Republican Party

One of the oldest functioning political parties in the world, the moment of the creation of what would later be nicknamed the Grand Old Party can be traced back to March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisc., where a group of men came together to establish an anti-slavery coalition to meet the growing danger that slavery posed to the country. (Some say that Michigan is actually the birthplace of the Republican Party, and it was there that the first statewide Republican convention took place, but that wasn’t until July 6 of the same year.)

For decades, the precarious political balance between free and slave states was held together by the Missouri Compromise. Slavery would not be allowed to expand above a certain latitude, which was just fine with politicians in the North. Southerners, however, believed that they were being unfairly hemmed in, and they wanted change.

On Jan. 4, 1854, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois gave the South what it wanted and upset the established order by introducing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This bill essentially nullified the Missouri Compromise and would allow for states entering the union the power to decide on whether to allow slavery by popular sovereignty.

The bill set off a political firestorm, but opponents of slavery found they had little recourse against the Democrats. The once powerful Whig Party had long been a champion of the anti-slavery cause, but by 1854 it was a shadow of its former self. Its lackluster performance in recent elections signified that the Whigs did not hold a strong enough national coalition to beat back the pro-slavery forces. A new coalition would be needed to turn the tide.

A motley group of anti-slavery Democrats, northern Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Know-Nothings gathered in Wisconsin in March to assemble a new party. They called themselves Republicans, hoping the term would remind voters of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. “In the broader context,” writes Lewis L. Gould, author of Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans, “‘Republicanism’ tapped into a rich historical tradition dating back to the Italian renaissance and the English revolution that saw republics as embodying public-spirited citizens acting in the political sphere to preserve civic virtue and welfare for all.”

The new Republican party was certainly capable of establishing a new party organization as an institution. Many of its members were already politicians schooled in the mechanics of running a political party. The problem was putting together a coalition that could face the Democrats on a national scale.

The major hurdle for Republicans to overcome in achieving national prominence was the nativist sentiments of the Know-Nothings. This secretive organization believed that Catholics and immigrants would be the death of the republic. The Know-Nothings were so skillful at translating these fears into votes, that their anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic platform trumped anti-slavery, and in 1855, they won more local races than the Republicans.

Republicans were able to persevere, however, by partnering with the Know-Nothings to get Nathaniel Banks elected Speaker of the House in February 1856. For the first time, the Republicans had a seat on the national political stage. Other events worked in Republicans’ favor to convince voters that slavery was indeed the issue of gravest concern. Kansas erupted in violence as pro-slavery mobs rioted in Lawrence on May 21, and the next day Republican Senator Charles Sumner was savagely beaten by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in the Senate chamber.

Later that year, the Republicans would field their first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont of California. Frémont lost the election to Democrat James Buchanan. Former president Millard Fillmore’s Know-Nothing/Whig campaign syphoned off votes that probably cost Frémont the election. But Republicans were emboldened by their strong showing. The final disintegration of the Know-Nothings and the Whigs after the election led many of their supporters into the Republican camp.

Even in 1856, the Democrats were saying that a Republican presidency would lead to the end of slavery and civil war. And, of course that is what happened with the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But Lincoln’s election also led to an extended period of Republican dominance. For the next 72 years, only three Democrats would go on to win the White House.

Party of Freedom

Though popularized in a Thomas Nast cartoon, the GOP’s elephant symbol originated during the 1860 campaign, as a symbol of Republican strength. Republicans envisioned “free soil, free speech, free labor.” Under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, the GOP became the Party of the Union as well.

President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was the entire Republican Party who freed the slaves. The 1864 Republican National Convention called for the abolition of slavery, and Congressional Republicans passed the 13th Amendment unanimously, with only a few Democrat votes.

The early women’s rights movement was solidly Republican, as it was a continuation of abolitionism. They were careful not to be overly partisan, but as did Susan B. Anthony, most suffragists favored the GOP. The 19th Amendment was written by a Republican senator and garnered greater support from Republicans than from Democrats.

Party of Prosperity

Low taxes, sound money, regulatory restraint: these were among the commonsense economic policies established by the GOP that brought about decades of prosperity after the Civil War. Republicans encouraged innovation and rule of law. Buttressed by Republican control in Congress, the McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft administrations cleared away obstacles to economic growth.

