Author Archives: David Ehrens - Page 5

May Day 2023

Americans don’t fully recognize the importance of labor or the potential combined political power of working people. Or maybe we have simply allowed ourselves to be persuaded that that’s a “far-left” viewpoint.

Somehow it’s only class warfare when workers make their demands known.

Throughout the world, and in Europe particularly, May Day (or International Workers’ Day) is celebrated with displays of unity and power, such as today’s protests in France against President Macron’s decree raising the French retirement age.

Meanwhile, in the US, GOP-controlled states are rolling back worker protections, including those barring child labor.

For the most part it is anathema — or down-right “communist” — to point out the degree of exploitation of workers in America.

A new book by Melissa Hope Ditmore, a scholar who focuses on sex trafficking, makes the observation that sex and human trafficking are not all that different from the routine exploitation of workers. “Trafficking into agricultural, industry, and domestic work has always received scant attention compared with trafficking into sex work, despite its enormous scale and impact on the economy,” Ditmore writes.

Many of these most difficult jobs are still exempted from Social Security benefits created under the New Deal — which incidentally occurred during Jim Crow. Domestic laborers, nannies, lettuce pickers, elder care workers, house cleaners, teacher’s aides, and non-professional workers in the medical industry are all low-paid, mainly female and, more often than not, exploited. This extends to immigrants and the working poor who toil in the so-called “Gig economy” — basically piecework jobs that exclude them from full benefits.

In the worst days of the pandemic, the elderly and immune-compromised, in particular, depended on “gig economy” delivery services. We depended upon checkout clerks who did not have the luxury of working from home. These and the millions of healthcare workers who went to work every day, running the risk of contracting a virus for which there was then no immunization or treatment, were the real heroes of the day.

All over America, often in abysmal and unsafe working conditions, agricultural workers kept supply chains running so that the more privileged could continue to buy meats and vegetables even as the pandemic raged.

And across the country, particularly in Florida, being a teacher has now become a virtually impossible job for those who believe in teaching the truth and protecting vulnerable students. This is a profession that has never been adequately compensated, but is now literally under attack.

We are in the habit of reflexively thanking servicemen for participating in fairly questionable foreign wars and adventures, but we never thank the real heroes for their service. So in the absence of widespread May Day celebrations, I’m raising a toast tonight to the workers of the world and the power and remuneration they so richly deserve.

The Beauty of Dusk

A couple of months ago I woke up with significant vision loss in one eye. As someone in his seventies I was probably overdue for a health crisis, and there is nothing like losing eyesight to focus you on your mortality. I was terrified that my writing days might be over and I was in grief at the prospect of a shrinking world. Worse, the type of optic neuropathy I was diagnosed with sometimes claims vision in the remaining eye. After a month, life is returning to normal. I’ve made adjustments, learned to see without the headaches I initially experienced, and I’m taking driving a step at a time.

But needing to take as much control over my situation as I can, I resolved that if I lost the other eye I would be prepared. The Hadley Institute has many resources for blind and low-vision people, including the Braille lessons I have started “just in case” the worst happens. Another of Hadley’s many resources is a podcast where I first heard an interview with New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, whose experience with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) was identical to mine.

Bruni is also the narrator of the Audible version of the book “The Beauty of Dusk” and I was of course eager to see how he negotiated his own adjustment to vision loss. However, “The Beauty of Dusk” is not merely about Bruni’s experience of sudden partial blindness but is more a meditation on mortality, our ability to meet challenges head-on, to transform our ways of doing things, to change our thinking and even ourselves — as well as the satisfactions of meeting those challenges and discovering strengths and possibilities we never imagined were within us. In confronting all his own fears and questions, Bruni managed to write a wise and generous meditation on what it means to be human and vulnerable.

The title of Bruni’s book is apt and comes from this passage: “[…] my story isn’t about dawn. It’s about dusk. It’s about those first real inklings that the day isn’t forever, and the light inexorably fades. It’s about a rising and then peaking consciousness that you’re on borrowed and finite time.” Exactly. Those of us “of a certain age,” for whom “old age isn’t for sissies,” may prefer more humorous characterizations of our silver years. But dusk is a perfect reminder that our day is almost over and there’s just so much light to be snatched before it all ends. It’s a sobering but a brutally honest and even actionable metaphor.

Bruni’s meditation explores almost every aspect of his medical experience as well as much in his own life. But it is far from a medical memoir. Most of “Dusk” is devoted to stories from the many friends he has — as we all have — whose burdens are far greater than his. These are tales of people who met unthinkable challenges that most of us imagine would have stopped us in our tracks.

But it doesn’t work that way. Buried within each of us is the capacity to adapt, to change, to look at the world differently. Bruni draws from the work of numerous psychologists and neuroscientists to remind us that our brains and our personalities are far more elastic than we imagine. Bruni also pokes fun at the comic irony of how he was forced to “see the world differently.” As he half-jokes, “when one eye closes, another one opens.”

Bruni reminds us of the polite caution, if not disinterest, we show those with disabilities. After his own experience with disability Bruni started asking every one he knew about how they navigated the world, what their challenges were. Many of their answers surprised him. Their desire to talk about their struggles initially surprised him.

“The Beauty of Dusk” is a triumphant book, a slightly sentimental book, and occasionally a tedious book of things (like his dog) that only some readers will find engaging. But it is also a book about the hard realities, both good and bad, of aging and disability. As I listened to Bruni narrate, barely a month after my own opthalmological adventure, I at times found myself weeping. There were naturally tears of sadness for what is lost, but also tears of triumph over my initial terror, despair, and grief. There were also tears of recognition — felt more fully now than ever before in my life — that I am finite, that life is finite, that what is left to us of each day is not to be wasted. That vulnerability and disability are waystations that each of us will visit sometime in our lives.

The McCarthy era is back!

On February 7th, the House Financial Services and Senate Judiciary committees voted on a resolution:

H.Con.Res.9 – Denouncing the horrors of socialism

The resolution was sponsored by Florida House Republican Maria Elvira Salazar, the daughter of Cuban exiles who likely knew Cuban military dictator Fulgencia Batista, who fled to Florida about the same time as they. For Cuban exiles like Salazar’s parents, who lost sweat shops and colonial plantations to agrarian reforms, socialism was all-too easily conflated with a Holocaust.

But just to keep things in perspective, and perhaps as one indicator of just how lopsided wealth in Cuba was before, after the revolution Castro nationalized his own family’s 25,000 acre estate. Plantations like Castro’s family’s were worked by landless farmers living and working in conditions similar to Southern plantations and pre-revolutionary Russian estates. For Cuba’s virulent anti-Communists, plantations and military dictators were the “good old days.”

Salazar’s resolution conflates socialism with totalitarian regimes, famine, mass murder, and places Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro in the same company as Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin. Salazar’s resolution is filled with hysterical hyperbole and concludes with a ridiculous claim found neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution: “Whereas the United States of America was founded on the belief in the sanctity of the individual, to which the collectivistic system of socialism in all of its forms is fundamentally and necessarily opposed: Now, therefore, be it resolved…”

None of this is surprising coming from the Republican Party, which has clearly lost its collective mind and is in fact, and in Florida most acutely pursuing, the systematic dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

But most Americans make a distinction between European democratic socialism and the distorted dictatorships found in North Korea, Russia, and China. No sane individual believes for a second that “National Socialism” (aka Nazism) had anything to do with socialism. A 2021 Gallup Poll found that 52% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans view American Capitalism positively and, rather counter-intuitively, that 65% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans think of socialism in a positive light.

For Republicans, who are now the “either-or” heirs of the John Birch Society, it is either Capitalism or socialism. Democrats, on the other hand, understand “socialist” in the context of European social-democratic governments whose support for national healthcare, heavily subsidized education, housing, and parental leave contribute to a social safety net Republicans dismiss as “Communism.” For most Democrats “socialism” means features of social governance that can conceivably exist alongside a less predatory version of Capitalism. For Republicans, only the most predatory form of Capitalism is worth saving.

So it was disappointing to find that 109 Democrats — including a majority of the Massachusetts House delegation — signed on to Salazar’s resolution. Only Jim McGovern, Richard Neal, and Ayanna Pressley refused to make a show of red-blooded patriotic anti-Communism. At the very least they made a distinction that 65% of registered Democrats share regarding the nature of “socialism.” I was not surprised by Bill Keating, Stephen Lynch, Seth Moulton, or Jake Auchincloss. I had expected more of Lori Trahan and Katherine Clark, previously (and significantly) the Assistant House Democratic Leader.

“Disappointing” doesn’t even begin to describe Massachusetts House Democrats. Their disgraceful vote was another sign that the Democratic Party is as ambivalent about the social safety net as it is about every other liberal issue or democratic right it has already conceded to Republicans through collusion or neglect. From police reform to the defense of abortion and voting rights, Democrats allow Republicans to set the agenda on every issue, and they seem only too happy to join their Republican colleagues in betraying working people and minorities as they undermine true liberals within their own party.

With the ascendancy of the Tea Party, Trump, De Santis, and others in the GOP’s far-right starlight — and with a slim Republicans majority in the House — it appears we have entered a new McCarthy era. In the Fifties, the first targets of Joe McCarthy were liberal Democrats he claimed were “communistically inclined”, along with Jews, gays, and “Hollywood elites.” McCarthy succeeded in having libraries throughout the US purged of books, including Philip Foner’s The Selected Works of Thomas Jefferson and The Children’s Hour by Lillian Hellman, a play about false accusations in a girl’s school that had obvious parallels with what McCarthy himself was doing. If you live in Florida today, no doubt you are experiencing either deja vu or PTSD.

I have long believed that the Democratic Party, sadly, is the only thing standing between Republicans and the final nail in the coffin of American democracy. But if Democrats are not up to the task, it may be time for a new party to take on that responsibility. The formation of a new party — a regular occurrence in any other democracy — is hampered only by our lack of imagination.

This is who we are

It is Black History Month and there are a couple of streamed documentaries I heartily recommend: Jeffery Robinson’s Who We Are: A Chronicle of Racism in America (Netflix); and Nikole Hannah-Jones’s The 1619 Project, a six part docuseries (Hulu).

I watched Robinson’s film last night on Netflix and it is excellent. At the beginning of the film Robinson meets a man standing in front of a Confederate statue waving a Confederate flag. The two have a conversation about whether that flag was a symbol of slavery and even about the nature of slavery itself. The Neo-Confederate maintains that slaves were just like members of slave-holders’ families and his flag had nothing to do with slavery. But in less than a minute the Harvard Law-trained film-maker demonstrates the contradictions of the flag-waver’s contentions. This confrontation with willful ignorance frames the film’s narrative.

Robinson, who is from Memphis and whose personal story is interwoven into the documentary, goes on to show — using the words of politicians of the time, state and federal laws and rulings, and historical documents — that America most definitely was founded on slavery. He quotes former president Donald Trump — yes, America’s chief racist ignoramus and a fan of Jackson — who says that Andrew Jackson would never have let the US slide into civil war, then points out that Jackson died 16 years before that war. Robinson goes on to show that Jackson in fact was a slave-owner himself who even posted an ad for the return of one of his own slaves — promising to pay the finder a little extra for giving the slave 300 lashes with a whip. This is who is on our $20 bill.

We wait for Robinson to complete the sentence with “this is who we are” but his stealth title “Who We Are” instead does that job for him. Robinson not once mentions the usual bromide that White America uses on the occasion of some new racial atrocity (“this is not who we are”). Robinson just knows. And we all ought to know by now: this is exactly who we are.

In perhaps the most moving segment of the film Robinson, who worked with the ACLU for many years, returns to Memphis with his brother and visits their boyhood home — a house that had to be purchased with a little subterfuge by a white couple and then transferred to Robinson’s parents. He talks about how that home made him who he is today and how everyone on that street worked hard, did their best for their children, and had all the same hopes his parents did. It is not a bitter reminiscence, but Robinson points out that what white supremacy really means is that the playing field will never be level for everyone on that street — because of government institutions that created land-grant colleges for whites, redlining for blacks, land dispossession for indigenous people, and the recycling of slave-catching practices in police institutions. Robinson methodically shows us how many of our racialized institutions are still working as designed years after the Civil Rights movement ended. And the damage to their victims continues.

The 1619 Project has become a lightning rod for people who can’t accept that America was founded on slavery and continues to do everything it can to preserve slavery’s vestiges and inequities. FOX News predictably wrote the series off as “fan fiction” and “slander.” The New York Post called it “cartoonish” and a “pretense” and wrote off one of the interviewed academics as a “Marxist.” And of course, the 1619 Project has been banned in Florida by racist governor Ron DeSantis and his appointees to the state Board of Education.

The series consists of six episodes, the last of which will air tomorrow: Democracy; Race; Music; Capitalism; Fear; and Justice. While Jeffery Robinson never indicts Capitalism outright for the sins of slavery, Hannah-Jones does so explicitly and this is the most likely reason for her rough treatment. But let’s be honest: slavery was a commercial enterprise. The value of slave labor made Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia among the richest in the nation. When slavery ended these states instantly ended up at the bottom of the American economic barrel because human capital (that is humans as property) had been instantly struck from the ledgers. And it wasn’t just Southern plantations which profited from the products of slave labor. Massachusetts textile factories depended on cotton that had been harvested for free by humans under the whip. The New York stock exchange, companies like Lehman Brothers, and insurance industries like AIG — as Robinson shows, too — fed off slavery and toyed with declaring themselves neutral in order to continue to profit from human bondage.

In what is most certainly one of the great ironies of history, while the 1619 Project has been banned and its use in Florida schools now constitutes a felony, it is now available in Germany — a country that knows something about white supremacy and book burnings — and is now ashamed of it.

The Frankurter Allgemeine Zeitung carried a review of the 1619 Project in its book section, pointing out that Americans are woefully (even willfully) ignorant of their own history. Andreas Eckert cites a 2018 Southern Poverty Law Center study which shows how ignorant of American history, particularly its ugliest aspects, American High School students are. Only 8% of American high schoolers could identify correctly the reason the Civil War was fought: slavery. Eckert quotes Yale history professor and Frederick Douglass biographer David Blight, who wrote the introduction to the SPLC’s “Teaching Hard History.” Blight observes that Americans always prefer to view our history in the most positive light, regarding ourselves as a beacon unto the world, bringing progress, freedom, justice, prosperity, and happiness to the benighted. This certainly seems to constitute the “patriotic curriculum” that Ron DeSantis is now about to jam down the throats of Florida public school students.

One of the greatest controversies over the 1619 Project is whether the American Revolution was fought (even in part) to preserve slavery. Hannah-Jones unapologetically says it was. In the same SPLC preface to “Teaching Hard History,” Hasan Kwame Jeffries writes, “In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers enumerated the lofty goals of their radical experiment in democracy; racial justice, however, was not included in that list. Instead, they embedded protections for slavery and the transatlantic slave trade into the founding document, guaranteeing inequality for generations to come.” It doesn’t take much to verify these facts.

For starters, 34 of the 47 signers — a majority — of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. Among the most famous slave owners: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Rush, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, and (a distant relative on my mother’s side) Charles Carroll. So don’t even try to convince me these morally compromised men created a nation for all the beating hearts in it.

The Declaration of Independence has always rung hollow to Black people. Frederick Douglass delivered a scathing oration “What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?” Aside from its authors and its hypocrisy, the Declaration calls indigenous people “merciless Indian Savages” and whines that King George is inhibiting the theft of indigenous land.

William J. Aceves, in “Amending a Racist Constitution,” shows us precisely where slavery was baked into the Constitutional cake:

While the Constitution never uses the words “slave” or “slavery,” the shadows of these malignant words inhabit its text. Four constitutional provisions reflect a legal architecture that treats Black people as property. Two of these provisions are substantive, and two are procedural.

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 is the notorious Three-Fifths Clause. This provision is used to determine the number of congressional representatives apportioned to a state as well as its corresponding tax obligations. Free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, were included in the calculation of state populations. In contrast, slaves would be calculated as three-fifths of a person. Native Americans who were not taxed would not be included in these calculations. While the Three-Fifths Clause did not directly affect the rights of slaves, it served as clear evidence of their inequality. The Clause also had a profound impact on the power structure in Congress by providing slave states disproportionate political influence in the House for decades. Because of this, the slave states were even less inclined to end slavery.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 represents the Fugitive Slave Clause. It provides that any person who escapes from servitude and flees to another state may not gain their freedom. Instead, that person must be returned to the custody of their owner. This clause was used on countless occasions to perpetuate slavery. Individuals who had escaped from bondage by crossing state lines were subject to capture and returned to slavery. Those who aided such efforts were subject to civil or even criminal liability. While there was some resistance to its application, this pernicious clause made anti-slavery states and the federal government complicit in slavery. This complicity even extended to the Supreme Court.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 limited the ability of Congress to adopt legislation prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves until 1808. Congress drafted around this restriction in 1803, when it adopted An Act to Prevent the Importation of Certain Persons into Certain States, Where, by the Laws Thereof, Their Admission is Prohibited. This statute was adopted at the request of the slave states, which were concerned with the rise of free people of color in the United States and viewed the successful slave rebellion in Haiti with trepidation. Four years later, Congress took a more significant step with the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves Into Any Port or Place Within the Jurisdiction of the United States. While the statute was drafted to end the slave trade in the United States, the practice of slavery remained legal.

Finally, Article V addresses the process for constitutional amendments. These amendments can be proposed for state ratification by a two-thirds vote in both Houses. Alternatively, amendments can be proposed through a constitutional convention called by a two-thirds vote of the states. Either process then requires approval by three-fourths of the states. Reflecting one of the central compromises to the Constitution, Article V prohibited any amendment to Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 until 1808. Working in tandem, these provisions ensured that the slave trade would remain legal in the United States for at least twenty years.

In Robinson’s film, Black students sing the third stanza of the American National Anthem (“the Star-Spangled Banner”) by Francis Scott Key, a Maryland slave owner. This stanza sings of the depravity and deserved slaughter of slaves who try to escape:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave, And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And the last stanza implies that the republic is meant only for non-slaves:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!

American Conservatives may be incensed at scholarship that at long last proves our nation was founded on and built by slavery, but there is no getting around the fact: it was. The battle for the nation’s soul may be on some people’s lips but it means little without recognition, repair, repentance, restitution — and major revision of our laws. But we can’t even begin if we can’t agree on facts of history that can be easily and objectively verified.

In our hearts of hearts we know the contents of our nation’s soul and who we are as a people. And, if we’re honest, it isn’t very pretty.

This is who we are.

Getting there

I have about 30 unfinished plays. As I learn more about plays that “work” I have concluded that most of these moldering first attempts are probably not worth salvaging, although a few could work with major rewrites. But I’ve also realized that maybe I should just say kaddish for my characters and start from scratch.

Together with the many plays I’ve read are books on structure, plot, character, and dramaturgy. Of the ambitious compendia, Richard Toscan’s Playwriting Seminars 2.0 is very good. And Louis E. Catron’s Elements of Playwriting was also very helpful. Lenora Inez Brown’s The Art of Active Dramaturgy talks about how a dramaturg works with a playwright and a theatre company to tune a play for production. In my head I know a lot about what makes a good play, yet for all the books and writing workshops, I’ve never really known how (or been confident enough) to tackle the complex process of completing a play. Now that the light is dawning somewhat, it’s clear that if you know even something about process, you will write much more confidently.

