Since the days of slavery, the Democrat has always hated the idea of black people having guns. After all, if their slaves had guns, they could very easily revolt against them and that would be disastrous for them. That kind of mentality is still around, having expanded to all minorities in general, and for much the same reasons: they want a permanent underclass of voters and such a class cannot be allowed to defend itself against their masters.
So it’s not surprising, really, when The Violence Policy Center (VPC) sets its sights on the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA and the gun industry as a whole, charging them with “racism” for “targeting” blacks and Latinos as being first-time gun owners.
The VPC released a report saying: “In its marketing efforts to communities of color, the gun industry frequently focuses on the self-defense use of firearms, despite the fact that guns are rarely used to stop crimes or kill criminals and are far more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, or fatal unintentional shootings.”
Oh, boy, we just began and already, we can smell the bullcrap.
First of all, it’s a fact that guns ARE used for self-defense more than for committing crimes. According to Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck, “The best estimates of DGUs (defensive gun use)…, even if compared to the more generous estimates of gun crimes, are 4.6 times higher than the crime counts for all guns, and 4.2 times higher for handguns, or 3.9 and 3.4, respectively, if the more conservative… estimates of DGU are used. In sum, DGUs are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, even using generous estimates of gun crimes.”
So the VPC is absolutely LYING about self-defense use of guns. But the other thing that they do here is they move the goalposts from just defensive use of guns to outright stopping crimes and KILLING the criminals.
Depending on the context of the defensive use of the gun, chances are that some sort of crime is being stopped or prevented. DGUs can vary from preventing rape, murder, assault, etc. to stopping a shooter or a mugger or a robber. So one’s definition of “stopping a crime” can be rather varied. But in a way, using guns to stop any of these constitutes as stopping a crime, so the VPC is outright wrong about that.
Secondly, the argument of “guns are rarely used to kill the criminals” is irrelevant because DGUs are not about killing the criminal but about SELF-DEFENSE as the name suggests. If one is capable of brandishing a firearm and scaring away a criminal, that counts as a DGU. The gun doesn’t have to be discharged. Furthermore, killing the criminal is not exactly every gun owner’s desire, even if they are put into a position where they have to use their gun.
Kleck also noted that “Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward. Saving a life through DGU would be a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs.”
So the argument of “criminals are rarely killed by gun owners” is a red-herring argument. Killing the criminal is not a gun-owner’s primary intention when using a gun for self-defense or for the defense of another person.
But do you see how they try to “debate”? They don’t argue the issues, they position things so that they are in their favor, using favorable language. “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals” as though that was their purpose.
So you have to be able to fight back against that b.s. because their entire line of arguments are based on erroneous premises.
At any rate, the report continued: “Recognizing that Blacks and Latinos are already disproportionately impacted by lethal gun violence, these efforts can only increase death and injury in these communities.” See what I mean by erroneous premises basing their line of argumentation? “Guns are bad and selling guns to minorities is, therefore, bad.” Never mind the fact that that is wrong and that it only makes sense to market and sell to people who are MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY GUN VIOLENCE.
The guns are already in the hands of the criminals, so what sense does it make to keep the innocent from being able to defend themselves? The Left doesn’t answer that because, again, their entire premise rests on the “fact” that guns aren’t helpful for those who wield them defensively.
They don’t ask themselves if their underlying premise is wrong at any capacity. It’s like atheists trying to figure out the reason as to why people are so religious based on their faulty premise of “since God doesn’t exist, why is there religion?” They preface their question with a massive presupposition that God doesn’t exist, but don’t even bother to question whether or not that presupposition is correct.
That’s what the VPC was doing and what the Left often does. Truly, they make for awful scientists, in this way. Instead of asking if their hypothesis is correct and trying to find the data that proves it isn’t, they assume that it is correct and try to find the data that proves that it is.
It’s part of the reason they are so insistent on the idea that there are a bajillion genders.
So they assume that guns are pretty exclusively used for crimes and can only hurt gun owners (as though they were sentient beings), do not question that basic premise, and go on to charge that those whom are willing to market and sell guns to minorities do so in order to bring harm upon them, when that is far from the truth.
They make charges like the following: “Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is to turn more Blacks and Latinos, who historically support gun violence prevention measures, into pro-gun advocates for future political battles.”
So they charge that the self-defense marketing is not the true intention of the gun industry (without evidence) and they only target minorities for financial and political profit. Because black people and Latinos are incapable of holding independent thought, seemingly.
Again, take note of the favorable language that they use. Who wouldn’t support gun violence prevention measures? To be against that would basically mean being in favor of gun violence, right? It’s all b.s. because anyone with half a brain could understand that “gun violence prevention measures” only lead to further gun violence because that’s what gun control tends to lead to. Chicago is a city with plenty of “gun violence prevention measures” and some of the highest crime rates in the country. Disarming those willing to follow the law doesn’t lead to less unlawful acts – matter of fact, it only leads to more of them.
And as far as “turning them pro-gun” goes, 1) what’s wrong with wanting people to be more willing to protect themselves and exercise their Second Amendment rights? And 2) Planned Parenthood basically does the same thing by installing abortion clinics in black and Latino neighborhoods, so how is that any different? PP specifically targets and markets to minorities to brainwash them into thinking that their babies are burdens not too dissimilar to cancerous tumors so that they go into those clinics and get an abortion.
Planned Parenthood is in the business of ethnic cleansing and no one bats an eye, but if the gun industry wants minorities to be able to protect themselves, that is an outrage? We can see, clearly, where the priorities of the Left lie: only they get to be protected by guns and have the ability to live, while the “weeds” must be rid of in the womb and, if necessary, on the streets.
There is good reason I call the Left evil and there is good reason I consider them to be black people’s number one enemy (as well as the enemy of just about everyone who is sane).
They want to kill minorities in the womb and leave them unable to protect themselves out of the womb.
Will the Left’s racism never end?
“Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it, because it is in the power of their hand.”
With a little over a week to go before the election, the last presidential debate certainly did no favors for Joe Biden, even as the debate topics and liberal moderators were favorable to the corrupt Democrat (admittedly, the moderator still did far better than Chris Wallace did, by a mile, even if she interrupted Trump far more than Biden and began to debate Trump later on in the night a bit).
There are a number of things that I could point to which likely could lead to Joe Biden’s landslide defeat being even grander, such as his slip up in noting that he would move away from fossil fuels (a remark which will cost him dearly in Pennsylvania), or his outright lie (of which there were plenty) regarding how “not one single person” lost their private health insurance once Obamacare was enacted, but his overall debate performance was outright awful and has led to some eye-opening post-election poll numbers, which I will get to in a moment.
Despite the fact that the Democrats have basically owned the black vote for the last 50 years (pun intended), that little safety net of theirs is beginning to not be so safe anymore.
For 50 years, the Democrats have promised black people economic prosperity, safety, justice reform, healthcare reform, and generally have promised black people that their lives would improve if only they would consistently vote for Democrats everywhere they could. They have been promising this for half a century and things have only gotten worse in places run by Democrats.
