07/6/20

Trump Right to Honor Harriet Tubman, a Black Gun-Toting Republican Who Freed Democrats’ Slaves

By: Daniel John Sobieski

President Trump concluded his Friday night Mount Rushmore speech by announcing the signing of an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes” in which the statues of those anarchists would consign to the ash heap of history would reside to remind future generations of how we became who and what we are, to remind us of the struggle against tyranny and injustice.

Trump righteously stood before the visages of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, the maligned slave-owner who helped create a nation and a process that would end slavery. He stood before the face of Abraham Lincoln, the first president of the Republican Party, the abolitionist party formed to end the Democrats’ claimed ownership of their fellow human beings. Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lincoln, after the Battle of Gettysburg in a Civil War that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of so-called white-privileged Americans, spoke of a new birth of freedom and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, that he would not allow to perish from the earth.

Trump, who some say may one day belong on Mt. Rushmore instead of just standing in front of it or flying over it, won’t allow it either, nor will we allow the cancel culture to erase the history of our continuous and ongoing struggle towards a more perfect union. So he announced the creation of the National Garden of American Heroes. The executive order reads: “The National Garden should be composed of statues, including statues of John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clara Barton, Daniel Boone, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Benjamin Franklin, Billy Graham, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Douglas MacArthur, Dolley Madison, James Madison, Christa McAuliffe, Audie Murphy, George S. Patton, Jr., Ronald Reagan, Jackie Robinson, Betsy Ross, Antonin Scalia, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington, and Orville and Wilbur Wright.”

Trump was especially right in selecting Harriet Tubman, whose life story exposes the lie that America is an irredeemably racist country enslaved by racist Republicans.  History, someone once said, is a lie agreed upon, and nowhere is that more self-evident than in accounts of America’s racial history as told by Democrats. Republicans are the party of racism and slavery when the historical record shows just the opposite to be true.

As black economist Thomas Sowell notes, Democrats value black votes but not black voters:

Democrats need black voters to be fearful, angry, resentful, and paranoid. Black votes matter. If Republicans could get 20 percent of black votes, the Democrats would be ruined.

That is what Democrats are terrified of. That can only happen if blacks are denied the truth about their past, present, and future. It is Democrats who owned the slaves, founded the KKK, and wrote the Jim Crow laws. It is Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and still do, opposing school choice. It is Democrats who turned on the fire hoses and unleashed the dogs. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma. A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Trump and a free market economy is no mirage but a portent of things to come that has the Democratic Party running scared.

The Democrats’ historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, the father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior Senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time. Only six GOP Senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris.

“Harriet,”  just released in theaters, tells the story of Harriet Tubman, an African-American slave who frees herself and then returns south to retrieve 70 others and bring them to freedom. Oh, yeah, Harriet Tubman was a gun-toting Republican and the people she liberated these slaves from were Democrats.

She was a heroine of the Underground Railroad and plans were being made under President Obama to place Tubman’s image on a new twenty-dollar bill, replacing the current version depicting former slave-owner and President Andrew Jackson. Plans stalled, however, perhaps when someone noticed that Harriet Tubman was a gun-toting Republican who believed that firearms were the best guarantor of freedom and equality ever invented.

Recently, Congressman John Katko, R-New York, has revived the idea of replacing President Andrew Jackson, one of those old white guys, on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, an African-American woman who was a heroine in the battle against slavery:

Back in 2016, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the proposal to swap former President Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman.

Tubman would be the first African-American woman to appear on U.S. currency and the first woman in 100 years. The idea was to honor the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

The plan has since stalled. President Donald Trump is a fan of Andrew Jackson and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said as far as he’s concerned, Jackson will remain on the $20 bill, but some in Congress think otherwise.

“We don’t have a woman of color, we don’t have any person of color on any U.S. currency,” said Congressman John Katko, R-New York….

Lisa Page, the interim Director of Africana Studies at George Washington University, says the move is not without controversy.

“I think Americans are still ashamed of the legacy of slavery and will continue to be ashamed of slavery,” Page said.

If the bill were to become a reality, according to Page, it would be a fitting tribute to a trailblazer for freedom and a patriotic American heroine.

“She was called Moses for all of her work in abolition,” Page added

Ironically, Charlton Heston, who played Moses on the big screen, was an NRA member famous for holding a musket over his head with the pledge, “From my cold dead, hands.” Gun rights are a keystone of our freedoms and the Founding Fathers knew we needed a Second Amendment to protect the other nine, Harriet Tubman knew that in the battle to end slavery, gun-rights for African Americans would be a key.

This move to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill, replacing President Andrew Jackson, replacing the slave-owning founder of the Democratic Party with a gun-toting black Republican may spark a political debate worth having and unearth historical truths worth learning.

Biographer Kate Clifford Larson notes that Harriet Tubman was no stranger to firearms, finding it a way to both protect and reassure slaves she shepherded to freedom in the north, perhaps making her a founder of the “black lives matter” movement:

Harriet Tubman carried a small pistol with her on her rescue missions, mostly for protection from slave catchers, but also to encourage weak-hearted runaways from turning back and risking the safety of the rest of the group. Tubman carried a sharp-shooters rifle during the Civil War.

An image of her carrying her gun is not likely to grace the new $20 bill, nor is any mention of her being a supporter of the anti-slavery Republican Party likely to be a regular part of the mainstream media and liberal Democratic mantra.  Harriet Tubman’s image should remind Americans that gun control was a historical method to control and subjugate blacks. UCLA constitutional law professor notes in The Atlantic:

Indisputably, for much of American history, gun-control measures, like many other laws, were used to oppress African Americans. The South had long prohibited blacks, both slave and free, from owning guns. In the North, however, at the end of the Civil War, the Union army allowed soldiers of any color to take home their rifles. Even blacks who hadn’t served could buy guns in the North, amid the glut of firearms produced for the war. President Lincoln had promised a “new birth of freedom,” but many blacks knew that white Southerners were not going to go along easily with such a vision. As one freedman in Louisiana recalled, “I would say to every colored soldier, ‘Bring your gun home.’”

Winkler also notes:

The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time – either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.

One of the key reasons for the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that blacks were equal human beings with equal rights was to protect the gun rights of freed slaves after the Civil War. This reasoning was cited in the 2010 gun rights victory won by Otis McDonald in McDonald vs. Chicago. McDonald, a 76-year-old African-American Army veteran living in a high-crime area of Chicago who felt the Second Amendment gave him the right to protect himself and his family with a gun just as he once protected his country with a gun.

The Supreme Court agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito referencing the 14th Amendment:

Alito wrote: “Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification [in 1868] of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. … In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”….

In framing the argument that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment should incorporate Second Amendment rights, Alito referenced post-Civil War laws that the Fourteenth Amendment intended to eliminate.

“The laws of some states formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms,” Alito said. “For example, a Mississippi law provided that ‘no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.”

Harriet Tubman supported the Republican Party because it opposed slavery. She carried a gun because it protected the liberty and freedom of herself and those she delivered to freedom via the Underground Railroad.  Just as Democrats sought to enslave and disarm blacks back then, they now seek to entrap them in high crime urban areas run by liberal Democrats who seek to deny them, and the rest of us, the right to keep and bear arms.

Harriet Tubman’s image may never appear on the $20 bill, but we should all learn and remember the image showing this African-American Republican leading slaves to freedom from slavery under Democrats with a gun in her hand.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

07/6/20

America’s Taliban Wants Lennon’s Marxist “IMAGINE” As National Anthem

By: Daniel John Sobieski

We’ve seen this all before – the attempt to erase history through the destruction of statues and monuments to any historical event but today’s anarchy and any vestige of authority, real, institutional, or symbolic other than the authority imposed by the nihilists themselves.