President Dwight Eisenhower and congressional Republicans appreciated the fact that the private sector, not government, is the engine of wealth creation. With his bold tax-cutting agenda, President Ronald Reagan revived the economy after years of Democrat malaise.

Ronald Reagan explained the difference between Democrats and Republicans in a way that cannot be improved upon: “Two visions of the future, two fundamentally different ways of governing – their government of pessimism, fear, and limits, or ours of hope, confidence, and growth. Their government sees people only as members of groups. Ours serves all the people of America as individuals.”

Some key highlights in Republican history:

  • March 20, 1954First Republican Party meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin.
  • July 6, 1954Under the Oaks Convention.
  • September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
  • January 1, 1863 – President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
  • February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery
  • June 15, 1864  Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War
  • June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts
  • October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”
  • January 31, 1865 – Republican-controlled 38th House of Representatives passes the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
  • March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves
  • April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate, also w/ 100% Republican support
  • April 14, 1865Lincoln is assassinated. Lincoln’s VP, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrat support. After he was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
  • June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation
  • November 22, 1865 – Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
  • December 6, 1865 – Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
  • January 13, 1866 – With unanimous Republican support and against intense Democrat opposition, Congress passes the 14th Amendment giving full citizenship to freed slaves with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
  • February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
  • April 9, 1866  Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
  • April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery
  • May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
  • June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
  • July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights
  • July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen
  • July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150
  • January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
  • July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
  • March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
  • May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors
  • 1868 (July 9)  14th Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as U.S. Citizens
  • Republican Party Support: 94% Democratic Party Support: 0%
  • September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress
  • September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
  • September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor
  • October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
  • October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
  • November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation
  • December 10, 1869  Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
  • February 3, 1870 The US House ratifies the 15th Amendment granting voting rights to all Americans regardless of race. Republican support: 98% House, 68% Senate (39 Yea, 5 Nay, 13 no votes),  Democrat support: 0 from House, 0 from Senate
  • February 25, 1870 Hiram Rhodes Revels becomes the first Black seated in the US Senate, becoming the First Black in Congress and the first Black Senator.
  • May 19, 1870 African American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies
  • May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
  • June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
  • September 6, 1870Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
  • December 12, 1870Republican Joseph Hayne Rainey becomes the first Black duly elected by the people and the first Black in the US House of Representatives
  • In 1870 and 1871, along with Revels (R-Miss) and Rainey (R-SC), other Blacks were elected to Congress from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia – all Republicans.
  • A Black Democrat Senator didn’t show up on Capitol Hill until 1993. The first Black Congressman was not elected until 1935.
  • February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
  • March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina
  • April 20, 1871Republican Congress enacts the (anti) Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
  • March 1, 1872 – Republican-controlled 42nd Congress establishes Yellowstone as first national park.
  • December 9, 1872First African-American governor, Pinckney Pinchback (R-LA), inaugurated.
  • April 2, 1917First woman in Congress, Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), sworn in.
  • May 21, 1919 – Republican-controlled 66th Congress passes the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.
  • June 2, 1924 – Republican-controlled 68th Congress and President Calvin Coolidge grant citizenship to Native Americans.
  • December 7, 1928First Hispanic U.S. Senator, Senator Octaviano Larrazolo (R-NM), sworn in.
  • January 3, 1949 – Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) becomes the first woman to serve in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  • May 17, 1954Brown v Board of Education strikes down racial segregation in public schools; majority decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, former governor (R-CA) and vice presidential nominee.
  • September 9, 1957 – President Dwight Eisenhower signs the 1957 Civil Rights Act. One of Eisenhower’s primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
  • August 21, 1959First Asian-American U.S. Senator, Hiram Fong (R-HI), is seated.
  • June 10, 1964 – Senate passes the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), defeats Democrat filibuster.  The historic Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
  • September 25, 1981 – Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by President Reagan, becomes first woman on the Supreme Court.
  • June 12, 1987 – President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.

