KEEP WHITEY OUT: Black Students Don’t Want White Kids in Their Schools–Is This Racist?


This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

Barack Obama has destroyed fifty two years of race relations between whites and blacks.

Is the era of Jim Crow making a comeback?

You would think segregation was a thing of the past but in Cleveland, Mississippi, that isn’t the case. Check out what these black students are saying about allowing white kids to come to their schools.


On Monday, I shared some of the history behind the famous Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in the Plessy v. Ferguson case which legalized segregation in public schools.

For the next 50 years many areas of the United States used the Plessy decision and the ‘separate but equal’ doctrines to employ racial segregation in many public venues including the public schools. There were separate schools for whites and blacks. In towns like Topeka, Kansas, black school children would often have to travel long distances to reach a black school when a white school was close by.

Civil rights activist and many blacks wanted to end the racial segregation so that their kids could attend the supposedly superior white schools and receive a better education. At the spurring of the NAACP, 13 families tried to enroll their kids in white schools in 1950’s Topeka, Kansas. One of those families were the Browns and since they were alphabetically first, the case came to be known as Brown v. Board of Education.

On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court issued its historic ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case. In a unanimous 9-0 vote, the high court declared that the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine and Jim Crow laws were indeed a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system… We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

You would expect that there wouldn’t be any segregated schools left in American today, but there are. In fact, their numbers have been increasing.

One of those segregated schools in East High School in Cleveland, Mississippi. The town is geographically divided by railroad tracks that run almost through the middle of town. The population on the east side of the tracks is predominantly black while the west side of the tracks is mixed with white and black.

CBS News correspondent Michelle Miller spoke to some of the students from East High. One was Deshambra Fields and her brother Quoindedrick:

Miller: “So you think they should not desegregate these schools?”

Deshambra: “No, ma’am.”

Miller: “Why?”

Quoindedrick: “It’s this side of the highway versus that side of the highway. And it’s just — it’s been a rival for a long time.”

The same sentiments were given by many of the East High students. Not only are the East High students against being bused across town to a another school, they really don’t want whites attending their school. They fear having a minority white population at their school could lead to tensions and fights from both blacks and whites.


RACE BAITERS: Don’t Want You To Know This About Black History

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

This is a history lesson that will never be in public schools.

It’s a scenario I’ve seen dozens of times: While black thugs riot in the streets, white-collar pundits appear to fight back tears as they sympathize with the mayhem.

“After all,” they say, “the black community has endured generations of racial discrimination.”

Talking heads fill our TV screens as they continue to enumerate the offenses white Americans have committed from slavery to Jim Crow.

Consequently, a false narrative has been embedded in the minds of Americans. The nation is suffering from false memory syndrome. Our ancestors, we believe, raided peaceful African villages, bopped innocent Africans on the head, then led them in chains to slave ships.

Once in America we imagine wealthy white plantation owners forcing hordes of blacks slaves to pick cotton in the hot summer sun twelve months out of the year.

The narrative is so well ingrained in our thinking that its seem almost sacrilegious to question it.

Nonetheless, facts are stubborn and data takes precedence over anecdotes.

Here are thirteen things most Americans don’t know about black history.

1. America’s first black military officers served the Confederacy.

In 1861 about 1,500 free blacks in New Orleans answered Gov. Thomas Overton Moore’s call to serve the Confederate army. The new enlistees were garnered at a meeting called by ten prominent black residents. About 2,000 blacks attended the meeting on April 22, located at the Catholic Institute. The new regiment was formed May 2.

Considering there were about 10,000 free blacks of both genders and all ages living in the Louisiana in 1861, the large number of black enlistees speaks to the loyalty of blacks to the Confederacy. It can be estimated that as many as half of all free black males between the ages of 15 and 50 enlisted.

The governor appointed three white officers to oversee the regiment. They were accompanied by three black officers appointed from the regiment. These became the first black military officers in American history.

2. The first legally recognized slave owner in American history was black.

Anthony Johnson came to the American colonies in August, 1619 as an indentured servant. In 1623 Johnson had completed his indenture and was recognized as a free negro. In 1651 he acquired 250 acres of land in Virginia, later adding another 250 acres; a sizable holding at the time.

John Casor, a black indentured servant employed by Johnson, became what historians have long considered to be America’s first slave. His enslavement resulted from a legal dispute between Johnson and Robert Parker. Parker was a white colonist who employed Casor while Casor was still indentured to Johnson. Johnson sued Parker in Northampton Court in 1654. The court upheld Johnson’s right to hold Casor as a slave on March 8, 1655. The court found:

The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master … It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

Five years later, in 1670, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting blacks and Indians the right to own slaves of their own race, but prohibiting them from owning White slaves.

(In July, 2012, supporters of Barack Obama considered it politically advantageous to advance the notion that John Punch was the first slave of African descent in the American colonies. Obama is suspected of being a descendant of Punch through Obama’s maternal lineage.)

