Monday, July 22, 2013

Let's talk about racial profiling.

One thing for sure is that if you ever started an argument this week with something like, "This was racial profiling! If Zimmerman was black/If Trayvon was white . . ." then I'm not taking you seriously. Like, at all.

I am so tired of hearing about racial profiling! But if you insist on talking about it, let's talk about it for a second -
Let me start by saying that the most annoying thing about the Zimmerman (who hereafter shall be called "Zims")/Martin case is the fact that it became so politicized--on BOTH sides. That NEVER should have happened! But it did, so the following is, admittedly, politically driven. And I am disgusted at myself for it.

Conservatives are regularly being told by the left about how terrible this country is for minorities. Blacks are just being openly slaughtered by whites in the streets without consequence! Except they're not.

Here's a bit of inconvenient truth: Not only are whites more often victims of homicide (by nature of being larger in population), a white being murdered is more than 2 times more likely to have a black offender than a black victim/white offender. Well, shoot (sorry for the violent rhetoric there). The difference, apparently, is that when it is white on black crime, it's a hate crime, but not the other way around. Racial profiling much?

For an uber-racist country with a black president, so the story goes, white on black violence is shockingly seldom. And when it became clear that the facts of the Zims case were not quite as racist as the race-baiters dreamed, it became necessary to distort those facts to fit the story that lends to the race agenda that is spoon-fed to the left's mindless zombies.

Obviously the living dead are among us looking for brains, and they actually believe whatever story the media is telling them, but most of us know that blacks are not being mercilessly hunted down in the streets by non-blacks anywhere in this country. What made the Zims case so convenient to the "non-racist" racial profilers is that it was, to their dismay, the first example to reveal itself in several years, notwithstanding the years of condemning violent, and apparently invisible, societal racism in our country.

The story now: instead of being a fully grown, 160 lbs 17-year-old flashing the birdie finger, or the foul-mouthed social media persona that he fostered (twitter user @no_limit_ni**a), or the suspect caught with burglary tools and women's jewelry, or the marijuana agriculturalist seen in photos, or the hot-head who punched a school bus driver, we were regaled with endless lies of Trayvon Martin, and shown a 5 year old photo of the mere child who was only buying Skittles. It's ironic that Martin fit the mold of exactly the kind of person Zims feared was looting his neighborhood, but do we let these facts persuade us to consider that just MAYBE Trayvon had the capacity to pose a real threat to Zims? Nah, racial profiling.

So NBC manipulated 911 recordings, that were played to the entire country, to fit their narrative. It's NBC, are we surprised?

The Department of Justice played an active role in provoking public hatred toward Zims despite the absence of enough evidence to arrest or indict him, thus making him guilty until proven innocent (if you didn't know, that should be the other way around).

Barack decided that his son, if he had one, would look like Trayvon. Don't discount, however, the possibility that the Mr. O was referring to the pot-growing, pot-smoking history that he and Martin have in common.

And conservative media is just as guilty. Both sides of the media grabbed onto this story from day one and, in the absence of facts, filled the gaps to support their own bias. This case was politicized, and that's the problem! A case that, although very tragic, never should have made it to national television, never should have been acknowledged by the highest level of federal government, and never should have been recognized by the mightiest of mighty celebrities and athletes. Why? Because these cases, unfortunately, happen ALL THE TIME!

But it's as if liberals have absolutely no problem with blacks killing blacks, because those instances, although much, MUCH more common, are never mentioned. The left puts enormous amounts of effort into keeping the African American demographic dependent on them, and as long as 97% of them keep voting for Democrats, the left will turn their back to that community's problems unless an opportunity arises to make their conservative opponent look like the real villain contributing to those problems. The left has no credibility or the honesty needed for the race debate, as Eric Holder suggests.

The Zims case has certainly sparked a mixed response across the country, most loudly that of hate and anger. But the hate is continually illuminated by the side that regularly congratulate themselves for their tolerance, open-mindedness, and superior intellect. While members of the left proudly publicize their blatant hatred for one person who committed one out of millions of murders, their unspoken bigotry allows countless murders to be committed by their dependable voting demographic, the ends justify the means.

