Is Policing Systemically Racist?

If you had to guess, how many white people would you say have been killed by the police since the beginning of 2020? Based on media coverage alone, you might think it is fewer than five, or perhaps even zero. Now, how many black people would you guess have been killed by police during the same time period? Thousands? Hundreds?

Perceptions vs. Statistics

While most people can name several black people that have been killed by police since 2020, very few could name even a single white person who was killed. Why is that? It’s not for lack of white blood. Per the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, cops have killed 580 white people since last year, compared to 314 black people. How many of those were unarmed? Thirty white people and 22 black people.[1]

If you’re not wondering why all of these unarmed white men killed by the police didn’t make national news, you should be. The media is pushing a particular narrative, namely that the police are racist and targeting black people. To that end, they choose only to feature the stories that fit (or are forced to fit) that narrative, and ignore those that don’t. Unfortunately, this media bias is causing Americans to think cops are nilly-willy gunning down black people simply because they are black. The narrative is that policing is systemically racist.

 

What’s needed to demonstrate the existence of systemic racism

There’s no question that systemic racism existed in this country in the form of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the like. However, all forms of systemic racism have been made illegal since the 1960s. Systemic racism does not exist in America today. That’s not to say there are no racists left in America. Surely there are, but they are few in number. To say systemic racism no longer exists in America is to say that racism is no longer embedded in society’s systems. There are no institutions or laws that are explicitly or implicitly based on racist ideology, nor policies that treat people differently based on their race.

Many disagree with this assessment. They will agree that there are no institutions, laws, or policies that explicitly treat people differently based on their race (racism proper), but they argue that racism is still implicit in our institutions, law, and policies as evidenced by racial disparities in outcome. Black people are arrested at higher rates, have a higher incarceration rate than whites, earn less income than whites, etc.

While such racial disparities could be the result of implicit systemic racism, they could also be due to other factors as well. Racism must be proved, not assumed. If the racial disparities can be explained by differences in personal choices or behaviors, then there is no reason to think racism plays any major factor.

 

Do COVID-19 survivors need to get vaccinated?

Based on my research, if you have been infected with COVID-19, there is no good reason for you to get vaccinated. Getting Covid provides you with a natural immunity to future reinfections that is thousands of times more effective than the immunity conferred by the vaccines. Also, the vaccines fare no better than natural immunity at preventing the transmission of Covid. Let me explain.

Personal protection

Studies have shown that those who become infected with Covid develop a natural immunity that lasts for at least 7-8 months, and most likely, years to come. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded a study that was published January 6, 2021 in Science.^[1] Speaking of this study, the NIH writes: “But, promisingly, their levels [of antibodies] remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection. …. 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.”^[2] A decline in antibodies does not mean that immunity is diminishing rapidly over time. Immunologist Scott Hensley, of the University of Pennsylvania, notes that “[i]t doesn’t mean that those people no longer have antibodies. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have protection.”^[3]

 

A smoking bazooka for election fraud?

A little over a month ago, I informed you about some new and persuasive evidence for widespread election fraud involving voting machines. While that evidence seemed to be a smoking gun for widespread election fraud, the data was too limited to determine whether or not the fraud was widespread enough to have actually changed the outcome of the election.

In that same post, I mentioned that Mike Lindell was going to release more documentaries in the near future presenting additional evidence of election fraud. He released another documentary not long after my post, titled Absolute Interference. The documentary did not present much in the way of new evidence. What it did do, however, is provide additional details regarding the key piece of evidence presented in his original documentary, Absolute Proof.

 

Texas, Covid deaths, and abortion

Texas is on a roll! First, Texas reported zero Covid deaths for May 15, despite having lifted all Covid restrictions on March 10. When Texas announced they were lifting their restrictions in March, our president called it “Neanderthal” and the media went into a frenzy about how this would lead to untold deaths. They were all wrong. Texas (and freedom) got the last laugh, and demonstrated (once again) that lockdowns are not effective.

And now, Texas has banned all abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Surely it will be challenged, so we’ll see if it goes anywhere.

 

Fascism on the rise

The telltale sign of fascism is the silencing of dissent. If you don’t agree with the fascists’ point of view, you will be de-platformed, cancelled, fired, imprisoned, or killed. Which side of the ideological aisle is engaging in fascism these days? Here’s a clue: It’s not the Right. While we haven’t seen the Left imprisoning or killing anyone in this country yet, given enough time, and given enough power, it will happen. It’s already happening in other countries, and we can see the same trajectory in our own.

Perhaps you have heard of the former Interior Minister of Finland, Päivi Räsänen, who is being charged for a hate crime because she publicly expressed her disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. She is facing up to two years in prison. Stories of people being arrested for expressing moral disapproval of homosex have been mounting over the years in Europe, Canada, and Australia. We are headed in the same direction if we keep electing the Left to positions of power because the Left is fascist at heart.

 

Systemic racism?

