The Feds Should RICO CNN

Someone created a GIF, which is an animated graphic that has been edited from the original content, that depicted President Donald Trump basically body slamming a person with the CNN logo as his head. This caused a virtual firestorm in the media with CNN leading the charge claiming that the GIF could incite violence against journalists. This was rich as the media has been defending portrayals of violence against President Trump from the NYC play depicting the paly Julius Caesar with the main character looking like Trump. Most people know what happened to Caesar at the end. Then there was Kathy Griffin holding the bloody, severed head of Trump in the fashion of ISIS. To CNN’s credit, they did fire her from the New Year’s Eve broadcast. Then there was the rant that Madonna gave at a rally where she stated she wanted to blow up the White House. CNN has had a history of their anchors and pundits defending violent threats from liberals while condemning even a nuanced comments as threats. But all during the Obama Administration, CNN defended the president from all criticism by labeling those critics as racist and even tried to call the TEA Party violent and anti-government which was later debunked. Leading up to the GIF and the famous tweet by President Trump, CNN had to retract several stories leading to some journalist resigning. This has prompted many to label CNN as “fake news” but that is not the end of the story.

 

CNN has been focused on reports, mostly anonymous sources, of the Trump campaign collusion with Russia to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton but with a thorough FBI investigation, there has been no proof it ever happened. Still, CNN has not let it go. But enter “HanA**holeSolo” a Reddit user and creator of the GIF and suddenly the investigative arm of CNN, K-file, kicks into high gear.  Andrew Kaczynski published a statement on CNN’s website to announce that they tracked the “private citizen” down and that he apologized and deleted the “offensive content” and promised not to do it again. Andrew followed up by saying that they would not reveal his identity if nothing changes. Here is the full quote from CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski. The part that is the icing on the cake is this small part, “CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that changes.” (emphasis added)

It shows here that CNN is now revealing the name of the person because he is 1. A private citizen, 2. He has issued a statement of apology, 3. He will not repeat the “ugly behavior” again, 4 his statement could serve as an example, or warning, to others but here is the RICO inducing statement. CNN says they could publish his identity if any of that changes. How scary for those who dare to criticize the media! Now let’s move to the RICO act and see if there has been a violation.

 

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act, also known as RICO, was enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime but has been used in cases of intimidation and coercion for cases related to drug trafficking and witness tampering. I believe that CNN violated this act when they tracked down the Reddit user and allegedly coerced him into not posting “ugly behavior” on social media. Once again, we must ask about free speech and what it means. We know Congress cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or the press. What about the press limiting the speech of citizens? CNN used the excuse that the user posted offensive, anti-Semitic pictures on his page. They used this to try to shut down detractors by saying they supported everything he said but the problem is that free speech means you can say what you want if you are not directly threatening someone whether it is offensive or not to someone else. I don’t agree with what he said in the posts but I defend his right to say it. I don’t, however, support CNN being able to violate the law and hide behind “freedom of the press” when that freedom does not give them the right to destroy someone’s life for “offensive” GIFs. This shows that CNN is a corrupt organization that uses intimidation and coercion to force private citizens to delete “offensive” content while saying they champion free speech, this makes them a fraud as well as blackmailers.

Religious Bullies

The anti-theists bullies are at it again picking on small communities that have very little resources to fight them. These groups which include the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Free Thought Society seek to eradicate all references to religion in public forums and government venues including schools, town halls, and city council meetings. They claim to represent the “separation of church and state” as a Constitutional precept but these words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, those words were pinned by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that there would be no US Church like the Church of England and that they would not be required by the government to teach a certain doctrine so the government would not dictate religious teachings. He also assured them that there would be no speech codes or punishment for speaking out against government policy. This was essential for the freedom of speech. The main thing these organizations misinterpreted is the first statement of the First Amendment.

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (emphasis added)

The first thing we should notice about this amendment is that it is restricted by the language in it to the Congress. It was fully understood that Congress referred to the US House of Representatives and Senate. There is no mention of the states in this amendment which indicates what the states had wanted with the Bill of Rights and that was limited Federal government. The entire Constitution was not about granting rights to the people but rather protecting God-given rights from erosion from the government. Looking at the Constitution in this way is essential to understanding the mindset of the people in 1789. You must remember that they had just won independence from England and there were fears that the new government would become just as bad. They wanted assurance that the natural rights of the people would be protected by the new government. They wanted very limited central federal government that had primarily a few responsibilities that were enumerated in the Constitution. They did not want the oppressive rule of the former to become the current. This was true for religious, speech, and press freedoms where, not only could the press, but the churches could speak out about political issues. The latter of which would be challenged by the IRS.This was also true for the states as they wanted more local input and interaction.

 

The thing that I believe that most Constitutional scholars have wrong if the interpretation of the “establishment clause”. I am not a graduate of a prestigious college specializing in Constitutional law, therefore my analysis is strictly novice in most circles but I believe that this was the same mindset that most people had at the time the amendment was ratified. First you must look at the wording used in the amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and we must understand what that means. An establishment in this case is the same as the words we would use today in saying an eating establishment. In other words, we could say that Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment meaning that there should be no law respecting a church. This blows up the conventional understanding of the phrase. This does not mean that churches can’t be involved in government in the fact that they have no say but that government can’t be involved in church activities. This was understood by those in government because before the capitol was built they met in churches in the area. The influence of Christianity and the belief in God were very strong in the newly formed United States so much so that the Ten Commandments are behind the justices of the Supreme Court. This was clear evidence that the leaders wanted Christian principals to lead the new government and that the wall was to keep the government out of church affairs. Atheists today say that the separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution, means there is no place in government for religious expression including schools and government buildings and that churches should not be politically active at all. If this were true, one would have to renounce their faith to hold public office or work for a government agency and those with religious faith would be barred from speaking out for or against a political issue, that would be unconstitutional.

 

Since the beginning of the US and before the nation had even gained independence, there was a prayer said at the beginning of each congressional session. Prayer was of great importance in the daily lives of the clear majority in the US at the time and the first public school was created by the Puritans in 1635in Massachusetts and taught among reading, writing, and math the values the community held dear, including prayer. Daily prayer was common in public schools as were the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance and in some cases reciting the 23 Psalm. While it was not required that you had to believe in God to attend school, it reflected the majority of the community. Madalyn Murray O’Hair has been credited with ending the practice of prayer in school in 1962 it was the cases, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)Wikipedia that ushered in the prohibition of prayer in school. Although I understand that not everyone believes in God and that they do not pray but there was no real harm in the issue but that is a conversation for another time. After the eradication of prayer in school, it was not long before anti-theists started to attack all religious expression in all public venues. This would include schools, government buildings, and government owned land and these attacks would be so vicious and well-funded that schools and government agencies would start to infringe on people’s right to free speech.

