As we have known for a very long time now, Joe Biden isn’t exactly a master speaker nor does he command a strong knowledge of the English language when he speaks. This was very much demonstrated recently when talking about climate, as the Occupier of the Oval Office basically claimed that tornadoes don’t exist anymore, or at least, an unspecified “they” don’t call them that anymore.
 
“Uh, you know, the, looks like a tornado, they don’t call ‘em that anymore, that hit the crops and, and wetlands in the middle of the country, and, and Iowa, and Nevada, and, I mean it’s just across the board. And uh, you know um, uh, as I said we’re in this together.”
 
Hard to be “in this together” when most of us don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, Joe.
 
But, hey, this ought to be something to celebrate, right? Tornadoes don’t exist anymore, which is a success in the “fight” against climate change, right? Oh, wait, yeah, this is just because Old Man Biden is a senile coot unfit for the office he stole. Forgot.
 
Naturally, Pretend President Porky Pig had people attempt to defend his incoherence online, claiming that what Biden was talking about wasn’t tornadoes but derechos, a different kind of storm.
 
Of course, since this is a Leftist argument, there are a few holes in it.
 
First of all, Biden was referring, at least, to something that “looks like a tornado.”
 
Here’s a tornado:

And here’s a picture of a derecho:

The only people who could claim that a tornado and a derecho look similar are people who have never seen one or the other and people who are awfully dishonest like Leftists who still defend the ghost of the Democrat Party.
 
The only similarity between both storms is the color, and that’s just because they look LIKE DARK CLOUDS, as you would typically find in PRETTY MUCH ALL STORMS.
 
Furthermore, The National Weather Service defines a tornado as “a violently rotating column of air extending from the base of a thunderstorm down to the ground” which is “capable of completely destroying well-made structures, uprooting trees, and hurling objects through the air like deadly missiles.” Meanwhile, their definition of derecho is a “widespread, long-lived wind storm that is associated with a band of rapidly moving showers or thunderstorms.”
 
In essence, the two are nothing alike, again, apart from color and I already explained why that is the case.
 
Secondly, and lastly, it makes no sense for Biden to have been talking about derechos because people still call them that. Even if one were to argue that most people don’t know the term “derechos”, which is certainly possible, and would usually refer to a derecho as a weird storm, or a storm in general, that represents a lack of information on the particular storm, not a change in idiom regarding the name of the storm.
 
Whoever “they” is in Biden’s nonsensical speech, it’s definitely not meteorologists who can accurately recognize and name the particular storm. If “they” is the general public which might not know the name of the storm, again, that’s about a lack of information, not a conscious decision to start calling those storms something else.
 
So whether Biden actually meant to say tornadoes or was merely referring to derechos, what he said was both incoherent and inaccurate. Not that they had to be coherent or accurate for loyal Leftist dogs to defend Biden at the drop of a hat (even when no one would blame them if they stopped defending him considering his drop in ratings, even those which are rigged in his favor). Frankly, it’s pathetic that these people have to force themselves (even more pathetic if they don’t have to force themselves, to be honest) to defend the nonsense of a man who should be long retired by now and as far away as possible from the nuclear button.
 
And yet, we don’t really expect them to do anything else. This is the dog they chose in the primaries (even if the country at large didn’t choose him) and they have to stick by him, apparently. This, despite the increase in Biden voters regretting their decision in 2020.
 
But hey, at least tornadoes aren’t a thing anymore, right? Ah, wait, almost forgot again.
 
The Left really can’t have anything, huh?
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

In what is a seeming attempt at “owning” pro-lifers, commie actress Bette Midler suggested on Twitter that “all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.”
 
In other words, she is telling women, namely pro-abortion women, to NOT spread their legs as they often do and have sex, because this apparently would be detrimental to pro-life men.
 
Yeah, I don’t get it either, but you won’t hear me complaining about this instance of Leftist illogic.
 
Naturally, this comes following the Texas Heartbeat Act which protects the unborn beginning at six weeks gestation, when the heart usually begins to beat. Because women usually don’t find out that they are pregnant around this time as well, this bill pretty much effectively bans abortion.
 
And unlike similar pro-life, heartbeat laws which can easily be ignored by activist judges and pro-abortion law enforcement (including Leftist DA’s), the Texas heartbeat law allows individuals to report violations of that law and sue the abortionists as a result. This means that the power to enforce this law doesn’t have to rest on a state government which might be full of activists who will ignore the law for their ideologies, but rather, on We the People, particularly pro-life people to actually do something about abortion.
 
Basically, this bill is an important first step in overturning the criminal and disastrous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 which has led to a holocaust of the unborn. Which is precisely why so many Leftists are so uppity about this law, including Bette Midler.
 
Still, that she would encourage women to abstain from sex as a “punishment” is utterly hilarious to me and quite the self-own.
 
For the most part, pro-life men aren’t going around sleeping with every woman they can find. If anything, men who sleep around so much would much rather abortion be widely available, since they wouldn’t want to be “burdened” with the responsibilities of fatherhood. Pro-life men tend to be Christians, and Christians tend to view sex in the way God does, which is that it’s something only a man and a woman ought to do when they are married, not before or outside of it.
 
The funny thing is that Bette Midler isn’t the only moron to suggest women don’t have sex with men in “protest” to a heartbeat bill. Back in 2019, when Georgia passed a similar heartbeat bill, equally-as-stupid actress Alyssa Milano called on women to go on a “sex strike” because “we just cannot risk pregnancy” “until women have legal control over our own bodies.”
 
Naturally, I’m inclined to argue that women have legal control over their OWN bodies, not the bodies of others including their own children, but I don’t care to argue with someone who said this back in 2019.
 
The reason for pointing this out is that this seems to be one of at least two arguments Leftists sometimes make regarding pro-life bills (yes, they make a slew of other ones, but I want to talk about these two specifically because both arguments are actually beneficial to society).
 
They make the self-defeating argument that women should abstain from sex, as we just talked about. But they also make another argument that, frankly, I can’t help but agreeing with 100% and believe would be a benefit to society: that men shouldn’t legally be allowed to get a woman pregnant and then abandon her. That “if she has to stick with the pregnancy and the consequences of it, then so should he,” as I hear liberals put it.
 
Every time I see this on social media (not that I frequent them all too much anymore) from a liberal who makes this argument, I tend to reply with something akin to “deal”. In essence, completely agreeing with the premise.
 
Though they obviously make these arguments for the wrong reasons (as they would still prefer both to have sex and not have to “stick” with the pregnancy), I definitely won’t stop liberals from inadvertently making arguments which help improve society.
 
Indeed, women should be practicing abstinence until they get married (same for men). This is the Christian view of sex and I won’t complain if liberals end up making this same argument or begin advocating for this, even if for the wrong reasons. And men definitely shouldn’t get to enjoy the pleasures of sexual intercourse and then bail the minute the consequences of such intercourse come up.
 
Both as a Christian and as a man, it disgusts me that a man would get a woman pregnant and then abandon her and the child. It’s utterly wrong and despicable to do such a thing to a woman. And while the Left might say that they also have a problem against that, it’s the natural consequence of the “sexual liberation” movement of the 1960’s, sponsored by the American Left both of then and now.
 
But if liberals inadvertently make arguments that would make society better (a man having to legally stay with the pregnant woman would do wonders for strengthening the nuclear family, not to mention it would accomplish much the same as the abstinence insofar as it keeps these men from humping anything that moves), who am I to complain?
 
