Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule  proposed last July by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would give the feds “more effective means to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act” as per the Federal Register.

HUD notes that the Fair Housing Act directs program participants to take steps to “foster inclusive communities for all.”

That sounds peachy until it dawns on one that what it means is not the breaking down of historic racial barriers but  the breaking down of the barriers that discourage people who don’t play nice from living next to people who do.

It should further be noted that  this inclusive fostering is not going to occur in the gated communities favored by many GS 15 bureaucrats and the political moneybags who fund their masters.

The rule is scheduled to be finalized in December. Apparently Obama and his team of incompetent wannabe feudalists are afraid of having it an issue in this November’s election.

Hat tip PoliticalHat.com

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

 

Blacks Still Await Educational Equality

By Kevin D. Williamson

Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its epoch-making decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The aftermath of Brown changed a great deal, from the role of the Court in our constitutional and political order to the national attitude toward civil rights and the very foundations of our political discourse.

It didn’t much change education.

There is much to say about Brown, and much that will be said. On the constitutional question, many conservatives at the time — and many conservatives now — shared the views of Barry Goldwater, who was himself an advocate of desegregation. “It so happens that I am in agreement with the objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision,” he wrote in The Conscience of a Conservative.  “I believe that it is both wise and just for Negro children to attend the same schools as whites, and that to deny this opportunity carries with it strong implications of inferiority.” Senator Goldwater’s complaint was constitutional:
To my knowledge it has never been seriously argued — the argument certainly was not made by the Supreme Court — that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to alter the Constitutional scheme with regard to education. Indeed, in the famous school integration decision, Brown v. Board of Education  (1954), the Supreme Court justices expressly acknowledged that they were not being guided by the intentions of the amendment’s authors. “In approaching this problem,” Chief Justice Warren said “we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the amendment was adopted. . . . We must consider public education in the light of its full development and in its present place in American life throughout the nation.” In effect, the Court said that what matters is not the ideas of the men who wrote the Constitution, but the Court’s ideas. It was only by engrafting its own views onto the established law of the land that the Court was able to reach the decision it did.
That was the view of most of the editors of National Review at the time, although the remarkable discovery I made — remarkable to me, at least — in my recent course of reading this magazine from its first issue through the middle 1960s is how relatively little we had to say about those questions. Brown  is remarked upon, and so is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but compared with issues such as Communism and the Vietnam War, they occupy very little space, and they are considered mainly, though not exclusively, in legal terms. Those terms are of course important, and conservatives who are instinctively inclined to agree with Senator Goldwater would do well to consider the contrary opinion of Robert Bork, whose views on such matters are not to be discounted lightly:
The Court’s realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.
Justice Clarence Thomas, noting that Brown was roundly criticized for its reliance upon sociological and psychological theory, comes to a similarly straightforward conclusion. The Court, he writes, “did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race.”

Conservatives, at the time, were torn between their desire that government should make no distinctions between the races and their antagonism toward judicial imperialism. Conservatives, then as now, also were deeply influenced by their belief that the law could only do so much to remake social realities. The Republican party has a remarkably consistent belief, from the Lincoln era through the present day, that the main drivers of salubrious social change must be free enterprise and economic self-improvement. It is for that reason that Senator Robert Taft of Ohio — “Mr. Republican,” the Senate’s leading conservative — floated a largely forgotten proposal in 1946 that would have been the most sweeping civil-rights reform since the Reconstruction amendments, focusing mainly on the problem of employment discrimination. David Freeman Engstrom revisited that episode in a  2006 article and documented that the Taft bill, unlike many similar earlier offerings, contained very strong enforcement mechanisms, giving it real teeth, up to and including the implementation of hiring quotas. The Taft measure won the support of the noted black labor leader A. Philip Randolph, but was rejected by the NAACP and the AFL, the latter in part very probably because, as Mr. Engstrom notes, the Taft plan would have “exposed union locals to regulation.”

