Statistic Acrobatics: A Quality Becoming Characteristic of Race Driven Movements

The Ferguson Commission Report was released this week. The findings are stated in the introduction of the report in three simple statements:

“This is about race.”

“We have not moved beyond race.”

“The law says all citizens are equal. But the data says not everyone is treated that way.”

To be frank, I am sick of having the conversation of racism in America. I, personally, don’t see a major issue of racism in this country; however, that may be a result of not associating with racist people.

Despite how sick I am of the conversation, I think it is important to engage. Why? When one point-of-view is adamant, it is necessary to provide analysis that furnishes an opposing viewpoint. So, at the risk of being mistaken as a racist, I am going to analyze the Ferguson Commission Report’s findings over the next week.


I am going to start out with what would typically be my conclusion. The analysis below leads me to believe the Ferguson Commission has missed the mark. They are correct in their findings that inequity exists based on race; however, they miss the mark on WHY the inequity exists.

The Ferguson Commission claims inequity exists because of long standing systematic issues within the government and an unconscious bias among White Americans. There are systemic issues in government, but they exist because TOO MUCH government exists. There are racists in America, but they are the overwhelming minority. However, the Ferguson Commission proposes over one-hundred changes that involve further government intervention.

As revealed by the analysis of THEIR data, the heart of the issue is personal choice. America is still a country that allows its citizens the luxury of creating their future based on their choices. Poor choices will lead to a poor future. Good choices will lead to a bright future. Americans are the masters of their own destiny.

Some citizens, unfortunately, make poor choices. As the analysis reveals, there are more Black Americans than White, Hispanic, and Asian Americans that chronically make poor choices. To make people feel like victims, as the Ferguson Commission has done, is to, as a line from Remember the Titans says, “crippling them for life.”

With that said, let’s dive into the analysis.


A statistic stated in the Commission Report reads as follows:

“The life expectancy for a resident of zip code 63105 (Clayton), whose population is 9 percent Black, is 85 years. The life expectancy for a resident of zip code 63016 [meant to be 63106] (North St. Louis), whose population is 95% Black, is 67 years. While there are also significant disparities between these two zip codes in unemployment, poverty, and median household income, this difference of 18 years of life between average residents in zip codes less than 10 miles away illustrates a health inequity that is alarming.”

The claim is the existence of a health inequity between Black and White communities. Specific to this report, the health inequity is a result of racial bias in our governmental system. The evidence is a difference in life expectancy between these two communities roughly 10 miles apart from each other.

It is clear an inequity exists by the statistic provided by the Commission Report; however, this statistic alone allows room for the argument that Blacks have lower life expectancies than Whites because of an unconscious racial bias in American society. A deeper exploration into this statistic provides a more accurate interpretation.

Life expectancy data is collected from death certificates issued by several services within each county of the United States. Compiled in life expectancy data are ALL causes of death. Most people mistakenly believe lower life expectancy rates are compiled from deaths of NATURAL CAUSES ONLY. That is not the case here.

Relevant causes of death to this report are homicide, obesity, and smoking.


Year to date, there have been 17 homicides in zip code 63106. None of these homicides were caused by police; however, all but one of the homicides was black-on-black crime. The average age of the homicide victims was 28 years-old, an average age that is sure to bring the life expectancy rate down.

Year to date, there have been 0 homicides in zip code 63105. Again, the lack of purposeful early deaths is sure to increase the life expectancy. According to a related study, the lack of homicides in the area could raise the life expectancy rate by nearly five years.


Obesity rates are higher, nationwide, among Black Americans than White Americans. 47.8% of Black Americans are obese compared to 32.6% of White Americans. Concerning children, 20.2% of Black American children are obese compared to 14.3% of White Americans.

Obesity leads to increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and certain cancers, all of which lead to early deaths. This, however, does not answer as to why obesity is more prevalent among Black Americans. In-depth analysis indicates the consumption of larger amounts of unhealthy food and a lack of safe environments to engage in physical activity; basically, poor diet and violence within the neighborhoods in which Black Americans reside are the culprits.

