It’s not a rare occurrence to see the fake news media being proven wrong by either other media or by itself, but what is a fairly rare occurrence is for the fake news media to make a bold claim and then proceed to disprove themselves with facts and data in the same article.
Last week, President Trump said the following during a White House event: “You hear about certain places like Chicago and you hear about what’s going on in Detroit and other – other cities, all Democrat run. Every one of them is Democrat run. Twenty out of 20. The worst, the 20 most dangerous are Democrat run.”
Philip Bump, writing for the Washington Post, insisted, as his headline suggested, that “Trump keeps claiming that the most dangerous cities in America are all run by Democrats. They aren’t,” and then proceeds to write the following: “It’s not clear how Trump is defining ‘most dangerous’ in this context.”
So the guy is trying to say “no, Trump is lying!” while also saying “I don’t know what Trump means specifically”. This is the caliber of fake news we are dealing with on a daily basis. They deny Trump’s claims while also not knowing exactly what he’s talking about.
What Trump is talking about in this current political context is the fact that Democrats are running the cities where there were riots, looting and burning of buildings supposedly over the death of George Floyd. Democrats are running the cities where ANTIFA and BLM are trying to tear down, or are succeeding in tearing down, statues of historical figures, regardless of what they supported: be they Confederate officers, abolitionists, segregationists, even Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and St. Louis IX, a FRENCH king, have been targeted. The ONLY places where there were riots, and in particular, where riots were ALLOWED to occur by governing authorities, are all run by Democrats.
That is largely what Trump means, but even according to Bump’s own interpretation of what Trump means, Trump is still largely right.
You see, Bump, likely believing the riots were either not real or they were “largely peaceful”, thought Trump meant “most dangerous” in terms of crime data; that Trump was saying that the 20 cities with the most violent crime and most violent crime per capita were all run by Democrats.
And technically speaking, Trump is wrong. Not all 20 cities with the most violent crime and most crime per capita are Democrat-run. Only ALMOST ALL of them are. Yeah, what a difference.
Bump shares the following data:
As you can see, only 17 of the 20 most violent cities in America are run by Democrats. Checkmate, Drumpf!
No, but seriously, Bump himself gave us this little gem and I think he realizes how much of an idiot he is for sharing it IN HIS OWN ARTICLE.
Likely after noticing that there is only ONE Republican in that list of most violent crime and ZERO Republicans in the per capita graph, Bump said that “it doesn’t really matter that the other mayors are Democrats.”
His reasoning? That cities generally have more crime than suburban and rural areas do, and cities tend to vote for Democrats.
While that may be true, it’s a red herring argument. It absolutely matters that the mayors are Democrats because Republicans and Democrats (usually) have different policies when it comes to crime, particularly in this current climate.
Democrats are calling for the “defunding” or abolition of police departments nationwide. Many demand the abolition of prisons. They demand asinine crap like bail reform that allows for violent criminals to walk in and out of prison like they’re going in for a haircut. They demand the decriminalization of things from prostitution to marijuana. They ENCOURAGE violent mobs destroying statues and businesses and even other people’s homes, provided that their own homes are never targeted. In Minneapolis, Democrats have voted to make a referendum for citizens to vote on whether or not to dismantle their police department this November.
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be tougher on crime and friendlier to police (again, usually, though not always). They want criminals to be held accountable for their crimes and for citizens to be able to live peaceful lives as much as possible.
Given these differences, it’s ridiculous to suggest that it doesn’t matter that Democrats run 17 or 19 of the 20 most dangerous cities in the country (by violent crime standards, though also by the standards Trump used in his own context). If people keep voting Democrat, these are the crime rates they should be expecting to see. Do cities tend to have higher crime rates anyway? Perhaps, but that’s not the only or even the biggest contributor to that.
By the time Rudy Giuliani left office as mayor of New York City, the violent crime rate and murder rate dropped 55.6% and 66.4% respectively since he first took office. And while the crime rate was already going down somewhat before he took office, it PLUMMETED once he became mayor. And yet, what city did we see topping the chart for most violent crime in recent time? New York City, where a Democrat is running things.
Mayoral policies, obviously, affect what happens in the cities. What policies a mayor has and chooses to employ will have an effect on the city, and Democrats tend to be awfully soft on crime, which is why we see the numbers and figures that we’re seeing. It absolutely matters what political party a mayor belongs to and we are seeing the results.
Democrats run the “s**holes” precisely because their policies are designed to turn whatever place they run into such a hellish land. Yes, the fact that cities have higher populations is an important factor, but what is even more important is what sort of policy the mayor employs.
But enough with trying to argue against the deceiver’s red herring argument. The main thing is that the guy tried to “disprove” Trump only to come right out and say he didn’t exactly understand what Trump meant and went on to provide evidence that just about proves Trump right, for the most part.
No, not all 20 of the most violent cities are run by Democrats. Only 17 of them are, and 19 when talking about per 10,000 residents. What a great technical victory for the Democrats it must be that not all of the most dangerous cities are run by them, only almost all.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
It’s late June of an election year, so it’s no surprise at all to see multiple Left-wing polls claiming that Trump is toast; that he’s going to lose and lose badly; that he is headed for a crushing defeat; that the walls are closing in and the American people are tired of Donald Trump. It’s the exact same song and dance we heard throughout 2016. Remind me, what was the result of that election?
Perhaps the only difference between 2016 and 2020 is that the media has fooled some Trump supporters into believing he is on the path to defeat. However, I highly doubt that’s the case at all for a number of reasons.
First of all, we were hearing this same bullcrap from the same people four years ago. Eddie Zipperer has a great thread on Twitter with numerous articles from 2016 that showed Hillary Clinton with 85-99% chance at winning, multiple electoral map results that showed she would win at minimum 300 electoral votes, and just article after article from the fake news media saying that Donald Trump had no chance in hell of becoming President of the United States. Four years later, they’re trying to tell us that the guy whom they said had no chance of winning but still won once again has no chance of winning.
Reuters had Clinton’s chances of getting elected at 90%. The Monday before the election, CNN had Clinton’s chances of winning at over 90%. MSNBC had a “scientist” predict that Clinton had a 99% chance of being elected. Stanford University said the same.
The Huffington Post predicted that Clinton would win 323 electoral votes, with Princeton predicting the same. Joy Reid predicted Clinton winning 340. Moody’s Analytics predicted Clinton would win 332 electoral votes. FiveThirtyEight had Clinton winning as few as 375 electoral votes and as many as 471.
Day in and day out, for months on end until even election day itself, these “journalists” were all of the belief that Hillary Clinton was practically DESTINED to become President of the United States.
And what do we see today? Fox News having Biden winning Florida by 9 percentage points, Georgia by 2, North Carolina by 2 and TEXAS by 1. Redfield & Wilton saying Biden is winning in Pennsylvania by 10 points, Michigan by 11, North Carolina by 6, Florida by 4 and Arizona by 4. CNBC saying that Biden is 9 points ahead nationally. Reuters saying that Biden is ahead 10 points nationally. The Economist/YouGov saying Biden is winning by 8 points nationally. NYT/Sienna showing Biden winning 14% nationally. Fox News showing Biden winning 12% nationally. Quinnipiac showing Biden winning 8% nationally, etc., etc.
It’s the exact same song and dance and roughly the same numbers we were seeing back in 2016. And you’re telling me that this time it’s somehow different?
Let me tell you what is actually different this time around that will affect the election: Trump has a record now.
