For your information, I didn't go to school in the Bronx. In fact, I didn't start going to school until a couple of years after my family and I moved from the Bronx to Yonkers in 1965. I went to school in Yonkers, and no where else (except for when I had to redo an evolution course that I flunked out on in a Yonkers college, so I had to take the course again at their campus in Dobbs Ferry). I call myself "Boy from the Bronx" because that's where I was born, not because that's where I got my education. By the way, I live in Florida now.

As for your insistence that the Ku Klux Klan is a "c****e" organization, you obviously believe that just because the original KKK was started by Southern Democrats, and like a lot of you right-wing nuts, you think all Democrats are C*******ts (you only think that's so because you've been brainwashed by decades of right-wing, Republican propaganda). Untrue! Yes, the Klan was started by Democrats, but they were CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS, because like most Conservatives, they were wary of change. They couldn't have been "c****es," as you say, because this happened after the end of the Civil War in 1865, and at that time, very few people in the United States (including the Southern part of the country) had ever heard of C*******m.

While the first Klan was mainly against the black people (as well as w****s who sympathized with them), the second version of the organization, which came about in 1915, was, in addition to being anti-black, also against Jews, Catholics, foreigners, immigrants, atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, internationalists, pacifists, liberals, labor organizers, Socialists, and C*******ts. In fact, they were right-wing fanatics who h**ed anything and anybody who was the slightest bit to the left of the political spectrum.

Their philosophy was, in reality, more akin to F*****m and N**ism than to C*******m or Socialism. After all, Hitler and Mussolini shared the Klan's hatred of Jews, non-caucasian people, and anybody else who was considered "racially inferior," as well as left-wing. Significantly enough, in the 1930s and early '40s, there was a brief alliance between the Klan and the Pro-N**i German-American Bund.

In 1944, the Klan had to be disbanded because its leaders couldn't pay over $600,000 in back taxes. For a few years, there was no KKK in America. But, in 1948, Dr. Samuel Green reactivated the Klan. Unlike the one that was disbanded in 1944, the third version of the society would have no national organization. Instead, each branch of the Klan would operate as a self-governing unit. However, their ideology was the same. They were still against the minorities (anyone who wasn't a native-born, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant Conservative) and left-wingers, including C*******ts. At the time of the Civil Rights movement, the Klan leaders (as well as most white Southerners) considered the movement to be C*******t-inspired (as did FBI director J. Edgar Hoover). In a television documentary on the Klan in 1965, a Klan leader was asked from where he thought the Civil Rights people were getting the money to finance the movement, and he replied, "From the C*******t Party, and from the Z*****t, Christ-k*****g Jews." In this same program, a judge who was investigating the Klan told about how some Klansmen had flogged a man because they heard that he was "a labor organizer, and they equated that to C*******m, and they equated that to race-mixing, and then they would usually equate that to say that some Jewish fellow was in back of it."
If you don't believe me, you can find this show on YouTube. It's called "The Ku Klux Klan: The Invisible Empire," a "CBS Reports" special, hosted by Charles Kuwalt.

Today, the Klan, as well as other groups similar to them, still hold the same views, which means the same dislike of the minorities (which now includes the L**T people), and the same aversion to the far-left, including, of course, the C*******ts.

In short, your claim that the modem day Klan "is very much c****e" just doesn't make sense.

Just because someone is an Assistant Professor of something that you've never heard of, like Intellectual Heritage, or that he received a degree in it that you think is "useless," it doesn't give you cause to make fun of him, or call him names like "useless weenie," or to make assumptions about him. (like assuming that he's vegan, or that his parents paid for his entire college education, or that he doesn't make enough money "to buy three pounds of hamburger meat a month and still make the rent"; and who buys three pounds of hamburger meat a month anyway?)