Recently I have been listening to playwriting podcasts. The most helpful (to me) of these is by a young Australian playwright, Emily Sheehan. Her Playwright’s Process podcast is just that: full of wisdom and ideas for tackling process step by step. Another podcast I found helpful is Jonah Knight’s Theatrically Speaking, which focuses on writing plays that can actually be produced as well as suggestions for submitting plays. There are numerous podcasts from the British National Theatre which are excellent. Another, Not True, but Useful, is a British podcast that highlights the work of a couple of roving theatre producers and designers. Add to these: Hey, Playwright; Women Playwrights Podcast; Playwright’s Spotlight; Necessary Exposure; Not in Print; Pint Size Playwriting; Playwright to Playwright; Playwright’s Horizon; Playwriting Real-Life; The Cultivated Playwright; The Subtext; Women and Playwriting; and many more than I have time to listen to.

If you are in the same boat (dinghy, inflatable raft) as I am, hopefully some of these mentions are useful. The world may need major repair. But it has always relied on good theatre to remind us of our humanity.

Help Wanted — urgently

I have been afraid of this for some time. The Dartmouth Schools are now indisputably under attack by right-wing fanatics. If you are a liberal or progressive who doesn’t want to see the banning of books and diversity programs come to our schools — and better yet, you are the parent of children in the school system — now is the time to stand up for those pretty words on the sign sitting on your front lawn — and run for School Committee.

The present Dartmouth School Committee consists of: conservative Chris Oliver; ultra-conservative and would-be book-banner John Nunes; liberals Mary Waite, Kathleen Amaral, and Shannon Jenkins. Kathleen Amaral and Mary Waite’s seats are up for re-election this year. Mary Waite has not filed papers. So assuming Kathleeen Amaral keeps her seat, it is Mary Waite’s now being challenged by Lynn Turner, Troy Tufano, and Erica Lyn Morney.

Now that we find ourselves in the George Santos era, it’s worth knowing something about the increasing number of reprobates running for office. So here’s my best attempt at a survey of the School Committee candidates.

I still don’t know much about Ms. Morney, so if anyone has any information to share, please contact me and I will update this post.

However, I am familiar with Lynn Turner — whom I wrote about the last time she ran for the School Committee. Turner is an evangelical book-burner who wants to dismantle diversity programs. I looked into Turner’s background last year and also reported on her campaign remarks at a candidate forum. She is a two-faced piece of work who literally quotes Martin Luther King as she tries to undermine everything he stood for.

Joining her this year is Troy Tufano, a self-described political consultant who has dabbled in both Republican and Democratic politics. Regardless of whatever party he is enrolled in, judging from his abandoned Twitter account Troy Tufano is also an evangelical book-burner who wants to dismantle diversity programs. Besides Tufano’s bromances with domestic right-wing personalities like Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and prosperity gospel mega-preacher Joel Osteen, Tufano has frequently re-Tweeted European neo-fascists like: Ragnar Gardarsson of the Danish Nye Borgerlige Party; and Marine LePen of the Rassemblement National Party. Tufano has also retweeted conspiracy theories, such as the long-discredited accusation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed. If Tufano’s tweets should mysteriously disappear during the run-up to the town election, you can find a zipfile of screen shots here.

Dartmouth’s Town elections are only two months away. This year the town election is April 4th. I hope that kind and decent people will step up. Candidates need to pick up filing papers at Town Hall no later than February 10th, collect 50 signatures (double or triple that in case of challenges), and submit the paperwork to the Town Clerk by February 14th.

Especially if you are the parent of children in the Dartmouth Schools, now is the time to step up. That sign on your lawn is nice and all, but British social philosopher and Liberal John Stuart Mill said it best: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

A Poor Start to the Year

Since the midterm elections I have been behaving myself — relatively speaking. No long-winded missives or rants for quite some time. But today I am about to break my streak. There is just too much going on to to remain silent.

For starters, there are the police who just murdered another black man, Tyre D. Nichols.

As a New York Times editorial argues, we have an obligation to view — to face — each one of these abuses of police power — the tortures, the beatings, the tasering, the gassing, the terrorizing of young black men like Mr. Nichols. Each day in America a dozen civilians are killed by police — double that if you factor in the asphyxiations and Taser deaths police inflict on disproportionately people of color.

It can’t go on this way.

We must also acknowledge the humanity, the love of their families, the talents, the potential, and the hopes of each of these victims. Nichols, who was just trying to get home when he was intercepted, dragged from his car, and murdered by a group of thugs with badges, died with his mother’s name on his lips and left behind a portfolio of lovely photography. How is his life any different from yours or mine?

We need to get up off our asses and finally do something to rein in police abuse. While a few people associated with an organization called BLM may have taken some wrong turns, let’s not ignore the point — that Black lives really do matter. Police abuses really are an epidemic and they put all of us at risk.

Sherrilyn Ifill, the former head of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, wrote an excellent response to a piece in the Atlantic by Conor Friedersdorf, who pronounced “Black Lives Matter” a dead letter and argued that public outrage wouldn’t fix bad policing and that, well, police killings are actually fewer than in the past. Ifill tore into Friedersdorf’s flabby and execrable arguments by pointing out that, first of all, the lack of public outrage and apathy is a white people problem. Moreover, Ifill argues, “Whatever modest reforms to policing have been adopted [following BLM pressure], were undertaken after long, pitched battles with those determined to maintain the status quo.” We saw it in the 100% Democratic Party controlled Massachusetts state legislature when the police lobby preserved Qualified Immunity — the license to kill without consequence.

With the murder of a Black man by five Black cops, many have finally realized that it is police training and police institutions which create bad cops — who just happen to police in racist fashion regardless of their own color. Compounding this is the fact that police are organized as paramilitary organizations where target practice is valued more than deescalation, where loyalty to fellow officers counts more than responsibility to the public. Police are truly a gang unto themselves. A few years ago a former California police officer spelled out exactly how the institution corrupts individuals. In his accounting, no cop can completely escape becoming an abuser.

Recent demonstrations over Cop City in Atlanta and the killing of a protester ought to also make us all think twice about America’s growing Police State. Over the strenuous objections of voters, the police lobby succeeded in getting approval for an 85 acre, $90 million (and growing) facility some have described as Fantasyland for cops. And a Police State also means that citizens must be convinced, ham-handedly if necessary, in the eternal good intentions and necessity of the police. We are constantly reminded, via well-placed Copaganda, that Officer Friendly is our pal. Particularly when he’s a “School Resource” officer.

In America everything is ultimately connected in some twisted way to race. In the case of Tyre Nichols’s murder, all five cops were Black. And in the case of Cop City, the City Council that approved the project is majority Black and the former mayor who pushed it is herself Black. Ex-mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is now working — just as ironic as it sounds — as “Senior Advisor for Public Engagement” in the Biden administration.

So how do we account for this? Is Bottoms a flaming racist? Is Biden a flaming white supremacist? Of course not, but the institutions they work in and through, and to which they have hitched their fortunes, are most definitely racist. Capitalism, colonialism, militarism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism — all have built and corrupted everything they touch. Our Constitution is the rulebook by which our institutions can stack the game against citizens. Racist laws, racist institutions, and racist justice operate by that rulebook have created a nightmare for some of us.

And a culture war is raging about teaching these truths.

We learned this week that the Sports Medicine Committee of the Florida High School Athletics Association wants to make mandatory the reporting of menstrual cycles by female student athletes. The same state — just in time for Black History Month — has also banned the College Board’s Advanced Placement course in AP African American Studies. In fact, Florida teachers now face felony charges if they use non-approved textbooks in their classrooms. You can view the AP African American History course framework here. The AP course consists of four principal units: Origins of the African Diaspora; Freedom, Enslavement, and Resistance; the Practice of Freedom (including a critical view of Reconstruction); and (most damning) Movements and Debates (including anti-colonial responses to slavery and the Civil Rights Movement). Somehow, Florida did not feel the need to ban AP European History which also covers philosophical and political debates. Just not Black ones.

What Florida Republicans have done is to edit out Blacks from American history in exactly the same manner that Nazis did in removing Jews from Germany’s civil service and its cultural institutions. Before they really got going.

Hitlerjugend (Hitler youth)

If you think Florida is an outlier, you would be wrong. Local school boards and librarians are under attack by town Republican committees all over the country. The Massachusetts ACLU points out that a very small minority of ultra-conservatives is responsible for all the noise. This may or may not be the case, as it has been my observation that much of this is the work of Republican Town Committees. Indeed, virtually every Republican in Congress mouths these same sentiments.

In the Tri-Town area [of SouthCoast Massachusetts] a couple of Republican hacks are trying hard to do their own impressions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Joe Pires worries that Diversity and Equity committees are harming white students. Pires also doesn’t like library books that represent the identities and concerns of gay kids. Well, too damn bad! Schools and libraries are for all the children in a community — not just for kids whose parents look like Ozzie and Harriet.

Ozzie and Harriet was a television program in the 1950’s

Joining town Republicans like Pires with precisely the same views and similarly attacking marginalized members of society are neo-Nazis and Proud Boys who use physical intimidation as they did recently in Fall River. If attacks like these on gay and brown and black children and their families don’t concern you, they are precisely the same tactics the Hitlerjugend and Brownshirts used in Germany of the Thirties. As a famous German theologian famously observed, first they come for the “other”; then suddenly it’s you. Contact the SouthCoast LGBTQ+ Network if you want to help fight back.

Chekhov’s Plays – a First Pass

I have been filling the gaps in my theatre literacy by tackling plays of the masters. One who cannot be ignored is Anton Chekhov, whose stories I have read and loved in both English and German translation. A volume of twelve of The Plays of Anton Chekhov edited and given a new American English translation by Paul Schmidt is an enjoyable improvement over British English versions of plays I have read previously on Project Gutenberg.

A new book on Chekhov by Bob Blaisdell reviewed in TNR peeks over the young writer’s shoulders at his journals and correspondence with friends, family, contemporary writers, and theatre people. As with the plays, both correspondence and journals can be found on Project Gutenberg. “The Vast Humanity of Anton Chekhov” by TNR writer Scott Bradfield discusses the author’s supposed apolitical humanism and where it originated. I’m not totally convinced he was all that apolitical, however. Chekhov was the grandson of a serf who had purchased his own freedom and the son of a failed middle class businessman. But he was also a hard-working physician and early on began writing potboilers to support his family. Although Chekhov’s connections to the old aristocracy may have been superficial and of recent vintage, he certainly knew what audience he was writing for: the dying aristocracy. As I read Chekhov’s plays, I kept looking for social commentary. What I found at first was sympathy and humor, then stronger moral judgment, and finally a medical diagnosis that the aristocratic patient was not long for this world.

It is not surprising that the physician/observer character found in many of his stories and plays was either saved from the corruption of the aristocracy — or fully plopped into the muck along with them. Much of the melodrama and material of Chekhov’s theatre pieces played out in his own family. His older brother was a drunk and a debt-ridden gambler. His younger brother took up with a married woman. As in Ivanov, one of Chekhov’s brothers married a Jewish woman (who had been a nanny). Chekhov’s parents’ home was repossessed. Chekhov wore himself down like several of the doctors in his plays to the point that he contracted tuberculosis in his twenties and died in his early forties. It seems clear enough: Chekhov wrote what he knew. But he had also joined a club that would be gone within a generation.

Though he no doubt influenced the trajectory of European theatre, I don’t share the sentiment that Chekhov was a master of both short fiction and drama. The fact is, while Chekhov’s stories are less cluttered and less mannered and can still be enjoyed by a modern reader, most of Chekhov’s plays have not aged equally well. Despite Schmidt’s intention to free Chekhov’s plays from the snobbish-sounding British-isms of earlier translations, the plays themselves will never be free from Chekhov’s preoccupation with the rotting Russian aristocracy and the embarrassing histrionics and conventions of European theatre circa 1900. Nor should we forget that most of these plays were written for quick cash, just like most of Chekhov’s short stories.

Swan Song (1887) is an awful monologue by a drunken, elderly actor who can’t decide if he’s over-the-hill or still has that je-ne-sais-quoi. I guess, as long as you think you’ve still got it, you do. But there’s not really much more to this play.

The Bear (1888) is a farce whose adaptation by Brian Friel I read first. An attractive but overwrought widow has decided to wear black and mourn her husband for the rest of her life, never leaving her house. But she is intruded upon by a thuggish neighbor who demands instant repayment of a loan supposedly given to the woman’s dead husband. The home invader refuses to leave until paid, both characters demonstrate they have ample backbone, and a duel of honor is about to occur but is then sidetracked by professions of love from the thug.

The Proposal (1888) is another farce marred by histrionics and melodramatic flourishes no longer in vogue. A young man who is either a walking catalog of real ilnesses or simply a hypochondriac visits his neighbor to propose to the man’s daughter. The conversation with the (inexplicably) eager young woman goes south when they argue over a property line. Once they resolve to overlook the property line in order to marry, they are still arguing over dog breeds. As the couple continues to argue, the prospective father-in-law yells to the audience: “Bring on the champagne.”

Ivanov (1889) is a full-length play in four acts. Ivanov is a profligate 35 year-old debtor who has married a Jewish woman whose family disinherited her as a result. As such she has no dowry. And then she contracts tuberculosis and is not long for this world. But Ivanov is a congenitally unhappy man for reasons that make no sense to a modern theatre-goer. Perhaps it’s that his projects and his energies have spread him too thin, perhaps he’s just a restless guy, or perhaps he’s just an aristocrat with too much time on his hands, but Ivanov simply stops loving his wife and resolves to marry another woman as soon as his present one is dead.

The play features anti-semitic aristocratic idlers that include a card player, a count, various landowners, and a smug, judgmental physician. On the day of Ivanov’s second wedding the still-tormented (for whatever reason) groom argues with his bride, her father, and a friend about his decision to back out of the marriage. Despite the glaring fact that it’s in nobody’s interest for this sweet young woman to marry a financial wreck who was despicably cruel to his last wife, for no reason at all these friends and her family still want to see the marriage go ahead. Only the self-tormented Ivanov himself recognizes how bad the marriage will be, and at the last moment he hurries out of sight and shoots himself. This is far more histrionics and melodrama than any modern viewer can stomach. And it only hints at the perverse world that Chekhov would later indict.

A Reluctant Tragic Hero (1889) is another farce that relies on the trope of the much-abused and henpecked husband. Tolkachov breathlessly visits his friend Murashkin in a panic. The poor man needs a gun and is preparing to rough it in the wilderness — all because his wife and neighbors have tasked him with an impossibly long “Honey, do” list. The actor who plays Tolkachov recites five pages of frenetic dialog while guzzling gallons of water and enumerating all the many reasons for his panic. The punchline, of course, is that his friend Murashkin manages to calm him down — only to pile on additional errands of taking a sewing machine and a canary in a cage with him when he returns home.

The Wedding Reception (1889) is another stale little confection, another farce in which a nouveau riche father hosts a reception for his recently-married daughter. The old beau shows up, a fake general is hired to lend respectability to the event, a Greek guest stumbles over his Russian, and that’s basically what passes for humor here.

The Festivities (1891) is another awful farce. It takes place in a Russian Savings & Loan. The head clerk and the owner, who has arranged a recognition ceremony for himself, are joined by a cast of nitwits who run around sighing and carrying on.

The Dangers of Tobacco (1902) is a monologue by a self-described half-wit who comes before an audience as if he were an “expert” to speak about the dangers of tobacco. Of course, the man speaks about everything except tobacco.

The Seagull (1895) is a warmly-regarded play for its supposed introduction of subtext, symbolism, off-stage action, invisible characters, and other innovations — but didn’t playwrights before Chekhov employ all of these? Despite multiple readings I never found Seagull a particularly enjoyable play. The histrionics so common in the previously-mentioned plays are all present in Seagull. And the conceits of the idle Russian aristocracy have not aged well or deserve any more sympathy than the Bolsheviks showed them.

Chekhov’s experiment with a Shakespearean play-within-a-play may have been intended to show us how crass philistines reacted to a brilliant young avante-garde playwright, but Chekhov’s play within a play featuring glowing devil eyes and stinking sulphur was truly as ridiculous as the philistines in Seagull thought it was. What’s more, the first audience to view Seagull had exactly the same reaction as Seagull’s philistines. So savage was the reaction to the play that the lead actress was rendered speechless, in subsequent performances the actors sucked on anti-anxiety drops, and Chekhov almost gave up writing for the theatre altogether.

Seagull features much the same cast of characters as Ivanov — an older writer seduces a younger woman, and it includes a rich landowner, a doctor, and various specimens of the idle rich. In Seagull everyone loves someone they can’t have. All the characters — and even the audience — are bored and jaded and exhausted by play’s end. Treplev is a terrible but earnest young playwright who loves Nina, who in turn falls in love with the famous hack writer, Trigorin, who is in a relationship with a shallow conventional theatre actress, Arkadina, who is the mother of Treplev.

Treplev shoots a seagull, a symbol of Nina’s attraction to a world she can only admire. Trigorin tells Nina he is inspired to write a story about a girl who is destroyed by a man, just as Treplev has casually destroyed the seagull’s life. Nina and Trigorin fall in love, Nina decides to make a go of acting in Moscow and — long story short — Trigorin cheats on Arkadina, runs off with Nina, impregnates and deserts her, the baby dies, he returns to Arkadina, and he ruins Nina’s life. Nina eventually comes back and meets Treplev again, who by now is a famous writer and still carries a torch for her. But Nina (again, out of a logic found only in vaudeville) proclaims she still loves Trigorin despite everything and — boom! — Treplev shoots himself in the head. Again. And it is up to Chekhov’s reliable narrator, Dr. Dorn, to tell us that this time it’s probably fatal. Curtain.

Chekhov seems to have been conflicted about what sort of play he was writing. On the one hand, Seagull had some artistic pretensions. On the other, it was still essentially a Russian telenovela. Judging by the many descriptions of past productions and adaptations, to this day no one is 100% sure if Seagull is a tragedy or a comedy. It has defied successful transplantation to the silver screen. And for very good reason. It’s a bit of a mess.

Uncle Vanya (1896) is another melodrama of unrequited love, and (again) it involves a doctor and bored and depressed aristocrats. Uncle Vanya’s now-deceased mother has married Professor Serebriakov, a pompous art history professor and a bit of a fraud. Her daughter Sonya and mother Maria continue to live on her estate and Sonya (for the most part) runs it because Vanya is increasingly found drinking himself into a stupor with his friend, the doctor. Maria’s son Vanya (Sonya’s “uncle Vanya”) as a young man was impressed by and totally dedicated to Serebriakov. Now the old and infirm professor has remarried the young and lovely Yelena, leaving Sonya (and to a lesser extent Vanya) to the day-to-day management of the estate.