3. Free blacks commonly owned black slaves in the antebellum South.

Henry Louis Gates of the White House “Beer Summit” fame said, “This is the dirtiest secret in African American history. A surprisingly high percentage of free Negros in the South owned slaves themselves.” [Source]

There were thousands of black slave owners in the South.

In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South who owned 12,740 black slaves, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston.

To write extensively about blacks who owned slaves in the antebellum South would require a library of full volumes. Black slave owners: free Black slave masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860by Larry Koger is one such volume.

Koger tells of Richard Holloway, Sr., a black carpenter who purchased his African cousins as slave labor. Cato was the name of one of his slaves. Cato remained in Holloway’s possession throughout the 1830s and ’40s, according to Koger, until he was sold to his son, Richard Holloway, Jr., in 1845. Cato died in 1851 and the younger Holloway replaced him with the purchase of a 16 -year-old black male.

Koger says there were ten black slave owners in Charleston City, SC in 1830.

4. In 1860 the largest slave owner in South Carolina was William Ellison, a black plantation owner.

Ellison was one of many free blacks who, themselves, owned black slave labor.

In 1830 there were about 319,599 free blacks living in the United States. That same year there were 12,740 slaves owned by blacks

Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915, by Loren Schweninger is another excellent source for accurate history detailing the life in the antebellum South.

5. Without black African slave owners there would have been no slavery in America.

Henry Louis Gates enraged his base in 2010 by strongly opposing reparations to blacks. According to Gates the slave trade was almost wholly the result of black slave owners selling their human wares to Europeans.

He wrote:

While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.

The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.[Emphasis added]

The notion of White European raiding parties descending on unsuspecting African villages is a gross distortion of reality. Not only does the historical record argue against White raiding parties, but such parties would have been costly and inefficient compared to purchasing Africans already held in slavery. White slave traders would not endure the risk related to such incursions. Furthermore, Africans already held as slaves would be less willing to resist, particularly among those whose African owners were brutal and abusive enemies.

Gates noted on another occasion that the importance of David Livingstone’s disappearance into black Africa was significant because White people never ventured beyond the coasts. The prospect of disease and other unanticipated dangers compelled them not to embark on slave-hunting expeditions.

According to the report of Joseph Cinque’s testimony in court, New York Journal of Commerce (10th January, 1840), the leader of the famed Amistad slave ship rebellion was originally taken captive by Africans, not Europeans.

It is widely rumored that Cinque, himself, became a slave trader after his return to Africa.

6. Blacks, including slaves, were allowed to own property in the antebellum South.

The ‘rent-a-slave’ concept may grate against our contemporary moral sensitivities, but owners of black slaves often found it economically reasonable to earn extra income by renting idle slaves. We also may find it surreal to learn that slaves often rented themselves. This allowed them to live autonomous lives to varying degrees, depending on the rental agreement arranged with their owners.

Mary Ann Wyatt is a quintessential example of a self-rented slave. She was a Virginian slave who rented herself (and her five children) for $45 per year for ten years. During this time Wyatt established an oyster retail business. Each week she would travel sixteen miles to the Rappahannock River and buy two baskets of oysters which she sold on the town square to local residents in King and Queen County. Wyatt earned enough profit to purchase properties including a rental house.

Southern states enacted laws to regulate the activities of self-rented or otherwise autonomous slaves. This was due to concern that autonomous slaves would outbid freemen, including whites, for freelance work, such as construction. There was also concern that autonomous slaves would resell untraceable stolen property. This prompted free Southerners to press for limitations on what autonomous slaves were allowed to sell. Many whites favored the concept of autonomous slaves, believing it encouraged personal responsibility among blacks.

To be continued …

The Theory Of Exploitivity: Black Victim + White Culprit = Racism

Leave a comment

This is from Saving Our 

Race relations are almost at the point they were during the Jim Crow days.



My friend, Taleeb Starkes, is a old-time conservative who just happens to be black. By “old-time” I mean he believes in a traditional marriage, strong families, personal responsibility, and all those virtues that comprise the conservative worldview. Taleeb breaks down the race grievance industry. Read on. TJ

By Taleeb Starkes

Have you noticed the unchanged pattern of outrage that manifests from the black community whenever a black life is taken by a white person?

Have you also noticed that the usual culture-vultures (mainstream media, reverends, college professors, politicians, et al.) arrive without hesitation to gluttonously feast during these incidents? Undoubtedly, you’ve noticed this trend—unless, you’re a liberal.

One must understand that these “call to action” reactions are not spontaneous; they’re calculated maneuvers promoted by an ever-present Race Grievance Industry. The charter for this race-hustling industry mandates that no white-on-black drama is wasted.

Booker T. Washington was amongst the first blacks to notice this parasitic group.

Washington observed:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public.

Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well.”

Regardless of evidence, circumstances, or facts, the predictable scavenger hunt that summarily ensues after any unfortunate white-on-black incident stems from what I’ve identified as the Race Grievance Industry’s “Theory of Exploitivity.”

