I often hear people complain about the media. The assertion is just like above, if a news story does not fit the overall narrative of what a news organization promotes, the story is buried or ignored. Well, after hearing comments like this, I did my own bit of investigation. Who was Brent Trammell?
Bernell Trammell, a well-known Black supporter of Donald Trump who was a community fixture known for his publishing company and long conversations on religion and politics, often delivered from street corners while holding pro Trump and other signs, was shot to death in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Trammell, 60, was gunned down on July 23 near the very spot where he gave a video interview a few hours before explaining why he supported Trump. Milwaukee police are seeking what they described as “unknown suspects.” The motive is not clear, including whether or not the slaying was tied into Trammell’s political beliefs or Trump support. Some news outlets gave the victim’s name as Bernell Tremmell, but he goes by Trammell on social media.
The Wisconsin GOP is now calling for a federal investigation by the U.S. Attorney into the shooting death because of “his well known political activism and the possibility that his murder could be politically motivated,” WISN-12 reported.
At first glance, it would appear that his death was tied to his support for Donald Trump. I think its too early to say for sure. That being said, I would think that this would be a top news story based solely on the speculation. So I did a search [Search performed on: Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 4:33 pm EST] to see how many articles were written on this murder.
I searched Google first and saw this. (41,200 results)
I searched Bing and saw this. (21,000 results)
I also searched my favorite search engine – DuckDuckGo. (No search results count but, lots of data to review).
Okay, follow my logic. The news about #BernellTrammell broke on July 24, 2020. So, as of this writing, its only a couple days old. However, depending on the search engine you are using, there are approximately 20,000 – 40,000 mentions of this person online already; not counting all the tweets.
This seems to me to the hallmarks of a rapidly trending news story which is why the tweet I cited in the beginning was especially interesting to me. Is what “Nichelle” said true and this is a story I would not learn about on CNN? What would it hurt to look it up and see for myself if what she (and others like her) are correct?
I went to the CNN website [Search performed on: Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 4:42 pm EST] and searched for news stories related to Bernell Trammell and none were there. Search results are below.
I did a similar search on the MSNBC website as well because I often hear from the right that certain news stories are suppressed there too. The result was the same – no Bernell Trammell news stories. (As shown below)
I am somewhat proficient in researching information online and as such, I know that sometimes the search function on a website is not as good as Google. So, to be as fair as possible, I used Google to search CNN and MSNBC and again, no news stories on “Bernell Trammell.” An example of how I did that is below. [Search performed on: Sunday, July 26, 2020 at 4:46 pm EST]
Is this evidence of news bias? I’m not going to say that based on one example. However, I think it is pretty interesting on its own. While I did not find news on Bernell Trammell on CNN & MSNBC, I did find it on Fox News. (See below)
Now, is this story on Fox News because it is a rapidly trending news story or because it fits their narrative in some way? Hmm… I am presently researching the media for an upcoming episode of my new podcast – “Things I Think About.” I will revisit this blog post to see how its covered in various news media and cite my observations on the news media and why I have become so skeptical of mainstream media these days. Stay tuned.
(And while you’re here, subscribe to my blog for more content like this in the future.)
For those who don’t know me, sometimes I am distracted by proverbial squirrels. I could be reading one thing, notice something related to it and off I go down a long rabbit hole. This article is like that. Trust me though, it all makes sense in the end. Just sayin’…
Have you have noticed this increased focus on racism in America? I am, of course, being sarcastic. Racism is being discussed more today than it has been since 2004. It is also the source of much research. Check out this Google Trends chart that shows search traffic on the word- racism since 2004.
IS IT JUST ME OR, IS EVERYTHING RACIST?
And that brings me to this article before you now. I have noticed with increased frequency, how people are using the word – “racist” as a weapon. It seems to me that people are deliberately using it incorrectly to either score political points, to cancel someone they disagree with or, are woefully ignorant of what true racism is. For the sake of clarity, racism is defined this way…
This part of the definition stands out to me the most, “…usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.” This was heavy on my mind when someone brought to my attention recent controversy surrounding the NMAAHC – “The National Museum of African American History & Culture.” Quite recently, they published a page entitled – “Whiteness” and on that page was a graphic illustrating “Aspects & Assumptions of Whiteness & White Culture in the United States.” The graphic is below. Do you notice anything unusual about it? I do.