The play begins as Vanya has suddenly realized he (and this applies to Sonya as well) have wasted their whole lives serving Serebriakov. Vanya, now 47, has been enamored of Yelena for a decade but objectively he is too old for her and never once expressed his feelings to her before she married. And Sonya has admired the self-pitying Dr. Astrov (who tends Serebriakov’s many illnesses) from afar for at least six years. Vanya tries but can’t persuade the constant Yelena to leave Serebriakov, and Sonya finally asks Yelena to find out if Astrov has any interest in her (turns out, the shallow doctor doesn’t because he has a thing for Yelena himself and expresses his interest to her in rather crude terms).

All this self-inflicted misery and hypocrisy from people who have it far better than the peasantry is infuriating and tiring. Astrov pities himself for the trauma of seeing newly-freed serfs sicken in hovels they share with their pigs or die of farm and mining accidents and typhus. Both he and Vanya drink excessively, and the selfish Serebriakov is about to leave everyone in uncertainty by selling the 26-room estate for mutual funds and buying a condo in Finland. As Yelena puts it in Act Three: “The despair and boredom around here, these grey smudges of people: they’re so petty. All they know how to do is eat, sleep, and drink –.” Well, that’s the essence of Uncle Vanya in a nutshell.

Chekhov subversively hid uncomfortable truths about the Russian aristocracy in plain sight as he humored them with the love triangles they loved so much. Chekhov’s Russian aristocrat characters watch their world turn to shit by their own hands as Russian aristocrats in the audience applaud.

In the end, Vanya has it out with Serebriakov, even taking the by-now obligatory Chekhovian gun in hand and unsuccessfully firing it. In rage, Vanya screams, almost Brando-style: “I coulda been contender!” Actually, what Vanya says is “I could have been a Schopenhauer… another Dostoevsky!” Chekhov was right to describe the play as a farce. In Act Four Vanya has stolen morphene from Astrov and intends to kill himself. Serebriakov and Yelena are leaving for Harkov and Yelena and Astrov have final words. They admit some small mutual attraction but that a relationship would have been a disaster for both of them, and then Astrov signs off with finita la commedia (end of the comedy). Again Chekhov tells us this has all been a farce.

Serebriakov departs with the admonition to everyone to “get down to work” and “do something” — which is, of course, damned ironic. The play ends with Sonya’s invocation of the Kingdom to Come, a world kinder to them than the present, one where they can finally rest. This oddly unsatisfying ending seems as if Chekhov himself had tired of the whole thing and decided to wrap it in a shroud and give it a quick Christian burial. But there is much more going on here. I think Chekhov was beginning to really hate the upper class that he had recently become a part of.

Three Sisters (1900) features many of the same conventions and characters –drunken freeloading doctors and idle aristocrats nibbling their caviar, drinking their vodka, and lusting after all the wrong people. In this one, the three sisters live in the biggest, most luxurious and (as it turns out) the only fireproof house in the neighborhood. Their late father’s house is not only a cultural island in a provincial backwater; it is also a meeting place for a tiny slice of Russia’s vast pre-revolutionary bureaucracy and the military that holds it together.

The plot is almost as convoluted as General Stanley McCrystal’s Afghanistan pacification PowerPoint — one featuring multiple love triangles, duels, gamblers, sick children, alcoholics, yogurt, cuckolds, you name it. Expanding on the dreariness of work so present in Vanya, work plays an important part in Sisters. Brother Andrey is nothing like his man of action father; he’s a chubby shlub with academic potential but he seems happier working as a county bureaucrat. Andrey has a gambling habit, is married to a woman of dubious taste and morals, and lives with sisters Irina (who works at the telegraph office), Olga (at the board of education), and Masha (who is married to a high school teacher and gym coach).

Sisters is a play about the decline of the aristocracy fully underway. At one point Irina says, “You say life is so beautiful. But suppose it isn’t? Look at us. Three sisters. Our life hasn’t been so beautiful; it’s choking us up like a lawn full of weeds. […] We have to work, we really do. The reason we’re unhappy and think life is so awful is because we don’t know what it means to work. We come from families who thought they never had to work…” Each is about to experience further shocks in lives outside their own control.

But this ambitious play’s mechanics are so overly complicated that Chekhov had to use extremely awkward exposition in multiple places to lay out backstories and plot complications. In many of Chekhov’s plays characters use the aside to make clear what they are thinking, whereas a modern playwright would either show us or use more oblique and artful dialog. And this has not aged well.

But what makes many of Chekhov’s plays, especially Sisters, most dated and unlovable is what apparently made them so lovable for British audiences at the start of the 20th century. Martin Esslin has a chapter in Harold Bloom’s book on Chekhov in which he mentions that George Bernard Shaw may have been the first to recognize the attraction that Chekhov’s plays held for the English upper classes — for no other reason than both the Russian and British aristocracies were crumbling and they knew it. According to Esslin, Shaw — the socialist dandy — modeled his Heartbreak House (1919) on Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard (1903). By the Twenties Chekhov’s plays were having great successes in London, and throughout the Forties and Fifties British plays were increasingly borrowing from Chekhov.

In the United States Tennessee Williams tapped into the same insecurities, miseries, mental illness, alcoholism, and decline of the Southern aristocracy. Like the Russian nobility now losing their fortunes because they couldn’t extract free labor from their serfs, the Southern planter class could no longer rely on free labor from slaves. In Williams’ Streetcar Blanche DuBois has been widowed by her husband’s suicide, has been reduced to teaching (before she is fired for having a sexual relationship with one of her students) and she wistfully and frequently recalls her family’s lost estate, Belle Reve, the same “lovely dream” that Chekhov’s nobility cling to. Like Olga, Irina, and Masha, Blanche is living with her sister out of necessity. You can’t get much more Chekhovian than all of this.

Esslin goes on to credit Chekhov with influencing whole generations of modern playwrights and even taking “Chekhov’s technique of characters in apparently idle and trivial chatter to its extreme” in absurdist works like Waiting for Godot. Interestingly, the film version of Streetcar featured Marlon Brando, who embraced the Stanislavsky method — the same Stanislavsky who directed some of Chekhov’s plays and most likely saved his playwriting career after the disastrous premiere of Seagull. And Chekhov’s nephew Michael, an actor, created a variant of the Stanislavsky method which he taught in Germany and Hollywood.

The Cherry Orchard (1903) is probably Chekhov’s best-known play and one that resonates best with modern audiences. In it Chekhov has again preserved all of the elements of then-popular farce and vaudeville, but even clearer than in Three Sisters is the uncluttered and indelible theme of the Cherry Orchard: The End for the aristocracy. In the end the family’s vast estate with its orchards are literally chopped down. And not just the end of aristocracy but its unsuitability to continue to rule Russia along with the simultaneously bright and terrifying prospects of a rising middle class taking over the reins.

Cherry Orchard was Chekhov’s last play and he maintained until the end that it was a farce, not a tragedy. And how could it be a tragedy when he had made it so plainly about Russia embarking on a new, uncharted path? How could it be a tragedy when he painted his perpetual student as the victim of the Czar’s prisons? How could it be a tragedy when both the former owners of the orchard and its almost 90 year-old former serf were clearly not going to survive in this brand new world? Only the wheeler-dealer who ultimately buys the estate seems to have his head screwed on properly — despite his obvious shortcomings in education. But it’s not as if the man didn’t try to warn the estate owners, who had frittered away their savings and lived in illusion.

It is interesting that Chekhov, who would be dead the following year, again argued with the play’s director, Stanislavsky, about how Cherry Orchard ought to be played. Although he reputedly sat in during rehearsals Chekhov may have never seen the entire piece performed as the tragedy that Stanislavsky insisted it was. Chekhov died the next year in a German sanatorium where he had gone for treatment for his tuberculosis.

Having read Chekhov’s plays several times, I still have not seen the major ones performed. As Chekhov’s own experience with his work shows, direction and interpretation are everything. I would like to see them on stage some day and, short of this, do a desk read with friends and discuss them.

Artaud’s Theater and Its Double

As part of educating myself about the theater, I read The Theater and Its Double by Antonin Artaud. When he wrote it, Artaud was in and out of psychiatric care. He was also waging battles in ink with detractors over concepts he had enunciated in various manifestos of the Theatre of Cruelty.

In launching his arguments Artaud began by asking: what is man’s true nature? How would he react, say, to the end of the world or a massive plague? Artaud goes off on a pseudo-scientific detour on plagues, listing affected organs he believed accounted for human behavior. Elsewhere in this drawer-full of manifestos, text, and polemics Artaud conceives of a new manner of theater in which verbal language is replaced with code, where actions and emotions are broken down into a taxonomy of gestures.

With this said, however, the Theater and Its Double is an interesting read because of its dissection of theater’s persistent and all-too real weaknesses. Naturalism, for one, which was just gaining strength, clearly ticked off Artaud, who expected more of theater. For Artaud, theater is a primal sphere, a holy sphere, filled with man’s greatest longings, his greatest hungers, his greatest fears. Mere representation of social and psychological conflict was a trivialization of theater’s potential. Artaud rails against the bourgeousification of theater, its detachment from the wants and fears of the common man, and its self-castration. And as a major voice of French Avant- garde theater, he certainly made his case, although the common man has a low threshold for lunacy and conceptual art. Still, many of Artaud’s criticisms of theater are spot-on even today.

Even Chekhov, in The Seagull, predated Artaud’s criticisms when he had Treplieff say, “When the curtain rises on that little three-walled room, when those mighty geniuses, those high-priests of art, show us people in the act of eating, drinking, loving, walking, and wearing their coats, and attempt to extract a moral from their insipid talk; when playwrights give us under a thousand different guises the same, same, same old stuff, then I must needs run from it… If we can’t [have a new theatre], let us rather not have it at all.”

But Artaud goes off on so many incoherent tangents that it’s impossible for it all to fit together. In concocting his new Occidental theater, Artaud drew from Balinese theater, Tarot, the Kabbalah, astrology, and his own eclectic pseudo-scientific theories.

And, viewing them in a historical context, there was a dark side to Artaud’s theories. Kimberly Jannarone’s Artaud and His Doubles looks at Artaud’s place in theatre and finds “two sets of doubles: one, a body of peculiarly persistent received interpretations from the American experimental theater and French post-structuralist readings of the 1960s; and, two, a darker set of doubles brought to light through close historical examination — those of Artaud’s contemporaries who, in the tumultuous, alienated, and pessimistic atmosphere enveloping much of Europe after World War I, denounced the degradation of civilization, yearned for cosmic purification, and called for an ecstatic loss of the self.”

It wouldn’t be too many years until Europe was “purified” of those accused of degrading civilization.

And in the end…

After a quarter of a century of Tom Hodgson’s excesses going unpunished and no politician ever mounting much of a challenge, voters finally gave a pink slip to a sheriff who preferred playing the national stage to tending to his office back home.

Hodgson’s defeat represents the tireless efforts of regular citizens, church groups, and community organizations across Bristol County who had simply had enough of Hodgson’s intentional and egregious cruelty. Paul Heroux’s win over Hodgson rides on the wings of surprising electoral wins by Democrats across the country.

Heroux’s victory was not only a rejection of the incumbent and his carceral notions but an endorsement of professionalizing what has become a highly and dangerously politicized office. In Barnstable County voters similarly elected Donna Buckley, who like Heroux ran on a campaign of reducing recidivism and doing more to treat drug and mental health problems in jail.

Because Hodgson had placed himself squarely in the national spotlight, the Bristol County election took on national significance. Heroux, with a much smaller budget and an all-volunteer campaign team, amazingly beat an incumbent with a massive war chest, a slick media campaign, and a professional and unscrupulous campaign manager.

Hodgson’s campaign attempted to re-frame the tough-talking, gun-toting Western sheriff wannabe as a kind grandpa protecting Bristol County from rising crime, which he frequently attributed to “criminal aliens” and the “woke” criminal-loving Democrats who coddle them. Hodgson spared no effort to smear Heroux as a pedophile-loving Communist funded by Jews with a global agenda. His extraordinarily sleazy campaign may have done him in as much as a quarter century of abusing Bristol County’s sons and daughters.

In the end, all of Hodgson’s mendacity and cruelty caught up with him.

It was just a matter of time

It was just a matter of time before religious zealots and culture warriors came for the books in SouthCoast school libraries.

Last Spring Dartmouth had a MAGA school committee candidate who wanted to ban books. Recently, Fall River, Tri-Town (Rochester, Marion, Mattapoisett) and Little Compton, Rhode Island, all had run-ins with religious extremists, most of them sponsored by local Republican town committees.

PEN America, an association that fights for freedom of expression for writers, issued a timely report titled “Banned In the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools.” PEN has identified over 50 groups involved in censorship campaigns – a number of them listed as hate groups, including MassResistance – a bunch of haters from Waltham, Massachusetts.

Fall River

In Fall River, a group called the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property launched a “Rosary Rally” in Fall River:

On October 24th the “TFP” brought its “Rosary Rally” from Crazytown to Fall River. The group has a long list of policies and people they hate, thinks its antics constitute “spiritual warfare” and defends colonialism and forced conversion based on the “Right of Conquest.” The Southern Poverty Law Center has been watching this group of crackpots for a while and had this to say about them:

“Maybe the weirdest bunch in were from the American Society for Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), a self-described Catholic organization whose representatives seemed to be wearing red cloaks. The TFP table had a particularly noxious pamphlet – ’10 Reasons Why Homosexual ‘Marriage’ is Harmful and Must be Opposed’ – that argued that same-sex marriage ‘ignores a child’s best interests’ and that it ‘turns a moral wrong into a Civil Right.’ The pamphlet blamed same-sex marriage for forcing Christians to ‘betray their consciences by condoning … an attack on the natural order.’ Another TFP pamphlet warned hysterically about the dangers of ‘socialism,’ which, for some unknown reason, given our hyper-capitalist economy, they seem to think is on the march and targeting ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘parental rights.'”

Little Compton

In Little Compton, Rhode Island, the Little Compton Taxpayer’s Association, essentially a proxy for the GOP, sent out a homophobic, Q-Anon inspired campaign mailer asking recipients to vote a straight Republican (what else?) ticket.

Tri-Town (Marion, Mattapoisett, Rochester)

In the Tri-Town area at least two School Committee members are Christian nationalist MAGA supporters flogging “anti-CRT” nonsense and shouting at maximum volume, “They’re indoctrinating our children!”

Old Rochester school committee member Joe Pires and Rochester school committee member Anne Fernandes are also anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-CRT, anti-gay, and (of course) anti-diversity. Posts from both deny that racism exists anywhere than in the hearts of nasty people. Apparently, the moment that Abraham Lincoln liberated slaves, all of America’s race problems simply disappeared magically.

Both of these idiots are up for re-election next year.

Recently, Pires condemned LGBTQ+ books at ORR as “pornographic.” From one side of his mouth Pires claimed to oppose banning books. But from the other he was still calling for, well, banning books:

Pires reposted a Hillsdale College livestream. As Kathryn Joyce pointed out in Salon magazine, Hillsdale is the sharp end of the assault on public schools by Christian Nationalists.

In coordinating his attack on district school libraries, Pires managed to violate Open Meeting laws by coordinating the attack with fellow committee member Anne Fernandes, a kindred spirit, on a Facebook group Pires founded called “Tri-Town Buzz.”

I located three of Pires’ Facebook accounts (this and this and this) and two of Fernandes’ (this and this). Fernandes seems to spend a fair amount of her time promoting an Evangelical church as well as many of the groups that PEN identifies as censorship organizations.

Pires is bad enough, but Fernandes is a real piece of work. In addition to her hate-filled posts about gay children and parents, Fernandes ignorantly dispenses conspiracy theories and just plain bad science. There are numerous examples of Facebook flagging her posts with the polite equivalent of “BS!”

Fernandes is just the sort of creature that Republicans love, which is why the Mattapoisett Republicans sponsored her talk at the local library:

At that October 27th presentation organized by the Mattapoisett Republicans, Fernandes worked from PowerPoint slides, claiming that librarians are indoctrinating children with “CRT” instead of history and passing themselves off as sex education teachers (she’s confusing them with teachers). And for an “expert” with 22 years of teaching, Fernandes seems completely clueless that LGBTQ+ kids are at risk and that books that represent them help.

For all her swearing up and down that she doesn’t believe in book banning — here are the books Fernandes wants to ban:

Efforts like Fernandes’ are part of a wider Republican campaign to gut public schools. In Arizona, gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (who is trailing Katie Hobbs with 79% of the vote counted) promised to scale back education on science, math, and history. North Carolina’s Christian Nationalist Lt. Governor, Mark Robinson, wants to ban science and history outright in elementary schools.

If science shines light on contagion and vaccination, and history sheds light on social ills that still plague us, it’s pretty clear what Christian Nationalists think of both. State legislation, especially in the South, has literally made it a crime to speak of sexual identity or racism in schools.

Moms for Liberty, one of the most vocal and fast-growing groups of Christian Nationalists attacking school districts, has teamed up with so-called “Constitutional Sheriffs” to investigate alleged “indoctrination” of children in the schools. The Claremont Institute, a MAGA think tank, is now offering Sheriff’s Fellowships to facilitate more muscular takeovers or compliance of school boards.

The right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), known for its dangerous legislation, is now targeting local school races. Its spin-off, the American City and County Exchange (ACCE), is now coordinating efforts with the GOP, Moms for Liberty, the Heritage Foundation, the DeVos family, and others to recruit and run candidates to take over local school boards.

The next right-wing school committee candidate your local Republican town committee sponsors will be amply funded and likely supported by not only locals but ACCE.

Community members fight back

One group fighting back is Tri-Town Against Racism. In response to the attempted book bans at ORR, TTAR circulated a petition which described the harms to children:

“Attempts to ban books highlighting underrepresented kids sends them the message: You shouldn’t exist; your story doesn’t matter and we don’t want our kids to empathize with you. This is a dangerous message which can result in grave consequences, like depression, self-harm and suicidal ideation. No child should feel like they are unworthy and undeserving of love and respect.”

The petition received tremendous support in the community, was signed by 631 people, and was presented to the superintendent — who apparently listened.

In a powerful letter to the New Bedford Light, Mattapoisett resident Nicole Demakis explained in more detail why access to books that conservatives find offensive is critically important to LGBTQIA kids:

“I believe it is imperative that we allow kids to have access to literature in our schools which represents a broad spectrum of experiences for those who may be struggling with identity, whether that be children of color, gay, straight, bi, asexual or transgender. It may be an uncomfortable truth for those who don’t understand other’s experiences growing up facing prejudice, confused about their feelings, being bullied, made fun of or excluded because that child does not understand who they are. Not to be cliché, but no one knows another’s reality until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes; and to discount that reality further by stigmatizing literature that may speak to them, but not you, is wrong. As an example of this, studies show that LGBTQIA youth are not inherently prone to suicide risk because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather, they are placed at a higher risk because of how they are mistreated and stigmatized in society.

To raise the level of public debate on this issue, TTAR is holding the third of a series of Community Conversations on November 14th. You can sign up here.