I’ll certainly point out that they would make things better, hence this very article, but you won’t hear me making arguments against such things. At most, I would only highlight that they are only doing this for the entirely wrong reasons, which is something that definitely ought to be addressed, but otherwise, I’ll be as silent as a mouse.
 
After all, as Napoleon is attributed with saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
 
Romans 12:19
“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’”

It isn’t enough that the Left worships themselves or golden idols (like the Oscars or other awards), but they feel they must also force children to partake in their pagan activities, it seems.
 
The “Global Vaccine Poem” project forces children to “Read the model poem ‘Dear Vaccine’ written by Naomi Shihab Nye, then choose a prompt to respond to. Add a few lines of your words. Don’t worry about rhyming, don’t worry about grammar or spelling. Simply share your thoughts.”
 
The “Dear Vaccine” poem reads as follows:
 
“Save us, dear vaccine.
Take us seriously.
We had plans.
We were going places.
Children in kindergarten.
So many voices, in chorus.
Give us our world again!
Tiny gleaming vials,
enter our cities and towns
shining your light.
Restore us to each other.
We liked our lives.
Maybe we didn’t thank them enough.
Being able to cross streets
with people we didn’t know,
pressing elevator buttons,
smiling at strangers,
standing in line to pay.
We liked standing in line
more than we pretended.
It’s a quick prick in the arm.
You’ll barely notice it.
It’s the gas in the car.
Getting us going again.
It’s the turn in the road.
Face-to-face conversation
someday soon?
It’s the hug. Forever,
it’s the hug!
Vaccine, please make the air clean!
We went to yoga classes,
deep collective breathing,
in small rooms in cities
where we didn’t even
live! How brave we were.
Vaccine, please.
Restore our lives.
Believe they were beautiful.”
 
Aside from this poem being terrible, it reeks of pagan cultism. It asks that a vaccine – a medical product created for the purposes of combatting the virus (and doesn’t really even do that) – do something which it is powerless to do: restore people’s lives.
 
They treat the vaccine like a literal god, asking and basically praying to it that it would renew the world and “free us”, as though it were Jesus Christ on the cross. Now do you understand why we say that the Left treats science like a religion? They have their deity of choice for the time being: the vaccine. They have their prophets like Fauci, and their cardinals like Biden.
 
They force their children to partake in this lunacy, giving agency and power to something which has no power. Again, even for the very purposes of the vaccine, it has no power or ability to combat the Chinese coronavirus, seeing as people still get it after getting jabbed.
 
And this project, by the way, is endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers union, which has long insisted that schools cannot possibly reopen unless all the children and staff are vaccinated, despite the fact that THE CDC says that the vaccines are only approved for people 12 and older, so younger kids shouldn’t be getting the vaccine (no one should, I’d argue, but particularly younger kids).
 
The AFT tweeted: “In elementrary [sic] schools, until we have the vaccines, it seems like unfortuantely [sic] we still [sic] going to have to keep wearing our masks and keep social distancing because we don’t want outbreaks.”
 
Utterly ironic and perhaps even emblematic of the worthlessness of these teachers’ unions and our current educational system that the AFT made multiple grammar and spelling errors in that single tweet. Maybe it’s not just the kids who need to go back to the classrooms.
 
Oh, and by the way, that strategy of not going back until they have the vaccines runs contrary to the advice of the CDC, which has said that schools are allowed to reopen without anyone, even the teachers, getting vaccinated, also arguing that teachers have a higher risk of getting the Chinese coronavirus outside of school than inside it.
 
So not only are they failing English here, they are also failing science. And these are some of the same people who accused others of being “science deniers” if they even remotely questioned the actions, advice and motivations of the CDC and WHO. Are we, then, to believe that these teachers are science deniers? Yes, by all standards, but now, also by their own.
 
The truth is that these vaccines stand to be far more dangerous than the virus is in itself.
 
You see, according to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), between late December of 2020 and April 23rd, so more than a month ago at this point, a total of 3,362 people have seemingly died after getting the vaccines in the U.S. With an average of 30 deaths a day, a bit closer to today’s date, the death toll is now more than 4,000 people.
 
So, according to the CDC’s database, over 4,000 people have died since last December after getting the Chinese coronavirus. This is significant for the simple reason that no other vaccine has ever reached such a figure in such a short amount of time.
 
Every flu season, over 160 million Americans receive influenza shots, and every year, the death toll from such shots is rather miniscule. In 2019, 203 people died after getting the flu shot. In 2018, the number was 119. In 2017, only 85 people died after getting jabbed. And those numbers are for the ENTIRE YEAR. It’s been roughly five months since December, closer to six (depending on when exactly VAERS began counting) and the number of deaths is GARGANTUAN in comparison to other vaccines.
 
And according to Tucker Carlson, in just the first four months of 2021, the U.S. government “has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013. That’s a period of fifteen and a half years.”
 
But wait, because it gets even worse. The matter of fact is that VAERS is not a particularly trustworthy or reliable system. When I used it, I searched for people who were vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine (the reason I use that name will become immediately obvious) back in the year 1921, at the earliest. Not people who were necessarily BORN in 1921 and may have recently gotten the shot. No, it’s people who RECEIVED the COVID-19 vaccine in the year 1921, 98 years before there was a COVID-19 virus.
 
However, that’s just one example of it being untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, you might be thinking why I’m bringing this up, since this is the system that I’m using to base the idea that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus.
 
Here’s the reason: according to a report submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) back in 2010, “fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported” to the CDC through the VAERS system. Such adverse events include death following vaccination, so that roughly 4,000 figure is possibly a MASSIVE undercount, according to the HHS itself. So it’s possible that the actual number is somewhere closer to 400,000, give or take.
 
Worldometers says that the Chinese coronavirus has accounted for 3.5 million deaths worldwide. However, as I have explained in prior articles, the CDC overreports Chinese coronavirus deaths, and only 6% are actually from the virus directly. Now, that’s just in the U.S. since the CDC is strictly an American department. However, since the U.S. has the most reported deaths at 605,000+, taking six percent of that nets us a little over 36,000. So, in all likelihood, the actual worldwide number might be 2.9 million (assuming that other countries didn’t mess up their reporting, which we know isn’t the case, seeing as China stopped counting sometime in early 2020 to appear competent on the world stage).
 
But focusing specifically on the U.S., since, again, the CDC and therefore the VAERS are strictly American, you can see that FAR more people have died in the States from the vaccine than from the virus. 400,000 vaccine deaths compared to 36,000 from the virus. ELEVEN TIMES as many people have died in the U.S. from getting the vaccine (again, in just five or six months) than from getting the virus (in the last year, year and a half since this virus came to America).
 
And children are supposed to not only take it (which goes against the advice of the CDC), thereby risking their own lives, but they are supposed to practically WORSHIP IT as though it was the Messiah Himself?!
 
Forcing children to write love poems about anyone is idiotic and disturbing enough, but to force them to write “love poems” to an inanimate and impotent object like the vaccine is literal idolatry, at this point. Not particularly surprising, since this is the Left we’re talking about, but it’s disgusting that they are forcing children to partake in their sinful lifestyles.
 
May God help the children subjected to this crap and may He punish the idolaters and abusers of children.
 
1 John 5:21
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”

It never ceases to amaze me just how immoral, cruel, idiotic and self-assured of their own stupidity people can be. A recent survey from the U.K. only further proves just how fundamentally stupid some people are, and that a medical degree doesn’t mean jack.
 
A poll of nearly 1,000 women was recently conducted by a charity called “Pregnant Then Screwed” (hell of a name for a charity) which revealed that one in five women, or 20%, who were in labor were ordered to wear a mask by a medical “professional” attending them at the births, including 10% of women who had natural births and 50% who had caesarian section.
 