A few points stand out to me. According to this chart,being “white” means…
You work for your reward and don’t expect a handout (“self-reliance”)
You believe hard work should be rewarded (“autonomy highly valued”)
You do not have a victim mindset (“you get what you deserve”)
You appreciate traditional family values (“father, mother, 2 kids)
You are objective in your thoughts and not guided purely by emotion (“rational linear thinking”)
You value hard work (“work before play”)
You respect authority
You have a religious faith.
You are willing to delay gratification for future success (“plan for future’)
You have a sense of fairness and not entitlement (“winner/loser dichotomy”)
These are universally accepted values and could be ascribed to every minority in the USA (and beyond) and not just white people. So, why did the National Museum of African American History and Culture frame the conversation this way? Aren’t these traits the basic building blocks for success? Wouldn’t labelling these traits as being part of a white supremacist dogma persuade some African Americans to rebel against them? If so, how does that benefit the African American community or for that matter, any minority community that wants to eschew any hint of racism? And if these traits are being “white” then, are they suggesting that being “black” means you are lazy, dependent on handouts and disrespectful of authority? How does it not?
The spirit behind the chart as well as the language therein, speaks to a bigotry of low expectations. There have been many commentators harshly criticizing it and I am happy to say that the chart was removed from the museum website; although the “whiteness” page is alive and well. Here are a few reactions from social media discussing it.
After I stepped away from the web and pondered how The National Museum of African American History & Culture was inferring how one race was inferior to another (hmm… there’s a word for that), something struck me. That chart is somewhat, and this might be a bit of a leap, a recent spin on an old evil – scientific racism. My definition of scientific racism is using anecdotal data and charts to “prove” one race is better than another. However, Wikipedia defines scientific racism this way…
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific beliefthat empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.
I think I like the Wikipedia version better. Okay, bear with me now, as I go off on a tangent and share some examples of how “science” has been used to justify racism over the years.
THERE IS NO CURE FOR NEGROIDISM
Benjamin Rush (1745–1813), a Founding Father of the United States and a physician, proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease, which he called “negroidism“, and that it could be cured. Rush believed non-whites were really white underneath but they were stricken with a non-contagious form of leprosy which darkened their skin color. Rush drew the conclusion that “whites should not tyrannize over [blacks], for their disease should entitle them to a double portion of humanity. However, by the same token, whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect posterity with the ‘disorder’… attempts must be made to cure the disease.” Despite this, Rush was an abolitionist who wrestled with various contrarian viewpoints.
CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO WHITE SUPREMACY-NESS
Alfred Ploetz’s theory of Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene) made him a popular eugenicist, especially among Nazis. In 1936, he was granted a professorship from Adolf Hitler. His book, “The Efficiency of Our Race and the Protection of the Weak,” promotes the idea of a superior Aryan and that race mixing was ruining society. Ploetz believed that the preservation of the Aryan race necessitated enforced selective breeding and the murder of children with disabilities and a ban on interracial relationships.
THE ORIGINAL BOOTYLICIOUS
In the early 19th century, Sarah “Saartjie” Baartman was a Black Khoikhoi woman whose body was exploited as a display to paying Europeans. She and other Black Khoikhoi women were displayed as the “Hottentot Venus,” a term that became the basis of the theory that Black women were hypersexual and had larger birth canals. Naturalists such as Henri de Blainville and Georges Cuvier believed that Baartman’s elongated labia was scientific proof that African women had naturally wide birth canals, enabling them to give birth with ease. The theory was seized upon by white owners in the New World, who used it to justify forcing Black women to work while heavily pregnant and sending them back to work immediately after giving birth.
As you can imagine, his article caused an uproar at the time. Here is one such example…
Any and all pseudoscience that portends to substantiate racial superiority with “data” should be thoroughly denounced, debunked and dismissed as harshly as possible and at every opportunity. The above examples are what I would identify as blatantly racist, no matter how “justified” by science. Conversely, the following “racist” example is not, in my opinion.
BRUH, A TRAFFIC LIGHT IS JUST A TRAFFIC LIGHT. TRUST ME.