In Fall River, United Against Hate is holding a similar Community Conversation About the Recent Rise in the South Coast of Book Banning, Drag Queen Story Time Protests And Hate Speech on November 16th. Contact United Neighbors of Fall River for a Zoom link.

In Rhode Island, Love Wins Coastal responded to the LCTA’s homophobic mailing with a rally in the Town Commons. One Democratic Rhode Island legislator, on her own initiative, joined in solidarity.

Democratic Party needs to start fighting

As much as I hate to say it, all these efforts by kind and caring people, including exemplary legislators acting independently, are still not enough. They are no match for the think tanks, the laboratories of repressive legislation, the rapidly spreading extremism, and the Republican Party itself.

Equality, diversity, education, race, history, libraries, free speech, and respect and acknowledgement of differences. These are today’s battlefields for Republicans.

It’s high time that local Democrats started fighting alongside the brave and lonely defenders who have been waging the Democratic Party’s battles for them.

Hodgson and his antisemitic dog-whistles

On October 31st Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson dropped another Willie Horton style campaign ad. He’d already tried to frighten voters by accusing his opponent of coddling pedophiles with a non-existent vote on non-existent legislation.

This time Hodgson’s target was George Soros — who Hodgson accused of coddling criminals, funding his opponent, and having the ultimate goal of destroying America: “They have their sights set on our way of life,” Hodgson warned with an ominous “they.”

The hate groups Hodgson works with — and on whose advisory board he sits — all hate Soros, a Hungarian Jewish philanthropist who was not involved in funding the anti-Hodgson campaign ads that have so irked the sheriff. Nope, it was Everytown for Gun Safety, the work of American Jewish philanthropist Michael Bloomberg, a frequent thorn in the side of NRA shills like Hodgson.

At first blush the sheriff, who already has a racism problem, didn’t seem to be able to keep his Jews straight.

But Hodgson’s “mistake” was intentional. Like his dishonest pedophile-coddling scare ad, this one was calculated to reach a certain constituency who watches Glen Beck (“Soros: The Puppet Master”) or Tucker Carlson (“Soros has decided to destroy the American justice system”) — a constituency whose political heroes returned recently from CPAC-Hungary, where autocratic Christian nationalist president Viktor Orban, shut down a university Soros founded and used the pandemic as a pretext for a power grab.

For today’s new crop of antisemites, George Soros has replaced a 19th Century j’accuse involving financier Nathan Rothschild which went on to become a 200-year conspiracy theory.

The sheriff’s antisemitic ad was promptly slammed by Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Deborah Goldberg, and other Massachusetts politicos. Hodgson’s Tweet also drew more than 60 comments, most negative: “Well if that isn’t the most antisemitic thing I’ve heard all day… Honestly Southeastern MA, he is the biggest embarrassment in the Commonwealth… Your mustache is too wide. You gotta trim it to just a little patch under your nose… Halloween’s over but maybe next year you can go full Nazi cosplay…”

Another commented: “These people no longer have dog whistles they have bull horns. It is no longer a silent wink wink it is full out public bigotry…”

In choosing George Soros — the wrong Jew, and he knew it! — Hodgson was trotting out time-worn antisemitic tropes, implying that “they” are unpatriotic and systematically destroying “our way of life” — which MAGA politicians themselves freely call white Christian nationalism. There’s really not much of a line between this and the Charlottesville tiki-torch neo-Nazis with their “Jews will not replace us.”

For years the Anti-Defamation League has tracked two organizations Hodgson is intimately involved with — the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The ADL’s factsheet “Mainstreaming Hate” describes one a as hate group and the other as an extremist organization. In 2018 the ADL published “The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories,” which explains why groups like FAIR and CIS are so obsessed with Soros. They routinely employ precisely the same dog whistles Hodgson used not-so-subtly in his antisemitic campaign ad: “They have their sights set on our way of life.”

In his defense, Hodgson tweeted that he couldn’t possibly be an antisemite because his parents are buried in a private crypt on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Yet antisemitism was no impediment to Hodgson’s father, “Sir John,” being buried in Israel. According to a memoir written by Hodgson’s youngest sister, their parents were given a private crypt in Israel because of “Sir John’s” services to the Vatican. The memoir recounts numerous examples of the father’s antisemitism. The elder Hodgson’s burial in a churchyard says everything about his connection to the Church and nothing about respect for Jews.

For years Hodgson has attended events sponsored by FAIR and its front groups, as well as an event called “Hold their Feet to the Fire,” where sheriffs and a variety of homophobes, Neo-confederates, Muslim-bashers, antisemites, and Christian Nationalists fill slots on right-wing talk radio programs. In 2016 Hodgson gave a talk at a FAIR national advisory meeting that preceded one by Ira Mehlman entitled “Soros Hacked: The Truth Behind His Big Money Network to Destroy U.S. Borders.”

Mehlman calls Soros’ Open Society Institute a “shadowy foundation” with a “globalist agenda” to attack U.S. immigration policy. But “globalist” is white supremacist code for “Jewish” and FAIR and CIS have an axe to grind with Soros not only because he is a liberal philanthropist, but especially because he is a liberal Jew.

The American Jewish Committee has this to say about so-called “globalists”:

“Much like dual loyalty, Globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order–like a global economy or international political system–that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media. […] Today, Globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)–all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.”

In 2001 Stephen Steinlight published a report for the Center for Immigration Studies — a group with which Hodgson has testified at Congress many times — entitled “The Jewish State in America’s Changing Demography.” Steinlight blasted secular Jews for their historical support for liberal immigration policies, arguing that Mexicans would soon erode Jewish political power. Steinlight said that his own views had been changed though dialogue with CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian, a racist who once said “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough…”

In 2004 Steinlight ratcheted up his polemics with an essay, “High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry,” but he still wasn’t making progress with secular Jews. By 2010 Steinlight was frustrated and angry at his co-religionists, accusing leading Jewish organizations of censorship and repression.

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s governmental affairs director and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country” — a sentiment that former president and Hodgson idol Donald Trump echoed on October 16th when he wrote, “Jews have to get their act together…”

Hodgson is so often found in cesspools with antisemites and racists that he can hardly smell the sewage. A case in point is Hodgson’s flirtation with Rick Wiles, a virulent antisemite and Christian nationalist who renounced his US citizenship because of marriage equality. Wiles broadcasts an “End Time” radio program that has featured Hodgson and received Trump White House press credentials.

Hodgson’s numerous and habitual problems with hate groups and bigotry are bad enough. But this is what he has chosen to do instead of competently running his jails and making a best effort to rehabilitate people.

Vote this embarrassment out of office on November 8th.

Choose Paul Heroux.

Hodgson’s ‘perfect’ NCCHC score

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson must be feeling the stinging criticisms of his substandard jail food, his systematic violations of human rights, his suicides, his recidivism rate, and his refusal to help inmates deal with drug addiction.

After 24 years in office, only this week – barely a week before an election that could well unseat him – Hodgson announced to great fanfare that he had scored a “perfect score” on his opioid treatment program from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, joining his “perfect score” from the American Corrections Association.

ACA Certifications not worth the paper they’re printed on

Readers of this newsletter are aware that ACA certifications are not worth the paper they’re printed on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren found when investigating them:

The ACA accreditation process is a rubber stamp. It is almost impossible for a facility to fail an ACA audit. The ACA grants facilities three months’ advance notice of audits; provides facilities with “technical assistance,” including “standards checklists” and an “audit readiness evaluation” that help a facility know when to schedule its audit and what to expect; and, at a facility’s request, will conduct a “mock audit” to help the facility prepare.4 If problems persist despite these ample opportunities to correct–or hide–them, the ACA Commissioners can ignore audit finding altogether and allow a facility that failed its audit to receive accreditation, rendering these standards toothless.”

Ditto, NCCHC certifications

It turns out that the NCCHC certifications are equally meaningless. A 2016 article in Prison Legal News showed that the NCCCH misrepresents the stringency of its “inspections.”

“Like the ACA, the NCCHC warns prison officials of upcoming inspections but claims they also conduct unannounced reviews. Also like the ACA, the NCCHC has historically relied on self-reported information from the facilities it accredits.”

Like the ACA, the NCCHC is an opaque organization with too many interests in private prison licensure, and it’s little more than a pay-to-play scheme:

“Both the ACA and NCCHC are also plagued by conflicts of interest, including the fact that they effectively sell accreditation to their correctional colleagues and promulgate their own voluntary standards with no oversight.”

As with the ACA, the NCCHC frequently gives “perfect scores” to institutions that habitually violate the constitutional rights of their inmates. But don’t believe me. Believe the Department of Justice:

“The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division issued a letter in April 2008 that found the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction in Massachusetts had unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Specifically, the jail failed to protect detainees from harm, failed to protect them “from exposure to unsanitary and unsafe environmental conditions,” and did not provide detainees with adequate mental health care. County officials rejected the allegations, noting the facility was accredited by both the ACA and NCCHC – which, in light of the DOJ’s findings, indicates the inadequacy of accreditation.”

The PLN article goes on to recount horror stories at the Idaho Correctional Center, where inmates were subjected to “gladiator school” beatings while corrections staff did nothing to intervene. It mentions the Walnut Grove Youth Correction facility in Mississippi where young people were sexually abused and subjected to high levels of violence. It mentions a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Texas where prisoners were given substandard medical care. It lists a number of mental health abuses at jails in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and others – all where NCCHC certifications papered over the abuses, giving the institutions either “perfect” or passing scores.

In 2009 – only after the Department of Homeland Security had revoked Maricopa County’s Joe Arpaio of his 287(g) program – did the NCCHC revoke Arpaio’s certifications that had previously given his facilities glowing reports. A facility that Arpaio himself called a “concentration camp.”

Hodgson’s “First in the Nation” drug treatment program

In the same self-congratulatory press release announcing his NCCHC “perfect” score, Hodgson went a step further, announcing a drug treatment program in collaboration with Correctional Psychiatric Services (CPS), Hodgson’s healthcare vendor – a major donor to his campaign.

In another press release, Hodgson described his outpatient drug treatment program as the “brainchild” of CPS president Jorge Veliz and a “first-in-the-nation inmate reentry clinic.” Of course it is nothing of the sort. Hampden County Sheriff Nicholas Cocchi has been operating a similar program for four years in conjunction with the Department of Corrections – which ought to be running all county jails. Another Hodgson lie.

But why now?

One wonders why it took Hodgson 24 years – other than facing stiff campaign opposition – to take an interest in medically assisted [drug] treatment. In 2019 Hodgson fielded questions from community members at the last 287(g) hearing he ever conducted. In this clip Hodgson whines that administering MAT treatments to inmates is “controversial,” can take up to 10 minutes, and who has the time for that? Nope, all Hodgson’s going to do is give them a spritz of vivitrol and wish them good luck on the way out of jail.

CPS is part of the problem

Besides the recidivism and suicides, and the many reports of medical neglect, Hodgson’s jail leads in jail deaths. CPS has not only presided over the administration of substandard mental health services to inmates; since 2020 there has been clear evidence that it provides demonstrably bad medical care.

In October 2020 Reuters released a national comparison of jail deaths. Bristol County again was #1 on the wall of shame:

From Reuters data

Roughly one out of 500 detainees in the Bristol County Jail ends up dead compared to less than one per thousand in most other jails.

Dr. Jorge Raul Veliz, the owner and president and founder of Correctional Psychiatric Services, has a staff of about 200 and contracts with Dukes, Bristol, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk county jails in Massachusetts and has contracts in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine. His employees are not unionized. Veliz founded CPS in 1994, co-founded Boston Clinical Consulting (a Guatemalan healthcare company) in 2007, and in 2009 co-founded the Hospital Psiquiatrico Mederi in Guatemala.

In 2017 Barnstable County downsized its nursing staff, outsourcing care to Correctional Psychiatric Services. Within weeks, there were two suicides at the Barnstable County jail. Before CPS services even started work, Barnstable nurse Hillarie Gaynor Clarke penned a prescient warning of the risks of using CPS: “I strongly urge the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider CPS as an ally, based on its blatantly poor and sometimes fatal track record. Unfortunately, at this rate, it seems that inmate care will only worsen at our county correctional institution.”

CPS employees have been accused repeatedly of medical neglect by both local and ICE detainees. One report from a California-based immigration group details a case of medical neglect by CPS. A search of nursing licenses for the four caregivers mentioned in the complaint showed one with an Associate Degree in Nursing from Laboure College, another with an LPN from Lindsey Hopkins Technical College, another with a vocational certificate from Diman Regional Vocational Technical High School – all supervised by a Nurse Practitioner from the University of Louisville, who only saw the patient after the worst neglect had already occurred.

Click here for a longer profile of CPS, the detailed account of medical neglect by an ICE detainee which names CPS employees by name, a presentation on suicide by CPS principals Jorge Veliz and Beth Cheney, and the Reuters data.

Conflicts of Interest – “The Paid Jailer”

Besides CPS’s dismal record as a medical and mental health services provider, voters ought to be very skeptical of CPS’s involvement in Hodgson’s latest public relations con.

In January 2022 Common Cause released a report, “The Paid Jailer,” which looks at the role of campaign donations to sheriffs by their vendors. Not surprisingly, the report starts with the Bristol County sheriff:

“In Bristol County, Massachusetts, more than 30 people have died behind bars in the last 10 years. Overwhelmingly, these are people awaiting trial. Some have died because of substance withdrawal and others by suicide. And the people who remain incarcerated say that they’re not receiving basic health care, including one man in Bristol County who has given us permission to share his story anonymously…

Yet Thomas M. Hodgson, the longtime sheriff of Bristol County and the sole leader of the jail facility, has made no changes to the health care provider, CPS Healthcare. CPS has spent more than $20,365 on sheriffs’ campaigns in Massachusetts, and $12,040 has gone directly to Hodgson. The State of Massachusetts reports that state sheriffs paid a total of $9.82 million in contracts to CPS Healthcare from 2012 to 2021. Hodgson appears to be the rule, rather than the exception, which we show in The Paid Jailer: How Sheriff Campaign Dollars Shape Mass Incarceration…”

Final thoughts

Hodgson’s operation is a nightmare. For both inmates and taxpayers. On November 8th voters have a chance to replace death, neglect, starvation, lawsuits, and lies with a sheriff with experience in corrections who takes corrections seriously. Paul Heroux will reform and professionalize a cruel, corrupt, hyper-politicized, patronage-based operation with data-driven programs that actually rehabilitate incarcerated people.

And after all, that’s all Massachusetts sheriffs are supposed to do.

Playing Cop in Bristol County

In Massachusetts, sheriffs and deputies are law enforcement officers with limited powers who may assist genuine police officers when requested. But they are not police officers. Sheriffs run jails, transport prisoners, serve eviction and other notices, and are prohibited from patrolling cities and towns — which are chartered (through state laws) to appoint and hire police officers with full police powers (a crucial point mentioned shortly). Sheriffs, however, do enjoy a few limited police-like powers; for example, while they are transporting prisoners through a foreign jurisdiction or when asked to assist in quelling a riot. And that’s about it.

But like Hershel Walker, Bristol County’s Sheriff Thomas Hodgson keeps trying to pass himself off as the police — and whenever Hodgson’s tried it, it’s either been unappreciated or he’s failed at it. Hodgson implies he has police powers by claiming to be tough on crime, but since he has very limited police-like powers all he can really do is suggest that women carry pepper spray, hand out swag to seniors at “safety” talks, lend out canines, and have his jail officers pose with children and his $250K “Homeland Security” command truck at parades.

It may seem like a trivial matter to Hodgson, but democracies require both the consent of the people to be governed — and to be policed. Only law enforcement officers elected or appointed by chartered Massachusetts municipalities have the police powers that Hodgson has repeatedly, and illegally, attempted to usurp.

But don’t expect to see Sheriff Hodgson show up when you call 911

In November 2003, Hodgson (without being asked, and even after being asked to stop) decided that New Bedford’s police force wasn’t doing a good-enough job. So he began sending his officers to patrol the city’s streets. The New Bedford Police Chief was not amused, nor the mayor, and neither was the District Attorney. The Standard-Times reported, “Bristol District Attorney Paul F. Walsh […] said Hodgson has made no effort to coordinate with city police and has a track record of legal failures when investigating crimes inside his own facilities. Walsh also said that arrests made by the sheriff’s deputies, who typically serve warrants and act as guards at the county jail, would be subject to challenges in court. ‘You can’t have the guy who was serving mashed potatoes to inmates last week calling himself a drug detective this week,’ Walsh said.”

But that’s exactly Hodgson’s shtick — playing cop — and he’s been doing it throughout his entire time in office.

Between 1991 and 2005 Peter Larkin was Hodgson’s “Detective Lieutenant of Internal Affairs.” Larkin resigned from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) three years after botching a drug investigation the BCSO undertook — again without “assistance from other police agencies.” One lawyer described the low quality of BCSO investigators, “They’re not trained for investigative work,” while another called the BCSO itself “a task force of goofballs who couldn’t cut it as real cops.”

ABC6 News reported in July 2020 that Larkin, who eventually found work as an attendance officer with the New Bedford Public Schools, had been fired (again) from that job for advocating lynching Black Lives Matter protesters: “I would roll tanks and bulldozers. Mush any human in the way. Shoot everyone else. Pile up the bodies and burn them on national tv.” Within days Larkin had to resign. This news was no surprise given Hodgson’s membership in a hate group and memberships in several extremist organizations.

On January 12, 2017 the state Supreme Judicial Court considered the legality of a sheriff calling himself a police officer, and drew a clear distinction between law enforcement officer and police officer in Commonwealth v. Gernrich where it concluded that “sheriff’s deputies are not police officers.”

The SJC had to consider the case of an inmate in the Worcester County jail who had lied to a deputy and was charged with violating G. L. c. 269, § 13A, which reads, “Whoever intentionally and knowingly makes or causes to be made a false report of a crime to police officers shall be punished by…” The inmate disputed that the deputy he had lied to was a police officer, so the matter before the SJC was the “issue whether a deputy sheriff is a police officer within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 13A, present[ing] a question of statutory interpretation…” The Justices reviewed Massachusetts law and concluded:

“For the reasons explained above, a deputy sheriff is not a ‘police officer’ for purposes of G. L. c. 269, § 13A. Thus, we reverse the defendant’s conviction, and a judgment of not guilty shall enter.”

The reasoning behind the ruling is critical. The Justices wrote that G. L. c. 41, § 98 defines “unique” police powers that other law enforcement officials lack; therefore only police can be called police:

Although the term “police officer” appears in a variety of statutory contexts, we adopt the definition in G. L. c. 41, § 98, to guide our analysis of the issue. General Laws c. 41, § 98, which authorizes the appointment of “police officers” for cities and towns, is an appropriate guide for the interpretation of G. L. c. 269, § 13A, because it permits a distinction between the broad class of law enforcement officers empowered to perform only certain police duties and those expressly designated as “police officers” without such limitations. The definition of police officer in G. L. c. 41, § 98, encompasses a broad range of authority, including the power to make warrantless arrests, that is unique within the class of law enforcement officers. In other words, a police officer is a law enforcement officer, but not all law enforcement officers are police officers. It is this broad authority, granted only to persons appointed as police officers by cities and towns, that defines the term for the purposes of G. L. c. 269, § 13A.