 

The Freedom from Religion Foundation was formed in 1976 with the mission to “educate” non-theists on their rights and rectify violations. Unfortunately, they believe any exposure to religion is a violation even when it comes from other citizens in a setting on government property. They seem to target low income communities where they would know that there were not many resources to fight their accusations. They targeted graduations where there was a prayer and then started targeting speeches of valedictorians that included references to God, Christ, and the Bible. This has prompted schools to review speeches from private citizens for censorship of anything remotely religious. This is in direct violation of the free speech clause as the valedictorian in a private citizen and their speech is a personal reflection on their lives and is not a “state-sanctioned” endorsement of religion. Among other things this organization has targeted was a large cross in California erected by veterans as a war memorial but because it was on “public” land the FFRF filed lawsuits to have it removed. These foundations have attacked communities during the Christmas season for displays of nativity scenes and other holiday decorations that reflect the traditionally religious nature of the holiday. Most of the time, there is not a complaint from a single resident of the community and the foundation is in Wisconsin but will sue in any state. Most recently, there have been a couple of instances where these organizations have crossed the line in their pursuit of eradicating religion from public view.

 

In Opp, Alabama, they have a tradition of holding a baccalaureate service for graduating seniors on the Sunday before graduation. This service is religious in nature and was held in the auditorium which, according to the FFRF is a big no-no. Commentator Todd Starnes has reported on this situation. Most baccalaureate services are held in churches in the community but some are held at the school if there is not a large enough venue elsewhere. One thing that the FFRF does not acknowledge is the fact attendance to these services are voluntary and those who do not wish to attend are not punished if they abstain. Most baccalaureate services are hosted by a church and are not sponsored by the school although school officials may participate in them. Alabama has a court ruling made in 1991 stating that a school district must “ensure that no other school officials promote, lead, or participate in the service.”  This is akin to saying if you hold an official title, you can’t participate in religious services. This is not what the Constitution means with the “establishment” clause. Secondly, Todd Starnes reported on a high school graduate that was told she could not mention God, Jesus, or pray in her graduation speech because it was against the law. Remember this not a public official, this is a private citizen who is giving a speech to her classmates about her life and memories. She does not represent the school, as some would have you believe, but she represents herself and her speech should reflect her beliefs. She has the First Amendment right to say what she believes even at a government event because she is a citizen of the US. To say that just because you are at a school sponsored or government event that you forfeit your free speech is just what the founders wanted to prevent. Many atheists point to the fact that most schools receive funding from the federal government and that negates religious liberty but if that were applied to all funding then those who receive food stamps would be barred from attending religious services as well.

 

While atheists claim that schools are for education and not proselytizing, schools have started going further in limiting students from reading their Bibles on school property and barring students from meeting to pray together before class. Many schools will not allow religious groups access to the school after hours while allowing other groups, including politically controversial groups access. Teachers have even told students that they are not allowed to share their faith at school due to the “separation of church and state” with one student being suspended. This is a gross miscarriage of the concept of the establishment clause in that it completely ignores the expression clause where individuals can share their faith. It also violates the student’s free speech protection as there are no qualifiers as to when you can have free speech so it is considered always in effect. Freedom of speech should not and must not be limited by your surroundings. You should be able to share your views on religion, politics, or any other topic you like and should not be restricted because you are in a government building or public property. The First Amendment keeps Congress from forcing churches to teach “approved” doctrine but does not keep religion out of public life as it also allows the free exercise of religion even in public venues. Contrary to what atheists’ claim, the US was founded on Christian values of private property, freedom, and individual liberty and God was acknowledged by the founders in almost every document written during that time.

 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s name says it all. They do not want freedom of religion, instead they would like to see religious views relegated to church and nowhere else. They believe that any religious artifact, no matter how significant it is to the history of the country on public property is somehow an endorsement of religion and therefore forces it on the people. One absurd thing they have attacked is a welcome sign that was erected by local churches welcoming people into the town. The atheist organization claims that it sends a message that you are not a favorite citizen if you are not Christian. This is the most ridiculous claim I ever heard. Many of the towns where I live have welcome signs that have been put there by the local Mason’s lodge, does that mean I am not a “favorite citizen” because I am not a Mason? What about welcome signs from local businesses? Am I not favored if I don’t shop at their establishments? Where would this end? Churches welcoming you to their town is not an endorsement of one religion over another or none. If you look at the picture in the article, you will notice that the Kiwanis have their emblem on the sign. Does that mean only members of the Kiwanis are “favorite citizens”? For people who don’t believe in God, the FFRF sure are offended by Him quite easily. Is what the FFRF doing Constitutional? Although they claim atheism is the absence of religious belief, I see atheism as a religious belief because not believing in God is as much a religion as believing especially when you go through great lengths to promote non-belief over belief in the way FFRF does. They claim they want the all government agencies to be neutral on religion but instead push hostility toward it. By pushing non-belief so hard they have proven they are the biggest proselytizers of all time, trying to force their worldview on everyone else. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate atheists and everyone is entitled to their beliefs but to go after high school students’ free speech is not cool.

Who are the Real Nazis of Today?

The election of Donald Trump revived an old but well-known term used against those who are seen as racist or anti-Semitic, that term is Nazi. Yes, the German National Socialist Party headed up by none other than Adolf Hitler. Trump supporters have been labeled racist, homophobic, xenophobic, nationalist, and Nazis. All of this without a shred of proof or any real evidence of such leanings in the majority of his supporters. In fact, most of Trump’s supporters are regular, hard-working men and women from all races and backgrounds. I will admit that Trump was not my first choice in the primaries but I did vote for him in the general election.  I did not vote because I hate black or brown people or because I want to hold back those same people. I voted because I want a different direction in this country for everyone. I want to limit illegal immigration. I want lower taxes and more opportunity for everyone who is willing to work. I want the US to be strong in the world and be the shining city on the hill as Reagan had said so many times. It is the Conservative philosophy that people should be able to pull themselves up and not be reliant on the government for perpetuity.

 

I would like to address one of the most heinous accusations that have been hurled at Trump supporters. The term Nazi has been used against Trump and his supporters by those who claim that “whitelash” or white supremacy is to blame for his election. This is also done to imply that Trump, his supporters, and his cabinet intend to eliminate people of color. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Left in this country and around the world have espoused the philosophy of the Nazi party. Instead of being directed at Jews or people of color it is directed at white people, in particular, white males.

The Nazis in Germany did not start by rounding up the Jews, they started by first indoctrinating the citizens with anti-Jew propaganda. They used the education system to demoralize and dehumanize Jews and blamed much of the problems in Germany on the Jews. As the propaganda war continued, the public began to have disdain for Jewish people and Jewish businesses were boycotted, vandalized, and even burned down. They were considered second-class citizens and were blamed for all the woes of the German people. Does this sound familiar?