Besides, you're missing the point of the entire article, which is that President Trump's plan to give special privileges and protection to one particular branch (Evangelical Protestantism) of one particular religion (Christianity) is unconstitutional, because it will mean that the United States Government is getting involved in religious issues that it has no business getting into in the first place, plus it comes dangerously close to making Evangelical Protestantism an official state religion, and the First Amendment to the Constitution clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's probably one of our most important protections of our freedom, because without it, any religion can make itself the official "faith" of the United States of America, which would enable members of that faith to pass laws imposing their particular religious beliefs on those who belong to other religions, or who don't believe in religion at all, thus leading to religious bigotry and persecution. Past history has shown that this is what always happens when members of one church take over a country, like what occurred in Spain in the days of the Spanish Inquisition, when so-called "heretics" were not only persecuted, but imprisoned, flogged, tortured, and finally burned at the stake (it was called "Auto de Fe," or "Act of Faith"). Even the children of the accused "unbelievers" suffered at the hands of the Inquisitors.

In other words, Trump's pandering to the Evangelists, like that "Christian Amendment" of the 19th Century that was the subject of this article, will not, despite what Trump and his supporters say, protect religious liberty. In fact, it will do just the opposite -- it will DESTROY religious liberty!

Furthermore, the fact that Trump is backing this crazy idea is just another example of his deceitfulness and hypocrisy. Don't forget that this the same man who wanted to ban MUSLIMS from entering the United States on the flimsy grounds that they MIGHT be "terrorists." TRUMP JUDGES AN ENTIRE RELIGION JUST BECAUSE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THAT FAITH USE IT AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR TERRORIST ACTS (LIKE 9/11, FOR INSTANCE)! ISN'T THAT A ATTACK ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?

It is equally hypocritical for a guy like Trump to care about God, or the Bible, or religion in general (let alone religious freedom), when he has spent almost his entire life commiting just about EVERY SIN MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES! He has been, among other things, a c***t, a thief, a chiseler, a possible tax evader, a sexual harasser, a pervert, a fornicator, an adulterer, a possible rapist, a participant in business and political corruption, a bigot, a provocateur of violence and hatred, a practitioner of double standards (for example, giving donations to Democratic campaigns, including that of JOE BIDEN AND KAMELA HARRIS, and now saying that the DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING BIDEN AND HARRIS, ARE "THE ENEMY"), a man who has used, and continues to use, his name, his wealth, his power, and his influence (as well as that of his father), to get himself out of jams, but most of all, he has been a compulsive, habitual, and pathological LIAR!
Why, the man makes Richard Nixon look like Diogenes!

In short, Trump just uses religion as a political prop to make himself look good and bolster his already overinflated ego. That's what he did when he had the police department of Washington, DC, use unnecessary force to remove peaceful protesters away from the area of a local church, just so he could pose in front of the church holding up a Bible as a photo opportunity (in other words, a publicity stunt). He didn't even hold the Bible right -- he had it upside down!

Of course, it's probably just as well, since Trump doesn't really believe in the Scriptures anyway. After all, he has broken almost every rule of morality listed in the book, including many of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not commit adultery;" "Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's;" "Thou shalt not bear false witness towards thy neighbor;" "thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord, thy God, in vain," etc)! Most of all, he ignores much of the teachings of Jesus Christ, including the idea of loving our enemies, of judging not "lest ye be judged," of turning "the other cheek," of "loving thy neighbor," etc.

The fact is that Donald Trump is less like a Christian, and is more like the Pharisees, who pretended to be so religious and "holy" just to impress people, to make themselves feel and look important, or to hide their personal sins and weaknesses, just as Trump does and has done in the past. Jesus rightfully denounced the Pharisees as hypocrites, which is exactly what they were -- and EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN!

I see you replied to my post before I finished editing it. And which video were you referring to?

So, you and your fellow rednecks think that Rittenhouse guy is a hero, eh? Not from what I heard!

What I've heard is that the men that he shot and k**led were NOT r****rs or criminals of any kind, that they were engaging in a peaceful protest, and that Rittenhouse murdered them in cold blood! What's more, the local police knew that he was wandering around the neighborhood with a gun (which happened to be a military style weapon that no civilian needs or should be trusted with), but they did nothing to stop him or even question him about what he was doing that night. Furthermore, after he k**led those protesters, the police thanked him for it, and even offered him a drink of water. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, they let him leave the city, and then the STATE, even though interstate flight to avoid prosecution for a crime is a FEDERAL OFFENSE!

Some people are now saying that Rittenhouse shot those men only because they were black, and that the cops are supporting him because many of them are r****ts themselves.