The post-Reconstruction Republican party believed at its core that the South was backward because it was poor, rather than poor because it was backward, and this line of thinking was implicitly and sometimes explicitly extended to African Americans throughout the country, as it is today. The theory was that incremental social change, driven largely by improvements in economic conditions, would accomplish what mere de jure equality could not. James Burnham, writing on the tenth anniversary of Brown  in the June 2, 1964, edition of National Review, sharply criticizedBrown and the Court, partly for the attempt to superimpose the justices’ idealism over state and local law, as well as what he called “natural” processes, but because the post-Brown regime failed to deliver: “The verdict pronounced by the facts leaps to the eye, and is implicit even in the many tenth-anniversary recapitulations published in the journals that rate Brown  alongside the Ten Commandments and the Declaration of Independence. Brown is an abysmal failure, strictly on its own terms.” Mr. Burnham’s next paragraph could be published today with only a slight revision of the numbers:
The rate of school integration — the specific problem dealt with in Brown — has been no more rapid in this decade since 1954 than in the decade before 1954, when, without benefit of the Court, it was progressing slowly but continuously under the influence of economic change, social pressures, shifts in community sentiment, and the state of local law. Today, after a decade of Brown , 91 per cent of Negro students in the Southern and Border states still attend segregated schools. . . . In the Northern cities, the widespread de facto school segregation, resulting from residential patterns, has not been significantly changed.
Mr. Burnham’s observations in 1964 are not radically different from those of Eleanor Barkhorn writing in The Atlantic just last year. She notes that in 1969, after the Department of Education had begun robust enforcement of Brown , 77 percent of black and 55 percent of Hispanic students attended schools that were predominantly minority, whereas in 2010 the numbers had hardly budged for blacks (74 percent) and moved in the direction of more segregation for Hispanics (80 percent). And in 2010, she reports, more than 40 percent of minority students attended schools that were almost exclusively (90–100 percent) nonwhite.
It is for that reason that the constitutional debate, important as it may be, seems to me sterile.

Those Taft Republicans were in many, perhaps most, ways correct about the relationship between economic progress and broader social progress. Until after World War II, the South was desperately poor compared with the rest of the country, with incomes on average one-third those in the Northeast. The post-war economic boom was the main factor in changing that — no law, no public policy, no federal program was nearly as significant. For all the talk about economic inequality, sustained, robust growth and economic innovation can incrementally but radically change our quality of life. A middle-income American in the Northeast 100 years ago was much better off than a middle-income Southerner, but both were very poor by our standards. The difference between them was nowhere near so great in real terms as the difference between them and us.

African Americans have been as well served by economic innovation and growth as anybody — probably more so. There is no performance gap in, say, the car that a black family living in a largely black neighborhood in a largely black city can buy compared with what a white family in a white neighborhood in a white city can buy. A black family with $25,000 to spend has the same choices as a white family with $25,000 to spend. A black family that can afford a Mercedes has the same choices as a white family that can afford a Mercedes. The same is true for most products.

It is not true for education, the most important product that is still delivered on a Soviet central-planning model rather than through markets. A middle-class black family living in a largely black neighborhood is likely to be served by relatively inferior public schools. Across income groups, blacks are less well-served by the monopoly education system than whites are. That is not so much a product of the fact that African Americans are relatively poor, though they are, as of the fact that they reside in relatively poor communities. There are many young people in families of very modest means who benefit from going to schools in communities populated by people who are much better off than they. (I was one of those.) But that benefit is, statistically speaking, less available to black families. And as a practical matter, it is almost certain to remain so as long as K–12 education is dominated by model in which ZIP code is destiny.