Back in 2016, he ran on policy but could hardly back it up with things from his past because he ran a real estate empire and was a reality tv star. People trusted him with the economy (still do in most polls, and that is always the biggest issue) because of his experience but had to just trust his word for the rest of the job as POTUS and he delivered. He delivered on the economy, that’s for sure. He delivered on being the most pro-life president. He delivered on his stance against illegal immigration (not that he got any help from the GOP) and despite the troubles we face today, I trust that he can still take care of it all (there are hundreds of DOJ investigations into the people tearing down statues, so don’t tell me he isn’t being a law and order president).
Like I said towards the beginning of the pandemic: the virus cannot be blamed on Trump, and neither can the actions of other people. The virus itself came from China because they are dirty liars opportunistically setting the world on fire. The lockdown orders came from the governors individually, and not even all the states decided to lock things down. The economy is not doing great right now, but it was for three years under Trump and he will do it again, provided we open back up in full (and we have to at one point or another).
As far as the cases go, that has more to do with increased testing than the virus being out of control. And considering the CDC chief said that Chinese coronavirus cases could be ten times higher than confirmed cases, that only means that the mortality rate is a tenth of what it is today: 0.26%, so if the chief is right, the mortality rate should actually be 0.026%, which is considerably lower than the flu.
In other words, we have absolutely no reason at all to be shutting things down or keeping things shut down. Once people begin realizing this, the economy will make a great comeback and that will definitely boost Trump’s chances at re-election.
While the last few months haven’t exactly been great for Trump (and 2020 has really been a huge mess for basically everyone), I’m not at all convinced that Trump is headed for an electoral defeat, especially considering who his opponent is.
Granted, Biden is really helped by the fact that he is being kept hidden in the basement for the most part, but at one point or another, he will have to debate Donald Trump and will actually have to make public appearances more often. That is something he nor the Democrats can allow to happen which is part of the reason they are so adamant about going back to the virus as a main talking point (and because covering wanton destruction of property and violence coming from Leftists won’t exactly help convince voters to vote for Leftist Democrats).
Of course, the biggest threat to Donald Trump right now isn’t Joe Biden but voter fraud in the form of mail-in ballots, which the Left is all too happy about implementing for this election considering how absurdly easy it would be for them to cheat through this system. But otherwise, I don’t see how Biden beats Trump (which isn’t to say that he couldn’t and this is no license for people not to vote for Trump).
Now, one last thing I want to talk about actually has something to do with what Zipperer said at the end of his Twitter thread regarding all of the fake polls about Clinton. Zipperer said: “These are all the same ‘experts’ now making all the same predictions because their predictions aren’t about being right; their predictions are about gaslighting you out of voting.”
And he definitely is right. These polls aren’t meant to be accurate. They are meant to make you feel demoralized, like you are headed for crushing defeat, and that there is no real point in going out to vote because defeat is assured. They are meant to keep you from voting by making you feel there would be no point in spending hours at the polling booth if your guy is just going to lose anyway. The ironic thing about this is that I believe this is a double-edged sword. It might get some people demoralized and believe there is no point in voting for Trump, but it also leaves some Democrats overconfident and believe victory is assured so there is no point in spending those same hours at the polling booth if their guy is going to win anyway.
We just have to make sure that our side does not get demoralized by what the fake news media is claiming is the reality at hand, when that’s not at all the case. What reason does any one of us have to believe the same fake news polls from the same fake news sources that have for the past four years tried to insist to us that Trump had no chance at getting nominated, elected, cheated to get elected, was planning on cheating to get re-elected through either Russia, Ukraine or China, and now has no chance at getting re-elected?
Why would anyone believe the words of known liars and biased, agenda-driven deceivers?
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who breathes out lies will perish.”
It’s nothing new to see radical Leftists invoke the name of the Lord to defend their outright satanic beliefs. Radical Leftists often tried to use the Bible to defend the institution of slavery and to defend segregation. Radical Leftists try to use the Bible to defend the mass genocide of babies in the womb. So it’s not surprising to see a BLM communist invoke the name of the Lord to defend the destruction of the United States.
In a recent interview with Martha MacCallum, Hawk Newsome, communist leader of the Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, did exactly that in his defense of the riots.
MacCallum brought up the following quote from Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and asked what Newsome thought of it: “Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, ‘White Power!’ when nobody will shout ‘Black Power!’ but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power. Do you agree with that?”
Newsome then had the gall to say the following: “I love the Lord. And my lord and savior, Jesus Christ, is the most famous black radical revolutionary in history. He was treated just like Dr. King. He was arrested on occasion, and he was also crucified or assassinated. This is what happens to black activists, we are killed by the government.”
If he truly was a Christian, he would know not to compare Jesus with anyone, let alone “black radical revolutionaries”. Christ was NOT a black radical revolutionary.
Throughout the interview following that statement, Newsome tried to make the point repeatedly that Jesus was not white. Considering He was in the Middle East, I imagine He might not have been, but if He were white, black or whatever else, He is still the Lord and our Savior, so true Christians would still follow Him. Considering how adamant Newsome was about saying Christ wasn’t white, as though that matters, I don’t believe for one second that he would follow the Lord if He had been white.
But that just addresses the “black” part. Let’s address the “radical revolutionary” part. Jesus never set out to overthrow the government of His time and repeatedly made note of that. Jesus said in Mark 12:17: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” He didn’t call for an overthrow of Caesar (as the Pharisees believed and tried to trap Jesus into admitting as much). He didn’t call for a toppling of Rome. He made note that His Kingdom is not of this world, so He was NOT a revolutionary at all.
Next, and perhaps most importantly, Jesus was not killed by the government like a “black activist”. To insinuate Jesus was a “black activist” is a damnable insult. Jesus was killed by a BLOODTHRISTY MOB that DEMANDED His blood. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no guilt in Jesus. Luke 23:4 says: “Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no guilt in this man.’” Later on, it even says that Herod, who was the ruler in Jesus’ district of Galilee and also had the ability to judge Jesus, found no guilt in Jesus for what He was being charged with.
But the crowd insisted that Pilate would punish Jesus and would instead release Barabbas, who was, as verse 19 says: “a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder.” Similarly to the mob of today, the mob that called for the death of Jesus would rather have a horrible criminal and dangerous person be released than someone who is innocent.
Pilate further insisted on releasing Jesus but the crowd chanted: “Crucify, crucify him!” Soon after, Pilate relented and bent the knee to the mob, giving them what they wanted, and ordered the death of Jesus.
So Jesus was not killed by Rome. He was not killed by the government. He was killed BY THE MOB THAT DEMANDED HIS BLOOD BE SPILLED. He was killed because a government figure bent the knee to the mob.
That Newsome does not know this is not at all a surprise to me. HE ISN’T A CHRISTIAN! Christ is nowhere to be found in his heart, else he wouldn’t believe what he believes or say what he says!
Later in the interview, Newsome says that he wanted “black liberation and black sovereignty… by any means necessary.” Does that sound like something a Christian would say?
Blacks in the U.S. ARE ALREADY LIBERATED AND HAVE BEEN FOR A CENTURY AND A HALF! And of course, it’s hard to ignore the call for “black sovereignty”, which is, of course, black supremacy. The guy is no different or better from the neo-Nazis who call for white supremacy instead.
The guy demands black liberation when he claims to be a Christian. A Christian IS ALREADY FREE BECAUSE OF THE WORKS OF CHRIST AT THE CROSS! He wants black sovereignty or supremacy. That is not equality at all and shows us the type of person he is. Christ’s people will rule and judge the world alongside Him.
Revelation 20:4 says: “Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”
There is no black sovereignty. There is no white sovereignty. There is no human sovereignty. The only sovereignty that exists is strictly the Lord’s and we all have a single path to salvation.
That Newsome believes Jesus to have been equal to a black activist destroying property, setting fires, assaulting people and killing people is outright blasphemous and I hope he repents. What he said is nothing short of an insult to the Lord and a threat to this country, which he intends to destroy to bring about black supremacy.
This man is no Christian at all, and just because he professes to have faith, that does not mean he actually possesses it. It’s clear, from this single interview, that he does not speak as one who has Christ in his heart. He has hatred – Satan – in his heart.
Christ was not a “black radical revolutionary.” He was not a black activist. He was not even killed by the government. He is the Lord. He is the King. He was killed to satisfy a mob. Newsome is part of the mob we see today, making demands and threatening destruction and unruliness if the demands are not met.
Newsome speaks more like a radical terrorist than a Christian. He should look inside his own heart and be afraid of what is in there. He should repent of the blasphemous things he said and believes. But as a radical Leftist, I don’t really expect him to do such a thing.
Who knows, though? Maybe the Lord will bring wisdom onto Newsome and get him to repent. I won’t judge Newsome because it’s not my job to do so. But what he said and currently believes is damnable and I will condemn it to Hell.
“’Not everyone who calls out to me, “Lord, Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.’”
Over the span of two days, failure of a governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) blamed the federal government, Republicans, and nursing staff workers for the effects of his March 25th executive order which sent sick people to nursing homes en masse.
On Monday, Cuomo appeared on MSNBC Live to lie to people about his failures as a governor, saying that they had more people in nursing homes die “because the federal government missed the boat and never told us that the virus was coming from Europe and not from China.”
This is a load of crap for a number of reasons. First of all, it ORIGINATED in China, but it’s always good to know just who is in bed with the Chinese, trying to absolve them of their crimes against humanity JUST relating to the Chinese coronavirus. Second of all, everyone, INCLUDING CUOMO, knew that the virus went to Europe too and went to New York from Europe.
Back on March 25th, the same day he gave the executive order to send sick people to nursing and retirement homes, Cuomo said that New York was the hardest-hit state because “we welcome people from across the globe… we have people coming here, we have people who came here from China, who came here from Italy, who came here from all across the globe.”
Cuomo, back in March, was paying as much attention to the situation in Italy and Europe as a whole as the rest of us were. So he absolutely cannot blame the federal government not warning people about the virus coming from Europe when that is a demonstrable lie and Cuomo himself was perfectly aware of the fact that he was getting people from Italy (and funny that he mentioned China here, whom he is now trying to absolve and say the virus didn’t come from there).
Third, it has been PROVEN that China was withholding information from everyone, allowing international travel but barring travel from within the mainland, and overall opportunistically setting the world on fire with this virus. We operated using the information given to us by the Chinese and the China-owned WHO. So if you wanna blame anybody, Andy, blame the Chinese for lying to the world for months.
In any case, he also attacked Republicans, not necessarily for the deaths of the virus, but for pointing out Cuomo’s failures and the effects of his executive order, claiming they are just "playing politics." The s.o.b. is trying to claim Republicans POINTING OUT HOW MUCH OF A FAILURE HE IS FOR PUTTING SICK PEOPLE IN NURSING HOMES are playing politics as he, himself, is trying to absolve himself of all blame and clearly doing very poorly. This is awfully reminiscent of Hillary Clinton blaming everyone from James Comey to married women to Barack Obama to Russia for her electoral loss in 2016. It’s a sign of desperation and cracking, blaming a number of things on everyone else, when in reality, Clinton’s failures are her own and in this case, Cuomo’s failures are his own.
And most recently, appearing on “Morning Joe” on Tuesday, Cuomo tried to defend his executive order, blame it on the federal government, say that the order, which he blames on the fed, was not a mistake, and goes on to blame the staff at the nursing homes.
Co-host Willie Geist asked the monumental failure: “Looking back now, with the information you have, was it a mistake to issue that March 25 order to send people back into the nursing homes, now that you have all the information you have?”
Cuomo pathetically answered: “First, it was a – it was federal guidance that we put out, Willie… No, it wasn’t a mistake. Because if you look at the facts, not that anybody looks at facts anymore (projecting onto others what he does), by the time – you didn’t want to leave a senior citizen in a hospital for two weeks if they didn’t need to be in a hospital bed for two weeks… And what all the data says is, the reason you had infections in the nursing homes [was] because the staff brought in the infection… So, it is that the staff got infected, they came to work, and they brought in the infection.”
What a pathetic liar. Again, the executive order was not federal guidance at all. It was HIS OWN ORDER. And now, he’s blaming the staff for “getting infected and showing up to work anyway”. Every state worked hard to ensure that doctors, nurses and overall medical staff was able to take care of patients safely. Usually, whomever got sick would NOT show up to work, because that’s common sense. Every state operated this way, and yet, New York was the only one with this bad of a problem? So it’s not that the staff was bringing in the infection (or at least, that was not the major reason). Over 6,000 senior citizens died precisely BECAUSE of the March 25th order sending sick people, not even exclusively older people, into retirement homes to spread the virus like a wildfire.
So to keep count, Cuomo is blaming the federal government for “not warning” him that the virus was coming from Europe, even though he’s been shown to have noticed it came from there too, is blaming the federal government for HIS executive order, while also saying that it was not a mistake to issue the order, is attacking Republicans for pointing out the fact he is responsible for the deaths of over 6,000 senior citizens, and is blaming the NURSING STAFF at those homes for bringing in the infection into the homes, as if sending sick people to those homes was not at all going to contribute.
I honestly don’t know who the bigger clown is out of him and Bill DeBlasio.
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
Earlier this week, Black Lives Matter protesters showed up to protest defenders of a monument to former Vice President John C. Calhoun, who was an advocate for slavery in a time when it was being heavily debated and his dedication served as the ground work for the South seceding from the Union (though Calhoun specifically did not want the South to secede, ironically).
Amidst all of the chaos and vandals destroying and tearing down statues of various historical figures, from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson to Cervantes (who was, himself, a slave at one point in his life), a group of people sought to defend the monument dedicated to Calhoun from people who might target it and further seek to destroy our nation’s history.
This defense of Calhoun’s monument was discovered and BLM activists showed up to (actually) peacefully protest the defenders and the monument itself. However, at one point, a group of white people showed up pretending to be slaves, carrying signs that read: “Cracker for Sale”, “Hang that Cracker”, “What if this was your (white) history?” and “What if the roles were reversed?” Some of these white protesters even had put on make-up on their bodies that made them look like they received whip lashes.
Before I get to the funny part about this where some BLM protesters were outright ticked off, let me say the following: these white people are disgusting and dangerously misinformed (not that this is anything new).
For one, simulating being slaves is awful, no matter how you look at it. It’s outright offensive towards those who were actual slaves and who actually had scars due to whip lashes and general abuses. And you know I’m being serious because I don’t often use the word “offensive” without also mocking whomever might be “offended.” This is actually and really offensive, which is probably why BLM protestors were ticked off.
Secondly, let’s discuss the signs, particularly the “what if this was your (white) history?” That question presupposes that the people defending Calhoun are also defending slavery, which is not at all the case. No one in this country today (at least, not sane people) would defend the atrocity of slavery. Not one person who was there to defend the Calhoun monument was there to defend his beliefs.
To give you a very brief history of Calhoun, the guy served as VP to John Quincy Adams in 1824 but switched to the then-recently-formed Democratic Party in 1828 to run with Andrew Jackson against Adams (obviously, Jackson won). Throughout Calhoun’s tenure as VP and eventually as a Senator, he was a strong proponent of slavery, argued that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to abolish slavery (this became the basis for “State’s Rights” for the South’s secession), and asserted that the South “cannot remain here in an endless struggle in defense of our character, our property, and institutions,” and that “we must become, finally, two peoples… Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist.”
The guy himself, obviously, was not exactly the best person in the world. Slavery was never a moral thing and the guy was, himself, rather immoral for wanting to protect the institution of slavery. However, tearing down a monument dedicated to the guy does nothing towards making amends for slavery and racism. All it does is further eliminate our history, which is what the Marxists want in order to create an eternal present dominated by them.
But in any case, let’s return to the actual protesters. Like I said, BLM was livid at the liberal white people pretending to be slaves. One of the BLM protesters shouted: “Put that s*** down, sister! Don’t do that! Why are you here? Your attitude! I know you’re f***ing kidding me! I know you’re f***ing kidding me!”
It is pretty evident that the BLM protesters were not exactly fond of the behavior of the entitled white liberals parading around like slaves, supposedly in support of the Black Lives Matter protesters. Not that one ought to expect much else from such people.
This is what white guilt brings to people who subscribe to the idiocy. These white folk are so ridden with guilt over their very skin color (and no one, for some reason, is saying that such a belief is racist and you know very well that if we were talking about black people feeling guilty for being black, there would be an outcry about racism) that they think it is appropriate to showcase themselves in reversed roles to the historical reality: the white people as the slaves and the black people as the owners. How you come to believe this is in any way okay is beyond me, but this is the sentiment brought about by white guilt.
White guilt gets white people to outright feel bad for being white. It gets them to believe they are at any capacity responsible for the atrocities of DEMOCRATS in the past and that simply being white, not even necessarily being related to slave owners, but just being a white person, is enough to condemn someone of past racism.
Do you know who else acts like this? Who else brings up people’s past and puts feelings of guilt and shame in their hearts? Who else makes people believe that any sort of atonement is insufficient and that forgiveness cannot really be achieved? Satan. Only these people are condemning an entire race for what few members of it did in the past.
I’ve already used this example before, but saying that white people today bear the responsibility of slavery from the past is the same as saying that the son of a serial killer bears the responsibility of his serial killer father and ought to be punished for that link. It’s not just in the least.
Slavery is a thing of the past. Not one black person today (in the U.S. at least, since many countries in the Middle East allow for slavery and Libya has open slave markets, but no one is talking about that slavery) has been a slave. Not one black person was owned by another person today. Not one black person today was forced to pick cotton or other plants. And not one white person today has owned a slave. To blame today’s white people in general for the sins of DEMOCRATS in the past is not just. And if you want to blame anyone, blame the actual DEMOCRATS who were a part of it. Blame the Democrat Party which fought for slavery, was split on segregation (and Joe Biden’s best friends were segregationists) and even today is entirely focused on race, only playing things a little bit differently.
Not that I expect white liberals to really be able to understand why this is all so insane. White guilt poisons the mind.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
While I have not necessarily covered this too much, it is pretty much impossible to ignore the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or CHAZ (some call it “CHOP” which stands for "Capitol Hill Organized/Occupied Protest"). Without going into too much detail, for those who do not know, communists have basically staged an insurrection at the Capitol Hill in Seattle, Washington, taking over six entire city blocks and declaring it to be a “police-free”, autonomous zone separate from the United States (complete with borders and border patrol, ironically).
Because of the way in which this CHAZ is set up, police cannot actually go in there to do much of anything at all. They are both not allowed to enter the zone by the Mayor and not really capable of going in and out with the concrete barriers that make up the “borders” of the zone. They are not really even allowed to operate all that close to it either, as we will see in a particular instance that I will talk about now.
You see, roughly a week ago, one Mason McDermott apprehended a suspect who was trying to set fire to an auto shop (probably McDermott’s) and McDermott’s father repeatedly called 911 to try and get an officer to take the suspect to jail. However, they were denied assistance a full NINETEEN TIMES.
The suspect, at one point after having been confronted and pinned down by McDermott, attempted to cut him with a box cutter, damaging McDermott’s jeans. And like I said, McDermott’s father tried calling 911 nineteen times and in the final attempt, the dispatcher finally said they wouldn’t be sending anybody.
The McDermotts, out of options for getting justice, decided it would be the safest option to just let the guy go, and they were correct, as a number of people from CHAZ eventually surrounded the McDermotts and demanded the release of the suspect, though they had already released him by that point.
This incident led the McDermotts to consider the important role that police serve to communities. “It could’ve really gotten out of hand,” Mason said. “I think the mayor and governor need to get their act together – because this is beyond a protest.”
Agreed. These people are an insurrecting force, having taken over a good number of blocks and having the possibility to take over more of the city, all at the behest of the cowardly (at best) mayor and governor, who view this as nothing but a positive thing that shouldn’t concern anyone. Meanwhile, a death has been reported in the CHAZ… and the victim was a black man. I could swear there was some sort of reason behind these “protests”. I swear it was something akin to back lies scatter, or slack likes manner. Ah, it’ll come to me.
But this sort of response is only a small preview into what a world without a police presence would be: the mob rules and rules completely. "Justice" is only ever done when the mob decides it has been done. To the mob, defacing and destroying a statue of George Washington is “justice”. To the mob, letting a potential arsonist go without punishment is “justice”. To the mob, heckling business owners and making threats to them if they don’t comply with the mob is “justice.” To the mob, lawlessness is the law of the land and chaos is the accepted and encouraged status quo.
No one is safe, not even people within the mob itself. The funny thing about CHAZ making references to the French Revolution (there is literally a video of someone saying to a crowd: “Does anybody know what happened to the people who did not get on board with the French Revolution?” And the crowd answered: “CHOPPED”), perhaps even believing them to be a sort of revolution, French style, is that even the people who supported and orchestrated the French Revolution got eventually “chopped”.
Robespierre, one of the leaders of the French Revolution, sent over a thousand people to the guillotine during the infamous “Reign of Terror”. He would send people who were just SUSPECTED of being enemies of the revolution, and as soon as any of Robespierre’s confidants began to think “maybe this is too much” and voiced their concerns, they also got executed. The Reign of Terror officially ended with the execution of Robespierre himself. So again, it’s really funny that these people believe themselves to be carrying out a sort of “French Revolution” and that they will execute those who do not adhere to their beliefs (as terrorists tend to do) and yet do not at all expect to be subjected to the same gruesome and unfair rules they set on others.
In any case, this is but a small preview of what it would be like to live in a world entirely devoid of police. You would call 911 and hear nothing on the other end, or simply have no reason to expect assistance of any kind. You would have to take the law into your own hands, if you are brave enough. Either that, or simply let injustice prevail and people go unpunished when they need to be.
Some might look at CHAZ and think it to be a great experiment in self-governance. I do not see it this way at all. People’s natural instinct for self-preservation is to form groups, which often evolve into governments to uphold a set of rules agreed upon by the group. Even the people in CHAZ have talked about setting up a “council” of a black man, black woman and a white woman. People tend to like order, so this is not an experiment in self-governance or no government at all. The mob is the government and what the mob says, goes.
Without some amount of government, enough to enforce the laws that have been set up, we devolve into tribes and mobs that rule with an iron fist. If the mob says you gotta die, then you gonna die. If the mob says that an arsonist must be set free, then they will be set free. This is just how people work. I am a conservative and want as little government as possible, but that doesn’t mean a complete lack of a government, because that is simply not a realistic outcome either way. Again, in order to preserve themselves, people form groups. Those groups grow and evolve to become governments. CHAZ cannot really operate without some form of government, which is why they are setting one up.
Like Ronald Reagan said, the government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. If the government cannot protect its people, it’s worthless and useless. Some amount of government is necessary and at bare minimum it has to have a police force – which the Left is trying to get rid of nationwide.
What happens when we live in a society without police is nothing short of barbarism and mob rule.
“Whoever says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
Among the many talking points raised following the unjust killing of George Floyd are the ideas of banning police from being able to use chokeholds to subdue suspects (there are pros and cons to that), issuing “reparations” (communist redistribution of wealth) to black people for the fact this country used to have slaves (forgetting entirely that slavery has been used by most other nations for millennia) and that we should rename military bases that are named after Confederate officers.
However, only doing one of those things has been found to be favored by a majority of people and that is banning police use of chokeholds to subdue suspects.
According to a recent ABC/Ipsos poll released on Juneteenth (the day that slavery was abolished by the Republican Union), 63% of Americans support “banning the use of chokeholds by police officers.” Even a majority of Republicans, 51%, support such a ban (President Trump has also demonstrated his support for such a ban). 71% of African Americans, 63% of whites and 56% of Hispanics also support banning chokeholds.
Like I said earlier, this issue has its pros and cons. Generally, I want to allow for officers to safely and non-lethally be able to subdue someone who is resisting arrest (and chokeholds are usually used for people who resist arrest) but the George Floyd killing demonstrates that it is not without its flaws. Further evidence regarding his killing does show that he was sort of resisting arrest at times, so there was a legitimate reason for him to have been subdued, but there were also times when he safely could have been put into a police car and Officer Chauvin refused to do that, opting to keep his knee on the back of his neck (which is not really a chokehold, per se, but still).
I generally believe that most cops are not out to cause harm to individuals they are seeking to arrest, so banning the use of chokeholds, while it can definitely prevent the choking death of a suspect, can also tie up an officer’s hands in dealing with an unruly suspect. There are plenty of times when using a chokehold is the best method (and there are no completely non-lethal ways to deal with resisting suspects other than just letting them go, which is not a good option), so banning chokeholds, in my opinion, can lead to more crime and even more officer deaths.
I am still of the mind that eliminating police unions, or at the very least making it so that bad officers cannot be protected by the unions for their very clearly bad behavior (again, Chauvin received 17 complaints before he killed Floyd and nothing was done to him), is the best course of action, so other methods that can hinder an officer’s ability to do his or her job is not something I would generally support. Hold the individually bad officers accountable for their individual actions – don’t punish every officer for the misdeeds of the few.
In any case, moving on to the second line item, there is the idea of changing the names of military bases. A majority (56%) opposes changing the names of military bases named after Confederate leaders and officers. Independents, who ABC notes as generally being split with regards to removing statues (and I’ll get to this in a brief moment), oppose renaming military bases 59-40. 67% of African Americans are also opposed to renaming bases.
When it comes to this one, I firmly stand with the idea that we should NOT rename the bases named after Confederate leaders. This isn’t because I’m a racist Confederate; far from it. It’s precisely because I know the history of this country that I don’t want to rename these bases. These bases, and the statues, represent the history not simply of this country, but of the Democrat Party. The reason the Democrats are so in favor of renaming military bases (and other things like schools and government buildings) named after Confederates is because the Confederates were THE DEMOCRATS.
Consider, for example, the paintings that Nancy Pelosi has decided to remove from the Capitol. She removed the paintings of four Confederate leaders who were also Democrats. Leftists also support the toppling of statues that remind them of their past and history and serve as a reminder to everyone of what they are.
Of course, the reason for Marxists to be in favor of removing statues (of everyone, whether they were pro- or anti-slavery) is to erase the history of this country completely and essentially make it anew under their rule. Can’t remind people of their history if you want there to be no history – only the eternal present.
But at least one reason for Democrats to support removing statues and renaming Confederate bases/buildings is to erase the history of the Democrat Party itself. They are already trying to rewrite history by saying there was a “switch” after the Civil War where the Republicans became the racists and the Democrats became not racist, which is a load of crap.
Alas, I digress. Moving on to the final aspect of this poll was the feelings of people regarding “reparations” for ancestors of slaves. 73% of Americans oppose the federal government giving “money to black Americans whose ancestors were slaves as compensations for that slavery.”
54% of Democrats support “reparations” while 94% of Republicans and 82% of Independents oppose it.
This is actually not very different from how general sentiment surrounding this topic has been over the past 20 years. An ABC poll asking this question back in 1997 found only 19% of Americans supported this, with 77% disagreeing. While 73% oppose it today, only 14% support it, so both opposition and support went down, indicating an increase of the number of people who simply do not know which way to think about this.
Of course, where I stand on this is opposition… for the most part. If black people want reparations, don’t demand that the government give it to them, or that white people overall give it to them, because not one white person today owned a slave and they cannot be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors. This would be like sending the son of a serial killer to jail just because he is the son of a serial killer, even if he did nothing illegal.
There are roughly six problems with these “reparations” that just revolve around the issue of race:
The entire issue of “reparations” is, at its core, nothing more than redistribution of wealth from wealthy white people (or just white people, including the poor ones) to black people who were never forced to pick cotton a day in their lives. But if “reparations” are demanded in the States, the people who should pay them are those who make up the modern Democrat Party, since they are the ones who have historically fought to keep slaves.
I am adamantly against “reparations” because I know it’s nothing but an excuse to unfairly and unjustly redistribute wealth (though the rich white liberals who support it ought to be made to put their money where their mouth is and forced to pay these “reparations” they demand other white people pay). But if an argument is to be made about “reparations” is that Democrats should be the ones to pay them.
Nevertheless, overall, it doesn’t seem as though the political needle has moved all that much, if at all, in the Left’s favor with regard to these particular issues, maybe with the exception of chokeholds.
This, I say, to remind you that they are not the majority in this country. Not even close.
“The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before you. They shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.”
Amid the wave of insane demands by the Leftist mob, such as calls for the defunding/abolition of police departments, the “social justice” mob is now after black people who appear on famous brands, such as Aunt Jemima’s pancake mix and syrup, and Uncle Ben’s rice. In an apparent effort of fighting racism, the Left is trying to do away with black characters on brands. Yes, they are just that stupid.
But with this stupidity comes the actual danger that it poses: they are eliminating not only part of this country’s history, as they were/are doing with the statues of various historical figures - from both people who were pro- and anti-slavery showing that either A) these protesters just want chaos regardless of politics or B) they don’t actually know any history or C) a bit of both - but they are also eliminating the legacy and memory of someone who honestly ought to be considered a role model for black people (and anyone, really, but particularly for black people).
As you could probably tell, I will talk about the story of the first “Aunt Jemima” and why she is an inspiration for everyone, particularly for black people.
The woman who would be recognized as “Aunt Jemima” was a black woman named Nancy Green. She used to be a slave, born in 1834, and eventually became “Aunt Jemima” when in 1890, the R.T. Davis Milling Company bought the formula of a ready-mixed, self-rising pancake flour and sought a black woman to become a living trademark for the product. Davis found Nancy Green in Chicago and employed her to be said living trademark.
Nancy Green, at the time, was a cook for a family in Chicago, and helped raise the children of said family (African-Americans often were hired, after the abolition of slavery, by wealthy families to help raise the children, cook and overall be basically maids/butlers in the house).
Three years after she was first hired, the Davis Milling Company began “an all-out promotion of ‘Aunt Jemima’ at the World’s Colombian Exposition in Chicago,” according to the African American Registry. Green demonstrated the pancake mix and made and served thousands of pancakes. “Green was a hit, friendly, a good storyteller, and a good cook. Her warm and appealing personality made her the ideal ‘Aunt Jemima,’ a living trademark. Her exhibition booth drew so many people that special policemen were assigned to keep the crowds moving. The Davis Milling Company received over 50,000 orders, and Fair officials awarded Nancy Green a medal and certificate for her showmanship.”
Green was signed to a lifetime contract to continue promoting the brand and be its face as “Aunt Jemima” (the name, by the way, was taken as “inspiration” by a vaudeville show where Chris Rutt, one of the people who made the formula and sold it to the Davis Milling Company, heard a song called “Aunt Jemima” sung by black singer Billy Kersands).
Unsurprisingly, this made Nancy Green very rich, making millions (for the time) and helping to organize a number of charities and programs from organizing the Olivet Baptist Church and “[h]er career allowed her the financial freedom to become an activist and engage in antipoverty programs,” according to Rush Limbaugh.
She was a missionary and an advocate against poverty and for equal rights. She helped many people in many ways.
Nancy Green was one of the many people who embody the American Dream. Making something of yourself out of nothing is the American Dream. This country is the only one where you can really start with nothing but the clothes on your back, and given the right amount of hard work, dedication, focus and savvy, you can make it far (kowtowing to the Left and being a particularly loud voice also helps, unfortunately).
Nancy Green was literally born a slave and she went on to make millions and be very wealthy for her time. She went from being considered property to owning property and having the financial freedom and muscle to help with causes she saw as valuable and important.
Now, I know what some might try and argue: “Wasn’t she given the opportunity to be rich by some white dude who wanted to use her as a living trademark? Isn’t that a bad thing for black people to view in a role model, needing the help of a white person to succeed?” To which I say a few things.
First of all, it’s not like Green was just given all her money. She had to work for it. She had to use her natural charisma, yes, but it’s not like success simply fell on her lap. She was given an opportunity by the owner of a company, but being given an opportunity, in and of itself, isn’t enough to get one to succeed. If I were given the opportunity to play for the Miami Heat, that doesn’t mean that I will become a superstar player and become extremely wealthy. I would need the right skill set and the dedication to work hard to succeed. That is the case for just about everything, including Nancy Green’s story.
Secondly, realize my earlier point that making something of yourself out of nothing is the American Dream. Nancy Green isn’t the only person to have done this. She’s not even the only black person to have done this. People like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Schultz, Ben Carson, Oprah Winfrey, even George Soros, despite not necessarily liking the vast majority of these people, all embody the American Dream (regardless of whether they love or hate this country).
They all started with little to nothing and worked their way up to make something of themselves. Nancy Green is no different and someone who ought to be considered a role model for black people – a reminder that, even coming from what is considered the lowest possible place in the social totem pole, you can become a massive success in many different ways.
You see, something I have mentioned in the past is that African-Americans are being essentially “trained” by the Left to believe that their skin color will systematically predispose them to be discriminated against, racially profiled against and overall mistreated by others who do not look like them or think like them. They are taught, from a very young age, to live with a chip on their shoulder, believing the world, and this country in specific, to be automatically against them and there is little to nothing they can do to fight back.
That the only real way to success is by tearing others down and taking what is theirs as your own. That the people who are wealthy today are only as wealthy as they are because they stole and took from the little guy – which is themselves (many people, not just black people, are trained to think this way). Black people are taught that the system in the United States was created for the purposes of keeping black folk down, elevate white people and that your success was largely determined by the color of your skin.
And so, organizations and slogans like “Black Lives Matter” emerge, which are basically true (black lives do, indeed, matter and very few people would disagree, but this is because all lives matter), but exclude everyone else whose lives are theretofore assumed to either not matter or not matter as much as black lives.
Black lives matter because all lives matter. It’s not an either-or thing when talking about the idea itself. The idea that all lives matter naturally includes black lives. But many black people are basically forced to chant that slogan because they are taught to have a mindset of inferiority. The Democrat Party of the past is no different than the one from today: they still try to tell black people they are inferior beings to white people. The only difference is that they used to frame that inferiority as a good thing. But they still teach black people that they are inferior when they, in actuality, are not.
However, many black people do feel inferior and it shows. The way the Left frames things is how they cause so much damage. For example, what is being considered as the reason for PepsiCo to drop the “Aunt Jemima” brand is a TikTok video of a black woman claiming the character to be racist. A black woman is possibly the reason that another black woman’s story and legacy is essentially being eliminated. This is the damage the Left has caused to the black community over the past few decades: blacks eliminating the history of other blacks.
Black people feel inferior when they really shouldn’t. There are plenty of stories of great success by black people that should tell them they are not inferior. Even Charlamagne tha God (real name Lenard Larry McKelvey), who spoke with Rush Limbaugh about racial problems in America, believes wholeheartedly that this country is racist and is predisposed to put black people down, even though he himself has a net worth of $10 million and a yearly salary of $3 million for his show. He is someone who had a troubled past (multiple stints in jail for a number of things) and yet, he has made something of himself out of basically nothing.
He is someone who believes this country systematically keeps black people down despite himself being an example that that is not the case at all (and the fact that so many other black people are also wealthy shows that he is the example to the rule, not the exception).
Nancy Green, like Charlamagne, made something out of herself from basically nothing. She should be a role model for black people, particularly young black kids, that it is very possible for them to succeed in this country. And yet, her story and legacy are essentially being erased by Leftists claiming to fight for racial progress.
Nancy Green is an inspiration to anyone who wishes to succeed. I hope the damage the Left has caused to the black communities for centuries now will soon be undone. Only then, would we see true racial progress and justice.
“Commit your work to the Lord, and your plans will be established.”
I have often spoken about the sort of damage the Left has done to science itself in a number of ways, from obliterating biological truths about sex and gender to discarding scientific proof of life in the womb to making assertions of anthropogenic climate change that are not at all based on scientific evidence. The Left has made a joke of science, but even more than that, they have made a cult religion out of it to the point where questioning any part of it is seen as a cardinal offense.
No other time was that true than throughout the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, when we were told that if we had any sort of challenging questions regarding the data we were being presented with, we were on a malicious mission to kill people’s parents and grandparents (meanwhile, Gov. Cuomo essentially was doing that following his March 25th EO sending sick people to nursing and retirement homes). We were told that we had to listen to the “experts” because they had the “data” and the “science” behind them.
However, as Michael Fumento from Just the News recently pointed out, there were a number of instances when the “experts” were flat-out wrong about what they were saying regarding the virus, as well as the data they were presenting.
Before I actually get to those instances, of which there are ten, allow me to preface all of this by pointing out a simple, yet oft-forgotten aspect of science: it is SUPPOSED to be challenged.
Man is not perfect. This means that we are capable of erring. Various sciences are studied by people who err. People used to believe in geo-centricity, the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe, until it was discovered that it was not. It used to be “settled science” that the Sun revolved around the Earth, but because science is about challenging conventional wisdom, people sought to find if that was actually true or not and it was discovered that it was not.
Science isn’t science if it is not challenged and questions aren’t raised. This is the damage the Left makes to the practice, as they use its good name for the purposes of “settling facts” that benefit them politically. It’s why climatologists who dare challenge the idea of anthropogenic climate change, though they are doing their defined jobs as scientists, are blacklisted and fired because of their challenges. The Left, in owning the pillar of power of the sciences, can push out people who challenge what they want seen as scientific fact, even though the very purpose of science is to challenge conventional wisdom to weigh it against objective reality.
As with anthropogenic climate change, the Left has made it their mission to ensure that the “experts” were practically seen as Jesus’ apostles by the public when they talked about the “data” and the “science” regarding the Chinese coronavirus, all for the purposes of getting people so scared that they will comply with whatever the Left wanted (and it clearly worked, as we shut down our entire economy for a few months, leaving millions unemployed).
However, because man is capable of erring, it is no surprise that the data the “experts” brought in was incomplete and ripe for rebuke and revisitation.
Without further ado, let me share with you some of the times the “experts” were wrong that Fumento shared in his Just the News article (not all of the ten instances will be written here because I don’t want to make this article insanely long).
First, the threat level. Back on January 21st, the day of the first Chinese coronavirus case found in the U.S., Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on Newsmax TV to talk about the virus and how much of a threat it posed to the American public. In that interview, he said: “Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States, and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.”
Of course, a few months later, that idea was entirely changed and the CDC director said that the virus was the “greatest public health crisis” to strike our nation “in more than 100 years.”
Now, I won’t be too harsh on Fauci here for the simple reason that the data was very much insufficient by that point to determine with any level of certainty if the virus was going to be a big deal. The virus originated in China and we all know that they are not a reliable or trustworthy bunch, and we now know they were hiding things from us for a very long time, to the point where some believe the virus was first found in Wuhan in AUGUST OF 2019. But regardless of whether or not China was lying to us, the fact remains that the data was incomplete and no one of sound mind would disagree with me here.
We didn’t know, back in late January, how bad it would get. And yet, we are supposed to take all the data given to us as 100% true and verified, even if it is changed and that new data is supposed to be taken as 100% true and verified.
It simply does not compute to operate like that.
Moving to another example, there was the masks debacle where the Surgeon General of the United States claimed masks were “NOT effective in preventing general public from catching” the Chinese coronavirus. Following that, the CDC said that you should wear a mask if you are sick or are going to be near someone who is sick, and now, the guideline is that people should wear masks regardless of their health when they are around others.
The third example is the asymptomatic transmission declaration by the WHO, when Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said that it was “very rare” for asymptomatic people to spread the disease, when that was one of the biggest worries surrounding the virus: that we would unknowingly and asymptomatically be carrying the virus and we could unwillingly be infecting our loved ones, particularly our elders. The data even went so far as to actually show that there hasn’t been a single documented case of asymptomatic carriers spreading the disease, so it’s more than just “very rare” – it’s outright unheard of.
Then there is also the mortality rate, which used to be 3.4% towards the beginning of the pandemic and now sits at around 0.26%. We used to think this was extremely deadly (by certain standards) and nothing like the flu, but now it’s not all too different from the flu in terms of mortality rate. Yes, it’s still higher than the flu’s mortality rate, but considering the fact that non-COVID deaths are being counted as COVID deaths, I’d wager to say that the mortality rate should actually be considerably lower than 0.26% and be closer to the flu, if not even lower than that.
Which brings me to the cause of death, another example brought up by Fumento, since there has been outright proof of non-COVID deaths, such as gunshot wounds, being counted towards COVID deaths. There is also the fact that Dr. Birx said that they were counting people who died “with” the virus as people who died “to” the virus and the fact that Medicare began to provide a 20% bonus for naming the Chinese coronavirus as the main cause of death, which did nothing but give hospitals and morticians a financial incentive to count anything and everything as death to Chinese coronavirus.
Not to mention that the vast majority of deaths are from people 65 and older, with only 7% of COVID-19 deaths coming from people who did not have pre-existing conditions, meaning that 93% of those who died of the Chinese coronavirus (whether with it or from it) also had underlying conditions that could also have contributed to, or even be the main cause of, the actual death of a person.
Another aspect of the “data” the “experts” gave us, particularly early on, was the model that showed over 2,000,000 deaths in the U.S. and over 500,000 in the U.K., which served as the basis for locking things down and going into quarantine. It was found out not too long after that the model didn’t take into account any sort of action by the government and was based on literally nothing being done about the virus which was not a realistic scenario. People would have done something about it, from government officials to businesses themselves, in order to keep people from dying. Those figures were entirely unrealistic and yet were used as the basis and the reason for shutting everything down.
The funny thing is that the professor who made that model, Neil Ferguson, recently said that if the U.K. had locked down just a week earlier, half of the deaths wouldn’t have happened, though he never shared any data that would indicate such a thing. 2020 is the year of 20/20 hindsight, it seems.
And of course, my argument against Ferguson’s claim is that, even if he did actually bring data that would point to it, as I have already established: data is not to be taken as 100% fact 100% of the time. Everyone operated using the data available at the time – data that was not complete at the time, either.
We need to stop pretending like scientific data is equivalent to the Word of God in terms of validity and truth.
And this is why I say that the Left has made a cult religion out of science. Any sort of data presented today, even if it is refuted and cast aside tomorrow, is to be taken as 100% fact and anyone questioning it is an unscientific buffoon who can barely read. We are supposed to blindly trust these “experts” because of nothing apart from the fact that they have the label of “experts”, even as they are proven wrong time and time again.
We are supposed to blindly trust the word of people who likely have an agenda. I say this because doctors and nurses were mounting “counter-protests” against the lockdown protests, saying protesters were putting themselves and others at risk, yet have supported and in some cases JOINED the George Floyd protests featuring barely any of the safety guidelines detailed by the CDC regarding social distancing and wearing masks. And the people wearing masks were often Antifa rioters. Nevertheless, we are supposed to treat their word like the Gospel of Jesus Christ Himself.
We are supposed to accept what these people say as the absolute truth even if scientific evidence shows to be contrary to what they are saying (i.e. anthropogenic climate change).
The Left has turned the institution of science into a religious cult, where you are deemed as an outcast and a freak if you show any semblance of dissent or even reason. Actual scientists don’t have an agenda. Actual scientists review the evidence and data and try to challenge it to weigh it against objective truth. It’s how science has always operated and how we have made the discoveries that we have.
But actual scientists no longer get the spotlight. They no longer get their findings published by mainstream sources. They hardly even manage to keep their jobs wherever they might work if they show dissent to the established Leftist narrative surrounding their fields of study. Either agree with the Left and spread the narrative, even if it is not scientifically found, or be severely punished for doing the right thing and remaining objective.
It’s not even about politics, as the Left has destroyed climatologists who don’t like Trump at all just because they dared step outside of the collective Leftist thinktank. It’s about power for the Left and anyone who disagrees with them at any capacity is seen as a threat to said power. This is the case just about everywhere, not just the “scientific” community.
This is the damage the Left has done to science. They have perverted it to the point where it’s no different from a cult, where “prophets” like the teen climate puppet can emerge, not because they are backed by science, but because they are backed by George Soros and Bill Gates, as well as the Leftist mainstream media which carries the Leftist narratives.
As I have said countless times, the Left must be defeated in every way, in every pillar of power.
“There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”
The term “systemic racism” has been a favorite amongst Leftists in recent time, as well as the idea to “defund the police”, as communists have ravaged and destroyed black-owned businesses and vandalized and destroyed statues of abolitionists all in the name of Black Lives Matter, not the idea, but the LGBT organization (read the BLM’s “What We Believe” page to find that they intend to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” and that they “foster a queer-affirming network” to find that it’s nothing but a Leftist LGBT org).
These communists decry racism and the police as they destroy places of work for black people and violently attack, to the point of killing, in some cases, black police officers and those who do not adhere to their ideologies. They cry about police brutality being rampant even though the first thing that comes to their mind when they are in any sort of trouble (which they often times bring on themselves when they assault other people) is to call the very police they believe is systematically and foundationally racist, corrupt and rotten.
However, the hypocrisy does not end there, as John Nolte from Breitbart News has a fantastic article regarding the Democrat Party’s systemic racism.
Which brings us to the title of this article. If one is to believe that this country is systemically racist, one can’t help but look at the Left as they are the ones in control of much of it. As I have stated in previous articles, they control many of the pillars of power in this country (and around the world, but let’s focus on the U.S. for now). Nolte points out, without necessarily talking about such pillars of power, that the Left is very much in control of the systemic racism that could be pointed at, if at all.
In a series of facts, Nolte makes a number of notes. First of all, if America’s system is built strictly for the benefit of white people, then how come Jews, black Nigerians, Indian Americans and Asians all are generally more successful than white people? They also are imprisoned at lower rates than white people.
While prisons do tend to have a majority black population (the 1994 crime bill, written by Joe Biden and signed by Bill Clinton, two Democrats, can be to thank for that), black people also tend to commit a lot of crimes. However, as we know, at least part of the reason is because of the Left’s programming of black people to feel and act in a certain way. When you feel like you are a victim and the whole world is against you, you tend to justify and excuse things you might otherwise have not.
Some more facts Nolte shares include the following:
The idea that black people are treated differently than white people because of their skin color is simply fiction created by the Left to sow discord among black people in an effort to incite a race war (which would then become a class war as well, which is classic Marxism).
However, even if you wanted to pretend that there is systemic racism, and there are people who believe that there is such a thing, then how come the majority of police brutality tragedies happen where Democrats run things? How is it that wherever there are cases of “systemic racism”, the people in charge of the system are usually Leftists?
Nolte made a relatively short list of controversial deaths of African Americans at the hands of police officers going back three years and a few that are older that made national news.
He names sixteen black Americans killed by police officers (whether they were justified or not was irrelevant for the purposes of this list) and fourteen of those sixteen cases were in cities where a Democrat was/is in charge of the police and judicial system.
Rayshard Brooks was killed (justifiably) in Atlanta, Georgia; Atlanta is run by Democrats. George Floyd was killed (unjustifiably) in Minneapolis, Minnesota; both the city and state are run by Democrats. Breonna Taylor was killed in Louisville, Kentucky; both the city and state are run by Democrats. Eric Garner was killed in New York, New York; both the city and state are run by Democrats. Freddie Gray was killed in Baltimore, Maryland; both the city and state are run by Democrats (and they are particularly corrupt ones).
If there is systemic racism in the cities where these black people were killed (and, of course, I didn’t even mention all of them), then why are Democrats doing nothing about it? They’ve had years and years to do something about it. The last time a Republican was mayor of Atlanta was in 1879. The last time a Republican was mayor of Louisville was in 1969. The last time a Republican was mayor of Baltimore was in 1967. The last time a Republican was mayor of Minneapolis was on December 31st, 1973. I specify the date because the guy was mayor for a single day and was succeeded by a Democrat the following day. Before then, the last time a Republican was mayor was 1961.
Some of the most notorious killings of black people by police officers happened in Democrat-run cities. If there is systemic racism, it is brought about by the Democrat Party.
Moving on, however, we also have another pillar of power: entertainment. Nolte lists a number of Leftist celebrities who have recently come under fire by the Leftist mob. There is, for example, Meghan Markle’s friend Jessica Mulroney whose reality tv show was canceled after she was called out on “textbook white privilege”, after having allegedly made threats against a black writer and influencer.
There is also the case of The Flash co-star Hartley Sawyer, who made controversial and offensive tweets years ago and was hounded for them.
There is also the now-deleted video from a number of Hollywood celebrities who “took responsibility” because they seemingly tolerated offensive jokes and “remained silent” about racial injustice which makes you think there must be an awful lot of racism in Hollywood for a lot of their stars to be “taking responsibility” for not having spoken out about it.
I mean, we already knew there are rapists in Hollywood who have only recently been exposed, such as Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, and that these Leftist celebrities kept their mouths shut about it even as countless women (and in some cases, men and underage boys and girls) have been made victims by those monsters (and prominent anti-Trumper Meryl Streep was great friends with Weinstein and called him a “god”), so it’s not too hard to imagine that there are also rampant racists in Hollywood. These are Leftists, after all. Racism courses through their veins.
Nolte also made sure to note that, over the last nine years living in the rural South, he has only heard of one racial remark (he’s white) when some dude suggested he name his black dog “Obama.” That is the only sort of racism that he has seen or experienced in the South and it was just a dumb remark that the guy apologized for immediately afterwards when he saw Nolte react negatively towards the remark.
But if numerous celebrities came together to make a video about all the racist remarks they heard and tolerated, or even the outright racial injustices they saw and said nothing about, just how much is racism running amok in Hellywood?
Now, of course, it’s just as easy to assume these celebrities didn’t actually encounter much, if any, racism and were just virtue signaling for the Leftist cause, which is certainly possible, but then they also can be called out for exploiting racial issues for personal gain, namely clout (popularity, for those who have never heard the term before). Calling them out on exploiting racial issues for clout is not as effective and fun as calling them out for Hollywood being filled with racists, so let’s go with the latter option until it is made certain that they aren’t racists.
But in any case, the main point is that, if there is systemic racism to be found anywhere in the country, it’s where Leftists are in control. Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that there is systematic racism in this country. I don’t believe there is systematic racism (there is racism in general, but I don’t think it’s systematic or even as rampant as people might pretend).
However, if a Leftist wants to pretend there is systematic racism, they will have to explain just why it is that the vast majority of the places where black people were killed by officers (justifiably or not) are places where Democrats control practically everything and have for some time. Democrats run on such issues while doing nothing positive towards them, only making things worse in the belief that doing so will make more people dependent on them and can therefore never be taken out of power.
The sad part is that they could be right. While I do feel empathy for the people whose businesses were destroyed by the riots (or neighborhoods insurrected by communists in Seattle), they largely voted for these things. It’s awful that these things are happening but there is a very clear solution: don’t elect Democrats. It’s hard to feel much more empathetic when they continue to vote for people who are out to hurt and exploit them.
I hope that this election season, people will remember that the Democrats are responsible for the riots and the destruction, and are going so far as to justify and excuse them in many cases, and that they vote these dangerous people out of power for good.
If you believe there is systemic racism and want to definitively put an end to it wherever it might be found, never vote Democrat again.
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...