This is cruel, idiotic and unscientific for a number of reasons, ranging from common sense reasons to scientific ones.
 
First of all, one of the main things that a woman is supposed to do while giving birth is breathe. Granted, we are always supposed to do this, but doctors give a particular emphasis on breathing patterns during labor, such as how deep their breaths are supposed to be, how often to do so, etc. Being able to breathe well during labor is imperative. And guess what happens when a woman who is giving birth is forced to wear a mask?
 
Now, neither the survey nor the subsequent article on BBC News mentioned anything about women passing out, away, or anything horrible like that, which is frankly miraculous, in my opinion. It very well could have happened to any of the women (and might have, as again, there is no mention of it, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened or that it didn’t) and that would have made the situation a whole lot worse for no reason apart from Leftist fearmongering regarding the virus and the wearing of masks, as though masks are borderline the solution to the virus.
 
One woman said she was very panicked and thought she might throw up in her mask, and another pointed out how she was “gasping for air”: “Someone put the mask on me. I said ‘you can’t be serious,’ and she replied ‘yes,’ and then I remember having a contraction. My body was already in a state of distress, and I tried to remove the mask at one point, but I was told I had to put it back on.” This woman ended up having to have emergency C-Section and was told she had to continue wearing the mask while having the operation.
 
Now, during a C-section, the mother is not the one exercising any energy or having to do much at all, so one could realistically argue that telling the mother to wear a mask (though still dumb and unnecessary) might be acceptable. During an emergency C-section, the mother is put to sleep using anesthesia, so I could hardly see the point of putting a mask on them here. But during live birth, it makes ZERO sense to have them wearing a mask.
 
But aside from the common sense arguments for not forcing BIRTHING WOMEN to wear masks, there is also the recommendation laid out in a briefing document made by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG), as well as NHS recommendation, which stated that women who are giving birth are exempt from wearing a facemask. Every hospital in the country ought to be following such recommendations, and yet, 20% of women giving birth are told or forced to wear a mask.
 
It is utterly asinine, cruel, unscientific and, frankly, criminal, especially if a woman ends up dying as a result. It is utterly unnecessary to force a woman giving birth to wear a mask, and were she to suffer physically, mentally or emotionally, or if she ends up dying as a result, the hospital ought to be sued for such damages.
 
Matter of fact, the very woman I talked about who required emergency C-Section is said to not be able “to wear any kind of facial covering since giving birth, because it triggers the memory of ‘struggling to breathe’ which she experienced during her labour,” according to BBC News.
 
While I am generally against the wearing of masks for the healthy, as it is utterly unnecessary and unprecedented in the history of pandemics, you’d think it would be rather counter-productive to cause such psychological harm to a woman to the point where she gets something akin to (or actual) PTSD when trying to put a covering on her face when these people WANT others to wear masks and generally obey the irrational and immoral mask mandates. If she indeed is unable to wear any face coverings, that presents a problem to her in a country which, ashamedly, seems rather content with living out Orwell’s 1984 in the very setting of the book and which mandates mask-wearing for just about all activities.
 
If she is psychologically incapable of wearing a mask in a place where she is borderline forced to, why should the hospital where she suffered such psychological damage be exempt from liability?
 
But that’s a matter for the woman herself to deal with. Nevertheless, we see the sort of damage this lunacy and fearmongering has caused. People are legitimately afraid of a virus which has a 99.9% survivability rate for most people to the point where causing psychological harm to others is acceptable, and where potentially causing physical harm to women in labor is also acceptable.
 
Granted, it’s not every woman who is forced to wear a mask during labor, but the fact that any woman is forced to do so is downright criminal. That it’s this “rare” showcases how erroneous and unfair an act it is.
 
Those hospitals are running the risk of cutting off the extremely necessary oxygen supply of women giving birth. What kind of doctor, other than Doctor Kevorkian, would put his or her patients in harm’s way like this? It is absolute madness which has the potential to harm a plethora of people, completely unnecessarily.
 
May God help the women who were forced to wear masks and guide our societies to be more rational about handling the virus.
 
Proverbs 28:26
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered."  

In my last article, I briefly mentioned two big red flags surrounding the Chinese coronavirus vaccines that ought to worry anyone with a functioning brain: Namely that people insist one has to get more than just one dose of the vaccine (literally all other vaccines require a single dose, unless it’s the seasonal flu shot, which is suspect in itself) and that people still have to wear a mask (or two, insanely enough) and social distance even after getting two doses of the vaccine.
 
As if those things in themselves weren’t enough to get people to at least question the effectiveness of the vaccines (as well as the fact that these are experimental vaccines, further bringing its effectiveness into question), there is a new study from Tel Aviv University which found that a South African variant of the Chinese coronavirus affects people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine more than it affects those who are unvaccinated.
 
According to the study, this South African variant was found eight times more frequently in people who were vaccinated as opposed to those who were unvaccinated (5.4% against 0.7%).
 
Adi Stern of Tel Aviv University said: “We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection.”
 
The Epoch Times reports: “The study looked at 400 people who received at least one shot of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and had contracted the COVID-19 variant and compared them to the same number of people who were infected and unvaccinated. Moderna’s vaccine is also used in Israel, but it was not included in the study.”
 
Stern told the Times of Israel: “Based on patterns in the general population, we would have expected just one case of the South African variant, but we saw eight. Obviously, this result didn’t make me happy. Even if the South African variant does break through the vaccine’s protection, it has not spread widely enough through the population.”
 
So not only is there reason to distrust the effectiveness of the vaccines due to the apparent need to get more than one dose of it, and due to the apparent need to still wear masks and social distance as though the vaccine was not administered to oneself, but there is also reason to distrust because, at least when it comes to the South African variant, one of the vaccines (which is reportedly 91% effective, so not a small number) does not appear to help in any way and actually seemingly puts people at greater risk to get the disease.
 
And it’s not like this is a small deal by any stretch of the imagination. Though there are few cases of the South African variant in Israel, there are A LOT of such cases in the U.S. According to a map by NBC News (so take it with a grain of salt) which tracks the Chinese coronavirus variants in the U.S., 35 states have the South African variant of the virus.
 
While I don’t know the exact number of cases of the South African variant in the United States, the fact that it has been found in no less than 35 states means that it’s at least decently spread out in the country, and if people have that variant and get the Pfizer vaccine, the vaccine won’t work. And if people get the Pfizer vaccine before they had the virus, it seemingly makes them around eight times more likely to get the South African variant, thereby negating the vaccine’s very reason for existing.
 
So then, what is the reason for getting the vaccine in the first place? Sure, this study was just the Pfizer vaccine, but given it’s supposed to be 91% effective and Moderna is 94% effective (statistically much better, but not worlds apart), the South African variant seems to be able to bypass the vaccine’s protection. And if it was just that, that would be bad enough. It would just require Pfizer to revise their vaccine and seek to make it effective against this variant. But no, it’s also the fact that, statistically speaking, one is more likely to get the South African variant if one gets the Pfizer vaccine than if they don’t get the vaccine whatsoever.
 
How backwards is that? The vaccine straight up puts people at greater risk of getting this variant of the virus (seemingly a stronger and worse one, if the vaccines can’t do anything against it, which is definitely bad), and yet, we are still advised to get it despite how relatively widespread this variant is in the States.
 