Brown was and is important as a statement of principle, but law has a limited ability to change the facts on the ground. Free markets, on the other hand, remake the physical world anew with revolutionary speed. One of the footnotes to the Brown  decision considers possible remedies, one of which — “Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice” — suggests what is still an excellent policy option, though one that should be applied universally rather than restricted to black students. The relative lack of black educational progress in the post-Brown  era highlights not only the deficiencies of the politically dominated model of economic production — and education is an economic good — but draws attention to the critical distinction between government funding of services and government provision of services. Food stamps have not interfered with innovation in the growing, distribution, preservation, or retailing of food, because government does not attempt to operate  farms, food-distribution networks, or grocery stores. It does operate schools, with consequences that have been disastrous generally but especially for African Americans. Even accounting for the income disparity between blacks and whites, the groceries, clothes, housing, electronics, automobiles, and other normal market goods is radically better for black Americans today than it was 30 years ago, to say nothing of 60 years ago. The same cannot be said of schools.

We may celebrate the sentiment behind Brown, but it would be far better to take meaningful steps to make the aspirations of 1954 into a reality sometime before 2054. When the politicians make their sentimental speeches about how far we’ve come since then, ask them where they stand on school choice, consumer-driven education, and other reforms. And then ask yourself which party is still living in 1954.

Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent for National Review.

Blacks Still Await Educational Equality

Blacks Still Await Educational Equality

Where Valor Sleeps

Where Valor SleepsWhere Valor Sleeps

Memorial Day traces its roots to the dark days of the Civil War with the formal decoration of the graves of the war’s dead likely starting in Savannah, Ga in 1862. Graves were decorated at Gettysburg the next year. It broke upon the nation on May 1, 1865 when the unmarked graves of Union soldiers who died as POWs at the Charleston Race Course in South Carolina were decorated by newly freed blacks.

It became a tradition starting with General Orders No. 11 issued May 5, 1868 by Gen. John Logan.

Heroes, of course, are still dying for our freedom. Here is what President George W. Bush said on May 29, 2006.

In this place where valor sleeps, we acknowledge our responsibility as Americans to preserve the memory of the fallen. On this Memorial Day, we look out on quiet hills,  and rows of white headstones — and we know that we are in the presence of greatness. (Applause.) The markers here record the names of more than 296,000 men and  women. Each of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines buried here answered the call to serve, and stepped forward to protect the nation they loved.

All who are buried here understood their duty. They saw a dark shadow on the horizon, and went to meet it. They understood that tyranny must be met with resolve, and  that liberty is always the achievement of courage.   Here, in the presence of veterans they fought with and loved ones whose pictures they carried, the fallen give silent witness to the price of our liberty — and our nation honors them, this day and every day. 

In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war. We have seen those costs in the war on terror we fight today. These grounds are the final resting place for more than 270 men and women who have given their lives in freedom’s cause since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. With us here are veterans who fought alongside them — and who have come today to pay their respects. They are joined by veterans of World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts across the globe, whose friends and comrades also lie in this sacred ground. As we pray for their fallen friends, we also remember those who went to war and are still missing, and we are determined to account for them all.

In this place where valor sleeps, we find strength in knowing that those serving freedom’s cause have acted with principle and steadfast faith. Second Lieutenant Jack Lundberg was killed two weeks after D-Day, at the end of World War II. He wrote his Mom and Dad a letter to be opened in the event he did not come home. He wrote, “I am sorry to add to your grief … but we of the United States have something to fight for — never more fully have I realized that. The United States of America is worth the sacrifice.”

That same feeling moves those who are now fighting the war on terror. First Lieutenant Mark Dooley was killed by a terrorist bomb last September in the Iraqi city of  Ramadi. Before he left for his tour, he gave his parents a last letter, just in case. He wrote: “Remember that my leaving was in the service of something that we loved,  and be proud. The best way to pay respect is to value why a sacrifice was made.”

