Category Archives: racism

Racism In Women’s March Leadership And Black America

Truth Hate Crimes in the U.S.

‘Time’s up,” the slogan of the Hollywood anti-harassment movement, has a very different meaning for Louis Farrakhan.

At his annual Savior’s Day conference in Chicago last weekend, the Nation of Islam leader boasted, “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.”

Farrakhan is as immodest as he is anti-Semitic. He may seem like yesterday’s Jew-hater, since he could never gather the kind of crowds he did for the so-called Million Man’s March in Washington, DC, 20 years ago. Yet he still has a following. Thousands showed up to hear him spew his usual garbage during his Savior’s Day speech, including one of the organizers of the Women’s March.

The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, calls Farrakhan “quite possibly the most popular anti-Semite in America today.” Certainly, the haters of the alt-right don’t measure up. The white nationalist Richard Spencer would surely love to get Farrakhan’s crowds and have such a relatively robust institutional presence and publishing operation, let alone manage to maintain influence with more mainstream figures.

Tamika Mallory, the Women’s March organizer, wasn’t abashed about her attendance at the rally. She posted a photo on Instagram of herself at the event, and showed no sign of distress at Farrakhan’s greatest hits (“the powerful Jews are my enemy”; Jews are “the mother and father of apartheid”; “when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door”; the Jews control Mexico, and a swath of Europe; and any number of other vicious lies).

Called out on her presence at the speech, Mallory tweeted a response worthy of a fellow-traveler with the Nation of Islam, “If your leader does not have the same enemies as Jesus, they may not be THE leader!”

What enemies could she be speaking of?

Mallory further pushed back by stating, “I am a strong black woman.” Actually, her putrid equivocation over Farrakhan speaks to the opposite of strength.

She added that the black community is “complex.” So is any community, but that doesn’t justify tolerating rank hatred.

And it wouldn’t be an argument with a left-wing activist if she didn’t cite the buzzword of the hour, explaining that she has “done intersectional work for 20+ years.”

He has updated this theme slightly to account for transgenderism — “the Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men.”Ah, yes, intersectionality. Farrakhan has his own notions of that. In 2007, he declared that “it’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality.”

Mallory isn’t the only Women’s March organizer with a soft spot for the lunatic minister. Carmen Perez is another admirer. “There are no perfect leaders,” she explains, although there is a lot of daylight between normal human imperfection and Farrakhan’s paranoid rantings.

Yet another organizer, Linda Sarsour, took part in a Nation of Islam event in 2015.

Are these activists too minor to bother about? Well, if Tea Party organizers 10 years ago had been friendly toward David Duke, we would — understandably — have heard no end of it.

Just as mainstream conservatives must ostracize the alt-right, the center-left should guard against progressives making excuses for Farrakhan. With the exception of Jake Tapper of CNN, though, the media has ignored the latest eruption of the Farrakhan story.

As a reminder of how much this hygiene is necessary, Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois popped up to justify his relationship with Farrakhan. He told the Daily Caller, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth.”

Could anyone say this about David Duke and remain in office?

Farrakhan’s time should be up, but it never quite is.

By Rich Lowry NYPost

Hate, Inc.: The SPLC Is a Hyper-Partisan Scam


The purported fact-finding group is in fact a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash.

There was a time when the Southern Poverty Law Center did useful work reporting on actual hate groups such as the KKK. These days, though, the SPLC is simply a MoveOn or Media Matters–style outfit. Its core mission now is trying to marginalize and shut up even mildly right-of-center voices by calling them instruments of hate, making increasingly strained attempts to tie conservative commentators, authors, political figures, and professors to the alt-right or neo-Nazism. At the same time it elevates absurd bloggers to the level of potential leaders of lynch mobs.

