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.”

Do you want to look at the epitome of incompetent leadership? Look no further, then, than the leadership found in New York, particularly in New York City, where their already insane criminal “justice” reform of a revolving jail door has been amped to 11 as a result of this Chinese coronavirus crisis.
 
Due to this pandemic, New York has released over 1,500 inmates as a result of fears of spreading the virus to these criminals and having them die before they believe they should. And this decision has been about as bad as you expect it to be. What exactly do you expect when Gotham’s prisons release the inmates?
 
According to the New York Post, “at least 50 of the 1,500 inmates cut loose… have already landed back in jail – and in some cases were set free yet again, according to police sources and records.”
 
Keep in mind, this doesn’t mean that just 50 of the 1,500 were “bad people” and that the rest are “good people” who have done nothing wrong (as a Leftist might believe from this). This is 50 people that THE POLICE HAVE CAUGHT. The rest are still on the loose, likely with many seeking to commit further crimes (because that’s kind of what they do) but have yet to be caught and rearrested.
 
Let’s take a look at some of the released inmates and see how they’ve adjusted to life on the outside, shall we?
 
First, we have James Little, a 40-year-old man released from Rikers Island amid the epidemic on March 28.
 
Little went about a week without seemingly committing any crimes before attempting to rob a bank in Gramarcy Park, wearing the usual robber attire of a mask and gloves and slipping a note to the teller instructing them to give him money. The police arrested him the following day (Little did not get any money from the bank) and linked him to two other bank robberies in late January of this year and late December of last year, leaving with a thousand dollars in each of those two robberies.
 
Now, what exactly did Little do to land him in jail in the first place? Well, two things. One, he served a 20-year sentence after having pleaded guilty to a murder in Coney Island when he was just 15 in 1995, serving 7-to-life and being released on parole in 2016. However, the second incident that has landed him in jail is a charge for strangulation earlier THIS MARCH before having been released on the 28th. So not exactly the best person these lunatics could have chosen to release.
 
Let’s now look at some other cases.
 
Next, we have Darryl Naser, a 25-year-old man who was rearrested FIVE TIMES in April after having been released in late March. Naser “was first jailed on charges of grand larceny and possession of stolen credit cards before his coronavirus-related release. He was arrested again April 1 on a burglary charge, and on April 4, April 6 and April 8 on drug possession charges,” according to the NY Post.
 
Of course, he was released without bail each time because of the virus (or, rather, because of the actually unbelievable idiocy of the mayor).
 
We also have a 32-year-old man named Victor Castillo, who was “arrested three times since being set free on March 24”, with two of those times having been criminal trespassing and the other time for breaking a bodega window in an effort to steal cash. He is still a free man.
 
Charles Abbriano is a 52-year-old man with many low-level crimes, originally arrested for various theft cases before being released. The following week, he was arrested for petty larceny… and rereleased. He was then arrested again on April 9th attempting to steal a packed furniture truck with three other men.
 
Pedro Hernandez is a 45-year-old man with two violent felonies and five misdemeanor convictions. He was arrested originally for trying to steal an electric bike before being released due to the incompetence of the state’s leaders. He was rearrested for burglarizing an apartment but, and you’ll never guess it, he was again released from prison.
 
Daeshawn Sharperson, probably one of the worst people I will discuss (but not the worst. I’ll get to him in a moment), is a 31-year-old man who admitted to torching his girlfriend’s door, pleading guilty to criminal mischief, dodging felony charges and receiving a four-month sentence. Of course, his sentence was cut short because of this lunacy and eight days later, he returned to his girlfriend’s apartment, reportedly threatening to kill her family before attacking a passenger on a bus… twice.
 
Thankfully, he is as of yet being held in Rikers Island, but I doubt it’ll be long before he’s out on the streets again (and perhaps gets the opportunity to make good on his threat).
 
Wilmer Colindres is a 39-year-old man who was charged for attacking a DHS officer; while in jail, was charged with forcible touching after grabbing a physician’s rear; and was charged with assaulting a sergeant two days after being released… and has since been released again.
 
Finally, the worst scum I will talk about (because I believe I’ve made my point with the other “minor” released offenders) is Robert Pondexter, who was originally in jail for rape and drug-related charges, was released because the leaders in New York are idiots, and was back in court 10 days after being released for… wanna take a guess?
 
