as making hasty decisions? As a supervisor, do you see this employee in a less favorable light? Could it be that managers with a low heuristic talent or not in- tune with their inner self, understand or accept heuristic as a competent method of making decisions? The same can be true of an employee with a high degree of inner 6th sense. Can this person become frustrated with a teammate who they believe can't make decisions quickly as they do?

 

Over the years, I have concluded that some of us are data-driven and lack, are not in tune with or ignore what we call the "gut feeling." Let me explain; I think the level of an inner 6th sense or intuition within each person varies in degree.

 

Hypothesis:

1. Varying heuristics could be based on life's experiences, education, and profession. These life experiences create the variance of a person's inner sense or 6th sense, thereby a person's heuristic degree may be less developed than others?

2. Based on our life's experiences we vary in the degrees of talent, virtue, and vices. Therefore, each of us vary in the degree of heuristic talent. Successful use of a heuristic talent can be measured by the degree of living a good life.

3. I conclude, based on observation, the less educated a person is, the more they rely on heuristic decision making.

 

Example: I think humans vary as to the degree of narcissism exhibited by decisions made. Everyone has a degree of narcissist within their personality and decision making. Great leaders possess narcissism, but to say all narcissism is a terrible trait of a leader would be an untrue statement. I might suggest that too much narcissism found in a leader leads to bad decisions that affect the welfare and pursuit of a good life. In other words, judging a person's degree of narcissism can be based on living a good life. We know a good life is based on the right decisions. If a person had too much narcissism in their decision making, they would make bad decisions, leading to a lousy life. The same can be said for heuristic decision making. If a person lacks the talent for heuristic decision making, then we would expect the same person to lead a sinful life by making bad decisions heuristically. However, a person who lives a good life and is observed to use his or her heuristic talent to make quick decisions should not be belittled by those who are not entuned with their inner 6th sense. The heuristic is a talent where some are data-driven might not appreciate but should, in my opinion.

 

Heuristic is a shortcut that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently. These non-data strategies shorten decision-making time and allow people to function without always stopping to think about their next course of action. Some psychologists have observed, cognitive biases in those who possess a heuristic talent. However, I might argue that the highly functioning heuristic person will counter a preference with the idea of moral virtue or the ability to make the right decisions day to day that is in keeping with living a good life. A highly functioning heuristic person unconsciously makes quick decisions with the idea of moral virtues firmly placed in the background of the shortcut.

 

 The President of the United States, in a recent interview, made a comment that got me thinking about heuristics. When paraphrasing Donald Trump, he said, "I don't know, I just have this feeling," when answering a question concerning the economic reopening of the country, as by to the discerning of the Wahun virus. I have thought about commentary and the medias incessant and constant complaining about Donald Trump concerning this talent. Our President can make decisions on the fly, and they ridicule him for it. The media simply does not see the skill or are unwilling to consider this talent. Perhaps those of the press are not highly functioning heuristically persons? Great Generals of the battlefield having to make decisions based on little data is an example of a highly functioning heuristically person. Not to say, a General does not want all the information he can get but sometimes become paralyzed even with good intelligence. First sergeants, platoon leaders, those soldiers thought of as being good leaders are often highly functioning heuristic.

 

Example: General Montgomery (Monty) forces at Caen in WWII were thought to be worthy of formable success. Holding Panzer divisions to a basic stalemate allowed US forces to break out of Saint Lo. However, Montys, assertions that everything went according to the plan have been refuted by countrymen such as Hastings, Morgan, Barnett, Keegan, Lamb, and General Bradly and Eisenhower. Some authors of history have written as to Montgomery being the greatest of generals, a master of the set-piece action, others who fought with him hold that Monty refused to attack before a large and overwhelming force was available. Monty's over-caution and lack of dash or one might say unable to make a decision caused him to get bogged down, giving his enemy time to fortify defenses. It is a fact that Monty never won a battle, not even the battle of Alamein, which had been won by General Claude Auchinleck before his arrival and against inferior forces sick with dysentery. I conclude this General in all likely hood, and of my opinion, lacked the needed skills to be a leader. I surmise this leader never had a grip on his heuristic feelings; therefore, his decisions were made using intelligence and data, which was not coupled with his inner 6th sense. One cannot say that about General Patton, who was Montgomery's opposite. Patton was quoted as saying, "Make the mind command the body. Never let the body command the mind." I think Patton had a firm grip on his inner self, and when I read this quote, I think having a firm grip on your inner self makes for quick and accurate decisions.

 

Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. I would consider Dr. Fauci a data-driven person based on my observations of his media interviews and reports. I do not write this to put anyone in a bad light, but to explain the difference instead.