The equivalent of a Drudge-siren moment for SPLC is when it rolls out yet another faux-neutral report on hate, which is always getting worse and threatening to engulf the republic. The SPLC’s report on “Male supremacy,” which it calls “a hateful ideology for the subjugation of women” and ties to the men’s-rights activists lurking on 4Chan and Reddit who boast about their supposed dominance of women, lists as pernicious allies the psychologist, author, and PJ Media columnist Helen Smith and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, calling them “anti-feminist female voices” who “give the men’s rights movement a veneer of even-handedness” and lend a “mainstream and respectable face to some MRA concerns.”

You will search Smith’s and Sommers’s writings in vain for the sort of chest-thumping idiocies espoused by men’s-rights bloggers such as Paul Elam of the site A Voice for Men or “Roosh V.” (a.k.a. Daryush Valizadeh), a self-proclaimed “pickup artist” from the site Return of Kings. The SPLC is designating both of these websites “hate groups,” which offers an answer to the question of why the number of hate groups always seems to be growing in the SPLC’s tabulations. Got a blog you use to attract clicks by saying the most outrageous things you can come up with in between playing shoot-’em-up games on the PlayStation? Congratulations, you’re a “hate group.” Just like the Nazi party.

Elam and Valizadeh have said plenty of controversial, indeed hateful, things, but what fault is that of such distinguished scholars as Sommers and Smith? Nothing either of them has written gets quoted in the report. We’re meant to take the SPLC’s word for it that these women somehow “give a mainstream and respectable face” to the louts. Sommers told The Weekly Standard that she used to admire the SPLC, but now “they’re blacklisting in place of engaging with arguments. They blacklist you, rather than try to refute you.” Smith (a contributor to the Instapundit blog run by her husband, Glenn Reynolds) wrote at PJ Media, “I get emails and letters from men across the US and even other countries who tell me about the difficulties and downright atrocities that they are dealing with” but they find themselves subjected to “contempt by society, the courts and miserable, misandric places like the Southern Poverty Law Center.”

SPLC, founded by a direct-mail zillionaire named Morris Dees, spends far more on direct-mail fundraising pleas ($10 million) than it ever has on legal services, according to an analysis by Philanthropy Roundtable, and has never passed along more than 31 percent of its funding to charitable programs, sometimes as little as 18 percent. Meanwhile it has built itself a palatial six-story headquarters and an endowment of more than $200 million. In essence it is a machine for turning leftist hysteria into cash that portrays itself as a non-partisan, fact-finding group and has long been treated as such by media institutions such as the Washington Post and the New York Times. Yet it has also targeted Senator Rand Paul, surgeon–turned–HUD secretary Ben Carson, and human-rights activists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz, calling them extremists or agents of hate (though it removed Carson from its list after an outcry), and it tagged both the Family Research Council and Mark Krikorian’s think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies, as hate groups, though the latter has been invited to testify before Congress more than 100 times.

SPLC’s tactics inspired a Politico piece wondering whether, in an era when the group’s “biggest fights seemed to be behind it,” it was “overstepping its bounds.” “There is a desperate need for more objective research on hate crimes and domestic extremism,” J. M. Berger, a researcher on extremism and a fellow with the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism at the Hague, told Politico. He said that “the problem partly stems from the fact that the [SPLC] wears two hats, as both an activist group and a source of information.” Progressive journalist Ken Silverstein, who in Harper’s compared SPLC’s practices to those of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, told Politico, “The organization has always tried to find ways to milk money out of the public by finding whatever threat they can most credibly promote.”

The SPLC is, as Philanthropy Roundtable put it, “Hate, Inc.,” or “The Anti-Hate Group That Is a Hate Group.” Its shameful attacks on Smith, Sommers, Ali, Carson, Paul, Krikorian, and others are simply scaremongering for suckers. It may portray itself as a justice-minded team of Atticus Finches. In reality it’s more like a goon squad of David Brocks.

Jews Don’t Count!

No Jews?

How Cheap Is Jewish Blood?

This week, The Guardian, one of the most left-wing newspapers in Great Britain, published a 2,300-word piece describing the problem of terrorism in cities across the world. It name-checked London, Berlin, Manchester, Paris, Nice, Brussels, and Barcelona; it mentioned Algeria, Italy, Brazil, Kuwait, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nairobi and Oklahoma City. It mentioned Israel but once — and only in order to mention the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. As Yair Rosenberg notes, not a single terrorist attack against Israelis made the article.

All of which raises a question: Why is it that whenever Western leaders talk about terrorism, they seem to leave terrorism against Jews off the list?

This isn’t a rarity. It’s regular and it’s predictable. When President Barack Obama spoke about the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, for example, he brushed off the simultaneous attack on a Jewish supermarket as “random” (he later backed down). When President George W. Bush spoke about global terrorism, he rarely mentioned terrorism inside Israel. When the media list terror attacks against Western targets, Jerusalem never earns a mention.

There’s no true excuse for leaving dead Israelis off the list of terror victims.

There are two possible explanations. Neither is good enough.

First, there are those who claim that terrorism against Israelis is part of a broader political conflict — that such terrorism isn’t religious in nature, but rather a tactic in a territorial war. That’s absolute nonsense. This week, 29-year-old Itamar Ben Gal, a teacher at a yeshiva in Ariel, was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist while waiting by the roadside; he left four children behind. That follows the murder of Rabbi Raziel Shevach, a father of six, in the same area, as he drove along the highway. These are civilian, not military targets. These were family men murdered for no reason other than their Judaism.

And no, this isn’t about settlements. In 2017, Israel saw a wave of terror attacks across Israel; most of those attacks were perpetrated inside so-called Green Line Israel: stabbings on the streets, truck attacks on civilian crowds. The Palestinian leadership celebrates such killings and offers the families of terrorists financial incentives to pursue them. And the Palestinian leadership is clear about the rationale for such killings. That rationale is the same as the al-Qaida rationale or the ISIS rationale: a radical Islamic political viewpoint that sees the slaughter of non-Muslim innocents as a tool in the jihad against the infidel. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas isn’t a “moderate” leader seeking peace; he’s a radical who stated openly just weeks ago that “Israel is a colonialist project that has nothing to do with the Jews.”

Then there’s the second explanation for why the world would downplay terrorist attacks against Jews: an anti-Semitic attempt to separate off the Jews from the West. That’s certainly the tendency in Europe, where it’s convenient to view anti-Semitic attacks inside the continent by radical Muslims not as attacks on European citizens but as internecine warfare between two outsider groups. That’s convenient because it allows Europe to treat the rise in anti-Semitic crime as an aberration rather than a serious internal problem. But it also reinforces the lie that Jews cannot be full citizens of the West.

There’s no true excuse for leaving dead Israelis off the list of terror victims. But those who do it don’t need an excuse. They’ll keep on doing it so long as the Jewish community remains silent about the omission. And so long as that omission remains the rule rather than the exception, the West will continue to ignore a basic, simple truth: The Jews of Israel are the canary in the coalmine in radical Islam’s war against the West, not an outlier nation that can be cast aside for political convenience. What starts on the streets of Jerusalem usually finds its way to the streets of London. The non-Israeli West would be smart to recognize that fact, if only to protect itself.

Ben Shapiro is a best-selling author, editor-in-chief at The Daily Wire and host of the podcast “The Ben Shapiro Show.”

Whites, Blacks And The Fading NFL Protests

NFL Protests

The recent protests by black players in the National Football League were rather sad for their fruitlessness. They may point to the end of an era for black America, and for the country generally—an era in which protest has been the primary means of black advancement in American life.

There was a forced and unconvincing solemnity on the faces of these players as they refused to stand for the national anthem. They seemed more dutiful than passionate, as if they were mimicking the courage of earlier black athletes who had protested: Tommie Smith and John Carlos, fists in the air at the 1968 Olympics; Muhammad Ali, fearlessly raging against the Vietnam War; Jackie Robinson, defiantly running the bases in the face of racist taunts. The NFL protesters seemed to hope for a little ennoblement by association.

And protest has long been an ennobling tradition in black American life. From the Montgomery bus boycott to the march on Selma, from lunch-counter sit-ins and Freedom Rides to the 1963 March on Washington, only protest could open the way to freedom and the acknowledgment of full humanity. So it was a high calling in black life. It required great sacrifice and entailed great risk. Martin Luther King Jr. , the archetypal black protester, made his sacrifices, ennobled all of America, and was then shot dead.

For the NFL players there was no real sacrifice, no risk and no achievement. Still, in black America there remains a great reverence for protest. Through protest—especially in the 1950s and ’60s—we, as a people, touched greatness. Protest, not immigration, was our way into the American Dream. Freedom in this country had always been relative to race, and it was black protest that made freedom an absolute.

It is not surprising, then, that these black football players would don the mantle of protest. The surprise was that it didn’t work. They had misread the historic moment. They were not speaking truth to power. Rather, they were figures of pathos, mindlessly loyal to a black identity that had run its course.

What they missed is a simple truth that is both obvious and unutterable: The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless. We blacks are, today, a free people. It is as if freedom sneaked up and caught us by surprise.

Of course this does not mean there is no racism left in American life. Racism is endemic to the human condition, just as stupidity is. We will always have to be on guard against it. But now it is recognized as a scourge, as the crowning immorality of our age and our history.

Protest always tries to make a point. But what happens when that point already has been made—when, in this case, racism has become anathema and freedom has expanded?

What happened was that black America was confronted with a new problem: the shock of freedom. This is what replaced racism as our primary difficulty. Blacks had survived every form of human debasement with ingenuity, self-reliance, a deep and ironic humor, a capacity for self-reinvention and a heroic fortitude. But we had no experience of wide-open freedom.

Watch out that you get what you ask for, the saying goes. Freedom came to blacks with an overlay of cruelty because it meant we had to look at ourselves without the excuse of oppression. Four centuries of dehumanization had left us underdeveloped in many ways, and within the world’s most highly developed society. When freedom expanded, we became more accountable for that underdevelopment. So freedom put blacks at risk of being judged inferior, the very libel that had always been used against us.

To hear, for example, that more than 4,000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016 embarrasses us because this level of largely black-on-black crime cannot be blamed simply on white racism.

We can say that past oppression left us unprepared for freedom. This is certainly true. But it is no consolation. Freedom is just freedom. It is a condition, not an agent of change. It does not develop or uplift those who win it. Freedom holds us accountable no matter the disadvantages we inherit from the past. The tragedy in Chicago—rightly or wrongly—reflects on black America.

That’s why, in the face of freedom’s unsparing judgmentalism, we reflexively claim that freedom is a lie. We conjure elaborate narratives that give white racism new life in the present: “systemic” and “structural” racism, racist “microaggressions,” “white privilege,” and so on. All these narratives insist that blacks are still victims of racism, and that freedom’s accountability is an injustice.

We end up giving victimization the charisma of black authenticity. Suffering, poverty and underdevelopment are the things that make you “truly black.” Success and achievement throw your authenticity into question.

The NFL protests were not really about injustice. Instead such protests are usually genuflections to today’s victim-focused black identity. Protest is the action arm of this identity. It is not seeking a new and better world; it merely wants documentation that the old racist world still exists. It wants an excuse.

For any formerly oppressed group, there will be an expectation that the past will somehow be an excuse for difficulties in the present. This is the expectation behind the NFL protests and the many protests of groups like Black Lives Matter. The near-hysteria around the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others is also a hunger for the excuse of racial victimization, a determination to keep it alive. To a degree, black America’s self-esteem is invested in the illusion that we live under a cloud of continuing injustice.

When you don’t know how to go forward, you never just sit there; you go backward into what you know, into what is familiar and comfortable and, most of all, exonerating. You rebuild in your own mind the oppression that is fading from the world. And you feel this abstract, fabricated oppression as if it were your personal truth, the truth around which your character is formed. Watching the antics of Black Lives Matter is like watching people literally aspiring to black victimization, longing for it as for a consummation.

But the NFL protests may be a harbinger of change. They elicited considerable resentment. There have been counterprotests. TV viewership has gone down. Ticket sales have dropped. What is remarkable about this response is that it may foretell a new fearlessness in white America—a new willingness in whites (and blacks outside the victim-focused identity) to say to blacks what they really think and feel, to judge blacks fairly by standards that are universal.

We blacks have lived in a bubble since the 1960s because whites have been deferential for fear of being seen as racist. The NFL protests reveal the fundamental obsolescence—for both blacks and whites—of a victim-focused approach to racial inequality. It causes whites to retreat into deference and blacks to become nothing more than victims. It makes engaging as human beings and as citizens impermissible, a betrayal of the sacred group identity. Black victimization is not much with us any more as a reality, but it remains all too powerful as a hegemony.

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).

Puerto Rico’s Biggest Newspaper Prints Column Blaming “The Jew” For Country’s Problems

Puerto Rico jewhater
A columnist for San Juan’s El Nuevo Día published a column blaming Jews for controlling the disaster relief efforts after a devastating hurricane struck the island September 2017.

In her bizarre rant “What Does ‘The Jew’ Want From The Colony?,” Wilda Rodriguez says decisions about the future of the island’s finances and infrastructure are being manipulated “behind closed doors” by Jews who constitute “the secret structure that rules the United States.”

Forty-five percent of the island’s residents currently lack power and many are facing food and medical supply shortages. Many cite the island’s pre-hurricane infrastructure’s poor upkeep as one of the main reasons why the island’s recovery efforts have taken so long.

“More than 20 years ago, the Israeli paper Ma’ariv had an article in Hebrew that explained how the Jews control Washington,” Rodriguez writes. “For Israelis, recognizing Jewish power over Washington is not an offensive statement. It is the victory of the Diaspora.”

Rodriguez continues by providing a conspiracy theory that Jews on Wall Street are punishing the island because of its massive $70 billion debt, which she believes would be “fatal” to financial markets if Puerto Rico refused to pay back.

“The punishment needs to make it clear to the debtor world that Wall Street cannot be manipulated,” she writes.

The article was later updated with a disclaimer from Rodriguez apologizing for any “offense to people of that religion.” El Nuevo Día also provided its own statement saying the paper does “not promote content that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic.”

Joe Simonson, Daily Caller, January 15, 2018

SHAME: Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo Honors Homophobe, Racist and Murderer

Che Racist

Ah, Paris. The city of romance, style, sophistication…not to mention liberté, égalité, fraternité. It’s all so civilized, so humanistic, so… je ne sais quoi. Perhaps a mere Cuban should not presume to understand its ways, let alone pass judgment on it, but alas, I am one of “those people,” and you know how they are.

The current (and first female) mayor of Paris is Anne Hidalgo, born in Spain of Spanish parents but raised in France. Unlike her horrid technically female counterparts in Madrid and Barcelona, she’s presentable, can smile pleasantly and could pass for a nice person. Of course, she is a Socialist, so there’s that. She’s also an outspoken atheist, but that’s hardly worse than being a fake or dangerously heretical “Christian” (like, well, you know).

But let’s cut to the chase: the ritzy Paris Hôtel de Ville (City Hall), obviously her turf, is now holding a free public exhibition (Dec 20-Feb 17) called “Che in Paris.” Apparently to drum up visitors, Hidalgo tweeted this on Dec 28:

Avec l’exposition Le CHE à Paris, la capitale rend hommage à une figure de la révolution devenue une icône militante et romantique. A découvrir gratuitement à l’Hôtel de Ville de Paris.

“The capital honors a revolutionary figure that has become a militant and romantic icon.” HonorsRomanticHerwords.

Displayed prominently in large letters on a wall at the exhibit is this gem from Che, which sounds even better in French:

Il faut s’endurcir sans perdre la tendresse. “One must toughen up without losing tenderness.” Words fail, but then again, they’d probably be redundant. We’re all excruciatingly familiar with Che’s tenderness.