Sexually assaulting and attempting to rape another woman. He was seemingly also using crack by the time police caught him.
 
“Pondexter had been walking across the street from the Concern Heights Apartment building, a supportive housing development on the block, when he allegedly grabbed the woman by the collar and pulled her into a school parking lot,” according to the NY Post.
 
The woman said that Pondexter forced her to perform oral sex and demanded she take off her pants, but she was able to kick him away and escape.
 
Suffice to say, De Blasio is an absolute moron (at best). Releasing thousands of inmates onto the streets is never a good idea and what we are seeing is what was bound to occur: many of those inmates are committing more crimes and being rearrested because of those crimes. And these are just the people the police are managing to catch. I can’t imagine what the others are doing as well.
 
With the insanity that was their criminal justice reform BEFORE releasing these inmates like this, I hope the people of New York are waking up and realizing that the leadership they are voting for is negligent at best and destructive at worst and hopefully, they will vote against this insanity to continue (but I doubt this will happen).
 
Ephesians 6:12
“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.”

In an article where I defended the idea of Christians defending President Trump, I noted how it was sinful to lie and to bear false witness against someone. In this case, I am certainly not surprised that South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg would lie and bear false witness against the Founding Fathers, but I still feel the need to clean the stain that he is trying to leave behind.
 
Speaking to children in a school (making sure they grow up to hate America just as much as he does), Mayor Pete tried to convince the children present that the Founding Fathers were silly, ignorant troglodytes who did not understand right from wrong and did not understand that slavery was not good.
 
“Similarly, the amendment process; they were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers, and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery, or civil rights. It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing. They did not respect civil rights, and yet they created the framework so that as the generations came to understand that that was important, they could write that into the Constitution too and ensure true equal protection for all,” said the fake Christian.
 
While it sounds like he is praising the Founding Fathers in some places, he is doing nothing but passive aggressively insulting them when he is completely wrong about this.
 
Of course, the fake Christian Democrat was blasted online for his words, with people like historian and columnist Jay Cost saying: “The ignorance is astounding” on Twitter.
 
To further emphasize just how ignorant and wrong Mayor Pete is, he elaborated that the guy who wrote the Constitution, Governor Morris, “gave an amazing series of speeches in Philadelphia denouncing slavery.”
 
James Madison, on August 8th, 1787, made notes of the debates regarding the text of the Constitution featuring Morris and wrote:
 
“Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert ‘free’ before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro’ ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south widely & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings.”
 
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this:  that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”
 
Suffice to say, as Madison’s own words can be considered, many of the Founding Fathers were vehemently AGAINST slavery and found it to be an abhorrent practice. When Madison writes: “Are they property? Why then is no other property included?”, he is basically talking about the discussion and debates they had been having over this matter. No one was debating whether someone’s house was property, or whether someone’s dog as property or whether someone’s furniture was property. They were debating whether slaves, fellow human beings who very much look like human beings, even if they have a different skin color, are property or are to be considered their fellow Man, and it’s quite clear where James Madison stood on this.
 
And Madison is far from the only Founding Father to hold slavery with such disdain. Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most often demonized for having owned slaves at one point, had originally written this in a draft of the Declaration of Independence but eventually took it out: “He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
 
Jefferson is charging King George III with waging war against HUMAN nature and violating the sacred right to life and liberty of PERSONS in Africa that he sent to the colonies to turn into the slaves of the highest bidders. If he didn’t consider African slaves to be people and humans, he wouldn’t have written this in his draft and the only reason I could consider for having taken it out is because some people were debating in favor of holding slaves and did not want that part in the Declaration of Independence, as it would’ve delegitimized their slave-owning practices.
 
In a letter to Lawrence Lewis on August 4th, 1797, our nation’s first president, George Washington, wrote: “I wish from my soul that the legislature of this State could see a policy of a gradual Abolition of Slavery.”
 
Washington, by the way, was another target of the hateful Left as being demonized for having owned slaves at one point, but he clearly loathed the practice.
 
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, wrote on June 8th, 1819: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States… I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in… abhorrence.”
 
Our Founding Fathers minced no words about how they felt about slavery. Now, Leftists could say “but if they hated it so much and thought it so evil, why didn’t they do something about it?” and I’ve already explained elsewhere why this is: slavery, as a practice, was dying at the time, not to mention that they did do things to end slavery.
 