 

After the American Civil War, black people, especially in the South, were viewed in much the same way by many white people. While not all white people felt this way, enough white people harbored resentment against black people and the federal government to form organizations that terrorized the black community in the post-war South because Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. The most famous of these was the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) founded in 1866 and led by Nathan Bedford Forrest, a confederate general and Democrat. In the years following the KKK’s formation, it spread through the South and was a resistance to the reconstruction efforts of Republicans who were trying to bring about equality for black people and the newly freed slaves. The organization targeted Republican leaders, black leaders, the Jewish community, and average citizens who supported equality. It has been said that the KKK was the military arm of the Democratic Party during this time. With intimidation and violence, the KKK could get Democrats elected to local and state office where laws meant to hold down the black race and create a lower class of citizen were enacted. It was during this time that Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and poll questions that were virtually impossible to answer were put into place to segregate black and white and prevent black people from voting. This helped the Democrats increase their power in the southern states and these policies stayed in place for nearly a century.

 

In the 1950s and 1960s, people from all races came together to try to end the policies of segregation and restore voting rights to the black community. Several members of the black community tried to challenge laws but either were killed or lost their cases in the racist courts of the South. One of the catalysts for the Civil Rights Movement that brought the plight to attention was the arrest of Rosa Parks. She refused to give up her seat in the colored section to a white woman and move to the back of the bus which, in Alabama, was the law. Although her case was bogged down, she became an icon and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr organized marches with her. While Dr. King chose to meet the violence of the opposition with peace and not fight back with violence, there were those in the black community who preferred retaliation against all white people and not just those who either through organizations or in power were responsible for the inequality of the time. Although Dr. King’s message won out in the arena of ideas and segregation and poll taxes were ended without a full-scale civil war, some of the groups that believed in retribution such as the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army continued to seek violent means to exact revenge. Many of these people found a home with the Communist movement that was beginning to spread on college campuses across the nation.

 

The 1960s were a time of cultural, social, political, and legal upheaval that ushered in a rebellion of sorts against the prevailing culture in the US of the 1940s and 1950s. Students in universities were challenging the moral and societal norms that they grew up believing. The epicenter of this movement is considered the University of California Berkeley where students and faculty advocated for free speech to protest the Vietnam War and other government policies that they felt were unfair and unjust. While some student protesters were against war in general and felt it was their right to speak out against it, a majority of the students genuinely believed that the US was bad and that there was a fundamental flaw in it. Because of the glamorous way the professors portrayed Communism, many of the students believed this was a better system than our current political and economic system. The professors also taught that the US was imperialistic and imposes its values on other cultures which it finds inferior. These teachings have continued and evolved over the next few decades.

 

Throughout the 2000s there were protests against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but it was still fairly peaceful and relatively lacking in racial overtones. Something changed in 2008. The voters of the US elected the first African-American president. I don’t usually use the term African-American but in this case, it is fitting as his father was from Kenya and his mother was American. Almost immediately there was a shift in attitude toward anyone who opposed the new president or any of his policies, even on ideological grounds. Instantly you were considered racist if you criticized anything the president proposed. At the same time, on college campuses a new term was being used, “white privilege” inferring that those with white skin or Caucasian were somehow more “privileged” than others when it came to everything from encounters with the police to college admissions. Some campuses began to designate “safe spaces” for students of color where white students were not allowed. They also claimed that any white student wearing a particular style whether it was clothes or hair that was associated with another culture was “cultural appropriation” and some students were even physically attacked. Soon campuses started to have dorms only for people of color where no white person could go. These same universities set up workshops to tell white students just how “bad” they really are and how to be more culturally accepting. Does this sound familiar?

 

In Germany, the Nazi Party used similar propaganda to paint the Jewish population in an unfavorable light. In fact, encouraging Germans to boycott Jewish stores and shops and soon they pushed to destroy those shops. Soon, being a Jew in Germany was akin to being the devil and you had fewer rights and less freedom until it finally led to the “final solution” which later was known as the Holocaust. During the 2016 election, there were a lot of protests against Donald Trump and some turned violent. Trump supporters were pelted with eggs and other projectiles and accosted for wearing the “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats. Some hats were even snatched off the heads of people as they walked down the street. Riotous protesters gathered outside Trump Tower in New York and showed up at rallies across the US yelling obscenities and flipping the bird at supporters trying to get into the venues. This was all occurring before election day and some speculated that the protesters were paid and that it was meant to intimidate Trump supporters and subdue turnout on election day. That tactic did not work as Donald Trump was elected President of the United States.

 

Following the election, there were riots in several cities where property damage was great and many were arrested. The media tried to blame Right-wing extremists but it soon became apparent who was behind it.  During the time this was going on, there were calls to take the riots into the “white” neighborhoods and trash their homes and businesses, reminiscent of the brown shirts who called for attacks on Jewish neighborhoods and businesses. The Democrats who chastised those who opposed President Obama now were calling for resistance to President Trump. The comedians who called other comedians who joked about Obama out were now spewing vitriol for Trump. The calls from the Left to accept the election of Obama and move on were now calls to not accept the election and disrupt as much of the agenda as possible. The hypocrisy was so stark that many people began to see what the Left in the nation had become, hate-filled totalitarian extremists. Anarchists began marching wearing black masks and hoods which were in the same spirit of the KKK’s white hoods. Calls for Trump to be assassinated flooded Twitter and Facebook with little to no action against the perpetrators. This led to an explosion on university campuses of Nazi sounding rhetoric.

 

In the months that followed the election, there were professors on many campuses that were calling for the genocide of the white race and made certain areas off limits to white students. The “Social Justice Warrior” movement that had been rising during the last few decades finally had some power and pushed to have all white people pay reparations for slavery even though only 1.2% of the population had ever owned slaves. They refused to allow white people to attend any of their rallies and when they did see white people they would make them go to the back of the crowd. Even at UC Berkeley where the “free speech” movement started in the ’60s there is a push to deny any Conservative speakers the right to hold speeches and have been threatened with violence if they come on campus. Some students were interviewed and believed that free speech did not extend to those speakers and that violence against them was justified. It has become painfully apparent that having an opposing view on most college campuses is shouted down and the person becomes an outcast. It is also becoming dangerous to have a Conservative view and philosophy as people are attacked viciously if they express those opinions. Professors have even barred Conservative viewpoints in their class.