Bottom line: “a deputy sheriff is not a police officer.” You’d think that a ruling so clear and from the highest court in the state would stop Hodgson from trying to impersonate a cop.

But no.

Barely three months following the SCJ ruling, the Fall River Herald News reported that Hodgson and disgraced former mayor (and now incarcerated felon) Jaziel Correia had entered into a backroom deal to have Hodgson run Fall River’s police lockup. Hodgson had tried and failed to sell a similar scheme before when Deval Patrick was governor. This time around Hodgson enlisted the help of a con man. The now incarcerated former mayor swore up and down that two local state representatives had promised to find state funding for Hodgson.

There were just two problems with the Correia-Hodgson deal. The Fall River police reminded all parties that policing by sheriffs was illegal. And Carole Fiola, who served on the Joint Ways and Means Committee and whose name Correira dropped, had to set the record straight when she told the Herald: “It was the first time I heard about it and I am not aware there is a budget request.”

The scheme was both illegal and based on lies.

Classic Hodgson.

Are voters ready for a professional sheriff?

Paul Heroux at the State House

Not only in Bristol County, but all over the United States, sheriffs are on the ballot. Given the previous administration’s love affair with Anglo-American sheriffs, America is now paying a bit more attention to these races than ever before.

In Massachusetts sheriffs have extremely attenuated powers but extremely long terms — rivaling that of a U.S. Senator — and very little accountability — all of which affords them a lot of time and opportunity to get into mischief.

By now everyone knows about Bristol County’s Angry White Man sheriff — the community college dropout who has been running our jail by the seat of his pants while making frequent trips to the border with militia members and white supremacists. Not to mention letting an indecent number of people die by suicide while half-starving inmates and gouging their families with usurious phone charges.

Tom Hodgson is like your neighbor, the do-it-yourself plumber, who broke the toilet, flooded the first floor, and left sewage all over. Now cooler heads have to call someone with professional skills — somebody who actually knows what the hell he’s doing — to fix the mess the stubborn hubby has made.

And Paul Heroux is just the guy to do it. Heroux has a bachelor’s in psychology, a master’s in corrections, has worked in corrections doing corrections, and has been running a city government with a budget three times larger than Hodgson’s.

In the process Heroux has also managed to steer clear of the state auditor, the state attorney general, and the Department of Homeland Security — unlike the incumbent clown who couldn’t document a third of his expenses to the auditor’s satisfaction, misplaced ICE payments in one of a dozen slush funds he keeps, who has systematically violated the civil rights of his prisoners, and last year lost his prized 287(g) program because of gross incompetence and cruelty — cruelty borne out of pandering to and offering Republican voters angry red meat.

Thomas Hodgson in an election ad telling voters that jail is not a country club.

Paul Heroux, who sometimes comes across as a brainy technocrat and not a movie-goer’s image of a Western sheriff, is nevertheless unlikely to jet down to the Texas ranch of militia members at taxpayer expense to play dress-up with Western sheriffs, take time off to run the Massachusetts Trump campaign, pose on the Capitol steps with Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, or various extremist and anti-government groups he belongs to, or sit on the national advisory board of a hate group — like the incumbent.

Heroux’s not going to put inmates in chain gangs, try to circumvent laws that keep Massachusetts sheriffs from doing police work, try to make deals with a Fall River mayor now serving time in federal prison, do favors for a New Bedford waterfront crime boss, or break federal law by deputizing military recruiters (which earned Hodgson a visit from Navy investigators). And no multi-million dollar legal appeals for lost cases that would never have been heard if the incumbent hadn’t broken laws by violating the rights of inmates or his employees.

No, it’s going to be the sound of crickets again when Heroux is elected sheriff.

Besides not racking up massive legal bills paid for by taxpayers for grandstanding and law-breaking, Heroux is also not going to write “love letters” to racists like Stephen Miller, Trump’s evil genius immigration advisor, or rat out his own church like Hodgson did for the “crime” of his parish caring for undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. For a guy who likes to remind his Trumpy base how “Christian” he is, Hodgson sure seems to have forgotten Exodus 22:21: “You shall not oppress or mistreat a stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt.” Like everything about Hodgson the poseur, even his piety is all show.

But the million-dollar question is — do voters want an aggressive grandstander who just won’t stay in his lane and do his damn job — or are they ready for a little professionalism in a sheriff? I honestly have no idea. Who truly knows the heart of the fickle American voter?

But I’m not the only one to speculate. The Marshall Project covers criminal justice issues and only yesterday published a timely piece: “Progressive Sheriffs Are Here. Will They Win In November?” Since Trump was elected, Progressive sheriff candidates have increasingly run and won.

Sheriffs in the thrall of the Dear Leader

Part of that reason is that voters are beginning to realize just how extremist these overwhelmingly Trump-fanny-kissing sheriffs really are. Overwhelmingly white, a survey by the Marshall Project of sheriff’s political views showed that less than 1% consider themselves liberal, 75% support ultra-right politics, most regard protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder to be orchestrated by left-wing provocateurs and not reflect an authentic response to a police murder. And forget accountability. Less than half are in favor of tracking bad cops. And so on. In addition, a majority of sheriffs think they are more powerful than a sitting U.S. president and can interpret the Constitution any way they see fit and selectively enforce laws.

In short, today’s sheriff’s hold views diametrically opposed to those of majorities in Democratic states like ours.

In Essex County, Massachusetts, social worker Virginia Leigh ran against incumbent sheriff Kevin Coppinger in the Democratic primary and got 48% of the vote — not bad for a first-timer. In Hampshire County, Caitlin Sepeda, a nurse and (again) a first-time challenger, garnered 25% of the primary vote but hammered away on services. Sepeda ran on a platform of delivering treatment to inmates, pointing out that 60% of her county’s incarcerated people have substance abuse problems and 70% self-report mental illness. “Those are not law enforcement issues. Those are nursing issues. Those are social service issues,” Sepeda told one reporter.

And she’s absolutely right. Which brings us to the general election on November 8th.

In Barnstable County, Donna Buckley, who is running on a platform of prioritizing programs for inmates and “preparing our inmates for pre-release,” got 30,000 primary votes in the Democratic primary, while Republican Tim Whelan got only 18,000. May these proportions hold in the general election. Besides delivery of services to inmates, federal ICE programs are on the ballot. Buckley has promised to end Barnstable County’s 287(g) program, the only county jail program remaining in Massachusetts.

In Bristol County, Paul Heroux is similarly promising to use — not Hodgson’s cruel medieval approach — but 21st Century tools to run the county jail, to provide services to inmates, to use data-driven management to evaluate rehabilitation programs, and to focus on the mundane job of care, custody, and control of incarcerated people.

To invoke the incumbent’s platform, “Jail is not a country club.” Well, no, it’s not. But it’s also not a torture chamber. It ought to be a short-term treatment center for mentally-ill and chemically-dependent people. The courts and the DA are in the punishing business. The sheriff provides care, custody, and control. Seems simple. Except, perhaps, for some percentage of voters who want sheriffs to impose their own arbitrary punishments on people already being punished.

In her latest essay in the Boston Globe, long-time Hodgson-watching columnist Yvonne Abraham quoted Carol Rose of the ACLU: “Voters are waking up. […] Maybe not this time, but soon, [a sheriff] is going to be held accountable by the voters.” To which Abraham adds: “Please, please, let it be this time.”

Amen to that.

Bristol County’s Chief Trump Bum-Kisser

Give the Kid a Raise

The New Bedford waterfront has its share of crime, including organized crime. Carlos Rafael, aka the “Codfather,” served time in federal prison on numerous charges, including money laundering. Though no criminal connection has been established between Rafael and Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, two of Hodgson’s officers were convicted of using a Thanksgiving turkey airlift to the Azores (for repatriated deportees) as an opportunity to illegally transfer money offshore for Rafael. The money was carefully divided among couriers (so as not to raise suspicions) and was then recombined and deposited into the “Codfather’s” accounts.

James Melo, a captain with the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, was convicted in Federal court of “conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and one count of structuring the export of monetary instruments.” Melo got a mild slap on the wrist: twelve months of probation. Sheriffs Deputy Antonio Freitas was slightly less lucky. Freitas, who also served as a deputized ICE agent for Hodgson, was convicted of charges similar to Melo’s but served twelve months in prison.

There is a fascinating account of Rafael’s money-laundering and the role Freitas played in it buried in an appeal from federal prosecutors Mark T. Quinlivan and Trump appointee Andrew E. Lelling. In the document, Rafael boasted of his close relationship with Hodgson and the influence it played in obtaining both a job and a raise for Freitas:

“I got him the job, I got him the raises, so he’ll do what the fuck I tell him to do. He called me. He says, ‘what the fuck is going on, everybody got a promotion in this fuckin’ place but me.’ So I’m like this [gestures] with the sheriff. I called the Sheriff and I said ‘what the fuck are you doing to me Tom? Fuckin Freitas has been there for so many fuckin’ years, you’re not going to give him a fuckin’ promotion and a raise?’ ‘Jesus Carlos, we do not have enough money in the budget.’ I said fuck off, find a way, give the kid a raise. He got his promotion, right, so he called me and said I want to thank you very much, I finally got my fuckin’ promotion and my raise. So it’s nice to know people.”

Rafael’s claim that Hodgson had assisted Freitas was confirmed by Freitas himself, who admitted to Federal investigators “that he had carried money for Rafael in the past because Rafael had helped him get a promotion [from Hodgson] and had co-signed a home improvement loan for him.”

When Hodgson was called to the witness stand during Freitas’ trial, “Hodgson remembered Rafael saying over the phone that he needed a promotion. But Rafael’s call did not influence his decision, Hodgson stressed.” Incredibly — as in “I don’t believe a damn word of it” — Quinlivan and Lelling simply took Hodgson’s word that he had granted the favor because, well, he was going to do it anyway.

But Rafael had access to the sheriff and knew that Freitas “worked on customs with the immigration unit of the Sheriff’s Department. And Rafael said that Freitas could also help the co-conspirators get their cash out of the country by bypassing airport security.” This is because Freitas had received the requested promotion to deputized ICE agent at the jail and had “completed a multiday training program for ICE officers that covered (among other topics) financial crimes, including structuring and bulk-cash smuggling — an instructor, for example, told attendees that structuring involved”having more than $10,000 in cash and breaking it into smaller amounts to conduct financial transactions in order to avoid the reporting requirements.”

Freitas was not only well-positioned to launder money for Rafael, but perfectly trained to commit the crime.

All thanks to Tom Hodgson.

Is Tom Hodgson a White Supremacist?

Is Tom Hodgson a white supremacist?

If not, he would have resigned from this ugly crew of satin sheets and brown shirts long ago

Bristol County (MA) Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has built a career as a cruel jailer on top of allying himself with white supremacists.

In 1999 Hodgson visited Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Tent City” — a facility for Hispanic detainees that Arpaio himself called a “concentration camp,” where inmates lived in 120-degree heat the desert in surplus tents from the Korean War and received half-rations of barely-edible food. Hodgson, who enthusiastically adopted Arpaio’s methods, joked to a Boston Herald reporter, “it’s not a buffet here.” After returning to Massachusetts, Hodgson increasingly modeled his own practices after Arpaio’s and even began using Arpaio’s tag line: “jail is not a country club.” And following the footsteps of Arpaio, who in 2016 lost access to his 287(g) ICE program because of systematic violations of constitutional and human rights of his inmates, Hodgson lost his own 287(g) program in 2021 for all the same reasons — cruelty and incompetence.

After September 11, 2001 Hodgson had realized the financial potential of collaborations with the Department of Homeland Security. With massive amounts of money being thrown around to protect the “Homeland,” Hodgson easily received $3.2 million from DHS to build the C. Carlos Carreiro immigration center in 2007, which later became a full-fledged ICE detention facility. He also received federal money for a $250K DHS command center van — now used primarily for Fourth of July parades and public relations.

In 2011 an organization created by a white supremacist optometrist named John Tanton began recruiting sheriffs to do its dirty work. The 2011 Annual Report of the Federation for American Immigration (FAIR) — which both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) regard as a hate group — began using county sheriffs as spokesmen to oppose (and in many cases to flaunt) national and state immigration and gun control laws. Hodgson was one of the first to sign up. Working with a FAIR organizer named Susan Tully who both the SPLC and the ADL had long been monitoring, Hodgson organized a “fact finding” mission to McAllen, Texas in July 2014. Since then Hodgson has attended dozens of FAIR’s conferences and events, including its “Hold their Feet to the Fire” broadcast events that draw speakers from a variety of allied hate groups. In March 2015 Hodgson appeared with Tully at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford and he has appeared at most of FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events coordinated by Tully (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021).

By 2014 Hodgson was on FAIR’s National Board of Advisors and was “educating” the American Right to the dangers of even DACA recipients. In one of his many trips to Washington DC paid for by Massachusetts taxpayers, on October 11, 2014 Hodgson spoke to fellow FAIR National Board of Advisors on “The Effect of The President’s Decisions on DACA and Its Impact on Our Law Enforcement Challenges.” On September 24, 2016 Hodgson again spoke to FAIR’s National Advisors. The topic this time was “Sanctuary Cities.” Hodgson’s dinner talk immediately preceded one about Jewish “Big Money” and the plot to “Destroy U.S. Borders.” FAIR’s National Board of Advisors is a virtual Who’s Who of conspiracy nuts, anti-Semites, racists, Neo-Confederates, Muslim bashers, white supremacists, eugenicists, and Christian Identitarians.

In October 2015 Hodgson again visited the “Rio Grande” — this time with Robert J. Sylvia, then one of Hodgson’s top brass but now retired, who was all set to run for Sheriff in next month’s election but managed to file his ballot signatures on the wrong form. The sheriffs and their entourage toured the border but also went 70 miles out of their way to visit the ranch of Mike and Linda Vickers, founders of the vigilante group Texas Border Volunteers, an offshoot of the Minuteman Project, a loose-knit group of vigilantes, some of whom are affiliated with White supremacist militias and have been linked to both murders and incidents like the illegal detention of hundreds of migrants in April 2019.

Besides FAIR, Hodgson is also involved with another Tanton group — the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). SPLC does not categorize CIS as a hate group, but CIS functions as a disinformation and lobbying group with extensive white supremacist and antisemitic links. It is led by Mark Krikorian, who first worked at FAIR and who once said about Haiti: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.” The group’s most visible face is Jessica Vaughan, who used the antisemitic newspaper American Free Press, founded by Holocaust denier Willis Carto, to flog CIS talking points — as did Hodgson’s fellow FAIR national advisor Frosty Wooldridge. On March 28, 2017 Hodgson testified with CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan at Border Security and Immigration Enforcement hearings in Washington. He also appeared with Vaughan at a CIS-organized event in Boston the following month, and another in West Roxbury the month after that. In January 2020 Hodgson again appeared with Vaughan (a resident of South Carolina) before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. FAIR-AVIAC also sent two others to testify before Massachusetts legislators.

In 2015 Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, a synagogue run by Islamophobe rabbi Jonathan Hausman. Hausman had previously hosted Dutch Neo-fascist and Islam basher Geert Wilders. Over 100 members of the clergy, including other rabbis, protested a similar hate fest the synagogue hosted the following year featuring Muslim-basher Frank Gaffney and Christian nationalist Jerry Boykin. When I asked Hodgson about his talk with Hausman and Lynch, Hodgson said with a straight face that he was just there doing his duty to inform the public about terrorism: “They asked me to come speak about terrorism. That’s what they asked me to do. […] That’s why I was there, because of my my involvement with the terrorism task force.”

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s “governmental affairs director” and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country.” It was not the first time Hodgson ignored the anti-Semites he was rubbing elbows with. His involvement with the Jew-bashing Tanton group is no aberration. In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Rick Wiles, a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite who claimed that Obama was inspired by Lucifer and killed Supreme Court Justice Scalia as a pagan human sacrifice, that the Irgun has kill teams all over America, and that Jews will use gun control laws to kill Christians. Wiles devoted “the first half of the program to recount several profound prophetic dreams his family received years ago” and the second half to Hodgson, who discussed immigration and his work with FAIR.

In 2016 Hodgson was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan. The third speaker was Raymond Hanna from the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America which also maintains white supremacist ties. For example, in Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront. Perhaps because of its far-too-frequent neo-Nazi connections, ACT for America was too toxic for even Donald Trump. Following an article in the Miami Herald announcing ACT’s gala at Mar-a-Lago, which was to have been headlined by Michelle Malkin (another friend of Hodgson’s), the Trump administration had second thoughts: “[The gala] will absolutely not be taking place at Mar-a-Lago,” a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization announced. In September 2016 the sheriff also appeared at a Republican unity rally in Norfolk county attended by his old friend Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies and by ACT for America’s Ray Hannah.

In June 2017 Hodgson appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Malkin has links to white supremacist groups, including several Tanton groups and VDARE, as well as to Islamophobic organizations. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves. And, of course, Malkin is also a big fan of both John Tanton and The Camp of the Saints, a racist book that has attained almost scriptural reverence among believers in the Great Replacement, a conspiracy theory that maintains that White people are being consciously replaced and outnumbered by immigration sponsored and financed by Liberals and Jews — a view shared by the 18 year-old white supremacist who marched into a Buffalo supermarket in full body armor last May and murdered ten Black people.

In 2018 Hodgson announced with great fanfare that the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA) would be crowdfunding Trump’s wall. But Hodgson’s NSA project folded after raising less than $100K in three months — despite a false claim that excessive web traffic had crashed the site. The NSA site redirected donors to a group called the American Border Foundation, whose Director of Communications was Jeremy Messina, who identifies with the white Nationalist Identitarian movement and whose Facebook postings bore striking similarities with the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto. The American Border Foundation‘s crowdfunding scheme never reached its $450 million goal. During its three-year run, ABF’s less-than 4,000 donors raised barely over $227K. The fund’s managing director, Quentin Kramer — who like Hodgson has ties to FAIR through FAIR’s sister organization AVIAC — went on the conspiracy and white supremacist circuit trying to sell the project. For example, Kramer appeared on the far-right Southern Sense podcast and also on an “anti-federalist” program that frequently invokes Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”).

Despite lackluster donations, Hodgson claimed that as a sheriff he could cut through the red tape to ensure donations got to the Department of Homeland Security and that the wall would be built. In November of 2018, Hodgson claimed he had submitted a form to DHS to donate $100,000 to pay for “border barriers on the Southern border.” But DHS informed the American Border Foundation it could not accept their donation. Nevertheless, in 2019 Hodgson and Kramer were still acting as if the crowdfunding effort was still viable. Both spoke at a FAIR-AVIAC-sponsored press conference in Washington, whose main function was to highlight the “Angel Families” who had lost family members to auto accidents or crimes committed by undocumented migrants. As of today, the whereabouts of $227,657 in ABF donations are still unaccounted for. Neither the ABF nor Hodgson has ever responded to information requests from Bristol County for Correctional Justice or American Oversight.