From December 2nd, 1793 to March 3rd, 1795, the 3rd Congress debated and eventually passed a bill to suppress slave trade and prohibiting the U.S. from trading with foreign countries. What’s more, multiple sessions in the Senate and House held debates regarding the abolition of slavery for a very long time.
 
For a time, the U.S. prohibited slave trading ships from entering and limited the number of slaves. Again, the practice was dying and Congress, at least the Senators and Representatives who wanted to end the practice and had the power to do so, worked towards killing the practice faster. The only thing that made slavery worse and caused a resurgence of it, particularly in the South, was the invention of the cotton gin, which made picking cotton (which used to be extremely difficult and hardly worth the hassle) a far easier thing to accomplish. This drove up demand for slaves to pick cotton and as a result, slave trade continued and, as I said, got worse until the Emancipation Proclamation.
 
The notion that our Founding Fathers “did not understand that slavery was a bad thing” is completely erroneous and ignorant. The Founding Fathers, particularly the notable ones, ABHORRED the practice of slavery and hoped that it would be put to an end one day, having done what they could with the time that they had. And the work they did in limiting and prohibiting slave trade would’ve been quintessential to ending slavery altogether in the country if the cotton gin had not driven up demand for slavery and caused Congress to amend and lift those prohibitions.
 
The Founding Fathers made their views on slavery perfectly clear and it is wrong for anyone, let alone a Presidential candidate, to smear them as these ignorant Neanderthals who hardly knew right from wrong and stumbled their way to allowing for future generations to change things for the better. Not that I expect any different from Pete Buttigieg or anyone else on the Democrat Party. Their hatred for this country, particularly for its founding principles, is no secret. Failed Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke also tried to smear the country’s very founding as racist and bigoted. No Democrat running for president, and no Democrat holding any sort of electoral seat, can be said that they hold any love for this country.
 
And with ignorant statements such as the ones by Buttigieg, it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people.
 
Psalm 101:7
“No one who practices deceit shall dwell in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue before my eyes.”

People have the right to defend themselves. This much is factual and you would think there’d be no one who would disagree, but the Left, in all their inglorious stupidity (or evil), disagrees with this notion, choosing to live in a world of fairy tales where violence doesn’t occur and people are naturally good. That simply is not the reality we live in and as a result, people have to be able to defend themselves if and when the unimaginable does happen.
 
I say this largely because of the rather bloody and strange weekend we recently had. Let’s begin with the earliest story of the weekend, which is of an anti-Semitic attack by two women in New York (which ended an entire week of roughly 10 anti-Semitic attacks in the Democrat-owned state).
 
While this one did not really result in anyone’s death (thankfully), it showcases the need for people to be able to defend themselves regardless. A woman, Tiffany Harris, was arrested after having assaulted three Jewish women and shouting anti-Semitic slurs at them. She was then released by the NYPD without bail and was arrested once again in another assault against another woman (though it’s unclear if the woman was Jewish too).
 
Again, this one is not outright deadly, but it easily could be, particularly since the hateful bigot will not face any charges or punishment for her actions due to Bill de Blasio’s irrational “bail reform” laws that allow for the bad guys to be released extremely easily.
 
It’s not even as if the hateful bigot denied that she did it. She flat out admitted to the police upon her arrest: “Yes, I slapped them. I cursed them out. I said ‘F-U, Jews.’” She ADMITTED to the assault but the police could do nothing about it because of the idiot mayor’s pandering to criminals for votes.
 
While this case has a little less to do with the kind of self-defense I will be talking about in this article, it does relate to the sort of idiocy (at best) that fills the Democrat Party’s minds when it comes to legislation. Criminals and anti-Semites get to run amok in New York and de Blasio even has the nerve to try and blame this on Trump and on Rudy Giuliani (these things didn’t happen, particularly to this extent, when Giuliani was mayor of NYC). He’s a fraud and a danger to the people of New York City.
 
Regardless, let’s move on to another anti-Semitic attack that happened in New York, where a machete-wielding man attacked Jews in a Hanukkah party, wounding five people. The man was arrested and according to Rockland County Assistant DA Michael Dugandzic, he “was found with blood all over his clothing and a strong smell of bleach in the car, like he was trying to destroy evidence.”
 