Let’s not forget that Joe Biden himself was the author of the 1994 Crime Bill, and his running mate is responsible for the incarceration of over 44,000 black people and almost 2,000 incarcerations were for marijuana-related offenses when she was California’s AG.
Now, if people commit crimes, they have to do the time. That is not my issue here, even with the marijuana stuff since I do not believe for a second that it should be made legal. However, the Democrats go around pretending like they’re doing this massive favor for black people and that they are making reforms and new laws that help black people when that has not shown to be the case whatsoever.
They claim that this country’s laws overincarcerate people and that the system is rigged against blacks and other minorities, when they are the ones writing and enforcing those laws. California has been a deep-blue state for a long time now and Harris was its Attorney General from 2011-2016. Democrats own California and yet, it’s not the socialist paradise that they claim we would have as a nation if we were to consistently elect them.
California is quickly becoming (if it isn’t one already) a socialist dystopia because that is all socialism can bring to anybody. So even if a Leftist were to make the excuse that “the reason things aren’t great for black people is because Republicans still get elected to the presidency and Congress,” it is nothing more than that: an excuse. This is because California has been very solid blue for decades now, their last Republican governor was not truly a Republican, and we can see what the Leftist ideology brings to all people, let alone black people: misery.
In Minneapolis, where George Floyd died during a police-involved event, Democrats have been in total control for ages. Same in Baltimore, where Freddie Gray died in police custody.
Wherever Democrats rule, people suffer, particularly black people. Perhaps that’s why it really shouldn’t be so surprising that Trump has such high likely voter approval numbers from black people. You see, according to Rasmussen Reports, National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval for Trump from October 19 to 23 has seen a fantastic rise.
On the 19th (a Monday), Trump’s black LV approval was at 25%, which is still pretty good, but could be better. It went down by one point the following day, but on Wednesday the 21st, it ticked up a good bit to 31%. The day of the debate, it went up to 37% and on Friday, following Thursday night’s debate, it was at 46%.
A good reason for this, in my opinion, is Trump’s Platinum Plan to economically assist black people who were heavily affected during the pandemic (a plan which was brought forth by Ice Cube who is not likely to vote for Biden after Sleepy Joe refused to work with Mr. Cube on this plan). That was fairly big news throughout the week last week, so the tick up to 31 and 37% made sense, as well as the 46% following the debate in which Biden began to slowly fall apart once he began to be pressed on Hunter’s emails.
These numbers ought to terrify Democrats, who have, like I said, enjoyed a safety net with black voters for half a century. LBJ himself once said that he’ll “have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years,” in discussions with fellow Democrat governors talking about the Great Society plan. As it turns out, he might have been right for the first 50 or so years, but the Democrats are beginning to lose this demographic.
Will a majority of black people be voting for Trump? Doubtful. But considering these are likely voters, if these numbers remain steady for the next week and a half (or at least they don’t drop well below 30%), that will give Trump a huge advantage over Biden and the Democrats.
And while I cannot possibly claim to be able to predict the future, I can say that this trend is not a good one whatsoever for the Democrats. It’s unlikely the GOP will ever see another Trump-like candidate, but if they can embrace Trumpism following Trump’s tenure as POTUS, this sort of trend will continue their way, maybe even to the point where a majority of black people will begin to vote for Republicans again like they did following the passages of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.
You know, when the KKK began to form and was terrorizing black people because they largely were targeting Republicans and black people were largely Republican back then?
I have long believed that Joe Biden was headed towards an embarrassing landslide defeat (again, no one get complacent here, there is still a job to be done) but if these numbers continue, Joe will lose by an even bigger margin than even I thought he would.
He easily sealed his defeat in Pennsylvania following his fossil fuel comments, but he might lose even worse in many other places.
Here’s hoping Trump will utterly CRUSH the communist Trojan horse and deliver a defeat that will bring Democrats flashbacks of 1984.
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
About a week ago, I wrote a similar article to this one talking about how black communities are the ones who suffer the most from defunding (or abolishing) the police. In that piece, I also mentioned a Rasmussen poll that showed black people (and Americans altogether) were afraid of a police shortage as a result of Leftist demonization of police.
This article looks at another statistic: what black people (and Americans in general) want police to do in their neighborhoods, specifically how often they believe police should be seen patrolling those neighborhoods.
Gallup has a new poll out showing that 81% of Black Americans want police to spend the same amount of or more time in their area.
“When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans – 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same.”
20% of Black Americans said they wanted police to spend more time in their area and 19% said they wanted police to spend less time, leading to that earlier 81% of Black Americans who said they wanted police presence to either remain or increase.
This stands in stark contrast to how the Left, particularly black Leftists, often portray black people. The Left portrays black people as a victimized and borderline hunted group of people, whose entire existence is at risk by the mere presence of police departments, and who essentially wake up every day terrified that a cop is going to burst into their homes and start firing at will at anyone and anything that they can.
The Left portrays black people as essentially being a hunted species, not unlike lions or elephants in Africa (which really shows just how utterly racist Leftists are). Furthermore, they portray black people as being of one hive mind that agrees with these sentiments and wants to do away with all law enforcement. They portray black people as standing in direct opposition to police and as desiring for alternatives to policing black neighborhoods.
As is always the case, no matter the topic of discussion, the Left is exceedingly wrong and lying through their teeth. The truth of the matter is, while black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people (as they tend to commit more crimes), most black people would prefer the police to be around as opposed to any possible alternative.
The Left will often talk about how it’s racist that police patrol black neighborhoods more than other neighborhoods, but will often ignore the fact that gangs tend to organize in these neighborhoods, which often end up terrorizing and threatening people in those neighborhoods.
Such gang activity is illegal and as it’s so dangerous for their neighborhoods, they must be more policed than other races’ neighborhoods (though Hispanic neighborhoods often have to be policed almost as much, because of gangs like the Latin Kings and MS-13).
At any rate, returning to the poll, the survey also asked other races if they wanted police to spend the same amount of time, more time, or less time patrolling their neighborhoods.
71% of White Americans said “same amount of time”, 17% said more and 12% said less. 59% of Hispanics said they wanted police patrolling the same amount of time, 24% said more and 17% said less.
Asian Americans are the ones who wanted less police presence by a good bit, at 28%, but 63% still wanted the same amount and only 9% wanted more police presence in their neighborhoods.
As far as exposure to police, 32% of Black Americans report seeing police in their neighborhood “very often/often”, 41% “sometimes” and 27% “rarely” or “never.”
For whites, 22% see them frequently, 42% sometimes and 36% rarely or never. 28% of Hispanics see them often, 37% sometimes and 34% rarely or never and 21% of Asians see them often, 47% sometimes and 32% rarely or never.
There are quite a few other statistics that Gallup shares, but for the sake of this article, I will only talk about how confident black people are that police will treat them well upon being interacted with by them and how such treatment affects black people’s preferences for police presence.
According to Gallup, only 18% of Black Americans feel “very confident” that the police would treat them with courtesy and respect if they had an interaction with them, as opposed to 56% of whites who feel very confident, 40% of Hispanics and 24% of Asians.