I recently read an article that I mistook for satire. At first glance, I thought the article forwarded to me was from The Onion or The Babbling Bee. Alas, it was not. The title of the article was, “The Unintentional Racsim Found in Traffic Signals.” To quote…
A few months back, before Covid-19 kept us in our homes and George Floyd made us take to the streets, I was walking with a friend, her daughter, and my twin sons. My friend is White and I’m not — something I’d never given a second thought until we reached a crosswalk. “Remember, honey,” she said to her daughter as we waited for the light to turn green, “we need to wait for the little White man to appear before we can cross the street.”
I realize that White people like to exert control over nearly everything everyone does, I thought, but since when did this literally include trying to cross the street?
Part of my surprise here was a function of age. My boys are a few months younger than her daughter and we hadn’t yet tackled the “crossing the street” component of basic toddler training. But as a Black dad, I was struck by the language at play. How is it possible that well into the 21st century, parents all over Manhattan — well-meaning, #BLM-marching parents — are teaching their children to ask “little White men” for permission to cross the street? And why doesn’t this seem to bother them?
In the article, David Kauffman (the writer), does some research to find the origins of the symbol and discovered that “the little white man” is not actually a man.
A “hominoid” is how the folks at the FHWA initially described him, though later they referred to him asa gender-neutral “Walking Person’”— an icon that actually dates back to the 1940s. At that time, “walk” and “don’t walk” typified traffic signage, but began to be phased out because words could be misunderstood by increasingly globalized populations. “The use of icons instead of words on traffic signs has been a slow but steady evolution for decades because they improve universal comprehension,” an FHWA spokesperson says. “This is not a recent development.”
In fact, the Walking Person’s first major move actually took place in 1971 when it became enshrined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices — the FHWA bible — as an alternative to the words “WALK” and “DON’T WALK.” For the next four decades or so, our little friend slowly, informally replaced its outdated predecessors until 2009; that’s when the Walking Person finally became the FHWA standard and, as the spokesperson says, “the option to use words is no longer permitted in newly installed signals.” One day soon,every traffic signal will contain the Walking Person, along with its counterpart: the bright red hand telling folks not to walk.
So the “little man” is actually a little person, but that little person is still white. Right?
I honestly thought I was reading a satirical piece up to this point, a daring jab at the woke culture that is triggered by indiscernible microaggressions and perceived racism where it does not exist. However, that changed with the last paragraph.
Nonetheless, that little White man woke me up to the ways that language imparts power and privilege even upon the most banal necessities. And so, as I begin teaching my boys survival basics like riding a bike, waiting in line, and… yes… crossing the street, I’ll work hard to avoid phrases like “little White man.” Obviously “bright light person” rolls off the tongue far less mellifluously, but a bit of extra verbal labor is worth the price of not conceding our power to even one more little White man.
At this point, I honestly reflected on what he had to say, carefully balancing his observations and how the situation resonated inside him enough to pen this piece. It was then I realized that we live in two very different, parallel worlds. In my world, a traffic light is just a traffic light. I am not a victim of a system designed to safeguard pedestrians and drivers alike. In this instance, oppression is not present. Although, in the separate but equal dimension alongside me, I am constantly reminded of the black asphalt on the roads we all traverse; where only the white lines have meaning. Indeed, they divide traffic and serve as borders for walkers to move from one side of the street to the other. What does the blackness of the road contribute? It is all an unending reminder of the value of order that whiteness brings to us all and the inconsequence of blackness. Hah! I made myself laugh with that last sentence.
All that to say…
Ascribing positive traits to “whiteness?” That is racist.
Using “science” to justify racism? That is racist.
Traffic signs as a symbol of white oppression? That is not racist.
Do you know someone or, have seen someone, angry over trivial matters? Perhaps, you have witnesses someone go into a rage over a microaggression? If so, would you hire them to work for you? Chances are you would not because instinctively you know that they would make a bad employee. Well, you no longer have to rely on your gut for such decisions. A scientific paper has been published that backs up what you already knew. Snowflakes make bad employees. I discuss the research in this episode and oh boy, is it good!
