Minneapolis Police: We Give Up

This could be a tactic by the police in response to the threat of being defunded, or maybe it’s because the city simply won’t let the police do what needs to be done to keep the peace and stop crime.

Either way, it’s disturbing that a major American city is basically saying, “we have lost control, the criminals are in charge now.”

“When you go outside, be prepared to give up your phone and wallet.”

This is a city that is choosing to neglect its most basic function: law and order. And it’s not because they can’t, it’s because they are making the conscious choice not to in the name of “anti-racism.” If police are disproportionately arresting black people, it must be because the police are racist. And the racists have gotta go! So state-sanctioned anarchy is the new reality.

Again, I think this could be the police sending a message to the residents of Minneapolis to show them what life is like when you defund the police.

But either way, crime is way up. At its most basic level, government exists to ensure the peaceful folk can live, love, work, play and prosper. This is why we tolerate politicians.

When a government purposely neglects its most basic obligation, like this, it completely loses all legitimacy. How can the City of Minneapolis even ask people to pay their taxes at this point?

Ocasio-Cortez: Skyrocketing Crime in NYC is Just People Trying to Feed Their Hungry Kids

Yeah, sure:

Screen Shot 2020-07-14 at 11.36.19 AM

I seem to recall, during the widespread looting in June, lots of stolen big-screen TVs and smashed-up Nike stores.

Not many loaves of bread and cartons of eggs.

At what point did Democrat politicians decide that crime is fine and that criminals are actually the Real Victims?

See, this is why we have broken into Two Americas. There’s no common ground anymore. We can’t even agree that crime is bad and must be stopped, because apparently the standard position of the Democratic Party is now that enforcing the law is Racist.

New York City was an absolute warzone from the 1970s until the early 1990s. At its peak in 1990, it saw over 2,300 murders a year:


For perspective on just how dangerous NYC was at its worst point, consider that in 2019, there were only four cities in the world that had over 2,000 murders per year:

Screen Shot 2020-07-14 at 12.04.33 PM.png

30 years ago, New York City was arguably the most dangerous place on earth. As you can see from the chart above, Mayor Rudy Giuliani instituted the stop and frisk policy, which massively reduced not only murder rates but overall violent crime rates in general.

In his short-lived Presidential campaign earlier this year–which for some reason feels like it was years ago instead of months ago–Giuliani’s successor as NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg tried to downplay his continuation of “stop and frisk,” but a secret recording of him from 2015 indicated he was a big fan of stop-and-frisk:

“In an audio clip of the 2015 speech Bloomberg gave to the Aspen Institute, the billionaire acknowledged that “stop and frisk” targeted minority “kids” whom cops must throw “up against the wall” to disarm. The Aspen Times reported at the time that Bloomberg representatives asked the Institute not to distribute footage of his appearance.

“Ninety-five percent of murders- murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take a description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all the cops,” he said. “They are male, minorities, 16-25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city (inaudible). And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of people that are getting killed.”

Stop-and-frisk worked. It dramatically reduced crime in NYC. And yet Bloomberg’s successor, Bill de Blasio (aka Warren Wilhelm) ended the stop and frisk policy because it was “disproportionately targeting minorities.”

It was also responsible for lowering crime rates in the city significantly. But I guess it’s racist to aggressively fight crime if most of the criminals are minorities.

And that’s the problem: Democrats would rather have high crime rates than adopt policies that are honest about what is needed to fight crime.

We’re not a country anymore. We can’t even agree that crime is bad.

At some point, America apparently became a suicide pact: we now have to share a country with people who would rather have sky-high murder rates than arrest the young minorities who more often than not commit those murders.

Even mentioning the fact of who commits the murders is taboo nowadays.

People like Ocasio would rather make excuses for why criminals are actually noble heroes than crack down on the crime wave.

It’s not like this country doesn’t have the ability to get crime under control. We’re not like Mexico where the cartels are more powerful than the government.

Law enforcement could have this country under control in a week if they weren’t hindered by Democrats. Take CHAZ, for example: the police riot unit could have rolled in there and gotten that under control in a half-hour if they were just allowed to do so.