However, a majority (61%) of black people are either somewhat or very confident that they would be treated with respect and courtesy by police (43% “somewhat confident” + the 18% who are “very confident”). While that is lower than other races (91% of whites, 77% of Hispanics and 78% of Asians are confident), that is still a fairly solid majority over the ones who are either “not too confident” (27%) or “not at all confident” (12%) that they would have a good interaction with police.
Despite the fact that the Left is so wrong about their portrayal of black people, their words and beliefs do still have an influence on some people. I imagine at least some of the reason for black people to feel less confident about an interaction with police is because of some Leftist narratives.
Gallup themselves theorize that this gap between races in confidence in police interactions could “either stem from Black Americans’ own negative experiences with the police or from their familiarity with people who have had negative encounters with law enforcement.”
And these are pretty valid and logical reasons as well. With more frequent policing in these neighborhoods comes a higher chance for interaction with law enforcement. More interaction means a higher chance of poor or negative interactions, especially if they are looking for one’s own friend or relative because of something they did.
The second explanation by Gallup makes a good deal of sense to me as well. Someone else’s interaction means they could tell the story to their friends and they might just lie and say that the cops were hassling him “for no reason” even if there actually was a reason and that leaves an impression for his friends who did not interact with the police to believe that cops are messing with folks who are doing nothing wrong.
So I think there are a number of valid and logical explanations as to why the gap is as big as it is in confidence levels for interactions with police.
These interactions, in turn, can lead to some black people to sway one way or the other about police presence as a whole.
According to Gallup, 45% of “Black Americans who report not being treated with courtesy or respect by the police within the past 12 months want less of a police presence in their neighborhood. Meanwhile, 55% want the same or more police presence.”
“By contrast, just 13% of those who did feel they were treated respectfully want the police to spend less time in their neighborhood; 87% want them there as much or more often.”
What seems to be the biggest indicator as to how much police presence a group of people wants in their neighborhood is not the actual frequency, but rather, the sorts of interactions that they have with the police.
While these hardly get featured anywhere in the news, even in my own articles defending police, there are plenty of videos out there of police having wholesome and heart-warming interactions with kids in various neighborhoods. From playing basketball with them to playing some instrument, there are plenty of times when a cop is featured in a video, not as seemingly doing something wrong or excessive (or just their jobs) but rather doing community outreach and having positive interactions with the people of the communities in which they serve.
For example, there is this YouTube video showing a local news segment in Greenville, North Carolina of police responding to a noise complaint (kids playing basketball) and deciding to start playing some basketball with those kids.
There is also this other YouTube video of a Compton deputy having a bit of a jamming session, rocking out with local teenagers.
These stories never get told by the mainstream media and only sometimes get shared on social media, but they show a side to police officers that the Left wishes to totally ignore: a more human, relatable side.
The Left wishes to demonize police officers entirely because it is in their best political interests, but black people (and most other people in general) do not want this. They want either the police presence to stay the same or increase, not decrease.
Like I said in the previous article talking about this subject, people want to feel safe. For most people, either owning a gun or having a police presence (or both) is how they feel safe. Taking away people’s means by which they can ensure their own safety is not the humane thing to do, let alone the politically savvy thing to do.
Not that I expect the Left to be very humane considering they publicly advocate for and support the genocide of children in the womb.
But at any rate, it’s good to see, time and time again, that the reality the Left claims exists does not actually exist. Black people want police in their neighborhoods – they want them to be a force for good. They don’t want fewer cops and definitely don’t want defunct and abolished police departments.
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
We revisit this topic once again because, while the media is no longer reporting on the violent ANTIFA riots (because they realized they are helping Trump win by showing how dangerous these Leftists are), these riots are still happening and violent crime is still on the rise in Democrat-run cities like New York, Portland and Chicago.
One myth the Left often perpetuates is that law enforcement is the embodiment of white supremacy and stands in direct opposition to people of color. This is just not true at all, for a variety of reasons apart from the fact the Left is full of lying lunatics.
The simple matter is that no one suffers more from a lack of police funding, let alone a full-blown abolishment of the police force, than black people and black communities.
Horace Cooper has a great article at The Daily Signal talking about this very topic. In it, he points out a variety of things that the Left makes up, such as the idea that cops stand in opposition to black people, or present a direct threat to black people, and points out that, opposite to what the Left might claim, black people themselves do not support the defunding or abolishment of the police.
Rasmussen released a poll last month, as the riots and chaos were at the forefront of everyone’s minds and source of news, that pointed out just how unpopular the idea to “defund the police” actually was to America itself and to black people specifically.
According to the poll, 64% of surveyors (survey size of 1,000 American Adults) were reportedly “concerned that the growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers and reduce public safety in the community where they live. That includes 39% who are Very Concerned.”
I doubt that number is much smaller since then, because despite the fact that the fake news media isn’t reporting it anymore, riots are still happening across the country. I already mentioned Portland, but there have been riots in California and Colorado as well. Even in Texas, there have been “peaceful demonstrations” which have resulted in the death of an ANTIFA rioter who attempted to kill someone in a car, but the driver had a gun themselves and fired back. The driver, thankfully, was completely unharmed.
In any case, as I said, riots are still happening and people want to be safe. I’ve already talked about this very notion in an article from a little over a week ago, talking about the increase in gun sales in recent time, particularly from first-time gun buyers.
Now, returning to that Rasmussen poll, I would specifically like to point out the numbers by demographics. Specifically, what black people said about this. According to the poll, 67% of blacks, three percentage points higher than Americans overall, said they were concerned about a shortage of police and a reduction in safety.
63% of whites and 65% of other minority Americans said the same. This demonstrates that the people most worried about a lack of police presence are BLACK PEOPLE, the same race of people the Left claims is systemically targeted and even hunted down by the police. What does that tell you about the Left’s rhetoric, then?
And Cooper made sure to bring this point home: “The fact is that black communities suffer far more form under-policing violent crime than from over-policing.”
“In a city like Chicago, the astronomical homicide rate has nothing to do with peace-officer shootings and is instead due to intentional underfunding of law enforcement. This strangulation of the Chicago Police Department results in elevated emergency response times and a mounting list of unsolved homicides. This is a concern across the nation.”
Certainly, it is. When the police are not allowed to do their job, crime skyrockets. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the logical consequence of diminishing the ability of police officers to do their job. Now, of course, not every place is the same. It makes no sense to try and over-police places which are typically more peaceful. It’s about a place’s culture, and unfortunately, danger and violence are a part of the Chicago culture now. That’s not to say that a majority of Chicagoans want this to be the case, but gang activity is so common there and has such a presence, it practically defines the culture of Chicago.
Weekends with shooting victims in the single-digits are considered good weekends in Chicago. And in recent time, things have only escalated further, especially with their tyrannical mayor’s insistence of further choking law enforcement and keeping federal agents from being able to fix the problem.