Some would indicate poor diet is the cause of poverty, which is perpetuated by a racially biased government and society. A reasonable claim, but one that gains a clearer picture with two key statistics:

One, poverty is caused by poor income. A good measure of income level is educational attainment. According to statistics in 2014, Black Americans made up only 9.2%, compared to 80.6% of White Americans, of associates degree holders or higher. Regardless of race, it is difficult to provide a reasonable living without taking education seriously.

Considering the educational attainment of the two zip codes in question, there is a significant difference. In zip code 63105, 98% of its working residents have attended college. In zip code 63106, only 52% of its working residents have attended college.

Second, food stamp recipients have a more than adequate budget for food. The SNAP program, known as food stamps, gives $133.44 per person for a month. For a family of 4, that is $533.76 per month. My wife and I have a family of four. I am a middle-class, fulltime working American. Our budget is roughly $400 for groceries per month. That is typical of the average American family. Furthermore, a study conducted in 2012 indicated that low-income families spend significantly more on food than middle and high-income families.


A study conducted in 2011 highlight a major difference in smoking rates between the two zip code regions. In zip code 63105, only 12% of its residents are regular smokers. In zip code 63106, 18% of its residents are regular smokers. A higher incidence of smoking is going to lead to lower life expectancy.


It is NOT about race; rather, it is about a culture found in poverty. For example, Lee County and Breathitt County Kentucky are both predominantly White counties. Both have a population of at least 96% Whites and less than 3% blacks. Lee County’s life expectancy is 72.35 and Breathitt County’s is 70.65.

Other key features of these counties are a high prevalence of smoking, alcohol consumption, and obesity. Citizens of both counties are mostly sedentary, meaning they do not exercise. These are habits developed by personal choice, not a failure in government.


There are healthy, nonviolent, well-educated Americans of all races. Thus, I believe it is all a matter of personal choice. Homicide, obesity, educational attainment, and smoking are all personal choices. Someone chooses to kill another. Someone chooses an unhealthy diet. Someone chooses how well they will perform in school. Someone chooses if they will smoke. These are not governmental problems; rather, they are personal problems. If prevalent in a particular culture, I would say it is partially a cultural problem as well.

The data does indicate, unfortunately, these particular bad habits occur in greater frequency among Black Americans. That is not racist, that is a simple observation. It would be racist to say they are incapable of better, of which I ADAMENTLY DISAGREE. However, the Ferguson Commission is doing a great disservice to the population they seek to help, Black Americans, by making them feel they are VICTIMS. A victim is helpless to their environment and unable to determine their own destiny. Black Americans are not victims, NOR should they be led to believe they are not capable of controlling their future. Instead, empower them.

The Ferguson Commission proposes the proper courses of action are governmental changes and intervention. In other words, they propose disparate populations are unable to stop killing, stop eating unhealthily, stop smoking, or obtain a quality education without direct intervention from governmental authorities. Government will only make things worse. Instead, disparate populations should be empowered. Teach them they can overcome any challenge with the necessary effort. Teach them they can achieve great things, but only after hours and hours and hours of tireless effort.

Success comes from dedicated personal effort, not intervention.

Green Berets Punished Highlights a Major Flaw in Progressive America

There are three cases from the United States Army that highlights a point I have been studying for a long time now. That point is that America’s problem, a problem spawned from Progressivism’s platform, is it has lost its moral compass to moral relativity.

Moral relativity is the belief that universal morals do not exist. Rather, morals exist within historical, cultural, and religious contexts. That means the morals I hold do not apply to my neighbor; therefore, I cannot expect my neighbor to conduct himself according to my moral set.

Moral relativism stems from cultural relativism. Cultural relativism stems from anthropology, specifically the American Anthropological Association. Anthropology developed the idea from a theory called Positivism.