Basically, the Theory of Exploitivity declares racism as the motive for any disagreeable white-on-black incident. Racism is their end-all-be-all explanation. For the Race Grievance Industry, this one-dimensional, race-based concept is unapologetically absolute with no room for debate.

In simple terms, the Theory of Exploitivity translates as Black Victim + White Culprit = Racism.

And due to the theory’s continued success, white Hispanics have now been included as “White Culprits” for exploitation. Black Hispanics, on the other hand, don’t fit the agenda.

This time-tested equation of Black Victim + White Culprit = Racism has proven to be just as vital to the Race Grievance Industry as E=mc2 was to Einstein.

And just as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has revolutionized science, the Theory of Exploitivity has revolutionized the science of victimology while generating untold wealth for its practitioners.

In fact, the Race Grievance Industry’s most visible board member, Al Sharpton, routinely has more corporate sponsors than race car drivers and college bowl games.

From the Race Grievance Industry’s inception, its sole purpose has been to profit from racial-strife under the guise of pursuing racial-peace.

Its insidious stockholders know that the Theory of Exploitivity really hurts the people it claims to help.

Unquestionably, stockholders (such as Jesse Jackson) recognize that approximately 7,000 blacks are annually murdered in the U.S., and ninety-three percent of the time by black offenders.

Furthermore, despite being only thirteen percent of population, blacks consistently make-up more than fifty-percent of America’s homicide victims. Even so, the Theory of Exploitivity wasn’t designed to address black-on-black pathologies.

Consequently, blacks such as two-year-old Kamiya French, who was shot/killed at point blank range as retaliation (by a black thug in Detroit), and sixteen-month-old Antiq Hennis, who was shot/killed while in a stroller (by a black thug in Brooklyn), don’t qualify for #BlackLivesMatter, #BlackBrunchNYC hashtags or slogans.

Their disqualification also means exclusion from receiving Department of Justice investigations, personalized commentary from the president, funeral appearances from White House representatives, or any other race-based grievance benefit.


Liberals’ Use of Black People


This is by Walter E. Williams in Town Hall.

Liberals have blacks living on the Democrat Plantation and want them to stay there.

Liberals will do everything they can to destroy any blacks that leave the plantation..


Back in the day, when hunting was the major source of food, hunters often used stalking horses as a means of sneaking up on their quarry. They would walk on the opposite side of the horse until they were close enough to place a good shot on whatever they were hunting. A stalking horse not only concealed them but also, if their target was an armed man and they were discovered, would take the first shot. That’s what blacks are to liberals and progressives in their efforts to transform America — stalking horses.

Let’s look at some of the ways white liberals use black people. One of the more obvious ways is for liberals to equate any kind of injustices suffered by homosexuals and women to the black struggle for civil rights. But it is just plain nonsense to suggest any kind of equivalency between the problems of homosexuals and women and the centuries of slavery followed by Jim Crow, lynching, systematic racial discrimination and the blood, sweat and tears of the black civil rights movement.

The largest and most powerful labor union in the country is the National Education Association, with well over 3 million members. Teachers benefit enormously from their education monopoly. It yields higher pay and lower accountability. It’s a different story for a large percentage of black people who receive fraudulent education. The NEA’s white liberals — aided by black teachers, politicians and so-called black leaders — cooperate to ensure that black parents who want their children to have a better education have few viable choices.

Whenever there has been a serious push for school choice, educational vouchers, tuition tax credits or even charter schools, the NEA has fought against it. One of the more callous examples of that disregard for black education was New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s cutback on funding for charter schools where black youngsters were succeeding in getting a better education. That was de Blasio’s way of paying back New York’s teachers union for the political support it gave him in his quest for the mayor’s office.

White liberals in the media and academia, along with many blacks, have been major supporters of the recent marches protesting police conduct. A man from Mars, knowing nothing about homicide facts, would conclude that the major problem black Americans have with murder and brutality results from the behavior of racist policemen. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are about 200 police arrest-related deaths of blacks each year (between 300 and 400 for whites). That number pales in comparison with the roughly 7,000 annual murders of blacks, 94 percent of which are committed by blacks. The number of blacks being murdered by other blacks is of little concern to liberals. Their agenda is to use arrest-related deaths of blacks to undermine established authority.

Liberals often have demeaning attitudes toward blacks. When Secretary of State John Kerry was a U.S. senator, in a statement about so many blacks being in prison, he said, “That’s unacceptable, but it’s not their fault.” Would Kerry also say that white prison inmates are also faultless? Johns Hopkins University sociologist Andrew Cherlin told us: “It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes. … (The problem) is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income.” The liberal vision is that fathers and husbands can be replaced by a welfare check.

Liberals desperately need blacks. If the Democratic Party lost just 30 percent of the black vote, it would mean the end of the liberal agenda. That means blacks must be kept in a perpetual state of grievance in order to keep them as a one-party people in a two-party system. When black Americans finally realize how much liberals have used them, I’m betting they will be the nation’s most conservative people. Who else has been harmed as much by liberalism’s vision and agenda?×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

I don’t usually play the race card, but…

Leave a comment

This is by Allen B West @Allen B West.