 

Many complain that the President is making rash decisions based on little data. I see some who are of less heuristic talent and continue to be paralyzed as to the decision-making process. For some, there never seems to be enough data to make a decision that is needed quickly, as we see in the battlefield command example. Slow decisions kill soldiers. Slow decisions during Wahun pandemic are destroying our economy. Of course, the Doctor's first inclination is "to do no harm." However, the Doctor only considers one aspect of the problem and has not reviewed all harm. That would be perfectly normal in a person of low heuristic talents. We need a decision based on all aspects of harm. Considering all harm is where our President excels. The President does this through a heuristic approach to problem-solving that employee’s practical methods that are not guaranteed to be optimal or perfect but sufficient for reaching an immediate decision that is usually correct in hindsight. Making decisions quickly, like responding to bad press, is the downfall of this approach. However, the President, when confronted with significant decisions, shows restraint and taking time to gather some data, but none the less making decisions quicker than others who advise him. Making quick decisions is what frustrates the experts the most. The experts paralyzed by data that are unable to make decisions become conservative in their decisions or make none at all. Experts cannot understand how the President can make his decisions quickly and not be the expert. I believe the President functions with a high degree of heuristic talent confusing experts who are not aware of this talent.

 

The Nobel-prize winning psychologist Herbert Simon wrote: "that while people strive to make rational choices, human judgment is subject to cognitive limitations." While not strictly rational, pure rational decisions would involve weighing such factors as potential costs against possible benefits. There are instances when people are limited by the amount of time, they have to make a choice. There are conditions as to the amount of data we have at our disposal to make decisions. Those prone to a weak heuristic’s ability might be those tied to the profession of college professors or Doctor. While these professions conjure the idea of intelligence, these professionals can also be limited by persons' degree of being in tune with their 6th sense. I believe these following factors, overall intelligence and accuracy of perceptions, also influence the decision-making process, where data is more important to this professional than an accurate interpretation of experience.

 

I might ponder the idea that the professional and the layman can arrive at the same decision, but the layman who is in-tune with his 6th sense arrives at the correct decision faster. This is not true for all determinations; every decision needs data (experience is data in my view). I am saying that some only need 50% of the data to make a correct decision, while others of academia need 100% of the data to make the same decision and arrive at the same conclusion only much later.

 

The President is by no means as educated as Dr. Fauci in the field of infectious diseases. At the same time, I assume that Dr. Fauci is relatively ignorant of how to run a billion-dollar empire. It seems to be the more intelligent one might be of their profession; the decision-making process slows as we ponder choices. Dr. Fauci, reputation is on the line to get the Wahun virus reactions right. Ergo, the decisions made are cautious and do not consider all aspects of life and the pursuit of happiness. The decisions made in this case are to protect Dr. Fauci's reputation and intelligence. These decisions can have consequences as to the health of our society.

 

During our latest pandemic and with the limitations of obtaining data, some leaders have become paralyzed and afraid to make a decision. Many are waiting for more data to make a decision. While some of us who are highly functional heuristically, we can make decisions quickly. We rely on mental shortcuts to help us make sense of the world. While Simon's research demonstrated that humans were limited in their ability to make rational decisions, another group of psychologists (Tversky and Kahneman's) work introduced the specific ways of how thinking people rely on heuristics to simplify the decision-making process.

 

"Why Do We Use Heuristics?

Why do we rely on heuristics? Psychologists have suggested a few different theories:

·  Effort reduction: According to this theory, people utilize heuristics as a type of cognitive laziness. Heuristics reduce the mental effort required to make choices and decisions.

·  Attribute substitution: Other theories suggest people substitute more straightforward but related questions in place of more complex and challenging issues.

·  Fast and frugal: Still, other theories argue that heuristics are more accurate than they are biased. In other words, we use heuristics because they are quick and usually correct."

 

Heuristics play essential roles in both problem-solving and decision making. When we are trying to solve a problem or make a decision, we often turn to these mental shortcuts when we need a quick solution. The world is full of information, yet our brains are only capable of processing a certain amount. If you tried to analyze every aspect of every situation or decision, you would never get anything done.

 

To cope with the tremendous amount of information we encounter and to speed up the decision-making process, the brain relies on these mental strategies to simplify things, so we don't have to spend endless amounts of time analyzing every detail. You probably make hundreds or even thousands of decisions every day. For most people, these are simple decisions like do I want coffee or tea? Do I want to walk to work or drive? Then some are highly functioning heuristics; we have come to rely on our 6th sense for essential decisions because we have tuned into our 6th sense in a way others cannot. I am a proponent of the fast and frugal theory.