 

So, I ask. Who are the Nazis of today? Is it the Conservative Right that calls for enforcement of the law and traditional moral values that want America to be prosperous and strong? Is it the radical Left that is calling for an end to white power and want to punish the white race? It sounds to me like the Fascists and Nazis are in the camp of the Left. They demean white people based on past grievances and blame the white race for their shortcomings while taking no responsibility for themselves and their lives. They call for equality while simultaneously pushing down one race over another. They claim victim-hood based solely on race and argue for special treatment and consideration in all aspects of life. This is not equality. This is the epitome of the Nazi philosophy just applied to a different group of people. This is not what the US is about. The US has had its share of problems and has done some bad things but it has always striven for freedom and justice for all. Social justice is not justice at all but revenge on society for past wrongs that may not even have been perpetrated against the current generation. What we need to do is throw out the violence and start communicating in a civil manner and try to understand where the other is coming from. We also must get over the blame game as, chances are, young people alive in the US today have never experienced real oppression or slavery. In short, we need to stop hating America for its bad behavior and start loving the good it has done in the world.

 

Here is a philosophical point that everyone should ponder and think about when they feel someone else has power over them. No one can have influence and power over you unless you give them permission. No person can control your actions without your consent and no group can exercise domination over another without one group being submissive. If you feel that one group is superior or more privileged it is because you feel inferior and less privileged even if there is no difference. In other words, you give up your privilege by admitting that you have none. Until you realize that you are responsible for your education (you can go to school but learning is up to you), your success (you must take your education and apply it to the world), your happiness (you cannot rely on others to make you happy or punish others enough to make you happy), and your future (the past is the past so let it go and move on be the better person than those who will hold you back).  Following the crowd may seem cool and the thing to do but remember by following the crowd you will not see the road ahead until the person in front of you falls off the cliff. Be you own person and don’t let your race, your ethnicity, or your economic situation define you. In the US, it is possible to rise above your circumstances, that is why people from all over the world immigrate here and become citizens. You are our own worst enemy!

21st Century Science Deniers

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson.

 

That quote is often used against skeptics of “man-made” climate change, sometimes called “deniers” and labeled anti-science. This has been in an attempt to shut down debate and dismiss scientific data that does not support the “consensus” on climate change and its causes. While this post is not about climate change or my position on it, this sets the stage for the context of the issue before us. Many years ago, I was watching a show on PBS about science and there was a discussion about whether some disciplines should be considered “bad science” because they were based on theory that would be impossible to conduct experiments on and draw conclusions. One of the guests on the panel, I do not remember the name of the person and could not find the quote otherwise I would attribute this to him, said “there is no such thing as bad science, only bad scientists or bad data”. He went on to explain that all science is theoretical until proven true or false. This is what scientific discovery is all about, he stated, but he warned of “consensus without verifiable proof” in science. He explained that if a researcher or group of researchers concluded and there was no questioning of the data and no scrutiny of the method, there was no verified proof. If the conclusions were accepted without such review then a consensus is formed, any rebuttal of the conclusion would be rejected even if there was proof the conclusion was wrong. His warning holds true today with climate change, but there is another consensus taking form and it is based on a political agenda, not scientific research.

 

For many years now the homosexual community has been pushing to have their lifestyle “normalized” and brought into the mainstream culture. They push for “tolerance” but they have been labeling those who oppose the lifestyle on religious or even scientific reasons as haters, bigots, homophobes, and sometimes terrorists. There is a difference between tolerance, acceptance, and approval that seems to be ignored by the LGB, Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual community (those are the letters they started with). Tolerance is actually a two-way street because you can be opposed to something on moral, political, or philosophical grounds and not treat the person badly. For example, you may be opposed to a co-worker’s lifestyle because he does things that are immoral but you still treat him with respect and dignity. While you may discuss his lifestyle with him, you don’t try to force him to change, this is tolerance. Acceptance, on the other hand, still has the room for objection but the difference is that you accept the person as they are and do not expect them to change. In this instance, those who object to something will generally keep it to themselves and can be close friends with the person, especially family members. While tolerance and acceptance allow for objection, approval requires the complete rejection of moral standards or the adoption of “moral relativism” where you set your own morals based on what you “feel” is right. Tolerance and acceptance are a “live and let live” philosophy that allows people to have views that differ but still be civil to one another.

 

Over the years, the LGB movement has added some letters to their acronym. These letters are T and Q standing for transgendered and queer. Why they felt the need to add queer is beyond me as it has always been considered a slur. The LGBTQ movement has gone from wanting people to be tolerant to trying to force approval of their lifestyle on those who oppose it. They pushed for same sex marriage that was voted down in most states but through the Supreme Court were able to force it on those states through a misreading of the 14th amendment. In the aftermath, Christian businesses that have refused to participate in same sex ceremonies because of religious objections (which is expressly protected by the 1st amendment) have been sued and fined. The lifestyle has been glorified in movies and on TV. The movement also vilifies anyone who speaks out about their lifestyle even if it is from a scientific, fact-based study one which shows a higher risk for anal cancer. The term “homophobia” is used on anyone who does not approve of the lifestyle even though technically a phobia is a fear, not a hatred. While only about 3.8% of the US population is LGB, there is an even smaller number of people getting a lot of attention recently.

 

At 0.6%, or 1.4 million people, the transgendered group has been the center of controversy over bathroom and locker room use as well as sports participation. The Left in the US have claimed that gender is a social construct and not a product of biology as we understand it. They claim that people who feel they are a different gender than their sex at birth is completely natural and we should embrace it. This has been promoted by Facebook with over 56 genders to choose from as well as Target that has allowed people to use the bathroom of their choice. The issue prompted some states like North Carolina to pass laws that restrict bathroom use to the sex of your birth. The law caused backlash from the LGBTQ community as well as performing artists who refuse to perform in the state, including dates that had already been set. They claimed they were standing up to discrimination but they were discriminating against the state, can you say irony? This group was brought to even greater prominence when gold medalist Bruce Jenner came out to be transgendered as Caitlyn. The debate between gender and sex was brought to a whole new level when science was inserted into it.

 

At one time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness and therefore was treated as one. In the 1970’s, however, without any research performed to determine whether it was indeed a mental illness or other mental issue the governing body of psychologists voted to remove it from the list of mental illness. This was done under pressure from gay activists and not from new research into the matter. Very little research has been done into the LGBTQ community as far as mental and physical health go mainly due to opposition to such studies and the reluctance of universities to fund them. There are some statistics that point to issues that affect the community that are higher than the rest of society. The rate of alcohol and drug abuse is higher as is the risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) like HIV/ AIDS and hepatitis. This is partly due to the high rates of promiscuity especially among gay men.  With the reclassification of homosexuality, there have not been any questioning of other forms of sexuality including transgenderism. Even when faced with the strangest behavior, we are told to treat it as normal. When someone is brave enough to suggest there may be a mental issue at work in transgendered people it is met with hostility. So far, the scientific community has expressed no interest in investigating what would cause a person to feel they are a different gender than their sex but they have had plenty to say regarding gender and biology.