The great thing about having this website is that it’s my personal blog and shared with occasional commentary from two people – my wife Angela, with whom I will celebrate 25 years on Christmas Eve, and my editor. Here you’ll find my personal thoughts, perspectives, and insights as a private free American citizen with a singular First Amendment right of free speech.

Of course there are those of the progressive socialist left persuasion, who feel individuals shouldn’t have completely free speech unless it freely agrees with their ideology.

I offer my assessments and analyses of current events, and readers are kindly welcomed to comment, but generally, the response emanating from those on the left isn’t debate — but rather abject disdain and personal assault.

But may I remind detractors of your simple choice of free will. You don’t have to visit my website if you don’t like my thoughts.

With that being said, many on the left say we need to have a conversation about racism in America. So let’s have one.

Let me start by saying it will have nothing to with how the white man has kept me down. As a matter of fact, what I have achieved could only have happened in America.

I was born and raised in the inner city of Atlanta, Georgia, in the same 4th Ward neighborhood that claimed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a favored son. My own elementary school, Our Lady of Lourdes, is located at the corner of Boulevard and the historic Auburn Avenue – near Ebenezer Baptist Church and Dr. King’s familial home just around the corner.

I grew up quite proud of my American black heritage and still am. I recall days walking down Auburn Ave. past the offices of black professionals — doctors, lawyers, and such — as well as black-owned small businesses on my way to the historic Butler Street YMCA where I learned to swim, play basketball, and box. Funny thing — when Dr. King was assassinated, I don’t remember anyone rioting and setting fire to businesses in my neighborhood.

I grew up in a simple two-parent home at 651 Kennesaw Avenue NE — I tell the story of Buck and Snooks West in my book, Guardian of the Republic. As it happens, Buck and Snooks were registered Democrats, and I had a blast telling Rep. John Lewis how I remembered as a boy my folks talking about him and voting for him.

My memories of the black community growing up were centered on faith, family, education, personal responsibility, self-reliance, and for my family — service to the nation in uniform. Those ladies and gents are conservative principles and values — or as I was wrote here — classical liberal principles.

My parents stressed not just to me and my brothers, but to our larger family and relations, that you should never allow yourself to be dependent upon someone else. As Mom would say, “self-esteem comes from doing ‘esteemable’ things.” She also drilled into my head that, “a man must stand for something or else he will fall for anything.”

Sadly enough today, if you are a black American standing for conservative principles and values — which are the foundation of the black community and what were once its strength — you are a target.

It’s white liberals who find themselves abhorring the existence of any minority that rejects their progressive socialist collective ideology and seeks to “think for themselves.”

You become the “uppity negro” and are derided with such loving terms of endearment as “House Ni!@er,” “Sellout,” “Uncle Tom,” and “Oreo.” Even worse, white liberals have co-opted other blacks to join in the mob-like attacks against those of us who just — well, embody those old school values in which parents (when there were a preponderance of two-parent homes) in the black community instructed us.

Then again, it was the Great Society policies of a progressive socialist big government Democrat president from Texas named Lyndon Baines Johnson that began the decimation of the black family. It resulting in today’s out of wedlock birth rate of nearly 72 percent — all because it was believed that rewarding a woman for having a child out of wedlock with a government check — as long as she kept the man out of the home — was a good thing.

So, in my black community, the venerable and strong black man who survived slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests (all from the same Democrat party) was finally killed off virtually — and literally in some cases through inner city gang violence — by Democrat policy.

And so it goes that the plantation has been restored, but this time it is a 21st century economic plantation of servitude and submission to the welfare nanny-state.

The real racism comes from the new plantation masters who have riled up the masses and mob to ensure this is not lost. And therefore, woe, despair, degradation, denigration, and derision upon those who are living up to their parents’ dream — Dr. King’s dream — and have escaped the progressive socialist inner city plantation because we fought through the “pursuit of happiness” to develop the “content of our character” and not await a government granted “guarantee of happiness” due to the “color of our skin.”

And that ladies and gents truly angers those on the left — just ask the likes of Justice Clarence Thomas, Star Parker, my fellow Atlantan Herman Cain, Condoleeza Rice, Senator Tim Scott, Rep-Elect Mia Love, Shelby Steele, Jason Riley, Harry Alford, Raffi Williams, Chloe Valdary, Harris Faulkner, Deneen Borelli,AlfonZo Rachel, Janice Rogers Brown, James Golden, Amy Holmes, Niger Innis,Kevin Jackson, Armstrong Williams, Deroy Murdock, JC Watts, Jesse Lee Peterson, Ken Blackwell, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Angela McGlowan, and Mychal Massie.

What have we all done to so anger the white progressive socialist left that we constantly draw their ire? We succeeded.