I am not going to define each of those areas in this article, but I encourage you to look into them yourself. I simply share that line of historical passage to clearly establish that moral relativism has not only come into America, but it was, in large part, born in America and has been fomenting in the dark corners of our culture since the 19th century. Today, we see moral relativism has emerged from its dark corners and is exposing itself center stage.

The three Army cases concern three separate decorated Green Berets who served our country in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The names of the Green Berets are Mathew Golsteyn, Jason Amerine, and Charles Martland.

Mathew Golsteyn has been stripped of his medals and kicked out of Army Special Forces for killing a Taliban bomb maker, whose bombs killed several marines.

Jason Amerine is currently undergoing investigation for speaking critically about the lengthy hostage-rescue process to bring captured Americans home from the Middle East.

Charles Martland has been discharged from the Special Forces and military for striking an Afghan Police Officer he was training, who had chained and raped a young boy for six consecutive days and beat the boy’s mother when she sought help from the Green Berets.

Each of these deserves proper attention, but I will focus on the case of Martland for the purposes of keeping this article of a reasonable length; furthermore, I believe Martland’s case speaks of the indictment of moral relativism in our country most starkly.

The official reprimand of Martland stated that he had committed a “flagrant departure from the integrity, professionalism and even-tempered leadership I expect from all soldiers of this command, but especially a Special Forces professional.”

How is Martland standing up to a corrupt and despicable man, a man tasked with the important job of protecting the very people he disparages, who chained a boy to a bed for days and repeatedly raped, be a “flagrant departure” from “integrity, professionalism and even-tempered leadership”? Then, when the mother seeks help from the Green Beret’s, has the brazen audacity to attack and mercilessly beat the mother of the boy? How is that construed as an indictment against this brave Green Beret?

According to those in favor of reprimanding Martland, because he is expected to work with people who do not share the same customs and morals as he does. That’s right. It is a custom among some Afghan men to use underage boys as sexual partners and to rape non-Muslims. If you can’t believe that, we have an example front-and-center with the Islamic State and their sex slave trade.

The reason Martland’s actions are construed as contemptible is because of, as is clearly shown in this case, a risen and rising generation of Progressive Americans who do NOT believe in a universal set of morals. Sure, those reprimanding Martland probably do not believe rape of young boys, or rape in any sense at that matter, is moral. If someone did the same thing as the Afghan Police Officer in the United States, the man who apprehended him would be heralded as a hero. However, that is not the case here. Why? We have become moral relativists.

We may think it is wrong to rape, but a portion of Afghan’s don’t. Who are we to force that moral upon them? That is the underlying principle behind this entire thing. If we believed in universal morals, then America would NOT be prosecuting Martland, but giving him a pat on the back and dealing with the disgraceful Afghan Police Officer.

I know several former soldiers. Great individuals who have served our country, protected our freedoms, and placed themselves in the path of danger so I could enjoy a life free of foreign threats. My only regret is that I have not been allowed the opportunity to serve alongside them.

Among those former soldiers is my Uncle. I am not sure if he realizes it, but he is a true hero in my eyes. Words are a pathetic means of expressing gratitude to him, so I seldom know what to say and choose to honor him and others like him by holding fast to my morals.

My Uncle has taught me a lot of things, helped free me from some of the ignorance founded in Liberal and Progressive ideology, and given me a small glimmer of the reality of a soldier. Two things he has taught me that I will share because I think they are important.

First, every country, no matter how stable or advanced, is constantly three days away from anarchy. There are so many things to learn from that little bit of wisdom, but there is one principle I will highlight. Our soldiers and police force are essential for maintaining that peace; however, they are a backstop or safety net when our morals fail.

There are two ways morals are practiced: First is through self-regulation. Second is through force. The one thing that can undo both is moral relativism. How? Through a failure to identify what is right and what is wrong. If we cannot separate good from evil, then we cease to have a recognizable enemy. If we cease to recognize the enemy, then we have already lost the war.