I think it is well past the time to stop pretending that the left's agenda is not laced with hate.
But some of you are saying that the Zims/Martin case was different. I really don't want to re-hash this again, so I'll be brief--There wasn't any evidence to clearly point to any one conclusion. That's it. I've seen a lot of people claiming that this is a representation of a corrupt judicial system and blah blah blah. No, this was a fair trial, with a jury who analyzed real evidence, and found that there wasn't enough of that evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that Zims was a pre-meditated murderer. As far as I'm concerned, this is an example of a trial that was executed perfectly, like millions of cases JUST LIKE THIS ONE that you've never heard of.

For instance:

Infant killed by two black teens

White girl, killed by 2 black teens for bicycle parts

Group of black kids beat up a Mexican man while yelling "This is for Zimmerman."

And thousands upon millions more of killings and attacks, where minors are both the victim and the suspect, involving mixed races, that you've never heard of.

Thankfully, the prosecution's star witness for the Martin case, Rachel Jeantel shed some light on what racial profiling is--calling the jury's ruling "B.S." and racially motivated because of the white jury members. Racial profiling much? I mean, forget the whole lack of evidence thing, it just comes down to them being white and racist, like all white people.

Jeantel pointed out that Zims' crime prior to the night of the confrontation was being a "creepy-ass cracka." Hmmm.

And at last, Jeantel outlined the difference between the words "ni**er," and "ni**a," ugly words that I can't even fully type out and that Paula Deen got fired for saying 30 years ago. At any rate, thank goodness for that clarification. I now have to backtrack on the very premise of this blog post, that societal racism doesn't exist--Jeantel has proven that some racism is alive and well, and for some reason acceptable, in our society.

But we can't take what Jeantel said seriously, since she was CAUGHT LYING UNDER OATH. This was their "star" witness, and then the prosecution closed their argument by saying that no one really knows what happened the night of Trayvon's death and some of you are STILL surprised at the outcome of the trial!?

Here are some more African American statistics compiled by yours truly from

Did you know that blacks make up 14% of the U.S. population, but commit over half of the nation’s murders?

Therefore, by lowering black murder rates to the same as whites, we could lower the national murder per capita rate by 40%, and we would save thousands of innocent black lives.

70% of our murders in the U.S. are gang related. Other than having his DOJ give assault weapons to Mexican drug gangs, what is Obama doing to combat gang violence?
Law-breaking is not genetic, nor has it ever been. Skin color is neutral and non-behavioral. People do not commit crimes because of the color of their skin.

What we do know is that democratic programs, welfare, glorified thug culture, and perpetual victimization have all contributed to a serious problem of violence and murder within the black communities of the U.S. Consider for a second how the left is stuck in old-fashioned ideas, just as they accuse the right. We have moved beyond the racist past and are attempting to allow real equality to flourish by letting a person's character be the basis for judgment, whereas the left is still holding up the antiquated ideals of the civil rights movement from 50 years ago. If you want racism to stop, then stop pointing out race!

And I want to be clear here that I don't believe that Trayvon deserved it, I don't delight in his death, nor am I saying Zims is completely innocent. I'm just going off of evidence.

At U.C. Berkeley I worked with a professor who lamented the fact that there was an over-representation of African Americans in prisons, citing racial profiling. Is it crazy to believe that African Americans simply commit more crime, usually black on black? I start to get the impression that the only way blacks will feel that profiling has been eradicated is when no more blacks are ever convicted of crimes, or when a white on black crime always favors the black regardless of facts. We have a fair judicial system, we live in a society where that kind of racial profiling couldn't exist in a trial with average citizens sitting on a jury anymore, and I don't think I'm deluded for thinking that. You know what else has an over-representation of African Americans? The NBA, and for obvious reasons that no one is disputing.

Martin Luther King, Jr., once expressed his dream that one day his children would live in a world in which people are judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. Liberals, throughout this disturbing display of blatant hate, have done everything in their power to ignore the content of Zimmerman and Martin's characters, and instead focus exclusively on the colors of their skin.

No wonder MLK was a Republican.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

General Conference and the Great Divide

I don't think I'm alone when I say that the topic of gay marriage was occupying my mind when I approached General Conference this past weekend. When social issues overlap with important gospel principles and create a divide in our own global community, we look to modern prophets to guide us through the dark mists of that overlapping of spiritual truths and secularism. I feel like I got a good sense of clarity on the topic. So did everyone else that I know, regardless of which side of the fence they are on.