Sources:

Obama Riots

Sometimes referred to as the Obama War on Police, were a series of racially motivated conflagrations that erupted nationwide particulalry in the last half of President Barack Obama’s second term. Initially elected as America’s first “post-racial” president, many African-Americans became increasingly disillusioned as Obama’s presidency progressed. Critics charged Obama personally inflamed the rioters and lawless elements responsible for the destruction of property, businesses, and jobs in several American cities. The Obama administration either deliberately to further Marxist revolution or indirectly through subterfuge and naivete destroyed decades of improvement in race relations in the United States.

Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen noted early on in the Wall Street Journal, “Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship.” Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the Obama administration attempted to polarize America around the issue of race as a way of diverting attention from an anemic recovery and other issues. Caddell and Schoen further stated, “President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture.

There were at least 5 Obama riots: Oscar Grant Riots, Trayvon Martin Violence, Manuel Diaz Violence, Kimini Gray Riots, and the Baltimore riots. Additionally, 5 Dallas policemen and 3 Baton Rouge policemen were murdered during Obama’s open season on police.

Read More…

Ferguson Riots

One of several Marxist-inspired uprisings during the Obama administration. Elected as America’s first “post-racial” president according to mainstream fake news media, Obama exacerbated racial tensions and left a dismal legacy of a divided America along Marxist class, racial, and “gender normative” lines. Obama also appointed numerous communists to important administration positions.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the Wall Street Journal, noted, “Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship.” The commentators also note Obama’s approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the Obama administration has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, “Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.” Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, “President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture.”

The Ferguson Riots failed to muster African-American voters to the polls in the 2014 Midterm Elections to retake the U.S House of Representatives or keep the U.S. Senate from going Republican, as Democratic Party organizers (such as Donna Brazile) had hoped.

Read more at conservapedia…

Read Patri-X article in History…

BELOW – Just 2-years after the riots in Ferguson, Missouri, former BLM organizer in that city, Chaziel Sunz, “wakes up” and gains insightful knowledge about what’s really going on in the US and around the world. (Warning: Some strong language)

Systemic Racism Myth

A dangerous myth propagated by the media that there is an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black people (primarily black men) in America, by the police. The false narrative claims that individual police officers, motivated by overt racism or implicit racial bias, are rampantly targeting black Americans. Some go further to allege these shootings are proof of “systemic racism” within American law enforcement. Nonstop broadcast of the anti-police message by radical activists, Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, politicians, academics, and most mainstream media outlets have made this myth pervasive. The myth, and the powerful voices who perpetuate it, are rarely challenged — even by law enforcement leaders. The result has been fear, distrust, hatred of the police, and a breakdown of the rule of law.

Following the George Floyd shooting, Obama stoked the coals by tweeting that for millions of black Americans, being treated differently by the criminal justice system on account of race is “tragically, painfully, maddeningly ‘normal.’ ” Mr. Obama called on the police and the public to create a “new normal,” in which bigotry no longer “infects our institutions and our hearts.”

Joe Biden released a video the same day in which he asserted that all African-Americans fear for their safety from “bad police” and black children must be instructed to tolerate police abuse just so they can “make it home.” That echoed a claim Mr. Obama made after the ambush murder of five Dallas officers in July 2016. During their memorial service, the president said African-American parents were right to fear that their children may be killed by police officers whenever they go outside.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz denounced the “stain . . . of fundamental, institutional racism” on law enforcement during a Friday press conference. He claimed blacks were right to dismiss promises of police reform as empty verbiage.

However, this destructive delusion has been completely demolished by a recent study that demonstrates there is no epidemic of racially biased police shootings of black people, that black citizens are not more likely to be shot by white officers, and that the shooting of unarmed people of any race is extraordinarily rare. In fact, an individual American citizen is substantially more likely to be struck by lightning than he is to be shot by the police while unarmed.

Cesario and Johnson’s study, finally, corrects a broader misconception the media has ingrained in the public imagination — the false impression that there are rampant shootings of unarmed black people by the police. Simply put, police shootings of unarmed citizens of any race are extraordinarily, vanishingly rare. Fewer than 1,200 people total are killed by police in a typical year, per major databases like www.killedbypolice.com. Moreover, of all citizens shot by police, 90% are armed with a weapon and between 90 and 95% are attacking the police or another citizen. However, sensational and selective media coverage has resulted in the wildly mistaken belief that unprovoked shootings of unarmed citizens are common events.

