African-American leaders speaking out against proposals to restrict gun rights at a Feb. 22, 2013 news conference in Washington, D.C. Among them: Harry Alford, president and chief executive officer of the D.C.-based National Black Chamber of Commerce.
Alford, who spoke in Milwaukee in 2008, said at one point:
“I want to thank the Lord for our Constitution. I also want to thank the NRA for its legacy. The National Rifle Association was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan.”
Well known as a defender of the right to bear arms, the 5 million-member NRA does describe itself as “America’s Longest-Standing Civil Rights Organization.”
KILLING BLACK & WHITE REPUBLICANS
This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:
You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Here is a short video discussing the matter:
“…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
“…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.
MORE GUN-CONTROL HISTORY
Today’s gun control advocates tend to paint themselves as concerned with the plight of minorities in America. What they don’t want you to know is that their movement originated as an initiative to deprive African-Americans of the means to defend themselves. In this episode of The DL, Dana Loesch is joined by NRA personalities and gun-rights advocates to delve into the deeply racist history of gun control and to explain how it continues to disproportionately affect minority communities.
Horror in Waukesha, but the media ignore shocking new details about the suspect. Meanwhile, Rep Tlaib and friends want all prisoners released. Every last one of them.
(My YouTube video on the FIVE-PERCENTERS) So everyone knows, LAURA LOOMER was the first to break news on this twat:
(SIDE-NOTE) While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet and Summit News network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.
Good morning, kids. Hope you all tryptophan’d the light fantastic yesterday. It’s Black Friday, and considering what’s been happening this past week, the double- and triple-entendres abound. It is now absolutely crystal clear that Darrell Brooks intentionally committed an act of mass terrorism in Waukesha. It’s probably accurate to say that the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse is what drove him over the edge. But that was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back. The fuse was lit decades ago, before Brooks escaped the reach of Kermit Gosnell’s rusty scissors.
Milwaukee BLM leader Vaun Mayes, who has appeared alongside local Democrat politicians, responded to the horrifying atrocity by suggesting, “It sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade.”Milwaukee BLM leader Vaun Mayes, who has appeared alongside local Democrat politicians, responded to the horrifying atrocity by suggesting, “It sounds possible that the revolution has started in Wisconsin. It started with this Christmas parade.”
How better to start the Marxist revolution than by running down some Dancing Grannies? This is sick. But it is enabled by the collusion of well-meaning people who don’t want to acknowledge that blacks can be mass murderers and racist monsters just like everyone else.
Black Lives Matter had adopted a quote from black nationalist fugitive cop killer Assata Shakur as its slogan, “It is our duty to fight for our freedom.” That chant has appeared at Democrat Party events and even corporate anti-racism sessions.
The phrase just before the chant is, “We must gain our liberation by any means necessary.” People who say things like this are criminals and race haters ready to commit the worst kinds of atrocities. And those who enable them should be held accountable.
Shakur’s slogan was dedicated to black nationalist terrorists, including Mark Essex, a racist killer who opened fire on New Year’s Eve [1972] in New Orleans killing, among others, a honeymooning couple. Betty Steagall was shot in the back of her head while embracing her murdered husband. Essex left a Black Liberation flag lying near the corpses of the doctor and his wife.
That’s what “by any means necessary” means. It’s the murderous black racism the Left enables. . .
. . . The actual root cause, a corrupt welfare state that treats crime like a civil rights movement, is easily visible in Chicago, Milwaukee, and countless Democrat cities. Black Lives Matter perfectly blends crime, racism and revolution until it’s impossible to tell the difference.
Communist revolutions begin as crimes with robberies, murders, and bombings. And that makes leftists into criminals and criminals into leftists. The Bolsheviks called the bank robberies they used to finance their revolution, “expropriations.” BLM looters are just following in their footsteps by “expropriating” the shelves of neighborhood grocery stores for their racist revolution.
Are gangs of looters clearing out stores to protest the Rittenhouse verdict or to make money? . . .