Black Lives Matter (BLM) has been the catalyst of a LOT of social change, arguably for the better of society. It has forced a lot of uncomfortable conversations about race that some feel has been long overdue. Many BLM supporters are proud of their affiliation, seeing it as a 2.0 version of the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, the popularity of BLM has surpassed that of even the President of the United States. Still, despite their successes, the organization is mired in controversy. What some see as progress, others view as a destructive force dividing the nations. Whether you are for or against BLM, it is apparent that both sides are stubbornly resistant to the other side’s point of view.
And this had me thinking, “What if I put together a resource of arguments and factoids concerning BLM?” As I pondered further, I thought I could list the positive things that happened as a result of BLM and address some of the controversies. My goal is not to persuade people one way or the other. (Besides, it has been scientifically proven that trying to dissuade someone from their core belief system will likely cause them to double-down on them.) My intent is to share food for thought and spark debate over a group that is not going away anytime soon. Due to this easily offended culture we seem to be in, I will say now that I am not trying to trigger anyone. I am only sharing information for the curious and open-minded. In every case, I link to my source.
MY PERSONAL DISCLAIMER
Finally, I would ask any and all to see this as a springboard to their own research. PLEASE do your own research and come up with your own conclusions. You have a mind and an opinion, and you are entitled to it; just as I am. If at any point you think I am wrong in simply sharing what I found, I will save us both time by referring to this disclaimer, “You are right, and I am wrong.”
Now with that said, here are some bullet points for the TLDR (too long, did not read) crowd. This article is broken up in several sections.
Black Lives Matter to Black Liberation – I talk about the positive contributions and societal changes that BLM is credited for influencing.
Where do Black Lives Matter Donations Go? – I talk about the donations they receive and where the money goes.
BLM has a George Soros Connection – I share the connection BLM has to George Soros and the conspiracy theories surrounding that.
Black Lives Matter is Marxist Trained – The co-founder of BLM has admitted to being Marxist trained. What does that mean? I speculate.
BLM has terrorist roots – BLM has verified connections to the Weather Underground, a group the FBI declared to be domestic terrorist.
The Double Speak of “Defund the Police” – When people say “defund the police” it is interpreted differently by those who support BLM and their detractors. Why? I speculate.
Why Black Lives Matters Not All Lives Matter? – I discuss what I think is the animosity behind this phrase.
Black Lives Matter to Black Liberation
Not too long ago, the media was buzzing about a popularity poll that showed the public support of Black Lives Matter had reached new bounds. Here is a quote from Bloomberg.
According to a Civiqs poll, 53% of Americans support Black Lives Matter, and only 25% oppose it — a 12-point increase in support since mid-April. By a double-digit margin, BLM is more popular than either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. As political scientist Drew Linzer noted: BLM “is the single most favorably viewed national political organization or politician in America right now.”
Johnson & Johnson also announced it would stop selling products that had been used by some people to lighten their skin tone.
Walmart leaders also said stores would “stop locking up” black hair care products after an activist shared that while products used by white people sat open on shelves, products for black hair were locked in plastic cases. In its statement, the company said most stores didn’t lock black hair products up in the first place.
Prominent physician groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American College of Physicians have declared racism a public health crisis and called for an end to police brutality against black Americans.
Commissioner Roger Goodell said the league “was wrong” for not listening to players’ criticisms of racism in and out of the NFL and vowed that moving forward, the NFL would “encourage peaceful protest.” Goodell didn’t mention former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who hasn’t been signed since 2017 — a decision many think is due to his kneeling protest against police brutality during the National Anthem.
The NFL also vowed to donate $250 million over the next 10 years to “end systemic racism” by working with unnamed organizations and “leveraging the NFL Network.”
Players across the NBA, NFL and MLB, including Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich, sent a letter to Congress asking to end qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects police officers accused of violating a civilian’s rights.
To quote ‘The Guardian’ – “Soros’s thought and philanthropic career are organised around the idea of the “open society,” a term developed and popularised by Popper in his classic work The Open Society and Its Enemies. According to Popper,open societies guarantee and protect rational exchange, while closed societies force people to submit to authority, whether that authority is religious, political or economic” and further down in the same article, “Unlike Gates, whose philanthropy focuses mostly on ameliorative projects such as eradicating malaria, Soros truly wants to transform national and international politics and society.