If anything, black officers are more likely to shoot black citizens,” Dr. Joseph Cesario, co-author and professor of psychology at Michigan State University, wrote in the report. “But this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens there are in a community, the more black police officers there are.”

The “systematic nationwide study” from MSU and University of Maryland — described as the first of its kind — debunks the commonly-held belief that white police officers unfairly target black and brown citizens in use of lethal force. A flurry of media reports over the span of a few years and the efforts of two major media outlets, the UK’s Guardian and the Washington Post, roiled both the nation and the political theater.

“There are so many examples of people saying that when black citizens are shot by police, it’s white officers shooting them. In fact, our findings show no support for the idea that white officers are biased in shooting black citizens,” Dr. Cesario wrote.

The findings of the study are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), incorporating data about every officer-involved shooting since 2015. Researchers collected the age, sex, race and experience level of each officer who was found to have shot a suspect.

“We found that the race of the officer doesn’t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot,” Dr. Cesario said.

The study also found that diversifying police forces with members of certain minority communities has no effect on decreasing minority shootings.

“Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. We found that crime rates are the driving force behind fatal shootings,” said Dr. Cesario. “Our data show that the rate of crime by each racial group predicts the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings.”

A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that murders in the US  are very concentrated: 54% Of US Counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders – 37% in just the worst 1% of the counties. In a study in the journal Criminology, David L. Weisburd has a paper titled “The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place” that shows for eight cities 25% of violent crime occurred on one percent of the streets and that about half occurred on five percent of the streets.

This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year.  Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.  It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.

Also, there are about twice as many whites killed by blacks each year than blacks killed by whites according to FBI statistics.

The public treatment of law enforcement officers has deteriorated over the past couple of years with slogans like “Pigs in a blanket” and “fry ’em like bacon” becoming popularized in anti-police brutality protests.

Similar research in years past has echoed some of the findings found in Dr. Cesario’s report. A study from Harvard conducted back in 2016 showed that police may have gotten physical with minorities more often but were more likely to discharge their weapons “without provocation” at white suspects.

Let’s Look At The Actual Facts About The Alleged Racism of Police (by John Lott)

The media have helped create a biased perception that is far from the reality of shootings by police. A study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center (where I serve as president) found that when a Caucasian officer kills a suspect, the media usually mention the race of the officer. When the offending officer is black, however, any news coverage rarely mentions race.

Furthermore, there’s ample evidence that black Americans aren’t all that fed up with the police. A July 2017 Quinnipiac University poll in New York City found that black Americans strongly support the cops in their own neighborhoods—62 percent approved compared to just 35 percent who disapproved. That approval rating was 11 percent higher than for the New York City Police Department as a whole. It makes sense that people only know their local cops but rely on media reports to form impressions about the parts of the city they are less familiar with.

More recently, a Monmouth University poll surveyed a national sample of 807 adults between May 28 to June 1, 2020, and found that Americans of all races are largely supportive of their local police departments. The poll asked: How satisfied are you with your local police department (Very or somewhat satisfied/ Somewhat or very dissatisfied):

  • College educated whites: 73% / 9%
  • Non-college whites: 70% / 14%
  • Black: 72% / 17%
  • Hispanic/Asian: 68% / 18%

Through our own extensive research, my organization found 2,699 instances of police shootings across the nation from 2013-2015. That’s far more than the FBI found since its data is limited to only 1,366 cases voluntarily provided by police departments. The FBI data has other problems, as well: It disproportionately includes cases from heavily minority areas, giving a misleading picture of the frequency at which blacks are shot. Our database keeps track of characteristics of both the suspect and the officer involved in each shooting, local violent crime rates, demographics of the city and police department, and many other factors that help determine what causes police shootings.

Officers kill black Americans at a higher rate than their share of the population: 25 percent of the suspects killed were black, 45 percent Caucasian, and 16 percent Hispanic. But that isn’t true where the highest concentration of deaths occur. Black suspects tend to die in larger cities with populations averaging over 600,000 (overwhelmingly run by Democrats), while Caucasians are killed in smaller cities with an average population of 250,000.