. . . Black Lives Matter racializes crime and turns every criminal act into a hate crime against white people. That’s how you end up with Black Lives Matter taking ownership of a racist thug ramming his car through a Christmas parade, leaving children and grandmothers bleeding on the ground in his wake, into a revolutionary act of political terrorism against whiteness . . .
. . . What motivated Darrell Brooks’s rampage of death? The career criminal had absorbed the black nationalist ethos of BLM that criminals were victims and police were the real criminals. A thousand media outlets, politicians, and activists had warned that violence would follow if Rittenhouse were set free. The looters who struck luxury boutiques and the black supremacist racist who drove through a Christmas parade just followed up on the media’s incitement. Sometimes BLM’s career criminals fight systemic racism and the white supremacist idea of private property by looting malls, other times by running over kids at a Christmas parade.
If white people are evil, then any and every attack on them becomes innately justifiable.
It is beyond bitterly ironic, to a level that I cannot even think of the words to describe it, that BLM, the Black Panthers, the BLA, the SLA, Jeremiah Wright, Calypso Louie, Joanne “Assata Shakur” Chesimard and every other insane, frothing at the mouth black “revolutionary” are manipulated and conned by the very people, systems and institutions that they rail against. Specifically it’s white Marxists who for more than 60 years have, to paraphrase ol’ Vladdy Lenin hisself, “sold them the dope by which they delude themselves.” Do any of these people really think that when the revolution that they are so hot and horny to set off happens that they are going to be the ones running the show when the dust settles?
You know, in the cold light of day, Charles Manson wasn’t wrong; he was just about 50 years ahead of his time. Look at the words and deeds of individuals like Chesa Boudin and this John Chisholm. The latter openly boasted of letting criminals out on the streets with either no bail or no jail time and “guaranteed” someone was going to die because of it. It’s all eggs and omelets when it comes to “social justice.” And that bullshit is exactly that; bullshit. They want to use chaos and violence in the streets to foment revolution and then grab absolute power.
There is no difference in the political mindset of Charles Manson and any other George Soros-pimped DA or AG. Hell, if Manson were around today there’s a better than even chance he could run for office in California and actually win. There’s an old show-biz expression that I think applies: “Hollywood would forgive Hitler if he were good box office. Well, maybe not forgive, but certainly forget.”
I was going to say John Chisholm didn’t run a cult that had people killed in order to foment a race war. But, on second thought, considering the actions of Darrell Brooks and how he was able to commit mass vehicular terrorism, a case could be made.
Not in any way, shape or form am I going to try and mitigate or excuse the carnage Darrell Brooks inflicted on his victims and all of us collectively. That loss is absolutely devastating. But the vast, wasted potential of the wasted lives of all the tens of thousands of Brookses gunned down, OD’d, aborted, incarcerated (Boudin and Chisholm notwithstanding) or otherwise destroyed in the inner city wastelands for the past six decades is just as incalculable.
The Democrat Party, and the anti-American left have literally committed genocide against American blacks for the sole purpose of political dominance and the drive to turn America into a totalitarian dictatorship. Because of this, we find ourselves on the verge of societal dissolution, and a protracted racial civil upheaval that could well devolve to civil war. All of it completely unnecessary and avoidable. All of it built on one of the most pernicious and titanic of big lies ever to have been foisted on a society. That is surely among the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed. Imagine what America would be like today if Herbert Marcuse, Saul Alinsky, LBJ and all the others had been thwarted.
Have a great weekend.
[…..]
Daniel Greenfield: “It’s time to tell the truth about the black racism, crime and terror that came to Waukesha.” The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name
“Frankly, I’m more surprised Twitter used “Christmas” instead of “Holiday” in its mislabeling of the massacre. The real question, however, is why would the MSM misrepresent or altogether ignore the #WaukeshaMassacre in the first place? It’s The Narrative, silly, otherwise known as the only reason the left does anything.” Hey, Mainstream Media, Call It What It Is: The #WaukeshaMassacre
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report shares a clip of MSNBC host Tiffany Cross using her show the Cross Connection to condemn ESPN host Sage Steele, Van Jones, and Carlos Watson for not being “real” black voices and accuse them of internalized racism. Their crime was simply not having the correct official black opinions that Tiffany thinks all black people should have.