Anti-Semitism has been on the rise in Democrat-owned New York, while the Democrats have tried to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the President and his “inflammatory rhetoric” despite the fact that it’s the Democrats in the House who failed to pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism because their openly anti-Semitic party members didn’t want to be singled out and Pelosi caved to their demands, switching from condemning anti-Semitism to condemning all hatred in general.
 
Again, the Democrat Party owns New York, where the bulk of this anti-Semitism is occurring. I don’t care whether or not you think Trump’s rhetoric is “inflammatory” (it isn’t), one cannot realistically blame Trump for anti-Semitic attacks when he has been the most pro-Jewish president in recent history. And for all the “anti-Muslim hatred” that he is accused of pushing, how come we don’t hear of stories where Muslims are targeted in anti-Muslim attacks? Not that I would want them to be, but the charge of Islamophobia is placed on Trump far more often than anti-Semitism, but we never hear of Muslims being targeted like this.
 
For all the charges of racism against Trump, we never really hear of anti-black attacks (unless they are made up stories like Jussie Smollett) or anti-Hispanic attacks as a result of Trump’s rhetoric. Granted, we also don’t often hear of anti-Semitic attacks largely because the media doesn’t care about them unless they are either fairly major (like the ones discussed) or can be blamed on Trump in some form or fashion. Again, the stories I talked about mark two of TEN anti-Semitic attacks in New York this week alone, but we have hardly heard anything about those other eight.
 
Now, moving on to the final act of violence that occurred this weekend, and what really drives the point of this article, let’s talk about the White Settlement church shooting that happened on Sunday.
 
During a Sunday service, a bad guy with a gun (who was a felon and wasn't legally allowed to own guns but still had them, further destroying any argument for gun control that clearly doesn't work) went into the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire on churchgoers. According to The Dallas Morning News, “one person died at the scene of the shooting, one person died en route to a hospital, and another person was transported to a hospital in critical condition. The shooter is believed to be one of those three people, said Fort Worth Fire Department spokesman Mike Drivdahl.”
 
The shooter was neutralized by an armed churchgoer, preventing the shooter from taking more lives than he did. This is thanks in large part to a bill signed into law by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott last September that allowed for lawful gun owners to carry guns in places of worship. This law, by the way, was maligned by Democrats like Joe Biden, who said it was “totally irrational” to do that. It, in fact, is completely rational, as bad guys with guns will shoot wherever there are people to kill and will target people without guns (or people who worship God, if they hate Jews or Christians) no matter what the law says. This kind of law gives law-abiding citizens the ability to fight back should such a horrendous situation ever occur.
 
It’s for these kinds of situations that people have the right to defend themselves. Now, Leftists will still argue “if the bad guy with a gun didn’t have a gun in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”. True, but there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people. There will always be bad guys with guns, so no legislation in the world will get guns out of the hands of bad guys.
 
New Zealand implemented a “mandatory” gun buy-back program and it’s a complete and utter failure. California, the state with some of the strictest gun control laws, had EIGHT mass slayings in 2019, according to The Associated Press. The AP reports that a total of 41 mass slayings occurred nationally in 2019 (The AP defines mass slayings as killings were four or more people are killed excluding the perpetrator). 33 out of those 41 mass slayings were firearm-related and, again, California was responsible for eight of them, the most out of any other state.
 
Despite the heavy gun control laws in places like California, Chicago, New York, Detroit, etc., we see some of the most bloodshed in such places. Now, Leftists could argue that if guns simply were not there, these things wouldn’t happen, which is altogether wrong. No shootings would happen, but killings would still occur. Just look at London and other places in the U.K. being ravaged by stabbing attacks day in and day out to find my words ring true.
 
Bad people will look for ways to hurt and kill others. Restricting good people from being able to defend themselves only worsens the problem and makes easy targets out of the innocent.
 
Had Texas not had the law that allowed for gun owners to carry inside places of worship, far more people would’ve died. The perpetrator had a gun and little was going to keep him from committing an act of violence. The little that keeps him from doing it is a good guy with a gun ready and able to fight back.
 