A gay friend of mine, also LDS, shared an article from the perspective of a pro-gay marriage Mormon and how they interpreted the Conference messages. The article noted, as I just suggested, that people are still no less divided on the issue -- they heard what they wanted to hear. The article laments the fact that pro-traditional marriage advocates were using quotes from the conference, mainly Elder Packer, to warn others against abandoning moral tenets of the church in favor of trendy social issues, and for reiterating the superiority of traditional families when raising children, and confirming that chastity is the most consequential law to break. And while they shoved those messages in everybody's face vindictively, as the article so piously points out, those on the pro-gay marriage side simply heard nothing but messages about being more Christlike, forgiving, tolerant, and treating others the way we want to be treated.

I don't know about you, but I heard both messages.

Outlining my rationale for opposing gay marriage, as logical as I think it is, won't change (and frankly, shouldn't change) your opinion. Instead, I've been thinking about 2 1/2 other important principles I've discovered buried in this issue.
The first two are lies that the father of lies wants you to believe.

1. People too easily accept the lie that it is impossible to stick to your morals and be compassionate. This is a lie people believe, unfortunately, for just about any stance that a Conservative takes on any social issue.

A friend of mine once said, and I paraphrase: "Being Conservative is to preach to others what Christ said, and being Liberal is to actually do it."

I take serious offense to that. The notion that I can't be simultaneously opposed to what you believe and Christlike is insulting. In the eyes of most advocates for gay marriage, you either are with them and, by association love them. Or, you are against them and, by association are filled with hate. When good Christians who, let's face it, are just as lost and looking for meaning in a secular world as everyone else is, are labeled as bigots, hate mongers, intolerant, homophobic, and xenophobic before they are even given an opportunity to present a logical explanation, they are involuntarily reduced down to an irrational, non-contributing, mouth-breathing fool, and everything they say is rendered completely trifling before they even say it. When you label a person as a bigot before hearing them speak, you have facilitated the exact irrational division that destroys society. This is completely contradictory to the message that pro-gay marriage advocates preach: tolerance, love, and to not judge others.

2. Another lie that many invest in is that you are perfect and have no need to change your natural feelings - Don't confuse that with being happy with yourself despite imperfection. I believe a gay person when they say that they are naturally attracted to the same gender. I don't believe it is a choice for them. I also don't believe that God thinks that anyone on Earth is perfect -- everyone needs improvement, and everyone needs to overcome the natural man. This is the sole purpose of our entire life. Even a straight man has to resist the alluring temptation of pornography which the world claims is a perfectly normal attraction to indulge in, but that we know is an unhealthy appetite that clouds judgement and sometimes requires help to overcome. Pedophiles don't nurture an attraction to children because it's cool, it's because the attraction is already there and they indulge it instead of enlisting the help of the Savior to correct it. It is exactly the plan of the adversary to make you believe that you are perfect the way you are and have no need to change.
2 1/2 (because it ties in so well with #2). The most serious moral decay in today's world is the idea that we should actively find ways to avoid negative consequences for our actions. If you are attracted to something, that's just as God made you and not even He wants you to change. If you accidentally get pregnant, you can abort it, just like it never happened. There is even a surgery to "restore" your virginity. The foundational principle of the gospel is free agency, stipulating that every decision has a positive or a negative consequence. If you choose good, you find more freedom. If you choose bad, sometimes your freedom is lost along with your ability to choose (i.e. anyone who is currently sitting in prison). And if you choose to call negative consequences good, the lines of good and evil become arbitrary and blurred and spill over into every societal disagreement.
Another important facet of agency is that we will be judged by how we exercise it. Are you going to facilitate the right of others to exercise their agency for wrong things, or are you going to use your agency to be a beacon for the standards of the church as outlined by modern prophets?

I want to clarify the following, because I do have several gay friends, and I love them -- I realize that I have no ounce of comprehension of what you're going through, good or bad, which makes me the least qualified person to talk about this. I admire you for staying strong and working so diligently to help others who are inexcusably bullied and tormented. You, that I know personally, focus more on underlining love for others. A person being gay or straight makes no difference to me. Your sexual preference makes no bearing in my choice of whether I want to be your friend, do business with you, or anything else. It simply does not matter. Even within the church -- I baptized a gay man, and yes, I knew he was gay at the time and I still keep in touch with him and love him very much. You may wonder how any gay person could be my friend after hearing about my feelings. It's because I practice Christlike love, and a lifestyle that I disagree with is no exception to that rule. I'm surely far from perfect, but I would hate to find out that a gay friend of mine was so offended by my views that they didn't want to speak to me anymore. I do love them for who they are: a child of God on earth who is just trying to make it back, just like everyone else.