Jason Whitlock and Tucker Carlson discuss two white students who were asked to leave a “multicultural centre” at ASU: “I want to tip my hat to the young men, because this is appalling.”
New Rule: We need to unite as one nation, who come together and sing one anthem. It doesn’t have to be the one we currently use, but it has to be just one.
Democrats, the media ignore attack on the California gubernatorial candidate; ‘The Five’ reacts
“If a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.” — POST MILLENNIAL
Owens slammed mainstream media for failing to report on the incident and said if roles were reversed and a conservative woman were to throw eggs and attack a black Democrat candidate there would have been extensive coverage.
“If this was on the other side, if a white woman wearing a monkey mask threw an egg at a black democratic candidate, there would be wall to wall coverage,” Owens said. “This might actually constitute as a hate crime in Los Angeles.”
“We need to find out exactly who this woman is,” Owens continued, host of the Candace Owens Show on Daily Wire.
“She needs to be arrested and charges need to be brought because this is absolutely criminal and disgusting, and it might be racist. I’m unsure why she was wearing the monkey mask. I have no idea why she was wearing it, but I’d like to see more information about that,” Owens fired back.
Republican candidate Larry Elder has been at the on the receiving end of racist attacks by media in the state of California since announcing his campaign for governor. Elder hopes to replace Governor Gavin Newsom in the upcoming recall election on September 14.
If you don’t know about this, there is a bit more at THE DAILY WIRE. But let me say, this is exactly what the Left/Democrats want: division and non-unity. More on this in a sec.
A black family has filed a federal complaint against Mary Lin Elementary (@APSLinRockets) after it was discovered the principal had been segregating the students based on race. Operating on CRT, school believed black kids would do better without whites. pic.twitter.com/0wcbr19UnJ
This is unbelievable. Leftist students (and white supremacists) think segregation is just great. Meanwhile, in the decent and civilized world, the rest of us know it isn’t. Thanks for enlightening us, Ami Horowitz.
I think the end of this FIRST THINGS article captures a good portion of the root of the issue….
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.
Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)
…mans yearning to fill a God shaped vacuum:
…This is, indeed, the collapse of liberalism in race relations, but to understand it we have to dig deeper than racial reasons. Yes, the students spotlight the persistence of racism, they envision a society free of discrimination, and they want more people of color in the professional ranks, all of which are consistent with the liberal outlook of Martin Luther King, Jr. But that only begs the question of why the students’ dissatisfaction now takes a separatist path.
The answer lies in plain sight, but it’s hard to absorb because it gainsays everything higher education has been doing to support historically disadvantaged students. In the hundreds of demand lists, open letters, and petitions that groups have issued since the upheaval at the University of Missouri in fall 2014, the students always single out a heritage of their own that should be passed on by teachers like them. (You can find 80 of these lists here.) College officials take this as a plea for more multiculturalism, more diversity, but that’s not what the students are saying. They’ve seen how multiculturalism works in practice: a token here, a smattering there, this culture and that one, none in a sustained way.
They want something stronger and deeper than that, a more meaningful relationship to the past that will strengthen their identities. Colleges now have “diversity” course requirements that are presumed to evince the respect and “inclusivity” that the officials promised students of color during recruitment times, but the students aren’t impressed. They don’t want to share space with other heritages. They want antecedents that are uniquely theirs, events and art that they can claim as special to them, nobody else. They want their own stories, their own roots. No Melting Pot for them and no Rainbow Coalition, either. Re-segregation is an escape from the old white supremacy and the new diversity as well.
That this apparent regression should be led by the very figures diversity policies were supposed to support must be a shock to college leaders. I’m sure they believe they’re doing all they can, that nobody has more sympathy for the historically disadvantaged than they do. They don’t know what they’ve done wrong, what more they could do to advance diversity and display racial awareness.