Cooper also points out this other fact: despite the fact that black people make up 6.2% of the American population, they also make up more than 11% of law enforcement officers. A common reason for many black people to join the ranks of the police is so that they can keep their communities and neighborhoods safe (though this is the case for many cops of other races). They see how poorly run and dangerous these communities are and wish to take out and imprison the bad elements in those communities in the hopes that the communities will become just a little bit better.
People, particularly black people, support law enforcement because a lack of their presence means greater suffering for black people and communities.
Black people tend to be arrested more than other groups of people and sent to prison more than other groups of people, not because the system is out to get them, but because they tend to commit more crimes than other groups of people. This is an uncomfortable fact and those who share it tend to be labeled as racists, even though it’s an irrefutable fact backed up by empirical evidence.
At any rate, like I just said, black people are particularly hurt by a lack of law enforcement. Part of the reason why so many people have gone to buy guns in recent time, especially first-time gun buyers, is that if the Left succeeds in demonizing the police enough that they get severely underfunded, or outright defunded to the point of being effectively inoperable, or morale is so low that there is a shortage of police because they no longer wish to risk their lives to serve people who call them demons for doing the right thing, people’s last line of defense is self-defense via gun ownership.
All people want to be safe. We seek or build shelter to protect ourselves from the natural elements as well as other people who might wish to inflict harm on us and have done this for millennia. We acquire things with which we can defend ourselves, whether they be large sticks, spears, swords or guns. We seek food to eat for our survival and we perform tasks as jobs to be financially secure (to some extent).
Humans feel the natural need for safety because safety is a matter of survival. Whether one is a Christian who values the life of people whom God has created or a Darwinist atheist who fully subscribes to the idea of natural selection and survival of the fittest, people understand that safety is NECESSARY for human survival and life.
Unless we deem it necessary, we don’t tend to take risks. A mother will risk her life for her child, but if her child is not in mortal danger at all, the mother won’t do anything that would risk her life. So in order to survive – to protect those we love – we find means of safety. When a shooting happens, some will go out in search of police or will immediately call 911. Others will pull out their guns to protect themselves and their loved ones or will go to hunt down the shooter.
People want to feel safe, and the communities that most benefit from police presence are the ones who are most at risk when that presence disappears.
The Left taking away people’s means of safety is not going to end well for them. As I noted in the aforementioned article, you cannot simultaneously have a defunct police department and extreme gun regulations that borderline strip the law-abiding of their guns. One of the reasons is you need a police department to regulate those gun control laws. Another is that crime lords pop up, mafia style, offering “safety” to people in exchange for things like cash or services or “favors”. Outright warlords, like the one in CHAZ/CHOP can also pop up, who rule with an iron fist.
But perhaps the biggest reason you can’t have a defunct PD and extreme gun control is because you cannot back people into a corner and expect them to just give up. When backed into a corner, people will go straight at you, seeing no other means of escape. In this instance, people would illegally arm themselves for the purposes of protecting themselves and their families, or even act as a private police force, bringing vigilante justice to their communities.
None of these options are exactly ideal, and yet, the Left is pushing for the contradictory policies of defunding police departments and implementing extreme gun control laws.
The Left is a menace to everyone, but especially to black people.
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
Something I have noted for a very long time now is that the Left is loud, but in the minority when it comes to almost all of the issues and things that they support. They believe, foolishly, that the vast majority of the country thinks like them and wants what they want, when reality couldn’t be further from that idea.
And today, we see more proof of that in a few different ways.
Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, the radical Left has demanded that American cities across the country defund, dismantle and abolish their police departments, with no real replacements for those departments being discussed because it is a monumentally stupid idea and there is no replacing them with anything less deadly.
This wildly dangerous idea has led people to fear for their safety, believing the push to abolish police is real (which it is) and people are picturing a world in which there are no police to protect them (and no, most people do not view police as a direct threat to their lives. Most people view police as good with a few bad apples, not as completely bad).
So it’s not surprising at all to see the FBI reporting record gun sales and background checks happening.
According to the Washington Post: “The new coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest after the killing of George Floyd and the ensuing movement to defund police are bringing in new buyers worried about their personal safety, according to buyers, store owners and gun experts. In June, background checks for firearms were up 136%, compared to a year earlier… background checks in June for civilians seeking a license to carry were the highest since the FBI began conducting checks 20 years ago.”
According to the FBI, 3,931,607 background checks were processed last month, beating the previous record of 3,740,688, which was set back in March, when the country largely began to shut down and local governments in many places began to employ draconian measures.
The WaPo further reports that dealers estimate roughly 40% of sales being from first-time buyers, which is “an increase over the normal average of about a quarter”, and that many new buyers “are people who say they never thought they would own a firearm and were previously critical of those who did.”
A gun buyer told the WaPo: “I don’t want to ever shoot anybody ever. But if I had to duck and shoot back in self-defense, at least I’d have a chance.” This is a good mentality to have surrounding guns, that just about everyone who owns a gun doesn’t ever want to have to actually use it against someone else, but it’s better if we have a gun than if we don’t.
For law-abiding citizens who purchase guns, we do so with the hope that we never come across the situation where it becomes necessary to use the guns against an assailant or someone threatening our lives and the lives of our loved ones, but with the understanding that it’s better to prepare for such a situation and having a gun to defend ourselves with than being in such a situation and being totally defenseless.
Another first-time gun buyer was a man named John Kingdon, who is a registered Democrat and has advocated for gun control in the past. He told the WaPo he purchased a semi-automatic handgun a couple of months ago, admitting that “if I had a hard time getting police to respond to me when we weren’t in a pandemic, what about now?”
And that is another worry for plenty of people: that in the event where one’s life is threatened, police would not show up in time to help. The average response time for a 911 call is 10 minutes. It might not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but when one is faced with an extremely dangerous situation in which calling 911 is necessary, 10 minutes can feel like an absolute eternity, and a LOT of things can happen in such a relatively large amount of time.
For most people, it wouldn’t take robbers 10 minutes to go through their house, potentially finding them hiding in the closet or bathroom while on the phone with the police. And if they are found calling someone, the chances of death are considerably increased. Most robbers don’t necessarily intend to kill people, but many are at the very least willing and able to do so if they believe they have to in order to escape safely.
Of course, they would eventually be found and charged with murder, but robbers usually aren’t the smartest of individuals.
Regardless, the point remains that 10 minutes is far too long of a response time in normal circumstances, let alone during a pandemic and a political climate in which police are demonized and have plenty of reason for morale to be extremely low.
At any rate, it’s not just first-time gun buyers and record-setting gun purchases that are pushing back against Leftist narratives.
In New York City, members of the African-American community are asking for the NYPD to reinstate the recently-dismantled anti-crime units – units of police officers dressed in plainclothes who deal with getting illegal guns off the streets – following a massive rise in violent crime in the city.
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who is, himself, a former police officer, “became the second member of the African-American community to call on the NYPD to stop the violence by re-instituting the Anti-Crime Unit… This, as shootings for the week went up 277%, 49 compared to 13 in 2019. The number of victims is up 253%, 60 compared to 17 in 2019,” according to CBS New York.