And therein lies the real racism about which the liberal media doesn’t want a conversation — black success based on fundamental American liberty and freedom enshrined in conservative principles such as individual sovereignty and free market entrepreneurship.

So someone like myself is regularly assaulted by left wing media outlets for the most insidious accusations. I remember while running for Congress in the 2010 cycle, the day my oldest daughter picked up the mail, and in it was a piece from the Florida Democrat Party which boldly displayed my social security number and my wife’s employment identification number — she is a financial broker. Why? It’s not far off from finding a burning cross in your front yard — my daughter screamed and began to cry and my wife was hysterical. And when we revealed this, the local Palm Beach Post newspaper ran a survey asking if I was making too big of a deal of this nefarious action.

Or how about a San Francisco-based far left progressive group called CREDO that showed up in the 2012 election cycle and ran a shadow campaign which included phone calls to homes stating that “did you know that Allen West beats his wife” — y’all know the typical progressive socialist attacks against black men — characterize them as violent. The truth doesn’t matter — actually the lie and deceit are the strongest tactics.

Could you imagine if a prominent black conservative owed $4 million to the IRS? Heaven knows what the liberal progressive media would say. But if you’re a progressive socialist overseer of the black community, not only do you get a national TV show, you get to visit the White House 82 times. And when was the last time a black conservative was invited into the Oval Office to sit with the “first black president?”

The real conversation about race in America needs to be about why the progressive socialist left despises black success not wedded to its ideology? Even former NBA great, Charles Barkley has come under attack for speaking his mind about certain matters on race — the real conversation that needs to be had.

What sense does it make for the black community to enslave itself to one political ideology and invest all of its political capital there? It has only led to abject disregard.

And so I conclude this essay of my thoughts — the real racism has always come from one party in America: the Democrat party. And their 21st century ” lynching” tactics and techniques are just the same but with better use of modern technology.

Unfortunately for them just as men like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington and women like Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman took a stand, a new generation of freedom-minded blacks are stepping out of the shadows — even Dr. King’s alma mater of Morehouse College now has a Republican Club. Our voices will not be silenced, regardless of the new tactics of the same old gang.

All black lives matter, not just the ones progressive socialists use “prosecutorial discretion” to care about through the policies of economic enslavement as opposed to those black conservatives embrace — economic empowerment.

The Unsavory History of Gun Control

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall Finance.

Gun control always has a brutal ending…

Gun control stats
1929 – Soviet Union -gun control – from 1929-1953… 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated
1911 – Turkey – gun control – from 1915-1917… 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated
1938 – Germany – Gun Control – from 1939-1945… 13 million Jews & others were rounded up and exterminated
1935 – China – gun control – from 1948 -1952… 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated
1964 – Guatemala – gun control – from 1964-1981… 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated
1970 – Uganda – gun control – 1971-1979… 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated
1956 – Cambodia – gun control – 1975-1977… 1 million educated – rounded up and exterminated

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated during the 20th century because of gun control, 56 million.

And just why does the United States want gun control? Hang on to your guns!!!!


I’ve written extensively about gun control, but mostly because of practical andmoral objections to the notion that government should have the power to disarm law-abiding people.

But I hadn’t realized that some of the earliest gun control initiatives were designed to oppress blacks.

As Dave Kopel explains in Reason, the white power structure in many post-Civil War states was very anxious to disarm former slaves.

After the Civil War, the defeated Southern states aimed to preserve slavery in fact if not in law. The states enacted Black Codes which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms. Mississippi’s provision was typical: No freedman “shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition.”The Klansmen, unlike the freedmen, had horses, and thus the tactical advantages of mobility. In a few months, the Klan triumph was complete. One freedman recalled that the night riders, after reasserting white control, “took the weapons from might near all the colored people in the neighborhood.”Sometimes militias consisting of freedmen or Unionists were able to resist the Klan or other white forces. In places like the South Carolina back-country, where the blacks were a numerical majority, the black militias kept white terrorists at bay for long periods. In areas where the black militias lost and the Klan or other white groups took control, “almost universally the first thing done was to disarm the negroes and leave them defenseless,” wrote Albion Tourgeé in his 1880 book The Invisible Empire. As Jim Crow intensified, other Southern states enacted gun registration and handgun permit laws. Registration came to Mississippi (1906), Georgia (1913), and North Carolina (1917). Handgun permits were passed in North Carolina (1917), Missouri (1919), and Arkansas (1923). As one Florida judge explained, the licensing laws were “passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers… [and] never intended to be applied to the white population.”

With this historical knowledge, this poster now makes a lot of sense.

It quotes the infamous Dred Scott decision, which also was predicated on the state-sanctioned oppression of African-Americans.

While I wasn’t aware of the racist history of gun control, I did have some familiarity with the fact that totalitarian governments traditionally have wanted to disarm citizens.

I wrote, for instance, about gun control initiatives by the Venezuelan dictatorship.

And this superb poster from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is the 4th-most viewed post in the history of my blog.

So this image is in that tradition.

Now let me make an important point.