Over the last year, the Left has popularized the phrase “systemic racism.” What exactly does this mean? It doesn’t mean racism is widespread throughout America, or even that there are some racist individuals within the power structures of various social systems. Rather, it means that the very systems of our society and government are rooted in racist ideology, and thus necessarily result in discrimination against non-whites. That’s why some of those who claim there is systemic racism are also calling for us to tear down these power structures and start anew. They don’t want to eliminate the racist people from the systems, but eliminate the systems themselves. The systems are deemed irredeemable.

 

The Left vs. the Right

What are the main ideological differences between the “Left” and the “Right”?* Here is a handy chart detailing the primary differences. Please note that I am focusing on ideological differences as opposed to how those ideological differences translate into specific policy differences such as taxes or abortion.

Left	Right
1. Progress beyond traditions	1. Conserve traditions
2. Views social outcomes in terms of power dynamics	2. Views social outcomes in terms of personal decisions
3. Sees people as groups	3. Sees people as individuals
4. Society is the source of evil	4. Individuals are the source of evil
5. Values equality of outcome	5. Values equality of opportunity
6. Values equality over liberty	6. Values liberty over equality
7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by bigger government	7. Believes life’s problems are best solved by the ingenuity of private citizens
8. Government’s role is to achieve and protect equality	8. Government’s role is to protect liberty
9. Idealist – Policy decisions based on what feels morally right	9. Pragmatic – Policy decisions based on what will result in the most good
10. Prefers a regulated market	10. Prefers a free market

11. The meaning of the law is malleable, and should be interpreted in light of the evolving needs of society

11. The meaning of the law is fixed, as determined by the words and the intent of those who wrote the law

12. Individualistic

12. Nationalistic

If you can think of any additional ideological differences, please share in the comments.

 

____________________________

* I realize that these categories are not exhaustive, and that people do not always fall neatly into one side or the other. As such, take this as a generalized, if not idealized categorization.

 

Secular coercion and unity

The more secular a society becomes, the more coercive it becomes. If there is no transcendent law-giver to guide the beliefs and behavior of the people, then the State will fill the void. If a society does not recognize a higher authority (a Law above the law), then the political will of the State becomes the ultimate good. Those who resist and dissent will be made to “unite” through power and coercion.

For secularists, “unity” means everyone agrees with them. All dissent must be crushed. It’s no coincidence that the political Left is advocating against free speech and trying to shut down conservative news sources and organizations. As Ben Shapiro has noted, the Left’s idea of “diversity” is not a diversity of ideas, but a diversity of genders and colors all saying the same thing.

 

A smoking gun for election fraud?

Charges of voter fraud in the last election began the day after the election. Many examples have been cited. Thousands of affidavits have been given. A number of cases were filed with the courts. Some of the claims have been debunked. Others remain to be proven or disproven. Most Americans don’t have the time to follow all of the evidence, and many don’t know exactly what to make of it. All they know is that Joe Biden was inaugurated as the President of the United States, so the election is settled for all intents and purposes.

I was one of those Americans that followed the claims of fraud quite closely early on, but time is precious, and eventually life has to go on. I don’t get paid to follow the news. I resolved that there seemed to be clear evidences of localized fraud, but the number of votes affected by those clear examples did not appear to be enough to change the outcome of the election. I have always been open to the possibility that the fraud was sufficient to have changed the outcome of the election, but was not willing to say the election was stolen unless and until it could be demonstrated by the evidence. I have no tolerance for conspiracy theories or speculation. Evidence must win the day.

 

Preferred personal pronouns: a legal win for free speech

In Meriwether v Hartop, the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a professor who refused to call a student by his preferred (feminine) pronouns (see Law & Crime for the backstory to the case). The 3-panel court ruled that this violated both his free speech and religious rights. This is a big win for those advocating for both common sense and free speech in regards to preferred gender pronouns.

Language is sexed. Pronouns are meant to match one’s biological sex, not their personal sense of gender identity. If a biological boy thinks of himself as a girl, that’s fine, but he remains a biological male nonetheless, and as such, according to the English rules of grammar, should be referred to with male pronouns. In the same way the boy has a right to think of himself as a girl, we have a right to use language the way we see fit – which, in this case, accords with both biological reality and the rules of English grammar. No one should be compelled to use certain speech or deny biological reality.

 

Father jailed for calling his trans-son his “daughter”

If you haven’t heard of the story regarding the dad jailed for calling his trans-son “daughter” and using female pronouns, you need to. He was arrested for “family violence.” While this happened in Canada, given the trajectory in the U.S., it won’t be long before this kind of thing happens here as well. Indeed, we are on the precipice of this happening here already.

 

The injustice of “equity”

Equality and equity do not mean the same thing. Equality is everyone being treated equal and getting what they deserve. Equity means fairness, but the way the political Left understands equity is anything but fair. They see equity as ensuring the same outcome whether you deserve it or not, and largely based on comparing groups to groups rather than individuals to individuals. This sort of equity is not achieved by treating everyone equally, but by treating some groups unequally so that the results are the same for all groups. If group A makes more money than group B, then policies are instituted that hurt group A but benefit group B so that the two groups will have the same outcome. Unfairness in the name of fairness. Don’t fall for this verbal deception. That’s not equity. Support equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

 

Some thoughts for anti-wallers

Here’s a thought for all of you anti-wallers out there. Why are you opposed to obeying our nation’s laws? Why do you approve of those who break our laws while castigating those who think they should be obeyed?