Yes, to be fair, there has been negative reaction in France to this, uh, gaucherie (though not, of course, from the left), and Hidalgo has been put on the defensive, especially concerning the wording in her exceedingly, uh, dubious tweet. She claims she did not call Che romantic, but only said he had become a romantic figure. Classic, n’est-ce pas? Vil Clinton would approve the dodge, no doubt. She also claims the controversy has been engineered by the extreme right. Sound familiar? It would to Mrs. Clinton.

But I don’t want to tirarme pal solar or anything and hurl obscenities at Madame Hidalgo. I have just three words for her: Santocielo, el asco.

SURPRISE! The Truth About Hate Crimes In The U.S.

Truth Hate Crimes in the U.S.

“Hate Soars,” a headline declared, over a story showing bias crimes in the nation rose 5 percent in 2016.

It’s a good theory — except for the facts. Antisemitism is the largest religious hate crime group in the U.S.

First, more than half of the 1,538 hate crimes involving religion targeted Jews, while less than 25 percent targeted Muslims.

Second, murder rose faster than hate crimes. FBI stats show 17,250 people were reported killed in the US in 2016, an increase of 8.6 percent over 2015.

NYT Op-Ed: I’m Teaching My Black Child Not To Be Friends With White Kids

On Saturday, The New York Times ran yet another execrable op-ed, this time from Professor Ekow Yankah of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. This op-ed argued that black children should not be friends with white children, and that their parents ought to warn them off of such relationships. This assuredly makes things awkward at Yeshiva University, a Jewish school.

The piece begins with Yankah’s oldest son, who is 4, talking about his friends:

My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.” It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

This is insanity. Because Donald Trump was elected, all white people are suspect? Because there were 1,000 evil people marching for an evil cause in Charlottesville, some 200 million white people across America are suspect? This is racism of the highest order. And teaching your children not to be friends with people based on their race is the essence of racism.

But Yankah continues:

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.

Well, no. MLK’s dream was a dream because he wanted to see it fulfilled and believed that it could be. If he didn’t, he would have gone home and joined Malcolm X. But he should have, says Yankah, since “History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities.”

The piece continues in this vein, citing differential treatment of the opioid epidemic (largely white) vs. the crack cocaine epidemic (largely black), and ignoring the income levels of those affected by the epidemics, which is a serious confound; black underemployment, which Yankah attributes to “robust evidence of continuing racism,” without showing any evidence; policing, which has not been shown to be systemically racist by statistics. Yankah’s conclusion:

As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.

So we are not all the same on the inside. Which is an idea that John C. Calhoun or Richard Spencer might be comfortable with. But Yankah couches his vitriol in the guise of safety preparations for his children:

Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”…I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.

The condescension is real, and the glee is palpable. To teach your children not to hope for a day when black and white can be friends – in fact, to teach your children now that such a day isn’t here – is asinine. And to pretend that every Trump voter is replete with hatred is just as asinine. But racism and bigotry are fine so long as they come from the Left, apparently.



Black Women In Chicago Are Arming Themselves.

Javondlynn Dunagan

Great news out of violence-plagued Chicago’s South Side: A growing number of black women are buying guns, getting trained in their proper use and receiving concealed-carry licenses. So far this year, 1,368 carry licenses have been issued to black women in Cook County, surpassing the total number of 1,358 issued for all of 2016—which was up substantially from the year before.

What is responsible for this rise? The crucial first step was a federal appeals court decision nullifying Illinois’ unconstitutional refusal to issue concealed-carry licenses.

In December 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a statewide ban on private citizens legally carrying concealed weapons. At the time, Illinois was the only state in the country to still have such a prohibition. The Illinois State Police, who now issue the licenses and maintain demographic data on licensees, proudly proclaim on their website, “On July 9, 2013, Public Act 98-63, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, became state law (430 ILCS 66). This law requires an Illinois Concealed Carry License to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois.”

