Some people say that you know a side has lost the debate when he resorts to insults. But when you start a debate with insults, it probably means you have no justification for your claims to begin with. That is why PBS produced a documentary about reparations, but rather than trying to use evidence-based claims to back up their stance, they went straight to the insults, alleging that anyone who disagreed with their illogical claims was just radiating “white privilege.”

According to NewsBusters:

“PBS released a new America Reframed documentary of Monday about reparations and the taxpayer-funded network went all in with the bad faith smears, strawmen burning, and stereotyping of those who oppose such measures.

They even found Father Brian Paulson of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States to claim that reparations are something ‘sacred.’ Paulson was shown asking, “What are we up against as we undertake this sacred mission?’

A montage of reparations critics intermingled with reparations supporters to add what the critics really mean then began with Sen. Mitch McConnell claiming, ‘Yeah, I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea.’”

I am having a hard time seeing what is so "sacred" about giving people free things because of something that never happened to them. I am pretty sure ancestral prosecution is not legal. Blaming your status quo on something that not only did not happen to you but was over 150 years ago is a bit of a stretch, to say the very least.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson claimed last week that reparations will help solve violent crime going on in the city.

Giving someone free money is not as effective as preventing crime or prosecuting criminals. But the dumbest part about that statement is Johnson is essentially victimizing criminals while holding other people accountable for yet ANOTHER crime that they have not committed.

I am just curious, will Johnson also be awarded reparations? If slavery is the cause of violent crime, then why is he not a violent criminal? Something does not seem to be adding up here.

This is how much sense any of this makes. Which makes no sense at all. It is also ridiculous since Illinois was not a slave state but I guess that is beside the point since Progressives don't tend to let facts get in the way of things.

"Finally, founding President of the National Black Farmers Association John Boyd Jr. stereotyped all critics and rural Americans as people who admire the Confederacy as he drove up to some Confederate flags, 'Hot damn, welcome to rural America. Man, I'll tell you, when I talk about my history, it's offensive, nobody want to hear about slavery, but they want to hang them [bleep]damn flags up there,'" according to NewsBusters.

To classify all rural Americans as supporting the Confederacy and essentially claiming they are racist because of where they live seems to be - well - racist. But again, it does not seem as if these people like facts to get in the way of things.

I don't have to tell you any more about what nonsense was spouted in the documentary because the very premise makes no sense. And to blame an entire race for something they did not even do is incredibly asinine and evil, to say the very least.

Do you think that reparations will finally solve racism once and for all? Because I beg to differ.

THIS Is How You Fix "Systemic Racism" | Louder With Crowderwww.youtube.com