But they weren’t allowed to, so CHAZ stuck around for a few weeks.

We have simply chosen not to fight crime because Democrats will say That’s Racist.

They are going to be the death of us all, and I don’t want to share a country with them anymore. I want off the ride.

If they would rather be murdered than called Racist! then let them. But don’t consign the rest of us to that fate.


I Hate to Say It…

. . .but George Floyd was killed because he resisted, not because he’s black.

If you don’t resist, you will be fine. If you obey the cops and pose no threat to their safety, you will be fine.

The cops don’t know you. They’ve seen some messed up shit in their lives. They don’t know your intentions, they don’t know what you’re going to do. They’re extra cautious. If they feel threatened, they’re not gonna hesitate to take action against you. If they feel like it’s your life or their life, they’re going to look after their own lives.

The moment you resist, they are not gonna treat you nicely. They’re going to look at you as a threat to their lives. You lose any benefit of the doubt they were willing to give you the moment you start resisting.

You are on your own the moment you start resisting.

Now, that cop in Minneapolis definitely was wrong to kneel on Floyd’s neck. And then to continue doing so after he had already lost consciousness (in all likelihood, died).

I am not on that cop’s side. Not even a little tiny bit.

Just because Floyd was giving them a hard time doesn’t mean he deserved to be killed.

The cop was wrong. What he did was indefensible.

And everyone acknowledges this.

But Floyd did himself no favors when he stopped cooperating with the police. There is no scenario where not cooperating with police can lead to any good outcome for you.

I’ll say it once again in case I wasn’t clear enough: even though he gave the cops a hard time it doesn’t mean he got what he deserved. But he opened himself up to that possibility when he started resisting.

So what “radical changes” do these “protesters” actually want? What are they hoping to achieve?

Make it illegal to call the cops on a black person? Make it illegal to arrest a black person?

You will never get to a point where the police are perfect and never make mistakes. You will never get to a point where there are no dickheads and assholes in the police force.

What do you want? Perfection? Does anything short of 100% perfection warrant riots?

It’s a noble goal to want police to be perfect, but it’s never going to happen. You’re dealing with human beings. There will never be a time in history where all cops are perfect angels who never make mistakes. You are setting yourself up for disappointment if your demand is perfection.

Nobody is defending the cop that killed George Floyd. No meaningful number of Americans think he was right.

The overwhelming number of Americans think the officer was wrong.

They were on your side–until you started burning your city to the ground.

What are these rioters and protesters so angry about? Who do they think they are opposing?

Who doesn’t think black lives matter?

People in Washington D.C, Atlanta, Los Angeles and all over the country are protesting one police officer in Minneapolis.

An officer who has already been fired, already been charged with third degree murder, and who is already under arrest. He’s sitting in a jail cell right now.

What more do you want?

I think the people involved in these riots and “demonstrations” just want to be angry. They want to riot. They want to feel like they’re part of a historical moment. They want to feel like they’re Doing Something Great.

The white people just want to virtue signal and show they’re Not Racist. That’s a given.

As a whole, they’ve been brainwashed by Hollywood and the media to believe America is a racist hellhole.

But honestly, what can be done to make sure this never happens again? What policies could be implemented?

Literally nothing. The cop broke the law.

George Floyd was murdered by a cop. It’s sad that it happened. It should not have happened. The cop should be brought to justice, and George Floyd’s family should be paid a fat settlement from the city of Minneapolis because they were wronged.

I’m not saying arresting the cop and paying Floyd’s family a settlement makes it right, because nothing will bring a dead family member back to life.

But sometimes these things happen in our messed-up world. If we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need police in the first place.

There is literally nothing that can be done to make sure this doesn’t happen in the future.

Except for people to not resist when they get arrested.

According to the Washington Post’s database, since 2015, there have been 49 unarmed, not-fleeing-the-scene black people in the US that have been killed by police.

There are 42 million black people in America. At the very least, you have to admit there is not an epidemic of black people being “slaughtered” by police.

There’s an epidemic of media coverage, of course. But there is no epidemic of killing.