Last week, the family of Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Fenty, Junior, gathered here at Arlington to pay their last respects to the husband, son, and father they loved.  Colonel Fenty was killed with nine of his fellow soldiers in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan earlier this month. Hours before that crash, he had spoken to his wife Kristen  about their newborn daughter he was waiting to meet. Some day she will learn about her dad from the men with whom she served — he served. And one of them said  this about her father: “We all wanted to be more like Joe Fenty. We were all in awe of him.” I am in awe of the men and women who sacrifice for the freedom of the  United States of America.  

Our nation is free because of brave Americans like these, who volunteer to confront our adversaries abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. Our nation  mourns the loss of our men and women in uniform; we will honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives — by defeating the terrorists, by  advancing the cause of liberty, and by laying the foundation of peace for a generation of young Americans.  Today we pray that those who lie here have found  peace with their Creator, and we resolve that their sacrifice will always be remembered by a grateful nation.

May God Bless the Untied States of America.

 

 

Washington Fighting Honkies

Washington Fighting Honkies and Rush Limbaugh
A possible symbol for the Washington Fighting Honkies

The pompous, self-righteous types among the sports media are still on their crusade to change the name of the Washington Redskins to something else.

Hey gang, did you ever think that there might be other issues of far more immediate import to the defense of human dignity?

That’s not conceding  that the name of Washington’s NFL franchise is somehow an offense to human dignity.

It is rather frequent that a word or symbol designed as an insult becomes a point of pride. Yankee as in New York Yankees started as insult. Rebel as in UNLV Running Rebels was meant to give offense.

In politics, whigs was originally a derogatory term for the derided English cattle-driver. It became the name of a major political party here and in Britain. Their British opponents — the Tories — trace their name to the Irish word for thief.

Any of you Horace Greeleys  ever ponder why most Christian churches have a cross on the steeple?

So to help keep the peace and to illustrate the hypocrisy and ultimate intolerance practiced by the pseudo-tolerant who rule the old media, we are going to again suggest a name change for Washington — this time The Fighting Honkies.

I want to see RGIII stand in the television lights after leading his team to an heroic come-from-behind win and say “I am proud to be a Fighting Honky”

I want to see the many Washington fans in the District declare themselves to be Fighting Honky Nation. I want to see them wear the burgundy and gold colors of The Fighting Honkies, and wave giant foam fingers saying Fighting Honkies #1 and t-shirts saying Fighting Honkies Rule.

That would actually be a rather great day for race relations.

 

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

By Chris Freind

He lunged, grabbed his boss and violently choked him. After being restrained and told to leave, the man returned, attacked his victim yet again by punching him in the face, and threatened to kill him. It was just the latest in a string of serious incidents involving the employee.

How much jail time did this violent offender receive? None.

Incomprehensibly, he wasn’t even fired, and for good reason: He played in that bastion of hypocrisy, the NBA.

Let’s get this straight. Latrell Sprewell, who played for the Golden State Warriors at the time of his assault, received a suspension and fine, with the NBA sending the message that a player physically attacking his coach will merely get slapped on the fingers. Compare that with the punishment handed out to Donald Sterling, the race-mongering owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who gets banned from the NBA for life, fined millions, and may be forced to sell the team — for making incredibly racist comments during a private conversation, which, if Sterling didn’t give his consent to have recorded, may have been illegally obtained.

In handing down Sterling’s harsh sentence, the league has shown its immense hypocrisy, allowing criminal acts, but banning legal — no matter how repugnant — activity. Welcome to Amerika.

The biggest irony is that race relations, not to mention freedom, will take a hit because of the NBA’s actions. Consider:

1. First, let’s state the obvious: In the most elegant parlance, Donald Sterling is a scumbag. He has an unsavory past, possessing what clearly seems to be a discriminatory mindset. As a real estate mogul, he received a record $2.75 million fine for racial discrimination in renting. Sterling could even have faced criminal charges. But harboring racist tendencies, especially in private, isn’t a crime.

2. With such a checkered history, why didn’t the NBA address these issues over the years? It would be one thing if Sterling had been censored repeatedly, and this latest incident was the final straw, but clearly that wasn’t the case. Unfathomably, the NBA claimed it had no real knowledge of Sterling’s past.