In this way, they only reveal the limits of the liberal-diversity outlook. For we should see the motives behind the protests and the calls for re-segregation in universal terms—not racial terms. These students want grounds and foundations, reassuring origins and forebears. They need a solid world and a momentous history and an enchanted reality. This is nothing new, but the need has become acute in the twenty-first century, in good part because liberalism has managed to expel conservatism so thoroughly from the lives of American adolescents. Put yourself in the psyche of the 19-year-old just arrived at college and ask, “What do I have to solidify my fledgling life?”
Chances are that you don’t have religion. You don’t have much patriotism, either, the kind of love that lets you say with pride, “I’m an American!” and gain strength from that loyalty. Moreover, you don’t have an assuring sense of neighborhood, not with the Internet having made so many of your social interactions virtual. Needless to say, the pop culture you enjoy doesn’t align you with any venerable traditions, and the consumerism flooding your iPhone turns you into just that, a consumer.
You have a rootless, floating existence, the only Big Picture being Achievement, Success, Health, Safety. No Gods, no glorious past, no community, no voices of the dead, no thirst for greatness, only a soulless pursuit of degrees and jobs—that’s all college offers.
But “the soul has needs that must be satisfied,” Tocqueville said, and diversity isn’t enough. Students of color in a separatist mindset are but the most overt example of the plight of Generation Z, young Americans entering the world without the support systems they need, urged to be free and independent and self-creating, but in truth, yearning for home and faith and belonging and an inheritance.
A segregated dormitory will give these youths a common experience, a tradition that surrounds them and heartens them. Or at least that’s what they assume. I don’t believe it will work out that way. The ensuing culture of the color-dorm will be just as historically shallow and artistically vulgar as most other youth communities, but it’s the thought that counts. Students of color are telling college leaders, “We don’t want your commiseration—we don’t want your liberalism—we want to be alone.” If this desire is not answered soon, and with something very different than diversity initiatives, the hostility is going to get worse.
“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. 5th Circuit Judge James C. Ho concurring opinion: “Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.”
[….]
In a concurring opinion (starting at page 22 of the pdf.) Judge Ho wrote in part (emphasis added):
I concur in the judgment and in all but Section III.A of Judge Haynes’s opinion. With respect to the intentional discrimination claim, we all agree that this case turns on geography, not race. With respect to the disparate impact claim, we all agree that remand is appropriate. I write separately to explain why I share Judge Jones’s concerns about unelected agency officials usurping Congress’s authority when it comes to disparate impact theory.
Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit intentional racial discrimination—not to restrict neutral policies untainted by racial intent that happen to lead to racially disproportionate outcomes. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d; Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 280–81 (2001) (“[§ 2000d] prohibits only intentional discrimination,” not “activities that have a disparate impact on racial groups”).
There’s a big difference between prohibiting racial discrimination and endorsing disparate impact theory. See, e.g., William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 78 (1994) (disparate impact is “a significant leap away from” intentional racial discrimination). It’s the difference between securing equality of opportunity regardless of race and guaranteeing equality of outcome based on race. It’s the difference between color blindness and critical race theory. Compare Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have A Dream: Address to the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom (Aug. 28, 1963) (“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”), with Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Anti-Racist 18 (2019) (“A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.”); see also ‘When I See Racial Disparities, I See Racism.’ Discussing Race, Gender and Mobility, N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2018), available at NYTs
Prohibiting racial discrimination means we must be blind to race. Disparate impact theory requires the opposite: It forces us to look at race—to check for racial imbalance and then decide what steps must be taken to advance some people at the expense of others based on their race. But racial balancing is, of course, “patently unconstitutional.” Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 723 (2007). Accordingly, “serious constitutional questions . . . might arise” if “[disparate impact] liability were imposed based solely on a showing of a statistical disparity.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 540 (2015). See also Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S.557, 594–96 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (same).
***
So these are not frivolous concerns of discrimination that we’re talking about here. In fact, for disparate impact advocates, requiring discrimination may not be a problem—it may be the whole point. To quote one leading critical race theorist, “[t]he only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination,” and “[t]he only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi, supra, at 19.