I don’t think advocates of gun control in the United States are racists or fascists. I assume that 99 percent of them are guilty instead of being naive.

Which is why I’m always delighted to share admissions from honest leftists thatgun control simply doesn’t make sense.

P.S. Switching to a different topic, a French economist (no, that’s not a contradiction in terms) was awarded the Nobel Prize about a week ago.

He’s apparently considered to be on the left of the philosophical spectrum, yet it’s worthwhile that even he thinks there’s too much statism in his home nation.

Hours after he won the economics Nobel Prize, Tirole said he felt “sad” the French economy was experiencing difficulties despite having “a lot of assets”. “We haven’t succeeded in France to undertake the labour market reforms that are similar to those in Germany, Scandinavia and so on,” he said in telephone interview from the French city of Toulouse, where he teaches. France is plagued by record unemployment and Tirole described the French job market as “catastrophic” earlier on Monday, arguing that the excessive protection for employees had frozen the country’s job market. “We haven’t succeeded also in downsizing the state, which is an issue because we have a social model that I approve of – I’m very much in favour of this social model – but it won’t be sustainable if the state is too big,” he added. Tirole remarked that northern European countries, as well as Canada and Australia, had proven you could keep a welfare social model with smaller government. In contrast, he said France’s “big state” threatened its social policies because there will not be “enough money to pay for it in the long run”.

He’s exactly right. I’m a libertarian, so I don’t want the government involved in areas such as housing, healthcare and income redistribution.

But even if you favor larger government, there’s a giant difference between having the public sector consume 57 percent of economic output (as in France) or a more reasonable amount, such as what’s found in Canada or Australia (as Professor Tirole mentioned).

By the way, I made the same point as Tirole when I spoke last year in Paris. I asked my audience whether they thought they got better and/or more services than the citizens of Switzerland, where the burden of government spending is far less onerous.

Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Chicago has always marched to the beat of their own drums and that beat most times in dumb shit,dumb shit.


Chicago Liberals have decided to do what they do best: kill businesses and ban firearms simultaneously. The new gun laws proposed by the city of Chicago are being described (by admitted leftists) as the “smartest in the Nation.” Needless to say: They’re pretty dumb.

A Federal Judge demanded earlier this year that the city develop an actionable plan to allow gun sales within city limits. Of course, not all (or any) of the city council members seem on board. Ald. Water Burnett Jr said of the gun stores, “I don’t think we want these kinds of things in our communities at all.”

Well, sure… I can understand that. And the city’s absolute ban on firearm dealers within city limits has been such a rousing success so far (sarcasm font), it only makes sense that we limit lawful businesses from the utopia-that-is Chicago.

Among the provisions are a slew of discouraging requirements: Dealers will be subjected to a $3,800 yearly fee; all transactions will be videotaped and subjected to arbitrary waiting periods; all shops would be subjected to quarterly inspections; Police supervised training would be mandated for all shop employees; all owners will be required to maintain a $1 million liability insurance policy; safety plans (whatever the heck that is) will be a requisite; and various ammunition will be banned altogether.

Oh yeah, and no gun store will be allowed in a private residence or within 500 feet of a park, school, or any building used for city, state, or federal purposes… In other words: There’s about 4.73 inches of Chicago that can house a gun store. (Okay, that’s an exaggeration. But 99.5 percent of the city will be effectively off limits to the industry.)

The ironic part of this 30 page plan, is that the only people it keeps from gaining access to lawfully provided firearms are the impoverished and disadvantaged. I mean, let’s face it: A rich guy can easily venture outside of Chicago city limits and avoid getting his purchase videotaped (not to mention foregoing the city-mandated 72 hour “waiting period” for a purchase). It’s the very people plagued by inner-city violence that are the most likely to suffer as a consequence from limited access to lawful tools of self-defense.

But, then again, what do you expect? Gun control in America has its roots in racism, Jim Crow, and oppression. In fact, rarely throughout world history has gun control been used as a tool to increase the safety of the general public. It has routinely been used to keep the masses beholden to government “protection”. Chicago’s proposal has an eerie similarity to the race-based initiatives proposed by Ku Klux Klan Democrats in the post-war South.

But, maybe I’m over-reacting. After all, according to the Leftists in charge, these are the “smartest” gun regulations in the nation.

There Is A Good Case For Reparations

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

The author blows holes in the reparations case.


Progressives have long called for reparations—payments to blacks for the horrors of slavery. These were routinely dismissed because they’re absurd – those who suffered the injustice of slavery and those who perpetrated it are long dead, and most Americans of every national origin had nothing to do with it.

But the push for reparations truly never was about slavery, it’s about redistribution of wealth and perpetrating the victimhood mentality that keeps people voting for progressives. To think they’d ever stop would be like thinking a heroin addict wouldn’t steal your iPhone if you let them crash on your couch – it’s just not going to happen.

Enter The Atlantic. Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates has brought the issue back to the forefront of progressives’ minds and set a debate raging on MSNBC. Well, as much of a “debate” that can happen when both participants agree on every point.