As columnist Charles Krauthammer once pointed out, one the first acts of the Taliban in Afghanistan was to blow up centuries-old statues of Buddha carved in a mountain cliff. They did it not because they were built by the United States or Israel or represented Western colonialism. The giant Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban government on March 12, 2001, in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. The two enormous statues, measuring 175 feet in height, were carved into sandstone cliffs at Bamiyan by Buddhist worshippers who traveled the Silk Road from China in the third century A.D. As Krauthammer wrote:

Buddhism is hardly a representative of the West. It is hardly a cause of poverty and destitution. It is hardly a symbol of colonialism. No. The statues represented two things: an alternative faith and a great work of civilization. To the Taliban, the presence of both was intolerable…

The distinguished Indian writer and now Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul, who has chronicled the Islamic world in two books (“Among the Believers” and “Beyond Belief”), recently warned (in a public talk in Melbourne before the World Trade Center attack), “We are within reach of great nihilistic forces that have undone civilization.” In places like Afghanistan, “religion has been turned by some into a kind of nihilism, where people wish to destroy themselves and destroy their past and their culture . . . to be pure. They are enraged about the world and they wish to pull it down.” This kind of fury and fanaticism is unappeasable. It knows no social, economic, or political solution. “You cannot converge with this [position] because it holds that your life is worthless and your beliefs are criminal and should be extirpated.”

This wasn’t an issue of white supremacy or privilege. They did it because they represented civilization and culture and ideas that were different than their own. Krauthammer’s analysis was in the context of Islamofascism, 9-11, and the war on terror but it bears relevance to the domestic terrorism being conducted by Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and the Democratic Party. The goal is chaos and anarchy and the institution of a collectivist gulag based on the Taliban model and the model depicted in the “Lord Of The Flies.” In the name of social justice, they seek a world without any justice, only mob rule, a world of unfathomable cruelty and injustice.

Our history and our heritage are being shoved by rioters, looters, and anarchists down the memory hole. This is year zero on their calendar. Everything that came before and every struggle for freedom and human dignity by patriots of all colors is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is now. The only thing that matters is what they tell you. How we got here and what makes us who and what we are may not be pretty or politically correct but it is important. We can’t know where we’re going if we don’t remember where we’ve been.

The canceling of American history by anarchists, encouraged by cowering Democratic governors and mayors is necessary if they intend on propagating the lie that America is and always has been irredeemably racist. The Republicans are white supremacists and that only liberal progressive Democrats can create social justice, which means the absence of resistance to groups like Black Lives Matter, which among other goodies on its website endorses the elimination of the nuclear family. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with the progressive police state they are hoping to establish on Nov. 3, 2020.

Canceling culture and history as vestiges of Western oppression, with the possible exception of the statues of Robert F. Byrd, has a new goal – replacing the “Star-Spangled Banner” with John Lennon’s homage to anarchy and Marxism, “Imagine.” This was and is an awful song calling for an end to all moral authority and decency and conversion of civilization to a global Woodstock, a world without rules and order and discipline, and no one left to make and deliver the pizza. As the New York Post notes:

Amid a national reckoning over racial tropes in culture, historian Daniel E. Walker, author Kevin Powell, and others are calling to “rethink [‘The Star-Spangled Banner’] as the national anthem, because this is about the deep-seated legacy of slavery and white supremacy in America,” Walker told Yahoo Entertainment.

The song would join a long line of cultural mainstays that are rebranding after the Black Lives Matter protests — foods such as Eskimo Pies and Aunt Jemima syrup among them.

The song was originally a poem written in September 1814, during the Battle of Baltimore, by Francis Scott Key, who owned slaves. The poem was eventually set to music and became the country’s official anthem in 1931. President Herbert Hoover authorized the song, sung often at baseball games and graduation ceremonies — notably missing the third verse, which references “the hireling and slave.”

“[It’s] the most beautiful, unifying, all-people, all-backgrounds-together kind of song you could have,” Powell says.

No, it is not. In “Imagine,” Lennon dreams of a Marxist, one-world government, famously singing of a world with “no countries,” “no religion” and “no possessions.” It is “Kumbaya” for Communists. It is an ode to the Communist hellholes that were the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, and places like the killing fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Lennon celebrated a living nightmare that has left a least a hundred million dead As Matt Margolis notes at PJMedia:

First of all, let’s get to the root of why Powell likely recommended the song: Lennon himself described it as “virtually the Communist Manifesto.”

Despite some innocuous language about living in peace and there being no hunger, the song is full of themes that are un-American to the core: “Imagine there’s no heaven […] No hell below us… Imagine there are no countries… And no religion too… Imagine no possessions.”

No morals, no borders, no God, no private property or ownership… So, let’s just call that a “no,” and move on, please….

Regardless of whatever blemishes might be on the song’s history, the anthem is a part of America’s identity. Changing it makes no sense. In fact, some of the most iconic performances of “The Star-Spangled Banner” have been performed by African-American artists.

We would do well to remember and treasure the performances of the “Star-Spangled Banner” by Jimi Hendrix at, of all places, Woodstock, and Whitney Houston’s iconic version at Super Bowl XXV in 1991.

As I’ve written, we can’t know who we are unless we remember where we’ve been and what we’ve done.

Yes,  Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, as were many of our Founders. But they created and honored a system which could correct the most grievous of injustices and if anyone wants an apology, well, we apologized at Gettysburg. Yes, white men owned slaves but white men also freed the slaves suffering a long and horrible war to do it. As Zachary Faria notes in the Washington Examiner:

… Key, who was a slaveowner, opposed abolition but also represented slaves trying to win their freedom in court, for no charge. It turns out like many historical figures, Key was a complicated man.

The third stanza of the song also features some, at best, questionable lines. “No refuge could save the hireling and slave. From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,” could be referring to slaves literally, though Snopes pointed out that Key never specified what he meant and it could be a reference to the British Navy. Only the first stanza is ever even sung, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a handful of Americans who know any of the rest of the poem.

If you are going to replace the “Star-Spangled Banner” with anything, replace it with the “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” which not only is the ultimate anthem from the ultimate battle for social justice but acknowledges the true source of all moral authority, a God that knows no nationality or ethnicity. Cherish the words. Honor the words:

Mine eyes have seen the glory
Of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage
Where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning
Of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watchfires
Of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar
In the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence
By the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet
That shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men
Before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him;
Be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom
That transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy,
Let us die to make men free;
While God is marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.

Amen.

* Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

07/6/20

We Were Soldiers

By: Garry L. Hamilton

Typical of Day One Chemo, sleeping is a losing battle. So I figured, why not a movie?

We Were Soldiers.

I watched it. Gritted my teeth. Wept.

And I wept for Joe. It hit me when he was overwhelmed by freshly showered, wide-eyed, “grown-up” emo journo clowns, stepping off the Sikorsky in a now-safe LZ with questions like “how does it feel?” and various inappropriately loaded questions. And all he could do was stare at them.

And I grasped one of the fundamentals of PTSD watching Hal Moore exhort him to tell the story and confessing his subjective guilt.

And I realized that, of all the war movies I’ve watched, two stand out as “PTSD inducing in the perceptive viewer” class of movie. Yeah, there are others, but two stand out.

The other, for me, is Saving Private Ryan.

They’re messy, shocking, unrelenting, emotionally wrenching, ultimately heroic, but with a horrific price.