Caucasian suspects were slightly more likely to be holding a firearm than blacks (63 percent to 61 percent). Black and Caucasian suspects where both equally likely to have been involved in violent crime when they lose their lives, though blacks who died were more likely to be involved in drug or property offenses.

It’s important to note, however, that police generally have more challenging jobs in cities where blacks are killed. The average city where blacks are killed had a 61 percent higher violent crime rate and a 126 percent higher murder rate than where the average Caucasian was killed.

After accounting for these and other factors, including the average differences across police departments to deal cultural differences in departments, we found that black officers were at least as likely as their Caucasian peers to kill black suspects, but that black officers were more likely to kill unarmed blacks than were Caucasian officers.

The data offered some advice for reducing these attacks. While it can’t explain all instances such as George Floyd’s case, usually when more police are present at the scene of a confrontation with a civilian, suspects face reduced odds of being killed. For each additional officer, there is about a 14 to 18 percent reduction in the suspect’s chances of being killed.

This makes intuitive sense. Officers feel more vulnerable if they are alone at the scene, making them more likely to resort to deadly force. Also, suspects may be emboldened and resist arrest when fewer officers are present.

It is a dangerous fiction that prejudiced Caucasian officers are going out and disproportionately killing black men. But that doesn’t mean that measures can’t be taken to reduce shootings by police. The most obvious step would be to increase the number of officers, to avoid forcing lone, vulnerable officers to make life-or-death decisions.

On Fox News, faux republican host Chris Wallace mentioned a handful of cases that he thought showed a racist pattern. He pointed to Ahmaud Arbery, a black man who was shot dead by a retired police officer in February while out jogging in Georgia. He also mentioned a recent disturbing incident in New York’s Central Park, where a Caucasian woman who was walking her dog called police to report that she was being threatened by “an African-American man.” The man simply told her that the law requires her to keep her dog on a leash.

The media’s coverage of police shootings has often had a negative bias toward law enforcement. A Caller analysis found that news outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post have buried the races of police officers when they are black or brown but highlight the race of officers when they are white. During the height of tensions regarding the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of Michael Brown, New York Times Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan had to apologize for defending the myth that the teen had held his hands up before he was shot by a police officer, as the “Hands up, don’t shoot” aspect of the story was revealed to be false.

Taking a moment to analyze the totality of police-citizen interactions further illustrates how extremely rare these incidents really are. There are, at minimum, 50 million police-citizen encounters in the USA annually. If multiple contacts with the same citizen or police interactions with multiple citizens (e.g., domestic disputes) are counted, the annual total might be as high as 150 to 200 million police-citizen encounters. In comparison, fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens who do not actively pose a direct threat — as a result of tragically mistaking a cell phone for a gun, poor decision-making or training, or criminal police misconduct — total about 50 per year. The odds of an unarmed American who does not pose a direct threat being shot by the police are fewer than one-in-a-million — again, less than your chances of being struck by lightning, or killed by bees or wasps.

Also, as every half-trained fighter knows, being “unarmed” is not always the same thing as “not being a deadly threat.” This was best shown by Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the 2015 fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The DOJ report, widely ignored by the media, debunked false reports that Brown had been gunned down for no reason by police officer Darren Wilson, allegedly a trigger-happy racist cop. To the contrary, the investigation revealed the truth that Brown, a 6’4”, 292 pound 18-year-old who had just committed a robbery was shot after he attacked Officer Wilson and grabbed the officer’s gun.

However, many still mistakenly believe Brown was murdered by the police just as they mistakenly believe the story that Brown raised his hands and said, “Hands up, don’t shoot!” — another bogus claim exposed by Holder’s DOJ investigation. The effect of the media’s false take on Ferguson remains strong, and the enduring myth that Brown was the victim of a racist police shooting has been effectively used to undermine the people’s trust in the police. But that entire narrative was a lie.