Second, combat is made up of split second decisions. Those decisions are predicated upon one thing: survival. Combat covers more than just when bullets are whizzing overhead and explosions are engulfing your friends. Combat covers the entire time you are in a territory where your life is constantly in danger. So, there is something seriously wrong with reprimanding soldiers after the fact for actions committed to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers. That is NOT a right-of-passage for soldiers to conduct themselves as savages, but IT DOES give them the right-of-passage to eliminate recognizable threats in that combat zone.

I do not know what combat is like. I admire those who do, such as my uncle, and conduct themselves as gentlemen and warriors. But I do know right from wrong. I do easily discern good from evil. That is because I have decided, while recognizing dissent, upon a set of universal morals. I conduct myself according to them, my family conducts themselves according to them, my children will grow up conducting themselves according to them, and I encourage all those around me to conduct themselves according to them. Some may call it force and some may call it oppressive that I simply SHARE my morals.

I call it for what it is, however. I know where I stand and it is where I remain. If we cannot do the same thing as a country, then we have already lost.

Separation of Church and State: What It Really Means

Writing about subjects of a moral nature, such as abortion, often brings about controversy. In writing such articles, standing in opposition of abortion as a State granted right often brings the accusation of “forcing your religion upon others” or “legislating religious belief.” This argument is often found on the premise of the infamous misinterpretation of Jefferson’s “Separation of Church and State” statement in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.

Considering these accusations of “forcing my religion upon everyone,” I would like to make a response appropriate to all secularist positions in the matter of “Separation of Church and State.”

Let’s start with the First Amendment to the constitution, because most people, when asked about the First Amendment, regurgitate five words from a seventy-eight word sentence contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, “Separation between Church and State.” So, the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This has become known as the Establishment Clause. Contemporarily, we have come to interpret the Establishment Clause as protection of the country from the church. This is, in actuality, the complete opposite of what Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers intended with the First Amendment. The irony of this is that Thomas Jefferson’s five word phrase, “Separation between Church and State,” when put in proper context, argues the opposite of our contemporary conception of the Establishment Clause. So, let’s put the Danbury Letter into context and back it up with historical fact.

The Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Thomas Jefferson, who was President of the United States at the time, because of the State of Connecticut issued “A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.” Essentially, the State was becoming involved in religious affairs, picking and choosing which churches to support and which ones to alienate.

Thomas Jefferson’s response to it:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

As seen clearly, Thomas Jefferson was writing in response to the Danbury Baptist Association about a “wall of separation” that protects the Church from the State; not the other way around.

Now, is there a legitimate argument of protecting the State from the Church? Absolutely. The reason the Bill proposed in Connecticut had the Danbury Baptists spooked was because the majority of the State legislature was composed of Congregationalists, a liberal Christian group that was unfriendly to the Fundamentalist Baptist Christian group. So, there was a danger of the Congregationalists in the legislature of imposing their brand of liberal Christianity on the citizens of Connecticut through the passing of the Bill.

However, we must understand the flow of oppression here. It was not oppression flowing from the Church to the State; rather, it was oppression flowing from the State to the Church. And this was a reasonable fear founded on the history of the Holy Roman Empire, a history the early Americans knew quite well.

When we learn about the Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire today, we learn one thing. Charlemagne was a devout Catholic who wanted to spread Catholicism throughout his newly established empire. That is a fact. However, the education stops there leaving us with a logical belief that Charlemagne, because of his devout faith in the Catholic Church, gave enormous power to the Pope, who then oppressed the masses with Catholicism’s brand of Christianity. Such an understanding leads the adherent to believe the Catholic Church infiltrated the Political realm. This is inaccurate. Instead, the Political realm infiltrated the Catholic Church. In other words, oppression flowed from the State to the Church and not the opposite direction.

Charlemagne used the Pope as his puppet to spread a particular brand of Christianity that gave Charlemagne more power over his citizens. He did so by creating a public education system, if I may properly deem it as such, that required his citizens to attend daily writing and reading lessons in the monasteries. Why would he do such a thing?