 

In 1819, Imre Festetics published his work The Genetic Law of the Nature and laid the groundwork for today’s understanding of living organisms from trees to humans. While there are still advancements being made in the field, there are facts that are irrefutable and have been established through countless experiments. These facts are so well trusted, they will stand in a court of law as evidence but recently some in the scientific community have ignored these facts for purely political reasons. One of the facts we all learned in school is that our sex is determined by two chromosomes. For females it is XX, for males it is XY and it is accepted fact that there are only two sexes (also called genders) and any variation of it, like being a hermaphrodite, is a mutation and anomaly. In the case of transgenderism, Bill Nye the “science” guy (really he has a degree in mechanical engineering) posted a video denouncing the established fact of the very science that he says he promotes.  The promotion of more than two genders has no basis in science and even denies the proven facts. Among the other established facts is the fact that men and women are different physically and mentally and in the name of equality, the Left has been trying to erase that fact.

 

Science has confirmed what people have known for thousands of years. Men and women are fundamentally different in many ways. Brain scans have shown that the sexes use different parts of their brains when doing the same tasks and have different perceptions when shown photos. It has even been confirmed that women see more of the color spectrum than men. Studies have also shown that women are better at detecting emotion than men. Men are more capable to identify fast moving objects than women. So, there is proof that men and women have different strengths mentally and emotionally and while there are differences, the conclusion is that women and men complement each other instead of competing. This is a reason there are separate sports teams for boys and girls. In younger years, boys and girls are physically similar in strength as there are no biological changes taking place so preteen children can compete equally in most sports. Then a little thing called puberty occurs and boys and girl’s bodies go haywire. Hormones flood in and start major changes physically and mentally that begin to differentiate the girls from the boys who are growing into women and men. Women begin to develop breasts, their hips widen, and grow taller as they usually enter puberty at an earlier age. The main hormone that causes these changes is estrogen. When males begin puberty, they tend to begin with a change in voice then their shoulders begin to broaden. Testosterone is the hormone responsible for these changes and it gives boys the ability to increase muscle mass at a fast rate, faster than most girls of the same age. This presents a problem with children who believe they are transgendered before puberty and after.

 

Because of the hormonal difference between men and women, men have a natural advantage of strength over women even in their teens. Teenagers go through many changes and the hormones that control them are powerful. Many transgendered teens take hormones and hormone suppressants that counteract the natural hormones in their systems but I would suggest that the artificial hormones are not powerful enough to overpower the natural hormones. With this in mind if a boy feels he is a girl and he joins a girls’ team, even with hormone suppression his testosterone will still cause the changes to his body. For that reason, we must examine what happens when a boy who is transgendered as a girl competes on a girl’s wrestling team. Consider that once they start puberty, a boy begins to gain muscle and thicker bones. Not all boys but most will grow much taller and have longer arm reach. While most girls have longer legs and wider hips, many are not as tall as boys. Even with hormone suppression, boys still have a distinct advantage over girls just take a look at the picture of the girls’ basketball team from Mission College in Santa Clara, CA. Can you tell who is transgendered in the picture. Let’s put this into perspective and context. When was the last time you saw a 5’ 5” player on an NBA team? Chances are it has been a long time because most guys in the NBA are 6’ 5” or taller. A guy who is 5’ 5” would have a drastic disadvantage with other’s as tall as that.

 

There is an undeniable fact in science. That fact is you are born with specific DNA with chromosomes that determine everything about you right down to your eye color. This DNA cannot be changed by hormones and surgery which are the methods used in gender reassignment. Part of the makeup of your DNA is your sex or gender that is irreversible. To put it another way, if you committed a murder while you were a male and the only evidence that could connect you to the crime was a few drops of your blood you would have left your DNA there. A few years later you have the hormone therapy and the surgery to reassign your gender so you think you are in the clear. The reason you think that is because you are now the opposite sex and you will not be suspected. One day the police show up and tell you that your DNA was found at a murder scene. You use the defense that you are a woman and the suspect is a man but your DNA is what links you to the crimes and therefore cannot be repudiated. People have tried over the years to change their appearance to fool witnesses and law enforcement but with forensic science and the discovery of DNA, it is almost impossible to get away with a crime if you leave even the slightest blood, hair, or saliva evidence behind.

 

For someone to say that a boy can fully become a girl and vice versa is a rejection of known scientific fact. For someone to claim that it is natural to feel transgendered is a rejection of known scientific fact. For someone to claim there are more than two genders or sexes is a rejection of known scientific fact. Science has proven that gender and sex are hardwired into our bodies and cannot be changed no matter how much hormone therapy (there have not been enough studies to even know if these are truly safe) and surgery that is performed. Addressing the mental aspect of transgenderism has become taboo in the psychological community because of political correctness (a term that was coined by Joseph Stalin). Any logical and scientific debate is shut down as hate speech and those who try legitimate study on the subject are dismissed by their peers as homophobic or bigoted. Until we can understand that feelings do not make fact, we will never be able to discuss the issue honestly. Those who oppose such things as evolution and climate change on the grounds there is no hard proof or that the data used was flawed are called science deniers but the real deniers are those who reject proven scientific fact in favor of social constructs. Gender is not a social construct but is a well-documented fact of scientific research by more than a few scientists over more than 100 years.

The Truth About Income Inequality

The term “income inequality” has become a rallying cry for those on the Left and Socialists around the US. This is not a new concept but has been around since the beginning of time. It was exploited by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto where he encouraged the workers to revolt against their “rich masters”. In fact, this “inequality” isn’t just a human thing, it appears in nature as well. In a lion pride, the alpha male, although he did not participate in the hunt, gets to eat first and takes what he wants while the others must wait. This is the origin of the phrase, “the lion’s share”. Unlike the animal kingdom, humans are aware of the inherent unfairness of inequality in its many forms and over time have worked to end many of them. In the US, we have set up a system that was different from the European systems that were prevalent in the Middle Ages. In those systems, people were put into classes, or castes, and their lives were determined by the class into which they were born. If you were born a peasant, you would most likely die as one. There was very little chance to move up in standing in that system. The only good thing was that you had the same odds of moving down too.

 

The American colonies adopted a different form of economic system that did not use the caste as it was in Britain. The colonies were far enough away from Britain that the royal influence was greatly diminished economically and politically. This left the colonies free to experiment with different economic philosophies and systems. In fact, Jamestown was one of the first examples of Communism in history in the 1600’s, that was 241 years before the Communist Manifesto was written. It turned out to be a failure and the colony adopted private property and Capitalism as their economic model. Under this system, the colony began to prosper and those in Europe who heard about it desired to come to the New World. While many of the newcomers were fleeing religious persecution, and seeking religious freedom which was offered in the New World, they were also escaping the caste system they were locked into from birth. They sought greater opportunity economically and politically with freedom from the tyranny of the Crown. The British settlers’ actions were different from the “command and conquer” philosophies of the French and Spanish who forcibly made their way into Central and South America. The British colonies, while not innocent of wrongdoing, set up trade with the indigenous people in many areas. This increased the prosperity of the colonies as well as that of the tribes with which they traded.