Adams said: “I think that a total elimination is something we need to reevaluate. Right now, bad guys are saying if you don’t see a blue and white you can do whatever you want.”
Activist Tony Herbert told CBS New York that he agreed with Adams, saying: “we have a 1-year-old and the blood is on the hands of the mayor and the state Legislature.”
Violence is up massively in the city, and AOC tried to explain it away saying that it was because people were “scared to pay their rent” or because they just needed some “bread.”
That is an extremely asinine response to a very serious situation, though I can’t exactly expect AOC to be the voice of reason anywhere she goes. I doubt there even is a voice of reason inside her head.
But despite the extremely stupid “reasoning” from AOC, people want safety to return, not radical communist ideology that threatens their very safety with the abolition of the police.
People want to be safe, whether it comes in the form of purchasing a firearm for personal safety, or in the form of reinstating effective police units to battle crime running rampant in the city.
Unsurprisingly, Leftists are blaming guns and the 2nd Amendment for the violent crimes, even as the crimes themselves prove not only the value but the NECESSITY of the 2nd Amendment and guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens for the purposes of personal safety (and the crimes are only happening with this frequency due to the anti-cop rhetoric and the Democrat cities slashing cop funding).
You cannot have both a defunct police department and extreme gun control to the point of banning firearms completely. In such a city, a crime-lord would have more authority than the mayor himself, and no one would be safe apart from the people with the guns (and in such a city, only the bad guys would have the guns).
Everyone wants to be safe. The Left pushing for policies that run directly against people’s safety is not exactly a winning ticket.
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
On Monday, four Minneapolis police officers responded to a call of an African-American man, now known as George Floyd, having tried to use a counterfeit bill at a local Cup Foods. Once the officers found a man who fit the description given of the suspect, they proceeded to arrest him in what is perhaps the worst way: pinning Floyd to the ground and one officer pressing his knee on the back of his neck.
Now, one would think: “Did Floyd do something to warrant him being pressed against the ground?” And yes, he did… he fell.
There are a number of videos on the fatal arrest but a relatively recent video showed that Floyd was being taken to a police car, and then he fell. The video I saw was part of a segment on CBS News (take that for what it’s worth), so it cut from Floyd falling to the video of the fatal arrest as it was happening, with Floyd telling the officer that he “can’t breathe” and that his “stomach hurts, my neck hurts, everything hurts,” however, there was absolutely nothing about the situation or the call that warranted such a response from the officers, particularly as THREE of them were pinning him down in the new video.
The call, like I said, was about a man using a counterfeit bill at Cup Foods. At best, that’s an honest mistake and at worst it was trying to scam the store. Neither of which are crimes punishable by death and neither of which warranted the sort of treatment the officers gave to Floyd. Pinning a suspect on the ground and putting your knee on them is naturally bound to cause damage, be it in terms of asphyxiating the suspect or damaging/breaking their neck, etc.
Now, I’m not a cop and I don’t know if that is standard procedure for Minneapolis cops (if it is, it really shouldn’t be), but allow me to share this link of a video of Florida police arresting the Parkland shooter who killed 17 people, including 14 kids. The monster that carried out that heinous act of violence got better treatment from the Florida police than George Floyd got from the Minneapolis police officers for allegedly using a counterfeit bill to buy food (and he might not even have been the right guy. He just matched the suspect’s description).
Of course, I’m not saying that the Florida police should have been brutal with the Parkland shooter, but I am saying that it’s absolutely asinine and outright insane that a school shooter was treated better during his arrest than a guy who matched a suspect’s description for the crime of using a counterfeit bill.
What happened last Monday to George Floyd was nothing short of manslaughter at best. There was no real reason for Floyd to have been treated like he was and people’s outrage over the incident is 100% justified. People protesting his death is 100% justified. The officers that were involved, particularly the officer who had his knee on Floyd’s neck, need to pay the price. Thankfully, it seems that four officers involved in the death of Floyd were fired, but of course, that doesn’t go far enough.
I don’t know what charges ought to be brought to the other three officers, but the officer who had his knee on Floyd’s neck needs to be charged with involuntary manslaughter at the very LEAST.
There is no real defense that I can find for the officers acting in the manner in which they did for the call which they responded to. There were far better ways to arrest Floyd. For crying out loud, Floyd wasn’t even resisting his arrest! Again, all he seemingly did was fall on the ground. The response to this call was not at all warranted.
So like I said, people are right to be outraged, angry, sad and people are perfectly justified in protesting against this tragedy. This tragedy showed that there are bad cops out there, not that we didn’t know before, of course. The bad cops make the good ones look bad and it drives people, particularly Leftists, to accuse virtually all police of being bad. A distinction must be made between the good and bad cops. We must defend the good cops while justifiably lambasting the bad ones and levying punishments for their bad behavior.
What people are not justified to do, however, is turning this tragedy into an opportunity to commit crimes. There have been multiple reports about fires in various places from a police station to a construction site to an auto shop to a Wendy’s and a McDonald’s. Multiple lootings have been reported from a Target to other retail stores to a US Bank, and there have been many reports of vandalism and outright destruction of property from destroying the aforementioned Target to destroying the windows of a local charter school, etc.
Many businesses, particularly the small businesses, had already been hurt because of our response to the Chinese coronavirus in shutting down our economies. This doesn’t help them and most importantly, it doesn’t honor Floyd in the least.
Protesting his death honors him. Rioting, setting things on fire, looting stores and destroying private property dishonors the guy. If anything, it hurts the cause. It brings the attention off of the police and onto the rioters, looters, arsonists, etc. It turned what was supposed to be a national conversation about police brutality into a conversation about how people went absolutely nuts and took the opportunity to do things they otherwise would not. People took the opportunity to loot stores because they would be arrested far more easily otherwise. People took the opportunity to set ablaze places that had NOTHING to do with Floyd’s unjust death. That doesn’t get people to think about the consequences of police brutality – it gets people to think bad people will always seek any excuse to be bad and seek any opportunity to do bad things, even seeing the tragic death of a man as an opportunity to do evil.
It definitely doesn’t help that idiots like Cardi B, Ice Cube and Ilhan Omar have incited this kind of violence and have even excused it. NO ONE is justified in rioting, looting, committing arson, etc. The tragedy that is George Floyd’s death does not justify this sort of behavior. It justifies protesting against police brutality, as tons of people were doing before the rioting began. It justifies being outraged over injustice. It does not justify further injustice, however.
I hope the officers get the punishment they deserve and I hope that they turn to Christ, that they might beg for forgiveness both for the actions that they undertook and their overall sins. I hope that all police officers recognize that their most important duty is to protect the people and not exaggerate in their response to mild calls. I get that such calls can escalate to worse things, but there was no indication that there was any escalation happening or bound to happen with Floyd’s arrest.