3. The spectre of people willfully accepting their privacy rights being violated is terrifying. When commentators and politicians use phrases like, “There is no more privacy,” we might as well hang it up, for if that’s the case, America’s uniqueness is gone. Respect for freedom of speech and privacy rights — even for the most reviled — has set America apart from every other nation in history. If those things dissipate, the world’s last beacon of light will be extinguished. And at that point, we actually become worse than countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, because we had greatness, but voluntarily gave it away, whereas those places have always been disdainful of individual rights.

4. Or — and this is by far the biggest issue — does an “offending” player or owner, who happens to be a particular ethnicity, get a free pass? If so, the NBA, and those cheering Sterling’s ban, should at least have the guts to state that such a double standard is acceptable.

It’s great for leaders and the media to publicly chastise Sterling — as they should — stating that bigotry and ignorance won’t be tolerated. But how many of these folks are consistent? How many cut off all ties to Jesse Jackson when he disparaged Jews by calling them “Hymies” and referring to New York City as “Hymietown,” or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the president’s pastor, after his virulent racist and anti-American outbursts? Not many. Both still operate free of protest and condemnation.

Incredibly, one “sports expert” told CBS that even though the “N” word is often used during NBA games (virtually always by black players) the league shouldn’t try to stop such language or levy penalties. “The ‘N’ word is always going to have a negative image associated with it, but it doesn’t compare to the racist remarks by Sterling,” stated Ronald Oswalt, CEO of Sports Marketing Experts, which operates one of the nation’s largest NBA blogs. “Being around NBA players, the ‘N’ word is just second nature and habit for some of them.“

What they’re actually saying is that certain language (the N-word) should be tolerated for a particular group of people.

Sorry. Wrong, wrong, wrong. That apologist mentality is just warped. Sure, there are varying degrees of racism, but ultimately, racism is racism. You can’t excuse and justify it in some cases, but not others. Doing so will never move society ahead. Never.

The quickest way to widen the gulf between races is for leaders on both sides to espouse blatant hypocrisy, picking and choosing which racist comments — and by whom they are said — to criticize. In the same way the “average” American increasingly believes politicians favor the well-connected, resulting in an all-time high mistrust of government, selectively meting out condemnation for racial incidents only builds a powder keg of resentment. People may not agree with how something is done, but if they feel it is done equally and without favoritism, they can live with it. That’s the whole point of the Equal Protection Clause — the law is applied equally. When that concept falters, so do people’s inclination to work together.

5. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is attempting to gain the support of three-quarters of NBA owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers. Two points:

If the NBA has any guts, every owner voting against Sterling should personally put up a share of the team’s $575 million value, and, upon buying it, donate all the proceeds to nonprofit organizations fighting racism (in all its forms) and advocating fairness in housing, and establish scholarship funds for minority children. Following that, they should sell the team to the highest bidder, with the proceeds again going to charity. Of course, they won’t do that.

» Assuming the NBA gets the votes, and that Sterling fights the decision in court, the NBA will almost certainly settle, for good reason. Sterling’s lawyers will, during the discovery phase of the case, uncover many skeletons in the closets of hypocritical owners. They should be mindful of the proverb, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

This issue is infinitely bigger than Donald Sterling and the NBA. It is about how we view each other as Americans, and more important, as people. It is about how we tackle difficult issues, and how solutions can only be realized if all are treated equally, with special privilege for none. It’s time, once and for all, to stop seeing things in black and white, and start living in a colorblind society, since we are all members of the only “race” that matters — the human race.

 

NBA Hypocrisy Reprised

Things For Which The NBA Won’t Ban You

The always brilliant Ben Shapiro at Brietbart.com has written a great piece concerning things for which you can do without being subject to a lifetime ban by the NBA.

Check it out.