Coates’ article, “The Case for Reparations: Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole,” lays out a series of damning government policies and actions that directly harmed, if not targeted, black Americans and held them back economically.

The specific claims of Coates have been refuted by people much smarter than I, and I suggest you read the original article and the rebuttals to form your own conclusion. But if progressives are interested in reparations for past wrongs, they should target those who perpetrated them – the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. It gained power from it, profited from it, and fought to keep it.

Jim Crow was the spawn of racist Democrats who, angry they could no longer own slaves, set about creating a series of laws, both on the books and off, to deny blacks the dignity they deserved and their rights as full citizens.

It was Democrats who pioneered “separate but equal,” standing in schoolhouse doors to keep out children who only wanted to learn without having to travel miles to an inferior “black school.”

It was Democrats who, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, instituted mortgage policies that led directly to the housing market crash and record foreclosures in black communities.

It was Democrats who, through a continual string of lies, promised to right the wrongs their policies caused, only to make them worse. Their legislative and regulatory actions created a permanence to government dependence, trapping generations in poverty and a feeling of hopelessness.

Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and every major city with a large black population is in or on the verge of financial and social bankruptcy. Vacant lots, abandoned houses, rampant drug dealing and use, gang violence, massive job losses, astronomical crime rates, failed social and governmental services—all are staples of these cities, as is generations of Democratic political leadership. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

There’s a lot of power in telling people they’re powerless, but that you’ll help them. If you convince people they can’t get ahead, that the system, as progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., put it in her 2012 convention speech, “is rigged” against them, many will believe you. If you convince people they are victims of discrimination, be it from skin color or the economics in which they were born, then normal failures in life – such as not getting a job you want – are not chalked up to someone being a better fit or you simply not being the best candidate, but to that “rigged” system. That deflates the human spirit, kills aspiration, and perpetuates the cycle.

There is no power in empowering others. But there is a lot in the opposite. And it is the opposite in which the Democratic Party, led by progressives, lives, and has always lived. They couch their actions in the vernacular of liberty – freeing people from “job lock,” for example – but the results are always the same. Government can’t grant you liberty; you’re born with it, government can only infringe upon it. People who take the bait don’t realize they’ve swallowed the hook too.

Reparations are in order, but they should not be sought from the government—it was only the conduit through which oppression was carried out. They should be sought from the source of that oppression, its originators and perpetrators to this day—the Democratic Party.

Affirmative action lawyer calls Supreme Court decision on Michigan schools ‘racist’

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

I knew it would not take long before one or more race cards got played.

The left loved the Supreme Courts ruling on Obamacare.

Then the Supreme Court gores a sacred ox of the left now the left despises the court

A little FYI for Shanta Driver the Jim Crow Law you spoke of were passed by DemocRats and repealed by Republicans.



The civil rights lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan’s affirmative action ban repeated Sunday that the high court’s decision was “racist.”

“This is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of state’s rights,” civil rights attorney Shanta Driver told “Fox News Sunday.” “This decision cannot stand.”

The high court’s 6-2 decision Tuesday upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution in 2006 that forbids the state’s public colleges to make race, gender, ethnicity or national origin a factor in college admissions.

The basis of the case was the 1995 decision of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor to reject the application of Jennifer Gratz.

Gratz, who is white, told “Fox News Sunday” that she found it “unbelievable” that a decision that prohibits race discrimination could be perceived as “racist.”

She also said she challenged the school’s decision because it was based on “skin color,” not because her enrollment application was rejected.

Driver argued that minorities typically attend under-performing schools, which put them at a disadvantage compared to students at better, suburban schools. And minority students have less power, compared to athletes or children of alumni, for example, to get accepted into universities, she said.

“The old Jim Crow [law] is now the new Jim Crow,” Driver said.

5 Reasons Christian Businesses Shouldn’t Be Legally Forced To Support Gay Weddings

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.


Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we’re living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated — or else. Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered “hate speech.” — Jonah Goldberg

For a free society to function, a wide range of speech and behavior has to be tolerated, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to approve of it. So, for example, although I don’t drink, I have many friends who do. While I think Justin Bieber’s music is appalling, I don’t think it should be illegal. While I would like to see abortion banned except in the case of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, I have friends who’ve admitted to me that they’ve had abortions.

Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage, we have people who seem to be unable to tell the difference between tolerance and approval. It’s not enough that gay marriage is legal in 17 states. As a practical matter, that means every gay American in the country can get married if he or she wants to do so while those who don’t want gay marriage also have the option to live in states where the practice isn’t legal. Although some Americans would like gay marriage to be legal everywhere and others, like myself, would like it to be illegal everywhere, there’s something to be said for leaving the matter to each state.