And returning to the anti-Semitic attacks in New York, do you think they would be anywhere near as bad if people were allowed to arm themselves? Recently, I had seen a picture on Twitter of Orthodox Jews openly carrying rifles in Rockland County (as seen above), the same county where the machete attack occurred. They have to protect themselves and have every right to do so, but New York laws restrict them. Of course, the particular Jews that were in those pictures do not have to worry too much about the existing gun control laws, but there’s no doubt that de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo want stricter laws which will only hurt the citizens of New York looking to arm themselves to protect themselves.
 
While the 2nd Amendment exists to protect people from a tyrannical government, a secondary benefit is that it allows for people to protect themselves against anyone who might wish to cause them harm, whether or not they are from the government.
 
The Framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well what tyranny looked like and wanted to prevent that from happening in the new country they had created. The 2nd Amendment was written and passed for the very purpose of keeping the government in check by We the People. The only reason this country isn’t far more authoritarian than it is is because of the 2nd Amendment, which is why it’s so heavily targeted by the authoritarian Left.
 
But the right to self-defense has existed long before guns were even a thing, as Jesus Christ Himself has advised His followers to arm themselves with a sword, even if it means selling the very clothes on your back.
 
We the People have the right to defend ourselves because the government cannot do a better job of it than we can.
 
Luke 11:21
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.”

Veteran’s Day has come and gone, with many of us remembering the heroic struggles our soldiers have had to endure throughout the history of our country in the various wars that America has participated. So, Campus Reform’s Eduardo Neret went to Howard University in Washington D.C. to ask various students if they could think of any war the U.S. has participated in that could be considered a “just” war or a war that we could find justifiable reasons for entering and fighting (video below).
 
Not one student could come up with any war that they viewed as justified of their own merit. And even when asked if they thought WWII was a justified war for the U.S. to get involved, some students still believed there was no justifiable reason for having entered the conflict.
 
One student argued: “I don’t believe America fought [WWII] for the just reasons.” Another student said: “I don’t think [WWII] was necessary.”
 
Although a few students recognized World War II and the Civil War as being justified wars (once they were mentioned after previously having argued that there were no wars that were justified), many still held their ground and argued that no war was justified.
 
However, I know exactly why it is that many think this way: ignorance.
 
Now, I’m not trying to insult these kids. I’m not calling them dumb. But they are lacking in knowledge, which is what ignorance is. Why do I think this way? Well, one of the students who actually came around to the idea that World War II was justified gave the following response to having changed her mind:
 
“[WWII] [was] a good cause for the greater good because at the end of the day we got our freedom, and we are no longer under Great Britain.”
 
The poor girl is confusing World War II with the Revolutionary War. Either that or she thinks that Great Britain was in Nazi Germany’s place in World War II and we were under their control at the time, but I think the former is more likely.
 
The ones that continued arguing that WWII was not a justified war, when Pearl Harbor was brought up, said that that was a reason for having entered the war, but not a justified one. Again, I gotta blame ignorance here.
 
During the early 1940s, the general sentiment regarding World War II was that we shouldn’t enter the war. We had no reason to. Hitler was not a direct threat to us and we were supplying Great Britain with weapons and equipment.
 
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has in their records public opinion in the U.S. about joining the war. When World War II began on September 1st, 1939, Gallup asked the following question: “If it looks within the next few months as if England and France might be defeated, should the United States declare war on Germany and send our troops abroad?” 42% said “yes”, 48% said “no” and 10% said they didn’t have an opinion.
 
The poll was close between the two answers, but the more popular idea was to stay out of the war, even if England and France were defeated over the next few months. I think the reason for it to have been this close is because if Germany had defeated both so quickly, it might’ve sent people in the U.S. into a panic, considering we were at least friendly towards those two countries, so the next target could’ve either been us or the Soviet Union.
 
On October 6th, 1939, when Poland was conquered by the Nazis and divided between them and the Soviets, Gallup asked the same question: if Germany defeats England and France, should we declare war on Germany? This time around, we found that only 29% of those surveyed said “yes” and 71% said “no.” We didn’t want to get ourselves involved in what was mostly seen as a European conflict.
 