Even the CDC and FDA recommended a pause of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because six people got blood clots after taking them, so if the bar is that low for the J&J vaccine, why would there not be similar disclaimers surrounding the Pfizer vaccine, particularly as it is more likely to make people sick with the South African variant than for those who don’t get the vaccine?
 
Not to mention that, as I have written previously, miscarriages in the U.K. skyrocketed some 366% as a result of the vaccine, and no disclaimers or warnings really came out of that.
 
So there is precedent for these health organizations to find a problem with a vaccine and begin advising against using that vaccine (admittedly, the J&J vaccine is not as effective as the other ones, so that likely had an effect in the making of that decision), which should lead one to believe that problems like skyrocketing miscarriages and increased likelihood of getting a seemingly worse and stronger variant of the Chinese coronavirus would lead these organizations to try and give warnings about it.
 
Well, that would likely be the case in a sane world, but there are those who seek to benefit from experimenting with people using these vaccines, so it’s unlikely that a whole lot of noise will be created as a result to news like these.
 
Still, for those who have the ability to not get these vaccines, it’s perfectly obvious that one should not get them. There are far too many red flags surrounding these things for it to be worthwhile, considering there is a 99.9% survivability rate for most people.
 
Psalm 4:8
“In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”

Did we really need a study to know that this was the case? Did we not learn at some point during school that meat provides protein and calcium? Is this another piece of factual information we all learned in school that has gone by the way-side because the topic of EATING FOOD has become so politicized and many on the Left prefer the, frankly, self-destructive diet of veganism?
 
Maybe, but people’s desire to change the meaning of words or erase factual evidence does not mean that they can actually change reality. The reality is that there is no man-made climate change, just a natural one. The reality is that people can only be male or female because of XY and XX chromosomes, respectively. And the reality is that meat carries protein and calcium, as well as other things which help people to grow stronger.
 
And yet, it seemingly is necessary that a study be published to recognize that fact (and it still will be pushed back by those who do not find such facts to be comfortable or agreeable).
 
A recent Oxford University study finds that vegans are 43% more likely to suffer from bone fractures than do people who eat meat.
 
BMC Medicine published the research earlier this week, and the research itself was rather expansive, with researchers following 55,000 meat-eaters, vegetarians, pescatarians (people who eat fish), and vegans (different from vegetarians in that they will not consume any product which comes from animals, such as milk, cheese, eggs, etc.) for 18 years each, on average.
 
According to Breitbart News: “While vegetarians and pescatarians were 25 per cent more likely to suffer broken hips than meat-eaters, vegans were more than 2.3 times likely to experience the injury.”
 
The lead author of the study, Oxford’s Tammy Tong, pointed out the obvious, that this is a result of vegans receiving a lower intake of calcium and protein, and said: “We found that vegans had a higher risk of total fractures, which resulted in close to 20 more cases per 1,000 people over a ten-year period compared to people who ate meat.”
 
Breitbart News also points to another study, which was released earlier in November, by the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany, which “found that one-third of vegans assessed had a ‘markedly lower’ amount of iodine, at levels that the World Health Organization (WHO) would consider a ‘severe deficiency.’”
 
Opinions about the dumpster fire of an organization that the WHO is aside, iodine deficiency is no joke. If that study is correct, one-third of vegans are at risk of damaging their thyroid gland, which needs iodine to make hormones, according to WebMD. Without enough iodine, the thyroid gland risks getting enlarged, and lower levels of thyroid hormones can be pretty bad for women, as it can cause them to stop ovulating.
 
“Iodine deficiency can also lead to an autoimmune disease of the thyroid and may increase the risk of getting thyroid cancer. Some researchers think that iodine deficiency might also increase the risk of other cancers such as prostate, breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer.”
 
Another study from 2019 from Utrecht University in the Netherlands suggests that vegans are prone to suffer worse hangovers than do meat-eaters because of a lack of B3 and zinc in their diets, both of which are necessary for digesting alcohol.
 
To top it all off, research presented at a farmer’s union meeting back in February of 2020 suggested that “the production of non-meat foodstuffs like tofu may be worse for the environment, and not as healthy for individuals to consume,” according to Breitbart News.
 
The reason for it is that, according to The Rothamsted Institute’s Graham McAuliffe, tofu, because it’s entirely processed, requires “more energy going into its production” and “when you correct for the fact that the protein in it is not as digestible compared to the meat-based products, you can see that it could actually have a higher global warming potential than any of the monogastric animals… To get the same amount of protein, tofu is worse.”
 
Now, like I said, there is no man-made climate change and no evidence to support the idea that it’s real, so the production of tofu is not going to cause climate change any more than a car, a boat, a plane, or whatever else Leftist lunatics will blame for climate change. However, it’s important to note that vegans, who are usually Leftists, believe in man-made climate change and as such, would have to believe that the processing of tofu, if suggested by “scientists”, would lead to man-made climate change.
 
And as such, they reach an impasse. It doesn’t mean they would necessarily have to stop being vegan for that reason (though they should for all the other health concerns), but they would necessarily have to at least reconsider their consumption of tofu, since it oh, so clearly is a massive threat to the planet and humanity itself, apparently.
 
Again, not that there is any actual sane reason to believe that, but we are not exactly dealing with sane people. These people will believe it. Or, at least, you think they would.
 
If the “science” doesn’t conform to what they want it to say, even “science” which is in quotation marks (meaning the kind that Leftists usually use to try and coerce people into doing what they want them to do), they will largely ignore it or demand that it be changed. Why else do you think that it is considered a cardinal sin for climate scientists to at all be skeptical of the idea that mankind is causing climate change? Despite it only being natural for scientists to be skeptical of data and common knowledge, as it’s part of the scientific process to test and re-test just about everything, those who do honest research and come away with the conclusion that mankind is not causing climate change get hounded and harassed and threatened for not conforming to the Leftist dogma of using science as a political weapon.
 
Those who are skeptical of man-made climate change are considered “science-deniers”. This extends even to things like the Chinese coronavirus, which entirely expectedly was politicized as soon as it became convenient for tyrants. Anyone who shares anti-mask research is purported as being someone who wants to kill people’s grandmas. Meanwhile, actual grandma-killer Gov. Andrew Cuomo receives praise and prizes for his anti-scientific, irrational and deadly actions.
 
Similarly, for someone who is vegan, they won’t care to look at data which challenges their opinions and perspectives. Such people (Leftists in general, I mean) are extremely close-minded, and any semblance of evidence or fact which challenges their desired truth (which is no truth at all, since truth cannot be subjective) is dismissed at best and considered heresy at some of its worst.
 
But despite how much they may push back on such evidence, despite how much they may want the truth to be what they define it as opposed to what it is, despite how much they claim things are X instead of the reality of Y, they cannot change said reality.
 
They cannot change the absolute fact that mankind does not cause climate change. They cannot change the absolute fact that there are only two genders. They cannot change the absolute fact that people need protein and calcium (among other things) in their diets, which are largely absent in a vegan diet. They cannot change the fact that, as a result of such absence in nutrients, those who eat such diets are not as physically healthy as those who do not each such lackluster diets.
 
The problem, however, comes in the fact that Leftists demand others think the way they do. It doesn’t really matter to them that mankind cannot cause climate change – they DEMAND that others believe we do. It doesn’t matter that there are only two genders – they DEMAND that others believe there are more. It doesn’t matter that vegan diets are, of course, bad for people – they DEMAND that others believe it is good.
 
More than that, they demand that others subscribe to the same diet. Vegan activists, for a long while now, have sought to tax meat consumption, have campaigned to make being vegan a “protected characteristic” akin to race, sex, religion, etc., and have demanded civil rights akin to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 insofar as they want protection from discrimination in the workplace, and have even met some amount of success.
 