Two years after the ruling, the state began to issue licenses for concealed carry—and black women have taken the new freedom to heart. In 2014, the inaugural year of concealed-carry permit licensing, 800 permits were issued to black women. Since then, the number of CCLs issued to black women has risen dramatically, with more than 4,000 issued in Cook County alone. While licenses to men and women of other races still outpace the number issued to black women, the consistent year-over-year rise for black women is remarkable.

Black women aren’t unique in wanting to feel safe outside the home. Getting properly trained to handle firearms and then carrying concealed is an excellent way to do that. Being prepared can promote confidence and even be exhilarating!

One source of carry permit applicants is JMD Defense and Investigations and its Ladies of Steel Gun Club. While the business opened just this year, members report seeking out safety through gun ownership because of an increase in crime in their neighborhoods. Upon receiving their permits, women in the club reported feeling a new sense of confidence as they go about their daily commitments.

Black women in Chicago are getting carry licenses to defend themselves in a violence-plagued city

The Chicago Tribune interviewed the owner of JMD Defense, Javondlynn Dunagan, and her enthusiasm is contagious. She started the venture out of a desire to see more women trained to use guns for self-defense. Dunagan, who was previously married to a police officer, said that after her divorce she “felt kind of naked in a house without a firearm.” In her desire to acquire a gun and get the training to use it safely, she created an environment in her community for others to do the same.

Dunagan saw a need, as there is little firearm training available on the South Side of Chicago. Her story of desiring a greater sense of public safety for herself and her community—then doing something substantial to provide it—isn’t unique, but it is worth celebrating.

At a time when the media deceptively portray gun ownership as a sign of racial animus, seeing more black women getting licensed to carry concealed firearms, practicing regularly and joining gun clubs provides a dose of reality to the narrative and shows what’s really going on in the gun community. What will the media say if crime in Chicago begins to decline? They surely won’t give any credit to the presence of more legally armed women, or to the change in the demeanor of potential victims from a state of fear to one of empowerment.

No, it will likely go unnoticed by them. But at this point, what difference does it make? More firearms freedom is great, regardless of the media’s interpretation. To the women of Chicago who now carry concealed firearms, we say: “Welcome to our tribe. We salute you.”


SHAME! Interpol’s New Terrorist Member


It’s hard to think the world could get more dangerous, but it just did — as Interpol accepted the nonexistent “state of Palestine” as a member. Who’s next, ISIS?

In a secret ballot Wednesday by the international police group’s General Assembly, 75 nations agreed to accept the Palestinians’ bid for inclusion, with 24 voting nay and 34 abstentions.

The secrecy ensured that no country would pay a price for its vote, so nations were free to express their true anti-Israel/anti-Semitic hostility — and thus provide a better (and more depressing) picture of how extensive that hate really is.

Make no mistake: Israel has much to lose here. It’s not just that yet another international body has recognized “Palestine” (the UN, UNESCO and other groups have all offered it some form of membership), thereby boosting its standing.

Worse: Palestinians can now try to use Interpol to push bogus “law-enforcement” efforts (travel bans, extraditions, etc.) aimed at Israelis. Worse yet: Sensitive Interpol intel may fall into the hands of Palestinian terror groups.

Think about it: Washington has designated Hamas, one of the two groups that run “Palestine,” as a terrorist organization. The other, the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, also backs terror, albeit less systematically.

Just this week, Fatah praised Tuesday’s attack by a Palestinian terrorist that left three Israelis dead. The PA reportedly will pay his family $1,700, plus $740 a month for life.

Meanwhile, PA President Mahmoud Abbas regularly incites violence and refuses to stop paying stipends to imprisoned terrorists and the survivors of dead ones. On Wednesday, Palestinian Media Watch noted that 75 Palestinian schools are named for terrorists, Nazi collaborators and the like.

It’s tragic: Nations committed to fighting terror (the United States, Israel) may now have to withhold info from Interpol for fear of leaks — weakening its effectiveness and paving the way for more crime and terror.

Until Palestinian leaders end their support for terrorists, they have no business being part of a police organization.