On May 10th, 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France, Gallup asked if we should declare war on Germany. This time, only 7% said “yes” and 93% said “no”. It should be noted that our military wasn’t exactly in tip-top shape before we entered the war. We only had a little more than 450,000 total military personnel in 1940. In 1941, with the draft having been passed by Congress in late 1940, that number jumped to 1.8 million, then to 3.9m in 1942, 9.1m in 1943, 11.6m in 1944 and 12.2m by the end of the war in 1945.
 
Our military was in poor shape but once drafting and more spending was implemented, we created the most powerful military the world had ever seen by that point.
 
By June of 1940, when France surrendered to Germany, public sentiment was still largely against going to war, but those who wished to enter the war and help became more numerous. 35% said they wanted to help England win against Germany, even at the cost of entering the war, and 61% said they should stay out of the conflict altogether.
 
By the time the draft was implemented in September of 1940, more people wanted to help (52%) than not do anything (44%). By November of 1940, when FDR was elected to his third term as POTUS, 60% wanted to help England and 40% wanted to keep out. In March of 1941, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act which authorized Roosevelt to provide Britain with weapons, vehicles and equipment, 67% wanted to help England and 33% wanted to keep out.
 
On June 22nd, 1941, when Hitler decided to turn his armies towards the Soviet Union, 62% said they wanted to help England and 33% said they wanted to keep out. Even on September 4th, 1941, when a German U-boat submarine attacked an American destroyer, the USS Greer, prompting FDR to authorize US ships to attack German vessels on sight, 64% wanted to help England and 30% wanted to keep out.
 
By November of 1941, when relations between the U.S. and Japan were at some of their most tense (pre-war, of course) and it looked as though we would fight them, 68% said they wanted to defeat Germany and 28% said they wanted to stay out of the war.
 
However, on December 7th, 1941, when the Japanese orchestrated a surprise attack on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, where 2403 people died, mostly military personnel and 68 civilians, this served to ignite the spark of war in the American engine. Gallup asked: “Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?”, 91% said “yes”, only 7% said “no” and 3% said they didn’t have any opinion.
 
This was the 9/11 of 1940s America (and the only attack of this scale on American soil until 9/11) and our country cried for war, cried for justice against Japan. And so, we officially declared war on Japan, which prompted Germany to declare war on the U.S., leading us to join World War II against the Axis powers.
 
No, we didn’t enter the war out of the kindness of our hearts to help Great Britain to defeat Hitler. Why would we have, when FDR’s New Deal was so similar to Mussolini’s fascism, wherein the welfare state was created and capitalism was put into the hands of the state, instead of the private sector? FDR was every bit the Leftist that Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were and sought to socialize our economy. The eventual matchups of FDR-Stalin vs. Hitler-Mussolini (and Hirohito) were matchups of convenience for the time being. They were all Leftist, “government is God” type of leaders. Mussolini praised FDR’s book titled “Looking Forward” and the official Nazi newspaper, “Volkischer Beobachter” praised the New Deal.
 
We entered World War II not because FDR saw much or any threat in the fascists and Nazis in Europe infecting the rest of the world (he had his own brand of fascism that he was already implementing) but because we were attacked and over 2000 of our servicemen died at the hands of an Imperial Japan that we weren’t exactly getting along with.
 
When you are attacked, you have to respond. And that’s what we did. Those who would argue that we entered WWII without justifiable reasons are ignorant of history. For the most part, Americans wanted nothing to do with World War II, or to at most help out England without getting involved in the fighting if at all possible. But once it appeared war was imminent, and especially once it was brought to our shores, sentiment changed and we wanted to join and win the war.
 
Now, don’t get me wrong. Generally speaking, I’m anti-war. If it can be avoided, I would like to not get ourselves involved in wars, particularly in endless wars, which is why I hate that pro-war Republicans and Democrats are in Congress.
 
However, there are wars that we simply cannot avoid and wars that can be easily justified. The Revolutionary War was a war in which we sought our independence from a tyrannical monarch in Europe. That was justified. The Civil War was a war in which the North sought to both free all slaves in the country and reunite the Union after Southern Democrat States seceded following Lincoln’s election. That was very much justified.
 
And World War II most certainly can be justified considering both the threat that Hitler posed on the world and the attack that we suffered in Pearl Harbor.
 
Again, there are wars that are not justified and simply make no sense. But there are those that are essential and there are justifiable reasons for entering. I couldn’t imagine telling Poland that they weren’t justified in fighting Germany when they were being invaded by them.
 