Despite the risks of a vegan diet, they demand others subscribe to it. Remember what I said about iodine deficiency? Well, it also affects pregnant women, as it can lead to high blood pressure for the mother and mental retardation for the baby. This, obviously, causes generational problems. Not that vegans will care. Not that Leftists care about the destructive effects of their demands and goals.
 
For crying out loud, they demand the same brands of communism that the Soviet Union had, that China has, that Cuba has, etc. and think that people who lived/live in those countries ARE BETTER OFF as a result of communism. These are not exactly rational people we are dealing with.
 
But again, despite what they claim, despite what they want, the reality is as it is. They cannot change that because they are not God.
 
Those who choose to have a vegan diet do great harm to themselves. Not necessarily immediately, and they won’t always show it, but if the research is remotely correct, they unnecessarily increase their risk for injuries and other health risks as well.
 
Again, it’s not surprising that such a result is the case, but plenty of people refuse to see reality for what it is.
 
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

​Over the years, I have written plenty about how God-awful colleges in this country are not merely for their Marxist indoctrination programs but simply because they are where education goes to die altogether. And sometimes, colleges do such idiotic and nonsensical things that I cannot help but to point them out and laugh at them.
 
This is one of those times.
 
You see, the University of California recently submitted student race and ethnicity data to the Integrated Post Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which they (and all other colleges) are required to do every year if they want to participate in federal student aid programs. The university gathered the data, but the data itself is not what I care to discuss here (largely because it’s nowhere to be found in the PDF I wish to talk about). I couldn’t care less about the demographical makeup of the college, since that hardly tells us anything other than perhaps some attempts at forcibly diversifying the campus via affirmative action.
 
What I care about, however, is roughly the way the college went about gathering said data. For the different races, the school had to sort of identify where each region fits for each race. For example, for those who are Hispanic/Latino, the school understandably pointed out that those who are of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other descent are all under the race of “Latino.”
 
This makes perfect sense and there’s really nothing peculiar about this.
 
For African Americans/Black, it is a bit more vague: they just have “African American, African, Black Caribbean” and “Other African American/Black.” To be fair, someone who is from Africa is most likely going to be considered Black or African American (if they are Americans), so it still holds up.
 
In the Asian category is where things start getting a tad bit strange, though not as much as in the White category, but we’ll get to that one in a moment.
 
In the Asian category, we find some fairly common types of people that we would recognize as being Asian: Asian Indian (this one is a bit of an asterisk since Indians kind of are their own thing, but I will let it pass for this one since they technically are, in some way, Asian), Bangladeshi, Cambodian, Chinese/Chinese American, Filipino/Filipino American, Hmong (a group of people in South East Asia), Indonesian, Japanese/Japanese American, Korean/Korean American, Laotian, Malaysian, Other Asian, Sri Lankan, Taiwanese/Taiwanese American, Thai, Vietnamese/Vietnamese American.
 
Now, you might be asking yourself: “Freddie, this looks perfectly normal. What’s the weird part?” A fair question. You see, I omitted the weird nationality from that original list for added effect.
 
The nationality that is in that Asian category that I omitted is: Pakistani.
 
Yep, Pakistanis are considered Asian by the University of California. Now, I understand that Pakistanis are not exactly the darkest of people (an excuse that will not be usable in a moment), but it’s a bit of a stretch to clump them in with Asians. And while I can somewhat understand including Indians here (though I’ve already kind of explained how they can be a separate ethnicity), the two really aren’t all that similar to the point where one could say that Pakistanis are reasonably Asians.
 
Pakistan is officially called the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It’s part of the Muslim world. It’s pretty far east, considering it borders both India and China, but Afghanistan also borders China, as do Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, and no one would reasonably consider them to be Asian countries.
 
And while earlier in the PDF file where I found this data it says, “The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins,” meaning they are not trying to redefine what each ethnicity is in terms of race, they still decided to organize them the way that they did, for some reason.
 
Keep in mind, this isn’t the strangest part of the entire debacle, we still have another race to go.
 
Finally, it’s in the category of White that we find the most head-scratching ethnicities put into this category.
 
They have the standard “European/European descent”, as well as Caucasian, which makes sense… and that’s where the logic ends because we find the following nationalities under the category of White:

• Afghan
• Algerian
• Armenian
• Assyrian/Chaldean
• Azerbaijani
• Bahraini
• Berber
• Circassian
• Djiboutian
• Egyptian
• Emirati
• Georgian
• Iranian
• Iraqi
• Israeli
• Jordanian
• Kurdish
• Kuwaiti
• Lebanese
• Libyan
• Mauritanian
• Moroccan
• Omani
• Palestinian
• Qatari
• Saudi Arabian
• Somali
• Sudanese
• Syrian
• Tunisian
• Turkish
• Yemeni
• Other North African
• Other Southwest Asian

 
Now, I can excuse a couple of them, such as Georgians since they are pretty light-skinned (and largely associated with Russia because of Stalin), and Israelis for also being rather light-skinned, but what in the world is JUST ABOUT THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST DOING HERE!?
 
Take a look at this picture:

​These are Somalis. Yep, definitely look white to me!
 
Are you really trying to tell me that Ilhan Omar is white, University of California? Is she Elizabeth Warren-ing us?
 
You’re telling me that Rashida Tlaib, daughter of Palestinian immigrants, is white?
 
No one in their right mind would consider any of these nationalities to be under the category of White. Look at that picture of Somalis again. Who would classify them as being White? The same goes for the vast majority of the ethnicities in that list. Sudanese are just as dark-skinned as Somalis, and everyone else is fairly dark-skinned as well, up to a point.
 
Again, I can understand Georgians and Israelis to an extent, but the ENTIRE Middle East?!
 
Like I said, it’s not like they are trying to redefine what it means to be White or Asian or whatever else and they are not trying to make a scientific argument (yet, at least, considering the scientific fact of two genders is being so heavily challenged because of woke-ism). But they are still classifying such people in such categories and are still gathering this data the way that they are.
 
In the Legend for the chart, they say that Pakistani was “Collected as ‘East Indian/Pakistani’ prior to 2010,” so they used to have a different section for that ethnicity, but they still decided to add it in Asian anyway and decided to omit an entire section to “Middle Eastern” which would’ve made a good amount of sense and would’ve spared them the mocking that I am delivering.
 
(As a side note, they have a “Pacific Islander” section as well, and the strangest one there was “Hawaiian”, seeing as it’s a State, but I can understand their logic for that one).
 
They also do not make any such clarification for all the Middle Eastern nationalities that they put under the category of White, so what’s their excuse there?
 
Now, one could try to argue that they are just trying to make classifications for race, not for nationality, but there are several problems with that.
 
First of all, they include, like I said, Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaskan Native. That denotes to location more than skin color or race.
 
Secondly, the PDF is literally titled: “Student Ethnicity Collection and Reporting at UC,” with “ethnicity” being synonymous with “nationality.”
 
Thirdly, again, LOOK AT THE SOMALIS! If this were strictly about classifications of race, someone REALLY screwed up big time somewhere along the way because no one can tell me that those people are white by race.
 
I have no idea why it is that the University of California decided to make this hilarious list of nationalities according to race, or rather, why they did it the way that they did, but I cannot help but to laugh at them. Again, it’s not that they are trying to redefine what these terms mean or try to make a scientific argument about it, but they still decided to collect their data in this manner, classifying people from the Middle East as either being White or Asian, and that is hilarious to me.
 