Three unarmed black people have been killed by police this year. One was fleeing.

Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed by police. Six were fleeing.

The WaPo database doesn’t even have information on how many were resisting arrest. Fleeing the scene is the closest thing they have.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics only has arrest data for years up to 2014, and in 2014, there were 11,207,143 people arrested in America. In 2015, there were 994 people shot and killed by police.

Since we don’t have data on total arrests for 2015, we can look at other years to see if we can ballpark it. In 2013, the number of total arrests was 11.3 million. In 2012 it was 12.2 million. In 2011, it was 12.4 million.

So the number of total arrests in America actually decreased by 1.2 million between 2011 and 2014.

Let’s just assume the number of arrests didn’t fluctuate very much from 2014 to 2015, and that 11.2 million is a fair estimate for the years since 2014, i.e. that we can reasonably estimate about 11.2 million people were arrested in America in 2015.

Only 94 of the 992 shot and killed by police that year were unarmed, and only 56 of those 94 were both unarmed and not fleeing the scene.

56 out of 11.2 million. That’s 0.000005%.

And we still don’t even know how many of those 56 people were resisting. We don’t know how many of those 56 cases the police were actually justified in killing the suspect.

But even if we assume all 56 cases of unarmed, non-fleeing perps being killed were unjustified and wrong, that’s still only 0.000005% of arrests.

56 out of 11.2 million comes out to 1 in 200,000. You have a 1 in 200,000 chance of being killed by a cop while you’re unarmed.

And the media focuses on the 1, not the 199,999.

It’s Finally Time For the U.S. Military to Defend the Homeland

At arguably no point in the lifetime of any living American has the U.S. military been used to defend U.S. soil. Our Middle Eastern forays over the past few decades were completely unnecessary and ultimately probably made us less safe than if we had never gotten involved there in the first place. Vietnam resulted in the deaths of nearly 60,000 Americans and over 2 million Southeast Asians.

There is a case to be made that the Korean War was ultimately a just war given the stark contrast today between the half of the Korean Peninsula we liberated (South Korea) and the other half that we didn’t (North Korea). But at the end of the day, communism in Korea doesn’t affect America at all. I’m not talking about “U.S. Interests™” (a globalist term used to justify going to war in faraway places). I’m talking about American soil itself. We were never under any sort of threat by the Korean communists.

Many would say that World War II was the last “just war” this country ever fought, and up until quite recently I would have whole-heartedly agreed. But Pat Buchanan makes an excellent case that WWII was not worth it, and he’s convinced me to view WWII in a whole different light. After all, it began as a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland over a small bit of land (Danzig) that Germany rightfully felt was unfairly taken from it at Versailles following WWI, and ended up as the bloodiest conflict in human history:

“Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

After the war, every country in Europe east of Austria was under Soviet Rule. An estimated 20 million people were either starved or murdered by the Bolsheviks by the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and millions more were enslaved in the gulag archipelago–a network of labor and torture camps that put Hitler’s to shame. Some estimates even put the final Soviet death toll at over 60 million. And this does not even include the 70-85 million combined civilians and soldiers killed during WWII.

Was WWII worth 100 million+ lives, especially considering it also resulted in the collapse of the British and French empires and the rise of the Soviet Union?

And don’t tell me the Nazis were seeking GLOBAL DOMINATION. They were never going to try to invade America. For Pete’s sake their navy couldn’t even conquer Britain, and that was before we entered the war. How were they ever going to cross the Atlantic Ocean and conquer America? The idea is laughable.

There’s little evidence Hitler wanted to annex anything more than the land Germany had lost following World War I, which is to say Danzig, Czecholslovakia and the Rhineland. Here’s a map of Germany in 1944 at the height of Nazi power:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 1.16.38 AM.png

And here’s a map of the German Empire prior to WWI:


Almost identical, no? Hitler’s aim was to retake all the territories he felt were unjustly ripped away from Germany at Versailles. Nothing more. He only went to war with France because the French declared war on Germany first, after Hitler invaded Poland. This is an indisputable historical fact.