These children, the ones that said no war was justified and stuck to it after being reminded of World War II, should be educated regarding history. But it’s a sad state of affairs when they are attending a college and have such minimal knowledge of the history of this country.
 
Ignorance is the real problem here. I would like to mention that every single one of the students asked were African-American, so you would think at the very least, they would’ve brought up the Civil War, since if the North had not done anything about the South, most black people in the country would be slaves (or at least would’ve been for a longer period of time).
 
But nope. Not one instance could they think of a just war. These kids aren’t being educated; they are being indoctrinated. They were taught that war is generally bad and that America is at fault for most of the conflicts we see today and the world has seen for some time. That no war America gets involved with is justified because we are the bad guys.
 
This is the sort of nonsensical and untruthful garbage being taught in our education systems today. How is it that these kids, or at least one of them, thinks that World War II was a war where we gained our independence from Britain?! The fact that there even is one person who thinks this is a damning statement about our education system.
 
James 1:5
“If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”

There are a number of reasons as to why I could not be bothered to watch the U.S. Women’s team win the World Cup (congratulations to them are in order, for sure) or watch them make a fool of themselves by throwing the American flag to the ground (surprise, surprise, it was Rapinoe, the Trump-hating star of the team, that did it, but another player picked it up, so kudos to her) and get together to start chanting “equal pay”, believing themselves to be the victims of misogyny. Namely, I hardly care about soccer as it is and was more preoccupied with observing NBA free agency. However, that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see just what it was that the Women’s soccer team did after winning their second World Cup in a row: whine and moan that they are being treated “unfairly” and they deserve “equal pay” as the Men’s soccer team.
 
Well, there are a few problems with this entire debacle.
 
First of all, this is strictly a FIFA issue. Even Rapinoe had the sense to only call out FIFA for this “wage gap” between men and women because the players in the U.S. actually make around the same. According to the New York Times: “According to figures provided by U.S. Soccer, since 2008 it has paid 12 players at least $1 million. Six of those players were men, and six were women. And the women hold their own near the top of the pay scale; the best-paid woman made about $1.2 million from 2008 to 2015, while the top man made $1.4 million in the same period. Some women in the top 10 even made more than their male counterparts over those years.”
 
In other words, the talented and good players are paid top dollar, regardless of gender in the United States.
 
For FIFA, things are different, and while the international organization is marred by corruption, it is ridiculous to say that they are deliberately paying women less than men for sexist reasons. Why is it ridiculous? Difference in revenue.
 
FIFA pays its male players around $400 million and pays its female players around $30 million. From those two numbers alone and with no other information or context, you could say that there is, indeed, a wage gap. Men get a bigger piece of the pie than women… right? Actually, men get a smaller share of the revenue pie from FIFA than women do.
 
Here is what Forbes says about this: “As Dwight Jaynes pointed out four years ago after the U.S. women beat Japan to capture the World Cup in Vancouver, there is a big difference in the revenue available to pay the teams. The Women’s World Cup brought in almost $73 million, of which the players got 13%. The 2010 men’s World Cup in South Africa made almost $4 billion, of which 9% went to the players. The men still pull the World Cup money wagon. The men’s World Cup in Russia generated over $6 billion in revenue, with the participating teams sharing $400 million, less than 7% of revenue. Meanwhile, the Women’s World Cup is expected to earn $131 million for the full four-year cycle 2019-22 and dole out $30 million to the participating teams.”
 
In other words, the men get paid more than the women do because the men’s World Cup generates FAR more money than the women’s World Cup does. If the men generate more money, they earn more money. And as we can see from that quote, the share of the pie that the men get is actually less than the share the women get. Yes, the men are still paid more because they make more, but they are paid 7%-9% compared to the women’s 23%. So if you want “equal pay”, then either you’re going to have to get those women’s numbers up or lower the share the women get of the revenue.
 
Asking to be paid the same $400 million as the men in an organizational division that barely makes 32% of that would be to ask for financial ruin to the women’s World Cup. It’s sort of similar to asking for higher minimum wage. You might be getting paid more per hour, but you’ll see those hours cut heavily, so you end up either making the same (best case) or making less money than before per week (if you even get to keep your job in the first place).
 