Hodgson’s newest project is Protect America Now. Once again, Hodgson is not just a member: he’s on Protect America Now’s national advisory board.

On the surface, PAN’s leadership looks like another collection of uber-patriotic, God- and gun-waving Constitutional sheriffs. PAN members number about 85 far-right sheriffs, some with Oathkeeper affiliations. But the brains behind PAN is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative and acolyte of Karl Rove, long involved with numerous voter suppression efforts. A while ago I looked into Sproul and Kory Langhofer, a Trump Stop the Steal lawyer accused of ethics violations, who is also involved with PAN and other voter suppression efforts, and is not coincidentally the owner of Signafide, a company whose AI software is intended to challenge ballot signatures.

The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) connects Protect America Now, the Constitutional Sheriffs Association (CSPOA), and TrueTheVote in resurrecting Trump’s plan to have sheriffs intervene in the next election. And by “intervene” we’re talking about sheriffs seizing voting machines.

Besides his leadership role in PAN, Hodgson is also a member of CSPOA; in 2014 his membership dues were recorded by the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

In June, PAN spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb, announced the creation of an “election integrity” project that will funnel reports (no doubt as ridiculous as those from Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) to sheriffs for “quick evaluation of incoming information.” And at the FreedomFest 2022 conference in Las Vegas CSPOA founder Richard Mack announced that sheriffs would seize voting machines. Lamb, Hodgson’s fellow advisor at Protect America Now, recently teamed up with True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht, who was already working with the CSPOA. Lamb has promised to investigate so-called “ballot mules” — a reference to the Big Lie movie “2000 Mules” by Dinesh D’Souza, who was convicted on felony charges of using “straw donors” to make illegal campaign donations but was later pardoned by Donald Trump.

This is the world Hodgson not only lives in but has chosen to create. Whether Hodgson himself is a white supremacist — or has simply built a career by supporting white supremacists for decades — is a trivial distinction.

Hodgson is either a monster or a fool. In neither case does he deserve to be returned to his job as Bristol County Sheriff.

Detail

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson is a member of the National Board of Advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist, and a majority of its advisory board are also white supremacists, Islamophobes, homophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists. Here are a few of the people Hodgson rubs elbows with at board meetings:

Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazelton, PA who signed anti-immigration legislation in 2006 that was declared illegal a year later;

Sharon Barnes, clearly no DACA lover, who wrote: “It is our country. They and their parents need to be kicked out […] strengthen our laws and get rid of the locusts;”

Gerda Bikales, who regards Spanish as a ghetto language: “I don’t think Yiddish or Italian represented a threat to the union. But we are now setting ourselves up for an entrenched language ghetto;”

William Chip, who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment;

Donald A.Collins, who contributes to the white nationalist journal VDARE;

Dino Drudi, another Massachusetts zealot who has written for VDARE;

Don Feder, a Muslim-basher who thinks US troops should have “shoot-to-kill” orders on the Southern border;

Robert Gillespie, a proponent of population control — not for white Christians but in developing countries;

Joseph Guzzardi, a member of VDARE’s “editorial collective;”

Carol Joyal, who wrote a review of The Camp of the Saints calling it a “prophecy” of Third World destruction of the West while everyone else just called it racist;

Richard Lamm, former Colorado governor who said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are;”

K.C. McAlpin, an Islamophobe who wants to ban Muslims for ideological reasons: “Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case is no different;”

Scott McConnell, another VDARE author, Executive Director at Lifeway Research (“be ready when homosexuality devastates”), and a member of the Family Research Council;

Paul Nachman, a Montana white supremacist who writes for VDARE who calls refugees “good liars” and questions the existence of “moderate Muslims;”

Robert D. Park, founder of the “Article IV – Section 4 Foundation,” a group which maintains that government has abdicated its responsibility to uphold a Constitutional clause requiring it to defend the U.S. from “invasion;”

Randy Pullen, former chairman of the Arizona GOP and self-appointed expert on black crime: “Yes black lives matter. The best way to end the slaughter of young black men is to take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers;”

John Philip Sousa IV, great grandson of the famous Sousa, a Birther, and friend of Joe Arpaio;

Alan N. Weeden, whose family owns the Weeden Foundation, major donor to white supremacist initiatives, and proponent of Secure ID, a national identification system.

Unimaginable?

Americans have a strange view of presidential accountability

On August 8th, after a dozen FBI agents showed up unannounced at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida residence of ex-president Donald Trump, MAGAworld began calling for civil war. “Tomorrow is war,” tweeted Steven Crowder, a Trump supporter with 5 million YouTube and 2 million Twitter followers. Another MAGA Tweet invoked civil war directly: “The Feds are currently RAIDING Mar-A-Lago. This could very well be the equivalent of the FIRST SHOT fired upon Fort Sumter. I believe they want a civil war. What other outcome can this bullsh!t lead to?”

For many Americans — including a lot of Democrats — it is unimaginable that even a corrupt, criminal American president like Trump could ever serve a day in jail. For starters, it has never happened. But there is also the matter of presidential pardons which seem to have kept Richard Nixon out of jail. Or maybe we simply regard presidents as untouchable monarchs. While Trump was campaigning in Iowa in 2016 he joked, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” He wasn’t wrong.

In general White America views the punishment of criminal presidents and prime ministers as something that only happens in unstable, undemocratic — meaning non-European — parts of the world. After the FBI’s raid on his father’s compound, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted: “This is what you see happen in 3rd World Banana Republics” — a view shared by Ron DeSantis. Even former Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang went out of his way to attack the investigation of the corrupt ex-president.

But America has never had any qualms about holding former leaders of other nations to account. When deposed Lybian president Muammar Qaddafi was captured, mutilated, and murdered, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joked, “We came, we saw, he died.” When Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was tried by a US-approved regime and executed, President Bush wrote, “Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people’s determination to create a society governed by the rule of law.” But when it comes to corrupt American presidents, no such rules of law ever seem to apply.

In fact, the rules by which one foreign despot is a friend and another an enemy seem to boil down to anti-communism and global alliances — and not the rule of law. Joe Biden’s fist bump with Saudi murderer/dictator Muhammad bin Salman while doubling down on sanctions on Cuba’s rulers are a good contrast. America continues to praise Brazilian and Indian democracies as the “largest democracies in the world” (other than our own) — despite their authoritarian character and because of their overt anti-communism.

Indira Gandhi was a corrupt prime minister whose family was Indian royalty and was spared any jail time. The “scourge of communists” and Naxalites, Gandhi issued a series of dictatorial decrees, imposed censorship, suspension of civil liberties, and arrested political opponents (including current PM Modi), which eventually led to her assassination by her own security detail. In fact, long before Modi, Indira Gandhi’s rule marked the beginning of the end of Indian democracy — precisely because she was never held to account.

Upon coming to power, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, a Republican darling, vowed to purge Brazil of political opponents. “These red outlaws will be banished from our homeland. It will be a cleanup the likes of which has never been seen in Brazilian history.” Bolsonaro, of course, is the product of the U.S. looking the other way at Brazil’s far right (and anti-communist) military, which never really went away.

Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the GOP’s new idol and another virulent anti-communist, grabbed power this year by declaring a state of emergency and now rules by decree. Judging by his prominence at two recent CPAC conferences, Orban’s Fidesz party is the new model for American democracy.

So while we love anti-communist despots and refuse to prosecute our own criminal leaders, other western-oriented nations have somehow managed to hold their leaders to account.

Norway actually executed its Nazi collaborationist Prime Minister Vidkun Quisling for high treason. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon was convicted of fraud and misuse of funds. The French President Fillon served under, Nicolas Sarkozy, was likewise jailed for corruption, influence peddling, and bribery of a federal magistrate. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert went to jail on corruption charges. Former Israeli President Moshe Katsav served time in prison on rape charges. And Israel’s best-known PM Benjamin Netanyahu is now facing prison on multiple charges of corruption and bribery.

Canada’s Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Lise Thibault, served time in prison for misuse of public funds. The Premier of Western Australia Ray O’Connor was sent to prison on charges of fraud. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond was arrested on sexual harassment charges. Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates was sent to prison for corruption, tax evasion, and money laundering. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov was recently arrested on multiple corruption charges. British Virgin Islands PM Alturo Fahie was arrested on drug smuggling charges. South Korean Finance Minister Choi Kyoung-hwan served time in prison for an influence-peddling scheme that also took down the South Korean president Park Geun-hye. Puerto Rican Governor Wanda Vazquez was charged with conspiracy, federal programs bribery and wire fraud by the DOJ.

Given the hesitancy to prosecute a popular leader with a large following, Americans may end up following Italy’s lead. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was convicted of tax fraud and corruption charges and sentenced to four years in prison, which due to his age he never actually served. Berlusconi was also barred from public office, a ban which only applied to Italy and did not affect his ability to serve as a member of European Parliament. It was a resolution that probably made no one happy.

But if Democrats really want to preserve democracy, Trump must be prosecuted. What the nature of that punishment consists of can vary, but if we simply close the books on Trump’s multiple crimes, then we should also empty the jails and prisons because then the rule of law will have absolutely no meaning.

Stuck in a mouse trap

Republicans, Republicans, and more Republicans have joined forces to create a new political party — for Democrats.

This new party, calling itself Forward, will initially be chaired by Andrew Yang, who in 2020 posed as a Democrat for the sake of the primary, and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey and EPA Secretary under George W. Bush.

Forward joins forces with two previous GOP attempts to splinter the centrist wing of the Democratic Party: Renew America, launched in 2021 by a group of Reagan/Bush Republicans; and Serve America, another Republican group founded by Morgan Stanley lawyer Eric Grossman with [George W.] Bush administration figures.

Forward is an idea Christine Todd Whitman has been pushing for at least a year, usually by painting Trump’s destruction of the Republican Party like Jim Jones’ destruction of his own cult.

But rather than simply throwing “rational Republicans” a lifeline, Whitman’s other goal is to hollow out the Democratic Party by peeling away as many centrists as possible from the Democratic Party’s supposed “radical left.” When NPR host Steve Inskeep asked Whitman what she wanted from Democrats, she answered: “We want Democrats, when faced with a radical left candidate from the Democrat Party, to vote for a centrist Republican.”

Andrew Yang might have run as a Democrat in 2020 but earlier this month he showed up at a far-right event called Freedom Fest 2022 to rub elbows with both American and European fascists and to introduce them to his new project with a talk, “Forward — Notes on the Future of our Democracy.”

If you were paying any attention to the Republicans’ CPAC (Conservative Political Action) Conference in Budapest last May, many of the same elements attended Freedom Fest 2022. But instead of painting themselves as “rational Republicans” as they’re now doing with Forward, at CPAC they were fawning all over Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party — precisely because of its illiberal policies.

Fidesz, which is now a hard right Christian nationalist party, originally started out as a center-right coalition offering a “big tent” for both right-leaning liberals and far right nationalists. Over time, Fidesz has become increasingly repressive, antisemitic, and fascistic — so much so that last week, after Viktor Orban delivered a speech warning of the dangers of “race mixing,” one of his long-time advisors resigned from Fidesz, slamming Orban’s remarks as “pure Nazi text worthy of (Nazi propagandist) Goebbels.”

Whether the Republican Party’s new Forward movement will be an oasis of sanity for “rational Republicans” or a tasty cheese trap for Democrats who have to compete in Red districts, Forward is likely to suffer the same fate as Fidesz because the people and organizations who created Forward are just as unscrupulous and authoritarian as the orange meanie they created but can’t control.

If Yang and Whitman’s project goes anywhere — and that’s a big if — no doubt a number of fickle Democrats would be tempted to jump ship and join Forward. And good riddance. But if history offers any sort of guide, the Democratic Party would then try to staunch the hemorrhaging by moving even further to the right itself, creating an even more unfriendly climate for progressives.

This is why progressives — presently stuck in the Democratic Party’s mouse trap — will be forced to leave the Democratic Party sooner or later. Because America doesn’t need a second centrist party half as much as it needs one that represents working class people, the poor, and the marginalized.

GOP Sheriffs: Start the Steal

A couple of years ago Massachusetts state representatives Antonio Cabral and William Straus sponsored H.5083, An Act Relative to Polling Place Security and Integrity. The bill limits sheriffs and deputies from policing polling places unless both local police and the secretary of public safety request assistance. The bill went nowhere.

Massachusetts law already authorizes police to preserve order at polling places, but the bill was filed only after Donald Trump began laying the groundwork in August 2020 for “Big Lie” accusations of voter fraud — three months before the election — boasting to FOX’s Sean Hannity that “we’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement” at polling stations sniffing out voter fraud. Trump’s demand for sheriffs to oversee the 2020 election was clearly intended to recycle time-tested racist and authoritarian voter intimidation and suppression tactics.

No sooner had H.5083 been filed when Bristol County’s scofflaw sheriff — and then-state Trump campaign director — Thomas Hodgson promised to defy the law if enacted. “No legislator is going to tell me when I can and cannot respond to someone who needs protection,” Hodgson told the Boston Herald.

Though still smarting from the loss of his 287(g) ICE program, Hodgson hasn’t dropped his anti-immigration rhetoric. But now he’s focused on enabling GOP voter suppression and ballot box tampering.

Hodgson’s new project is Protect America Now. On the surface, PAN’s leadership looks like another motley Hodgson crew of faux-patriotic Constitutional sheriffs. PAN members include an additional 69 far-right sheriffs, some with Oathkeeper affiliation.

But the brains behind PAN is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative and acolyte of Karl Rove, long involved with numerous voter suppression efforts. A while ago I investigated Sproul and Kory Langhofer, a Trump Stop the Steal lawyer also involved with PAN, both of whom share the same office address.

The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) has connected Protect America Now, the Constitutional Sheriffs Association (CSPOA), and TrueTheVote in resurrecting Trump’s plan to have sheriffs intervene in the next election.

But by “intervention” we’re now talking about sheriffs seizing voting machines.

In June, PAN spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb, announced the creation of an “election integrity” project that will funnel reports (no doubt as ridiculous as those from Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) to sheriffs for “quick evaluation of incoming information.” And last week at the FreedomFest 2022 conference in Las Vegas CSPOA founder Richard Mack announced that sheriffs would actually seize voting machines.

Massachusetts voters have reason to fear that Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, ever the Trump sycophant, would put his deputies at Trump’s disposal as enthusiastically as he tried to use his inmates to build Trump’s wall.

Hodgson did not appear on the speakers list of the FreedomFest 2022 conference but there is a gap in his social media posts between July 13-16. I have called, emailed, and texted Jon Darling, Hodgson’s media representative, to confirm if Hodgson attended FreedomFest. So far, nothing.

In any case, if we want to prevent the theft of voting machines (and elections), it’s time to dust off Cabral and Straus’s bill keeping our increasingly partisan and authoritarian sheriffs out of polling places.

And then we need to send Hodgson packing in November.

Fighting Fire the Wrong Way

The Democratic Party is the only thing standing in the way of the Republican Party replacing America with a Christian theocracy.

And that is an absolutely terrifying thought.

The geriatric Democratic Party leadership — faced with an ongoing Republican coup, a Christian nationalist Supreme Court, dramatic assaults on civil liberties and separation of church and state, a war in Ukraine, energy price spikes, galloping inflation, the possibility of a recession, and more mutations of the COVID virus — well, they’ve certainly had their hands full.

But they’re fighting a national five-alarm fire with a home extinguisher.

Rather than leveraging the tools of a government still in power, Democrats have refused to enforce party discipline on Democratic Senate free agents like Joe Manchin or Krysten Sinema, abolish the filibuster, prosecute January 6th insurrectionists, expand the Supreme Court, or employ the considerable powers of the Presidency to preserve what’s left of American democracy. There is no presumptive Democratic candidate for President in 2024 and no apparent plan to replace the many geezers in Democratic House and Senate leadership roles.

There’s also no way Joe Biden can run and win the next presidential election. GOP hostility is a given, but many Democrats are worried that Biden & Co. are not up to the many challenges and disasters facing the country. Biden would be 82 if he actually began a second term as President. But who wants him? Not GOP voters, and not engaged progressive Democrats.

Merely competent, Biden has exhibited few of the leadership skills necessary to pull the country back from The Abyss. He is not a reassuring presence, as FDR or even Jimmy Carter were. His public addresses have been few and far between and he and the Democratic Party he leads have backtracked on almost every progressive promise ever made.

Right down the line — canceling student debt, expanding Medicare, enacting police reform, bolstering voting rights, shrinking the Pentagon budget — the Democratic House may have put on legislative dinner theater, but the Senate has done little to advance these bills. Is Chuck Schumer really less gifted than Mitch McConnell? Or is there simply a lack of will when it comes to full-throated support for Democratic policies like racial equity and abortion rights? — values once regarded as mainstream but now apparently too “far left” for some Democrats. A 2019 article in The Atlantic by Peter Wehner enumerates many of the fears of these Democrats who have internalized conservative claims that “self-styled progressives” from the “Far Left” are “taking over” the Democratic Party.

But that’s nonsense, say progressive Democrats. NY Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fires back on the “Far Left” label with: “The extreme left is taking over WHERE. In Texas, Republicans passed a law allowing rapists to sue their victims for getting an abortion. Can anyone name a ‘far left’ policy that extreme implemented anywhere? We can’t even get our party to import cheaper RXs from Canada.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s complaint raises the bigger issue that you can’t get Democrats to take strong action on even wildly popular issues. Take the worst of recent Democratic losses — abortion. Democrats lost abortion because they didn’t try hard enough to keep it.

For years Democrats refused to formalize abortion rights into law. Asked if his administration would fight for the Freedom of Choice Act — which he had promised to do as a candidatePresident Obama told CNN senior White House correspondent Ed Henry that it “is not the highest legislative priority.” Hillary Clinton’s 2016 running mate was a long-time foe of abortion. Nancy Pelosi famously argued that “of course” you can be [both] a Democrat and against abortion.

Like Obama, the younger Biden also refused to support abortion rights. “I do not view abortion as a choice and a right. I think it’s always a tragedy,” Biden was quoted in a videotaped interview with Texas Monthly. “I think it should be rare and safe […] I think we should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions.”

Even after the leak of the draft overturning Roe v Wade, the Democratic Party went out of its way to undermine pro-choice Democrat Jessica Cisneros in a primary contest with Henry Cuellar, an anti-abortion Democrat being currently investigated in an illegal scheme with Azerbaijani energy interests.

There’s no denying that budgets are expressions of priorities. While there never seems to be much money for the social safety net, expanding healthcare, subsidizing education, making vaccines available to poorer nations, or providing debt relief for our own students, somehow Democrats managed to scrounge together an extra $53 billion lying around the house to give to defense contractors for the Ukraine war. And the war is just getting started.

This is in addition to the record $800 billion Pentagon budget passed by a three-to-one majority by the Democrat-controlled House. Representative Andy Levin, a member of the Progressive Caucus, expressed his dismay: “On the whole, the National Defense Authorization Act exemplifies the basic fact that we spend far too much on military-first solutions and far too little on diplomacy and on human needs at home and around the globe.”