The point here is to illustrate that virtually none of the wars of the past century were worth it. Don’t even get me started on World War I: if we hadn’t gotten involved in World War I, there would have never even been a World War II.

The U.S. military has been consistently and repeatedly misused for the past century-plus.

Importantly, none of what I’m arguing here is to disparage or belittle the troops or anything our boys have done on our behalf–don’t take it that way. Our troops obey their superiors and have fought valiantly wherever they’ve been sent.

What I’m saying is that the people in charge have not for a very, very long time used our military justly and deservedly. My ire is directed entirely at the people in charge, not the troops.

The purpose of the military is to defend the homeland from immediate threats, and it hasn’t done this since the 19th century.

The major reason our military hasn’t been used to defend the homeland in well over a century is simple geography: America benefits from the fact that it only borders two other countries, Mexico and Canada, and is sandwiched by two vast oceans which insulate it from the chaos of the “Old World,” i.e. Europe and Asia. After our great nation had established itself as a major power around the start of the 20th century, none of the old world powers in Europe and Asia wanted any trouble with us. It’s not difficult to see why: our economy had become a juggernaut, our relative size advantage made us formidable, and our location an ocean away made it generally unnecessary for us to meddle in the affairs of the old world.

This is how things have traditionally been in human history: nations used to only go to war with neighboring countries. Up until the era of imperialism–and its successor, globalization–there was never any reason for America to go to war with Japan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany. Rome never went to war with the Han Dynasty in China.

Everything used to be more or less regional.

When you look at our military from the perspective that it exists for no other reason than to defend the homeland, the logical conclusion is that the only “just war” we could ever fight would be one with Canada or Mexico, or perhaps some country/countries in the Caribbean (Communist Cuba specifically comes to mind) or in South America.

In light of that, and given the present state of affairs in our corner of the world, the only situation that would truly justify mobilizing the U.S. military would be going to war with the Mexican drug cartels, an idea President Trump floated today in light of the news that nine Americans were brutally murdered by the Mexican drug cartels just 42 miles from the U.S. border:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.07.50 AM.png

The details of the massacre are sickening, and as such now have many Americans entertaining the idea of a war with (more accurately, in) Mexico for the first time since the 1840s.

At first blush, the idea of going to war in Mexico seems crazy. We Americans are not used to the idea of a war being fought on our doorstep. We’re used to our wars all being fought “over there.” And it’s not as if Mexico’s government itself has done anything to warrant us declaring war on it.

But the crucial fact here is that we wouldn’t be going to war with Mexico, we’d be assisting Mexico’s government in its war on the cartels.

In the Mexican Drug Cartels, America may now, after well over a century, have a true, genuine reason to actually go to war.

The drug cartels must be destroyed primarily because their drugs are destroying America. Drug-related deaths have skyrocketed over the past 20 years in America to never-before-seen levels, and this is mostly because of the cartels.

Drug culture in America is out of control. Just about everyone knows someone–either in their community or their own family–that has either died or had their life ruined due to drug use. Many millions of Americans’–young and old–lives revolve around drugs, and this is because of their ready availability due to the cartels.

Drug trafficking into America has become an enormous business. The main cartels in Mexico rake in more money than many of the companies on the S&P 500. The famous kingpin of the Sinaloa Cartel “El Chapo” Guzman had a net worth of over $12.6 billion by the time he was sentenced to life in prison this past July. A 2017 study found that the global drug trade was worth at least $462 billion per year, and the Mexican cartels represent a large chunk of that.

Most of the drugs that enter America come from either Mexico, Peru or Colombia, and the cartels facilitate the whole process. Business Insider has a bunch of maps that show where all the drugs come from, but here’s the main one:

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 12.21.09 AM.png

The majority of the drugs that make their way into the U.S. from their South American origin points come through Mexico by way of the cartels. Stories of the cartels’ violence have grown more and more common with each passing year.