 

How do we know if we have made the right heuristic decisions? The answer is more straightforward than you might have guessed. We know our heuristic decisions are good because we subconsciously compare them to our moral virtues. Our happiness in life and our success in pursuing happiness dictate our ratio of good choices, where the decision making is based on heuristics. I have come to understand that a highly functional person with the talent for heuristics will eventually conclude, the decisions made, on a gut feeling, "that feeling in your bones" are right ninety-five percent of the time. Those with a low talent for heuristics will be slower to make decisions, make bad decisions, and become more reliant on data and intelligence gathering. Data gathering minds, of course, slows down the decision-making time and sometimes unnecessarily or the detriment of others.

 

Possible theories of low talent heuristics.

 

1.   Teachers: Teachers work in a career where the gut feeling is not utilized. In other words, a teacher's job is based on data. Based on the number of right and wrong answers producing a grade. Decisions are not made heuristically of whether a student should pass or fail. Albert Einstein once said, " Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, the fish will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." Math cannot compute data to suggest fairness in this reality; we must apply heuristics with some data to administer justice.

2.   Engineers: Engineers rely on math for their lively hood. Again, a numbers game throughout their careers. I have observed engineers for over 30 years; rare is the engineer with the foresight of what can be or to try something new based on a feeling. They must have numbers and even then, are reluctant. Paralyzed by data stifles innovation and progress in any industry.

Possible theories of talented heuristic people.

1.     Based on my 20 years in Sales. Salespeople live in a world where judging other people is based on limited data. The goal is to convince the public to buy and there is a limited amount of time the salesperson has to compel a transaction that is favorable to the salesperson and the customer. The salesperson has to use heuristic shortcuts to make quick decisions in order to create an agreement to buy. A good salesperson has a high degree of heuristic talent based on the percent of wins or agreements between the buyer and seller that creates a transaction. A low talent heuristic salesperson is one who struggles to close deals.

2.     Leaders: As explained in the WWII General example, we can theorize, the following based on battle wins, A General leading an Army can be thought of as highly talented or of low talent heuristics based on battlefield success.

 

It is in this realm of decision making is where Donald Trump excels. Forging a clear path, Donald Trump can gather limited data from his team and make quick decisions. I understand this; I use my 6th sense in a highly functional manner as well. Therefore, I can identify others who are highly functional in heuristics. While others are paralyzed, we act. It is only in the last few years of my life, where experience and inner self-awareness has allowed me to see the light. It is this self-awareness as to why I am not afraid of the darkness.

 

 

On Heuristics and High Performance. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heuristics-high-performance-dr-joseph-hill?articleId=6547894034919149569

 

Heuristics and Cognitive Biases - Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-heuristic-2795235

The brink of war

Gov Northam had placed us at the brink of a complete meltdown in Virginia. An unconstitutional and illegal attack on the 2nd amendment. Just last week, Northam and members of our legislation have mentioned: "if law enforcement refuses to enforce his new gun laws, the VA National Guard should be called in" invading private citizens homes. The Posse Comitatus Act and United States VS Miller 1939 prohibits their intentions. It is incredible to me how little these legislators understand our rights.

"Governor Ralph Northam (D.) and incoming Senate majority leader Dick Saslaw (D.) said they would no longer pursue their marquee plan, to ban the possession of what they deem assault weapons. "The Free Beacon" reported. "Instead, they will include a provision to allow Virginians to keep the firearms they already own. The reversal comes before the newly elected Democratic majority has even been sworn in, after a majority of the state's counties declared themselves 'Second Amendment sanctuaries.' FOLKS, do not become complacent. The governor and legislators from Northern Virginia were ready to have the National Guard in a war with the police and the 2a supporters. We are being threatened by Gov Northam, He said “there will be consequences for counties that don’t follow the laws he proposed.” Keep in mind people, proposed laws and not actual laws!

"We've been down this compromise road, and the Democrats version of a compromise is they never give up anything," Virginia Civilian Defense league spokesperson, Van Cleave said. "We are expected to give up something every time, and we're not doing it anymore. I think gun owners are tired of this, and they're going to stand up and fight this stuff." "Gov. Northam and the rest of Virginia's anti-gun politicians' idea of a compromise is to threaten hundreds of thousands of Virginians with felonies unless they submit to government control," NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told the Free Beacon. "The NRA will stand with the Commonwealth's law-abiding gun owners in solidarity to oppose gun bans, confiscations, and registrations." We cannot allow these leftists to create a registration for our guns. These Leftists are patient; they will wait and chip away at our rights until they are all gone. They threaten us with felonies and military intervention. Two weeks ago, Gov Northam announced he would no longer require an able-bodied person work for Medicaid; this was a deal with republicans as a condition to pass legislation expanding Medicaid in VA. We cannot trust Gov Northam, Saslaw (D) or McEachin (D); they have lied and will lie again and again.