 

Protests have cropped up around the nation with the slogan “Fight for 15”, a push for a $15.00 minimum wage nationwide. Most of the protesters are from the fast food industry backed up by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which represents people in the service industry including restaurants. The current Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25 per hour and can be lower for tipped employees. While some states and municipalities do have higher minimum wage rates, not many have one as high as $15. The chief complaint for the protesters is that no one can live on the minimum wage even as a full-time employee. Some outlets have reported that some of the protesters have been paid to attend these events. The SEIU has apparently spent millions on the campaign including paying strike benefits to non-members. This would show that the protests are not “grass-roots” as they are insinuated to be. Another complaint is that CEOs are paid so much more than average workers to the tune of 100 times. The group has even gotten the support of some politicians like the self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders who is far from poor with a net worth over $500,000. While the organizers know what they are doing and what they are calling for, some of the protesters may not understand the driving force behind all of this.

 

The entire “Fight for 15” movement is based on three main beliefs that come from Marxist philosophy and have been perpetuated by leftist, Socialist professors at universities across the US. These beliefs are anti-Capitalist, anti-free market, and anti-profit as they embrace the philosophy that greed propels Capitalism and that workers are used to advance that greed. The organizers of the movement think that the government should be in control of the wealth in the US and that the wealthy are withholding it from the poor. It is in this vein that they support exorbitant taxation of the “rich” which is defined as those making $250,000 or more a year. During his administration, Barrack Obama called them millionaires and billionaires which, the last time I checked, $250,000 was just a quarter of a million. The moving target of who is rich allows liberals and leftists to lump middle class and upper middle-class people into the realm of the “rich”.

 

The first belief that the “Fight for 15” movement embraces is the “zero-sum game” which states that there is a finite amount of wealth and it is distributed by those who control most of the wealth. In this belief, the poor are in their situation because the wealthy are holding all the wealth and not letting the poor have it. As a result, liberals believe the government should force the wealthy to share their money through taxation and redistribution of that wealth. This belief completely ignores the fact that wealth is fluid in the economy and the wealthy spend a great deal in it. It also ignores the fact that wealth is not finite and is created rather than distributed. Wealth is created by people when they make a profit from their business and use some of those profits to get more people interested in their products or services. The more people who buy, the more revenue that is generated therefore increasing profit and wealth. The only way to be successful in the market is to offer a product or service that is needed or desired by people and at a price they are willing to pay. If you have a product that is hard to produce you may want to look for investors to get the capital needed to start production and that is where the wealthy play a large role. Without investors with money they could spend on new ideas, there would be many products we take for granted today that would have never made it into production and therefore we would not have at all. The next belief also builds off the “zero-sum game” perspective but is different in how the wealth is distributed.

 

The second belief is that for a person to become wealthy, that person must take it from someone else. In other words, the wealthy get their wealth from others thereby make the other people poor. In this belief, the rich stole the wealth and horde it away from those to whom it rightfully belongs. This belief also ignores economic facts and pits the have-nots against the haves in a way that justifies theft from the rich. This was the premise of Robin Hood and characters like him. This also justifies the Progressive tax structure that bases tax rates on income level. The question that is impossible to answer in this scenario is when in history did the poor have the wealth that the rich now possess? When did this “great transfer” of wealth occur? The truth is, it never did and the poor did not lose their wealth by theft. The fact is that those born rich are not destined to stay rich if they do things that exhaust their money without replacing it. A person born poor is not destined to remain poor if they do things that will improve their abilities and open opportunities. In the end, a poor person will remain poor if they do the things that make them poor and may become rich if they do things that will make them rich. In the same way, a rich person will remain rich if they do the things that made them rich but will become poor if they do things that can make them poor. In the US, we have the best economic system to go from poor to middle-class and even rich if there is determination, courage, and hard work to achieve better than you have. The key here is not to look at what the rich have but to try to improve on your life in little ways while being patient. Sooner or later you will have wealth if you avoid that which can hold you down. The third belief is two-pronged and feeds off the perceived “unfairness” of income inequality.

 

The third belief goes straight to the heart of Marxism and the philosophy embraced by Democrats, Socialists, and Anarchists in the US. Part of it is a core component to the emotional makeup of human beings which has led to murders and other atrocities throughout human history. We are talking about jealousy, especially the type that leads to covetousness that in Biblical terms is a sin.  We have all experienced jealousy in our lives, it is just a human emotion that we all feel. Some have taken extreme measures in dealing with it while others just let it go and never dwell on it. In the Marxist view, jealousy is the product of unfairness. Those who oppose Capitalism claim it is an unfair system where the rich get richer and poor get poorer and there is no chance for the “little guy” to become successful. They believe it is unfair that some people can have things that others cannot obtain. This is the cornerstone to the philosophy that no one should be allowed to have more than anyone else, or equality of outcome. This completely dismisses the human nature to be competitive and diminishes the human spirit which thrives on achievement. In this type of society, there would be no need to work harder, learn more, or even to be the best at what you do. There would be no incentive to improve upon oneself and excel in a craft or trade. There would be no reward for ingenuity and invention let alone a driving force behind advancement in technology or other evolving fields. While Capitalism is not a “perfect” system, a system of complete fairness and equality would halt human advancement and stagnate civilization.

 

As with anything the Left does, there is glaring hypocrisy in the “Fight for 15” movement that many of the participants do not see or refuse to see. As stated before, one of the chief complaints of the movement is that CEOs are paid at a much higher rate than average workers. Take into consideration that there are several Hollywood A-list actors who have endorsed the movement and have even spoke at rallies condemning the “wage gap”. They complain that a CEO can make in one hour what an average employee makes in a year. The irony here is that some of these actors make more from one movie than the average worker on set makes in 50 movies they work on. I still don’t see any of these multi-millionaire actors turning down $20 million roles in favor of a $15 an hour rate. I would not expect them to but it is a bit hypocritical to call out one person for something that is commonplace in your industry. Another hypocrisy in the movement is the union’s involvement in the organization of the rallies. First off, union workers are rarely paid low wages for their work. Secondly, this is an effort by the union leaders, who, by the way, make a lot more than their members some over $600,000 annually, to increase the membership of the unions and therefore increase union income. Unions have been losing members in the past years due to many people rejecting organized labor as an outdated relic. Thirdly, the union knows that, while they can get success in some states, the goal is to get the federal minimum wage increased. The reason here is simple but most people don’t know about it. If the minimum wage is increased nationally, the union’s wages that are tied to the minimum wage would increase by the same percentage without the need to negotiate a new contract that may be rejected by management. So, supporting the movement for a $15 minimum wage is really a backdoor way to get union employee wages raised on the backs of other workers. You see the raise in the minimum wage would be negated by the raise in union wages which would have a domino effect on the cost of living. Plus, with the new technology, automation of certain tasks that would be performed by low-wage workers could be more cost effective than ever before. With each increase of the minimum wage there is a corresponding rise in unemployment applications.