The cartels are now so powerful that they’re going toe-to-toe with the actual Mexican Army and winning. You may recall hearing last month about how the Sinaloa Cartel tried to spring their new boss, Ovidio Guzman Lopez (El Chapo’s son and successor), from police custody by waging a full-on firefight with the Mexican Army in the city of Culiacan. The Mexican government attempted to portray the cartel’s attempted prisonbreak as a “failure” but wound up releasing Lopez to purportedly “defuse” the situation. Does that sound like something a government solidly in control of its own country would ever do? Of course not. They were militarily overpowered by the cartel.

And this is all happening just on the other side of our border.

Another major reason the drug cartels must be destroyed is that they are also destroying Mexico itself, and that affects America. A major driver behind mass immigration (both legal and illegal) is the simple fact that America is much safer than cartel-controlled Mexico. Lots of Mexicans are simply trying to flee the violence that now ravages their country.

The power of the cartels has grown so much over the past few decades that it now rivals and arguably exceeds that of the Mexican government itself. They have destabilized the Mexican government to the point where it now poses a direct threat to actual U.S. interests (as opposed to “U.S. Interests™” in the globalist sense).

The cartels are destroying the fabric of our communities with their drugs. Their violence is causing an immigration surge that America cannot handle. And now they are brutally murdering Americans who happen to cross their paths.

A wall alone is not enough to keep America safe from the failed state south of our border.

At long last, it is time to call upon the American military to do the one thing it exists to do, yet has not been ordered to do in more than a century-and-a-half: defend the homeland from immediate danger.

Trump Points Out Baltimore is a Dangerous, Impoverished, Rat-Infested Hellhole Being Plundered by Corrupt Dems, Dems Respond By—and This May Shock You—Calling Him a Racist

I’m not sure exactly what Elijah Cummings said about Trump that set him off–nor do I care since it was probably a bad-faith lie–but Trump was not having any of it:

As you probably are aware now, this set off a frenzy among the Blue Checks. Everyone knows white men like Trump are not allowed to criticize black politicians like Elijah Cummings, no matter how valid the criticism is.

How dare Trump point out that the Democrats that have had single-party rule of Baltimore since 1963 haven’t improved anything–and in fact things have gotten exponentially worse over that time.

First of all, let’s just look at the facts:

1. Baltimore is incredibly dangerous. It’s actually the 21st most dangerous city on the planet:

It should be common knowledge that Baltimore is a third-world warzone. HBO even made a hit show about it in the early 2000s:

2. Baltimore is infested with rats. Animal Planet once ran a special on the “Top 10 Rat Infested Places” in the world and Baltimore was in it, along with a place in Alaska literally named “Rat Island.” Here is the entry for Baltimore:

“Baltimore’s rat problem is bad enough that at one point, rats tunneled so intensely beneath a particular area of pavement that when garbage collectors drove over it, their truck sunk up to its axles. Rats in the vicinity took full advantage of the mishap and swarmed the truck, gorging on the garbage inside.

Baltimore also enjoys the dubious distinction of being a hotspot for rat-related research, beginning during World War II and continuing today, much of it carried out at Johns Hopkins University.”

Last year there was even a documentary made about Baltimore’s infamous rat problem:

Not only that, but there’s video of former Baltimore mayor Catherine Pugh literally walking through a slum in West Baltimore and ripping the place, saying among other things, “Whoa, you can smell the rats” and “Oh my God, you can smell the dead animals”:

Sounds pretty rodent-infested to me.

3. Elijah Cummings is a corrupt scumbag who has been in Congress since 1996 and was a State Representative from Baltimore for 13 years prior to that. During those 36 years his city has fallen apart. Not sure how it’s controversial to blame Baltimore’s problems on someone who has been in power for three and a half decades. What has Elijah Cummings done to make Baltimore a better place? You’d think that after 36 years there would be some improvement–in the crime rate, in tackling the rat infestation, in rebuilding the dilapidated slums–to show for his time in power–anything at all.

But no. We’re instead told to believe that Cummings is doing a great job and that Baltimore is in such bad shape because of Racist White People. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be a Racist.

I’m glad we’re finally asking the important questions here: Why are Democrats given a free pass for lining their pockets while their districts are unlivable warzones that never get any better? It’s not just Cummings’ district in Baltimore, either. It’s urban districts all across the country–notably here in Chicago.