I just hope they aren’t telling their Middle Eastern students, particularly the more dark-skinned ones, that they are actually white according to their own data-gathering methods.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”

Not too long ago, I wrote about how likely voters agree with Trump that this country needs patriotic education, and I also agreed with that notion, knowing that the Left is teaching Marxist communism in our schools, indoctrinating the skulls full of mush into being commie puppets. Well, perhaps unsurprisingly, teaching kids the wrong thing begins by teaching kids nothing.
 
A recent study by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany showed some astounding and shocking results, to say the least. According to the New York Post, “Nearly 20 percent of millennials and Gen Z in New York believe Jews caused the Holocaust…”
 
How, exactly, do you even manage to do this? What could you possibly be teaching kids about the Holocaust that leads them to believe that the most well-known victims of it WERE THE ONES THAT CAUSED IT?!
 
And this begs the following question: is this a failure of education or is it deliberate spreading of disinformation by the school system?
 
I really don’t know, and I certainly don’t have evidence to support the latter option, but this is, at best, a MONUMENTAL failure by the New York school system.
 
Now, usually, roughly 20% of people believing something isn’t a whole lot, but it is a massive deal when we are talking about this particular subject. You have to be trying really hard to get young people to believe that the Holocaust was caused not by Hitler or Nazi Germany but by the Jews themselves, despite the extremely well-known fact that six million Jews died in concentration camps during that time period.
 
Seriously, that particular fact is up there in terms of most common knowledge, like the Pythagorean theorem, the fact that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell and that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 (not that that’s the most common thing taught regarding Columbus in the modern education system). If you’ve finished grade school, you know about how six million Jews died in the Holocaust and that they were the group of people most often killed in that horrific event.
 
Well, at least, I assume that people would know this. Given these news, and the fact that it’s been years since I’ve finished high school, let alone grade school, I’m not even confident that the school systems are even teaching this anymore.
 
Chances are that instead of teaching about the Holocaust, teachers might just be giving their students lectures about how racist this country is, how it was founded by racists and for racists, and how if you are a white kid, you have white privilege, while if you are not a white kid, you are a victim. Chances are that instead of teaching kids about history, the schools are teaching them about gender identity and other bullcrap.
 
I wouldn’t know since I don’t have a kid myself, so maybe a parent with a child in grade school could look over the assignments (as they should, particularly considering Leftist teachers don’t seem to want parents paying attention to what they are teaching the kids) to verify whether or not I am in any way correct, but I really wouldn’t be surprised if I’m not too far off.
 
At any rate, returning to the NY Post, they also reported that “although there were more than 40,000 camps and ghettos during World War II, 58 percent of respondents in New York cannot name a single one.”
 
This one is almost as bad as the nearly 20% who think the Jews are responsible for the Holocaust (and now that I think about it, considering how anti-Semitism has been on the rise in that craphole of a city, perhaps anti-Semitism is at least partly to blame for kids believing that nonsense). Nearly 60% of New York respondents couldn’t name even one concentration camp? Not even Auschwitz, which is undoubtedly the most infamous of them all?
 
But here is another number that is even more astonishing and awful: “60 percent of respondents in New York do not know that 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.”
 
So I was kind of right, then. If that many young New Yorkers don’t know that fact, it’s because the schools aren’t teaching it.
 
How in the world is it that 60% of New York respondents don’t know that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust? What exactly is being taught in those schools, because it's clear they aren't teaching historical facts relating to it.
 
Now, according to the study, 34% said they believe the Holocaust happened but that “the number of Jews who died has been greatly exaggerated or believe the Holocaust is a myth and did not happen or are unsure.”
 
Let’s begin with the first issue, that they think the number is exaggerated. I believe that one can be relatively explained by misinformation online and things like that, because there are people out there who outright deny that the Holocaust happened, despite the fact that we have people alive today WHO WERE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. One of them was even invited by Trump to one of his State of the Union addresses and Trump talked about how our U.S. military freed him and he thought they were angels sent by God (and basically, they were).
 
We have people who are alive today who are actual victims of the Holocaust, who were interned in one of the camps. Auschwitz has been turned into a memorial which one can visit in Poland. How does anyone come to the belief that the Holocaust didn’t happen, or it was exaggerated?
 
How does anyone miss that six million Jews were killed during this time? Well, I suppose by having far-Left teachers more focused on teaching critical race theory or gender fluidity or parroting climate cultist talking points than teach a class that six million Jews died during the Holocaust, and therefore, there is NO WAY the Jews could have possibly been responsible for it.
 
But here is a number that is truly shocking, more so than the others, which even I am at an absolute loss over: “A shocking 28 percent of respondents in New York believe it is acceptable to hold neo-Nazi views…”
 
Considering how much of an effort the American Left and the fake news media makes to paint Trump as “literally Hitler” or as a Nazi, you would think that considerably fewer people would find neo-Nazi views acceptable. Never mind that neo-Nazis are white supremacists who are Nazis themselves, and that alone should lead the vast majority of people to reject them, but it is especially surprising considering that the Left makes a great effort in painting Trump as one such person.
 
My best guess as to why this is is that, like I said before, there has been a massive rise in anti-Semitism in New York. Orthodox Jews have been, more and more often, the target of anti-Semitic attacks, discrimination, etc. Before the pandemic began, back in December of last year, I wrote an article that talked about a number of horrific anti-Semitic attacks happening in New York. Of course, there were a lot more incidents than the one I talked about in that article, but still, it was clear that New York had and likely still has a huge anti-Semitism problem.
 
This, perhaps, can explain some of the numbers we are seeing, but it is still unbelievable to see such numbers. Granted, I wasn’t exactly expecting the best out of New York, but still. Even going by the Leftist narratives that Trump is a Nazi, considering how many Democrats there are in that city, you would think they would be considerably less tolerant of neo-Nazi views (or at least, the ones that are openly neo-Nazi, considering that socialism is something that they seem to love).
 
That so many young New Yorkers think that the Jews are to blame for the Holocaust is baffling. It sounds like satire, but it’s reality. Granted, it’s not a majority and it’s nowhere close to a majority, but nearly 20% of millennials and Gen Zers in New York thinking that the Jews caused the Holocaust is a catastrophic failure in education, at best. At worst, it is a malignant attempt to literally blame the victim for the atrocity in an effort to sow further division and chaos.
 
There need to be SERIOUS changes made in the schools in this country. Not only do we need patriotic education, we need education IN GENERAL because clearly, these kids aren’t learning jack, and the things they are learning are useless garbage that won’t help them in the real world apart from making them communist puppets and useful idiots for the Left.
 
I hope something major is done about this, but changes need to happen at the top. Here’s hoping the people of New York have enough sense to boot their dangerous and lunatic leaders out of office and that the GOP can offer solid solutions for them.
 
Proverbs 8:5
“O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense.”

During and following the chaos that were the riots “in response” to the death of George Floyd, a new mantra has been adopted and attempted to be popularized by the Left: defund the police/abolish the police, with the second being the crazier of the two.
 
Without police, criminals are free to do literally whatever they want. Even with a private police force (which I would assume such businesses would spring up due to demand for protection), the only people who would benefit from such a service would be the ones who could afford it (i.e. the rich, depending on how the system works and how much it would cost to hire such a force for a particular problem/crime). Abolishing/defunding the police would lead to far more black and brown deaths because such people tend to statistically be poorer (just ask Joe Biden, who considers all black and brown people to be poor) and black-on-black crime tends to happen a whole lot more too.
 