Things For Which The NBA Won't Ban You

Things For Which The NBA Won’t Ban You

 

 

 

Racist Owner Dem Donor

Racist Owner Dem Donor

For some strange reason it is not being widely reported in the old media that Donald Sterling, the owner of the NBA Los Angeles Clippers whose racist remarks were secretly recorded by an angry girlfriend, was a supporter of Democrats and leftist causes.

Why would a racist support Democrats and leftist causes?

Well racists want gun control. Racists want blacks to have easy access to abortions. Racists want to keep blacks illiterate in  failing schools.

Racists don’t want to associate with blacks unless they really, really have to.

All these are causes supported by the left and opposed by right-thinking people.

Let’s never forget that Jim Crow was government policy instituted by laws that imposed strict regulation on business. It was never something a free-market libertarian could imagine supporting.

And a final point regarding the lynch-mob hate directed at Sterling: technology is going to soon make a whole lot of our thoughts and words transparent. If we don’t start practicing  mercy and forgiveness for general human stupidity things are going to get pretty unpleasant for everybody.

 

BillLawrenceOnline.com for Racist Owner Dem Donor

 

 

Visit BillLawrence Dittos for Racist Owner Dem Donor

Sociopaths Holdering Power

Attorney General Eric Holder has been on a media rampage after tough questioning by Congressman Louie Gomert (R-TX1), a former judge.

Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012 after failing to turn over documents relating to a ATF stunt called Fast and Furious that caused a large amount of guns to end up in the hands of Mexican crime lords one of which was used to kill Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Holder initially denied that the Department of Justice had the documents and was held in contempt. The Obama Administration made the problem go away by asserting executive privilege over said documents.

On April 8  in a hearing before a House panel, Gohmert questioned Holder about the Justice Department’s refusal to turn over documents in an unrelated terrorism case and brought up the earlier contempt citation saying “I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general but it is important that we have proper oversight.”

This sent Holder in a tizzy. “You don’t want to go there, buddy,” he blustered. “You don’t want to go there, OK? You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me. I think it was inappropriate. I think it was unjust. But never thing that was not a big deal to me. Don’t ever think that.”

Gohmert noted that Congress still has yet to get the documents it sought.

The next day, our nation’s chief law enforcement officer went to a group founded by proven liar Al Sharpton and implied that Gohmert’s treatment of him was racist.

Here is a list of red flags for sociopathy:

1. Sociopaths are charming. Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them.

2. Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn’t do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.

3. Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very “successful” sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.

4. Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.

5. Sociopaths seek to dominate others and “win” at all costs. They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

6. Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous. This is why many of the best-known serial killers who successfully evaded law enforcement were sociopaths.

7. Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don’t actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

8. Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running “stream of consciousness” monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets. As a great example of this in action, watch this interview of Charles Manson on YouTube.

9. Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

10. Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth

Holder meets more than a few. Other prominent powerful people meet even more. We must learn to stop trusting our career politicians.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Sociopaths Holdering Power
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Sociopaths Holdering Power

 

Blacks Conservatives Progressives

Newly elected “progressive” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is pushing for more abortion clinics for his city despite the revelation that more black babies are aborted there than are born.

That’s right, in 2012, there were 24,758 black children born in The Big Apple and 31,328 aborted, which was 42 percent of the city’s 73,815 abortions that year. Add in the 22,917 Hispanic abortions and, well, you would think it was the Ku Klux Klan running the city Health and Mental Hygiene Department.

White abortions totaled 9,704. A lot more white babies than that were born.

Here is something for every African-American man, woman and teenager to ponder:

Conservatives want blacks to have guns, good schools and babies.

“Progressives” want blacks disarmed and illiterate, and want to kill their babies.

It’s just one of those things that can’t be denied but is never mentioned.

 

Visit BillLawrenceDittos.com for Blacks Conservatives Progressives
Visit BillLawrenceOnline.com for Blacks Conservatives Progressives