 

While some things in life can seem very unfair, we must remember that life itself can be very unfair. Some kinds inequality is actually a good thing in the fact that we use them for inspiration. Because of human beings’ competitive nature, income inequality drives people to achieve more and push themselves to succeed. If income was guaranteed and outcomes all equal, there would be no need to excel and become better, in fact, there really would be no need to do anything at all productive. The hard truth is that there will always be rich, middle class, and poor people and there is very little the government can do about it. The only way the government can give the poor money is to first take it from someone else. You cannot raise up the poor by bringing down the rich, that will only make everyone equal in misery and no one wins except the politicians. Many people think that Socialism is the answer but in Socialist countries there are only two classes of people. Those who have lived in it understand the best that it is the rich leaders and everybody else. In the Soviet Union, the party leaders lived in grand mansions while the general population were crammed into small apartments with little food. Is that what you want for the US? Oh, but everyone was equal!

Dangers of Police-less-ness

There is a new “abolitionist” movement starting up and it isn’t about abolishing slavery, taxes, or even borders. No, this movement wants to abolish the police. You read that right, they want to end the institution of policing in this country. You know, those people you call when someone breaks into your house or you have an automobile accident. The same people who ride around your neighborhood in the middle of the night to make sure no one is sneaking around trying to break into cars and homes. This group associated with Black Lives Matter wants those pesky people in uniform who are willing to give you directions when you are looking for something in an unfamiliar city or take a bullet for you taken off the streets. They believe that the institution of law enforcement makes the criminals because they believe the penal system is “for profit”. Therefore, giving the police an incentive to create criminals to fill the spaces for them. Don’t take my word for it you can check it out here. If you watched that you may be wondering how abolishing the police would work and what it would do.

First off, let’s address the person in the video. Her name is Janaya Khan and she is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Canada and has made an appearance at the GWS International Women’s Conference in 2015. She identifies as a queer, gender non-conforming, why she would speak at a “women’s” conference makes no sense for someone who gender non-conforming, and a staunch Afrofuturist. Her views of the world could be considered delusional at best and psychotic at worst. What does she think will happen if there were no police officers around to enforce the law? Would we all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”? She claims that police don’t keep people safe, and I think she has a point there somewhat. Yes, police are more reactionary as in they show up only after a crime has been committed but they have been proactive in deterring crime by their presence in areas where criminals like to frequent. Some high crime areas have become nearly crime-free due to more patrols in the area. Even though the police can’t be everywhere at once, their presence does help keep people safe so that argument is debunked. I believe your safety is up to you and you can do things to help, if you are inclined you can get a pistol and learn how to use, store, and care for it. That is what the 2nd amendment is all about.

 

Now we need to address some of the statements in the video about the police and the justice system. She stated that the prison system was “for profit” but that just isn’t the case. Most of the prisons, penitentiaries, and jails in the US are run by local, state, or federal agencies and not corporations. The few prisons that are run privately have less overcrowding and are usually low security for petty offenders who spend less than a year there. She stated that police had an incentive to “create” criminals. I don’t see how that could be true. Is she saying that everyone serving time was an innocent person framed by the police? The phrase, “prisons are full of innocent people” is not about innocent people being put in prison, on the contrary, it means everyone in prison will say they are innocent even if they were caught in the act. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. If you rob someone at gunpoint, even when you’re having a “bad day” you should be punished for that crime. Running a red light and saying you were upset about your boyfriend might let you off the hook but I don’t believe the same excuse would work after you murder him. The difference is in the law that you broke. Running a red light is a minor traffic offense that usually carries a fine, no jail time and even some jurisdictions will let you go to traffic school instead. On the other hand, killing someone on purpose and not in self-defense is a serious felony that, depending on the degree, could get the death penalty. With the advent of forensic science, it is harder for a criminal to get away just as it is harder to convict an innocent person. Not that it doesn’t still happen but it is less common today than ever before.

 

Now let’s talk about weaponizing skin color and the reasons that there is a difference between the number of white people in prison as opposed to black and Hispanic. The black community has claimed that black men are targeted by police for nothing more than being black and they are arrested for the same thing. I have never seen a mugshot in our local paper or on the sheriff’s website with the caption, “arrested for being black” under it. Most have a crime whether it is a petty crime such as theft, harassment, or trespassing or more serious crimes such as rape, murder, and assault under the mugshot. I live in a mixed community where there are black, white, Hispanic, and Asian people living in the same area. On my local sheriff’s website, just this evening (May 23, 2017) there were 51 mugshots. Out of those, 24 were black and out of the 24, 5 were female. That means that black males made up 36% of those arrested today. That is a far cry from the portrayal that Ms. Khan is putting forth. If her statements were true there should have been a 90% black male arrest rate. I have been binge watching Forensic Files and have noticed that about 85% of the cases involve white or Latino perpetrators not black. This also flies in the face of the statement that black people are unfairly arrested.

 

In another statement, she said that mosques and churches have stopped calling police in their areas. I believe the mosque statement but not so much about the churches, there are several areas in many countries including the US that are majority Muslim and are called “no go zones” where police will not enter for fear of assault or assassination. As long as you are Muslim or not white, you have safe passage through these zones. Therefore she said they were working so well, the fact is that these areas are dangerous for white males and especially white females. Reports from Paris document sexual assaults on women and girls as young as 15 in areas labeled “no go zones” and the media in France will not divulge the identity of the assailants as Muslim. As far as a justice system is concerned, these areas use Sharia Law as the basis for their laws. The mosques are the courts and under Sharia, only Muslims are recognized as legitimate and therefore any crime perpetrated against an infidel (non-Muslim) is justified and there is no punishment. On the other hand, if an infidel commits a crime against a Muslim or Islam, they can be subjected to harsh punishments including beheading. There is no real sense of justice as the infidel is not allowed representation in Sharia courts.