What the two issues have most in common is that they both rely on emotion rather than logic. An organization that only makes around $130 mil cannot pay the same amount to its players as an organization that makes BILLIONS.
 
And that’s the second problem with this entire thing: the math makes it impossible for there to be “equal pay”. The women get a bigger share of the pie than men do, but the women’s pie is smaller than the men’s. Whatever share the men get is, as a result, most likely to be more money than what the women get. This is not an issue of misogyny or sexism or patriarchal, straight white men unfairly treating women as lesser than men. It’s a matter of revenue differences that affect people’s income. Again, the men get paid more because the men generate more revenue.
 
Now, I know what some still hysterical liberals might say: “But the women’s team is better than the men’s! They should be paid more as a result, according to your capitalistic logic!” While it’s true that the women’s team has historically been more successful than the men’s, you must realize that this is women competing against women versus men competing against men. This same women’s team that has won two World Cups in a row lost to a team of prepubescent boys a few years ago – kids around 13 and 14 years old. So the U.S. Women’s team can certainly beat other countries’ women’s team, but against the men, I doubt they’d do much better because of simple biology: men are physically superior to women.
 
Even in tennis, there have been five times when a woman played against a man. The woman only won once out of those five.
 
In 1973, 55-year-old Bobby Riggs took on 31-year-old Margaret Court in what is today called The Mother’s Day Massacre. Riggs beat Court 6-2, 6-1. Court was No. 1 in the world among women and had won three major titles. That same year, Riggs also played against Billie Jean King. The woman actually won that one (6-4, 6-3, 6-3).
 
But ever since then, men have won every match against women. In 1993, Jimmy Connors (40) played against Martina Navratilova (35) in what was called the “Battle of the Sexes”. While the first set was close (7-5), Connors dominated the second (6-2). What's more, there were special rules in place to favor Navratilova. Connors was only allowed one serve per point (if he hit the net on his serve, point Navratilova instead of a "fault" so no 2nd serve) and Navratilova was allowed to hit the ball into the doubles alleys where it would normally be an out on singles, but Connors had to play it normally.
 
And the most recent case came in 1998, when the Williams sisters claimed that no man outside the top 200 could beat them. Karsten Braasch, ranked 203 at the time, first destroyed Serena 6-1 and then destroyed Venus 6-2. Following the match, Serena said: “I didn’t know it would be that difficult. I played shots that would have been winners on the women’s circuit and he got to them very easily.” Braasch even taunted the two after the match by saying: “They wouldn’t have had a chance against anyone inside the top 500 because today I played like someone ranked 600th to keep it fun.”
 
While I’m not so sure about Braasch’s comment regarding the way he played (though I do believe he took it a little easy), Serena’s comment shows us what we know to be true: men are physically superior to women. I believe her when she says that the shots she took would’ve been winners against women. I also believe that Braasch easily got to those shots as well.
 
So when it comes to the U.S. Women’s team, if they can’t even beat 13 and 14-year-olds (to be a little fair, it’s possible the women also took it a little easy on the boys, but the boys still beat them), how could they stand a chance against the men?
 
And do you want to know what else leads me to believe the Williams sisters at least should’ve realized before hand that men are physically superior to women? The fact that they had to specifically challenge men outside the top 200. If men and women are the same, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that the top women could compete with the top men? If the best man played against the best woman and the man won, what would be the excuse? “Well, he’s No. 1. Of course he won!” But wouldn’t that also be true of the woman? As it stands, Novak Djokovic is ranked No. 1 among men and the aforementioned Serena Williams is No. 1 among women. If they played, there’s no doubt in my mind Djokovic would obliterate Williams. But the reason for this isn’t because Djokovic is so good but because he’s a guy.
 
So going back to soccer, the U.S. Women’s team isn’t better than the Men’s. The Women’s team is more historically successful, but in terms of a head-to-head matchup, the men have the upper hand.
 
Much like in other aspects of the private sector, there is no such thing as a “gender wage gap”. Men make more money than women because men either will work more or generate more revenue as is the case for the Men’s Soccer team.
 
To claim there is discrimination at play is disingenuous at best and malignant at worst. Do they really expect to be paid around $400 million like the men do in an organization that itself generates only 30% of that? Do they want the Women’s division in FIFA to be financially ruined? Because that’s how you do it.
 
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.”
 
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!