And yet, this is something the Left is now espousing, from Ilhan Omar to Bill de Blasio to Eric Garcetti. Even the Minneapolis City Council is set to vote to dismantle the police in the city. Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender went on Alysin Camerota’s show recently to talk about this idea.
 
Camerota asked the logical question of: “What if in the middle of the night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?”

Bender answered: “Yes, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors. And I know – and myself too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege.”
 
Basically, you are a stinking, privileged person if you call the police after someone broke into your house or if someone raped you or if someone killed someone you love. This is the sort of insanity that these Leftists espouse, and proudly so.
 
The people demanding that cities defund their police forces are most often people who would call the police themselves if they find themselves in trouble and tend to be people who would not be negatively affected whatsoever by such a decision.
 
For example, former ESPN commentator Chris Palmer initially had no problem with the rioters and arsonists burning down inner city businesses and housing development units, even egging them on tweeting: “Burn that s**t down. Burn it all down,” but as soon as they showed up at his doorstep, he cried: “They just attacked our sister community down the street. It’s a gated community and they tried to climb the gates. They had to beat them back. Then destroyed a Starbucks and are now in front of my building. Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood. Go back to where you live.”
 
So when the rioters destroyed a housing development meant for people who couldn’t afford housing, and must now live longer on the streets or in unsavory places, Chris Palmer was completely fine and wanted the destruction to continue, but as soon as the rioters presented the slightest of inconveniences or threats to him, he calls them “animals.” See, the revolting poors aren’t supposed to revolt against people like him, in his mind. The revolting poors are supposed to revolt against, well, themselves and the other rich people in the country.
 
As soon as the peasants turned their pitchforks on Palmer, he was shocked and chagrinned by the idea that they would be so barbaric and animalistic. The guy is a hypocrite, no doubt, and a typical Leftist. As soon as the mob became a liability, he was against them. A former Argentinian president, President Peron, used terrorists to regain office after having been ousted a couple decades before, and as soon as he regained power, he went after the terrorists who helped him because they were making demands of him that he didn’t want to fulfill.
 
People aren’t people to the Left, just means to an end. Black lives don’t matter to the Left, only insofar as they can make it a catchy slogan and get the black people to vote the way they are “supposed” to.
 
Which is why it’s not surprising to see them espouse the insane belief of “defund/abolish the police.” The wealthy Leftist elites will not at all be affected by this since they get their own security forces to protect them. But if the idea gets enough people to vote for them in November, even at the cost of many people’s lives, it will all be worth it.
 
However, we all know how insanely dangerous such an idea is in practicality. With Minneapolis announcing they would be voting to disband their police force, they are telling any and all criminals that the city is theirs for the taking, as long as they don’t bother their “betters” in the Leftist elites.
 
If people want actually effective and good solutions, I have two, with one being honestly less likely to happen than the other.
 
One solution is the country, as a whole, turning to Christ. Each instance of police brutality, whether perpetuated on someone like George Floyd or Tony Timpa, is an instance of Christ not being in a police officer/officers’ heart(s).
 
It is understandable that an officer of the law will have to use force in certain situations, sometimes even lethal force. However, in situations like with George Floyd, the force we saw used was excessive (and the guy was clearly enjoying himself). Excessive use of force is not right, is not just, and is not indicative of a person seeking to embody the teachings of Christ.
 
A true Christian will not seek and savor the opportunity to abuse a brother/sister or a neighbor. A true Christian will seek to do right by people, even those who commit crimes; punishing them as they ought to be with the right sort of punishment. George Floyd had a history of crimes and he was being arrested for a reason. Punishment needed to come his way as a result of his criminal actions (slight as they might have been). Delivering justice is necessary. Delivering excessive punishment is unjust. It’s why we have the 8th Amendment, after all. What happened to George Floyd, apart from being murder of the third degree (at most, given the evidence, and there is a chance that he walks if overcharged, which will likely incite more riots, which is probably what Leftist Keith Ellison wants), was also a violation of his 8th Amendment rights.
 
With the country turning to Christ, not only would you see a great downtick in police brutality, but also in crime itself. However, it is irrational to expect that the entire country, all 300 million+ of us, would simultaneously turn to Christ. Even if there is a Christian revival that comes out of this (and I do hope there is one because this country and the world in general desperately need the Lord), that won’t mean that everyone will become a Christian and all crime will stop, or even that all police officers will be good.
 
Which is why I say that, if there is a Christian revival in this country soon, that won’t outright end all police brutality, only stifle it. I’m afraid injustice cannot be eliminated in an imperfect world, and it certainly cannot be eliminated by an imperfect people. There is only one place in existence where there is no injustice and that is Heaven.
 
No amount of legislation, no amount of having discussions (especially if that leads to communism, which is antithetical to justice) and no amount of reform can eliminate immorality and evil in people’s hearts. Even in Christ, we are still an imperfect people. So there will not be an elimination of injustice in this world. Not absolutely.
 
However, there is another solution that can work and be a bit more pragmatic in this instance (not to say the country turning to Christ wouldn’t be a viable and effective solution, but I cannot expect the entire country to do that).
 
Eliminating police unions will stifle police brutality as well and I think that is a bit more of an achievable goal than the entire country turning to Christ (much as I would want that to happen).
 
Police unions, like teacher’s unions, protect the people who should not be protected. They mask the actions of the bad ones and keep justice from being served equally under the law.
 
There is a great article at The Washington Examiner that talks more in-depth about it, pointing out how even in the instance of the George Floyd killing, it took the MPD FIVE DAYS to just arrest Chauvin, the officer who killed Floyd, let alone the other three who were complicit to his murder. If you know where a murder suspect is, the police will arrest them pretty much immediately… unless a police officer is the murderer, it seems.
 
Even the president of the city’s police union was livid at the fact that the officers were fired EVEN AFTER THE EVIDENCE OF ONE OF THEM KILLING A PERSON AND THE OTHER THREE BEING COMPLICIT IN MURDER WAS WIDELY KNOWN TO EVERYONE.
 
Keep in mind as well that Chauvin has 17 complaints reported against him, only one of which received any sort of punishment at all in the form of a reprimand letter (which is the equivalent of a slap in the wrist). The guy is a problematic cop who has gotten away with almost everything he has done because he is protected by his union.
 
Allow me to quote some things from The Washington Examiner that will make your blood boil if you didn’t know this already or hadn’t read it before:
 
“[I]t’s concerning that [Chauvin] faced a complaint, on average, almost every year he worked for the Minneapolis Police Department (he was a cop for 20 years), and he never faced any meaningful consequences… Police unions [use] the protections they’ve collectively bargained into the disciplinary appeals process to slow down the justice system when officers begin to face scrutiny.”
 
“One study found that 70% of the 656 union contracts evaluated by researchers allow officers to appeal to an ‘arbitrator’, or a third party, who has the power to determine disciplinary action or dismiss it altogether. And here’s the catch: About 54% of these contracts gave the unions the power to select the arbitrator. In other words, if the union appeals an officer’s case and the appeal is approved, it can choose an arbitrator who will make the case disappear.”
 
How else do you think officers like the one who refused to protect people getting shot in the Parkland high school can REGAIN THEIR JOB despite being entirely unfit to serve?
 
Police unions protect bad cops from accountability, which in turn leads some cops to basically act like they can do whatever they want free of consequence, which in turn leads to situations like FOUR COPS THINKING THE SLOW KILLING OF A MAN IS PERFECTLY OKAY.
 
If you want to really stifle police brutality, don’t defund or abolish the police (because that is literally one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard), eliminate the police unions that serve to protect the bad cops from being held accountable.
 