How come we’re not allowed to point out that Democrats have had single-party rule over most American cities and yet the cities are a mess?

On top of all this, Elijah Cummings and his wife are scammers:

“Rep. Elijah Cummings’ wife runs a nonprofit that has taken millions from interest groups with business before the Oversight Committee that Cummings chairs.

Cummings’ wife did not answer a request from The Daily Caller News Foundation to review the forms, which a lawyer said was illegal.

A watchdog group filed a complaint with the IRS saying that Cummings’ family could be trading favors for money, and told TheDCNF about the wife’s “creepy” and “weird” conduct when it spoke with her.”

 I’m sure it’s racist to point this out, too.

As usual, Democrats are not angry because Trump lied. They’re mad because he dared speak a truth most Republicans would be terrified to broach.

However, it was none other than Bernie Sanders who said Baltimore was like a third world country in 2015:

But when Trump says it, it’s racist.

Now, of course, because Trump dared to point out that Baltimore is a rat-infested warzone, all of the sudden the left has rallied around Baltimore as this wonderful utopia. They just love Baltimore so much now:

I’m sure all those cheering passengers are headed straight to the West Baltimore ghetto with its dilapidated slums and astronomically-high murder rates, right?

Nah. They won’t go anywhere near it. They’re just virtue-signaling their disdain of the Nasty, Racist Orange Man.

We’re supposed to criticize him for telling the truth? Got it.

Again, these Dem Blue Checks aren’t angry at Trump for mischaracterizing the city of Baltimore. They’re mad at him for daring to call attention to their decades upon decades of failure and corruption in the city.

Even Fox News’ Chris Wallace tried to get on the Blue Check Outrage Bandwagon and lie about what Trump said:

What a dishonest rat this Chris Wallace is. Trump has a way of getting people to show their true colors, and our supposed ally at Fox News, Chris Wallace, has shown his. Disregard anything this lying Uniparty shill says.

Of course, this is what the dishonest left has to do all the time. They have to distract from the real issues because their continued reign depends on people either ignoring or being afraid to discuss the real issues in this country. They have to conflate Trump’s criticism of the people in charge of Baltimore with criticism of the everyday people who live there because they know the people in charge are indefensible.

They have to muddy the waters. It’s all they can do:

“How dare Trump talk about the real problems in Baltimore instead of our stupid, cooked-up Witch Hunt over a crime that never happened and investigation that shouldn’t have happened!”

Translation: WE control the conversation, damnit! Stop letting the Orange Man distract you from what WE want to talk about!

Trump summed it all up:

Bottom line: it’s long past time we started talking about the sorry state of America’s inner cities. Baltimore is just the beginning. There are parts of this country that are virtually indistinguishable from third-world hellholes, and that’s unacceptable. We need to start pointing the finger at the culprits, even if they shriek RACIST when exposed to sunlight.

FACT CHECK: Ilhan Omar says “Whites Are Causing the Most Deaths in This Country” — Is She Correct?

Let’s have a look at her claim:

“Our country should be more fearful of white men across the country, because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country. We should be profiling, monitoring and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.”

Quite a claim, and I’m sure the masses who have been brainwashed to Hate Whitey (including a lot of white people themselves) believe it instinctively.

But are white people really “causing most of the deaths in this country?”

According to the CDC’s data going back to 1999, the black homicide rate has been more than quadruple the white homicide rate consistently:


Only Asians have a lower murder rate than whites.

Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire:

“According to the Department of Justice, white people (not just men) commit about 45% of the murders in the U.S. That seems high until you consider that white people are over 60% of the population. Whites are therefore underrepresented in the homicide department by about 15%. Blacks commit a little over 50% of the murders in America, despite accounting for only 13% of the total population. Those are the simple facts of the matter. Facts cannot be racist.”

I rate Ilhan Omar’s comment: FALSE.

She’s either racist against white people and was trying to stir up racial animosity against whites, or she’s totally oblivious to the hard data and was just talking out of her ass.

Choose one.

Me? I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt. She’s trying to provoke anti-white violence.