This is still not enough for many liberals who’ve insisted on going further and actually persecuting Christian businesses who oppose gay marriage. Christians who don’t want to sanction gay marriage are being sued, prosecuted and driven out of business for doing nothing more than living up to their Christian beliefs, which are incompatible with condoning gay marriage. In Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa faced fines from the state and eventually lost its business because the owners declined to bake a cake for a gay wedding. In Washington State, florist Barronelle Stutzman has been sued for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. The Wildflower Inn in Vermont was sued for refusing to host a gay couple’s wedding reception. Christian photographer Elane Huguenin in New Mexico was told she wasn’t allowed to decline to participate in a gay marriage commitment ceremony. In New Jersey a seaside retreat, which is a United Methodist Church Christian facility, was told it wasn’t allowed to refuse a civil union ceremony.

Whether you believe as I do that all of those businesses made the right choice when they refused to sanction gay marriage, you should at least believe that they have the right to make their own decisions. Here’s why….

1) Businesses should generally have the right to refuse customers: Because of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the other abominations Democrats forced on America, we did choose as a nation to treat race differently than most other issues. So, we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race — and that’s a good thing. However, businesses can and do turn away customers for almost every other reason imaginable. Shouldn’t they be able to do that?

Shouldn’t the Super Bowl be allowed to decline an advertisement from a porn website? Shouldn’t the NAACP be able to turn away KKK members from a speech? Shouldn’t a movie theater be allowed to tell people who insist on using cell phones in the theater that they’re not welcome? Shouldn’t Wal-Mart be allowed to refuse to carry NAMBLA literature in its stores? Shouldn’t a nightclub be allowed to tell people wearing gang colors that they’re not welcome? Shouldn’t the Democratic Party be allowed to decline ads on its website from the Republican Party? On a personal note, at my website Right Wing News I’ve declined advertisements from porn websites, a dating service for “sugar daddies,” a dating service for people who are married, and even a t-shirt seller I considered to be homophobic.If the Westboro Baptist Church were to one day decide that they wanted to sell “God h*tes F***” t-shirts on my website, should I be forced to sell it ad space even though I consider its beliefs to be repugnant and incompatible with my faith? For every American with rudimentary common sense, these questions answer themselves.

2) It violates the First Amendment: Per the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Supporting gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity. Baking a cake for a gay marriage, renting out a building for it, taking the pictures, etc., etc. could very fairly be considered sanctioning the marriage. To force a Christian to do that violates the First Amendment. This entire column could consist of that one point and it should be sufficient, but let’s do continue on.

3) It’s a misguided attempt to legally force people to accept gay marriage: In a very real sense, the gay marriage fight isn’t about gay marriage. Civil unions confer all the same rights as marriage and the biggest point of contention on civil unions has become that they’re being used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. If that wasn’t an issue, civil unions would have overwhelming support and then everybody would be happy, right? Wrong. Because again, gay marriage isn’t really about that.

At its core, gay marriage is really about acceptance.

A lot of gay Americans have made the mistake of centering their whole existence on their sexual orientation and so they almost see it as an insult if everything “gay” isn’t treated as wonderful and fantastic. Except it’s not. Everything heterosexual certainly isn’t wonderful and fantastic either; so how could everything homosexual be wonderful and fantastic? Do you think these Christian bakers would bake a cake for an orgy? Would the photographer shoot naked pictures of Miley Cyrus? Would a Christian church host an S&M convention? It’s highly doubtful.

The Left loves to encourage gay Americans to define their life by their sexual orientation, which cruelly sets people up for disappointment. It’s now common to hear liberals say things like, “Oh well, in 20 years everybody will approve of gay weddings.” Of course, liberals were saying the same thing about abortion after Roe v. Wade and how did that work out? Oh…right.

The truth is nobody gets universal acceptance. There are people who don’t like me because I’m a white, conservative, Christian, male Tea Partier. I know this because I get emails and Facebook messages from them telling me so almost every day. There are a lot of terrific human beings out there who are gay, but if they make the mistake of demanding universal acceptance of everything about their sexual orientation a condition of being content, they’re likely to have long, unhappy lives.

4) It’s anti-Christian: There’s an intense dislike of Christianity on the Left and it’s an order of magnitude more intense for gay liberals for obvious reasons. Although as Billy Graham has said, “God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings,” Christianity doesn’t condone homosexual behavior. Under the best of circumstances, few people want to hear that they’re doing something immoral. It’s even worse when people feel as if they’re being judged for something they believe would be difficult or even impossible to change. So, some of the people who are put in that position love getting an opportunity to victimize a poor Christian baker or florist because it allows them to lash out at Christianity by proxy. Since these Christians are paying a big price for standing up for our faith, they deserve our support.

5) It’s involuntary servitude: It’s highly ironic that liberals have compared a baker choosing not to bake a cake for a gay wedding to slavery and Jim Crow laws. After all, the Christian businesses are the ones that are being forced into involuntary servitude for ungrateful, vicious masters. Ask yourself why anyone with good motives would want to FORCE an unwilling person to bake his or her wedding cake or take pictures at his or her wedding? What’s next? Will people who don’t respond to invitations to gay weddings be charged with a hate crime?

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: