NRA President: Gun Control is Racist

Finally, some offense from the gun rights advocates. No matter what the gun control debate has been focusing on lately, it almost always involves gun rights proponents being on defense. Whether it's arguing in support of AR-15's for home defense or fending off the claims of gun control whackos who want confiscation, defenders of the second amendment never seem to go on offense.

That's what makes this video so refreshing. NRA President David Keene essentially says that gun control has its roots in racism.

Love it.

Via the Daily Caller:

Video: Black Americans Blaming Whitey

Perhaps not what you think.

Via World of NewsNinja:



h/t Richard

Washington Post's Colbert King compares Romney to Impeached Democratic President

If you'd like to see how out of phase with reality the left is when it comes to its fixation on race, check out this recent column by black liberal writer, Colbert King. The title alone says it all - Mitt Romney could be the next Andrew Johnson. After opening his piece with a reference to Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which I'll get to later), Colbert introduces his comparison:

What would be the consequences for race of a Mitt Romney victory?

A Romney takeover of the White House might well rival Andrew Johnson’s ascendancy to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.

Colbert neglects to mention a very relevant fact; Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. So how did a Democrat take Lincoln's seat after the latter's assassination? It can be chalked up as the quintessential example of why Republicans should avoid "reaching across the aisle". Here is an excerpt from Unsung Davids about why Lincoln selected Johnson as his running mate:

Abraham Lincoln selected a Democrat as his vice presidential running mate for his second term. Hannibal Hamlin, a radical Republican who vehemently opposed slavery, was the Vice President during Lincoln's first term. In a political move, Lincoln and his Party thought it best to appeal to a broader contingency of voters by putting Andrew Johnson on the ticket (p. 160).

Of course, Special Field Order #15 - which mandated that all black families were to be given 40 acres and a mule - was issued by Lincoln's General William Sherman. It was Andrew Johnson who rescinded this order after becoming president. Nonetheless, Colbert compares Romney to Johnson the Democrat without identifying Johnson's party affiliation and champions Obama as a modern day Lincoln without pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican

Then, a little later in the column...

A Romney win would be worrisome, however, because of his strong embrace of states rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared.

And we know what that Johnson did once in office.

His sympathy for Confederacy holdouts, and his distaste for Washington, led him to retreat from Reconstruction and avert his gaze as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, many of which lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

There is nothing in Romney’s record to suggest that he would be any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the blandishments of his most extreme supporters, especially regarding federal enforcement.

Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted “black codes,” which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting.

That is an insane argument. Colbert begins with a premise that says states rights is a racist principle and that a distrust of federal government is a bad thing. Hey Colbert, have you looked around lately? The federal government is infested with corruption. It's an apples and oranges argument to say that states rights = racism but here is where Colbert really goes off the deep end, comparing voter ID with Jim Crow laws:

Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

Apparently, voter fraud is the lesser of two evils because it is a natural consequence of people not being required to prove they are who they say they are. Then again, perhaps King has another agenda in mind. Does he know that voter fraud benefits the Democrats (ACORN ring a bell, Colbert?).

Now, as for Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Righst Act. He had a problem with both Title II and Title VII, not based on race but based on the notion that morality can't be legislated and granting too much power to the federal government (gee, that's not a problem today, is it?). Conspicuously absent from Colbert's piece is the identification of Al Gore, Sr., KKK Grand Klegal Robert Byrd, and Clinton mentor William Fulbright as Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Colbert compares Romney to Andrew Johnson without identifying Johnson's party; he compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln without identifying Lincoln's party; he points to Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act without identifying its opposition by Gore, Byrd, and Fulbright; Then he compares attempts to suppress voter fraud with racism.

Assistant Attorney General blatantly avoids defense of First Amendment

Two very important names here. First, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is one of the five Congressmen who signed five separate letters to various IG's. Those letters call for investigations into the potential of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. Second, Thomas E. Perez is the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.

At what appears to be a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Franks asked Perez a very simple question about whether the latter would pledge to never move forward any policy that would criminalize criticism of any religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment (note: there is a movement afoot to criminalize criticism of Islam). Believe it or not, Perez would not answer the question, a reality that should send chills down your spine (not a tingle up your leg).

