Well, this is very, very long. So I am not sure if you wrote it, or if it is a cut and paste. I would prefer a personal response--which would be real response to what was actually written.. First, I would say, there is actually nothing in here about police and de-funding police. So, I am not sure why this is brought up. ... This is really about how much racism there still is, and how the President represents this continuing racism, and yes, white supremacy. As for the police, the laws referenced about resisting and obligation to arrest are exactly what might be changed with the kind of pressure and dilaogue we are are now seeing as a result of BLM. For example, armed police do not need to respond to every call to 911. In Eugene, OR, roughly 3,000 calls per year are handled by the CAHOOTS team, which are folks who come with mental health skills, medicine and food to handle situations that do not need police response. This kind of shifting of funding would free up the police to respond exclusively to other calls. In the case of George Floyd, as soon as he began to complain of clausterphobia, panic and etc. about getting in the police car, a CAHOOTS unit could have been called. The no reason to need to force someone into a police car if you can take the time, with assistance, to help them calm down ... There is more I will say here later when I have time, but I will mention that the Hovver Institution is quite conservative. That is not necessarily bad, but it may mean there are blind spots to some of the points in this piece. Thank you.