There are two ways to impose order within a country. First is through self-regulation. Charlemagne used the Catholic Church as a vehicle to teach a set of morals favorable to his rule. Second is through force. Charlemagne used extensive police and military organizations to silence those opposed to his rule. Self-regulation was the far preferable way because it required less force; however, armed forces were used as a safety net when self-regulation ceased to work.

This kind of corruption happens when government becomes involved in moral questions. In the case of our current secular society, created by this misunderstood doctrine of “separation between Church and State”, is to side against anything construed as a religious belief whatsoever. Therefore, the government has become a secular religion in and of itself and, in the process, violated the original intention of the Establishment Clause by engaging in the diffusion of its brand of secularist morals favorable to its Progressive ideology.

There are examples in today’s world of the State imposing secular power on the Church. One example is found in Tibet. Tibet is currently controlled by the Communist Party of China. Tibetan monasteries are under control by the government. The Communist Party, through Security Police Committees, directly oversees and controls religious matters and doctrine taught. If prohibited doctrine or illegal activities, as determined by the virtues of the Chinese Communist Party and Security Police Committees, are taught or committed within the church, the leaders of the monastery and participants are punished according to the law. This is a contemporary example of what happens when the Church is not properly protected from the State.

So, the proper meaning of “Separation between Church and State,” is as follows. The Church is protected FROM the State. The Church is NOT protected BY the State, nor is the State protected FROM Church.

Protection BY the State is the State favoring one religion over all others.

Protection FROM the Church means the State rejects all religious beliefs and gives prominence to Secularism, threatening the imposition of Secularism upon all religious beliefs.

Protection FROM the State means religious belief is left up to the conscious of man. The State remains an entity governed by elected representatives, who bring different religious beliefs and political ideologies to the table.

Tolerance, which ironically is what Secularists claim they want, cannot be found by an absence of religion within society or government; the very brand of “tolerance” Secularists propose. Tolerance can only occur within society and government when all ideologies and beliefs, residing within the body of the State’s citizenry, are considered in the body politic.

So, the way to put to rest our current “Separation between Church and State” debate is to put that phrase within its proper context. Only then can we understand the proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and put an end to this war on religious belief.

Mainstream Media: Creating a Narrative Rather Than Exposing the Truth

Walter Lippmann, a Pulitzer Prize winner and former advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, had some radical ideas about the media. He believed the media to be a link between policymakers and the public. That is not the radical idea. The radical idea is the way in which the link between policymakers and the public flowed.

Most would believe the link is for the protection of the people against potential oppressive actions committed by governmental officials. Most would be wrong with such an assumption. Instead, Lippmann proposed the link is for the benefit of the policymaker. He proposed journalism is a function of creating a narrative by which the public could be moved to action.

The hypothesis, which seems to me the most fertile, is that NEWS AND TRUTH ARE NOT THE SAME THING, and must be clearly distinguished. The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to bring to light the hidden facts, to set them into relation with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act. Only at those points, where social conditions take recognizable and measurable shape, do the body of truth and the body of news coincide. That is a comparatively small part of the whole field of human interest.”

Basically, news media is NOT interested in telling the truth; rather it IS interested in painting a narrative to play to its ideological field. In the case of American mainstream news media, Conservative and Liberal are the opposing ideological fields.

There are plenty of examples of abuse from the news media, picking and choosing which stories to tell and which stories to ignore so as to paint a picture that aligns with its chosen narrative. One example has happened recently.

Over the weekend there were two marches that took place; one in Minneapolis, Minnesota and one in Birmingham, Alabama. The march in Minneapolis drew a crowd of 325 participants. The march in Birmingham drew a crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 participants. One march was a “Black Lives Matters” march and the other was an “All Lives Matters” march. Guess which one drew the larger crowd.

The “All Lives Matter” march in Birmingham, Alabama drew the crowd of 25,000 to 30,000 participants. There were participants from all over the country and many international participants. It was the largest march on the streets of Birmingham since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement. It was a mixture of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Chinese, Indian, and others, all coming together for three reasons: To say “Never Again” to the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, to say “Never Again” to Planned Parenthoods slaughter and immoral profit of children’s body parts, and to say “All Lives Matter”.