Whether any of this is true or not will have to be resolved when Rittenhouse is brought to trial on murder charges (and the only reason he was even charged with a crime is because the District Attorney was pressured into it because of public outrage at the thought that the police were covering up for a bigoted and murderous vigilante). If, by some chance, he can prove that his actions were a case of justifiable homicide, and he's acquitted, well and good. But, if it's proved that he was not justified, that he did, in fact, commit a willful and deliberate murder of men who were no threat to him or anyone else, and that his crime was motivated, not by a desire to protect himself or his neighborhood, but by something that can't be justified (like racial prejudice, for example), then he's obviously not a hero or a patriot, but a dangerous criminal who's a menace to society, and should, therefore, be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

As for those police officers who may have been covering up Rittenhouse's crimes and then allowed him to flee (even though they're supposed to ENFORCE the law, not break it), they should all be kicked off the force! Not only that, they should be investigated for possibly aiding and abetting a criminal, being accessories to a crime, and, if possible, be charged in federal court with accessory to an interstate crime (Rittenhouse's flight out of the state).

There's no such thing as a "c****e klan." If you knew anything about the Ku Klux Klan, you would know that it is, in fact, ANTI-C*******T! It's been that way ever since it was reborn in 1915.

So these r**ts are happening because they can't or won't "accept the results of e******ns." That's odd, I thought it was because of what happened to G****e F***d.

Are you accustomed to confusing people with this "Rumi" person? Are you accustomed to being an annoying pest? Are you accustomed to harassing people you don't even know just because you get some kind of cheap thrill out of it?

If I knew who you really are, I'd have you arrested for criminal harassment, and I'd get a restraining order against you too.

Once and for all, I am NOT "Rumi"!

PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION!

Where did "Peter S" say that he goes around burning down federal buildings and attacking federal police? Either you're imagining things or you have Peter confused with someone else.

First of all, I am NOT this person called Rumi! Second, I never said anything about my "impending death." I don't know where you're getting this ridiculous ideas, and I'm fed up with them!

NOW, DROP IT!

I have not lived in New York City all my life. I was born in the Bronx, but my family moved to Yonkers when I was five years old (that was in 1965). We lived there about 24 years (1965-89), then we moved to Boca Raton, Florida. My father died in 2003, and that left me, my mom and my sister. In 2011, we were evicted from our house, and for a couple of years, we were living in the homes of friends, or a friend of a friend, then in motels, then in homeless shelters (that is, me and sis, while mom was in the hospital because the stress effected her health), then mom died in 2013, and my sister and I lived in a cheap motel in Deerfield Beach, until we ran out of money and we had to live in a bus shelter in Boca Raton for a while, until a kindly man took us in and offered to look after us. He set up a small efficiency apartment for us (it used to be a part of his garage), and we started paying him rent with money borrowed from my cousin in New City, New York. A few years later, however, my sister passed away from lung cancer, so I have been living alone in that same efficiency apartment, and I'm still paying rent, only this time, it's with money from being put on Social Security disability (I was declared to be on the spectrum for Asperger's Syndrome; my cousin in New York State helped me to get approved for the money). That's where I live now.

As for relatives, I haven't seen much of them since I moved down here. I've never seen a baseball or hockey game (I was never into sports anyway). I've never been to a rock concert (although I like rock music), and the only Broadway musical I've seen was "A Chorus Line," and that was for a course on the American musical theater that I took at Mercy College when I was still living in Yonkers. For that same course, I also saw a high school production of "Mame."

It's these Christian Right people like Jerry Falwell, Jr, who are talking about Trump as if he were God Himself, and completely ignoring the fact that he's been a serial sinner all his life. Rev. Pat Robertson, another right-wing nut, recently had the nerve to say that anyone who opposes Trump is against "God's plan," wh**ever Robertson meant by that.

Dario Argento? I've never heard of him, and I don't see what this has to do with me.

Are you completely off the beam? Just saying "whoever he is" doesn't "give me away," and it doesn't prove that I'm this person called "Rumi." It just means that I don't know who he or she is, that's all.

I DO NOT HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA!
Schizophrenia doesn't mean that someone has more than one personality, that is a myth. It simply means that one has delusions that cut him off from reality.

"Rumi" is NOT at it again, because I AM NOT RUMI!!! What part of that don't you understand?

Another thing: I don't have more than one personality, and I've never had!