The first involves people my own age. I relate way too well to them. They are the reason I did my best to sign up for something non-combat and not over there. And I understood how the active fight against communism (as a general vector, and as the actual foe in real life), while won in numbers on the ground in open combat, was lost to the embedded communists in our own society who succeeded in turning our own culture against our own soldiers, ultimately losing a war the soldiers had actually won.

It brought home my own petty “survivor’s guilt” (yes, something experienced when meeting in person those who did the fighting and the dying, realizing that I was little more than a dabbler in a life and death context) but allowed me to realize that the drive to survive is not a sin, especially when the conflict is largely a politically contrived one. Still, that’s hard to shake if you can’t bring yourself to examine it as raw fact.

The other matter is the punchline of Saving Private Ryan: “Earn this.”

Yes, it was a demand by an individual to an individual, but it can also be the exhortation of those who paid the ultimate price to those of use who would inherit the victory.

And the question one may then ask is, “have we earned it?” Followed by, “are we willing to earn it again, on our own soil if need be?”

We’re the survivors. What we have was bought by our fathers and grandfathers.

Are we willing to forfeit what they bought, accepting the sophomoric sophistry that somehow, by accepting this staggeringly expensive gift, we are de facto unworthy because [insert badly constructed Marxist argument here], and [additional Marxist slogans here] because it’s impolite to respond resolutely (and with violence if needed) against the gleeful, carefully engineered violence perpetrated against us, the heirs of those victories against the tyrannies of the moment?

Can we that easily be persuaded by specious argument that we “don’t deserve” that gift?

Is it really that easy to accept that we should just “hand it over” to the latest band of thugs simply because the thugs in question happen to have staged the battle on our own soil?

The fact that they’ve spent 60 years and billions of dollars building up to this point, infiltrating education and achieving through subterfuge what they could not through a frontal attack, does that legitimize their claim to the prosperity we built in the wake of those conflicts? Simply by slandering us all with ridiculous and entirely false accusations? By hard-selling the specious argument for “the [imaginary] sins of the father …” and therefore those of us who have committed no crime somehow owe a debt to those who have had no crime committed against them?

Against this kind of wholesale dishonesty and targeted violence, are we really ready to roll over and just give the bully what he wants?

Really?

Did we earn it?

Or didn’t our progenitors pay enough?

Yes, I know there’s a carefully constructed network of laws that, ironically, can be construed to favor the criminal in this matter, but eventually it will boil down to our cultural ethic and morality and confronting the idea that we can be fenced out of our freedoms and liberties by a tangle of lawyerly contrivances.

Have we become this soft? Are we really no longer worthy?

David Burge (Iowahawk) observed, some time back, something I call “the skin suit proposition,” to wit:

1. Target a respected institution,
2. Kill & clean it,
3. Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

And the targeted, respected institution has become the American culture as a whole.

In his observation, “kill” is metaphorical.

The metaphor is no longer the shield it was. It has morphed into a more literal proposition.

Where is the threshold? At what point do we reach the cultural equivalent of “fearing for our lives?”

Do we get there while there is still time to act, or when, finally, we are staring up at the barrel of a gun? A real one, not metaphorical?

Flip through a bit of history — the last hundred years should do — before rendering your answer.

And then contemplate, did we earn it? Are we willing to earn it again?

<< This ramble brought to you by Movies And Too Little Sleep. Enjoy. >>

07/5/20

It Doesn’t Matter Who Did or Did Not Own Slaves

By: Lloyd Marcus

Ill-educated Black Lives Matter protesters are on a rampage tearing down monuments of American heroes that they believe owned slaves or were complicit with slavery. Their rage is the consequence of allowing anti-American socialists and communists to dominate public education for decades. Students have been filled with lies and distortions about American history.

It is good that properly educated adults have taken to the airwaves in an attempt to reeducate the dumbed-down mobs regarding the truth about America and her heroes.

I am a proud and grateful American who happens to be black. And frankly, I do not care who did or did not own slaves. What difference does it make that our founding fathers and other heroes were not perfect their entire lives? Decent people learn, become more enlightened, and evolve throughout their lives. I cringe thinking about bad things I believed, said, and did in my youth. Should my entire life be canceled? The Bible speaks of repentance and redemption.

The bottom line is that the flawed human beings who founded America created something extraordinary and wonderful based upon biblical principles. Eventually, slaves were freed, a black man was elected president, and Oprah, a black woman, has earned $2.6 billion. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to pursue their dreams. Now, can we please move on? Leftists are hellbent on keeping us stuck in the ancient past.

It is absurd to pander to ignorant, pampered spoiled brats who demand that every extraordinary “white person” who founded and built our exceptional country be purged from history because they were not saintly enough to walk on water.

BLM protesters are like the group of religious and legal leaders in the Bible who brought Jesus a woman they caught in the act of adultery. The penalty for adultery was death by stoning. Jesus said to them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Thinking of the skeletons in their closets, everyone in the group dropped their stone and walked away.

BLM protesters have hidden sin in their years on the planet. And yet, they dare cast stones at America’s remarkable and brilliant profiles in courage.

It is unfair to judge old TV shows, books, movies, and etc. by today’s racial standards and sensitivities. One must remember the times. Stupidly, BLM protesters want to ban and burn all evidence of the extraordinary progress we have made regarding race relations.

BLM wants to ban the classic movie, Gone With the Wind. Hattie McDaniel was the first black actress to win an Oscar for her performance in that film. It is obscene to cancel the work of black show-business pioneers like Hattie McDaniel, Stepin Fetchit, Amos and Andy, and others.

Stepin Fetchit was the first black actor to have a successful film career. In my youth, I was embarrassed by Stepin Fetchit’s racial-stereotype performances. I came to realize that pioneers like Mr. Fetchit paved the way for black entertainers to boldly strut their stuff today.

Nancy Green, the model for “Aunt Jemima’s Pancake Flour,” was an extraordinary woman. Miss Green was also a storyteller, cook, and activist. She became the advertising world’s first living trademark.

Black pioneers should be celebrated and held up as role models rather than having their legacy stricken from history by arrogant clueless faux advocates for black empowerment. It took tremendous willpower, courage, and commitment to achieve success in the face of real racial injustice and discrimination. Successful black trailblazers and the good white folks who fought to open doors of opportunity for them confirm the greatness of America.

Alexis de Tocqueville said he sought to discover the greatness and genius of America. He concluded that “America is great because America is good…” I say, “Amen brother.”

Throughout American history, there were decent whites who risked it all to liberate blacks. BLM and their fake news media partners want blacks to believe white America is obsessed with scheming 24/7, concocting new ways to suppress and murder them. Insidiously, they want blacks to believe that in order to keep eternally racist white America at bay they must remain loyal to voting for Democrats.

Not only do leftists never celebrate self-empowered and disciplined black achievers… they also despise and campaign to destroy them. Insultingly, fake news media has a history of manipulating blacks into embracing thugs and career criminals as heroic icons; Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin to name a few.

I challenge BLM to explain how destroying monuments and banning U.S. history will stop blacks from murdering each other in record numbers every weekend in Democrat-run cities?

How does BLM wreaking havoc stop black mothers from engaging in self-induced genocide via abortion? Why does BLM’s Democrat Massas insist on keeping urban students in failing violent public schools in which most graduates cannot read their diploma? Why does BLM believe black lives only matter when they are harmed by a white person?

Black Africans kidnapped and enslaved fellow blacks whom they sold to traders who brought them to America. Slavery is alive and well in Africa today. And yet, BLM protesters purposely ignore this truth, gifting black slave-owners with “clean hands.”

David Horowitz made the excellent point that America did not invent slavery, America ended it.

Leftists are hellbent on instilling the lie in this country’s blacks that we are not a part of the American experience; that we are somehow forever victims in a strange land which is not our home.

I feel no longing for Africa. My homeland is Baltimore, Maryland where I grew up enjoying Cal Ripken Jr., the Orioles, and the best crab-cakes on the planet. I could not care less who did or did not own slaves a gazillion years ago.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd Spread the Truth
https://www.trumptrainusa2020.com/ 
http://LloydMarcus.com

07/4/20

Celebrating American Independence, President Andrew Jackson, and Mt. Rushmore

By: Cliff Kincaid

It was a highlight when I received the Andrew Jackson “Champion of Liberty” Award from Howard Phillips and the U.S. Taxpayers Alliance on September 17, 2008. The award was given on the Conservative Caucus 8th annual commemoration of Constitution Day. Today, President Jackson is supposed to be a villain, as communist agitators tried to take down his statue in Lafayette Park near the White House, calling him a “killer” for removing Indians from areas of conflict in the new America to federal safe zones or havens for their own protection. Jackson offered the Indians federal protection and became the legal guardian to a Native American orphan Jackson found in battle.

The agitators didn’t succeed in taking down the statue since federal police arrived in time to prevent that, but the communists did vandalize it.

Jackson and his supporters founded the modern Democratic Party and his policies on the Indians were considered benevolent at the time. For many years, before it became politically incorrect, there were Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinners, named for Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, which were sponsored by the Democratic Party.

Today, Democratic Party officials and candidates hate Jackson. The former Democratic Party presidential candidate, New Ager Marianne Williamson, had promised to remove the Andrew Jackson painting from the Oval Office, referring to the federal government’s “historic mistreatment of America’s original inhabitants,” citing the Indian Removal Act in 1830. The Indians were removed, but for their own good, to avoid more Indian deaths in the long run.

Indeed, as Robert Remini writes in his book on Jackson, “The Trail of Tears was a terrible price to pay for this legislation but, as Jackson predicted, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek, Choctaws, and Seminole tribes are alive today. They were not annihilated like the Yamassee, Mokawks and Pequot, and other eastern tribes.” In his book on Jackson, Sean Wilentz confirms this, writing, “In completing the removal of the Indians to what he considered a safe haven, Jackson may well have spared them the obliteration that had been the fate of many northeastern tribes.”

Her mind clouded by esoteric New Age ideas, Marianne Williamson and other fashionable thinkers must think that the European-Americans who settled in the United States encountered back-to-nature natives at home with Mother Earth. As we (most of us) celebrate American independence, let’s read that sacred document, the Declaration of Independence, especially the section that says:

“He [King George III] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes, and conditions.”

This passage was once labeled “hate speech” by Facebook.

Clearly, the British-backed Indian attacks on the Americans were a factor in the cause of independence. Our founders understood that some of these “savages” were ruthless killers fighting for the British against the American revolutionaries.

An honest rendition of American history shows that Indians hostile to the revolution raided white settlements, murdering men, women, and children. The barbaric practice of scalping was so common by the Indians that some forts had people who specialized in treating scalped heads. One of the scalping treatments was called “pegging.”

The dissertation, “Andrew Jackson and the Indians, 1767-1815,” includes some important hard-to-find information about this period, citing one case in which Indians scalped several settlers, “stripped them naked, roasted their bodies, and ate the men, then took the scalps back through the Chickamauga towns to show off as war trophies.”

Indians Owned Slaves

Another part of the relevant history, frequently overlooked, is that Indian tribes owned slaves. One tribe, the Chickasaws, owned over a thousand black slaves, as noted by David S. Reynolds, the author of Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson. The Cherokees owned two thousand black slaves. In fact, one Indian expert noted that the so-called “Five Civilized Tribes” — Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole – “were deeply committed to slavery, established their own racialized black codes, immediately reestablished slavery when they arrived in Indian territory, rebuilt their nations with slave labor, crushed slave rebellions, and enthusiastically sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War.”

Although they lost the Indian wars and were on the losing side in the Civil War, they were able to use the American constitutional system on their own behalf. Some tribes went before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing unsuccessfully (Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia) that they were independent nations on American soil.   However, in another case, Worcester v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the Cherokees were “a distinct community” exempt from state laws. Jackson was said to have reacted by saying “Justice [John] Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

Such a statement demonstrated his grit. Gaining new lands for America, Jackson fought the Indians, the British, and the Spanish. As president, he vetoed a national bank under the control of private interests and paid off the national debt. He rooted out corruption and replaced government bureaucrats not serving the people.

In making the case for the Indian Removal Act in his First Annual Message to Congress on December 8,  1829, Jackson asked, “…is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian?” It sounds harsh, in retrospect, but European-Americans had left their own homelands to start a new life, too. Jackson tried to resolve the Indian Wars in a peaceful manner, negotiating treaties with some tribes, but when others resisted, conflict broke out.

Arguing for a “progressive” solution to the Indian problem, he told Congress, “The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.” One can argue with the end result, but it was his determination to end the clashes between the white settlers and the Indians, saving many of the Indians in the process.

Author David S. Reynolds notes, “Altogether, over forty-five thousand Indians moved west under Jackson’s policies – with a similar number designated for late removal – at the expense of $68 million of public funds and perhaps around thirteen thousand deaths among the natives.”

Modern Indian Agitation

The term “red men,” used by Jackson and others, is today controversial, just like the “Redskins” name for the Washington, D.C. NFL team, is considered by the Washington Post and its communist allies to be “offensive” these days. But “Redskins” is an acknowledgment of their fighting ability.

Tragically, as with the case of the George Floyd death, the communists are exploiting the “Redskins” controversy and the plight of the Indians, with one Marxist group, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, actually running the incarcerated Leonard Peltier as its 2020 vice-presidential candidate. He was a member of the American Indian Movement now serving two consecutive life sentences for the execution-style murders of FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams in 1975. The communists consider Peltier a “political prisoner,” a label he originally acquired through a sophisticated Soviet propaganda campaign on his behalf. The No Parole Peltier Association (NPPA) exists to keep him in prison.

However, the National Congress of American Indians has sought Peltier’s release.

To guard against attempts to alter or destroy Mount Rushmore, also considered “offensive” by some radical Indian groups, Representative Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduced the Mount Rushmore Protection Act, in order to “prohibit the use of federal funds to alter, change, destroy or remove the likeness, the name of, or any of the faces on the Mount Rushmore National Memorial.” Radical Indian groups circulated a meme showing the faces on Mount Rushmore (Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) being blown to bits. The Democratic Party has said that Mount Rushmore “glorifies white supremacy.”

Democrats didn’t always talk this way about American presidents.

In his foreword to Remini’s book on Jackson, General Wesley K. Clark, a prominent Democrat, called America’s seventh president a great military hero. Although he was not without controversy and had personality flaws, Clark said Jackson’s “military prowess, proved on half a dozen battlefields, makes him one of our greatest generals and strategic force in the shaping of modern America.”

Former Democratic Virginia Senator Jim Webb called Jackson “one of our great presidents,” explaining, “A product of the Scots-Irish migration from war-torn Ulster into the Appalachian Mountains, his father died before he was born. His mother and both brothers died in the Revolutionary War, where he himself became a wounded combat veteran by age 13.” He noted, “On the battlefield, he was unbeatable, not only in the Indian Wars, which were brutally fought with heavy casualties on both sides but also in his classic defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812. His defense of the city (in which he welcomed free blacks as soldiers in his army) dealt the British army its most lopsided defeat until the fall of Singapore in 1942.”

Webb said Jackson “became the very face of the New America, focusing on intense patriotism and the dignity of the common man.” For this reason and others, President Trump has cited Jackson as one of his heroes while visiting the Jackson home The Hermitage in 2017 and giving a speech in his honor. In his remarks, Trump quoted Jackson as saying about the elites in his day, “The rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.”

Under the Obama administration, however, the Treasury Department recommended that Andrew Jackson’s image be taken off the $20 bill. Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has wisely delayed that change.

Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address highlighted the plight of the Indians, referring to their “unhappy race” and being “the original dwellers in our land” but now “in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization.”  He said their removal had placed them “beyond the reach of injury or oppression.”

He concluded, “I thank God that my life has been spent in a land of liberty and that He has given me a heart to love my country with the affection of a son.”

Let’s hope that when the communists return to Lafayette Square, to threaten once again to topple the Jackson statue, that they will be met with the force of law.

Perhaps President Trump should propose a “Communist Removal Act.”  They could be sent to Cuba, where the Black Lives Matter hero, cop-killer Assata Shakur, is living.

Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org.

07/4/20

Liberty or Tyranny? We Have a Choice to Make, America

By: Allen West | CCNS

Last week former President Barack Obama appeared with his former Vice President “Basement” Joe Biden in a video conference. I was truly taken aback when Obama referred to what is happening in America as an “awakening,” a “movement.”

It was at that moment that I reflected upon how Obama and his administration responded to a real awakening — a movement that occurred during his presidency.

In 2009, in response to the increased government spending stimulus programs and the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” a constitutional conservative grassroots organization was born. The organization focused on one issue, the fiscal responsibility of the federal government. The organization called itself the TEA Party, which stood for “Taxed Enough Already.”

This movement was about restoring our constitutional Republic to its foundations, its fundamentals. Based on principle and policy, it did not agree with the Obama vision of “fundamentally transforming” these United States of America.

The reaction to the TEA Party movement was incredibly dismissive and disrespectful. “We call it AstroTurf,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi said at the time, meaning a fake grassroots movement to keep the focus on “tax cuts for the rich.”

Then came the 2010 midterm elections, Obama’s first, and it was historic. The Democrats lost their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives when 63 congressional seats shifted. I came into the political arena during this period, and I was part of that shift, based upon constitutional principle. The progressive socialist left had experienced something they were not used to — a conservative grassroots movement – local, principled, community organizing by the right.

This got the attention of the left in America and Obama. And the vitriol, the incessant attacks, increased, aimed at simple, everyday Americans who were exercising their First Amendment right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. They stood up. They spoke up. They held rallies. They voted. They cleaned up after their rallies. They never enacted any form of violence. They never destroyed property. They never took over major portions of cities. They never said they were going to burn down the system.

They just voted.

Yet, the ire and angst of the Obama administration was aimed at them, as well as the collective power of the progressive socialist left, including their media accomplices. The TEA Party now found itself assailed on all fronts. They were demonized as racists, just because they disagreed with the policies of a president who just happened to be biracial but was promoted as Black. And how confounding it was when Black conservatives were embraced by the TEA Party — they were sellouts, Uncle Toms, Oreos, and other disparaging monikers.

The TEA Party was denigrated as an extremist group for daring to want fiscal responsibility and discipline from their federal government. It was as if the left was declaring that our very Constitution was extreme. We all know that to not be true, but what the left was saying was that anyone disagreeing with them was an extremist. It went so far that some leftists and Democrats denounced the TEA Party as terrorists, with no proof of any violent actions.

President Obama, the Democrats, and the progressive socialist left knew one thing — they had to crush, destroy, the TEA Party before Obama’s reelection bid in 2012. And they did just that by employing the power of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Today, we turn on the news and we see the anarchist organization, Antifa, which has been designated as a domestic terrorist organization. We have watched them enact violence in our streets, destroy property, attack those with whom they disagree.

An avowed Marxist organization that cleverly named itself Black Lives Matter is now calling for violence against our law enforcement officers, and most recently, its leader in New York City declared that if their demands were not met, they would “burn down the system.” Those are the words of insurrection, the actions of an insurgency, yet the lips of the Democrat elected officials are sealed.

And Barack Obama refers to this wanton violence, the destruction of memorials, monuments, and our history as “an awakening.” In other words, Obama and his ilk are embracing radicalism, the despotism, the tyranny we are seeing on our streets. The media that once disparaged the TEA Party as extremists, terrorists, racists, turn a blind eye to leftist intimidation, fear, coercion, and violence.

Sadly, few are talking about this comparative analysis of how the left, the Democrat Party, unleashed the full weight of the federal government against a constitutional conservative grassroots movement. And how, in the face of abject sedition, they are all silent.

Let us not forget the Clinton administration and how it used the power of the federal government in Waco, Texas against the Branch Davidians. Or how little Elian Gonzalez was ripped from his family at the hands of armed federal government agents. And why is it that we allow the left to always own the narrative and refer to conservatives as violent and extremists?

Here is what we had best learn — real fast: Socialism, communism, statism, fascism, Marxism are philosophies of governance, ideologies, that cannot advance on their own merit. Advancement can happen only by what we see happening in the streets of America – fear, threats, intimidation, coercion, and violence.

That is the nature of leftism. That is why Hitler had the Brown Shirts. That is why Nicolas Maduro has the “Colectivos.” And that is why the Democrat Party has Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

The TEA Party was a grassroots movement, an awakening. What Obama will not condemn is a blatant insurrection, an insurgency — and of course, he will not, because he embraces the maxim of “by any means necessary” for his fundamental transformation to come to fruition.

We have a choice to make, America.

We can surrender to the “woke” mob of tyranny — or we can become “awoke” as true Patriots to our commitment to individual liberty. Just know, you cannot compromise, appease, negotiate, or acquiesce with the mob, evil, it only emboldens them. The left is fully committed to crushing all political opposition, and Obama once asserted such.

It’s liberty or tyranny.  This week, 244 years ago, we made that decision. Time to make it again.

This column was originally published at CNSNews

06/23/20

Juneteenth – The Day Republicans Freed The Democrats’ Slaves

By: Daniel John Sobieski

Our history and our heritage are being shoved by rioters, looters, and anarchists down the memory hole. This is year zero on their calendar. Everything that came before and every struggle for freedom and human dignity by patriots of all colors is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is now. The only thing that matters is what they tell you. How we got here and what makes us who and what we are may not be pretty or politically correct but it is important. We can’t know where we’re going if we don’t remember where we’ve been.

The canceling of American history by anarchists, encouraged by cowering Democratic governors and mayors is necessary if they intend on propagating the lie that America is and always has been irredeemably racist. The Republicans are labeled white supremacists and it’s being pushed that only liberal progressive Democrats can create social justice, which means the absence of resistance to groups like Black Lives Matter, which among other goodies on its website endorses the elimination of the nuclear family. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with the progressive police state they are hoping to establish on Nov. 3, 2020.

As our cities and our businesses burn, many minority-owned, the Democrats and anarchists (apologies for being redundant) claim to mourn the murder of George Floyd in a Democratic city with a police chief selected by a Democratic mayor and a Democratic city council. They want to make a national holiday out of what is called Juneteenth, the date that black slaves in Texas learned that they were free. The actual freedom of black Americans came two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

What advocates don’t like to point out is that these slaves were held by Democrats and were liberated by the first Republican to occupy the White House, Abraham Lincoln, leader of the Abolitionist Party that was formed and elected to abolish slavery. Democrats in the South fought the Civil War to retain their slaves and the Confederacy was in fact the first resistance movement against the first Republican president.

Before the true racial history of America is deleted and only an agreed-upon lie remains, let us recall a Feb. 2017 dust-up between Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., (aka Fauxcohontas), who was the point guard in a failed character assassination attempt of a former colleague and then-Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions. She was rightly reprimanded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and rightly condemned by Sen. Ted Cruz as misrepresenting both the past of Jeff Sessions and the historical truth about racial politics in this country.

Psychiatrists call the phenomena Warren exhibited as transference, the ascribing to others the faults you yourself possess. Warren attempted to call former Sen. Jeff Sessions a racist and, by implication, his party and President Trump as well, on the Senate floor, which is a severe breach of protocol. As Sen. Cruz pointed out in his reaction, Sen. Warren and her party had better look in the mirror of history:

The day after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was rebuked while making a speech critical of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Sen. Ted Cruz blasted Democrats, saying their party is the one rooted in racism.

“The Democrats are the party of the Ku Klux Klan,” Cruz (R-Tex.) said in an interview on Fox News on Wednesday. “You look at the most racist — you look at the Dixiecrats, they were Democrats who imposed segregation, imposed Jim Crow laws, who founded the Klan. The Klan was founded by a great many Democrats.”

Cruz was right. The reason Democrats know so much about Jim Crow laws is that they wrote them. The Republican Party was founded to end slavery and free the slaves largely held by Democrats. As one wag suggested, perhaps the Democrats are so angry at Republicans because they’ve never forgiven the GOP for taking away their slaves.

Was Warren talking about the racist that voted to confirm Eric Holder as Obama’s Attorney General? Unlike a leader of Sen. Warren’s party, Sen. Robert Byrd, Sessions fought the KKK. Byrd’s very real sins were forgiven. Warren will not forgive Sessions’ imaginary sins.

The historical amnesia of Democrats omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas,  and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, the father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior Senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time.

Warren forgets that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned on the fire hoses on civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still standing there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma.

Warren’s amnesia omits the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership. Not only was that legislation a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen (then-Senate Minority leader), Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP Senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd and Elizabeth Warren.

Again, the Democrats should know a lot about Jim Crow laws, since they are the ones who wrote them. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor, explained at the 2000 GOP national convention  why a black college professor would be a Republican:

“The first Republican I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire the most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. I want you to know that my father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”

The historical fact that white nationalism had its roots in the Democratic post-Civil War south and that the KKK was founded by Democrats to suppress blacks liberated by the Republican administration of President Abraham Lincoln seems to have been forgotten.

The alt-left movement, which shares the blame along with arguably racist groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, hates America so much that they want to erase all vestiges of American history and throw them down an Orwellian memory hole to be supplanted by alt-left politically correct ideology.

Notice that no one has demanded that statues of former Senator and KKK icon Robert Byrd be removed, statues honoring the hard-core former white nationalist Hillary Clinton once called her friend and mentor, including one prominently displayed in the West Virginia state capitol:

With the tearing down of confederate statues, removal of confederate flags, and the destruction of anything from America’s past that is controversial or downright deplorable, one statue has managed to escape scrutiny from protesters.

It involves a U.S. Senator from West Virginia. A prominent, highly successful member of the Democrat party. And a mentor to the woman who almost became President of the United States.

He also happens to be a former card-carrying member of the KKK. In fact, he created his own chapter along with 150 of his friends and colleagues.

Where is the outrage and destruction of this statue?

That is former Senator Robert Byrd who was once elected a top officer – the Exalted Cyclops, whatever the hell that is – in the local Klan unit in the early 1940s.

He is a man who once vowed never to fight in the military along with “race mongrels” or “with a negro by my side.”

After his passing, Hillary Clinton eulogized Byrd in a 2010 video in which she called him “my friend and mentor.”

Maybe if we had school choice young blacks would learn the true story of Juneteenth and who the oppressors and liberators of blacks really were and are.

The Democrats support food stamps but not job growth through inner-city opportunity zones. Biden supported the 1994 Crime Bill which lead to the mass incarceration of young black men. Trump gave us prison reform. Before the pandemic and the riots, black unemployment was at historic lows and black wages were rising.

The Democrats talk a lot about slavery but all they want to do is move blacks to a different plantation.

*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

06/16/20

Roof Koreans: How Civilians Defended Koreatown from Racist Violence During the 1992 LA Riots

By: Sam Jacobs | Ammo.com

Roof Koreans: How Civilians Defended Koreatown from Racist Violence During the 1992 LA RiotsThe riots of the spring of 2020 are far from without precedent in the United States. Indeed, they seem to happen once a generation at least. The 1992 Los Angeles Riots are such an example of these “generational riots.” And while most people know about the riots, less known – though quite well known at the time – were the phenomenon of the so-called “Roof Koreans.”

The Roof Koreans were spontaneous self-defense forces organized by the Korean community of Los Angeles, primarily centered in Koreatown, in response to violent and frequently racist attacks on their communities and businesses by primarily black looters and rioters during the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. Despite their best efforts, over 2,200 Korean-owned businesses were looted or burned to the ground during the riots. It is chilling to imagine how many would have suffered the same fate had the Koreans not been armed.

Standing on the rooftops of Koreatown shops they and their families owned, clad not in body armor or tactical gear, but instead dressed like someone’s nerdy dad, often smoking cigarettes, but always on alert, the Roof Koreans provide a stirring example of how free Americans of all races can defend their own communities without relying upon outside help.

The Koreans of Los Angeles were the ultimate marginalized minority group. They were subject to discrimination and often victimized by the black community of the city. Due to language barriers and other factors, they lacked the political clout of other minority groups, such as the large Mexican community of Los Angeles County. This in spite of their clear economic success in the city beginning in the 1970s and 80s.

The reasons for the tensions between the Korean and black communities of Los Angeles pre-dates the riots, which were largely just the match that ignited the powder keg that had been this region of Los Angeles for years. To understand what happened in Koreatown in 1992, it is necessary to understand much more than simply the Rodney King trial and the resulting riots.

The Roots of Korean Business Ownership in Black Communities

How is it that the Korean-American community of Los Angeles ended up owning so much property in what were largely black neighborhoods? The answer, ironically, lies in a previous riot, the Watts Riot of 1965. This riot, which included six full days of arson and looting, was kicked off when a black man was arrested for drunk driving.

The riots occurred roughly at the same time that the Koreans started showing up in America. This meant that, among other things, businesses and real estate were very cheap to purchase. The newly arrived Korean immigrants began buying up the businesses that no one else wanted. By the 1980s, it wasn’t limited to Los Angeles – Koreans were dominating the mom-and-pop shops from coast to coast. But the resentment in the City of Angels was growing.

Prologue: The Death of Latasha Harlins

Roof Koreans: How Civilians Defended Koreatown from Racist Violence During the 1992 LA RiotsWhile it was not the start of tensions in the city between these two communities, the killing of Latasha Harlins in 1991 certainly ratcheted the situation up to a new level.

Harlins, whose personal life is a hard-luck story that does not bear repeating here, was 15 at the time when she was shot and killed by Korean shopkeeper Soon Ja Du, a 51-year-old woman born in Korea. Du generally didn’t even work in the store, a task that typically fell on her husband and her son. However, that day she was covering for her husband who was outside in the family’s van.

Du claimed that Harlins was trying to steal a $1.79 bottle of orange juice, but witnesses said they heard Du call Harlins a slur and heard Harlins say she planned to pay for the juice, with money in hand. After reviewing videotape footage, the police agreed with the witnesses. Video footage further showed Du grabbing Harlins by her sweatshirt and backpack.

Harlins responded by striking Du twice, which knocked the latter to the ground. Harlins started to back away, prompting Du to throw a stool at her. The two struggled over the juice before Harlins went to leave. Du went behind the counter and grabbed a revolver, firing at a retreating Harlins from behind from three feet away. Harlins was killed instantly by a bullet to the back of the head.

Billy Heung Ki Du, Ja’s husband, rushed into the store after hearing the gunshot. His wife asked where Harlins was before she fainted. Mr. Du then called 911 to report an attempted holdup.

Mrs. Du was charged with voluntary manslaughter, a charge that can carry up to 16 years in prison. At trial, she testified on her own behalf. The jury recommended the maximum sentence, which the judge rejected, instead giving Mrs. Du time served, five years probation, 500 hours of community service and a $500 fine. The California Court of Appeals upheld the sentence about a week before the riots began in a unanimous decision. Harlins’ family received a settlement of $300,000.

The case wasn’t the first example of tensions between the two communities, but it was a microcosm for them and perhaps the worst from an optics perspective. In 1991, the Los Angeles Times reported that there were four shootings in the span of just over four months involving a Korean shooter and a black target. The store was eventually burned down during the riots, never to reopen.

That same year, there was an over 100-day boycott of a Korean-American-owned liquor store that ended when the owner was effectively bullied into selling his store to a black owner. Then-Mayor Tom Bradley, who many blamed for the riots, was instrumental in coming to this “settlement” which chased a Korean owner out of the area.

The Rodney King Verdict: The Riots Begin

Roof Koreans: How Civilians Defended Koreatown from Racist Violence During the 1992 LA RiotsThe other relevant background story is the trial of Rodney King. This was what touched off the LA riots. The short version of the story is that Rodney King led the police on a high-speed chase going up to 115 miles per hour. He was evading them because he was driving while under the influence and was on parole at the time. His two passengers were loaded into the squad car first, with King exiting the car last.

King was beaten for approximately two minutes straight on a 12-minute tape recorded by a nearby civilian. He was also tazed. King repeatedly attempted to get up despite instructions to stay down. Officers later testified that they believed he was on PCP at the time, but his toxicology test ruled this out. The tape became a national sensation and then-Chief Daryl Gates described himself as being in “disbelief” when he saw the tape.

Four of the five officers on the scene were charged. The jury, which contrary to popular belief, was not “all white,” but did not include any black members, acquitted the four officers on assault, acquitted three of them on excessive force, and resulted in a hung jury on the fourth charge after seven days of deliberation.

At 5 p.m. after the verdicts were announced, Mayor Tom Bradley gave a press conference interpreted by many, including Assistant Los Angeles police chief Bob Vernon, as effectively giving permission to riot. Vernon stated that police incidents increased noticeably after the mayor’s statement.

The event credited with touching off the riots was the arrest of 16-year-old Seandel Daniels at 71st and Normandie in South Central Los Angeles. The rioters began attacking Koreatown on the second full day of rioting.

Koreatown Gets Attacked During the 1992 LA Riots

Koreans began moving to Los Angeles in large numbers after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a radical departure from previous immigration laws that dramatically changed the demographic character of the nation, including Los Angeles. Many Koreans opened successful businesses in the area, but incurred resentment and racism from black residents, which is documented in popular culture of the time such as Do The Right Thing and Ice Cube’s “Black Korea” off of Death Certificate.

When the riots spread throughout the city, the LAPD blocked roads going through Koreatown into more affluent neighborhoods. This was seen by many residents as a containment that effectively left Koreatown residents trapped inside the riot zone. What’s more, the police and other first responders ignored the pleas for help coming from within Koreatown.

Of the nearly $1 billion in damages done during the riots, over half of it was done to Korean-owned businesses.

Enter the Roof Koreans

Roof Koreans: How Civilians Defended Koreatown from Racist Violence During the 1992 LA RiotsThe Korean community of Los Angeles did not simply sit by and allow their neighborhood and businesses to be destroyed by rioters without lifting a finger. On the contrary, the images of Korean shopkeepers and their families defending themselves from the rooftops of their buildings soon became one of the most iconic images of the riots. Live footage of gun battles was circulated on cable news and elsewhere. The images still resonate with freedom lovers to this day – what image could be more powerful than an ethnic minority refusing to subject itself to a pogrom, instead taking to the rooftops to defend themselves with deadly force, if necessary?

For firearms collectors, the Roof Koreans present another avenue of interest: They used many cool weapons that largely left the market after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was passed. The Intratec TEC-9 and the A.A. Arms Kimel AP-9 are just two of the weapons used by the Roof Koreans, alongside more standard weapons such as the Daewoo K1, standard issue for the Republic of Korea’s military.

The Republic of Korea’s military is another key part of the story with regard to the Roof Koreans. Far from an untrained mob of men who took up with arms sans training, the Roof Koreans were, by virtually any definition, “a well-regulated militia.” Many of them had experience in the South Korean Army, as South Korea has conscription with very few exceptions.

It’s worth noting that virtually every weapon used by the Roof Koreans to defend themselves, their businesses, their communities, and their families would be against the law or, at least, highly restricted today. “High capacity magazines” (anything over ten rounds) are against the law and there is a 10-day waiting period for all firearms purchases. As the riots lasted five days, this would have put anyone who had not already purchased a firearm in a seriously precarious position.

The Lessons of the Roof Koreans

Kurt Schlichter was in Inglewood at the time of riots, one of the hardest-hit areas. He speaks eloquently on the topic of the Roof Koreans (or “Rooftop Koreans” as he calls them) and the need for communities to defend themselves. His account of defending Los Angeles against riots is worth reading, despite the fact that he was not in Koreatown.

He makes the case that it is not just wise, but the responsibility of all Americans to prepare themselves for such events. And while we would not go as far as him to suggest that people ought to be legally required to prepare for such an event, we do agree with him that everyone is their own first responder. More than that, there is a solid argument to be made that we have a duty to our community to prepare for those times when individual defense is not enough, but a common defense is necessary.

The Roof Koreans provide a perfect, real-life counter-argument to the idiotic question of gun grabbers that free men justify why they “need” certain arms to defend themselves. If ever anyone “needed” a fully automatic rifle with a 100-round magazine, it was the Korean community of Los Angeles.

06/16/20

Cloward-Piven Strategy Resurgence in the Form of BLM and ANTIFA Led Riots

By: Jason Brown | Gulag Bound

Richard Andrew Cloward and Francis Fox Piven are two names that are largely unfamiliar to the average American, but their historical relevance is being seen all over the country today as we watch civil unrest in the form of riots ensue.  The Cloward-Piven strategy is well known among modern-day revolutionaries including democratic socialists. These two individuals have long been members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

This strategy has origins all the way back to 1965 when there were riots in Los Angeles that started after LAPD Officers attempted to subdue a man that was suspected of drunk driving using batons. In 1966, Cloward and Piven produced an article entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” It was published in the May 2. 1966 issue of The Nation.  After tens of thousands of reprints, many recognized this work as a strategy that could be utilized in a crisis.

The Cloward-Piven strategy made an argument that the elite ruling class was subduing the poor through a welfare system that kept those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder in check through appeasement. The rationale that was used here, was that oligarchs avoided rebellion by the poor through the implementation of an economic safety net.

The case to be made here was that the poor would only see progress when society was afraid of them. The plan here was to overload the system so that the system collapses. This then opens the door to the installment of a totalitarian regime to control the masses.  This strategy was conceived with an inherent hatred for capitalism and the desire to collapse our economic system.

Saul Alinsky was an inspiration for many early Cloward-Piven advocates.  Alinsky authored Rules for Radicals, a work that has inspired leftist revolutionaries for decades. Hillary Clinton was also very partial to this work by Alinsky and wrote her thesis for school using ideology and concepts from the book. Alinsky was introduced to Hillary by a Methodist Pastor that had befriended her and started pointing her in a direction that led her away from her conservative beliefs at the time.

Hillary was a Goldwater girl before turning to the dark side, so to speak.  Alinsky’s background takes us all the way back to Chicago in the age of prohibition as he rode along with Al Capone’s bag man, learning the ropes from the professionals. Alinsky took what he learned and formed his own qualities as an agitator, but chose to do so through strategic placement of individuals in positions of authority in the government, to take control from the inside.

The article that sparked the explosion of the Cloward-Piven strategy called for, “cadres of aggressive organizers” and to utilize “demonstrations to create a climate of militancy.” Controlled media efforts with sycophantic journalists are made to push the narrative. The only thing today that is different from the original intent of this strategy is that the application that we are seeing now is not related to the welfare system. The main objective still leads to the same end, overwhelming the system and forcing it into collapse. They are now trying to disband law enforcement and/or cut their funding.

We must acknowledge that there is an organized effort, by bad actors, foreign and domestic, that want to see the destruction of our republic. We cannot be intimidated by those that want to call us conspiracy theorists, or make fun of us and our “tin foil hats.” We have to speak truth to our elected officials and remind them that they work for us and that we are not their subjects.

Putting an end to these revolutionary insurgents is only possible if we recognize them for what they are. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that you have one. We need to be united as a people because together we are strong. When we are divided along lines of race, gender, sexual orientation, and political ideology we are weak as we fight each other, rather than push back against those that are doing the damage to this country. We need to realize this and stop sabotaging our fellow Americans.


Jason A Brown, a husband, father, and a practical nurse of 13 years holds a B.A. in Criminal Justice/Homeland Security. He studies and applies arenas of thought including sociology, philosophy, constitutional law, politics, and history.

06/7/20

Mao’s Red Guard Conservatives Jump on the Revolutionary Bandwagon

By: Cliff Kincaid

Anybody with half a brain tied behind his or her back knows that the country is in a state of mass hypnosis or hysteria. Consider that a broadcaster was forced to resign for saying “All Lives Matter;” the TV show “Cops” has been put on hold, since it might portray the police in a favorable light; a Texas Ranger statue was removed from the Dallas airport, and Clemson coach Dabo Swinney was personally attacked for wearing a “Football Matters” shirt.

It appears to those of us who have studied communism that we are living through a version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. His Red Guards would invade private homes looking for those suspected of “bourgeois” tendencies.

This has come about because many people had a knee-jerk reaction when they saw the snippet of a video with a Minneapolis police officer with his knee on the neck of George Floyd. “There are zero legitimate law enforcement justifications for what happened to George Floyd,” said “conservative” Senator Ted Cruz, a Harvard-trained lawyer. That’s the reaction the mob was counting on. People reacted with outrage and disgust. But they didn’t have the whole story. They were not aware of another video showing Floyd scuffling with police. And they were not aware of the autopsy showing Floyd’s heavy drug use and the facts about his criminal record.

Upon reflection, which is too late for the people killed and businesses destroyed in the riots, we know that George Floyd was a heavy drug user and that his death may have been linked to the use of those drugs. What’s more, Larry C. Johnson notes that the police officer’s use of his knee on the side of the neck of Floyd was “a technique he had been trained to use by the Minneapolis Police Department.” That section of the training manual can be read by anyone but few have done so. Johnson concludes that the Minneapolis police officers accused of murdering George Floyd “are being railroaded and are likely to be exonerated once the full evidence is presented.”

The “full evidence,” of course, wasn’t available immediately after the incident, when many politicians and commentators, even some of a conservative persuasion, jumped to conclusions and wanted to look politically correct by blaming the police. Dozens of communist groups, including Antifa, then jumped into action. They saw their opportunity and took it.

Rush Limbaugh, who popularized the saying about using half his brain tied behind his back, left the other half of his brain somewhere else as well when he recently conducted an “exchange” with the same black radio host, “Charlamagne Tha God,” who became famous when he got Joe Biden to say “you ain’t black” if you don’t support him. Limbaugh called the cops in Minneapolis “stupid” and added that George Floyd, who was being put in police custody because a store employee had called about Floyd allegedly passing counterfeit money, “is the essence of innocence.” One of his previous crimes was five years in prison for aggravated assault.

Why a conservative would want to spend one second of valuable air time with someone calling himself “Tha God” is beyond me. He said later the “interview” with Limbaugh about “white privilege” was a waste of time. Limbaugh wasted his time and that of his listeners. What’s worse, Limbaugh whitewashed George Floyd’s criminal record. He played into the hands of the mob.

The time would have been better spent with Candace Owens, a black conservative who has dared to tell the truth about George Floyd’s criminal record and questions why some blacks make such an individual into a martyr.

Limbaugh, fighting to stay alive as he valiantly battles his own health problems, wanted to appear compassionate, someone who wanted to engage in “dialogue” to save black lives after the death of George Floyd. He fell flat on his face. But he’s not alone. I’ve found that some conservative web sites usually eager to publish my columns won’t touch anything I write on the Floyd case. They are embarrassed by the fact that they, like Cruz and Limbaugh, bought into the left-wing narrative.

Compassionate conservatism is not what elected Donald J. Trump. That approach only cedes ground to the left. Instead, appealing to the silent majority and getting people to show some backbone is the way to neutralize the Red Guard protesters attempting to continue Barack Hussein Obama’s fundamental transformation of America. Many Americans are mad as hell, but won’t say so publicly, as the rioting and looting that began in Minneapolis has now spread to other cities. If anything, they suspect that Trump is not moving fast enough to put down the communist insurrection.

This kind of “rebellion,” as Mao called it, was being planned by the Red Chinese even as Mao was conducting his own revolution in China. He used the 1968 riots in America over the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. to issue a statement “in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression” and had earlier issued a statement “supporting the American Negroes In Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism.”

The Communist Party of China newspaper, China Daily, noted that, “In May, 1959, Mao met with visiting African-American civil rights leader W.E.B. Du Bois. On China’s National Day celebration on Oct 1, 1966, Robert Williams, another civil rights leader and a revolutionary, was invited to speak at Tiananmen Rostrum, with Mao standing at his side. In 1971, then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai met in Beijing with Huey Newton, leader of the Black Panther Party.”

W.E.B Du Bois praised Stalin, won the Lenin Peace Prize, and renounced his American citizenship. Williams had lived in Cuba, China, and North Vietnam, and the Black Panthers were notorious for depicting police as pigs.

Despite his reputation as a moderate, Martin Luther King, Jr. paid tribute to Du Bois, who himself joined the Communist Party USA in 1961, at an event sponsored by the Soviet-funded Freedomways journal in New York City.

Reds have been exploiting blacks for decades.

Indeed, the China Daily article noted how black leaders in the 1960s and ’70s were inspired by Mao and created “many Maoist organizations” on American soil. They still exist and are heavily represented in the protests. The brilliant analyst Trevor Loudon has written extensively about them. He knows far more than the FBI. Indeed, if an FBI agent interested in the truth used an official computer to access Trevor’s KeyWiki website, an encyclopedia of facts about the far-left, he or she would be fired. But the truth is the truth. And the truth is in short supply as “conservatives” jump on the revolutionary bandwagon that has Mao’s fingerprints all over it.

It’s time to support those telling the truth before the truth disappears forever.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org.