Public safety and social order rely primarily upon citizens acting lawfully because they recognize their government as legitimate and see police as legitimate representatives of that government’s authority, worthy of respect and compliance. But the unending misinformation campaign that claims the police are racist killers has convinced many Americans that police authority is illegitimate. This dangerously mistaken belief erodes public trust in the police, undermines the rule of law, breeds hatred, and results in violence. After years of such erosion, it is not surprising to see police officers in New York City doused with water, officers in Philadelphia bombarded with bottles, or the Minneapolis police pelted with containers of warm human urine.

Such anti-police violence is just the tip of the potential iceberg. The worst consequence of the relentless and baseless media claims the police are racist killers — as politicians publicly compare the men and women of American law enforcement such as ICE officers to Nazis — is that deadly violence against the police becomes justified in some people’s minds. After all, we executed Nazis after Nuremberg, didn’t we? Why can we not legitimately kill “Nazis” now?

The demonization of the police grants moral permission to kill and is the mentality underlying an all-too-real “War on Cops,” which has seen 275 American police officers murdered in the line-of-duty since 2015 and fully 41 gunned down in 2019 alone. The ambush-style assassinations of 10 police officers in Dallas, Baton Rouge, and New York City, were directly motivated by this police-hating propaganda and ideology. Most media give scant coverage, if any, to murders of police officers.

To sum this up: anti-police media bias is unjustified. Hundreds of thousands of cops in the United States put their lives on the line to serve their fellow citizens and keep American communities safe, every day. Never in history has so much thought, effort, and resources been poured into recruiting police officers to better reflect the communities they serve, developing cutting-edge training for officers, and partnering officers positively with the public. Never have police been called upon to do so much and never have we done it so successfully, with such professionalism.

Police are people. While we strive for excellence, we are not perfect. But, we almost all do hold ourselves to the higher standard of conduct demanded by our position of authority and trust. Sometimes good police officers make mistakes. When they do, they should be held accountable and corrected. Sometimes bad police officers commit crimes. When they do, they should be prosecuted for their crimes, for betraying the public, and for dishonoring the badge that it should have been their privilege to wear. These are expectations that both the police and the communities we serve should, and mostly do, welcome and support.

What cannot be accepted, however, is the continued repetition of the lie that American policing as an institution is systemically racist, backed by the false claim that there is an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black Americans by the police. Professor Cesario was asked during a radio interview where he would advise Colin Kaepernick, and other celebrity protesters of alleged racial bias in police shootings of black men, to focus their influence and energy if they wanted to really reduce the number of deadly encounters. Cesario cut to the chase, “The number one way to reduce fatal (police) shootings of anybody — black, white, or Hispanic … is the reduction of crime. Not being involved in criminal activity is far and away the best way to not be shot by the police.”

We must speak truth to power. Cesario and Johnson performed a great service in demolishing the false and dangerous myth of racist police shootings. To restore public trust in the police and save lives, the truth must be brought to the American people.

Maurice Richards has been chief of the Martinsburg Police Department in West Virginia since 2015 after serving 24 years as an officer and lieutenant in the Chicago Police Department. Chief Richards holds a doctorate in Adult Education from Northern Illinois University.


Statistics reveal that “systemic racism” in policing simply does not exist. Here are seven stats from the DailyWire proving this point.

1. Police are more likely to shoot whites than blacks.

As The Daily Wire reported earlier on Monday, a recent Harvard study concluded that 1,332 police shootings over the 2000-2015 time frame reveal that blacks are actually 20 percent less likely to be shot at by police than whites, despite the fact that blacks and whites are just as likely to be carrying a weapon.

This is further confirmed by a study conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice assistant professor Peter Moskos, who determined that when the homicide rate is adjusted, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks [to] die at the hands of police. Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”

2. Police are also less likely to shoot at unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.

This is according to a study conducted by Washington State University, which took 80 police officers–most of whom were white males–from the Spokane Police Department and put them in over 1,500 simulated scenarios “involving both armed and unarmed suspects who were both black and white.” The researchers concluded that the officers were three times less likely to fire at unarmed black men than unarmed white men.

3. According to American Free Press’s Peter Papaherakles, “For every black killed by a white police officer in the U.S. every year, there are about 71 blacks killed by other blacks.”