Whether or not his vision can survive the wave of antisemitic, Islamophobic and xenophobic rightwing nationalism ascendant in the US and Europe remains to be seen. What is certain is that Soros will spend the remainder of his life attempting to make sure it does.”
When writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx thought he was providing a road to utopia, but everywhere his ideas were tried, they resulted in catastrophe and mass murder. How is this relevant? Black Lives Matter co-founder – Patrisse Cullors admits that she and fellow founder – Alicia Graza are trained Marxists.
Karl Marx, writing with Friedrich Engels, developed a theory of social and economic principles and a sharp critique of the capitalist form of government in the mid-1800s. Marx believed that workers, under the capitalist system of government, sold their labor and that this labor became a commodity. This commodity, or “labor power” translated into surplus value for the capitalist, but not for the worker. Marx concluded that this created an inherent conflict between the working class (proletariat) and the ownership class (the bourgeoisie). Because capitalism has this “built in” inequality, Marx argued that the working class would eventually take power over the ruling class, reconstructing society. This reconstruction would take place in stages. The next stage after capitalism, according to Marx, would be a socialist form of government.
Socialism advocates public ownership of property and natural resources rather than private ownership. The socialist system of government values cooperation over the competitiveness of a free market economy. Socialists believe that all people in society contribute to the production of goods and services and that those goods should be shared equally.This differs from the capitalist system in which individual efforts trump the collective and the free market determines the distribution of goods.
That was classical Marxism. Marxism has evolved since its original inception into a neo-marxism that has replaced the rich vs poor dynamic with identity politics; something mostly associated with the “New Left.” The Neo-Marxist is defined in the Urban Dictionary this way:
A neo-marxist is a person who adheres to neo-marxism. Neo-marxism is an offshoot of marxism, in which it is believed that all societal ills come from the divide between the rich (who are claimed to be undeserving of their wealth) and the poor (who are claimed to be oppressed). Marxists believe that all personal failings are of a direct result of someone else oppressing you, and that another person cannot be successful without oppressing another.
Neo-marxism differs from marxism by abandoning the dichotomy of rich vs poor and instead adopt identity politics. Instead of the dichotomy being between wealthy and poor, it is between successful and unsuccessful demographics. Neo-marxists divide all demographics (white, black, asian, male, female, gay, straight, etc) and place them in a hierarchy of oppression as determined by how successful that demographic is. White and Asian men are at the bottom of this hierarchy, whereas blacks and females are near the top (although the exact order is not widely accepted).
Neo-marxists believe that successful demographics are only successful because they exploit the less successful demographics, and as such believe that the more successful demographics (i.e the ‘rich’ of classical marxism) should be punished in some way, and what they have should be given to the less successful demographics. Typically this involves giving these demographics money, positions, and political influence simply for being a member of an “oppressed” demographic.
Consider a quote from a famous 20th century speech that is based on Marxist ideology. It was delivered by a very charismatic and political leader who was both revered and hated in his day. I left blanks so as not to give it away to any potential history buffs.
“The ________ have shown real genius in profiting by politics. This capitalistic people, which was brought into existence by the unscrupulous exploitation of men, has understood how to get the leadership of the Fourth Estate (the news media) into its own hands; and by acting both on the Right and on the Left it has its apostles in both camps. On the Right the ______ does his best to encourage all the evils there are to such an extent that the man of the people, poor devil, will be exasperated as much as possible– greed of money, unscrupulousness, hard- heartedness, abominable snobbishness. More and more ______ have wormed their way into our upper-class families; and the consequence has been that the ruling class has been alienated from its own people.”
Today, one could fill in the blank with “white man” or “conservative” or “Republican” and it would ring true to a lot of people today. Can you guess the speaker? It was Adolf Hitler. He said it in a speech, made in 1922. Add the word “jews” in the blanks and you will have the original speech. What does this suggest to you about Marxism? How can this ideology bring about an overall positive change to our society? Everywhere its been practiced, nothing good came from it.