***
It’s said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That’s why we have laws on the books, like Title VI, that simply forbid the “sordid business” of “divvying us up by race”—no matter what our intentions. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part)….
***
So public officials may sincerely believe that race-conscious policies are beneficial rather than corrosive. But the American people have never been the blindly trusting sort. Citizens may fairly wonder how officials can condemn race-neutral policies as racist and defend explicitly race-conscious programs as inclusive.
“Equity” and other CRT approaches will eventually have a judicial reckoning. When that day comes, those of us attacked for speaking out for equality without regard to skin color will be vindicated, and those demanding race-based outcomes will be shamed.
That time may be years away, however, and in the meantime, tremendous damage to the fabric of the country will have been done.
In an excellent Armstrong and Getty Show, audio of Seth Rogan as well as a refutation of critical race theory by Allen Guelzo on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum:
Allen Guelzo joined The Story with Martha MacCallum on Fox News to discuss the dangers of using critical race theory in school curriculums. Dr. Allen Guelzo is a visiting scholar in The Heritage Foundation’s Simon Center for American Studies and a Princeton University professor and acclaimed scholar of American history. (YOUTUBE)
…. In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer…..
How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year? 9.
How many unarmed whites were killed by cops last year? 19.
THEREFORE, COPS ARE RACIST!!
Ergo, cops are racist against whites considering black [mainly young men] commit about 50% of all homicides. In Los Angeles, blacks commit 44 percent of all violent crime but make up 9 percent of the population. In St. Louis, blacks are less than a third of the population but commit 90 percent of all homicides. In New York City, blacks commit about three quarters of all shootings although they’re 23 percent of the population.
Even if you allow the higher numbers — In 2020, the police fatally shot 18 allegedly unarmed blacks [24 whites] (unarmed being defined extremely loosely to include suspects grabbing an officer’s gun or fleeing in a car with a loaded pistol on the seat) — that represents 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide in 2020, and an infinitesimal percentage of the 40 million blacks in the U.S. If the police ended all fatal shootings tomorrow, it would have a negligible effect on the black death-by-homicide rate, which is 13 times higher than the white death-by-homicide rate for decedents between the ages of ten and 43.
WANT MORE EVIDENCE THAT POLICE ARE RACIST TOWARDS WHITES?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, police killings of blacks declined almost 80% from the late ’60s through the 2010s, while police killings of whites have flatlined. A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Last year, according to The Washington Post, the police killed nine unarmed blacks. They killed 19 unarmed whites. In recent years, about 50 cops have been shot and killed annually in the line of duty. So, more cops are killed each year than are unarmed black suspects.
And yet they mow down white people!
NEED MORE EVIDENCE?
The youngest black professor ever to receive tenure at Harvard and recipient of an economics prize for “most promising American economist under 40” has just upended the conventional wisdom on police shootings.
There is no racial bias when officers fire on suspects, according to a new study by Prof. Roland Fryer – black suspects are actually less likely to be shot than other suspects.
The study looked at more than a thousand shootings in 10 major police departments, The New York Times reports. Fryer and student researchers spent 3,000 hours putting together data from police reports in Houston, Austin, Dallas and Los Angeles, as well as Orlando, Jacksonville and four other Florida counties.
Fifteen years of shootings (2000-2015) revealed these results:
In officer-involved shootings in these cities, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both of these results undercut the idea that the police wield lethal force with racial bias.
When Fryer looked at Houston individually – because its police gave them reports for arrests “when lethal force might have been justified” – he found that
in tense situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot a suspect if the suspect was black. This estimate was not very precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But, in a variety of models that controlled for different factors and used different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.
The only statistically significant differences by race demonstrate that black officers are more likely to shoot unarmed whites, relative to white officers. (Roland Fryer)
(MEGAPHONE FX) They shoot whites more than blacks.
Using the Left’s logic?
Case closed.
Racists!
Obviously I do not think police are “racist” in any systematic way. But that isn’t the point in this post.