I also hope people realize that rioting, looting and setting ablaze random businesses does nothing to teach people about police brutality and does nothing to make things better. Also, no, the looting of stores in Minneapolis is not the same as the Boston Tea Party, as some on Twitter have suggested. The revolutionaries didn’t set random businesses ablaze to “own” the British Parliament. They didn’t loot random shops to “stick it” to King George. They didn’t vandalize random businesses because they knew doing such a thing would be monumentally stupid and would accomplish nothing positive, and certainly wouldn’t get their point across.
“Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”
A little over a week ago, I wrote an article detailing how phony and fake a “climate emergency” statement was because it claimed that 11,000 scientists had signed on to it, pointing out how only 1% of those “scientists” were actual climate scientists and the rest were either scientists of a different field and therefore were not entirely trustworthy on the issue of climate change or were simply not scientists or NOT EVEN REAL PEOPLE, with Mickey Mouse and Professor Dumbledore having “signed” the statement. What that article has in common with today’s topic is in the theme of fictitious, phony crap.
You see, recently, mayor of South Bend Indiana and 2020 Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg boasted having a list of 400 “black” people from South Carolina endorsing his “Douglass Plan”, a plan with the supposed aim of helping black people in America.
They boasted about how “hundreds of South Carolinians” were supporting the plan (and made it vague enough to make it look like they subsequently supported Mayor Pete) but there are a number of problems here.
First of all, 42% of the list of “black supporters” are white. The list doesn’t make it easy to find people who actually supported the plan, given that it only puts people’s names in the list and many have fairly common names like “James Wilson” or “Mary Williams”. But of the total 422 names on the list, only 297 are on South Carolina’s voter file. Of those that can be checked in the voter file, 184 of them are listed as “white”, so at least 42% of the entire list is white and 62% of the voter file list is white.
This is extremely similar in nature to what I was talking about before with the climate “emergency” statement. Now, I don’t know if Mickey Mouse is also listed as endorsing the “Douglass Plan”, but a good number of the people listed in the “black” supporters of the Plan are not black.
Second of all, it’s likely that not everyone in that list actually supports the Plan. State Rep. Ivory Thigpen is a Democrat from the state of South Carolina and is listed as one of three prominent endorsers of the “Douglass Plan”. So are Columbia City Councilmember Tameika Devine and SC Democrat Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero. All three of them are listed as prominent endorsers of Mayor Pete’s plan, but upon learning about it, they all said they did not endorse it or him.
Councilmember Devine said that she endorsed the plan, but the e-mail was written in a way that made it look like she endorsed Buttigieg, which she did not. “Clearly from the number of calls I received about my endorsement, I think the way they put it out there wasn’t clear, that it was an endorsement of the plan, and that may have been intentionally vague. I’m political, I know how that works… I do think they probably put it out there thinking people wouldn’t read the fine print or wouldn’t look at the details or even contact the people and say, ‘Hey, you’re endorsing Mayor Pete?’”
State Rep. Thigpen, whom Councilwoman Devine says is a supporter of Mayor Pete, has actually endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for President and said that it was “alarming” that his name would be shown there, because while he had made contact with the campaign, he thought he had made it perfectly clear to them that Crazy Bernie was his guy and was not supporting or endorsing Mayor Pete or his plan.
Dem Party Black Caucus Chair Johnnie Cordero also said that he did not support the mayor’s plan nor the mayor himself: “I never endorsed that plan. I don’t know how my name got on there…”. Cordero explained to The Intercept that he had asked the Buttigieg campaign questions regarding the Plan, such as who drafted the plan and if black people were involved in the creating of the plan, going along the line of thinking that black people should know best what it was that a plan should have to help black people in America, but that ultimately, he did not come to the decision to endorse it.
But regardless, all of them had some sort of issue or another with Mayor Pete’s e-mail and boasting of supposed black support for his campaign as a result of this Plan. The fact that some of them didn’t even know they were “endorsing” the plan brings me to my next and final point:
There was an “opt-out” option in the endorsement, not an “opt-in”, meaning that you automatically are registered as an endorser and supporter if you don’t read through the fine print and specifically reach out to the campaign to tell them you do not endorse the Plan.
This is, interestingly enough, a similar tactic to what Big Unions use to rob employees. The National Right To Work Foundation has an article about this, detailing a complaint an employee of United Airlines had against the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) for requiring that he “opt-out” of paying union dues and fees despite the fact that he was not a member of the union and the union used sketchy tactics of forcing people to respond with little time about not wanting to have their paychecks deducted in “support” of the union.
It’s nothing short of Soviet-style theft and the National Right To Work Foundation is helping the United Airlines employee to sue the union giant for violating Supreme Court precedent regarding union dues and fees and for violating the man’s First Amendment rights afforded to him by the Constitution of the United States.
And this is the tactic the Buttigieg campaign opted to use (pun intended). If you’ve been contacted by the campaign about the Plan, you automatically endorse it unless you specifically tell them you don’t endorse it. And no indication is made that this is how it works, so many people are left officially “endorsing” the plan when they had not actually intended to do so.
I could only imagine the firestorm that would befall the Trump campaign if they employed similar tactics. And while many are, rightfully, bashing Mayor Pete for such sketchy tactics, others, such as The Washington Post, report that “Buttigieg persuaded hundreds of prominent black South Carolinians to sign onto the plan even if they are not supporting Buttigieg himself.”
The lie in this fake news article becomes very clear when you know the truth. Buttigieg FORCED hundreds of South Carolinians, not all of whom are black, to sign on to the plan that makes it look like they are supporting Mayor Pete and the three prominent black South Carolinians on the list either had a problem with the messaging or did not support either the plan or the mayor.
It’s extremely sketchy and very risky, considering he has virtually zero support among black people across the country, particularly in South Carolina. And it blew up on the guy’s face because of how obvious a farce the whole thing was.
Not that I expect anything less from someone who lies about being a Christian.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
Yesterday, we looked at an argument the Left often makes about climate change, that man-made climate change causes severe weather events like hurricanes and the like. However, we found that nothing could be further from the truth and there is no actual link between climate change itself and extreme weather. Similarly, the Left makes the argument that abortion reduces crime rates, but that one is not only wrong (and we will see why that is in a moment), but is rooted in racism.
Dr. Brian Clowes is a pro-life researcher working for Human Life International and recently had an interview with LifeSiteNews discussing a research paper by economists John Donohue III and Steven Levitt titled: “The impact of legalized abortion on crime over the last two decades,” which is a paper that expands upon a study they published back in 2001 that essentially claimed the same things – that abortion reduces crime rates.
What the economists found is that crime rates dropped after 1973, which is something Clowes acknowledges in the interview. However, he asserts that the reason for this is “not because fewer people were born but because fewer people in the 25-40 age bracket were committing a crime. This was partly due, [Clowes] said, to improved police techniques and a reduction in the widespread use of crack cocaine.”
So there are two things to note here. First, older people were committing less crimes at least in part due to improved police techniques, improvements in technology and an overall reduction in the use of hardcore drugs such as cocaine, which really exploded in the 1980s. This much makes sense, as improving police techniques often leads to good results that impact crime rates in a good way.
The second thing to note is the actual age bracket used here: 25-40. Statistician David Murray, whom Clowes cites, confirmed that the majority of crimes committed in the U.S. are by males between the ages of 17 and 25. Both Clowes and Murray assert that if abortion truly did reduce crime rates, the number would have dropped in that age range first, not in older ranges, which is what the economists found.
Back in 2001, when the report was first released by the economists, Murray told Fox News that homicide rates did drop among that age group, but aggravated assault among that age group increased. While I don’t exactly have the data, it stands to reason that at least part of the reason for this is an improvement in the medical field to treat wounds that otherwise would’ve been fatal. And again, police techniques can also be attributed, at least to some extent. The point is that while one type of crime was reduced, a different type, which can often lead to the first type, increased significantly, rendering the economists’ findings irrelevant at best.
But there is one other major component that we must take into account when talking about this issue whatsoever. And that component is the simple fact that while the economists recorded a drop in crime rates int the U.S. since Roe v. Wade passed (which is really more correlation than causation, as far as we can see), similar data was not replicated outside the U.S.
What do I mean? Well, the United Kingdom legalized abortion in 1968. But according to LifeSiteNews, “Eighteen years later, crime was increasing across the country, precisely when Donohue and Levitt’s analysis would have predicted a decline.” The same could be said of Russia, which, despite the fact they have some of the highest abortion rates in the world (37.4 per 1000 women aged 15-44 as of 2010) with a peak of 5.5 million abortions performed in 1965, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, violent crimes in the country skyrocketed.
So not only do abortions not seem to cause a decrease in crimes, other countries in the world with far higher abortion rates and legalized abortion for longer periods found themselves with HIGHER crime rates than before. I won’t go as far as to say that abortions cause crime (though abortions help rapists get rid of the “evidence” of their misdeeds), but abortion seems to not have anything to do with decreased crime rates. Countries that have had legal abortion for longer periods of time than the U.S. and have higher rates of abortion don’t seem to see any drop in crimes at all.
And now, let’s get to the part about how that study is rooted in racism, shall we?
Clowes noted that murder rates among African Americans skyrocketed by more than 500% from 1984 to 1993 despite the fact that African American women have abortions three times more often than white women do. Yet another example of the rates absolutely going the opposite way that the pro-abortion economists claimed they would go.
Clowes then went on to assert that both studies reflect a “eugenics mentality”. Clowes even went as far as to say that “the racism of eugenics and Planned Parenthood advocate Margaret Sanger is revealed in the assumptions found in Donohue and Levitt’s study,” according to LifeSiteNews.
“The unstated assertion behind all of this is that black people supposedly commit more crime than white people,” Clowes said. And given not only the rates at which a black woman is more likely to get an abortion than a white woman, but also the amount of times PP clinics emphasize going to minority neighborhoods and also target minority women, as well as the fact that Margaret Sanger considered black people to be “weeds”, you can logically observe that the study that makes the claim that abortion reduces crime rates are heavily rooted in racism.
The claim alone, considering the rates at which minorities will be more likely to get abortions, sounds rooted in racism. Another way to write that claim would be: “Abortion of minorities leads to reduced crime rates!” So while the economists don’t explicitly talk about minorities, the claims they make (which are wrong anyway) suggest that it’s good that minorities are having so many abortions because they create less criminals.
Now doesn’t that sound wrong to your ears? Well, it should, given just how incredibly wrong these two economists (and by extension, all who use their research) are when it comes to their positions. Abortion does not reduce crime. Neither do we see that actually happen in the U.S. nor do we see that happen outside the U.S. in countries like the U.K. and Russia, which actually show an increase in crime. But beyond that, it is racist to claim that abortion reduces crime because the vast majority of people who get abortions are minorities.
So the next time someone cites these economists and claims abortion reduces crime, remind them that minorities get abortions more often than white people, so that is the same thing as to say that minorities cause more crimes and aborting them reduces those crime rates. In other words, you can (rather credibly) call them racist and have some data to back up that claim that often gets thrown around so much.
“For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Last week was a good week for humanity, when Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a heartbeat bill, dealing a major blow to pro-abortion advocates in the State. But before the Governor signed the bill (which was twice vetoed by fmr Gov. John Kasich), one Ohio Democrat wanted to include in the bill an amendment that would exempt African-American babies from the security of the bill.
Ohio Rep. Janine Boyd (D), who is herself African-American, drafted an amendment that sought to exempt black babies from the pro-life legislation. And the reason for this? Well, because not killing black babies is tantamount to slavery, obviously!
No, really, that was her argument: “Black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. Our country is not far enough beyond our history to legislate as if it is.”
Of course that’s her argument. It’s only been, what, 156 years since slavery was abolished (at least in the Republican North). Yeah, that’s definitely not enough time to heal. I mean, sure, there isn’t a black person alive in America who was a slave, not one who has had to pick cotton or do other menial labor for absolutely no pay, but sure, we have not healed as a country yet.
If so, the only reason we haven’t healed is because Democrats want to pretend we still live in those days. But that’s a topic for another time.
But returning to Boyd, man is that a seriously tone-deaf and painfully ironic, if not outright moronic, train of logic.
Black babies are specifically targeted by Planned Parenthood, what with most PP clinics being in urban areas closest to minorities. Not to mention Planned Parenthood’s very own founder thought of black people as nothing more than weeds to be rooted out of the planet.
I often use this argument when talking about the Left’s racism (when also discussing abortion), but it is adamantly important information that I feel not very many people have at their disposal, but here it is: Margaret Sanger literally wrote a letter to her associate, Clarence Gamble, saying: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister (a black man advocating for abortion) is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Planned Parenthood’s very own objective (not that any of those working in it will admit or even acknowledge) is to eradicate the African American population from the face of the Earth. Such an objective can be clearly seen not just from Sanger’s very own words to one of her colleagues but in the fact that the African-American community suffers from a 38% national abortion rate, which is far higher than all other races.
Thankfully, the amendment was struck down and the bill was signed by Gov. DeWine on Friday. But still, both the Democrat Representative’s desire to exempt black people from the right to life and her reasoning behind it is utterly morally bankrupt.
Pro-life group Created Equal president Mark Harrington said: “To reference owning humans as a defense of dismembering them is moral myopia. If it is wrong to own humans, it is also wrong to intentionally kill them.”
And he’s certainly right. It makes no sense to advocate for the killing of black babies with the reasoning of “it’d be like slavery if we can’t kill them”. But of course, what one would have to acknowledge in this instance is that those babies are, in fact, alive. The Left has made it their mission to utterly dehumanize all babies (and as of late, including those who are newly born).
Like Hitler dehumanizing the Jews, the Left dehumanizes an unborn child, both for the same reasons: kill them all.
The Left has not changed one single bit since the days of Jefferson Davis, who was their president when they refused to acknowledge Lincoln as their president. They still target African-Americans and still find African-Americans who were lucky enough to escape from their grasp to be useful idiots to advocate for the deaths of their own kin.
It is outrageous what the Left seeks to do, all with the friendly face of “getting rid of a small, insignificant problem”. They are purposefully breaking the 6th commandment over and over and over again, multiple times a day. Already, 61 million babies have been killed since 1973 in the United States alone, with 18 million of them being African-American. This year alone, at only the mid-way point of the fourth month, over 270,000 babies have been killed in the U.S. And as of the time of writing this, well over a thousand have been killed today alone.
There is no other way to describe this apart from a complete and total holocaust; an utter genocide of mankind. And people like Boyd come along and think we should keep it going? People like Miley Cyrus, Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep, Harvey Weinstein, Nancy Pelosi and countless others on the Left think this is a good thing?
You either have to be a complete and total monster to not be the least bit affected by these numbers or you have to be willfully ignorant, almost idiotic, in thinking that these are not actual people being slaughtered every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year.
This is among the reasons why if I come across someone who claims to be conservative but is also pro-choice, I can’t take them very seriously at all. Sure, they’d advocate for limited government, but they’d also advocate for the allowing of genocide to take place. This is advocating for restricting the basic right to life, afforded to us by our Creator, as detailed in the Declaration of Independence. Pro-choice conservatives don’t like it when the government restricts other rights and other freedoms, but somehow it is okay when it restricts the most basic of them?
But in any case, this is not an article meant to attack the few pro-choice conservatives in the world. This is meant to showcase just how little the Left has changed since the days of throwing a temper tantrum after the first Republican took office. They still wish to eliminate the black population, if they can. They, of course, will not broadcast it. Sanger herself mentioned that she doesn’t want people to find out what Planned Parenthood’s purpose is. But the objective remains the exact same: eliminate the black population.
Again, you need only look at the statistics. Even if you don’t think that Sanger’s letter is real, you at least have to accept the fact that black people are disproportionately targeted for abortion. This has been the Left’s objective from the beginning. That is because they have racism coursing through their veins. That is because they are evil by nature.
Now, we all are evil by nature, but some of us have been saved by Christ, while others adamantly reject Him. This routine genocide of people created by God is proof of that.
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
I’ve often held the belief, which is often proven to be true, that the Left is chock-full of racists and bigots. That just about everyone in the media focuses on the skin color or gender of a person more-so than the content of that person’s character, at least depending on the political leanings of said person. As a good example, look at the Mississippi Senate race held a couple of days ago, where the Republican candidate, Cindy Hyde-Smith defeated Democrat candidate Mike Espy. Despite the fact that she’s the first woman Mississippi has ever elected to Congress, that fact is ignored because she’s a Republican.
However, that is not the main focus of this article. The point I’m trying to make here is that the Left tends to look at someone’s skin-deep characteristics and nothing beyond that. They do this so often, that it appears as though it’s become second-nature to the Left to be racist. What do I mean?
A study from a couple of researchers from Yale and Princeton found that “over a 25-year-period, white Democratic political candidates patronized minorities by dumbing down their language so as to appear more approachable,” according to the Daily Wire.
The researchers analyzed words used in over 70 speeches delivered by both Democrats and Republicans over a 25-year-period, with around half of the speeches being delivered to mostly minority audiences, and being compared to speeches delivered to mostly white audiences. According to the Daily Wire: “two elements of the speech were analyzed: words related to competence and words related to warmth.”
“The results showed Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words speaking to minorities than when speaking to white audiences. Republican candidates did not change their discourse."
The researchers also tested “white participants to see how they would interact with a hypothetical or presumed-real interaction partner. Half of the time, the partner was given a name that ostensibly sounded white, such as ‘Emily’, while the rest of the time the partner received a name that sounded like a non-white, such as ‘Lakisha.’ Participants chose from a list of words, all of which had been rated for their warmth or competence, to use to send an email to the partner,” according to the Daily Wire.
The result was that those who skewed to the Left would make sure not to use words that would make them appear to be highly competent, while conservatives would not change their language. Cydney Dupree, one of the researchers, said that “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect. Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.”
Dupree also said, regarding finding such a pattern of behavior in Democrat politicians, that “It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”
Now, I am not really surprised to see this sort of thing being the case. I have known for a very long time now that the Left is largely racist and bigoted. Regardless of someone’s skin color, they are like this. I don’t think I have to point to each and every instance of hatred that stems from the Left on the basis of skin color, because if I did, I would be here all week. And even though their new favorite target for their incessant need to be openly racist is white people, they still hold true to their old Democrat values of bigotry against minorities.
And this much is clear if, throughout three decades, they’ve been shown to display a particular pattern of speech that differs depending on the type of audience they have. One such instance, though not necessarily regarding race, is when either Hillary or Bill Clinton would hold some speech or rally in a Southern state, such as their home state of Arkansas, and would use a more exaggerated and noticeable southern drawl when speaking to southerners than they otherwise would, say, while in New York or Washington D.C.
Obama was similar, to some extent. Whenever there were more black people with him, he would act more like a black guy than he would otherwise.
So this entire thing comes down partly to racism, but also to an even larger problem with the Left that they would never admit to being a problem: they think they are better than everyone else around them.
Barack Obama often tends to speak and just look at people with his chin really high up and like he’s looking down at someone. He is the prime example of someone who downright looks down on those around him and thinks himself better than everyone else.
It’s because of this largely baseless belief that they are better and smarter than everyone else that they instinctively end up dumbing things down to those whom they believe are inferior to them: minorities.
The reason Kanye West said that there still was slavery going on in the U.S. (paraphrasing, of course) is that black people, through their vote, still largely are slaves to the Left. Slaves of thought. It’s the reason I continue to call the Democrat Party a slave plantation of thought. Because that is largely what they are. Of course, black people are not the only slaves in such a plantation. This plantation includes anyone who does not think for themselves and agrees with the hive mind of the collective Left. There is no data, apart from man-made data, of man-made climate change? “Bull! There is consensus within the scientific community that it’s real, so it has to be!”
Science has long proven that males are male and females are female and there can be no alteration of that, barring some sort of chromosome-level accident? “Bollocks! Gender is fluid and you’re a hater if you say otherwise!” Don’t know why I went British for that one, but let’s continue.
The point is that the Left holds people’s individual thought almost for ransom. And as a result, they end up instinctively holding minorities in a lower regard. I didn’t exactly need a study to know just how racist the Left is, but it is always good to basically confirm such beliefs. The fact that this has been happening for three decades (and likely longer, but the study had to set some sort of limit) tells me the Left’s very racism, bigotry and hatred is on the genetic level.
I’ve said this before, but it’s in their very DNA to be this way. And given the response from one of the researchers, it appears as though she was disheartened to see the results of the study. She even went as far as to say that it was an “unpleasant surprise” to see this behavior. The good news is that she at least was capable of recognizing that this could easily be seen as patronizing behavior (because it is). Though she still tried to insist that it was well-intended, the proof is in the pudding: the Left treats minorities like idiots, while conservatives treat minorities like they would anyone else.
Here’s hoping such a revelation leads to these researchers to understand that there is a deeply-rooted problem within the Left that is not likely to ever change.
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
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...