Even our foreign policy under a Democratic President has not departed considerably from that of the Trump administration. While Trump (and Bush before him) may have glimpsed a soul in Vladimir Putin’s eyes, Biden is no slouch when it comes to sucking up to autocrats and repressive regimes.

Biden’s recent hat-in-hand trip to the Middle East was an embarrassment. Instead of penalizing Israel for killing American-Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, Biden gave it an extra billion dollars in military aid and agreed to restrict the rights of Americans who support boycotts against Israel’s Apartheid-style occupation of the West Bank. And by the time he got to Saudi Arabia, rather than sanctioning the Saudi regime for the gruesome murder of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi, Biden allowed himself to be lectured by Khashoggi’s killer in order to extract Saudi concessions to produce more oil.

If Democrats think that they can run Biden or continue to limp along with leaders like Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, and Clyburn, they are mistaken. Yet we are sure to hear that “now is not the time” to let a new crew steer the ship of state. Some new iteration of an uninspiring “Better Deal” or “Build Back Better” campaign will be unloaded on voters and we will be reminded how competently Democratic septuagenarians and octogenarians saved the economy from calamity and kept thousands from dying of COVID.

And they’re not totally wrong. But what American voters want is not mere competence but boldness. And here’s why.

The fact is, no one has much faith that American democracy as it now exists can survive with perpetual gridlock, such intense political divides, endless conflicts between state and federal courts and law, and ongoing assaults on people of color and sexual minorities. To this, throw in the fact that no solution to this stalemate is possible under our deeply flawed, deeply destabilizing, and deeply anti-democratic Constitution.

We are in the midst of a Constitutional crisis not so much because one party figured out how to sabotage it but because the Constitution itself is such a mess. Until this document is shredded and re-written, we can have no political stability.

And this is precisely why American voters are always seeking bold change instead of unexciting competence. Like it or not, setting fire to the country does constitute bold change. If Democrats want to compete, then, where are their bold ideas? Purposely thrown overboard as “too far left.”

I fear that the potential of the idealized “America” which most of us grew up with and truly love will be gone in a few years — permanently disfigured by Christian nationalists and abandoned by those who couldn’t bring themselves to fight harder to hold onto it.

Burn Her at the Stake!

If gerrymandering, voter suppression, Dark Money, the Electoral College, an equal number of Senators for states mammoth or tiny, an Imperial Presidency, or pardons for felons weren’t all bad enough for American democracy — now add the Supreme Court, where Christian Nationalists enjoy a 6-3 edge, thanks to a president who actually tried to stage a coup.

To say that democracy is hanging by a thread is total nonsense. We saw the last frayed thread a long time ago. The Court’s six radical Justices (Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Thomas) are now poised to polish off democracy for good.

When Judge Katanji Jackson ultimately replaces Breyer it should escape no one’s notice that an unelected Christian Nationalist majority will prevail over an all-woman and all-minority minority.

Just like America.

The Court has set about gutting even nominal democratic norms to create a veritable Gilead. States no longer have the right to regulate weapons and are obliged to dole out public money to religious schools. Citizens no longer have the right to be read their Constitutional rights by officers in a growing police state.

Legally, women are now Court-regulated wombs with no say over the most private of medical decisions. Instead, a fanciful and unscientific notion opposed by Jews, secularists and others insists that life begins at conception. With the overturn of Roe v. Wade expected at any moment, the Court has arrogated itself the right to make medical and scientific judgements.

If you thought 1692 marked the last of American witch trials you were wrong.

State courts are ready to prosecute abortionists and women who seek abortions. States have sanctioned vigilantes to report fellow citizens and offer bounties for tips if a woman is found guilty of even seeking an abortion. Even those who suffer miscarriages will now have their personal tragedies compounded by state and mob violence. There are now reasonable concerns that data from period tracking apps will be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions.

It remains to be seen if this totalitarian descent into a new chapter of witch trials will result in the lynching of abortionists or death sentences for women and health care providers.

But, given the mob and state violence that Christian nationalism has unleashed, we’d be foolish to rule it out.

Legislators Dither and Squirm over IPD

Since 1977 Native Americans have been trying to replace Columbus Day with Indigenous People’s Day. The text of a bill in the Massachusetts legislature is short, sweet, and uncomplicated:

The governor shall annually issue a proclamation setting apart the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples Day and recommending that it be observed by the people, with appropriate exercises in the schools and otherwise, to acknowledge the history of genocide and discrimination against Indigenous peoples, and to recognize and celebrate the thriving cultures and continued resistance and resilience of Indigenous peoples and their tribal nations.

Yet, for whatever reasons, some in the Legislature resist making this simple change. And in so doing they are continuing to honor one of the first perpetrators of genocide and enslavement in the New World — instead of the victims of these atrocities.

Republican culture wars have created very real wounds. Some Democrats are now overly defensive to Republican accusations of “wokeism” and “political correctness.” But Democrats ought to first consider from what noxious pit of white supremacy these accusations are coming — and should also be less concerned about so-called “cancel culture” and “erasure” than the actual erasure of Native people.

But while Massachusetts legislators dither and squirm, other states have ratified some form of an Indigenous People’s Day that either replaces* Columbus Day or coexists with it: Alabama (2019); Alaska* (2015); Arizona (2020); California (2019); District of Columbia* (2019); Hawaii* (1988); Iowa* (2018); Louisiana* (2019); Maine* (2019); Michigan (2019); Minnesota* (2016); Nebraska (2021); Nevada (2020); New Mexico (2019); North Carolina* (2018); Oklahoma (2019); Oregon (2021); South Dakota* (1989); Texas (2021); Vermont* (2016); Virginia (2020); Wisconsin (2019).

Indigenous People’s Day is also celebrated in over 130 American cities.

In 2021 President Biden signed a proclamation making Indigenous People’s Day a federal holiday, although Columbus Day remains.

And, internationally, the United Nations honors Indigenous people on August 9th.

Despite all this, some of our state legislators still regard indigenous people as a trivial issue that will just go away if they ignore it long enough. But they are mistaken.

If Indigenous People’s Day doesn’t move out of committee this year, legislators can expect to see it on their desks once again in 2023.

Another reckoning with history

Another reckoning with history

H.3191/S.2027 An Act establishing an Indigenous Peoples Day

There is a bill before the Massachusetts legislature asking that Massachusetts join Vermont and Maine in changing Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day. Yet for some reason several of our local state representatives are hesitant to move the bill forward. Perhaps they have forgotten the ugly, brutal history associated with the discoverer of the New World, Cristoforo Colombo, otherwise known as Christopher Columbus.

In the Fifties every kid could recite the poem, “In fourteen hundred ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue…” We learned that Columbus had made an astounding “discovery” of “America” — although it was hardly new to the Arawak and Taino people who had lived there for millennia. For them it was simply home.

We learned that Columbus was a Genoan explorer who finally persuaded a Spanish queen to underwrite his voyages in exchange for a cut of the plunder. Accompanying Columbus in the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria were 87 men. Encountering the Arawak people on what is now the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas, Columbus dubbed them “indios” and noted:

“They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion.”

Whereupon Columbus immediately enslaved several, forcing them to show where they had obtained the gold in their earrings. Columbus explored a few more neighboring islands, including what is now Cuba and Haiti. Upon his return, the Portuguese royalty were unhappy at the Spanish royalty’s incursion, so four Papal Bulls (Vatican decrees) were issued to specify how the two Christian kingdoms would divvy up the spoils.

The following year, a second voyage of 17 ships explored a dozen other islands. On the island of Santa Cruz Columbus encountered Caribs, whom they murdered, gutted, and beheaded. The historical record also includes an account of the rape of a Carib woman by one Michele da Cuneo, a childhood friend of Columbus.

Spanish troops remaining on the various islands Columbus visited killed indigenous people at will, forcing them to carry the new slaveholders on litters, like royalty. As King Leopold of Belgium later did in the Congo, the Spanish gave native people quotas of gold to bring to the colonizers. The consequence for failing to deliver was being maimed or murdered.

By now we all remember the breach of the U.S. Capitol Building by insurrectionists on January 6, 2021. One of these breaches occurred at the Rogers Doors on the east entrance to the Capitol. The two doors are almost 17 feet high and 10 feet wide, made of bronze, each weighing 5 tons. Completed in 1861 by sculptor Randolph Rogers, the doors tell the story of Christopher Columbus.

The semicircular panel “Landing of Columbus in the New World” depicts the terror of native people encountering the heavily-armed Spanish. Another panel “Columbus’ First Encounter with the Indians” depicts a rape like the previously-mentioned one.

Howard Zinn may have upset more than a few people when he recounted the grisly details of European conquest in his history books, but all this was old history when the Rogers Doors were cast in bronze. At the time, 1861, the mistreatment, colonization, and enslavement of native people was seen as inevitable — if not desirable — when creating an American empire. And 1861 was the very moment in American history in which the government itself was involved in the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Native American people.

So here we are in 2022. Rather than continuing to honor Columbus for what in modern times can only be regarded as war crimes, it’s time we honored the indigenous people whose old world became our New World.

Please sign the petition to persuade your representative to get behind H.3191 — or just call them.

Hodgson’s White Supremacy Problem (Part Two)

He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed. (Proverbs 13:20)

Hodgson’s Great Replacement

On Saturday, May 14th, 2022 an 18 year-old white supremacist in full body armor walked into an East Side Buffalo, New York supermarket and slaughtered ten Black people precisely because they were Black.

Payton Gendron left behind a 180-page manifesto citing the Great Replacement – a conspiracy theory which holds that Liberals and mainly Jews (“globalists” or the “new world order”) are intent on replacing white people with compliant mongrel races who reproduce at higher rates. “This crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility,” Gendron wrote, “is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”

For white supremacists, the end of white domination is as frightening as death. Though whites dominate government, courts and commerce, the fears of white supremacists have nevertheless magnified into nightmares of “white genocide” and “replacement” and are found not only in the manifestos of mass-murderers but in mainstream Republican political dogma.

And this includes Bristol County’s white supremacist sheriff, Thomas M. Hodgson.

Replacement was the theme of a 1973 novel by French nationalist Jean Raspail, a book that has captured the imagination of American white supremacists like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, the Identitarian movement, and a considerable number of anti-immigration and white supremacist organizations – three to which Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has close ties and all of which flog the narrative of the Great Replacement.

Raspail’s Le Camp des Saints was first published in 1973, translated into Englsh two years later and distributed by the Social Contract Press (more on this Tanton group later). The publisher described the book’s theme: “By the year 2000 there will on present projections be seven billion people swarming on the surface of the Earth. And only nine hundred million of them will be white.” Kirkus Reviews noted the book’s inherent fascism: “The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event.”

Inspired by Raspail, in 2012 another French writer, Renaud Camus (no relation to Albert Camus), popularized the “Great Replacement” theory in a self-published novel by the same name, Le Grand Remplacement. Camus also penned You Will Not Replace Us, an homage to the American Alt-Right, and Tweeted: “the genocide of the Jews was undoubtedly more criminal but still seems somewhat small compared to global [white] replacement.”

In fact, le grand remplacement dates back at least to the Thirties when the expression was used by Nazi French collaborator Rene Binet, whose brigade ended up (I’m not making this up) in charge of defending Hitler’s bunker. An article from radioFrance notes that the phrase was probably used even earlier to characterize slave revolts in Haiti and Martinique, as well as to disparage Jews around the time of the Dreyfus affair.

While never truly defeated, Western fascism has been making a bit of a come-back. France’s Rassemblement National, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, England’s British National Party, Hungary’s Fidesz, and Spain’s Vox all wrap themselves in the same white Christian nationalism and anti-democratic authoritarianism that now characterize the American Republican Party. And all are preoccupied with “invasion” or “replacement” by non-white immigrants. It is no coincidence that the American Conservative Union’s CPAC Convention took place in Hungary this year. Fusing pan-European Identitarianism and resurrected fascism with good old-fashioned American white supremacy has long been a project of extremists like Steve Bannon.

But white supremacy cannot succeed without maintaining white Christian privilege and white numerical superiority, at least in the voting booth. Laws and maneuvers privileging white Christians, limiting immigration for non-whites, maintaining police control over largely non-white communities, preventing the diminution of the “white race” by abortion, and ensuring white election advantage – all are methods of delaying the inevitable loss of white supremacy.

The Tanton Network

Spike Lee’s film BlacKkKlansman opens with an unhinged racist, Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, standing in front of a screen as D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation is projected onto his face. Beauregard laments the halcyon days when Anglo-Saxons were unchallenged masters of the nation, and he repeats several times, “We had a great way of life.” Today that lost “great way of life” has become a dog whistle for white supremacists and anti-immigrant groups who want to “make American great again” by making it white again.

Beauregard may be a fictional character, but John H. Tanton was not. Tanton was a Michigan ophthalmologist who single-handedly created a network of over a dozen white supremacist and anti-immigrant groups, half of which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as hate groups.

The three best-known are: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a lobbying and action group with great influence within the Trump administration; the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); and NumbersUSA, all of which produce dubious anti-immigration reports and statistics. Tanton also created the Social Contract Press, which first published The Camp of the Saints.

Thomas Hodgson sits on FAIR’s National Board of Advisors and has appeared at anti-immigrant events sponsored by both FAIR and CIS.

Federation for American Immigration Reform

Though they might sugar-coat it a bit, FAIR’s mission is the preservation of Anglo-Saxon dominance from rapacious hordes of non-white, non-English speakers who threaten to replace white Christians and destroy America, thanks to the subversive efforts of globalists and socialists.

Once mainly an anti-immigration lobbying group, during Trump’s presidency FAIR became deeply embedded in his administration. MediaMatters notes that the mainstream media often cites FAIR’s untrustworthy “statistics” indiscriminately. The Libertarian CATO Institute slams FAIR’s studies and statistics as “fatally flawed” and “sloppy.”

FAIR’s legal wing, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, formerly headed by Kris Kobach, provides legal assistance to anti-immigrant groups. In recent years IRLI has dabbled in disenfranchising voters of color based on the claim that “illegals” are risking everything to throw elections for Democrats by voting illegally.

FAIR’s founder John Tanton expressed the organization’s mission most clearly: “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” And when Tanton spoke of “Europeans” he meant whites: “As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”

George Washington University’s Gelman Library contains a repository of letters between Tanton and Otis Graham, a close friend of Tanton who helped him launch and run FAIR in the 1980s and who served as a board member of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Tanton and Graham wanted to create what they called a “League for European-American Defense, Education and Research.”

In 1991 Tanton and Graham took great interest in KKK leader David Duke’s campaign for the Louisiana governorship and were encouraged by Duke’s founding of the National Association for the Advancement of White People: “[T]here is a lot going on out there on the cultural and ethnic (racial) difference” [front], Tanton wrote. Appealing to racists was ultimately going to be “all tied to immigration policy. At some point, this is going to break the dam.”

FAIR, then, was created to mirror Duke’s approach and promote white interests: “There is currently no socially acceptable umbrella organization to which persons of European ancestry can belong to defend and promote their common interests,” Tanton wrote. “Absent such an organization in a highly organized society, European-Americans will continue to see their history rewritten, their character and accomplishments denigrated, and their faults magnified. They will steadily lose ground and position to other groups… For those not resigned to this gradual or not so gradual decline, a new organization tailored to the needs and interests of European-Americans as a group is essential.”

As a proponent of eugenics, Tanton also argued for sterilization of the “lesser” races: “Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news to less intelligent individuals, and how will it be implemented?”

Dan Stein

FAIR’s current president is Dan Stein, who often coordinates media appearances and travel for Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson.

In a 1997 interview with “Alt-Right” darling Tucker Carlson, Stein claimed that Latino refugees arriving in the U.S. are godless, low-IQ haters: “Immigrants don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, God-fearing […] Many of them hate America, hate everything that the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans. Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?”

For Stein. immigration is a matter of maintaining white political power. He worries about a power shift attending newer waves of immigration. “It’s almost like they’re getting into competitive breeding,” Stein said in 1991. “You have to take into account the various fertility rates in designing limits on immigration.”

In addition to Stein’s views on recent immigrants, FAIR’s president indulges in a conspiracy theory that invokes the same villains responsible for the Great Replacement: “I blame ninety-eight percent of responsibility for this country’s immigration crisis on Ted Kennedy and his political allies, who decided some time back in 1958, earlier perhaps, that immigration was a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris, and the immigration laws from the 1920s were just this symbol of that, and it’s a form of revengism…”

Center for Immigration Studies

Like FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was founded by John Tanton and publishes questionable reports on immigration. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, CIS maintains extensive links to white supremacist and antisemitic groups. In 2017 the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 2,012 occasions on which CIS circulated white nationalist content.

CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian, who first worked at FAIR, quipped after the deadly 2010 Haitian earthquake: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.”

Jessica Vaughan, CIS Director of Policy Studies, may be the organization’s best known face – and certainly well-known to Hodgson, with whom she has appeared repeatedly. Vaughan is well spoken and comfortable testifying before Congressional subcommittees. Still, as the Anti-Defamation League reports, Vaughan had no misgivings in April 2014 when she gave an interview to an antisemitic newspaper, the American Free Press, founded by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.

Hodgson goes to work for FAIR and CIS

In 2011, According to FAIR’s annual report, the organization began cultivating sheriffs like Hodgson. “In 2011, we identified sheriffs who expressed concerns about illegal immigration.” FAIR staff “met with these sheriffs and their deputies, supplied them with a steady stream of information, established regular conference calls so they could share information and experiences, and invited them to come to Washington to meet with FAIR’s senior staff. We invited sheriffs who played the most prominent roles in addressing illegal immigration locally to FAIR’s national talk radio event, Hold their Feet to the Fire, where they shared their stories and expertise with listeners across the country.” Since roughly that time Hodgson has been a FAIR spokesman.

In July 2014 Hodgson visited the Rio Grande on a trip organized by FAIR’s National Field director, Susan Tully, who reported: “What we’re doing down here in the Rio Grande Valley is all about public education of our law enforcement officials so that they can see exactly what is going on along the border.”

The Anti-Defamation league already regarded Tully as a conspiracy theorist. She claimed, with no proof, that four million immigrants were granted amnesty in 1986 and – again invoking the Great Replacement – charged the Obama Administration with running school buses across the border to provide free K-12 education for Mexicans. The SPLC tracked Tully’s involvement in organizing a racist housing ban on immigrants in Fremont, Nebraska in which she called immigrants “invaders.” And, for organizing purposes, Tully simply made up the “fact” that Illinois has more “illegal aliens” than California. Tully has also been involved with an Oregon anti-immigration group with extensive militia and white supremacist links.

When FAIR National Advisory Board member Richard Lamm said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are,” he didn’t mean just Latinos but Muslims as well. Susan Tully clarified Lamm’s remarks: “They are not coming here to become Americans,” she said. Rather, Muslims are “promoting colonization of their own religion, of their own culture in towns and taking them over.”

Tully has been spreading hate since 2002 for FAIR. In one interview with radio host Phil Valentine at a 2006 FAIR event in Tennessee, Tully claimed that a Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas described arresting the same man seven times. Tully said she asked the agent, “What do you do on the eighth time?” and Valentine interjected: “Shoot him!” Tully laughed and the FAIR crowd cheered.