Perez has an interesting history but first, this video is a must-see (h/t WZ):



If you remember the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) voting rights case from 2008, Thomas Perez was at the center of it. J. Christian Adams actually resigned his position as an Attorney at the Voting Rights Section back in 2010, in large part because of the actions of Perez. Check out this interview he gave to Fox's Megyn Kelly two years ago. Pay attention at the 1:30 mark where Adams implies (without saying it) that he resigned when it became obvious that Perez was going to commit perjury.

For the record, the NBPP is a Muslim organization.

In December of 2009, Perez spoke at the Muslim Public Affairs Council's (MPAC) National Conference in Long Beach, CA. Yes, MPAC is linked to CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group whose leader (Nihad Awad) expressed support for Hamas.

Here are some excerpts from Perez's speech to MPAC:

As‐Salamu Alaykum to all of you. Thank you, Salam, for that introduction and for your dedication and your hard work leading MPAC. MPAC is an organization that represents not just the best of the American Muslim Community, but the best of America.

Really? How about CAIR, Mr. Perez? How about this?

Today, I am here to assure you that as the Muslim‐American community continues to fight against forces of bigotry, fear and hate that are far too prevalent in our nation, you have the power of the United States Government behind you.

That is truly a scary statement in light of the exchange between Perez and Franks. As for bigotry and hate, the founder of MPAC (Salam al-Marayati) suggested that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks and he did so on the same day they took place. Leader / Board Member Mahdi Bray has consistently expressed anti-Semitic positions and helped to raise money for Hamas in a Florida mosque. Does Perez not see Hamas as bigoted or hateful?

Perez also talked about the Fort Hood massacre, which had taken place only weeks before...

For the last few weeks, we as a nation have been grieving the loss of thirteen brave men and women at Fort Hood, and are praying for the swift recovery of the wounded. I know that Muslim Americans are not only grieving, but are also fearful of irrational and unjustifiable acts of misplaced vengeance. Since the day of the tragedy, the Civil Rights Division has kept in close contact with the community to insure that we act swiftly against any incidents of backlash.

As we now know, this type of thinking is what prevented Nidal Malik Hasan from being dealt with prior to his bloody Jihad.

On a side note, Perez's name was at the top of the lawsuit filed against Joe Arpaio back in 2010.

Here is Rep. Franks' website.

Breaking: Elena Kagan edited Derrick Bell's anti-Constitutional Article

This begs a very important question: Did Elena Kagan lie when she swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States? If so, it would actually be perjury. In light of the latest Derrick Bell bombshell from Breitbart, it is most assuredly a legitimate question. Kagan, now a Supreme Court Justice, apparently edited an article penned by the man Barack Obama said we should open our hearts and minds to - Professor Derrick Bell.

Bell (Kagan too, perhaps?) believed that the Constitution's framers intended to implement a system that would keep the black man inferior.

Here is an excerpt from what Bell wrote and Kagan edited, via Breitbart:

At the nation's beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction.  The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all.  And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery....

Apparently and amazingly lost on Bell (and Kagan?) at the time was that the very framework of the Constitution allowed the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to be added. Respectively, each of those amendments:

1. Thirteenth Amendment: Abolished slavery
2. Fourteenth Amendment: Granted equal person status to blacks
3. Fifteenth Amendment: Granted blacks the right to vote

Then, of course, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Perhaps the most ironic aspect to this is the fact that it was the Republican Party which was created solely to abolish slavery; it was also the Republican Party which was responsible for passing those amendments when it held the majority in Congress. Let's not forget that it was the Democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, led by Al Gore Sr. himself.

Yet, Bell and his racist colleagues have hitched their wagons to the Democratic Party?!

Back to Bell's piece (edited by Kagan) in 1985:

The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy -- that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks' failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.

So why is this movement alive and well when we have a black President? In fact, why does this black president still respect Derrick Bell's teachings? By becoming president, Barack Obama has blown a hole in Bell's Critical Race Theory (CRT), right?

Well, if Obama is a proponent of CRT, it could be the best evidence yet that he believes the Constitution is so racist in nature that it must be destroyed.

More here and here.