 

The statement that was most asinine was when she talked about not having prisons and that we should move to transitional justice system. With no policing and no jails, she thinks that would be a great way to change the current justice system. I wonder if she would feel that way when it comes to Dylan Roof or others convicted of racially motivated crimes. What would a jail free system really look like? How would we deal with violent criminals who refuse to give up their ways and continue to commit crime including murder and rape? Her suggestion was to have trained rapid response justice teams respond to a crisis. How would these teams be trained and what kind of response would they have? We already have such a system, it is called first responders which include the police. The term “rapid response justice team” is a euphemism for “vigilante justice” because such a team could be like the judges in Judge Dredd that have the power to try, convict, and punish the offender without a trial by jury. Trial by jury is the cornerstone of our justice system along with the prohibition of warrantless searches and the right to legal representation regardless of ability to pay. To do away with police in favor of “rapid response justice teams” would erode the Constitutional protections to which every citizen in the US is entitled. While our justice system is not perfect, it is still the best model for fair and impartial application of the law. It has been misused in the past but with advancements in technology and forensics there are less chances the wrong person will be convicted of a crime.

 

She also stated that “undocumented immigrants” and some black communities are fearful of calling the police in a crisis. Do these same communities fear calling an ambulance or fire department? I would think not. So, why do they fear police? The short answer is that the police have the power to arrest anyone that is suspicious at the scene. Illegal aliens, I do not call them undocumented immigrants, are technically breaking the law by being the US without going through the proper channels and therefore could be arrested. The truth is that many times police are more concerned about catching the violent criminal than about the victim’s immigration status. I have heard this from police officers who have been called out to Hispanic neighborhoods for very heinous crimes. The last thing on their mind is whether the person reporting the crime is a legal resident, instead they are wanting to apprehend the perpetrator before they can commit another crime. While the fear of deportation is present, the immediate focus of police responding to an emergency is the safety of the people and not their status.

 

While the belief that police target black people, especially men for arrest may seem true on the surface, nationwide statistics do not support it. In individual cities, the rates may be higher but this could be due to the percentage of other races in comparison to all others. For instance, a city with a large percentage of Hispanic population will have a higher rate of Hispanic arrests, mainly for misdemeanors. The issue here is that if you live in an area where most everyone is your race, you will feel that you are being harassed by police because the only people you see at any given time are your race. As far as a black person looking suspicious by being in a mostly white neighborhood, that door swings both ways. A friend and her sister, both white, were pulled over around 2:30 AM in a mostly black neighborhood. The cop was black and he asked them what they were doing in the area. They stated they had dropped off a friend in another neighborhood and they were told the route they were on was the quickest to get to the interstate to go home. He explained to them that they had looked “out of place” in the neighborhood and he stated that there were known drug dealers there. After he was satisfied that they were not there for nefarious reasons he sent them on their way with a warning to be careful. The same thing happened to a young black male friend with the same result. Checking on people who don’t look like they belong in an area, especially during off hours is not racial profiling, it is common sense policing. I am not saying that racial profiling does not happen and I do not support it, but there was logical reason behind its use.

 

The unfortunate truth is that young black males are more likely to be in a gang and involved in criminal activity. This is not due to race but to culture. The youth in the black community for many years has embraced a culture of violence and drug use. It is reflected in a popular music that started in the black community called Hip-Hop. In the beginning, Hip-Hop was just another music genre that seemed to be a spoken version of rock. Many of the early Hip-Hop artists, also known as rappers, wrote songs that were about the same thing all other genres were singing about. Much of the theme in early Hip-Hop was about fun and parties of course there were references to sex and violence but most was not graphic. In the late 1980’s there was a group called N.W.A. that was from Compton, CA and released an album that was much different in tone and lyrics than anything before it. From that point, there was a new subgenre called gangsta rap which made social commentary but also glorified a lifestyle that included crime and drugs. The music industry compared the subgenre to the death metal movement that came from the hard rock genre. Unlike death metal, gangsta rap caught on despite criticism and mainstream radio stations refusing to play it. It mainly found fans in the black community but soon had spread to other communities with new artists coming on the scene. During the same time, gang activity was increasing as young men without fathers felt they could only be accepted by the gang. This is another issue that the black community refuses to acknowledge and calls anyone who points it out as racist.

 

Since the 1960’s there has been a stark contrast in the US as far as family is concerned. Starting with President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, a plan that was supposed to reduce poverty and racial injustice there has been a rash of missing fathers. Programs that were intended to help struggling families ended up creating generational dependency on the government. One of the unintended consequences of the programs was the elimination of the father from the family. The “welfare” program made it more profitable for a woman to have a child without a man in the household. This incentivized single-parent households that exploded in the late 1960’s starting in the black community, the most impoverished at the time. After 50 years, these policies that were to reduce poverty have not changed the poverty rate in the US by much. In some areas the rate has increased while it has stayed about the same elsewhere. Once again, the lack of fathers in the family led to more young men growing up without a responsible, mature male influence. In the absence of this influence, more of these young men have sought belonging in gangs since they held more allure than most other avenues and activities. It was also a way to keep safe in the neighborhood where members of the gang were not targeted for crime. The gangs went from protecting their neighborhood to becoming the threat through drugs and violence. While some have left the gang life, there are more young men entering the dangerous lifestyle.

 

We must acknowledge that there are people in the world with no morals, scruples, or even a sense of common decency. No society can survive without rules and laws that set the minimum standard of behavior in the society. The US was unique in the fact that the founders tried to balance freedom with law and order. Even with laws, there are always people in the society that will not obey the law so there will always be lawlessness. Crime is not a black or white or brown issue it is a human issue that has been with us from the beginning of time, no matter when you believe that was. Humans have the capacity to do good but more often will gravitate toward evil. This part of human nature makes it easier to be lawless than to be lawful, in other words, it is harder to obey a law than it is to break it, especially if the risk of being caught is low. This is the reason for policing in the community. Lack of law enforcement encourages law-breaking when there is no chance of punishment. That would put the role of justice in the hands of the victims of crimes and eliminate the rights of the accused to have a trial and face their accuser. This would turn many large cities into war zones with people who even feel they have been wronged seeking vengeance. That situation leads to the families of those who met with vigilante justice to hold a vendetta against the victim that sought vengeance, thereby perpetrating an endless cycle reminiscent of the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s. Law enforcement would not be necessary if we lived in a perfect world where no one did anything wrong, but we don’t live in that world so law enforcement is absolutely necessary.

 

What would really help all communities and reduce the overall number of people in prison is to live lawfully. For the young people, staying in school and avoiding drugs and gangs would be a start. We need to reject the ideology of the Left, the Socialists, and the divisive people that try to blame other groups for their problems. We need to understand that the way to prosperity is not an easy journey and many times we will have setbacks but we must be willing to keep going. The government can only give to you that which it has taken from someone else. You would not go to your neighbor and rob them at gunpoint so why would you want the government to do it for you? When you depend on the government to give you something, it will only give you what it believes is fair and no one can get ahead when the government oversees their lives. The only true way out of poverty is to gain a marketable skill either through education or training and go out into the workplace and build your career. Depending on your skill level and your willingness to learn more and work hard, you can achieve a better life than government can ever give you. You just have to be diligent and not be lured into the traps of the streets.