In March 2015 Hodgson appeared with Tully at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford. He has appeared at most of FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events coordinated by Tully, most recently in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021.

In 2016 Hodgson was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan of CIS. The third speaker was Raymond Hanna from the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America which also maintains white supremacist ties. ACT and FAIR have strong connections — and Tully figures into all of them. In 2016 Tully spoke at an ACT for America event in Idaho. ACT for America also happens to have a Nazi problem. In Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront.

On March 28, 2017 Hodgson testified with CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan at Border Security and Immigration Enforcement hearings in Washington.

In June 2017 the Sheriff appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold their feet to the fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Malkin too has links to white supremacist groups, including VDARE, as well as to Islamophobic groups. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves. And, of course, Malkin is also a big fan of both John Tanton and The Camp of the Saints.

FAIR Board of Advisors

Over the years Hodgson has maintained numerous associations with Muslim-bashers, Anti-semites, gay-bashers, Birthers, and every variety of conspiracy theorist — many of them members of FAIR’s National Advisory Board. In November 2017 Hodgson joined that board.

When asked if his board membership might be construed as endorsement of his colleagues’ views, or at least be poor judgment on his part, Hodgson bristled: “I’m on a Board of Advisors. I go once a year to listen.”

But Hodgson is too modest. In 2014 the sheriff was not listening but speaking to FAIR’s National Board of Advisors when he conducted a two-hour dinner discussion on “The Effect of the President’s Decisions on DACA and its Impact on Our Law Enforcement Challenges.” In 2016 Hodgson participated in the National Board’s “Sanctuary Cities and Law Enforcement” roundtable with Putman County, NY Sheriff Donald Smith and FAIR’s Law Enforcement Relations Manager, Robert Najmulski. Half an hour later, FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman gave a talk entitled “Soros Hacked: The Truth Behind His Big Money Network to Destroy U.S. Borders.”

Hodgson was present for Mehlman’s analysis of materials that Russian hackers had stolen from Soros’ Open Society Institute, which Mehlman caled a “shadowy foundation” with a “globalist agenda” to attack U.S. immigration policy. But “globalist” is often white supremacist code for “Jewish” and FAIR, as we will shortly see, has an axe to grind with Soros not only because he is a liberal philanthropist, but also because he is a liberal Jew.

Besides Hodgson, some of FAIR’s National Board members include:

Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazelton, PA who signed anti-immigration legislation in 2006 that was declared illegal a year later;

Sharon Barnes, clearly no DACA lover, who wrote: “It is our country. They and their parents need to be kicked out […] strengthen our laws and get rid of the locusts;”

Gerda Bikales, who regards Spanish as a ghetto language: “I don’t think Yiddish or Italian represented a threat to the union. But we are now setting ourselves up for an entrenched language ghetto;”

William Chip, who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment;

Donald A.Collins, who contributes to the white nationalist journal VDARE;

Dino Drudi, another Massachusetts zealot who has written for VDARE;

Don Feder, a Muslim-basher who thinks US troops should have “shoot-to-kill” orders on the Southern border;

Robert Gillespie, a proponent of population control — not for white Christians but in developing countries;

Joseph Guzzardi, a member of VDARE’s “editorial collective;”

Carol Joyal, who wrote a review of The Camp of the Saints calling it a “prophecy” of Third World destruction of the West while everyone else just called it racist;

Richard Lamm, former Colorado governor who said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are;”

K.C. McAlpin, an Islamophobe who wants to ban Muslims for ideological reasons: “Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case is no different;”

Scott McConnell, another VDARE author, Executive Director at Lifeway Research (“be ready when homosexuality devastates”), and a member of the Family Research Council;

Paul Nachman, a Montana white supremacist who writes for VDARE, calls refugees “good liars,” and questions the existence of “moderate Muslims;”

Robert D. Park, founder of the “Article IV – Section 4 Foundation,” a group which maintains that government has abdicated its responsibility to uphold a Constitutional clause requiring it to defend the U.S. from “invasion;”

Randy Pullen, former chairman of the Arizona GOP and self-appointed expert on black crime: “Yes black lives matter. The best way to end the slaughter of young black men is to take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers;”

John Philip Sousa IV, great grandson of the famous musician, Birther, and friend of Joe Arpaio;

Alan N. Weeden, whose family owns the Weeden Foundation, major donor to white supremacist initiatives, and proponent of Secure ID, a national identification system.

Islamophobia

Although Hodgson swims with racists, Birthers, and antisemites, If there is one group to which he has more connections than any other, it is Muslim bashers.

In 1998 Hodgson was among the first group of municipal public safety officials to attend a four-day conference in Leesburg, Virginia on Strengthening the Public Safety Response to Terrorism. The conference was organized by the International Association of Fire Chiefs in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance and brought together police and fire chiefs from most metropolitan areas of the United States.

In an interview Hodgson said: “We were down there for four days to learn about this new thing that was coming onto our doorstep if we — Actually we were far behind in law enforcement. Because there [were] already people, terrorist activity long going on before that. In fact, if you look at [Steven Emerson’s] ‘American Jihad’ which will be worth your watching, you will see people — Muslims raising their — terrorists rising their rifles, dancing in the hall above stores in New York, saying, kill the infidels, kill the infidels. It’s all on tape. But anyway, so my training down there, I’m thinking, OK, you know what? This is good training, it’s good to be aware. The bag they gave us to carry our materials had a stencil on the front of it with the New York skyline with a target on one of the World Trade Center.”

Steven Emerson’s account of American Muslim rooftop celebrations of 9/11 in New Jersey, and Donald Trump’s recollections of the same have both been discredited. But Hodgson is drawn to self-anointed terrorism and Islam “experts” regardless how unreliable their information or their memory.

In 2015 Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, a synagogue run by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman – another self-appointed national security expert. Hausman’s temple had previously hosted Dutch neo-fascist and Islam hater Geert Wilders. Over 100 members of the clergy, including other rabbis, protested a similar hate fest the synagogue hosted the following year featuring Muslim-basher Frank Gaffney and Christian nationalist Jerry Boykin. When asked about Hodgson’s talk with Hausman, he explained he was just there doing his duty to inform the public about terrorism: “They asked me to come speak about terrorism. That’s what they asked me to do. So I was I was to speak with them. […] I was asked — I was invited to go there to speak. That’s why I was there, because of my my involvement with the terrorism task force.”

Lynch’s film, “They Come to America,” was reviewed by the Anti-Defamation League. “In the documentary, Lynch travels the country interviewing people about undocumented immigration. Lynch talks to figures from anti-immigrant groups such as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform [both Tanton groups]. Lynch also interviews Glenn Spencer of the anti-Hispanic hate group American Border Patrol.”

Like Hodgson, Lynch is a supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff Movement. In 2014 Lynch made a fawning documentary about sovereign citizen rancher Cliven Bundy and in 2016 his bid for president was so off-the-wall that the GOP stood clear. Lynch routinely exaggerates the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, claims that the Chinese are sneaking across the Mexican border in order to inflict a “cyber 911” on the U.S., and that ISIS is bringing terrorists into the U.S. via Mexico. This is exactly what we hear from Hodgson.

In 2018, Hodgson appeared on FOX News with Bernard Kerik, claiming that in 2015 MS-13 had ordered its members to expand the gang’s presence on Nantucket. Both claimed that MS-13 was recruiting in island high schools. The supposed metastasis of MS-13 in New England has been one of Hodgson’s favorite themes. Yet, as violent and grisly as the gang’s occasional handiwork is, MS-13 membership is down dramatically. In fact, in 2018 the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling, said that “we have all but eradicated MS-13 in the Greater Boston area. We’re running out of MS-13 targets.”

Another Islamophobic group that Hodgson is connected to, ACT for America, was founded in 2007 by Brigitte Gabriel. It claims to have more than 1,000 chapters around the country, and espouses the crudest sort of anti-Muslim hate. Both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have documented ACT’s many links with antisemitic, neo-Nazi, Christian right, Identitarian, and white supremacist groups. ACT for America sponsors anti-Muslim legislation and organizes anti-Muslim events with neo-Nazis. ACT for America organizes around the claim that Christianity and Judaism are under attack by Islam. Pastor Jack Hibbs and Stoughton Rabbi Jon Hausman — whom we met earlier — were both speakers at ACT’s 2016 “Religious Persecution” conference in Washington, DC.

In July 2007 Gabriel spoke at the Annual Convention of Pastor John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (CUFI): “The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arabic world is quite simply the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil and this is what we’re witnessing in the Arab and Islamic world. I am angry. They have no soul! They are dead set on killing and destruction.”

Perhaps because of its far-too-frequent neo-Nazi connections, ACT for America became too toxic for even Donald Trump. Following an article in the Miami Herald announcing ACT’s gala at Mar-a-Lago, which was to have been headlined by Michelle Malkin (another friend of Hodgson’s), the Trump administration had second thoughts: “[The gala] will absolutely not be taking place at Mar-a-Lago,” a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization announced.

ACT might have been too toxic for Trump — but not for Hodgson and his friends from FAIR and CIS. In September 2016 the sheriff appeared at a Republican unity rally in Norfolk county attended by his old friend Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies and by ACT for America’s Ray Hannah.

In 2018 Hodgson and Brigitte Gabriel appeared again at FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” event in Washington DC. And on September 26th both Hodgson and Gabriel attended FAIR’s 2019 “Hold their Feet to the Fire” event.

Antisemitism

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s governmental affairs director and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to bethe worst enemies of the country.”

Hodgson has had a long acquaintance with Rios, having appeared with her regularly at FAIR’s annual “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events. In 2017 Hodgson appeared at one with Rios, Michelle Malkin and FAIR’s Dan Stein. Rios’s interviews were broadcast on the Christian broadcast network, American Family Radio, which also hosts programs by James Dobson and Brian Fischer. Among other members of the far right in attendance were Tom Roten, Congressman Steve King, Robert Spencer, and Hungarian neo-Nazi Sebastian Gorka. Among other gems, Rios told listeners that immigrants “don’t know basic hygiene.”

On February 10, 2019 Hodgson appeared on the American Family Council’s “Washington Watch” program with Tony Perkins. Perkins, who says that teaching evolution to children contributes to mass shootings, whose Family Research Council fabricates false claims about the LGBTQ community, and who would deny Muslims equal rights to religious freedom and ban mosques, played a central role in the Pompeo State Department’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, a flagrant effort to make Christianity our state religion.

In 2001 Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies – one of the Tanton groups with which Hodgson is involved, and who suggested that Barak Obama be “hung, drawn and quartered” – wrote a report titled “The Jewish State in America’s Changing Demography.” Reflecting the Great Replacement theory and virtually screaming “Jews will not replace us,” Steinlight castigated secular Jews for their historical support for liberal immigration policies, arguing that Mexicans would soon erode Jewish political power. Steinlight offered himself as an example of a Jew who had come to see the light, saying that his own views had been changed by CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian – whose remark about Haiti you are already familiar with.

For FAIR and CIS, their war against the Jewish embrace of multiculturalism has largely been a failure, and secular Jews like George Soros who still advocate for liberal immigration have become a bitter enemy, as seen in Media Director Ira Mehlman’s 2016 talk following Hodgson’s at FAIR’s National Advisory Board meeting. In 2004 Steinlight issued a call to action with an essay, “High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry” but he still couldn’t make any progress with secular Jews. By 2010 Steinlight was frustrated and angry at his co-religionists, accusing the “Jewish Establishment” of censorship and repression.

Philosemitism

If liberal secular Jews are the “bad Jews,” then for FAIR and CIS Israel is the “good Jew” and a model of ethno-religious nationalism in which security and immigration are handled the “right” way. In 2019 FAIR’s Mehlman penned an article in the Daily Caller praising Israel’s “separation wall.” Hodsgon has also cited Israel’s wall as a model for the U.S.

In March 2017 Hodgson attended the AIPAC policy conference in Washington, also on the public dime. AIPAC, which bills itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” is the most powerful foreign lobby in the United States. While Democrats (and this includes most American Jews) have increasingly distanced themselves from Israel’s hard-line policies, Republicans have embraced AIPAC, and AIPAC has returned the favor by supporting extreme Christian Right Republican candidates.

Hodgson has not been particularly discriminating in jumping under the political bedsheets with antisemites and crackpots. A poster boy for this is Rick Wiles, an End Times believer and a fierce antisemite.

In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Rick Wiles, a conspiracy theorist who, like Hodgson, advocates locking up people whose politics he disagrees with. Wiles devoted “the first half of the program to recount several profound prophetic dreams his family received years ago,” and in the second half Wiles interviewed Hodgson, who discussed immigration and his work with FAIR.

Among Wiles’ more deranged statements in recent years: that Obama was inspired by Lucifer, that Obama killed Supreme Court Justice Scalia as a pagan human sacrifice, that the Irgun has kill teams in America, and that Jews will use gun control laws to kill Christians.

American Border Foundation

But for Hodgson it always seems to boil down to immigration.

In 2018 Hodgson watchers took note when the sheriff announced with great fanfare that the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA) would be crowdfunding Trump’s wall. But Hodgson’s NSA project folded after raising less than $100K in three months — despite his false claim that excessive web traffic had crashed the site. For a time Hodgson’s old NSA site redirected donors to a group called the American Border Foundation.

When Hodgson began his association with the American Border Foundation, its Director of Communications was Jeremy Messina, who identifies with the white Nationalist Identitarian movement and whose Facebook postings bore striking similarities with the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto.

The American Border Foundation‘s crowdfounding scheme never reached its $450 million goal. During its three-year run, ABF’s less-than 4,000 donors raised barely over $227K. Its founder, Gary Dolan, had tried wall-building before via a FundRazr campaign that raised only $12K. The fund’s managing director, Quentin Kramer – who has ties to FAIR sister organization AVIAC – went on the conspiracy and white supremacist circuit trying to sell the project.

Kramer appeared on the far-right Southern Sense podcast and on an “anti-federalist” program that frequently invokes Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”).

Despite lackluster donations, Hodgson claimed that as a sheriff he could cut through the red tape to ensure donations got to the Department of Homeland Security and that the wall would be built. In November of 2018, Hodgson said he submitted a form to DHS to donate $100,000 to pay for “border barriers on the Southern border.” But DHS informed the American Border Foundation it could not accept the donations.

Nevertheless, in 2019 Hodgson and Kramer were still acting as if the crowdfunding effort was still viable. Both spoke at a FAIR-AVIAC-sponsored press conference in Washington, whose main function was to highlight the “Angel Families” who had lost family members to auto accidents or crimes committed by undocumented migrants.

As of today, the whereabouts of $227,657 in ABF donations are still unknown. Neither the ABF nor Hodgson has ever responded to information requests from Bristol County for Correctional Justice or American Oversight.

Protect America Now

Hodgson’s latest project is called Protect America Now, which looks like nothing more than several God-and-Country sheriffs who oppose immigration reform, gun control, voting rights, secularism, and socialism. The sheriffs include: the group’s spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb; Green County (MO) Sheriff Jim Arnott; Livingston County (IL) Sheriff Tony Childress; Bristol County (MA) Sheriff Thomas Hodgson; Brevard County (FL) Sheriff Wayne Ivey; Culpeper County (VA) Sheriff Scott Jenkins; and Wicomico County (MD) Sheriff Mike Lewis.

Despite Protect America Now’s call to “stand strong against lawlessness,” its sheriffs refuse to enforce state gun control laws or COVID-19 mask or social-distancing mandates. Instead, harkening back to the original function of American sheriffs as slave patrols, this motley crew support arming and deputizing their mainly white county residents against “urban” protesters and – again echoing the Great Replacement – border “invaders.”

Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb is the public face of Protect America Now and a “Constitutional Sheriff” who claimed in one speech to the Arizona Police Association that “the constitution is hanging by a thread.” Lamb belongs to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association founded by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack and spoke at CSPOA’s 2020 Virginia Conference. At least three other Protect America Now sheriffs, Thomas Hodgson, Scott Jenkins and Wayne Ivey, are also CSPOA members.

Contrary to Protect America Now’s marketing on Fox News and elsewhere — Protect America Now is not Lamb’s creation. It turns out the incorporator and director of Protect America Now is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative who has been accused of, fired for, and charged with multiple counts of voter fraud, and who set up Protect America Now most recently in June 2020. As a sometime associate of Karl Rove, Sproul’s entire career has been devoted to voter suppression and dirty tricks.

The trademark for Protect America Now was created in 2004 and was the brainchild of Kathy W. McKee, who is still listed on a PAC registration with a similar name. McKee was also the driving force behind a 2004 Arizona voter suppression bill, Proposition 200. As soon as McKee got Prop 200 on the ballot, the GOP and every brownshirt and satin-sheeted group in Arizona took an interest. But McKee made the mistake of bringing an unfiltered white supremacist, Dr. Virginia Abernethy, onto the organization’s national advisory board. Abernethy was so extreme for the rest of the racists that the Federation for American Immigration Reform removed Abernethy and took control over PAN to save Prop 200, despite previous support for Abernethy.

The lawyer who incorporated Protect America Now for Sproul is Kory Langhofer, an equally ethically-unencumbered GOP lawyer who fought both the Mueller investigation for Trump and challenged Arizona election results for Trump. Protect America Now and Langhofer’s offices share a common address. Langhofer is also the co-owner of Signafide, a company that uses AI to challenge ballot signatures.

As the GOP increasingly embraces nativism, the extremists have gone mainstream. The innvolvement by high level GOP operatives like Nathan Sproul and Kory Langhofer using sheriffs like Hodgson and their dangerous militia and white supremacist connections says a lot about the party’s transformation.

Not so very long ago it was racists and xenophobic extremists who worked behind the scenes to support the GOP. Now it’s the Republican Party operating behind the scenes to support the extremists.

Confederate Tie(s)

A couple of years ago, someone noticed that an archived page from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Department featured an official portrait of Hodgson wearing a Confederate necktie. Howard Graves, a research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), recognized Hodgson’s tie as an “Old South Confederate Necktie” which resembles the Confederate battle flag and is sometimes called an Anglo-Confederate society tie. Graves added, “Many people affiliated with the broader neo-Confederate movement wear that tie either in necktie or bowtie form.” Mark Pitcavage with the Anti-Defamation League, agreed: “The tie in the photograph seems certainly to be derived from the design of the Confederate flag.”

Despite everything you’ve read so far, Hodgson vehemently denies his sly tip of the hat to the Confederacy. “They know I would not be wearing anything that makes me the poster boy for bigotry.”

Hodgson’s spokesman provided an even more flaccid defense – that Hodgson “has never heard of neo-confederates or anglo-Confederate societies or anything like that.”

Despite the faux outrage and feigned innocence, in the last 24 years Bristol County voters have had ample time to observe a sheriff who openly advocates for white supremacy and rubs elbows with neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis. In fact, there is no one in Bristol County who qualifies better than Hodgson as a poster boy for bigotry.

It’s time for voters to finally send this companion of fools into retirement in November.