The “Black Lives Matter” march in Minneapolis signified its message in a chant: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon”. In case you don’t understand, the “pigs in a blanket” are law enforcement and “fry ‘em like bacon” is a death threat. They are encouraging the killing of law enforcement officials.

They marched for a mile and a half, at which point they laid down on a bridge to block traffic heading to a state fair. Their excuse for blocking the state fair was to say blacks lacked adequate representation at the state fair. So, naturally, they attempt to shut the event down altogether.

The infuriating thing about these two marches is the favoritism in coverage, or the narrative mainstream news media is pandering. The “Black Lives Matter” march in Minneapolis, which was much smaller and carried a violent message, received national attention. The New York Times, Google News, Washington Post, Reuters, and other major news sources covered the event.

The “All Lives Matter” march in Birmingham, which was historic in the number of participants and carried a peaceful message to stop the violence, received three to seven line mentions in local publications only. The New York Times, Google News, Washington Post, Reuters, and all the other sources that covered the “Black Lives Matter” march were silent on the “All Lives Matter” march.

So, coming back to Walter Lippmann’s theory of media, what is the narrative the mainstream news media creating? They are pandering to “Black Lives Matter” and racism.

I do not doubt racism exists, but I do believe it is severely escalated by the narrative created by mainstream news media. To prove my point, and not simply pay lip service, let me give you a few facts:

Since the Michael Brown incident, 24 unarmed black men have been killed by police officers. Tragic as this is, the majority of cases involved some form of illegal or suspicious behavior that escalated beyond a safe point because of a refusal to follow instructions from the police on site. It is tragic, but those are the facts.

A slightly less well known fact, there has been 500 total people shot and killed by police since the beginning of this year. Simple math would indicate that less than 5 percent of all fatalities by police were unarmed black men. Why not cover this statistic and ask law enforcement for answers to these deaths, if we really want to improve our law enforcement?

Even less well known than those two statistics, and one I had to dig into databases to find (there weren’t any notable articles highlighting this fact), 84 police officers have been killed in the line of duty since the beginning of this year. 25 have been killed by firearm, 38 killed during traffic stops, and 21 from other incidents. Overall, there has been an increase of 15 percent in police fatalities from last year.

Before we continue to head down this road of “America is racist”, it is necessary we depart from Lippmann’s theory of media by painting a narrative instead of telling the truth. How do we do that, since major news sources control the narrative? Do not take mainstream news media’s word as truth. A precursory investigation into each news story, whether liberal or conservative, will indicate there is more to the story than they indicate.

An investigation into overall fatalities vs. fatalities of unarmed black men turns up the following: Less than 5% are unarmed black men and the majority of those unarmed black men were engaged in illegal behavior and uncooperative, sometimes aggressive, to police officials. An investigation into “Black Lives Matters” indicates they are funded by George Soros, Mr. “Open Society” himself (not a good thing, by the way), and controlled by two white men. That is not to take away that the unnecessary loss of life is tragic, but it does mean we need to know the facts rather than a narrative. After all, I am of the opinion that “All Lives Matter” not just “Black Lives”.

So, I am going to go ahead and say it. America does NOT have a significant racism problem. The very small fraction of racism in this country does not rival the racism of the Civil Rights era.

There are actual issues to handle and we do not have the time to waste on narratives and hidden agendas. What are we going to do about Planned Parenthood? What are we going to do about the Christians in the Middle East? What are we going to do about the spread of ISIS? What are we going to do in our own communities to forge meaningful relationships, improving the overall atmosphere in America? These are questions that need answers. Unfortunately, the historic “All Lives Matter” march, which sought to bring mainstream news media and government attention to these questions, was ignored.

Find out what the mainstream is NOT telling you. Do your own research. From the TRUTH, not just a narrative, our opinions and actions are directed correctly.