In an interview with Democracy Now, Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors credits Eric Mann for being her mentor. Eric Mann is a member of the Weather Underground, a radical-left militant group that bombed government buildings and police stations in the 1960s and 1970s. Among their stated goals was the overthrow of the US government. In 1969, the FBI classified the group as a domestic terror organization. Mann was eventually charged with assault and battery, disturbing the peace, damaging property, defacing a building and disturbing a public assembly, for which he spent 18 months behind bars.
When the magazine – Cosmopolitan asked Cullors “What are some leaders that inspire you?” the response was Assata Shakur. Shakur assassinated a New Jersey state trooper and now lives in exile in Cuba. She was also involved in bombings and several executions of cops in New Jersey, New York and San Francisco. She is still wanted by the FBI.
Granted, being an inspiration can take on many meanings, but there is exists today a highly suspected connection to Black Lives Matter because of Susan Rosenberg. Susan Rosenberg, the vice-chair of Thousand Currents group, which handles the administration of the donations made to Black Lives Matter, is a convicted terrorist who was sentenced to 58 years for weapons and explosives charges while a member of the May 19th Communist Organization. She spent 16 years in prison before President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence on his last day. Among other things, Rosenberg was suspected of helping Shakur escape from prison in 1979.
It is notable to mention that Rosenberg was listed as the vice chairwoman of the board of directors for Thousand Currents until the webpage was pulled down after her background was first reported by the Capital Research Center.
Black Lives Matter has consistently supported an effort to defund the police; something I have discussed at length on my podcast – “Things I Think About.” (Please do listen and subscribe to it.) The hashtag #DefundThePolice has a double meaning.
According to The New York Times, The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) is a coalition of groups across the United States which represent the interests of black communities. It was formed in 2014 as a response to sustained and increasingly visible violence against black communities, with the purpose of creating a united front and establishing a political platform. The collective is made up of more than 150 organizations of which Black Lives Matter is one. On the “Who We Are” section of the M4BL website it reads, “We believe that prisons, police and all other institutions that inflict violence on Black people must be abolished and replaced by institutions that value and affirm the flourishing of Black lives.”
Whether the ultimate aim is dissolution or reform, what is consistent is the violence against police which has yet to be disavowed by BLM on the national level.
The controversy of saying “all lives matter” in retort to “black lives matter” typically means what Good Housekeeping describes…
At its face, “All Lives Matter” sounds like a we’re-all-in-this-together statement. Some may be using the phrase to suggest that all races should join hands and stand together against racism, which is a sentiment that comes from a good place. But the problem is, the phrase actually takes the focus away from those who need it. Saying “All Lives Matter” redirects the attention from Black lives, who are the ones in peril.
If you break your arm and go to the doctor, and the doctor says “all your bones matter, not just your arm.” You’re gonna look at them stupid because yes, all your bones matter but they are fine, your arm needs attention rn. BLM is that arm, saying all lives matter is redundant.
It is also explained that black lives matter is like a house on fire. Some supporters go as far as to say that if you utter the phrase, “all lives matter” then, you are a racist and beneath contempt because until the BLM movement (and now) you have likely enjoyed a life of white privilege and cannot comprehend the level of oppression that black people suffer daily.
The resistance to saying “all lives matter” is the argument that white people are not (wholly) the problem facing Black America. Rather, it is culture and not color that holds back the black community and not systemic racism. This is not to say that racism does not exist. It is to say that racism should not be a catch-all excuse for not progressing. Indeed, several wounds in the black community are self-inflicted (i.e. black on black crime). As such, the solution to much of the problems in the black community is self-accountability and not white people. This leads to a constant refrain of if/then statements that hint at self-accountability, such as…
And finally, an argument against supporting BLM that I am hearing more of is an open and increasingly vocal desire to destroy the country and rebuild it from the ground up. This is in line with the Marxist ideology of reconstructing society. As an example of this, see the video below.
“I’m an afro-indigenous non-binary local organizer.”
And this concludes my sharing on BLM. If you have come this far and are offended, please review my personal disclaimer at the beginning of my article. If you are not offended but are awakened to new information, I implore you to research further. I am in a phase of my life where I am highly skeptical of the mainstream news. I suggest that you be as well.
In episode #2 of “Things I Think About Podcast,” I discuss an interview featuring Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors where she argued that police need to be defunded and by doing so, would resolve issues of homelessness, gentrification and improve the overall quality of life for society.