Papaherakles came to his conclusion after examining FBI data from 2007-2012 as well as a Wall Street Journal report highlighting “hundreds of homicides by law enforcement agencies” that aren’t in the FBI’s database and compared it to the 7,440 blacks killed by other blacks in 2007:

The Journal analyzed “the latest data from 105 of the country’s largest police agencies,” and “found more than 550 police killings during those years were missing from the national tally or, in a few dozen cases, not attributed to the agency involved. The result: It is nearly impossible to determine how many people are killed by the police each year.”

Assuming this discrepancy is correct, the adjusted yearly death tally would rise to 492 police killings per year, bringing the number of blacks killed by white police officers per year in the U.S. to 105.

Putting these figures in perspective then, for every black killed by a white police officer in the U.S. every year, there are about 71 blacks killed by other blacks.

Worse, if you take—on average—9,252 black-on-black murders every year for the past 35 years, you arrive at a staggering 323,820 blacks killed by other blacks on America’s mean streets in just three-and-a-half short decades.

4. Blacks do get pulled over for traffic stops more often than whites, but that’s because blacks commit a disproportionate amount of traffic offenses.

As Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War On Cops: How the New Attack On Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, the Department of Justice tries to assert that racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department was inherent in the fact that blacks consisted of 85 percent of all traffic stops between 2012-2014, despite only being 67 percent of the city’s residents, while whites consisted of 15 percent of all traffic stops while being 29 percent of the city’s residents.

“Such figures are meaningless unless we know, just for starters, what the rate of traffic violations is among black and white drivers,” writes Mac Donald. “Though most criminologists are terrified of studying the matter, the research that has been done, in New Jersey and North Carolina, found that black drivers speed disproportionately. On the New Jersey turnpike, for example, black drivers studied in 2001 sped at twice the rate of white drivers (with speeding defined as traveling at 15 mph or more above the posted limit) and traveled at the most reckless levels of speed even more disproportionately.”

This is confirmed by a 2013 National Institute for Justice report that determined that three out of four blacks said they were pulled over for a “legitimate reason” and a National Highway Safety Administration report concluding that “blacks simply violated traffic laws at higher rates than whites.”

Additionally, the DoJ report found that blacks were more likely to be searched after a traffic stop than whites, as 11 percent of blacks stopped were searched as opposed to five percent of whites, but as MacDonald points out, blacks tend to have a “higher rate of outstanding warrants,” which explains the discrepancy.

5. Racial activists accuse stop-and-frisk of being racist, and yet the percentage of blacks stopped is actually underrepresented when compared to the percentage of blacks that commit crimes.

According to Mac Donald in a Wall Street Journal column, black persons comprised 55 percent of all of the New York City Police Department stops in 2012, even though 66 percent of violent criminals in the city are black as well as 78 percent of shooting suspects and 74 percent of shooting victims.

It is true that most stop-and-frisk subjects in New York City are minorities, but that’s because most crime in the city is committed in minority neighborhoods.

6. Blacks are not over-arrested and are actually “underrepresented in prison.”

Mac Donald writes in The War On Cops, “The statistics on the race of criminals as reported by the crime victims match the arrest data. As long ago as 1978, a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim reports and in arrests–a finding replicated many times, among a range of crimes.”

She also points out that criminologist Alfred Blumstein determined in 1993 that “blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in the arrest data.”

7. By a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, black voters support New York City’s “Broken Windows” policing, according to a Quinnipiac pollAdditionally, 61 percent of black voters support “‘summonses or make arrests’ in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses,” once again suggesting that there is no evidence of systemic racism in policing.

Sources:

Advancement Project

Founded in 1999 by veteran civil-rights lawyers, describes itself as a “civil rights law, policy, and communications ‘action tank’ that advances universal opportunity and a just democracy for those left behind in America,” meaning nonwhite minorities. Specifically, the Project works to organize “communities of color” into politically cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a sophisticated communications department. A key funder of AP National is George Soros‘s Open Society Institute, which in 2009 alone gave $500,000 to the organization. Other leading funders include the California Endowment, the Ford Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and the Vanguard Public Foundation. Read more at Discover the Networks…