 

And what’s wrong with building a wall? If people would obey our immigration laws, a wall would not be needed. After all, no one is suggesting a wall on the northern border because it isn’t needed there. The Canadians respect our immigration laws. But on the southern border, they don’t respect our laws, hence, the need for a wall.

 

When it boils down to it, anti-wallers are pro open borders, where anyone and everyone can come to this country whenever they want. That may sound nice, but it’s not workable. It would become impossible to maintain our nation’s identity and culture if we could not limit how many people come in annually. It would also put too much strain on our nation’s resources.

 

Would you vote for Hitler? Then stop voting for pro-abortion politicians.

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate?  How is that different from a German voting for Hitler?  Let me explain.

When it comes to voting, our primary concern as Christians should be that we elect a candidate to government office who will fulfill God’s purpose for government.  And what is that purpose?  Justice: rewarding good and punishing evil (Rom 13:1-4).  While it’s true that no government, political party, or political candidate fulfills this purpose perfectly, it’s also true that they don’t fail at it equally.  Some political parties and candidates do more to promote justice and punish evil than others.  Our moral obligation is to cast our vote for the party/candidate we have reason to believe will bring about the greatest amount of good possible.

 

Voting for pro-abortion politicians is morally unconscionable

Government’s primary purpose is to protect our natural rights. The right to life is the most important right because all other rights depend on it. Any candidate/party who uses their political power to allow some mothers to legally murder their own children in utero is not fit for public office and should never receive our vote. As a form of murder, abortion is the greatest injustice possible, and to vote for a candidate/party who has told you in advance that they will use their political power to ensure that this injustice continues and expands, is morally unconscionable.

 

Policies matter more than personalities, 3rd parties, and stay-homers

When it comes to voting, policies matter more than personalities. We are not voting for outstanding moral person of the year. We are voting for the person whose political ideas/policies will result in the most good. When forced to choose between candidates of poor personal characters, we cast our vote for the person who has the best policies, given our options.

Some people look at the deficiencies in character or policy or both, however, and conclude that they cannot cast their vote for any candidate in good conscience, or that they must vote for a third party candidate who has better policies than the major party candidates.  I think both responses are a mistake.  If our goal in voting is to make a moral difference in the world rather than just a moral statement, then we shouldn’t stay home or vote for an unelectable third-party candidate.  Let me explain.

 

The power to tax is the power to enslave

The power to tax is the power to enslave. That’s not to say taxation itself is immoral. All of us can agree to a reasonable amount of taxes to pay for a functional government and basic social resources like funding the military, paving roads, and the like. But the bigger the government gets, the more taxes it needs, and the more money it takes. If the government taxed an individual 100% of their income, they will have effectively enslaved them because they are working entirely for the government and not benefiting from their own work. If the individual was allowed to keep 10% of their earnings, they are little better than a slave. It’s just a matter of degree. As this entitlement culture demands more and more, the government will continue to take more and more in taxes, enslaving us degree by degree. If you want freedom, keep our government small.

 

Diversity is not a value

Diversity is not a value.  Diversity just is.  We don’t value diversity for diversity’s sake, but for what that diversity provides us. For example, we value diversity in food because we enjoy eating different kinds of food.  We value diversity of clothing styles because we like to express ourselves in different ways, and we think it would be wrong to make everyone wear the same kind of clothes or eat the exact same food.  But there are some examples of diversity that should not be valued or “celebrated.”  We should not celebrate diversity in moral views, particularly when some of those moral views entail gross immorality.  The British did not celebrate the diversity of Indians when they burned their widows on the funeral pyre.  They forcibly ended that barbarism.  We should not celebrate diversity in how women’s genitalia is treated – celebrating those who mutilate women’s genitalia alongside those who do not.  We should not celebrate the diversity of killing one’s own daughter after she is raped to preserve the honor of the family.  Not all ideas are of equal value.  We celebrate the diversity of people, but not the diversity of ideas.  Bad ideas should be fought against – first by persuasion, but if that fails, in some cases we must fight those ideas by force.

 

My thoughts on the Syrian refugees

A lot of Christians are arguing that our Christian principles, based in Scripture, demand that we welcome the Syrian refugees. This article shows why this is a hasty conclusion regarding the teaching of Scripture.

Surely the Scripture does not mean to say we should allow foreigners to come into our nation who intend to kill us (as if the Israelites would have let the Philistines or Babylonians into Jerusalem!).  And surely those who argue that Scripture demands we accept the Syrian refugees would not cite those same passages if they knew members of ISIS or Al Qaeda were among them, but could not be identified.  But here’s the thing: We know from the experience in France that terrorists are coming in with the refugees undetected, and people have been murdered as a result.  Until and unless we can properly vet these refugees to determine who is a possible terrorist and who is not, how can any reasonable person say we should just let them into our country?  It only takes a few terrorists to produce mass killing.  9/11 and the French attacks are proof of this.