Unions in general are communist bullcrap, regardless of profession. Eliminating police unions is something, I think, most people could agree with, almost regardless of what ideals they hold.
 
Isaiah 40:31
“But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.”

It is rare for us to see blue-on-blue crime, so to speak, but boy is it a joy when we do. Recently, Michael Moore produced and released a movie attacking the environmentalist movement (without departing from the overall insane ideologies it espouses) as being ineffective in the way it attempts to “fight” climate change.
 
Without going too much into detail, the movie talks about the inefficiencies of current “green energy” alternatives to fossil fuel as being just as, if not more, environmentally unfriendly as fossil fuels. However, Michael Moore’s ultimate solution isn’t to abandon the ridiculous and actually insane movement or to undo the damages it has caused. Rather, it is to go down the route of eugenics and espousing heavy population control to mitigate the amount of people that can affect the environment.
 
This, even in the eyes of a wacko environmentalist, is asinine. Not only is it asinine, but racist, according to George Monbiot, who wrote an entire Twitter thread to explain his reasoning (and he also wrote about the movie in a UK Guardian article, which I will cover in a moment).
 
The Twitter thread is quite lengthy so bear with me.
 
“Prompted by the shocking falsehoods in Planet of the Humans, this thread asks why so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth. The conclusion will enrage some people, but I think it’s unavoidable. Let’s take this step by step,” began Monbiot.
 
“There’s no question that population growth exerts environmental pressure. It’s one of many issues about which we should be concerned. But the global impact is much smaller than a lot of people imagine.”
 
“Undoubtedly, rising human numbers can have important local effects: pressure on housing, green space, wildlife, water quality etc. And it’s essential that all women have full reproductive choice, full control over their own bodies and full access to family planning.”
 
Ah, yes, good to see the Leftist shilling out for Leftist women by loudly proclaiming a right that they definitely do not have: the right to kill their own children should they please. Even though the originator of American abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was the very eugenicist that Monbiot seemingly dislikes, as he makes note in one of the tweets in this thread. And we will get back to Sanger in just a moment.
 
“But I see population growth repeatedly blamed as THE MAIN CAUSE of climate breakdown and other global issues. This is flat wrong.”
 
“There’s something else to note. The great majority of the world’s population growth is happening in countries where most people are black or brown.”
 
“So why do so many people in the rich world (the great majority of whom, in my experience, are male, white and quite affluent) insist, often furiously, that the ‘real’ global issue, the ‘elephant in the room,’ is population growth?”
 
“The first part of the answer is deflection. Blaming other people for your own impacts is a familiar means of avoiding responsibility and shedding feelings of guilt. But why point to the birth rates of the poorest people? Why not to consumption by billionaires?”
 
“It’s clear to me that generalized deflection is an insufficient answer. This is a particular variety of deflection. What we see is white people pointing the finger at black and brown people, saying ‘It’s not us. It’s Them’.”
 
“In different ways, this has been happening for a long time. Throughout the colonial era and after, the rich nations portrayed themselves as the ‘civilized’, virtuous actors, while their colonial subjects were ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate.’”


“There was – and is – a long-standing moral panic about the reproduction rates of these ‘inferior’, ‘barbaric’ and ‘degenerate’ people. If something was not done, ‘They’ would overwhelm ‘Us’. The human species would decline as ‘inferior’ people took over.”
 
“It was this terror of being ‘outbred’, ‘outnumbered’, ‘diluted’ that inspired the eugenics movement. A similar set of claims persists to this day, and is popular among white supremacists. It’s called Replacement Theory.”
 
I agree! But then, why does Monbiot still adhere to the ridiculous beliefs of the pro-abortion movement? The movement was SPAWNED BY THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT AND IS NOTHING BUT EUGENICS ITSELF. According to an article on Arizona Capitol Times, quoting a 2011 CDC report on Abortion Surveillance, “black women make up 14% of the childbearing population. Yet, 36 percent of all abortions were obtained by black women. At a ratio of 474 abortions per 1,000 live births, black women have the highest ratio of any group in the country.”
 
And if you remember, I talked about how the NAACP has long stopped caring about black people because of their support for Planned Parenthood. In that article, I mentioned how abortion was the leading cause of death for black people, 1,800 black babies are aborted every day, 52% of all black pregnancies end in abortion, and that “79% of [PP’s] surgical abortion facilities [are] located within walking distance of African American or Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods.”
 
So why does this guy openly abhor the practice of eugenics, yet at the same time, claim to support “women’s rights” to practice such eugenics? The guy either is ignorant of the eugenics that is abortion or is a hypocrite.
 
But moving on, Monbiot reaches his conclusion:
 
“So what is the disturbing conclusion to this thread? The answer to my question – ‘why do so many people in rich nations claim that the biggest environmental problem is population growth?’ – is… racism.”
 
“I’m not saying this to cause offense. I’m saying it because it appears to be the most likely and parsimonious explanation of a bizarre phenomenon: affluent people with enormous impacts pointing the finger at poor people with tiny impacts.”
 
“Nor am I claiming that most of those who over-emphasize population are intentional racists. I think it is possible to entertain subconscious racist beliefs without actively wishing to discriminate against people of color.”
 
In short, his reasoning behind the affluent white people’s desire to control population growth is racism, be it intentional or not. I agree, but let’s not get things twisted here. Only ONE side of the political spectrum espouses such beliefs. Only ONE side advocates for eugenics of abortion and population control. Only THE LEFT believes in controlling populations for “the environment” (though we know perfectly well it’s for control and power as part of their communist ideal).
 
The rich, white liberal is the one that wishes to control population sizes wherever it might see fit. It’s no surprise, then, that a rich (for the time), white liberal by the name of Margaret Sanger once wrote to her friend Clarence Gamble that “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
 
THE LEFT has idealized means of controlling various populations, be it through slavery, economic welfare (like today), abortion (like today) or other population control measures. Which is why it’s so funny to read the following from Monbiot:
 
In his lambasting review of Moore’s film, Monbiot writes: “When wealthy people, such as Moore and Gibbs, point to this issue without the necessary caveats, they are saying, in effect, ‘it’s not Us consuming, it’s Them breeding.’ It’s not hard to see why the far-right loves this film.”
 
“Population is where you go when you haven’t thought your argument through. Population is where you go when you don’t have the guts to face the structural, systemic causes of our predicament: inequality, oligarch power, capitalism.”
 
As I said, it is THE LEFT that espouses the eugenic belief of population control, not the Right or the “far-right.” Wanna know why the “far-right” likes Moore’s film? Because it DESTROYS the environmentalist movement’s arguments towards “clean” energy that isn’t clean whatsoever. Moore, in that film, said what the RIGHT has been saying for DECADES. Moore’s solution, however, is not something any conservative would want and is something only a LEFTIST would agree with, even if not this particular Leftist in question.
 
Again, the LEFT has been espousing and practicing the belief of eugenics. To blame CAPITALISM for a NATURAL occurrence of climate change is asinine. Don’t forget, the guy was discussing things in terms of anthropogenic climate change being real and being a problem. It isn’t. It’s a hoax. Climate change happens because ours is a dynamic climate. But we do not affect the climate at any rate, let alone at the rate that the environmentalist wackos claim we do. Which is another reason as to why we ABHOR population control, because it’s an inefficient non-solution to a non-existent problem that only leads to death and desolation, no matter the population being targeted.
 
But regardless, I am always happy to see some blue-on-blue fighting. Wrong as I may believe both are to different extents, it’s good to see this happen whenever it does.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”