BUT (here comes the good part) during all this, on Dec 11th, where is our Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring? Attorney General Mark (blackface) Herring is attending a summit on how to legalize marijuana. He says, "because too many people are being prosecuted for the possession of it." Now I'm no politician, but if I were, and my state was on the brink of a CIVIL WAR, I think I would have all hands-on deck looking at ways to come together to keep the peace and safety of every person within the state. We need a peaceful, non-violent resolution to this issue, and that should be THEIR TOP priority! But I guess attending the "Hawaiian Home Grown / Panama Red" summit is more important.

The two-sided coin of Virginia's Dillon rule.

The two-sided coin of Virginia’s Dillion rule.

In recent days the Daily Press and Williamsburg Gazette have run articles concerning the use of the Dillion rule to stop second amendment sanctuary. I find Democrats as being hypocritical in this case. Opposition to Dillion's rule has been gaining some momentum in Virginia, where the new democrat majority has made some promises about allowing local governments more authority to take down statues. However, its support for structural change to reverse Dillion's rule is far from clear. In Charlottesville, the Lee statue remains standing in part to the local government not being allowed to remove the statue because of state law not allowing the removal of the statue. Charlottesville community members also mobilized to establish a stronger civilian review panel to process complaints against local police officers. Efforts stymied the legislature, which, thanks to the Dillion rule, does not allow subpoena powers for a review board. The Dillon rule can also eliminate, raising of the minimum wage, burning of fossil fuels, heightening civil rights protections, and other key social issues, including the 2^nd Amendment of our United States constitution.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, challenged Dillion's rule to maintain a commitment to state and federal protections. Federal protections like the 2^nd Amendment, and local community rights to increase communities’ civil rights and expand protections. We can go one to sight other Dillion rule issues. Charlottesville, once again, was lobbied to pursue racial justice reforms that were seen as a benefit to African American communities in response to white nationalist rallies. But, according to the Dillion rule, the city had limited powers to enact meaningful, affordable housing measures. On September 13, 2019, Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore overruled the Charlottesville council's decision to remove the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. But there is another critical implication that has received little attention. This lawsuit reaffirms a rule that's been thwarting progressive policymaking by cities and counties across the nation.

      In the United States vs. Miller 1939, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. The Court observed with a distinct purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia or public force. "The significance of the militia, the court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." This force, if called upon, is a force that states could rely upon for the defense and securing of laws. A force that "comprised of males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," who, "when called to service".... were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in everyday use of the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun having a barrel of fewer than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. We cannot say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. What they were saying is, if the weapon is not used in general defense of the country, then it can be regulated. The governor and his fellow Democrats want to ban the following.

1.     AR-15: A semi-automatic rifle used for hunting in VA and of course, is considered a hunting rifle in VA. This same rifle can be used in defense of the state whereby the military and the private citizens use the same ammunition NATO .556 for lawful purposes. Even the Democrats call this weapon "an assault / military rifle and want to ban. But, according to the United States vs. Miller, that would be against the law.

2.     Extended magazines: Extended magazines are needed and would be useful to a militia in the protection of our state, county, or city. Extended magazines are part of ordinary military equipment. To ban would be against the law.

After the United States vs. Miller 1939 decision, Congress placed more significant restrictions on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. Proposals were made for the prohibitions of firearms altogether. Miller, however, sheds a little light on the validity of such schemes. Miller points out the interest in the "character of the 2nd Amendment right" has been burgeoned, and our governor, along with the Democrats, want to destroy our "individual rights" even further.

In closing, we find ourselves at the forefront of a catch 22. If the Democrats utilize Dillion's rule to thwart the 2^nd amendment sanctuary, they will also prevent their zealous progressive ideologies in other matters. Today we understand Governor Ralph Northam lied to fellow republicans by no longer seeking a work requirement for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. "Every promise made to those republicans who agreed to approve expansion has been broken." Tomorrow, we will see a Democrat governance that will misapply the Dillion rule as they see fit. The rule will be used to take our constitutional rights and ignored overzealous local government where progressive values are the rule. All I can say is this Jim; you need to ignore the Dillion rule as Governor Ralph Northam has ignored his promises to republicans. This day is not a time to bow; this is a time to fight.